Which is better? Windows or LInux?

Well, i do prefer windows as i can easily find the softwares and drivers for windows xp and also xp is more advance than linux, and i do agree with you that linux is virus free, but you know why linux is virus free, just because a very less amount of users use linux OS, thats why the antivirus company don't try to make virus for a small amount of users,,,(one of my classmate told me this...forgive me if i am wrong!!!)

Actually, you still have to have rules for your ports. No computer should ever be without them, lest hackers waltz right on in and view your files. What do you think is worse, restoring your system after a malware attack, or spending months to years, and thousands of dollars to recover from identity theft? Antivirus and antispyware are one thing, especially in the case of an obscure (non-Windows) platform, but a firewall is indispensable. Almost 95% of all Internet-connected personal computers in the world run Windows, which is why most malware is written for the platform. There are hundreds of thousands of W32 samples (Storm worm alone introduced over 250,000 just last year!), compared to about 900 for Linux. Also, and like Windows Vista, Linux cannot be infected without user intervention. Nevertheless, people are being fooled. To make matters worse, people who believe the memes are overlooking the fact that there are antivirus products for Linux, including one in the repositories themselves (ClamAV). They say the greatest trick the devil ever played was to make you not believe in him; same is the story with Linux and OS-X malware. Unsuspecting users out there are getting their Linux boxes infected, and contributing to botnet activity: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/03/ebay_paypal_online_banking/ If you use Windows XP or 2000, while remote code execution is a very real threat to these operating systems out of the box, the reality is that the NT file system has offered all the protection you needed all along. It is possible for you to foil attacks simply by locking down the attack surfaces. There's more than one way to do this, but one method that works on all versions of Windows 2000, XP, and Vista can be found here: http://invincible-windows.blogspot.com/ I have three machines, all of them running Windows XP. None of them have antivirus or antispyware, and none of them get infected. When I was participating in the autosurfs, I had seven copies of Firefox Portable, each with 20 surfbars set as homepages to run in shifts. These were running 24/7 on one of my desktops until a number of networks started to fail me, and I had to wash my hands of them. All the while, that machine in particular was continually being exposed to drive-by malware, yet went completely unscathed. All I ever did was kill the browser, empty out the Temporary Internet Files folder, then launch the next sequence of tabs. If you walked away from Windows for the sake of security, I hope you realize you solved nothing. Linux is not inherently invincible, it's only obscure. And to depend on obscurity is to depend on other people's choices, rather than your own. Unfortunately, you are the one with physical access to your own computer; it's up to you, not other people, to keep it safe. "You can run, but you can't hide." Migration is not the answer, savvy is. Linux comes with certain conveniences, one of them being automatic updates for most open source software without the need to reboot. But it has disadvantages too. Available drivers, aside from being scarce, are minimalistic and unstable. Try using a USB mouse on a desktop running Linux, or running an e-mail client off your flashdrive for hours on end. It crashes. It usually takes hours to days before the first time it buckles under the strain, but after that first time, the system is never the same again. From that point on, USB devices will crash more and more frequently until you reload the operating system. Linux was not designed for desktops, in spite of all the efforts to port it; Linux was designed for servers. Mint gets you about as close as you can get to a "complete" user experience out of the box, but it's inevitable that a considerable length of quality time with the platform will eventually expose you to the terminal. Too much is manual yet; there isn't enough automation. If we all really wanted to sit and type commands, we'd still be using DOS, or at least a shell. And there isn't enough software, either. Sure, you can get online, handle your e-mail, chat with your friends, type a letter, and usually print it out; but you can't usually scan, nor do much of anything else. There's plenty of the basic stuffs, but what about games, and what about all the pro apps for real, professional venues? What about Finale? What about Cakewalk? What about Adobe Premiere? What about Nero Ultra? What about Office? I'm sorry, but I had formal training in business and clerical. I know the fancy tricks, and I can tell the difference between OpenOffice and MS. And believe me when I say, there is a reason why MS Office (even Office 97) takes more than 500 MB on a CD, while its so-called open source "superior" takes less than 200. It's not about universality (you can always find a Web site or third-party converter for that), it's about functionality. OpenOffice really isn't there yet. And until open source types focus on the apps instead of the operating system, it never will be. Ironic they're stuck in this line of thought. After all, the OS was designed to accommodate the applications, drivers, and user; not vice versa. There is no unity in the open source community. Linux does not have one distro that everyone focuses on, it has over 300. There are a handful that have emerged as relatively usable, and gained some popularity and press. But they're far from mature, and no single distro works on every chipset out there. The top two distros on DistroWatch, openSUSE and Ubuntu, will not even boot up on my AMD64 laptop. And most distros that do will not boot on one of my Celeron desktops. Until these open source tribes join forces and pick one distro to uphold and refine, the big, commercial OEMs will never be able to join forces and take that distro under their collective wing. Until Linux gets that kind of support, you cannot expect it to boot up on every machine and get online with every networking device. It just won't happen. Bottom line: Windows just works.

linux is better. I like all flavours of linux(but have worked with few). Linux gives you full freedom to modify it as you want. I agree that its User Interface is not very friendly, but its getting easier day by day.

well each one has its own benefits... windows is more user friendly and has lots of applications... linux is free and secure... so choose what you want..

hello amitaliasb2, for me i like using windows because it is easy to use and to understand. The most reason i choose Windows because there is lost of program that i can use. Other than linux it is hard to find that suitable for that. Windows is more cute and look nice better than linux even linux no need antivirus.

right now, the only reason I use windows is because the programs i use for work is only compatible with windows and the one of the main reason why i want to l learn more about using linux is because it is free.