Linux vs Windows 7

fedrorpet

Traveler
Joined
December 4, 2009
Messages
2
Windows 7

* Better at synthetic benchmarks.
* Faster transfer of large files.
* Final version likely to improve.
* Suspend/resume works!
* Desktop search is well implemented and can go online.
* Media libraries can be pinned to the start menu and task bar.
* Jump lists can genuinely help improve efficiency.
* Starter: No Aero and no 64-bit.
* Home Basic: Developed for emerging markets.
* Home Premium: Standard edition including Aero and touch.
* Professional: Adds remote desktop and encrypted filesystem.
* Enterprise: Unix application support and volume licensing.
* Ultimate: As with enterprise, but for individual users.


Linux

* Faster booting.
* Less memory usage.
* Smaller install size.
* Broader hardware compatibility.
* Nepomuk blurs the border between local and online.
* Gnome Do replaces the task bar entirely.
* Google's Desktop widgets now on Gnome and KDE.
* Starter: No Linux is this restrictive.
* Home Basic: Crunchbang or Ubuntu.
* Home Premium: For eye candy, try Mint or Kubuntu.
* Professional: Fedora offers encryption as an installation option.
* Enterprise: OpenSUSE should work well with Windows.
* Ultimate: No matter which Linux you choose, there's no restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 4, 2009
Messages
2
Spambot or spamer?

Linux
(...)
* Starter: No Linux is this restrictive.
* Home Basic: Crunchbang or Ubuntu.
* Home Premium: For eye candy, try Mint or Kubuntu.
* Professional: Fedora offers encryption as an installation option.
* Enterprise: OpenSUSE should work well with Windows.
* Ultimate: No matter which Linux you choose, there's no restrictions.
WTF?

Also that comparision sucks. I mean - linux mainly depends on it's distributions and you can't compare ALL linux distributions vs Win 7 like that. Do something like Ubuntu vs Windows 7 or Fedora vs XP... because what you posted above doesn't make sense. And you don't point many things, you just point some random things.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
730
Based on the profile's "About me" section, I'm guessing spambot. Not a definite thing, though. Seems like a strange thing to spam, though.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,536
Location
Illinois, USA
Spam. Posted on many forums.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
Windows = All games are available without flawed and crappy emulation.

Case closed.
 
What basis do you have to believe Virtual Box is "flawed and crappy" emulation?

Übereil

Reality :)

If you set aside glorification of non-MS approaches and look with open eyes, you'll see that while stuff like Virtualbox or whatever emulation of an OS/platform you use can be quite useful for many purposes - using it for up-to-date gaming which requires up-to-date hardware drivers, communicating efficiently with the hardware, is never going to be like using the real thing. You will ALWAYS face performance degradation and various issues/glitches depending on what hardware you have, and what level of perfectionist you are. Can you play some games without problems? Yeah - but that's not the point.

The point is - if you're a gamer with an appetite for a variety of games (new and old), you don't want to use Linux as your primary OS. That's reality.

Oh, this isn't about Virtualbox in particular. It isn't about WINE or WMWare or anything else specific either.

It's about what emulation represents and the inevitable extra barrier that hardware must pass before getting correct information, and the inevitable delay between updating software that's OS specific, like the DirectX API. There's just no way around that.
 
Last edited:
I've heard of pepole who have outpreformed Windows on Linux configs though. The reason (probably) being the high ammount of unecesary processes (unecesary for gaming that is) running under Windows per default.

But I don't know. And I don't really care either. I have no reason big enough to motivate a switch to Linux, at least not at the moment.

Übereil
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
1,263
Location
Sweden
I've heard of pepole who have outpreformed Windows on Linux configs though. The reason (probably) being the high ammount of unecesary processes (unecesary for gaming that is) running under Windows per default.

But I don't know. And I don't really care either. I have no reason big enough to motivate a switch to Linux, at least not at the moment.

Übereil

You hear a lot of things :)

It's not at all impossible to outperform a badly configured Windows with a lot of unnecessary stuff running in the background.

But again, you can't compare things unless you do it fairly.

You need to consider if you're going to run Windows with a lot of unnecessary things - or if you're going to tweak it and ensure there's an optimal usage of resources.

That said, the only way you can outperform a clean install of Windows 7 doing native gaming vs gaming in an emulated environment, would be if you do it whilst it's indexing your drives or something.

It's a pretty "clean" install considering the bloatware it really is.

I have no love of Windows or Microsoft. In fact, I have no emotional investment whatsoever in anything so uninvolving as an operating system. About the only OS I ever "cared" for was good old Amiga OS - as THAT was impressive in its day.

But there's simply no way to get around the issues I mentioned, and believe me I've been listening to both sides of the "war" for decades. There's just no way reality will change based on emotional investment, though.
 
I lately installed mint linux for one of my friends and the install was easier than windows xp/vista would have been. Linux is great for people who cant afford windows or have proper computer skills to fight viruses and need only the basic functions of pc like web browsing & text/image handling.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
I've heard of pepole who have outpreformed Windows on Linux configs though.

I'm with Dartagnan - that is logically impossible ... given equal hardware with similarly optimized configs, running an OS with a second OS layer running all of those calls simply HAS to perform worse.

I've not played with Wine on Linux, but *have* with Crossover Games on Mac OS X, which is a commercial Wine version. It is nice for running older stuff that is Windows -only or that will no longer work on OS X Intel hardware (surprisingly large amount of games, really ... all the way up to 2005) ... but not much else.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,936
Spam. Posted on many forums.

I bet this is the same source which I saw several weeks ago on "my" forum I moderate in :

A spammer once wrote there: "Bing. Better than Google".

My reply on blocking this spammer was:

"Brain. Better than Bing."
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,911
Location
Old Europe
It have good capacity for Faster booting.
It have Less memory usage.
It have also very Smaller install size.
It is very Broader hardware compatibility.
It have also good sound effect when playing any music as well as good resolution when playing video file.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
3
It have good capacity for Faster booting.
It have Less memory usage.
It have also very Smaller install size.

Yes, linux is better in these things, you're right.

It is very Broader hardware compatibility.
I have to disagree, Windows is better supported, although more and more companies support linux as well lately.


It have also good sound effect when playing any music as well as good resolution when playing video file.
This doesn't make sense for me in any way. What does sound and video resolution have to do with OS?
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
730
Windows 7 64-bit works great. It's the natural step beyond Windows XP, and quite frankly, I don't know why there's so much hand-wringing over it. And since this is basically a gaming website, I'm going to state the obvious; do not run Linux if you want to run games.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
852
Location
Columbus, OH USA
Back
Top Bottom