Windows or Linux?

I don't agree with you. you are right when you say that Linux is more complex to use than Linux, but this difference is smaller and smaller as time passes. I think windows is widespread because Linux was difficult to use and because Microsoft obliged computer producers to install windows on their machines before selling them.

You have a good point. But I still hold that much of Windows' advantage comes from usability. Remember that the mini-Mac came out before Windows. Apple had the GUI first; Microsoft stole it from them. But it was Microsoft who refined it into what it is today. Ever since Windows 95, they've been pretty much on a roll (with the exception of a fumble with Me). Microsoft didn't start out with the ability to twist arms. They earned that ability by building themselves up into the giant they now are. Just like everyone else, they started out small. Bill Gates made a lot of deals to be sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the company figured out how to design a system that was user-friendly. Most software is written in Visual Basic because it's easier to use. VB, then Cobol. I don't know if you're aware, but Dell is starting to OEM Linux on some of their machines. This will solve driver issues for many, who will then be free to focus on applications. Perhaps some day I will switch. But I've said previously that I'm more of a geek than a nerd. I don't care to spend all my time building the programs I need; I prefer to go out and get them. And I'd prefer something that's mature and ready to go, not something in Alpha stage. ;) I use computers for productivity, not play. Hence my OS of choice is Windows, not Linux.

I understand that Windows and Linux are different. The point is, first-time users with a bit of nerve can still use Windows to a certain extent. There's very little to learn. There's a distinct difference between a terminal and a flat-out GUI. There's not much of anything in Windows that requires a command; in Linux, there is. Yes, I know Linux is available with GUI as well, but I don't think there should be any argument that one is harder for a first-time user to learn than the other...that one is Linux. Linux was around a decade ago, and it still hasn't managed so much as 3% of the global market. Neither has Apple. Microsoft had to start from scratch before they had the power to twist arms and get OEMs. Microsoft is mature, and easy to use. That continues to perpetuate its market domination. I know that Dell is now offering Linux machines. Do you know why? Because, despite the fact that Vista is hardly compatible with anything, Microsoft still plans to pull XP from the market come the new year. Their first move was to offer XP machines to small businesses, then to consumers. Now, they're protesting further. Personally, I hope Microsoft listens. In case you haven't noticed, I am current on my current events. If that's not good enough, suffice it to say that you have your opinion, and I have mine. As long as I know how to keep Windows stable and badware free, I see no reason to switch. "If it's not broke, don't fix it;" that's my philosophy. I like to stick with the OS that lets me do the most. Linux is still a safe distance behind Windows in versatility, if for no other reason than the fact that there aren't enough software engineers working on Linux software for a living. I think it's going to be a good while before you get to see Linux take the cake from Big Red. Who knows? By the time people get tired of paying, perhaps ReactOS will come up behind Linux and yank the rug out from under them. :P No offense, folks, just good fun. Salute!

i mostly use window but now a days i am learning linux i seems that window is easy then linux but u can take advantage of secuirty in linux

smae here hee he hee

Being free is one thing, but just FYI: there are Linux viruses out there. The advantage I see in Windows is that hackers are playing out their whole hand, while security experts are learning which attack surfaces need most urgently to be protected and how to make it happen. Linux has a tough shell, but it doesn't come with anything built to ward off attacks. If you use Linux without any form of security software, your system will be more vulnerable than a fortified Windows OS. I've shown my scores in security tests before; I don't know whether you've seen the screenshot or not. But my Windows XP with IE6 is also virus-free. Neither Linux nor Mac OS have it all here. Linux is faster because it loads less drivers. Compared to Windows, it is a bare-bones operating system. This is why it is the OS of choice for 80% of servers and probably all supercomputers. Servers are intended to share information with other computers. Linux frees up resources, optimizing the machine for this task. Supercomputers are designed to perform single functions that require tremendous processing power. Since many of these functions need to be programmed manually, Linux comes very much in handy here. You will have heard more about Windows' instability for one reason: there are more people using Windows. And more specifically: there are more novices using Windows. Yes, there is more stuff for Windows, stuff that isn't all intercompatible. This makes Windows easier to screw up than Linux. But as far as Windows being unstable right out of the box, that's pretty much pure myth. Yes, it is heavier on resources, but that just means you need a better system. And of course, PCs can be upgraded piece by piece to save you money. Most users don't even know what a disk defragmenter is, much less a registry cleaner or diagnostics utility. I use Norton WinDoctor (Symantec's greatest invention ever) on every machine I fix, as well as the defragger. I know how to make a machine stable. Sometimes a program will be causing problems, and the problems will often be blamed on Microsoft. Take IMs for example. Windows Live Messenger keeps failing to locate the server (this IS MS' fault), and Yahoo! Messenger crashes incessantly. But since Skype never crashes, and Windows Messenger never crashes, and AIM rarely crashes, and other IMs never crash, is Microsoft to blame for Yahoo!'s goof? The answer is no. Linux is more "stable" because you're lucky to find hardware and software to do anything with it, not because it's designed better. You need to remember that Microsoft has software engineers (not programmers) working for them. These people do this stuff for a living; they have motives to make the best OS out there. Linux programmers only have enthusiasm. You say to have some patience to learn, then you can enjoy the advantages of Linux. I say have some patience to learn how to fortify Windows, and how to make changes without doing damage and making it unstable, then you can enjoy the advantages of Windows.

Their opinions are so different. I agree with you about security, there are viruses also for Linux. Microsoft has software engineers but, since Windows isn't open source, only Microsoft can modify Windows to upgrade or to fix bugs. Linux is improved by everyone since it is open source so I prefer an operating system like that because bugs are discovered and fixed faster than a system like windows. This leads to improve Linux very fast also to adapt to new hardware, it is enough to see how fast a new Linux kernel is made.

Hi ryanrudolf, Not for argument, but PE stands for Pre-Installation Environment, not Pre-Execution Environment. Salute!

The Best...!! i am also intrested to learn linux if u have any idea about that then pl. give me some website name and e books thanks a lot for reply