In my personal experience Linux seems far more stable than Windows. I really appreciate the ability Linux has to upgrade or add software without needing to reboot. The one exception might be Kernel rebuilding. Open source is a strong point as well. However, if the hardware is common and of good quality, and the added applications are also of good quality and repute, then Windows runs fine. Windows doesn't like sudden changes, which Linux takes in stride. Linux right out of the box has more networking capablitity than Windows 95/95/2000, and is on par with NT. It should be remembered that Linux was not intended to be an operating system for the computer illiterate, which Windows *is* intended for. If you can't deal with command line syntax you loose better than half of Linux's capablities. Windows tends toward hiding command line capabilities, keeping users in the dark about the "behind the scenes." A GUI is just that, a front door to a house with pretty trim. Open the door and you see how the GUI interacts with the base software at the command line level. Walk into the basement and watch the software interact with the hardware. Anything that can be done from a GUI can be done at a command prompt, if you know how. The GUI is merely a way for those new to the system to get right in and work. (remember the topic about Apple's Lisa GUI?) Bottom line: If you don't like heavily commercialized products, and have more than two brain cells to rub together for warmth, you won't like Windows. Something to keep in mind is that Windows *requires* applications, third party or otherwise, to be useful. Linux does not. You can get Linux apps, but you can also make your own. Can't do that with Windows.
I ran an old Apple IIe for years. Bought it in the early eighties, right before the Macs started coming out. I remember the old 68000 chips that were used too. When I got my IIe, it didn't have the "e" or enhancement option installed yet. If memory serves, it envolved upgrading the 68000 and a few other chips. We're quite literally talking EPROMS and DIPS, pulling them with a puller and installing new ones. I remember the fuss of the time with IBM vs. Apple quite well, and the problems getting the Lisa GUI into production may very well have been the death gnoll of the Apple line.
Slashdot Mirror
In my personal experience Linux seems far more stable than Windows. I really appreciate the ability Linux has to upgrade or add software without needing to reboot. The one exception might be Kernel rebuilding. Open source is a strong point as well. However, if the hardware is common and of good quality, and the added applications are also of good quality and repute, then Windows runs fine. Windows doesn't like sudden changes, which Linux takes in stride. Linux right out of the box has more networking capablitity than Windows 95/95/2000, and is on par with NT. It should be remembered that Linux was not intended to be an operating system for the computer illiterate, which Windows *is* intended for. If you can't deal with command line syntax you loose better than half of Linux's capablities. Windows tends toward hiding command line capabilities, keeping users in the dark about the "behind the scenes." A GUI is just that, a front door to a house with pretty trim. Open the door and you see how the GUI interacts with the base software at the command line level. Walk into the basement and watch the software interact with the hardware. Anything that can be done from a GUI can be done at a command prompt, if you know how. The GUI is merely a way for those new to the system to get right in and work. (remember the topic about Apple's Lisa GUI?) Bottom line: If you don't like heavily commercialized products, and have more than two brain cells to rub together for warmth, you won't like Windows. Something to keep in mind is that Windows *requires* applications, third party or otherwise, to be useful. Linux does not. You can get Linux apps, but you can also make your own. Can't do that with Windows.
I ran an old Apple IIe for years. Bought it in the early eighties, right before the Macs started coming out. I remember the old 68000 chips that were used too. When I got my IIe, it didn't have the "e" or enhancement option installed yet. If memory serves, it envolved upgrading the 68000 and a few other chips. We're quite literally talking EPROMS and DIPS, pulling them with a puller and installing new ones. I remember the fuss of the time with IBM vs. Apple quite well, and the problems getting the Lisa GUI into production may very well have been the death gnoll of the Apple line.