With the plethora of quality Linux distros. available and XP holding its own whats the point in Vista and 7?

Question

With the plethora of quality Linux distros. available and XP holding its own whats the point in Vista and 7?

Answer 1

Have to agree with Synful Visions. Even the bit about Ford! Unless the question is asked by a Linux user wanting to debunk MS then you already have the best answer here.



Carling: again with the "MS fanboy journalists"? and the January 2009 data (we are in July 2009 now)? I am sure you know 'sites' don't necessarily mean 'servers'? What happened to Linux from 2005 - 2007? If you look at the June results it seems your little peak then dropped and is back again for March. The general trend for MS and Linux is down. You also forgot this figure - Market Share for Top Servers Across the Million Busiest Sites September 2008 - June 2009 - from the same source? MS is up and Linux is down? Happy to read unbiased contributions but "get Linux cause it is good" is getting tired.



I like and use Linux, I also like and use Windows. Linux is definitely an OS of note, but you need to convince rather than annoy. I can't beat Synful's answer though.

Answer 2

Wow- been awhile... almost didn't want to offer an answer, being as several good points have been made. The point of Vista and 7 is the continual improvement of MS's operating system. Despite really strong strides from Linux clones, and XP... it IS time to update the world's leading package. Hardware and user needs indicate that. I have beat and beat on Vista, and I confess, I finally made the jump. In my lil business, I NEVER get Linux machines for work, and Macs only come around 10% of the time. So, for my part, it pays to know MS. Does that mean the others are invunerable? Nope. It means they just don't have the NUMBERS. Linux will always be the 3rd cousin at supper, and Macs- well, they are all at the Vegan table. (hee hee hee...) Seven looks to be a good offering that will stir the debate some more.

Answer 3

It's plain and simple, progress. No matter what os it is they are always trying to move forward. In my opinion, MS puts out new versions of Windows for the same reason Ubuntu linux does, to move forward. Even when there was a favorite version of the os they still have to move forward to try and create the next best thing. For example, why would the Ubuntu team create a new version of Ubuntu after 7.04 or 8.04 and now 9.04? Why should they bother making 9.10 or 10.04? Because with each new version there are new features and improvements to the os. If we all just stuck with our favorite version of Windows , Linux or Mac, nothing new would come out of it and we could say goodbye to the future of computing tech. Change can be good, so now it's up to us to determine how fast we progress.

Answer 4

I use Vista all the time, so I am very capable of answering this question: eye-candy, power, speed, and trying to stay ahead of the game.



The only reason people don't use Linux is because they are lazy, and they think "Oh, Linux is free; it must suck" which is completely wrong.



The only reason XP is holding its own is because people are too lazy to switch. Vista (and 7; I have the most current release on my external) is not as evil as everyone thinks, they just have to remember that Vista was a completely new OS from the basement floor up with a whole new kernel and everything. It just retained the Windows name is all. That's why people don't like it: they can't jump into it expecting to use it just like XP or earlier editions. If I remember correctly, didn't people hate XP when it came out. Plus, Microsoft needed a new Kernel to "fully" implement the Aero technology, so they needed to completely rebuild it.



In my opinion, Vista will win out against XP in the long run because it is beginning to become obsolete. Also, hasn't every even number build of Windows gone through hell and back just to earn its colors? (After all XP [build 5] and 7 [build 7] will be loved but vista [build 6] is not?)



They also have to keep up with the competition. Linux is a threat to the Microsoft empire, but it is even more of a threat to the Apple empire, and all the computer companies (except sun microsystems with Solaris; no one cares about Solaris) knows this. Imagine what would happen to Microsoft if it just stuck with 7 and never made another OS? Apple would rule the world, and apple hates Linux. Microsoft will at least tolerate it. I could easily see Linux disappearing if Microsoft went under. ("Oh, MS is outta the way. Now on to Unix, then Linux, then IBM's personal OS, then Chrome. We'll leave Solaris so it technically won't be a monopoly.") Catch my drift?



Also, most manufacturing companies (from an engineering stand point for me any way) don't build many CAD programs or other engineering programs for any Linux distro. Most are hand written out of necessity.

Answer 5

One of the major problems is Synful Visions believes every thing he reads from the articles written by the MS fanboy journalists instead of from independent magazines here are some true facts and figures from Internet news website



For January of 2009, Netcraft reported that (Linux) Apache gained 1.27 million sites while Microsoft's IIS lost just over 2 million sites. it's interesting to note that Apache still is the majority



Added to that is the fact that in recent years a new challenger has emerged in the form of Google with its GFE (Google Front End) web server. In the January 2009 Netcraft survey Googles FE represented over ten million sites



Lighthttpd which is a neat project that I track is just starting to show up to with nearly 3 millions sites.



Here is another Fact USB 3 is about to hit the market and the drivers for it are already in the latest Linux Kernel, they are nowhere to be seen on MS Driver updates website



Like always MS fanboys always come out with the same old stories about drivers, where's my webcam? Why doesn't my fingerprint reader work? I can't get my scanner working... Wow Synful Visions to say you use Linux on your corporate servers more than 2008 server you do need to up dates your kernels to above .26, the latest Linux stable kernel is now .31 RC1

Answer 6

It's a new operating system with massive improvements in numerous areas. Mostly networking and security.



Now, I do not want to turn this into a Mac vs Linux vs Windows issue, but Windows has always had better inherent security functionality than Linux, albeit a terrible default configuration. Windows is of course a microkernel, and has a true reference monitor, unlike the UNIX like operating system which must rely on non-tamperproof modules to provide reference monitor functionality, which defeats the purpose of having a reference monitor. Along those lines, Windows has far better file permissions, and now has an integrity control system that utilizes a modified Biba model. XP lacks the integrity systems.



Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. It is a lightweight operating system, easily comparable to Linux in terms of resource usage (other than hard drive space) with equal environments and features. This means a fully functional desktop with fancy effects and everything else. We all know a CLI slackware install is faster than Windows anything when it comes to responsiveness.



Disk operations have been optimized, although that heavily depends on the file system used and whether you have a 64 bit os. Windows 7 handles large files better than Linux, with Linux doing better on smaller files.



The entire device driver system has been changed, mostly for the better. This has always been an issue with Linux... good luck getting your webcam to work, or most little extras like that. Have fun syncing your BlackBerry as well. Obviously, the only way this is going to change is if OEMs start supporting Linux more than they are now. Obviously, most of the larger OEMs already support Linux. I'm not worried about my Cisco wireless card, I know that always works, where's my webcam? Why doesn't my fingerprint reader work? I can't get my scanner working... Linux is not going to be a viable operating system for home users until you can buy something at Wal-Mart, plug it in, and have it working like you can with Windows (most of the time.)



Obviously, Linux has a few areas it does better. PAE is a big one, although there is really no reason not to use a 64 bit os anymore, so that may become a moot point unless you have some older software which will not run in a 32 bit compatability mode. I also prefer a bash prompt even over Windows PowerShell.



EDIT: Carling, once again, you fail to comprehend. I said 2.6, not .26



You still can do nothing more than quote statisitcs and market trends rather than give a single example of a technical issue. I describe functionality, you run to irrelevant netcraft surveys. Your methodology is based on the assumption that market share and random statistics have any bearing on the operating systems themselves. I'll put it into a non-technical example. I have two cars parked in fornt of my house right now. A 93 Ford Taurus Wagon and a 2007 Mercedes C320. If we look at the "numbers," then the Ford wins because it is obviously more popular. Is it safer? No. Is it faster? No. Is it more efficient? No. Is it even as comfortable? Hell no. Your numbers would still show the Taurus to be superior. If you want to talk security, why aren't you throwing Trusted Solaris, GEMSOS, or any other high security operating system into the mix? I know the answer, you're essentially the foreign version of Geek Squad, just rehashing any random statistic that makes you sound good without any understanding of underlying functionality or design. I can give out statistics that "prove" anything I want. You'll throw different statistics back proving your point. Without actually comparing the systems side by side, no statistics matter. If you see that operating system A has ten vulnerabilities this year, and operating system B has twenty, you cannot actually say that B is less secure. The number of vulnerabilities is irrelevant. It is the design and functionality of the system that gives a real administrator the ability to mitigate vulnerabilities without ever having to patch, and the ability to contain and prevent intrusions be they automated or intelligent. I bet you actually believe that chrooting is some sort of security measure. It's not. It's a restricted environment that still allows me to grab execv and break out of the jail. Linux does not even allow for the granular process ACLs that can manage and defeat memory leaks and many buffer overflows at the system level.



One last thing, the kernel you mentioned... If you had any enterprise experience, you'd know that in any high assurance environment, or even a basic enterprise environment, the term RC1 is nowhere to be seen. Release candidates simply do not exist.