Comment "No Surprise" -- Isn't that biased? (Score 1) 723
The statements that I will make are not biased.
I agree that Microsoft products are a little easier to setup. It takes a little less for me to install Windows 98/NT than Linux. (Of course I lose a lot of flexibility going MS.)
If so many Linux users claim that it is faster and more stable, then there must be _some_ kind of truth to that. Sure every OS has pluses and minuses and that MS has more resources because they are rich. MS might strive to make their product as good as possible, but there is a great deal of improvement. However, Because of the beuraucracy of such a large company, those service packs take a long time to be released. Look at the average time between kernel releases and service pack releases. Windows 98's service back was due to be released in December, but it was pushed back. Meanwhile, I got several new kernel sources. Linux is not only the kernel, but the additional software that actually does the networking, and serving, etc... Those have been updated countless times since, also.
As for my personal experiences with Windows 95/98/NT4.0:
They need to be reinstalled at least twice a year due to corruption. (Particularly in the registry. I'll post about that when the time comes.)
The system itself is visibly slower than Linux on some occasions.
Starting and stopping some services require a lot of waiting time.
'98 crashes the most, NT is middle, Linux not once (unless I run Wine :)
The reason I switched from NT4.0 to Linux was because I got tired from the above, and I have found sanctuary with Linux.
I guess I can keep going on about my Windows problems, but I'll save it for later.
TeslaCoil
I agree that Microsoft products are a little easier to setup. It takes a little less for me to install Windows 98/NT than Linux. (Of course I lose a lot of flexibility going MS.)
If so many Linux users claim that it is faster and more stable, then there must be _some_ kind of truth to that. Sure every OS has pluses and minuses and that MS has more resources because they are rich. MS might strive to make their product as good as possible, but there is a great deal of improvement. However, Because of the beuraucracy of such a large company, those service packs take a long time to be released. Look at the average time between kernel releases and service pack releases. Windows 98's service back was due to be released in December, but it was pushed back. Meanwhile, I got several new kernel sources. Linux is not only the kernel, but the additional software that actually does the networking, and serving, etc... Those have been updated countless times since, also.
As for my personal experiences with Windows 95/98/NT4.0:
They need to be reinstalled at least twice a year due to corruption. (Particularly in the registry. I'll post about that when the time comes.)
The system itself is visibly slower than Linux on some occasions.
Starting and stopping some services require a lot of waiting time.
'98 crashes the most, NT is middle, Linux not once (unless I run Wine
The reason I switched from NT4.0 to Linux was because I got tired from the above, and I have found sanctuary with Linux.
I guess I can keep going on about my Windows problems, but I'll save it for later.
TeslaCoil
