quote:
Originally posted by Choli
quote:
Originally posted by PlusFan
Why not? They still are both OSes, and both are trying to be user friendly
I've already said why: The run in different architectures. You can't run Windows in an apple nor run Mac on a PC (x86) Thet's why you shouldn't compare them. It's like if you compare planes with ships. In both you can travel but one is by air and the other by sea. They're different, not better or worse. You can't compare Mac and Windows or Linux without caring in which computers they run.
So what if I travel both by train, car, airplane, boat, spaceshuttle, etc, and then find that IMHO one is better than another?
quote:
About the usb discussion: well, it was just an example. Last year I had to configure an usb wireless network card. It took me 5 minutes to configure it in Win XP SP1 and 2 weeks to do the same in SuSE 7.1 and 8 and I had to recompile the kernel (2.4.20) and add several modules. What I meant with that is that Windows is better prepared to support new devices and has more connectivity than linux. You SuSE 9.1 y way more recent than XP.
Well, you don't want to know how much problems my dad's experienced with usb wireless network cards, and he's running Windows. And it's not because he's too far away (signal strength is okay) but because of the software! Note for Choli: the new SUSE 9.2 focuses on WLAN and Bluetooth!
quote:
Also don't care about the boot speed. It depends on way more things than the time the kernel takes to load and initialize itself. Knnopix is always a just-installed OS (it's always the same iside the cd), while windows XP is not (you install programs, etc...). In my Pentium II, a just installed Windows XP takes less than 30 seconds in boot, including the bios post (all the messages of the begining, before loading the OS).
Even after a fresh installation, winXP takes more time for me.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by PlusFan
And you can help them to do that! (If you can code), since most linux programs are free software or open source. And, In my experience, you can do copy-paste everywhere in KDE. You do have a point, though, that some software (especially these not included with your distro) doesn't do [CTRL]+C/V
the end-user can't code. From the final user's point of view Windows is way more intuitive than Linux. Also, even if I'm a professional at computing (i am, btw) I want a system (OS + apps) that works. I don't want to do extra work configuring/fixing things/programs.
It's not extra work, it's choice!
If you think some feature could be better, code it!
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by PlusFan
Because security holes in Linux don't immediately lead to a gigantic virus infection. And comparing the Linux kernel to Windows in amount of code isn't fair, since Windows is far more than just a kernel. Linux is the kernel, GNU/Linux is the OS.
talking about kernels: Windows' one is much more complete, imo. It includes the GUI which allows developers to have a centralized way to access all features of the OS. Linux includes only about 100/150 APIs, no-one of them GUI related. The GUI in linux rely on the KDE/Gnome/whatever enviorment you're running and in the TCK/TL libraries etc... Personally, I don't like that structure. Also, in Linux what a process can do is more limited. It can't hook another one or a window as easy as it can be done in Win.quote:
Originally posted by PlusFan
You must admit that Linux is evolving very fast!
True, but not fast enough. IMO, Linux developers should focus now in the end user. Unify thing and make a really user-friendly OS They have still to "hide" the config files. An image is better than 1000 words. Dialogs, panels, windows, etc... should be done to configure things. They have to hide the technical features of Linux. An in-home user doesn't care about what /dev/hda2 is and what mounting something on somewhere is.
You say that Linux isn't evolving fast enough. Is windows evolving fast enough? Or Mac OS? And there are actually distro's focusing only on the end-user, like LinSpire and XandrOS and Lycoris
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by PlusFan
[..a few minutes please while I reply to Chaotic Shield]
[...thank you for waiting!]
Back ontopic: No, I don't think Longhorn will be spectacular. Maybe it's spectacular in being slow on your brand-new AMD/Intel [cool year 2006 name] processor with extra included [cool year 2006 marketing name], and sure, it looks very nice, but that's not worth the $200 or whatever it is for me.
