What can Windows do that Linux can't?

[Chame_Wizard]

Letting air-planes crashing and screwing up oil platform computers.

[UniWoozle]

Break <--- Straight answer...

It's not that It can do things that linux can't. It's more that everything it does works in a different way and when people are used to using Photoshop, they will wan't to carry on using it instead of using Gimp.

Callum

[Spice Weasel]

A lot of people in this thread need to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_panic

Forget "Linux doesn't crash"...

Yes, it is generally more stable. But that doesn't mean you are bsod-proof. It's just that it is black instead of blue (Unless you have a custom bashrc, hah.) There, that's one thing Linux can do that Windows can't. Change the colour of it's error messages OOTB. Though, I could swear I saw a program for changing its colour in Win95...

[Bapun007]

Linux can't be controled by a single person but windows can .

[tomasz74]

Hi. I don't quite get what you mean with this control by single person. Can you please write some more?

[ral0r3us]

I just been wondering what other users have found that windows is able to do that linux (more specifically ubuntu) cant do...

so far the only thing i have found that i cant do anymore is gaming and a few online videos dont work sometimes

also, add anything to the list that makes one better or worse than the other, such as linux being practically virus free

Well the answer is pretty simple, Windows can close deals worth
of billions and can influence the "free" market to make things
as hard as possible for the open source community. As an OS it's
downright inferior yet you are forced to go back to it simply
because the average user doesnt like the idea that he'll have
to go through all this "fuss" all the time if he wants XYZ
driver for the XYZ hardware to work. This and other "financial"
reasons prevent software companies to actually release their
software for Linux, because it will cost them 5 to 10 times the
manhours that would otherwise cost them to develop the same for
windows and companies don't like cost... only Profits. Also if you
think about it, the idea of free, truly free software, irritates
a lot of people, maybe not people like you and me that dont own
corporations. But the ones they do they want to be reassured that
they and no one else will be profiting. This adds to their illusion
of superiority...

And the list goes on and on...

[tomasz74]

I wonder how would be the world with only free software.

[FlameReaper]

In my opinion: This.

Microsoft is flexing the social networking muscles of its instant messaging client with the latest release. Windows Live messenger 9.0 (2009) brings to the table a feature dubbed Groups, designed to extend the communication capabilities of the client beyond one-on-one conversations, now helping groups of users talk, collaborate, and share. According to the Redmond company, public Windows Live Messenger Groups is not designed as an alternative to community forums, or to affiliation groups, social networks with millions of users, it is rather a limited service for its initial release set up to streamline conversations between multiple Windows Live Messenger users.
...
...
...

“A unique feature of Windows Live Groups is that the groups you create will automatically show up in Messenger. For smaller groups (up to 20 people), you can even have group conversations with whomever happens to be online,” the Windows Live team representative added. “Of course, as the owner of a group, you can turn off the Messenger conversation feature, if that’s what your members prefer, or if the group grows to more than 20 people – just click Options on your group’s website, and then click Edit Settings.”

To be specific, this.



Basically what it does is that you can form a Windows Live Groups at http://groups.live.com, invite users into it (they don't have to be your Messenger contact), and you can chat with them via WLM (provided they do have it as well). One feature (which the lack of it is being a pet peeve for me) I'd really, really like to see it get implemented in any WLM alternatives for any Linux IM applications.

[penguinv]

Windows can work with my (older, cheaper) webcam.
Windows will play video out of the box.
Windows Chrome doesnt lose audio on youtube after a few uses like it does on Ubuntu (but shockwave-flash crashes in it).
Windows has this security device, lol, if you put the hard drive in another computer, it won't boot.
Windows ensures that you have to load the originators, eg HP, drivers so that HP can keep connected with you, while Ubuntu lets you plug and play (pardon the expression).

And last but not least, Windows *will* install off of my somewhat-flakey CD drive and Ubuntu *will not*.


... and while you are waiting,

[penguinv]

omg can we all [linux people] agree that this thread is a troll fest and *leave it alone*. You can't win arguments like these because you are fighting trolls... trolls feed off of attention.

Ignore them and they go away....

You like Linux, use it; you like Windows, use it!!!

Let that be the end of it. This type of discussion serves no point and is mindless drivel,.

Texaswriter, I'm not trolling. See my post above.

I'm interested in the good and bad points. I'm interested in how I can install linux on my new SATA drive. I seem to be stuck with using Windows.

PS I am assuming I can install the 2 systems on different physical drives and still have them dual boot.. with the boot-manager on the Ubuntu drive so that I have the ability to physically remove the Windows disk and still run my computer.
I have not been able to find something that shows I can do this.
Perhaps you could advise me?

Dell Dimension 4600, IDE Windows XP, SATA 1T drive, SATA on M'board.

PPS I think this is a great topic and I have no problems reading past the "pep club" members.