Windows blows egg water

[DarkAceZ]

Why does anyone still use Windows?

[TheExDeus]

Because you don't need a manual to use it. For most people it has everything you need. I only use linux for embeded hardware/software development.

[Josh @ Dreamland]

There some Linux manual I forgot to print?

Or are you talking about man? Because man's only use is when you forget the arguments to compression programs.

[eejin]

Because ,opposite to your opinion, some people like windows and don't feel any (or many) restrictions. Ok there are always improvements to make.

[TheExDeus]

Well I was talking about a tutorial/manual that gives you basic info. Like 10 years ago almost no Linux by default booted to a windowing system, so when a PC first-timer sits down and the only thing that opens is a console, then of course you don't know what to do. And you need a tutorial or manual just to change a directory. On the other hand in Windows it was straightforward. Of course now it doesn't apply to some distro's like Ubuntu.

[Josh @ Dreamland]

It hasn't applied to most distros in years. Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, SUSE... all of them have shipped with a desktop environment and loads of other pre-loaded goodies for ages. The only popular distro that doesn't is Arch, and I suppose Gentoo (if you consider it to be popular).

I think the issue is that it scares people if buttons have more than one purpose, which explains why Windows has no built-in hotkey customization or adequate window manipulation schemes. Of course, you could argue that it just tries to ship as lean as possible, but then, why is it that Ubuntu's ready to rock as soon as I log in, while I have to give Windows five minutes to finish running all its startup bullshit?

[forthevin]

It isn't that many years since there would often be one problem or another when setting a Linux system up, such as drivers and hardware, which often required users to use the command line to try and solve it, and search for solutions online just to get simple things working. For programmers, this was often not a large burden, but for regular users, it could be difficult or impossible to figure out what to do. The situation has become considerably better the last couple of years, especially due to the improved driver support, but also due to general progress in Linux desktop environments. I think Ubuntu is getting to the point where a regular user never needs to open a terminal ever or very, very rarely, which is close to the situation on Windows, where you also never or very, very rarely as a regular user have to open a terminal. Windows "just works" for regular users, and Ubuntu (and other distributions, to some degree) is getting close to have the same property. Ubuntu is probably one of the more pragmatic distributions out there, for instance in regards to the use of proprietary drivers.

[Josh @ Dreamland]

It's all fun and games until someone takes the thread seriously.

[eejin]

Of course, you could argue that it just tries to ship as lean as possible, but then, why is it that Ubuntu's ready to rock as soon as I log in, while I have to give Windows five minutes to finish running all its startup bullshit?

Buy a decent computer and clean your windows up. Why does my windows boot in 15 seconds and yours doesn't? You obviously did something wrong . And no I didn't spend 5000 on a decent computer. I bought a 256GB SSD for 150 euros. That with windows 8 and your computer will be done booting before you can blink your eyes. Don't expect a crappy pc to work as if you've overclocked an 3rd gen intel i7.

[Josh @ Dreamland]

I enjoy my 750GB HDD. And I have a second-generation Intel i7. Not that the processor is a major need for the purpose of loading OS files into memory; that mostly falls on disk I/O. Ubuntu boots in somewhere between 15 and 20 seconds on it. Windows boots in about 30, and then spends the next five minutes learning to not be a slow whale. Meanwhile, I can be running programs on Ubuntu as soon as it is booted.

Of course, arguing for Ubuntu against Windows isn't quite as easy as arguing for other distributions, many of which are good to go in far less than ten seconds on a HDD. Arch is good about that.

[IsmAvatar]

From my experience, HDD or SSD doesn't matter when it comes to ubuntu. You're skimming 5 seconds. The rest of the time is the stupid motherboard and graphics card sitting there for 20 seconds pondering whether it has a floppy drive or not.

[eejin]

Windows boots in about 30, and then spends the next five minutes learning to not be a slow whale.

You should really clean the startup folder then. I can launch anything within a second when the desktop screen shows.

[TheExDeus]

Well Windows has to be reinstalled from scratch every year or so (more often the better). My Win7 is now also extremely slow as it takes about 2-3min to actually load. But it has been about 2 years since last reinstall and I plan to do that again next time I can backup my stuff. I guess all of this is less needed on OS's like Ubuntu where the possibility of registry clutter and uninstallable programs is a lot smaller.
But then again I wasn't talking necessarily about performance. I installed Arch on my laptop and it of course works light-speed compared to win, but there is no arguing it also is a hundred times harder.

edit: Performance is also gained by compiling kernel optimized just for the hardware you currently have. Something that is impossible on Windows. But compiling that kernel is not really straightforward.