Windows vs Linux: a modern desktop comparison 15199
 |
Lin¿nut
Nice advantage - though simple and free to achieve in Windows: run FireFox, run ZoneAlarm firewall, run occasional spyware program, don't run as Administrator, don't click on pics of Anna Kournikova that arrive in your email inbox (even if you love tennis, and they come from her personal email address).
Tiny advantage, and nearly worthless to the avg. user who buys prebuilt systems with an OS already installed, and pays very little for said OS. The reason I know the OEMs charge little for Windows is pricing the components separately results in effectively no price difference over buying prebuilt - or even costs a little more.
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said: Even easier. For all that work you did, you...
Linux isn't fast. And my Windows system certainly has all the functionality I need.
Slight advantage - if you care about that stuff. The vast majority of users don't.
Free half-butt programs are a distinct disadvantage.
Addressed in 2nd item
Again, a slight advantage because Windows suffices very well for the majority of the world's population.
Except it's even easier to achieve with ANY OTHER OS. Just run it and do nothing...
Now I know you hold each and every one of these "advantages" near and dear to your heart. But the world voted, and they told you to stuff it.
I don't need to remind you, Linonut, again, of the exceedingly successful PC industry that has thrived under Windows (and the open IBM PC architecture) as no other industry ever has in history. Do I? Why do you think PC equipment is so amazingly cheap? Because the Windows-PC standard led to enormous worldwide adoption and allowed manufacturers to achieve economies of scale resulting in $0.50 per gigabyte hard drives.
The not-so-benevolent master Bill Gates and his warship MS has led us this far. Who can replace them?