Linux, Major Leap In August Userbase

[Goombert]

http://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpaf=&qpcustom=Linux&qpcustomb=0

Nice.

[DaSpirit]

I feel like it's the reveal of Windows 8.1 that caused these people to move on. I'm going to make a move soon too.

[TheExDeus]

Windows 8.1 is actually a reason for me to move to Windows 8. At least it will have a start button. Until that is in I will stay with Windows 7.

[Benxamix2]

I used to have Ubuntu as OS here, but as as a gamer I couldn't keep myself playing games at -20FPS, or not being even able to play some of them...
However I did like the system and maybe I'll be back in the future.
By now, Windows 7 is my only alternative; I just can't like 8.

[DaSpirit]

Windows 8.1 is actually a reason for me to move to Windows 8. At least it will have a start button. Until that is in I will stay with Windows 7.

Besides that, they barely made any other improvements. Why does Windows still require 4 times more resources than Linux to run?

[daz]

Windows 8 has largely minimal improvements over 7. What I like most are the super quick boot times, improved task manager, and improved file explorer. The whole "modern UI" thing I think they really should have kept for tablets only, FFS. I literally never use it, aside from when I hit the Windows key to quickly search and open a program (e.g. WIN->gi->enter, and GIMP opens).

I don't know if you've looked at modern Linux distros lately, but they require quite a bit of resources themselves. Granted, you can often do fun things like swapping out the windowing system to have lower sys reqs which isn't exactly feasible on Windows (or you know you could use micro distros like Tiny Core if you really want).

[TheExDeus]

I don't really care about resources. Modern PC's usually have a lot more of them than needed (I for example have 16gigs of ram, which of course cannot be normally filled). I did use win8 a little and the boot times are noticeably faster, as well the responsiveness itself. I think that is because it has a lot simpler UI which does consume a lot less resources. So while opening programs in Win7 with my SSD is fast, on Win8 it was even faster. So if they add back the Start button and allow me to disable that metro stuff, then I am sold. And it does work better on older PC's than win7 as it is optimized for embedded devices (tablets and such) which usually has 2gb or even less RAM. My brother has an older PC with 2.66Ghz Core2Duo and 2gb of ram and he runs win8 because it just works 3x faster on that hardware than win7. On my PC the speed improvement was less noticeable.

[DaSpirit]

Metro cannot be disabled. The start button simply starts metro.

As for their improvements, they're things that should have been done long ago. For example, when Windows 8 came out, they talked about how they improved their boot times by caching. This seems very trivial. I thought they already did this before, but apparently they didn't. It's because Windows is commercial. They need to add the least amount of features possible (but enough so that people care) to make more money.

[TheExDeus]

Well the button is not the best even in 8.1, but it's a start. I do believe they will have to allow disable metro sooner or later.
And I don't know about some specific caching, but boot times are much faster in 8. When I used it I got 13sec boot time, while I get about 20sec on Win7. If it's even faster in 8.1 then it's great.

[fervi]

Windows 8.1 is actually a reason for me to move to Windows 8. At least it will have a start button. Until that is in I will stay with Windows 7.

Besides that, they barely made any other improvements. Why does Windows still require 4 times more resources than Linux to run?

No NSA Spyware

Anyway - If somebody needs start menu in Windows 8+ should install Classic Shell.

But if someone wants to make indestructible operating system should go on Debian (and have the latest drivers for your video card)

Fervi's Approved

Fervi