PDA

View Full Version : Is Linux really more stable than Windows XP?



Adam Lee
October 16th, 2005, 07:15 PM
This is a straight copy and paste from my blog (http://www.nostalgic-garden.org). Comments on my blog would be also appreciated :KS

I’m a frequent visitor to JustLinux, LinuxForums, and UbuntuForums.
And occasionally I run into threads asking the reason of using linux instead of Windows.
One of the popular answers are ’stability’ along with freedom.

And I just can’t agree with their statements.

The first time I tried linux for the first time was almosta decade ago. I was still a 4th grader in elementary school and I didn’t know much back than. I would install linux on my computer on a Sunday morning, play around a bit and back to Windows by the afternoon.
Since than I’ve been a occasional linux user. I would use linux for 2~3 months, but Windows is the one I always ended up with.

Currently I’m dual-booting Windows XP Prof. and Ubuntu Linux 5.10 on my AMD64 3000+ system.
For the past a few months I used Ubuntu extensively and it was the most easy to use linux distro I ever tried.
Installation was breeze, and getting softwares through apt-get could not get any easier. The hardware detection was excellent. Except for the wireless and 3d, all the componets were working right out of the box. Plus the support from the UbuntuForums was more than I expected. Whenver I encounter problems, I would go search for solution and in most cases I would fix whatever the problem without much hassle.

However, I don’t know why but Firefox crashed a couple of times. I looked for solution from the forums I visit, and I couldn’t find real solution to this. The best guess was the Macromedia Flash plugin is causing trouble.

Anways, this is my story with MS Windows. I used MSDOS when I was seven, and I remember using Windows 3.1 briefly. I also used 95 for a coule of years and used 98 until the Windows 2000 came out.

And it was Windows 2000 that really brought the big change.
I must agree that up to Windows 98, blue-screen-of-death was more familar than my mom’s face to me.
However, I have seen only a handful number of blue-screen-of-death since using Windows 2000 and none of them were serious enough to damage my data in harddrive.
Mind you that I perform disk defragment, clean up temporary files and scan viruses or mal softwares regulary.

There is no slow down or system lockups even when I work on memory hogging applications such as Photoshop or 3dMax on Windows XP.
Regardless of platform, on my taskbar I have music player and MSN(Gaim) and 2~3 webbrowsers each having 5+ tabs.
Except for occasional Firefox crash on linux, I have not experienced anything too bad on either of them.

So what in heaven are those MS hater talking about?
I would say stability of Windows is about the same, if not better, compared to linux for general purpose.
The only possible reasons I could come up with is that they don’t maintain their system properly.
With proper care Windows envirnment is much more reliable and fun to use due to all those good softwares.

Except linux is free(OK, free as in freedom and free as in $), I don’t find it really appealing.
Or… am I missing something big?

Goober
October 16th, 2005, 07:23 PM
Well, if you spend enough time and money, then yes, you can get XP or any Windows Version to be more stable then Linux. Of course, you need to buy a Firewall, antivirus, regularily defrag, you can't multitask like you can in Linux (this is my personal experience only), and generally you need to put a lot of effort into making XP stable.

I think, if you ran Ubuntu and XP out of the box, no additions for either, then Ubuntu would be more stable. When I say out of the box, I mean no Firewalls for either, no antiviruses, no defragging for XP, etc. Most prople, like my parents, spend lots of money and time buying Norton and MacAfee and everything else to make XP stable, and not get viruses and such.

Furthermore, you have a quite new processor, one that could probably have enough juice to handle multitasking with big programs on XP. With even a system like mine, for instance, I find that I cannot run too many large programs at a time, or things just freeze up. Furthermore, you can get Epihphany, or Opera, 2 alternatives to Firefox. I've had Firefox crash in my unstable Breezy release, but not since I upgraded to the stable release.

pmj
October 16th, 2005, 07:31 PM
Well, Firefox isn't part of the OS so whether it crashes or not has little to do with the stability of the OS. For stability of the desktop and commonly used applications my experience is that Windows and Linux are about on par.

I guess what people might be talking about when claiming Linux superiority here is that whenever things do go wrong on Linux it usually only means restarting the application or restarting X, things that wouldn't take down the web server and things like that you might have running. On Windows you would probably have to reboot. I don't see why this would matter to a normal user though.

stimpack
October 16th, 2005, 07:39 PM
Id say Debian stable is much more stable than Windows and Unstable based distros like Ubuntu slightly worse. Also XP is fairly mature now, wait for Vista to see some stability issues imo.

Kimm
October 16th, 2005, 07:41 PM
Mind you that I perform disk defragment, clean up temporary files and scan viruses or mal softwares regulary.


I use Linux only, and I have never done any of that on my current system.

And yes, Linux is more stable the Windows XP. I can say this for a fact. My father runs a Pentium 4, 3.6 Ghz, 512 mb RAM computer with Windows XP. I run a Celeron 1.7 Ghz, 256 mb RAM and my computer usualy outruns his. When I ocationaly sit by his computer, something almost allways happens, doesnt have to be big... but perhaps I click on a folder and Explorer crashes, sometimes his icons gets messed up CD/DVD- burning is usualy unstable, and this is a brand new computer we are talking about.

The only time something crashes in Linux on my computer, is when eighter I tinker with something and do something wrong and wreck my system, or when I use my webcam since the driver is in beta/alpha stages.

As for firefox crashing, I will use the same reason as I heard somewhere else on the forums. The Windows version of Firefox is the one getting the most atention, thus, it is the baby they love the most, so it gets the most attention and tweeking from the developers.

Back in the days when this computer was running 2000/XP (has run both) I had some big problems with it. Like, for instance, if I tried to install a program and listen to music at the same time, the music would get choppy and it was almost impossible to do anything else. Now I'm running Linux, and, as I am writing this I am compiling a program (VLC if you must know), listening to music that plays smoothly and I have an msn convo going.

Ofcourse, if you have a strong computer you are bound to notice less differance. Lets put it this way, the more room for mistake the longer it takes to fall over the edge ;)

In Linux, when something goes wrong its mostly the users fault, perhaps its set up in such a way that an accident once in a while is inevetable, but still. But when using windows, its like its placing trap doors and allways trying to get you to fall into one of them.

On a side note. I love the fact that I can allways tweak my system. I have been running Breezy for around a week now and I'm not sure I can be called breezy anymore, the repositories are the same... but the system is different.
I love the fact, that if I find a problem, I can fix it and tell the developers what went wrong, the fact that I am never in danger of getting a virus or some sort of malware, even if I did, it could never harm my perfectly tweeked system.

earobinson
October 16th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Just a note, in windows nt and up microsoft edited out the bsod and replaced it with the send this error to microsoft, windows crashes all the time it just 'recovers'

Note: i have never had firefox crash on me.

For more info on the bsod check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_screen_of_death#Windows_NT.2F2000.2FXP

Adam Lee
October 16th, 2005, 07:47 PM
Well, if you spend enough time and money, then yes, you can get XP or any Windows Version to be more stable then Linux. Of course, you need to buy a Firewall, antivirus, regularily defrag, you can't multitask like you can in Linux (this is my personal experience only), and generally you need to put a lot of effort into making XP stable.

I think, if you ran Ubuntu and XP out of the box, no additions for either, then Ubuntu would be more stable. When I say out of the box, I mean no Firewalls for either, no antiviruses, no defragging for XP, etc. Most prople, like my parents, spend lots of money and time buying Norton and MacAfee and everything else to make XP stable, and not get viruses and such.

Furthermore, you have a quite new processor, one that could probably have enough juice to handle multitasking with big programs on XP. With even a system like mine, for instance, I find that I cannot run too many large programs at a time, or things just freeze up. Furthermore, you can get Epihphany, or Opera, 2 alternatives to Firefox. I've had Firefox crash in my unstable Breezy release, but not since I upgraded to the stable release.

Uh..I guess you are right. Windows is nothing when it's righto out of box. I spend a day or two installing programs whenever I format harddrive and do a fresh installation of Windows.
If the money matters, of course I would be using linux. However it's hard to overcome the temptation of going onto P2P >_<.

Lord Illidan
October 16th, 2005, 07:56 PM
I had Windows XP crash up on me..
To be fair, it doesn't crash as much as Windows ME and 98 do, however..

KUbuntu with KDE isn't what I call stable though.. Konqueror was almost unusable..that's why I use Ubuntu now, instead of Kubuntu, couldn't stand those Konqueror crashed messages!

Knome_fan
October 16th, 2005, 08:01 PM
Linux with KDE isn't what I call stable though.. Konqueror was almost unusable..that's why I use Ubuntu now, instead of Kubuntu, couldn't stand those Konqueror crashed messages!
I don't think that's a linux with kde, but a kubuntu issue and unfortunately I was also having these issues with kubuntu.

mstlyevil
October 16th, 2005, 08:04 PM
I have to divide my Window experience into before I learned and after. When I got my first computer, I had the first edition of Win Xp home on it. After a few weeks I noticed that I had system crashes and did not know how to fix it. After a few months I could not even keep the lappy running for more than a minute. Then I got some help from someone who knew a little about windows and they showed me it was adware and spyware. After teaching me to format it I began to search the net for the best way to configure and maintain my system. That leads me to after. Now my Win XP Pro is very stable because I know how to protect it and I regularly maintain it. I do not even know what BSOD means anymore. However, I need to do virtualy nothing to maintain my Kubuntu/Linux partition. So if you maintain your Windows XP properly it is as stable as Linux but it cannot be called as stable because it requires way more maintenece than most Linux distros to stay stable.

Lord Illidan
October 16th, 2005, 08:04 PM
Edited it, 10x..

mstlyevil
October 16th, 2005, 08:07 PM
I had Windows XP crash up on me..
To be fair, it doesn't crash as much as Windows ME and 98 do, however..

KUbuntu with KDE isn't what I call stable though.. Konqueror was almost unusable..that's why I use Ubuntu now, instead of Kubuntu, couldn't stand those Konqueror crashed messages!

Just install Firefox and you will not have to mess with Konqueror. Thats what I did and now KDE is growing on me.Breezy is a huge improvement in speed and far less crashes in KDE than hoary was. KDE in breezy is just as fast as Gnome was in hoary.

Lord Illidan
October 16th, 2005, 08:16 PM
Just install Firefox and you will not have to mess with Konqueror. Thats what I did and now KDE is growing on me.Breezy is a huge improvement in speed and far less crashes in KDE than hoary was. KDE in breezy is just as fast as Gnome was in hoary.

Thanks for the advice, but I needed konqueror for the file browsing, not for its internet browsing...I used firefox then.

Adam Lee
October 16th, 2005, 08:20 PM
a... ok thank you all for replies.
It seems Windows XP is nothing comparable to Linux when it's right out of the box. However, what keeps you guys from getting pirated softwares -_-?
I do feel guilty about using them and that's one of reasons why I'm trying to use Linux.
However, even when I install linux the font is so messy compare to Windows that I have to get Windows licensed font and install them in my linux box.
And I think that's illegal activity.
As well, don't we all listen to mp3?
I mean.. I've never seen a single person who actually purchase mp3 files through online stores. And they all have an Ipod or iRIver.
Is it truly the law that keeps you away from the Windows?
If Windows can be as stable as Linux with installation of bunch of softwares, why would you not use Windows? Windows have much more powerful and robust softwares compare to linux you know....ex/Photoshop, 3DMax...

On side note, I can never get my system to go on suspend and wake up without messing up the X. I have an ATI card and when I get the 3d working, I have to sacrifice the power management. And that's one of the main reasons that makes me to keep come back to Windows XP

Lord Illidan
October 16th, 2005, 08:33 PM
a... ok thank you all for replies.
It seems Windows XP is nothing comparable to Linux when it's right out of the box. However, what keeps you guys from getting pirated softwares -_-?
I do feel guilty about using them and that's one of reasons why I'm trying to use Linux.
However, even when I install linux the font is so messy compare to Windows that I have to get Windows licensed font and install them in my linux box.
And I think that's illegal activity.
As well, don't we all listen to mp3?
I mean.. I've never seen a single person who actually purchase mp3 files through online stores. And they all have an Ipod or iRIver.
Is it truly the law that keeps you away from the Windows?
If Windows can be as stable as Linux with installation of bunch of softwares, why would you not use Windows? Windows have much more powerful and robust softwares compare to linux you know....ex/Photoshop, 3DMax...



I got my windows fonts working under Linux by copying and pasting them from one hard drive to another. I have Windows on my box too, so I don't think it is illegal.

What keeps me from pirated software? The fact that there are opensource clones! I don't use 3DMax, and if I had to use it, I think I would use a pirated version, because I can't afford the retail version.

However, on Linux, I don't need to pirate my software.. I apt-get it!!

mstlyevil
October 16th, 2005, 08:35 PM
a... ok thank you all for replies.
It seems Windows XP is nothing comparable to Linux when it's right out of the box. However, what keeps you guys from getting pirated softwares -_-?
I do feel guilty about using them and that's one of reasons why I'm trying to use Linux.
However, even when I install linux the font is so messy compare to Windows that I have to get Windows licensed font and install them in my linux box.
And I think that's illegal activity.
As well, don't we all listen to mp3?
I mean.. I've never seen a single person who actually purchase mp3 files through online stores. And they all have an Ipod or iRIver.
Is it truly the law that keeps you away from the Windows?
If Windows can be as stable as Linux with installation of bunch of softwares, why would you not use Windows? Windows have much more powerful and robust softwares compare to linux you know....ex/Photoshop, 3DMax...

On side note, I can never get my system to go on suspend and wake up without messing up the X. I have an ATI card and when I get the 3d working, I have to sacrifice the power management. And that's one of the main reasons that makes me to keep come back to Windows XP


As far as fonts go, why don't you install msttcorefonts. Since I installed them in breezy, I can not tell the difference between XP fonts and breezy.

pmj
October 16th, 2005, 08:40 PM
I think not having to use pirated software is rarely the reason people switch to Linux. But there's a thread about why we've switched, so search the forum if you want to know.

For me, it was because I didn't feel welcome or trusted when I was using Windows. It's as simple as that. Quality software for free, and without obnoxious advertising, is just a bonus.

kvidell
October 16th, 2005, 08:44 PM
Hm..
Who needs windows for Photoshop and 3DMax?
Photoshop and LightWave on OSX are much more robust and run a **** load faster anyway :)
That's taking the "money" to the extreme though, isn't it?

I use linux because it's, on every system I've tried it on, very much faster than Windows. It has better application support, better communities and communal support... It's a lot prettier, in my book...
I also like the customisability of it, or rather how easy it is (I don't have to buy WindowBlinds or whatever it's called to customise linux, it just... works.).

If I had the money for a second desktop I'd keep a windows DT around just for Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and Fable:TLC.

By stability, I take that as meaning how abusive can I be to the poor OS (and you may take that however you like) through my day-to-day use before it breaks.
Linux can go _much_ longer and harder than Windows ever stands a chance of in my experiences.
And whomever brought up Multi-Tasking is very right. I've never gotten Windows to do it very well... Something or another always gets in the way and causes explosions.

Nyeh,
- Kev

Artificial Intelligence
October 16th, 2005, 08:57 PM
I have used Ubuntu since warty beta. Not a single time it have crashes, it just runs and runs. Firefox crashes in rare occations, but it's not part of Ubuntu. Though I don't use Firefox anymore but Epiphany which is also faster.
As someone mentioned earlier in this thread that XP can't handle multi tasks is true (my experience with my own computer, people I help and computers at my work. What's amaze me is that Ubuntu/linux in general can handle it with ease. An example is when I use Photoshop via Xover Office at the same time I'm using gimp while gaim, xchat, azureus, firestarter, plus gdesklets eyecandys etc. are running next to them without a slowdown in performance. Other things is that linux doesn't need manual "defrag and clean up" which is "does" while you're working on the PC without any notice of slowdown.

Edit: And if you want to make XP more stable as someone also mention you need all kind of extra programs like anti-virus, anti-spy/mal-ware a good firewall etc. which will take up alot of good resources whicgh could be used on something better IMO.

xequence
October 16th, 2005, 10:34 PM
It seems Windows XP is nothing comparable to Linux when it's right out of the box. However, what keeps you guys from getting pirated softwares -_-?

Nothing, my windows 2000 installation in pirated.


However, even when I install linux the font is so messy compare to Windows that I have to get Windows licensed font and install them in my linux box.

Nothing wrong with my fonts here.


Is it truly the law that keeps you away from the Windows?

Being able to pirate it is the only reason I keep it. Windows ME came with my computer but I deleted it and I was gonna reinstall it again but it just wouldent work... Thats when I downloaded and burned XP. It was too slow so I downloaded and burned 2000. It was faster and I kept it, along with ubuntu.

poofyhairguy
October 17th, 2005, 03:55 AM
So what in heaven are those MS hater talking about?
I would say stability of Windows is about the same, if not better, compared to linux for general purpose.
The only possible reasons I could come up with is that they donít maintain their system properly.
With proper care Windows envirnment is much more reliable and fun to use due to all those good softwares.


Its a common misconception from Windows history. Windows is called "unstable" for the same reason Linux is called "hard to use." Because at one point they both were.

As you point out in your post, nowadays it matter much more if the apps are stable, not the OS.

Teron
October 17th, 2005, 11:47 AM
So what in heaven are those MS hater talking about?
I would say stability of Windows is about the same, if not better, compared to linux for general purpose.
The only possible reasons I could come up with is that they donít maintain their system properly.
With proper care Windows envirnment is much more reliable and fun to use due to all those good softwares.

Ok, replace unstable with buggy or poorly designed instead. I'm talking about explorer.exe starting to eat 100% CPU after x hours of uptime and then not stopping until you kill and restart it. Or how about video playback starting to eat more and more CPU the longer your computer has been up? After five days uptime, regular xvid encodes were eating 90% CPU during playback, while I've never seen mplayer needing more than 30% to play the same files. But what do I know, maybe I'm not properly maintaining my Windows installation by not rebooting it every 24 hours...

Collin
October 17th, 2005, 05:32 PM
Been using win XP home, since 2001 and I do have those "report problem" windows maybe 2-3 times a week now since I don't fool around too much with my system, but once in a rare while (probably happened 5 times since I had this computer) I will get a blue screen but then the system just reboot.

Firefox will often crash on me under winXP too well maybe once a month but it's mostly due to .pdf files I try to open. Then again my computer is probably the cause too. (lappy: P3 1ghz, 128mb ram, 16mb geforce2, 20gig hdd)

Unfortunatly my cdrom/cdrw/dvd doesn't work anymore or barely so I don't dare to install linux on it, I'll just have to wait until I get a new computer I suppose.

I don't run any anti virus, firewall or spyware remover on it, IE has all the highest security features enable and I never use it either, for media I use an older version of winamp (2.9x), firefox, open office, amsn, bittorrent for files, and thunderbird for mail. Also all the little visuals effect are disabled for windows makes the system a little more responsive.

mrtaber
October 17th, 2005, 06:06 PM
We administer 500 XP desktops here at work, and stability has been fine. This, however, should be no suprise, since computer use in a work environment is very different that computer use in the home.

In the server room, our Linux (Red Hat) boxen are also very stable.

Mark :)

-Rick-
October 17th, 2005, 07:00 PM
In my experience Win XP apps can crash more often than apps on *nix. However the chance that the whole system goes down seems lower on XP. If something goes wrong on XP, it can mostly recover itself(it may take a while). On Linux/FreeBSD it may happen that the comp gets unresponsive and needs a reboot.

Windows 98 is very unstable though...

Goober
October 17th, 2005, 07:01 PM
Ok, replace unstable with buggy or poorly designed instead. I'm talking about explorer.exe starting to eat 100% CPU after x hours of uptime and then not stopping until you kill and restart it. Or how about video playback starting to eat more and more CPU the longer your computer has been up? After five days uptime, regular xvid encodes were eating 90% CPU during playback, while I've never seen mplayer needing more than 30% to play the same files. But what do I know, maybe I'm not properly maintaining my Windows installation by not rebooting it every 24 hours...

Aye, this is one of the major reasons I dislike Windows. It cannot seem to stay on for more then 24 hours, after that, the CPU just gets eaten up by programs which go haywire, like IE and such. I've had ubuntu going for, well, 2 days solid at one point, and it worked just as well at the 48th hour as it did when I first started up my computer. If I tried that on XP, well, it would probably be Hard Restart time, since something would have gone haywire, and it probably would not be able to cure itself.

Brunellus
October 17th, 2005, 07:08 PM
Aye, this is one of the major reasons I dislike Windows. It cannot seem to stay on for more then 24 hours, after that, the CPU just gets eaten up by programs which go haywire, like IE and such. I've had ubuntu going for, well, 2 days solid at one point, and it worked just as well at the 48th hour as it did when I first started up my computer. If I tried that on XP, well, it would probably be Hard Restart time, since something would have gone haywire, and it probably would not be able to cure itself.
my best ubuntu uptime was something on the order of three weeks, no problems....better than win2k here at work, which feels sluggish after three or four days.

pmj
October 17th, 2005, 07:30 PM
My best uptime in Windows 2000 was something like 6 months. And just today, in Ubuntu, dragging a file onto Azureus crashed the computer. Some things were still working as I could still hear the music playing, but everything but the mouse pointer was frozen and ctrl+alt+f1 or backspace didn't work.

My point? Anectdotal evidence is worthless.

poofyhairguy
October 17th, 2005, 07:50 PM
My best uptime in Windows 2000 was something like 6 months. And just today, in Ubuntu, dragging a file onto Azureus crashed the computer. Some things were still working as I could still hear the music playing, but everything but the mouse pointer was frozen and ctrl+alt+f1 or backspace didn't work.

My point? Anectdotal evidence is worthless.


See, I read that and the clear theme to me is "only use java apps when your life depends on it." But I already knew that.

pmj
October 17th, 2005, 08:01 PM
See, I read that and the clear theme to me is "only use java apps when your life depends on it." But I already knew that.
I know, Java is crap. Unfortunately, you don't have much choice if you want to seed more than a handful of torrents. Which I do. :)

poofyhairguy
October 17th, 2005, 08:08 PM
I know, Java is crap. Unfortunately, you don't have much choice if you want to seed more than a handful of torrents. Which I do. :)

Give me a virtual desktop with like 20 bittornados open seeding files before you give me one java app that does the same thing. I can't stand java slowdown.

pmj
October 17th, 2005, 08:27 PM
Give me a virtual desktop with like 20 bittornados open seeding files before you give me one java app that does the same thing. I can't stand java slowdown.
I'd like to see you seed 200 torrents with BitTornado. No matter how much RAM you have it wouldn't be enough. Plus, each client would need its own free port to work.

I'm really missing BitComet. It was fast, easy, stable and, unlike with other clients, I had no problems playing games while I was both uploading and downloading. I wish someone would port it already.

poofyhairguy
October 17th, 2005, 08:42 PM
I'd like to see you seed 200 torrents with BitTornado. No matter how much RAM you have it wouldn't be enough. Plus, each client would need its own free port to work.


Yeah. Thats a lot.

brentoboy
October 17th, 2005, 08:48 PM
XP absolutly knocks the socks off of linux - as a desktop operating system. Hands down. Faster everything. Yeah, there is a bunch of extra bloatware, but you can avoid it - and linux has its share of available bloatware - its just that linux users know how to avoid it.

My parent's XP box is slow and crappy, but that is because they dont take care of it. Linux would be the same way for them, they would just pile on the crap and not keep trimming down the fat. When I run XP/2000 I keep it clean, and it runs like a champ.

But, that is the DESKTOP situation. Linux is just getting started on the DESKTOP. Compare Apache to IIS, compare PHP to asp, compare MySQL to Microsoft SQL server - Linux kicks @$$ all over windows. Have you ever been a network admistrator for a dosen or so boxes in a windows based world. It sucks. You cant stop people from installing crap and turning on "active desktop" and all this slugware crap.

I run Linux becuase it WILL WIN - in the end, and when it does, I need to know how to use it so that I can help my family, and friends get the most out of thier computer. Open Source Wins (Period) any active open source project will sooner or later catch up and out do the competition. Its plain and simple. They will keep adding features that the pay alternatives have, sooner or later people will start switching in mass, and then they will start creating features the other guys cant keep up with becuase there is so much community push to make it better.

Anyone who things linux is more stable as a desktop is smoking some funky weed on the weekends. We are all just suckers for pain. Linux is either a kick butt server, or a hobbie. There isnt much in between.

Use it becuase it expands your mind - not becuase it trumps Windows - or you'll go back to windoze in a few weeks because you can't take the pain.

Wide
October 17th, 2005, 08:56 PM
So what in heaven are those MS hater talking about?

Mostly what I can tell is the dislike for big business practices with a side of personality disorder to be unique from the masses, you get my drift LOL




I would say stability of Windows is about the same, if not better, compared to linux for general purpose.
The only possible reasons I could come up with is that they donít maintain their system properly.
With proper care Windows envirnment is much more reliable and fun to use due to all those good softwares.

Better, I am not sure.

You may have a point about maintaining your system, most window users are entry level computer users & like any thing entry level=problems & learning pains.

As for fun, I think linux is tons of fun, nothing like building your own operating system from scratch with only what you need ;)




Except linux is free(OK, free as in freedom and free as in $), I donít find it really appealing.
OrÖ am I missing something big?

Free has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned, I support many open source projects costing several thousand dollars a year out of pocket, the satisfaction of learning how things work is where I get my kicks.


I do run MS on a desktop for CAD programs & an ocassional MS only program I need to run for bussiness.

It does take a little more time at first & knowlage to run linux & it is not for everyone, nerver will be but sure has come a long way in the last 5 years for the masses. You can see that by the many new users here in these forums, which is great.

I must mention that I do run several nix servers & admin a few MS 2003 deals & by far my favorite are the nix boxes, it just seems right to me.

Again, let me reitterate, I have nothing against MS

Open source = Open Minds :)

blueturtl
October 17th, 2005, 09:39 PM
Short answer: yes

Longer answer: yes, it is

Longest answer: Windows can be stable but it's just way too much maintenance compared to running Linux. At least for the time being. I had Windows XP BSOD on me simply for trying to close an app that had crashed. And this is a clean install. Just a few apps, no extra services running. From there it simply detoriates to a state where you either have to keep cleaning it up, rebooting it, or finally reinstall it. This has been the Windows way since Windows 95 and all the pro-Bills in the world couldn't convince me otherwise anymore. Not after how they said Windows XP would be a cure for all that.

Sure apps crash in Linux. The difference is in the reasons: in Windows you don't have to do anything wrong for things to go to hell as the design flaws are pretty bad. The system is too obscure for you to know how to fix it. In Linux at least you are given a possibility of doing something about your problems, if you have them.

Oh, and what do you expect to gain answer when posting on a Linux-user's forum? ;)

jbraum
October 18th, 2005, 12:26 AM
There's no doubt from my experience that Windows requires more work to up keep to running smoothly. I've used windows xp as a web server before I switched to Linux. It ran alright before a configuration error then problems and I switched to Linux. People that don't maintain windows regularly have all sorts of problems. I run a lab of 25 pc running windows xp. I have too constantly maintain the pcs and am looking to go to Linux or at least dual boot the machines and see what happens.

Linux :)

Windows :-({|=

bluck
October 18th, 2005, 12:34 AM
out of the box stability, linux wins hands down.

without a firewall, your xp installation is compromised in less than 2 minutes (in my experience). of course, you shouldnt ever expose a box to the internet without a firewall of some sort, IMO.

also, working with large numbers of machines, i can tell you that i would rather support 4 labs of linux machines than one of XP machines. In a networked environment of over a thousand desktop machines, there's been way more support requests per capita from the windows machines.

Hobbsee
October 18th, 2005, 10:16 AM
I was silly enough to open a whole heap of .zip files at once earlier this evening. It ended up opening around 30 windows.

Slowed the computer down slightly, but i could still type in my kopete chat window, and could get to a konsole to "killall ark" - getting rid of all 30 or so windows in a couple of seconds.

Under windows (xp), i would have had to kill them all one by one...and it would be very likely for the computer to go unstable, give messages about asking if you wanted to end the task, crashing on that too, etc, etc, etc.

I think when talking about stability of windows versus linux, you have to look at the severity of the crash - ie, does it crash the entire operating system, requiring a reboot, does it crash X, so you can restart that, or does it just crash the individual program, so you can fire it back up again with no problems?

bluck
October 18th, 2005, 10:26 AM
Under windows (xp), i would have had to kill them all one by one...and it would be very likely for the computer to go unstable, give messages about asking if you wanted to end the task, crashing on that too, etc, etc, etc.


thats not necessarily true.
the taskkill command can kill all tasks that have an expression in the window name, for example.
or, usually with that many of the same type of window being open, it will be grouped on the taskbar, where you can close the entire group.

you might have to be very patient, depending on the size of all those zip files, but that one's recoverable easily enough ;)

Cbotron
November 16th, 2006, 12:49 PM
I recently switched from windows to ubuntu and I find ubuntu better.I want to know if Linux is more stable and hacking free than windows and why?

wieman01
November 16th, 2006, 12:55 PM
Putting all prejudices, etc. aside... Windows (= the operating system) is as stable as Linux and solid as a rock, at least WinXP. The application that run on top of it are an entirely different story. They are by no means. MS Office for instance is a joke.

ShadowVlican
November 16th, 2006, 07:59 PM
you'll get biased answers to this question wherever you ask

i say, both OS are very stable, only fack up if you do stoopid things

me being a windows user, never come across stability problems unless i try retarded things (like kernel streaming 24bit audio to my soundcard which doesn't support it... results in a crash ](*,) )

or in ubuntu.. i don't even know enough to fiddle around with it :lol: (though i fail at setting up beryl..](*,) )

Henry Rayker
November 16th, 2006, 08:03 PM
As far as hacking goes, Windows is a bit worse. Viruses and the like can infect and open ports if you're not careful. The number of viruses aimed at Windows systems is staggering. Most of the handful of viruses for linux OSes are proof of concept only and not "in the wild."

As for stability, I'd say Ubuntu is more stable, so long as you can set it up properly. One huge advantage Windows has is the fact that it comes, out of the box, set up for a particular system pretty well; Ubuntu lacks in this area. Also, some users get upset about the whole 'root' access and file ownership...if you enable your root account and log in as root, you can expect some bad situations.

SunnyRabbiera
November 16th, 2006, 08:06 PM
In terms of viruses, spyware, addware and the like Linux beats windows by a mile.
What makes the windows experience so bad is that you have to install so much to keep windows stable.

earobinson
November 16th, 2006, 08:07 PM
define stable and Ill let you know.

justin whitaker
November 16th, 2006, 08:09 PM
XP is stable, and reliable if you keep the system clean and tidy.

Linux is rock solid, although it tends to be a bit more hardware tempermental.

It really comes down to:

1. Do you want to control what happens on your system?
2. Do you want to be eternally vigilant?
3. Do you want to run on every piece of hardware?
4. Are you a gamer?
5. How tolerant are you of random breakages if an upgrade goes wrong?
6. How much do you want to pay, in $ or time?

meng
November 16th, 2006, 08:10 PM
I agree with other posters that it depends on what software (applications, games) you're running. I believe Linux is more SECURE, but I regard security and stability as different attributes.

ShadowVlican
November 16th, 2006, 08:17 PM
we're talking STABILITY, not security

back in the days of Windows 98 where BSOD's were part of everyday life and compared to Windows XP SP2 NOW... THAT type of STABILITY

both are rock solid (i remember win98 crashing to hell if i ran too many programs at once, well not anymore with WinXP or Ubuntu)

stability people.... don't let this thread go into security

lyceum
November 16th, 2006, 08:19 PM
The one warning, I don't think was mentioned here, Linux can "catch" Windows viruses, but they are just carriers. They don't get infected. But from what I understand, you can then spread the virus to a windows PC.

kuja
November 16th, 2006, 08:21 PM
Windows has improved, but I still don't find it as stable as linux is. One difference worth pointing out is that when Windows crashes, it often crashes harder, and sometimes the whole system freezes. Something I've not seen in Linux, though a severe memory leak could probably do it.

aysiu
November 16th, 2006, 10:06 PM
I'd say that Linux is stabler than Windows, but that the GUIs (KDE, Gnome, XFCE) for Linux are less stable.

If you want a solid-as-rock server, Linux is the way to go, but if you want a solid (not necessarily as rock) graphical environment, Windows 2000 or XP are better than Ubuntu for that, especially since one of the beauties of Linux is its ease of customization.

More customization = more room for instability. And I'm talking basic customization here, like installing themes and such, which KDE and Gnome are built to do.

Of course, if you customize Windows (which it's not meant to do), you probably have to use some kind of hack like LiteStep or Windowblinds, which tend to make your Windows environment less stable.

Bells
November 16th, 2006, 11:44 PM
I recently switched from windows to ubuntu and I find ubuntu better.I want to know if Linux is more stable and hacking free than windows and why?

ubuntu, no, Suse, eah, RedHat, most defineny, Slackware, beyond a doubt.

Bells
November 16th, 2006, 11:47 PM
I'd say that Linux is stabler than Windows, but that the GUIs (KDE, Gnome, XFCE) for Linux are less stable.

If you want a solid-as-rock server, Linux is the way to go, but if you want a solid (not necessarily as rock) graphical environment, Windows 2000 or XP are better than Ubuntu for that, especially since one of the beauties of Linux is its ease of customization.

More customization = more room for instability. And I'm talking basic customization here, like installing themes and such, which KDE and Gnome are built to do.

Of course, if you customize Windows (which it's not meant to do), you probably have to use some kind of hack like LiteStep or Windowblinds, which tend to make your Windows environment less stable.

Slackware with KDE is more stable than W2K or XP, don't sell Linux short because Uuntu screwed it up. (not only with Dapper and i'm not even mentioning Edgy but with every release)

aysiu
November 16th, 2006, 11:54 PM
Slackware with KDE is more stable than W2K or XP, don't sell Linux short because Uuntu screwed it up. (not only with Dapper and i'm not even mentioning Edgy but with every release)
You're right--I'm generalizing from my experience. I have used several "user friendly" distros, though, and found the same thing.

I've never used Slackware, Gentoo, or Linux from Scratch. Maybe KDE and Gnome are stabler on those.

nenyalorien
April 19th, 2007, 04:21 AM
hmph. XP still melted down on me. so much for "stable".

the.dark.lord
April 19th, 2007, 07:29 AM
I believe that both OSes are equally stable, but Windows security problem outrun those of Linux by millions.

bagrol1
July 23rd, 2007, 09:01 PM
I heard this claim of linux stability and how it can be run for months without reboot. Well, based on my experience this is total bs, and Windows XP is way more stable :)

If I just browse the net and use email, yes, Fiesty Fawn will stay on forever. However if I start doing something more ambitious problems start putting linux to shame compared to windows xp.

For starters Gnome can be really unstable and I need to restart it sometimes every day. In addition, I need to reboot the machine every few days compared to about once a month for Xp before. I think I know what is the problem: wine and all the software emulation to run some windows progs. But I need to run Picasa as I did not find anything as good in native linux applications, I need to use IE to view some pages correctly (from time to time), and I need to run XP in virtual mode for some video editing. All these tasks constantly kill my Ubuntu comp and I become a laughing stock at front of my wife who kept hearing from me how good linux is.

And I don't even touch Beryl anymore. Beryl worked for me at the beginning but after installing all the software I need it did not even start. Compiz does start, but menu items have such delay that I don't run it at all - I'm stuck with plain metacity and leopard GTK theme.

Thus all the claims about Linux/unix stability sound like a joke in light of my experience with Ubuntu.

anarchyreigns
July 23rd, 2007, 09:07 PM
<rolls eyes>

dca
July 23rd, 2007, 09:08 PM
hmmm,

Buy an IBM xServer ($10k) for your enterprise for hosting email:

Buy MS Exchange Sever Ent ($4k) + 100 licenses for all your users (CALs)

or

d/l & install CentOS 5 or Ubuntu Server Ed 6.06LTS & install sendmail, etc


Tell me which one requires more restarts, support, anti-virus, etc, etc


figured I'd throw in my experiences....

fastpakr
July 23rd, 2007, 09:09 PM
Beryl's beta software, but if you ask specific questions you could probably get help. As far as the windows emulation issues, perhaps you should clarify exactly what you're doing when you have trouble and you can get some help on sorting out the issues? I have not restarted my pc in months aside from installing hardware. In Linux, essentially everything can be resolved with the proper shell usage without ever necesitating a reboot.

wpshooter
July 23rd, 2007, 09:10 PM
Dear Bagrol1:

Would you like my opinion as to why you find this to be the case ?

asmoore82
July 23rd, 2007, 09:14 PM
**__YOU__** have poluted and ruined a perfectly good Linux Distro ...

P.S. GIMP > Picasa > Photoshop

Henry Rayker
July 23rd, 2007, 09:19 PM
My linux machines are so much more stable than any windows machine I've ever used. My girlfriend's desktop has been on, literally, for 2 months now...and it was only shut down that time (after about a month of constantly being up) because the power went out. I got a windows machine to hobble to a month once, but it was in some pretty horrible shape. Loads of applications tended to enjoy just eating up RAM and not releasing...which was fine, until you start to run out of virtual memory.

Linux is also a LOT more robust. You almost never have to restart because you ran some updates. You can actually FIX an issue with a program not running, as opposed to just saying, "oh...guess that doesn't work anymore". I don't even think I have to mention the resources that anti-virus, anti-spyware take up...or the alternative of having all of those bugs roaming your machine....

AliL
July 23rd, 2007, 09:23 PM
In my opinion if you're silly enough to try and do video editing through an emulator...

If you're not broad minded enough to try new applications that may be different to your windows software, why not just stick to good ol' windows...it just seems to me that you got Ubuntu for web browsing (no wait, you do that through an emulator too)...

just my 2 cents

(p.s. do not take my criticisms as a stereotype for the whole ubuntu/linux communtiy, I'm just an extremist who thinks that you just got Ubuntu for the hell of it)

arashiko28
July 23rd, 2007, 09:24 PM
Dude of course it would crash wit so many junk! Gimp is way better than picassa. for video processing and editing i'm learning to use avidemux (available on synaptic), and yet, LEARNING haven't managed to crash it not even once. even using beryl at the time. And is not a super computer, is an HP Pavilion ze2000 laptop factory hardware, no extra. I can edit subtitles on open sources programs, copy, cut, change video compression and do everything on avidemux. So why bother on windows programs. Besides, wine does not support a lot of graphic, so it could be one reason. It's all about learning, I have 2 weeks without restarting, just hibernate to move around the city. When I used to do this on windows, usually crashed while waking from hibernation and had to restart on the bad way.

Daveth
July 23rd, 2007, 09:30 PM
doesn't this site answer it?

http://www.top500.org/stats/list/29/osfam

77% of the world's top supercomputers run on linux, and they are practically never switched off.

bagrol1
July 23rd, 2007, 09:45 PM
Beryl's beta software, but if you ask specific questions you could probably get help. As far as the windows emulation issues, perhaps you should clarify exactly what you're doing when you have trouble and you can get some help on sorting out the issues? I have not restarted my pc in months aside from installing hardware. In Linux, essentially everything can be resolved with the proper shell usage without ever necesitating a reboot.

That may be true but for a newbie like myself reboot is almost alway an only solution.

Most often I have to reboot Linux when:

1. Cannot open streaming .wmv file. Totem-xine (the only player which will automatically open a link to wmv file) will not lauch at all.

2. Cannot launch Firefox in tv-out mode.

In these two cases I have to reboot whole Linux as restarting Gnome does not help. Now, the need to restart Gnome happens so often to me that I cannot even list all the reasons or remember why it happened.

Now, please, do not cite any type of server/web hosting Linux capabilities/stability as it does not apply to me. This is based on my home use and experience so if a Linux box can run a web server for a year without a reboot is of no consequence to my day to day life with my comp.

Thanx

bagrol1
July 23rd, 2007, 09:52 PM
Dude of course it would crash wit so many junk! Gimp is way better than picassa. for video processing and editing i'm learning to use avidemux (available on synaptic), and yet, LEARNING haven't managed to crash it not even once. even using beryl at the time. And is not a super computer, is an HP Pavilion ze2000 laptop factory hardware, no extra. I can edit subtitles on open sources programs, copy, cut, change video compression and do everything on avidemux. So why bother on windows programs. Besides, wine does not support a lot of graphic, so it could be one reason. It's all about learning, I have 2 weeks without restarting, just hibernate to move around the city. When I used to do this on windows, usually crashed while waking from hibernation and had to restart on the bad way.

Yes, you can use those utilities or even do some editing using a command line, but why???? I am looking for speed and not spending hours and hours learning new ways of doing things which in the end will be slower anyway.

Yes, Gimp is more powerfull than Picasa, but again it is not a photo manager software and it taken too much time to correct large libs of photos.

bagrol1
July 23rd, 2007, 09:57 PM
In my opinion if you're silly enough to try and do video editing through an emulator...

If you're not broad minded enough to try new applications that may be different to your windows software, why not just stick to good ol' windows...it just seems to me that you got Ubuntu for web browsing (no wait, you do that through an emulator too)...

just my 2 cents

(p.s. do not take my criticisms as a stereotype for the whole ubuntu/linux communtiy, I'm just an extremist who thinks that you just got Ubuntu for the hell of it)

Why is it silly? It runs without delay and is very responsive. Its quicker than dual boot, on the downside the encoding is slower but it makes no difference if it's done at night.

BTW, I've tried many linux apps by now and have a good picture what can you do in Linux even though I know sh... about linux commands, etc.

AliL
July 23rd, 2007, 10:15 PM
How is dual boot slow, you can configure grub to automatically boot into an os without even appearing which takes no longer than just booting into 1 os and you can also have it so intead of booting into that os you press a key and it takes you to the grub menu which takes all of how long to scroll through, about 2 seconds. I'm sure booting into XP natively and encoding video through XP will cut off more than 2 seconds from the encoding time. Think about it, if it is running through and emulator it has to do everything twice!

bagrol1
July 23rd, 2007, 10:29 PM
How is dual boot slow, you can configure grub to automatically boot into an os without even appearing which takes no longer than just booting into 1 os and you can also have it so intead of booting into that os you press a key and it takes you to the grub menu which takes all of how long to scroll through, about 2 seconds. I'm sure booting into XP natively and encoding video through XP will cut off more than 2 seconds from the encoding time. Think about it, if it is running through and emulator it has to do everything twice!

You have to reboot which is slower than starting virtual machine. To put this in numbers: about 10 sec to shut Ubuntu then about 60secs to start XP, while starting XP in virtual mode is only about 15 secs.

AliL
July 23rd, 2007, 10:54 PM
OK, so ur saying it takes about a minute and a half to go from ubuntu to xp, the difference in encoding times will be WAY more than that I can guarantee you. Maybe even hours of difference considering the extra work it has to do. I'm not 100% sure exactly what the difference would be but I'm pretty certain it'll be more than 85 seconds!

Depressed Man
July 23rd, 2007, 11:36 PM
For me, is it more stable then XP?

Yeah, it is. Simply because there's no Dr. Watson to try to kill the applications I want it to run (which eventually leads to me being forced to reboot since the applications I need to use are all frozen by Watson).

bagrol1
July 24th, 2007, 01:36 AM
OK, so ur saying it takes about a minute and a half to go from ubuntu to xp, the difference in encoding times will be WAY more than that I can guarantee you. Maybe even hours of difference considering the extra work it has to do. I'm not 100% sure exactly what the difference would be but I'm pretty certain it'll be more than 85 seconds!

Yes, you're completely right... it's matter of seconds, but that's not why I don't find dual boot solution appealing. I like working with virtual XP as I can check my mail in Linux instantly, browse web and others without booting back... such going back and forward takes too much time...

But that's really not a topic of this post.

My point was, that with what I am using on Linux, and granted some of the applications were ported from Windows, makes my system less stable than windows. Does it mean that I am going back to XP? NO!!!!!!!!!! I still recognize the value of this free operating system and that it gives me an option, although not ideal, but still working OK.

And I have a feeling that maybe a couple Ubuntu releases down the road the situation will improve for me. However, I do not question those saying that their linux boxes are perfectly stable. I think it's the way is being used and probably in 90% of setups it's more stable than XP. Just not for me :(

stinger30au
July 24th, 2007, 01:40 AM
This is a straight copy and paste from my blog (http://www.nostalgic-garden.org).

Currently Iím dual-booting Windows XP Prof. and Ubuntu Linux 5.10 on my AMD64 3000+ system.
For the past a few months I used Ubuntu extensively and it was the most easy to use linux distro I ever tried.

Why are you using an old version of Ubuntu??
Try the 7.05 fiesty fawn.

read this, it will help youi upgrade to the newest version of Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntugeek.com/upgrade-ubuntu-610-edgy-eft-to-ubuntu-704-feisty-fawn.html)

x0as
July 24th, 2007, 01:48 AM
Why are you using an old version of Ubuntu??
Try the 7.05 fiesty fawn.

read this, it will help youi upgrade to the newest version of Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntugeek.com/upgrade-ubuntu-610-edgy-eft-to-ubuntu-704-feisty-fawn.html)

It probably was the current version when he originally posted in 2005.

sw1995
July 24th, 2007, 03:45 AM
Honestly, I have only used Ubuntu for about three months, and I have ONLY been using Ubuntu and I am always really surprised when it locks up on me or something crashes. I do not have a technically oriented response, however if the fact that I never restart my computer is a sign of stability, then count me in.

-S

Ralob
July 24th, 2007, 04:14 AM
I find Linux to be more stable. Whenever I get onto my laptop which has XP on it, I find it to be much more buggy, unresponsive, and error prone. A fresh install of Windows works fine, but after you install some software things seem to deteriorate quickly. So Linux FTW IMHO.

rand0m
July 24th, 2007, 10:22 AM
My XP system is just as stable and fast as my Feisty. You do have to put some effort into maintaining it with the proper apps, but after that it can be set up automatically. The problem is, if you don't set it up properly and maintain it, XP can quickly turn to poo. I use it for gaming, which I rarely do nowadays, so I'm mainly in Ubuntu for everyday purposes. I ran out of things to tweak in XP anyway. In Linux? Never.

BTW, for programs "out of the box", try making a customized XP install with something like nlite. It'll get you up and running much quicker.

spupy
July 24th, 2007, 10:09 PM
I use Ubuntu for almost an year now. Appart from Beryl crashes in the past, i remember clearly Ubuntu crash 3 times - twice on its own and once from a stupid game. I dualboot with windows and my XP seems surprizingly stable - well not so surprizing when you know i run only 2 programs on windows - skype and a online game :). Tryin anything appart from these two apps brings the xp down slowly.
But i remember some time ago, when i used XP for everyday stuff like i now use ubuntu, my father had to reinstall it every two weeks...

davidpaul2020
July 25th, 2007, 01:19 AM
I have dabbled with Linux for many years trying out various distros. As far as interface is concerned I love Linux.

For variety of software, windows is still far ahead but if one looks around one can practially find good software for Linux.

As of now i run Win XP Pro and Ubuntu 704 and find them co-existing well. And I am going to stay with Ubuntu bcos this is simply the best distro I have ever had. Just tied Fedora 7 "Moonshine" Live CD. Nice graphics but the distro is basically empty, not even firefox was installed.

So..its back to Ubuntu.

Sachina-800-
December 19th, 2008, 09:56 AM
Hello!Sono nuovo di qui.