• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

windows good yes or no poll!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
let me see you find someone whos never used a computer, and have them install an application on windows, and then an application linux.

that would explain my view entirely.

i dont hate on all the os', but come on now.

how can you say linux is easier to use then windows? thats like saying size doesnt matter to a girl! 😛
 
Originally posted by: batmang
let me see you find someone whos never used a computer, and have them install an application on windows, and then an application linux.

that would explain my view entirely.

i dont hate on all the os', but come on now.

how can you say linux is easier to use then windows? thats like saying size doesnt matter to a girl! 😛

Actually, that's exactly what it's like. "It's all in how you use it." 😉
 
Originally posted by: batmang
let me see you find someone whos never used a computer, and have them install an application on windows, and then an application linux.

Which distro? Can basic coaching be done?

that would explain my view entirely.

That someone that has never used a computer can't install something on either system?

i dont hate on all the os', but come on now.

how can you say linux is easier to use then windows?

It is to me. Not by a whole lot, I'm not much of a linux fan. How can you say Windows is easier than Linux? That makes no sense to me.

thats like saying size doesnt matter to a girl! 😛

Girls always tell me it doesn't matter. They're giggling at the time though, so I'm not sure if they're just trying to make me feel better. 🙁
 
I actually think Linux is pretty easy to use especially after having to get used to using HP-UX. Now that is a cluged OS if there ever was one.
 
Windows 2000/XP and above are fine, but Windows 95/98/ME are POS!!!! The latest versions of Linux are actually technically better than even Windows 2000/XP from what I've heard, but it is not good for everyday use yet because it doesn't have nearly as many applications written for it. But if there were native Linux version for all the same applications (including games) that people use on Windows 2000/XP, then Linux would most likely be better than Windows for almost everyone as long as it was just as easy to use.
 
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: w00t
hmm friend who likes mac said they made the 1st 64bit processor

He's wrong. They might have used the first 64bit processor intended for desktop use (it barely beat out the AMD64 chips), but not the first. 😉

And IBM makes the processors, if you didn't know. 🙂


n0cmonkey is correct. The G5 processor was not the first 64 bit processor found in a desktop. I read about this many many times. I wish I had a G5 though. 😛
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
how can you say linux is easier to use then windows? thats like saying size doesnt matter to a girl!

I never said Linux is easier, I said windows isn't easy.

haha.

The major strength that Windows has going for it for "user friendliness" is that the basic user interface hasn't changed for almost 10 years. Almost all the elements that you find in Win2k3 existed in almost the exact same form in Windows 95.

And people respond to this, how many people in threads like this condemn Windows XP because of it's cartoony interface? How many of the "power users" here switch back the UI to something that is more Win2k/Win9x-like? Think about it, it's familarity that breeds ease-of-use, not quality of design or layout.

If you go to any community school and check out classrooms full of people struggling to learn howto use MS Office or come to terms with the broken and fractured desgin concepts.

(example: Explain to me the idea of a "network drive" and why it's a good idea to have a "network drive" or a "C" or a "A" drive versus just directories that represent filing systems? A C drive doesn't even rely be a harddrive! It can be a partition, and you can have a D and a E and a F drive on the same harddrive! And a network share as another G drive? How does that make sense. Stuff like that f*cks with new user's heads, because it's required to know the differences in what these devices are in order to properly operate a computer when using Windows.).

And check out how easy it is to install WinXP. (Bleh). You hook it up to the internet to download your updates, and within 10 minutes your hacked. Hope you have fast download speeds.
(But you can slipstream cdroms!! Ahah!. You need a firewall!)
Well, certainly you can, but I wouldn't call that easy!

What you need to know to install WinXP successfully:
setup a network with a seperate firewall, or
get a slipstream update cdrom from MS or build one before you format the old OS.
buy and install a virus scanner and keep it up to date. Buy and install a seperate software firewall sometimes, Download adaware, download spybot, update the drivers for many things to fix various random bugs. blah blah blah.

Not exactly what I would call easy for the average person to learn howto use in a short time. It's not like it's a tremendous amount of difficulty, either, but it's a big time waster and the trick is that you first have to know to do these things. Then it works out fine.

But it's a unfair comparision to take 7 years of Windows experiance and try out Linux 2 weeks and declare it crap. It's not that Linux has it's downsides and I can understand people disliking it.

One of the crappy parts of Linux is various hardare support. You can't just buy whatever from the store and it expect it to be easy to setup. However you can selectively buy hardware and it can work very well and easily, often better then it does in Windows. (one major personal example was getting my ATI Wonder VE working with Nvidia vid card was nearly impossible in WinXP when I first bought it. People all over the place couldn't get it working, but in Linux it worked fine immediately.) The trick is to find stuff that has good driver support and manufacturers that support Linux.

Another thing is gaming. Games that are native to Linux usually work great, and are fairly easy to install. Ut2004 is a good example, Doom3 is another. But the numbers of native games are very small compared to Windows. But with a subscription to Transgaming/Cedega will get most Windows games working.

For example is that many people are running Steam and Halflife2 in Linux thru Cedega windows compatability software. It's not as fast as it is in Windows, but you can spend the money you save by not buying Windows on faster hardware and that is good compinsation IMO. (not that I'd touch Steam personally, though).
 
Whoa! That's a good post drag! 😀

Here's my opinion from my experience.

Windows
I've been using Windows since 1995 (I started with 3.1), but I have actually used every single version of it (from 1.01 to Win95, NT 3.1 to Longhorn 4074). I hate trying to teach people how to use it. I know how, because I've used it for soooooo long, and I get frustrated when ppl can't seem to work out what to do. I find that even after a couple of years of using it, they have problems, especially with the concept of windows updates and security.
pro's of Windows: programs are simple to install as was stated earlier, and there is a large array of programs available on it. It also runs on any x86 machine.
con's of Windows: expensive, terribly bloated the more it gets updated, has problems running on older machines, doesn't allow power users to do what they want, can be a pain to teach new users how to use it.

Linux
I've used a number of distributions of Linux since I was first introduced to it in 2002. I enjoyed different distributions to an extent (my favourite ones were Redhat/Fedora and Mandrake which is built of Redhat), and hated others (such as Debian because it was such a pain to install). It is good for powerusers but I spent too much time playing around with config files to set stuff up, when the same thing on windows would be a couple of clicks and it's done. I had the various distros installed at different times, and differents durations (no longer than 6 months though). I always wanted to go back to Windows (even though I liked the stability better, although XP and 2k3 aren't too bad).
pros of linux: can run on any PC architecture, even on Macs. Stable. Totally customisable (but maybe a little too much), free.
cons of linux: difficult for new users to get used to (not so bad for those who have used windows a lot if they just use Gnome or KDE), pain to set up some distros, takes much longer to configure things, not as much software is available (however it is improving through the open source community).

Mac OS
I've used Macs a lot through the years but just couldn't stand the useless operating system they used. I first used a mac in 1988, but didn't use one again until the mid-90's. I couldn't stand the "classic" System Software, later known as Mac OS. This was probably because I was brought up using DOS and loved (still do) the command prompt where I could do what I liked.
This year, I decided to take a risk and buy myself an iBook G4 (which I'm using to type this). It has Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther) installed. It is a great OS, and I just wish more people realised this. The only problem is the price of the hardware it comes on, although the iBooks are well priced for what they come with. I get the easy to configure GUI, plus the power in the BSD UNIX base that I didn't get with Windows, but I did with Linux. I also have less trouble teaching new users how to use it, and Windows users can learn to use it in a matter of days. Here's the pro's and con's.
pro's of OS X: Easy to use, easy to configure, easy to install stuff (even though there's a number of different ways as with Windows and Linux), powerful, reliable/stable (more on par with Linux), has a great array of software (more than linux, slightly less than Windows, and can run most linux apps with X11 installed), still allows power users to do what they want, and looks nice. You can also install X-Windows by itself and use KDE/Gnome/any window manager you want instead of the standard GUI (don't know why anyone would bother, but I've tried it and it works). Also, it's cheaper than Windows (as it is built on the open source UNIX flavour, Darwin), it gets faster after each update, and can run on relatively old machines well (1998 models, etc).
cons's of OS X: only available on expensive hardware, has a bad history (from the "classic" era more than anything), not enough ppl are using it 😛 (I had to put that one in)

I've found though, that with all GUI's new users get confused with when to single-click, and when to double click.
I also have found that all OS's have some sort of security problems, it doesn't matter if it's Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, Solaris, OS/2, etc.

I've probably left something out, but this will suffice. Note that this is all from my experience, and from that experience, Mac OS X 10.3 is my favourite OS.
 
takes much longer to configure things,

Only the first time. Once you get comfortable with the system, it's actually a lot simpler than anything Windows has, why do you think IIS 6 now uses a plain-text config file instead of that stupid metabase that 5 and older had? And imagine how easy it is to transplant settings, just copy the config directory and poof it's setup on the other machine. When I got a laptop, I put Linux on it and just copied my whole home directory and 99% of my configuration was done.

 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
how can you say linux is easier to use then windows? thats like saying size doesnt matter to a girl!

I never said Linux is easier, I said windows isn't easy.

Windows is easy. Put in new hardware, it detects and installs it. Input CD, install software, done. I had an easier time using Novell than I did with Linux. Heck, I'd sooner use a Mac than use Linux, and I hate macs. Linux is easier for people that already know it, but for an average user it's a lot harder.

Between Windows and Mac, it's all about compatability. I have a friend that uses Macs simply because of what he does works better on them, and I don't have a problem with that. Everything I do works better on Windows. I play games, do image editing, and basic office productivity. Benchmarks that I have seen have shown that a Mac can't compete with Intel/AMD computers when it comes to this stuff, so I'll stick to it. And windows is the OS to use if you game, period. It's all about compatability. Sure you can get 3rd party programs that run the games in another OS, but you won't get any support and it won't necessarily run right.
 
Sometimes Windows is easier. Sometimes it's not.

For instance my Sister has a new laptop and she is all religious about keeping it nice, secure and up to date. (makes me proud, 😉). She is away at college now and just recently she attempted to install SP2 for the second time. It bombed, and rendered her system unusable.

She told my mom to be sure to thank me for burning her a knoppix cdrom last time we hung out at thanksgiving.

 
Nothinman: good point, forgot about that. I even used to do that

malak: compatibility on macs isn't so bad anymore. I have had no problems with networking, file types, file systems, etc, which were problems in the past. Games, yeah, they can be a bit of a pain, but image editing, and basic office productivity are not really a problem. I'm curious, how recent are those benchmarks you are mentioning?
BTW, plug and play works on Linux (Fedora Core 3) in much the same as Windows now.
Oh, and I'd love a detailed reason for why you hate Macs, also out of curiosity. 😀
 
It's those damn single-button mice. It burns my hand just touching one.

The benchmarks were pretty recent, it was an AMD FX vs P4EE vs G5. Although there wasn't much difference between AMD and Intel at the time(AMD is now king), the G5 was like hitting a brick wall with butter. The reviewer stated that the G5 was a lot better than previous macs and does very well, but it certainly isn't in the same playing field(performance-wise) as the AMD/Intel guys. In order to make it a balanced benchmark suite, they used software that was specifically designed for the Mac but ported to Windows, or applications that are based on mac software. Even photoshop ran better on Intel/AMD than on the mac.

I am not a fanboy. I only have ATI cards, but I can recommend nvidia. I only have intel chips, but I can certainly recommend AMD too. But I don't have any reason to recommend any other OS than Windows, as I've done everything on it from servers to gaming, and I've used the other OS's too, from Linux to Novell. If they worked better, I'd use them. It's a big decision to swith an OS. Heck, it can be a big decision to switch to a new browser. I for one don't just look at benchmarks. I like to try them out myself. I had only one reason I wanted to have a mac, and that reason is gone. Oregon Trail is for Windows now 🙂
 
Windows is easy. Put in new hardware, it detects and installs it. Input CD, install software, done.

You mean put in new hardware, it detects it and asks for CDs over and over and over. Then if it's something like USB, remove it, plug it in again later in a different port and it asks for CDs again and again.

With Linux as long as the hardware is supported, I just plug it in and it works. All I've really plugged into my notebook are usb and firewire storage devices, usb mice, my wifi card and a usb gamepad but it all 'just worked' without any work from me to install a driver or anything.

Linux is easier for people that already know it, but for an average user it's a lot harder.

Have you ever tried to teach someone to use Windows? Most have trouble just double-clicking, let alone understanding drive letters, the Internet, why just shutting off the power is bad, etc. The OS is hardly relevant until they're already used to one of them.

I have a friend that uses Macs simply because of what he does works better on them, and I don't have a problem with that.

Which is BS. Pretty much the only thing that works better on Macs these days is Quark and iTunes, everything else has been ported to Windows or a unix and usually runs better. I'm not saying Macs are bad, just that they're way over rated and their graphics niche is just about gone.
 
It's those damn single-button mice. It burns my hand just touching one.

So this is what you dont like about Macs? Thats ridiculous. Then I guess you dont know that you can use your multi button mouse on a Mac. I am using a 4 button Logitech Click! mouse with my G4 right now. Each button is programmed to do something, except the click wheel.

Probably the reason you see all these benchmarks saying that AMD and Intel is better than Mac is that you are looking at a site that is hardcore PC. Even if you look at a Mac site, they will say the Mac is better. I dont know what is faster. I wont say Mac nor will I say PC. You cant possibly believe everything you read, can you?

But I did go against my friends AMD XP 2000+ running at 2.07 ghz with my 1GHz eMac. And I won in almost all the tests except 2 I believe. I only remember 1 test I lost in, and that was painting the image. I lost by 12 seconds. But when it came to Gaussion Blur, Pixalate, lens flare, etc, I was winning with an average of 10 seconds. But in Image Sizing, I beat him by 12 seconds, using a 450mb image. May I add that my eMac uses PC 133 SD RAM, with a 133MHz FSB. My friends AMD was running DDR 400 with a 400MHz FSB. He's got a wicked fast computer!! But my computer is faster on tasks that are AltiVec enabled, such as Image Sizing in Photoshop and the the various filters. Quicktime compression is also faster on my eMac. But when it comes to games, there is no way I can win against his computer!! 🙂

In case you are wondering what AltiVec is, AltiVec can produce data at 128 bits, instead of like my friends AMD XP 2000+, which produces data at 32 bits.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Windows is easy. Put in new hardware, it detects and installs it. Input CD, install software, done.

You mean put in new hardware, it detects it and asks for CDs over and over and over. Then if it's something like USB, remove it, plug it in again later in a different port and it asks for CDs again and again.

With Linux as long as the hardware is supported, I just plug it in and it works. All I've really plugged into my notebook are usb and firewire storage devices, usb mice, my wifi card and a usb gamepad but it all 'just worked' without any work from me to install a driver or anything.

Linux is easier for people that already know it, but for an average user it's a lot harder.

Have you ever tried to teach someone to use Windows? Most have trouble just double-clicking, let alone understanding drive letters, the Internet, why just shutting off the power is bad, etc. The OS is hardly relevant until they're already used to one of them.

I have a friend that uses Macs simply because of what he does works better on them, and I don't have a problem with that.

Which is BS. Pretty much the only thing that works better on Macs these days is Quark and iTunes, everything else has been ported to Windows or a unix and usually runs better. I'm not saying Macs are bad, just that they're way over rated and their graphics niche is just about gone.


If what you said was true, I dont think they would be using Macs for making movies and for people who are in Journalism. Pixar uses a Mac. Van Helsing was made using a Dual 1.25GHz G4. So where did you get that Quark and iTunes work better on Macs? And who said the graphics niche is just about gone? Besides you.
 
If what you said was true, I dont think they would be using Macs for making movies and for people who are in Journalism.

Sure they would, they invested in them years ago and it would be stupid to replace them when they still work. There are places still using things like SGI O2s for rendering work because they still do their job alright, although there are places converting over to Linux now that FilmGimp, Shake, Maya, LightWave, Renderman, etc have been ported. Journalism is a little different because you need a good layout tool and AFAIK there are no plans for Linux ports in the near future, but I would still guess that a startup when presented with the choice between $2000 Macs without any software and a $900 Dell with no software, there's at least a 70/30 chance the Dell will win because "everyone has Windows" and Pagemaker runs just fine on it.

So where did you get that Quark and iTunes work better on Macs?

Maybe the latests win32 iTunes is better, I only know about it from friends since I don't use it. But Quark is ass on Windows, I know that because we have a few copies where I work. Well I guess it could be just as bad on a Mac, but I can't imagine that they would still be in business if it was.

And who said the graphics niche is just about gone? Besides you.

Just about anyone who's used Photoshop, PageMaker, Alias, Softimage, etc on a Windows box. There are no doubt many Mac purists out there who will dispute it, but you just can't deny the fact that an AMD64 box is going to kick the snot out of a G5 and you'll actually get to run a 64-bit OS. Last I saw OS X wasn't even released as a 64-bit build, maybe that changed with Panther but I can't tell from the website and I don't have a system to actually look on.

Macs used to be worth the money when they had the high-end gaphics, expensive sound cards, SCSI drives, etc but now they're just a PC in a cool case that's not x86 compatible. They use the same nVidia graphics cards, the same memory, the same IDE disks and you can't even plug-in something like a SB Audigy and expect it to work because there's no OS X drivers.
 
umm, lets not fight here. BTW, Panther is 64-bit, and Tiger (10.4) more so. It is also backwards compatible with the older 32-bit systems.
About the mice, Tiger is the first version of Mac OS that will officially support 2- or more button mice, with the option to swap mouse buttons for left handed users. Took them long enough.
Again, with the benchmarks, I agree with Thin Lizzy. It depends what site you look at as to what is better and what isn't. If you look at the benchmarks that Apple has published on the Power Mac G5 site, you'll see stats that lean very favourably toward the Power Mac. I don't trust benchmark sites anymore, and prefer to see for myself (not that I really get that chance 😛).
With what Nothinman said above to do with graphics and stuff, they have got new machines that they are using, that are mac. Why didn't they switch to PC or something other than mac if they were no good, because they obviously wanted to get something better than what they already had. BTW, good point about the hardware.
Ok everyone, think what you like, but I'm sticking to my new found friend, my mac (I hope you all realise that I was a die hard PC user until August this year...).
 

Tiger is the first version of Mac OS that will officially support 2- or more button mice, with the option to swap mouse buttons for left handed users. Took them long enough

What?? What are yout talking about?? Apple officially supported multi button mice since Mac OS 8.6 😛
Seriously!! I used to use Mac OS 8.6 and use 2 button mice with a scroll wheel
 
Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Tiger is the first version of Mac OS that will officially support 2- or more button mice, with the option to swap mouse buttons for left handed users. Took them long enough

What?? What are yout talking about?? Apple officially supported multi button mice since Mac OS 8.6 😛
Seriously!! I used to use Mac OS 8.6 and use 2 button mice with a scroll wheel
lol, I know that (I use a 2 button mouse with scroll wheel), but from a Windows user's perspective (esp a left-hander), this is significant.
 
Originally posted by: hopejr
Originally posted by: Thin Lizzy

Tiger is the first version of Mac OS that will officially support 2- or more button mice, with the option to swap mouse buttons for left handed users. Took them long enough

What?? What are yout talking about?? Apple officially supported multi button mice since Mac OS 8.6 😛
Seriously!! I used to use Mac OS 8.6 and use 2 button mice with a scroll wheel
lol, I know that (I use a 2 button mouse with scroll wheel), but from a Windows user's perspective (esp a left-hander), this is significant.

Ok, I get you. I didnt read your post good enough. 😛
 
Maybe the latests win32 iTunes is better, I only know about it from friends since I don't use it. But Quark is ass on Windows, I know that because we have a few copies where I work. Well I guess it could be just as bad on a Mac, but I can't imagine that they would still be in business if it was.

Mwhahahah.

That's rich. Don't worry it sucked on Mac, too.

At least until they finally ported it from OS 9 to OS X. Man, it realy realy sucked, huge pain in the rear to teach and maintain. But you know why it was still used?

Go up to a Admin that has been running a Tru64 Unix machine running a database cluster with a bunch of Alpha machines and get all excited and dance up and down and go:
"Oh, oh, You should drop those crappy Compaq machines because they are so expensive and so slow! With my Pentium 4 I can bechmark 400 frames-per-second with Quake 3, so it's fast! Switch your database over to a Dell running MS SQL and you'll save so much money! Alpha is dead You Moron!"

If you do that, then the response you get from that Admin will reveil a similar attitude that keeps quark common in the print industry.
 
Back
Top