ActiveWin.com - The Most Activated Windows Resource

ActiveWin

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Rocky Bytes

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Windows 8

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows Server 2008 R2

Windows 7

Adobe CS5 Master Collection

Hardware

Microsoft Express Mouse

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Default Home Page

Link To Us

OS Smackdown: Linux vs. Mac OS X vs. Windows Vista vs. Windows XP

Time: 00:34 EST/05:34 GMT | News Source: ComputerWorld | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum

Since the dawn of time -- or, at least, the dawn of personal computers -- the holy wars over desktop operating systems have raged, with each faction proclaiming the unrivaled superiority of its chosen OS and the vile loathsomeness of all others.

No matter how fierce the language or convincing the arguments, however, these battles began to seem somewhat irrelevant to regular working stiffs. While Mac OS, OS/2, Linux and many other desktop operating systems have all had their devotees over the years, the truth is that the majority of home and business users have simply used the current version of Windows as a matter of course.

Read Only Comments
Return to News

Displaying Comments 1 through 9 of 9

This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.

#1 By 82766 (202.154.80.82) at Tuesday, April 08, 2008 01:15:34 AM

Without even reading Kenneth's article snippet, I see the Computerworld link... hmmm... as its them, I wonder if its really worthwhile even reading the whole article.

So I caved in... These are not rational, disengaged reviews; these are opinionated essays meant to sway your point of view. yep, that sums it up nicely! :(

This post was edited by MyBlueRex on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 at 01:17.

#2 By 45754 (164.140.159.143) at Tuesday, April 08, 2008 02:57:29 AM

I'm counting on AW commenter's to bury this article as allways :)

The reason i post these articles b.t.w. is the fact that i really enjoy reading the comments, and it also gives some resistant feedback on the article.

Perhaps for you a feature request for AW

if article from Kenneth and News Source: Computerworld then DoNotDisplay ;)

Regards,

Kenneth

#3 By 88850 (221.128.147.252) at Tuesday, April 08, 2008 03:23:24 AM

FUD of the day, sensationalism of the day.

#4 By 82766 (122.107.17.90) at Tuesday, April 08, 2008 03:29:04 AM

Hi Kenneth, its nothing to do with your postings but only the FUD that ComputerWorld seem to consistently to spew forth :-)

So its only... "if news sources: Computerworld then DoNotDisplay" :-)

BTW... the main feature request I'd have would be to get the news postings working via the mobile AW link :-)

Oh by the way 2: you're a sick man if you get enjoyment from the discussions on here LOL!

This post was edited by MyBlueRex on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 at 03:53.

#5 By 52115 (66.181.69.210) at Tuesday, April 08, 2008 07:53:34 AM

"Mac or Linux -- why bother?
I use Mac OS X occasionally and have dabbled in Linux, and I've found nothing that makes me want to switch to either."

So why write an article about the other Operating systems if you've only dabbled here and there with Mac and Linux. That's like me writing an article about an Audi A8 after only having seen it at the dealership and was able to touch the door handle. "Even though the car was locked, the door handle moved in a smooth, even motion. Also, the annoying car alarm went off when I did this and I had to run away quickly. I think I'll stick with my '79 Pinto because I don't have to deal with that annoying alarm."

"Bottom line
Like most people, I just want to do my work. I don't want to think about the operating system. The operating system should be like a referee -- invisible and anonymous -- and that's exactly what XP does. It provides all the features I need in an environment that is completely familiar and easy to use."

Thus the reason you'll never attempt to use Linux or another Operating system. For Linux, it's completely invisible and anonymous for me. And, if you "dabble" in anything network-wise (security, tools, etc), then Linux is the only way to go. The software which comes standard installed or is just an install away (for free), beats anything available for Windows.

#6 By 75046 (201.52.225.19) at Tuesday, April 08, 2008 08:49:21 AM

Computerworld must chance its name to "SensationalismWorld" or "FUDworld"...

#7 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at Tuesday, April 08, 2008 09:33:08 AM

I think some of you need to learn what FUD means. This article is 4 guys each writing an essay about why their OS of choice is best. Being that FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt, I have to ask: are you afraid of reading essays? Are you uncertain you'll understand the big words? Or are you doubtful that you'll bother reading the essays at all? Because, frankly, I can't see how the acronym FUD applies here. Each guy is giving his obviously subjective opinion. Why anyone feels the need to complain is beyond me.

#8 By 88850 (221.128.147.180) at Tuesday, April 08, 2008 04:15:31 PM

When an article is said to be a FUD article, it doesn't mean reading it is causing fear, uncertainty and doubt ABOUT the article itself, it means it's causing FUD on the subject. Yes, Joe Average will be worried (no one is exactly scared) what OS to use, he will be uncertain, he can't make a choice what OS to use, he will be doubtful and confused, so there...that article IS successful at creating and spreading FUD. A classical example, rather I'd say.

#9 By 2332 (66.92.78.241) at Wednesday, April 09, 2008 12:39:01 PM

Unsupported assertions across the board.

They essentially all claim the same things. They can't all be correct.

In the end, it's a matter of opinion. There are some facts that support one point of view over the other, but if you say "my OS is easier to use" or "my OS is prettier"... that's a value judgment, and not one that can be easily empirically proven or disproven.

I will say that it's a damn myth that Apple is the kind of UI design, at least with regards to their OS. They certainly broke new ground... 20 years ago. Most of their new UI paradigms are horrible. (IMHO) The dock? Holy crap. Three colored circles that stand for min/max/close? Seriously? Again, these are all value judgments, but I challenge you to find me a single UI design book (Donald Norman anybody?) that would look at Mac OS X approvingly. Mystery meat all the way.

As far as security and stability, Vista is, based on the data available, the most secure OS of those listed. I have no data regarding stability, but based on personal experience, I've never had any Vista machine crash for anything other than hardware issues. Same goes for XP. Hell, the same went for Windows 2000.

Speed is a tougher one. How do you judge this, exactly? You could do arbitrary benchmarks, but what really matters is how the OS feels. Again, this is a subjective judgment. I find Vista to be more responsive than XP for some tasks, less so for others. Personally, the overall difference is minimal and I'm happy to trade a little perf for a lot of security.

This post was edited by RMD on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 at 12:40.

replica watches