Why Windows is better

[Govind]

I've posted threads with similar content several times before, but it has never developed into an intelligent discussion like I would hope for it to. Who knows, maybe this time will be different.

I prefer the Windows NT line of operating systems for many reasons. In my opinion, this is why XP/Vista are better than Linux and Mac OS X:
- Far more userfriendly and much more software available
- Microsoft offers components that make it possible to be an ideal environment for a power user, such as Windows Script Host, SFU, IIS, Command Prompt, the free Visual Studio Express editions, and so on... (to counter the "Linux is for advanced users" argument)
- Security is not a concern if the user is intelligent. On XP, simply don't use an Administrator account for everything you do. If you want to emulate Vista's UAC (which is essentially privelege escalation), just right click on the EXE and select Run As..., and use CACLS to lock down permissions on important files and drivers. Isn't it considered terribly insecure to use the root account all the time on a *NIX operating system? The same applies to Windows.
- Developer support. Microsoft is very kind to developers, offering the Windows SDK for free, as well as the Silverlight and XNA Game Studio, VSExpress, the entire MSDN library on their website, and so on. If you're looking at a career in software engineering, Windows is the way to go.
- Microsoft, unlike Apple, actually considers their own operating system reliable enough to run their own website on:
Compare:
http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?position=limited&host=.microsoft.com
http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?position=limited&host=.apple.com
- http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/symantec-windows-is-most-secure-os-246447.php Quite honestly, *nix security is more like obscurity.
- Windows isn't represented by that egotistical, power-hungry, megalomaniac Steve Jobs.

Feel free to debate any of these points or come up with your own.

 

[Skateorrrdie]

I lol'd at the Mac not using there own operating system to run there website.

 

[fookin arros]

windows is 100% better these are just my opinons easier to use alot more newb friendly etc

 

[waltrulz]

i think we all know windows is better...

 

[Swan]

I personally think each OS runs swimmingly for what it is meant to do. Windows can be used for games, student use, programming and so on. Macintosh is geared towards graphics artists - although things like Adobe Photoshop and 3D Studio are available on Windows, Mac is more geared for them and they run a lot better/faster/efficiently on a Mac from my personal experience. Linux is my choice of operating system for servers, because to be honest, Windows Server just doesn't cut it.

- Far more userfriendly and much more software available

Mac is very userfriendly, or has it drastically changed since I last used Leopard? As for the software, that would be because there isn't as much business in Mac development as there is for Windows - more people use Windows, and more people will continue to use Windows because it tend to be the only thing they will ever use. That is why there isn't as much software.

- Microsoft offers components that make it possible to be an ideal environment for a power user, such as Windows Script Host, SFU, IIS, Command Prompt, the free Visual Studio Express editions, and so on... (to counter the "Linux is for advanced users" argument)

Both Linux AND Mac have the capability to do this natively, just not with Microsoft technology. Because both Mac and Linux are based upon UNIX, they are both able to run shell scripts using the UNIX command line - sort of like Windows scripting, but a bit better due to a lot more stuff being able to be done.

IIS (Internet Information Service?) is just Microsoft's http server software - there are plenty of webservers around. Personally I'd use many different servers before even thinking of using IIS.

As for free IDEs, there are plenty. MonoDevelop, for example.

- Security is not a concern if the user is intelligent. On XP, simply don't use an Administrator account for everything you do.

The golden rule since root users on UNIX mainframes ^_^

If you want to emulate Vista's UAC (which is essentially privelege escalation), just right click on the EXE and select Run As..., and use CACLS to lock down permissions on important files and drivers. Isn't it considered terribly insecure to use the root account all the time on a *NIX operating system? The same applies to Windows.

The problem is, Microsoft doesn't emphasize the importance of NOT using an administrative user. On many Linux distributions / variations of *NIX you are given an explicit warning. Some even disallow logging in to the root user at all, and everything is done via the "sudo" command.

- Developer support. Microsoft is very kind to developers, offering the Windows SDK for free, as well as the Silverlight and XNA Game Studio, VSExpress, the entire MSDN library on their website, and so on. If you're looking at a career in software engineering, Windows is the way to go.

Correction: If you're looking for a career in software engineering that will bring in a lot of money, use Windows because Windows has most of the market.

Every OS has developer support, and every OS has native SDKs and libraries. I actually personally prefer Linux for developing because of the fact that it is open source and there is a shitload of libraries and SDKs out there available for it.

- Microsoft, unlike Apple, actually considers their own operating system reliable enough to run their own website on:
Compare:
http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?position=limited&host=.microsoft.com
http://searchdns.netcraft.com/?position=limited&host=.apple.com

To be honest, I'd run any server on Linux - I wouldn't use Mac or Windows for any server business. This argument isn't exactly valid, because Linux is known to be the most secure and usable server operating system, and has been for a very long time (heck, even since before I was born. My father used it a shitload).

- http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/symantec-windows-is-most-secure-os-246447.php Quite honestly, *nix security is more like obscurity.

Care to explain why it is more like obscurity? Would that be because it does its job well enough WITHOUT having to install loads of different programs (which in turn clutter your harddrive and waste your memory, OH JOY).

- Windows isn't represented by that egotistical, power-hungry, megalomaniac Steve Jobs.

I don't care who an OS is represented by - if it is a decent OS, I'll use it. Mac, Linux and Windows just happen to be decent operating systems.

 

[Lilly]

Windows Vista includes an array of “features” that you don't want. These features will make your computer less reliable and less secure. They'll make your computer less stable and run slower. They will cause technical support problems. They may even require you to upgrade some of your peripheral hardware and existing software. And these features won't do anything useful. In fact, they're working against you. They're digital rights management (DRM) features built into Vista at the behest of the entertainment industry—And you don't get to refuse them.

You don’t need a virus scanner or spyware/adware removal tools… yet. Don’t waste your money on securing your system with off-the-shelf OS X virus protection. As of right now, those programs are snake oil - absolutely worthless to you as a Mac user.

OS X automatically defragments every single file that you access (as long as it’s under 20MB). This fact, along with a bunch of other fancy-schmancy built-in processes, makes defragmenting your drive unnecessary

 

[Ĝoŧhİc Sāђŧā]

Windows>Mac

 

[Govind]

Mac is very userfriendly, or has it drastically changed since I last used Leopard? As for the software, that would be because there isn't as much business in Mac development as there is for Windows - more people use Windows, and more people will continue to use Windows because it tend to be the only thing they will ever use. That is why there isn't as much software.

That point was more to address Windows vs Linux. I agree that OSX is more user friendly than Windows.

Both Linux AND Mac have the capability to do this natively, just not with Microsoft technology. Because both Mac and Linux are based upon UNIX, they are both able to run shell scripts using the UNIX command line - sort of like Windows scripting, but a bit better due to a lot more stuff being able to be done.

IIS (Internet Information Service?) is just Microsoft's http server software - there are plenty of webservers around. Personally I'd use many different servers before even thinking of using IIS.

As for free IDEs, there are plenty. MonoDevelop, for example.

Again, this was to counter the "Linux is better for power users/advanced users" idea by saying that Windows has equivalent components for stuff like web serving and development.

The problem is, Microsoft doesn't emphasize the importance of NOT using an administrative user. On many Linux distributions / variations of *NIX you are given an explicit warning. Some even disallow logging in to the root user at all, and everything is done via the "sudo" command.

I agree, XP's default behaviour is to create Administrator accounts rather than Limited ones, which is retarded.

To be honest, I'd run any server on Linux - I wouldn't use Mac or Windows for any server business. This argument isn't exactly valid, because Linux is known to be the most secure and usable server operating system, and has been for a very long time (heck, even since before I was born. My father used it a shitload).

But the idea is that a company _should_ run their own site using their flagship operating system. Anything else makes them look bad.

Care to explain why it is more like obscurity? Would that be because it does its job well enough WITHOUT having to install loads of different programs (which in turn clutter your harddrive and waste your memory, OH JOY).

I have no antivirus on my computer and my computer is working just fine. No viruses, and no RAM wasted. However, the only AV that really affects performance is Norton.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9072959

I don't care who an OS is represented by - if it is a decent OS, I'll use it. Mac, Linux and Windows just happen to be decent operating systems.

I, too, agree with the "use what suits you" philosophy. That point was intended for humour. You can't deny that Steve Jobs is a bit like that...

 

['Vista]

I enjoy using Windows and Linux.
I'm not a mac fanboy though. :\ They just don't appeal to me and as someone stated above they are more geared toward graphic designers.
I use Linux for gaming, and my other computer with Windows for just messaging and browsing the nets on.
Every OS is going to appeal differently to each person, there is not claiming which one is best.

 

[Swan]

I, too, agree with the "use what suits you" philosophy. That point was intended for humour. You can't deny that Steve Jobs is a bit like that...

Unfortunately so ...

 

[Lilly]

Networking Windows XP computers is much improved, however it's still a challenge to network Windows XP computers with older Windows computers.

You need a Robust Computer to Run It. A 2 or 3 year old computer that uses Windows 95 or Windows 98, probably will require upgrading to use Windows XP. <The recommended requirements to run Windows XP include 128 MB of RAM and 1.5 GB of free hard drive space.>
The older your hardware and software, the more compatibility issues you will have. For older computers you would be much happier keeping your current version of Windows until you retire it.

Compatibility Issues. Some of your hardware and software may not work with Windows XP.
Hardware and software that is compatible with Windows 2000 has a very good chance of working with Windows XP.
Many games do not run under Windows XP and some of your older peripherals will not work with Windows XP. There have been complaints about print drivers not working or not available for Windows XP.
Windows XP does have a "compatibility mode" for running older programs, but I haven't tried it as I run all misbehaving software on the Windows Me side of my computer (remember I dual-boot so I can run either Windows Me or Windows XP).