Weblog entry #98 for ajt
See all weblog entries made by ajt.
#98
What's Windows Good for?
Posted by ajt on Wed 18 Jul 2007 at 20:40
Recently there have been some very silly postings about Windows vs Linux. They are all mostly very silly and quite pointless. It did however make me wonder "what is Windows good for?"
Obviously Windows is the best platform for malware, there are more viruses, worms and Trojans for Windows than any other operating system. Someone also pointed out that while Windows has 95% of the desktop market and 30% of the server market it also has more than 99% of the malware market. It's a silly point but when Windows user boast about their platform I agree "Windows is better than Linux if you want to get infected!"
Windows has lots of small commercial software packages that are not available from Linux. While there are often free/open alternatives the coverage is patchy and no matter what people say GIMP isn't as good as Photoshop. When it comes to the big stuff like Oracle, DB/2, SAP et al., Linux runs all the big commercial packages okay - as you would expect with it's strong market share in the server sector.
Though the games scene for Linux is better than before, there are more games available for Windows, XBox and PlayStation than there are for Mac or Linux.
On the downside, Windows doesn't have the huge range of free/open software than Linux has and in particular compared with Debian, installing and updating things is very messy on Windows and not a patch on where Debian is now. Windows security model is a joke, it costs a fortune, it's not very stable and when new - as Vista is at the moment - hardware support is awful.
So if you want games, viruses and some commercial packages then Windows is for you, otherwise get a Mac, a PlayStation or Linux box.
It's a bit of a silly post today but I thought I'd say it anyway...
Obviously Windows is the best platform for malware, there are more viruses, worms and Trojans for Windows than any other operating system. Someone also pointed out that while Windows has 95% of the desktop market and 30% of the server market it also has more than 99% of the malware market. It's a silly point but when Windows user boast about their platform I agree "Windows is better than Linux if you want to get infected!"
Windows has lots of small commercial software packages that are not available from Linux. While there are often free/open alternatives the coverage is patchy and no matter what people say GIMP isn't as good as Photoshop. When it comes to the big stuff like Oracle, DB/2, SAP et al., Linux runs all the big commercial packages okay - as you would expect with it's strong market share in the server sector.
Though the games scene for Linux is better than before, there are more games available for Windows, XBox and PlayStation than there are for Mac or Linux.
On the downside, Windows doesn't have the huge range of free/open software than Linux has and in particular compared with Debian, installing and updating things is very messy on Windows and not a patch on where Debian is now. Windows security model is a joke, it costs a fortune, it's not very stable and when new - as Vista is at the moment - hardware support is awful.
So if you want games, viruses and some commercial packages then Windows is for you, otherwise get a Mac, a PlayStation or Linux box.
It's a bit of a silly post today but I thought I'd say it anyway...
Comments on this Entry
Posted by Anonymous (192.176.xx.xx) on Thu 19 Jul 2007 at 09:10
It's true that viruses, worms and trojans are a lot more common on Windows based PCs but you haft to realise that most of these viruses, worms and trojans are not aimed at servers (we got other exploits for that) but at the desktop computers, the avarage-joe users.
I've never ever gotten a trojan, virus or worm on my Windows computer that I use for playing games and general surfing. I love my Linux box but to be honest, my Windows box is a lot more userfriendly when it comes to the really general stuff.
I've never ever gotten a trojan, virus or worm on my Windows computer that I use for playing games and general surfing. I love my Linux box but to be honest, my Windows box is a lot more userfriendly when it comes to the really general stuff.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
When I use to have a Windows PC I also use to not see any infections, but I did see lots of viruses in the email I received. I use to judge the malware issue as overblown and hyped. Then at work we lost several days on several occasions to virus/worms running riot across our desktop and server systems. Over 90% of all spam comes from infected Windows PCs. I now rank Windows as the primary host for all malware on the planet.
For general use I have an XP box at work and Debian boxes at home, I much prefer the Debian boxes, Windows is so slow and clunky in comparison. I also found that my father took to a Debian desktop system more easily than my mother took to Windows - given that my father had no computing experience and my mother had some exposure to Windows. So I would not say that Windows is better for general computing, I think this is a myth.
While there are a few games for Linux and some of them are even good, I'd never say that Linux is a good platform for gaming. To play games you do really need a proper toy, like a Windows PC, XBox or PlayStation
--
"It's Not Magic, It's Work"
Adam
For general use I have an XP box at work and Debian boxes at home, I much prefer the Debian boxes, Windows is so slow and clunky in comparison. I also found that my father took to a Debian desktop system more easily than my mother took to Windows - given that my father had no computing experience and my mother had some exposure to Windows. So I would not say that Windows is better for general computing, I think this is a myth.
While there are a few games for Linux and some of them are even good, I'd never say that Linux is a good platform for gaming. To play games you do really need a proper toy, like a Windows PC, XBox or PlayStation
--
"It's Not Magic, It's Work"
Adam
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Posted by Anonymous (213.164.xx.xx) on Fri 20 Jul 2007 at 13:07
> Then at work we lost several days on several occasions to virus/worms running riot across our desktop and server systems.
How did these worms get in? Do your users' desktop boxes run with root/admin privileges?
How did these worms get in? Do your users' desktop boxes run with root/admin privileges?
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
IT never found out for one of the outbreaks, but they think it was some idiot using HotMail that infected the a desktop system which then spread like wildfire over the LAN via SMB.
The main problem seems to be email/LAN viruses, at least one nasty outbreak was caused that way.
--
"It's Not Magic, It's Work"
Adam
The main problem seems to be email/LAN viruses, at least one nasty outbreak was caused that way.
--
"It's Not Magic, It's Work"
Adam
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Posted by Anonymous (213.164.xx.xx) on Fri 20 Jul 2007 at 15:00
Interesting. For every Windows virus/worm outbreak I have seen, the root cause was that the user was running as administrator.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Posted by Anonymous (91.95.xx.xx) on Sun 22 Jul 2007 at 09:48
I love my Linux box but to be honest, my Windows box is a lot more userfriendly when it comes to the really general stuff.
You believe that myth? I only run MS Windows XP when my MS Windows XP only friends need help, and it is realy a mess to try to navgate and non intuitive to find relevant settings and logs. Guess thats why they need help from someone that never run MS Windows XP...
Those that run Linux, that I have set up for them, never calls. I have to actually visit them, and not their computer, to see them. It's kind of strange, you should try it... :)
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Posted by Anonymous (213.164.xx.xx) on Fri 20 Jul 2007 at 13:05
Windows is good for guaranteed hardware support - it has to be, since without it the hardware manufacturers cannot sell their hardware.
Windows is good for long term desktop support:
Windows 2000 is lasting a long time. Windows XP will last longer.
Add in that many Windows 95 apps will work on XP and you have another reason why.
Windows is good for long term desktop support:
Windows 2000 is lasting a long time. Windows XP will last longer.
Add in that many Windows 95 apps will work on XP and you have another reason why.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
That's so funny!
With NT4 I had no end of problems with devices not being supported or drivers causing NT to blue screen. NT hardware support was dire, absolutely awful, 95/98 were much better and I believe that 2K was much improved.
I didn't use W2K as much, though as with NT4 I've had problems with NIC support.
I've never installed XP, I've only used it. All I know is that when SATA came out it was fully supported and usable in Linux way before WinXP.
From what I head Vista's hardware support is pretty patchy yet. Most top end systems were still shipping with XP only as there weren't stable drivers for Vista yet. I accept that when things are new you'd expect support to be more limited and I know it will get better, but given how important Vista is to MS and how long it was in development, the out of the box hardware support seems particularly poor.
I know it's only hear-say, but I've heard several different people using oddments of hardware getting quicker/easier and better results from Linux than WinXP.
Linux hardware support use to be very limited compared to Windows and even today it can be slow to support new and exotic hardware, but I think Microsoft's advantage is much more a myth than a reality these days.
--
"It's Not Magic, It's Work"
Adam
With NT4 I had no end of problems with devices not being supported or drivers causing NT to blue screen. NT hardware support was dire, absolutely awful, 95/98 were much better and I believe that 2K was much improved.
I didn't use W2K as much, though as with NT4 I've had problems with NIC support.
I've never installed XP, I've only used it. All I know is that when SATA came out it was fully supported and usable in Linux way before WinXP.
From what I head Vista's hardware support is pretty patchy yet. Most top end systems were still shipping with XP only as there weren't stable drivers for Vista yet. I accept that when things are new you'd expect support to be more limited and I know it will get better, but given how important Vista is to MS and how long it was in development, the out of the box hardware support seems particularly poor.
I know it's only hear-say, but I've heard several different people using oddments of hardware getting quicker/easier and better results from Linux than WinXP.
Linux hardware support use to be very limited compared to Windows and even today it can be slow to support new and exotic hardware, but I think Microsoft's advantage is much more a myth than a reality these days.
--
"It's Not Magic, It's Work"
Adam
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
'installing and updating things is very messy on Windows and not a patch on where Debian is now'
I'm sorry, but this is complete rubbish. Most of the time, installing things on Windows is a piece of cake. Download an .exe file, double-click it and follow the prompts. Every Windows user I know can and has done that. Updating in Windows is similarly easy, in general. Either download the latest installer - click and follow prompts - or, as with Firefox for example, simply respond to a popup saying 'This software has been updated'. Now, I'm not arguing that they can and do get themselves in a world of trouble because of this ease of installation, but to make the statement you did is utterly wrong.
As for Debian, well, sure installation and updating of software in the repositories is easy if you know about apt and/or Synaptic or similar... but for a recently transitioned Windows user? Nope. And if you want something not in the repositories, well, most new users would have no idea where to start.
I'm sorry, but this is complete rubbish. Most of the time, installing things on Windows is a piece of cake. Download an .exe file, double-click it and follow the prompts. Every Windows user I know can and has done that. Updating in Windows is similarly easy, in general. Either download the latest installer - click and follow prompts - or, as with Firefox for example, simply respond to a popup saying 'This software has been updated'. Now, I'm not arguing that they can and do get themselves in a world of trouble because of this ease of installation, but to make the statement you did is utterly wrong.
As for Debian, well, sure installation and updating of software in the repositories is easy if you know about apt and/or Synaptic or similar... but for a recently transitioned Windows user? Nope. And if you want something not in the repositories, well, most new users would have no idea where to start.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Posted by Anonymous (213.164.xx.xx) on Mon 23 Jul 2007 at 07:49
> installing things on Windows is a piece of cake.
Say you want to install Winzip:
1. Find out the winzip website
2. Look around for the download page
3. Get redirected to cnet
4. Download the app
5. Run the installer
6. Keep clicking next
7. Done (or sometimes - reboot)
Say you want to install Winzip:
1. Find out the winzip website
2. Look around for the download page
3. Get redirected to cnet
4. Download the app
5. Run the installer
6. Keep clicking next
7. Done (or sometimes - reboot)
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Posted by Anonymous (85.22.xx.xx) on Mon 23 Jul 2007 at 08:01
I think what the original poster meant is that all this has do be done manually.
There is no central update repository (like any Linux distribution has). It's difficult to keep track of every single application installed.
Every application has to implement auto-updates in its own way, often not working properly like Firefox which tries to install an upgrade even without admin rights (which fails of course). Recently I tried to use Nero's autoupdate which wanted to uninstall the old version first. OK, but after the obligatory reboot the updater failed to run a file it just uninstalled...
Furthermore, it's difficult to automate this process. On your home box, it's ok to occasionally click through several installers, but in a big network, you have to search desperately for undocumented command line switches for unattended installation.
There is no central update repository (like any Linux distribution has). It's difficult to keep track of every single application installed.
Every application has to implement auto-updates in its own way, often not working properly like Firefox which tries to install an upgrade even without admin rights (which fails of course). Recently I tried to use Nero's autoupdate which wanted to uninstall the old version first. OK, but after the obligatory reboot the updater failed to run a file it just uninstalled...
Furthermore, it's difficult to automate this process. On your home box, it's ok to occasionally click through several installers, but in a big network, you have to search desperately for undocumented command line switches for unattended installation.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]