For certain most of users of the most popular OS in the world (the speech about Windows, by itself) at least overheard about mysterious alternatives — Linux and OSX (it is used in computers of Apple). I will not undertake to estimate the last for the reason that is banal with it not a sign, and here other two will receive the closest attention.
Windows of different versions occupies more than 90% of desktop personal computers, whereas the operating systems based on Linux — only about 3%, and it at perfect free of charge the majority of distribution kits and programs! Such impressive difference is caused, first, very low oznakomlennost of people with the world of OS in general (often preset on the personal computer is found possible by the only option!) and, secondly, absolutely various philosophies in this world. If in brief, the classical distribution kit of Linux demands from the administrator of very extensive knowledge of work with the device whereas for Windows only knowledge is necessary like "where to press" and "what points to note".
Let's study these distinctions in more detail.
Friendliness and simplicity for the user
First of all It should be noted distinctions in the interface. All know the Start-up menu from Windows (which now for some reason decided to clean), a desktop and "Conductor". The general composition of this OS practically did not change already with the 95th, and nobody asked, whether it is pleasant to users.
With Linux the situation is absolutely differently: any stability in the interface it is not observed, everyone is free to choose to the taste and requirements. Here both the perfect minimalism, and completely three-dimensional effects get on nearby, without disturbing each other. No general criteria "by eye" can be measured, in principle. In other words, Linux happens very different. By the way, with high probability many readers of InfoAdvisor.net already use it, only indirectly. How? Very simply: your router, the smartphone (with Android OS) and even the servers allowing to look through the sites in the majority work at it.
Desktop of the window manager of Awesome WM with the browser, the console regulator of a sound and the panel of tasks above
In modern OS initial simplicity and intuitivism are considered as very important factor. I will not try to show off: here Linux loses with a crash. Even in the most "friendly" distribution kits to the user (the problems demanding the considered decision and first of all understanding of the actions can arise Ubuntu, Mint). In Windows chance of emergence of such problems fairly lower and in most cases they improve the banal driver. To compare process of installation of different OS difficult besides because of a big variety of distribution kits of Linux: it concedes nothing in the same Ubuntu and Mint "Window" (and even surpasses) on simplicity for the neophyte but if to suggest the beginner to establish Gentoo, the show will be very sad. Anyway the winner in simplicity is obvious to the unsophisticated user. It is Windows.
But we will assume that you installed system, to the taste adjusted, found drivers, studied everything up and down according to the lights. Some time with it was worked and are well familiar. Suddenly there is any problem. Convenient to you and OS which was perfectly feeling on the old version the program suddenly refuses to work with new, for example. Here we come to the following criterion of simplicity: to how easily well user who is guided in all details of OS to cope with a non-standard problem? And in this case loses already Windows. Whatever professional in communication with it was a person, the decision is in most cases consolidated to shamanism of level "I will try this, suddenly will help!" and to search on the Internet of more successful "shamans". In Linux it is easily possible to receive problem particulars, having removed them in the terminal, to study and draw conclusions that it is often already enough – for example, the conflict of versions of libraries which improves very easily. And if the problem is too difficult, the user finds additional information and, having expanded the knowledge, solves it already with new forces. And it is not obligatory to look for just the same case with just the same program (than the poor creature with Windows is engaged), after all many mistakes are similar. To be fair it is worth noticing that in business Windows with similarity of problems at each other are in the same way, but OS simply does not allow to learn about it.
We receive the following conclusion: a choice of the person who is interested in the computer ready to spend considerable efforts and time for studying of the operating system – Linux. Among the pleasant moments almost guaranteed and sure solution of problems in the future is registered. But if preferences fall towards the principle "If only worked and as – me without difference", Windows becomes the best and convenient candidate. Undoubtedly, she demands initial investments much less but when problems happen... you understood my thought.
Allow to present an example from my life of the decision (more precisely, attempts) the same problem on different OS that you could estimate prospects. One fine day I got the 3G-modem to the laptop. Foreknowing that Linux require the wvdial program, I established it and made the main settings – login, the password, number of dialing. After that connected the modem, started wvdial – and voila! I have an Internet. But when in the distance from stationary points of access I needed to use this modem on the same laptop, but with Windows, there were problems. The connected device simply was not defined, and OS swore on lack of the driver. In general, the standard situation, here only where to take it? To instructions it was clearly written that everything has to work with "plug'n'play", and the driver will be installed from the hidden disk in the modem. It did not occur, and I remained without the Internet.
On Windows everything is simple - inserted also the slave... Oh
Now fans of Windows will tell that producers of the modem, and wvdial are guilty very few people are able to adjust. I am aware. But I am able to adjust it. And the modem working with "plug'n'play" after basic control under Linux, but even not distinguished as "flash card" with the driver for it under Windows – big minus of the last for me.
I assume that the part of readers was already defined, what philosophy is closer to them, thanks to the previous paragraphs. But on one philosophy after all not to live, and OS without programs is possible. Came to compare time ON for both systems!
Generally, software for Windows it is incomparable more, first of all because of popularity of a platform. This good on all Internet (though Microsoft and is done by attempts of centralization with the shop, there will be no half of all programs even in the near future) is scattered, is updated separately and only all from one place if carries leaves.
In Linux picture another: ON much less, it is frequent worse on quality, than commercial alternatives on Windows. It turns out, the only plus – free of charge? As if not so. The most popular distribution kits are based on package systems of distribution of software so all in system, from a kernel and to the most zashuganny player, is established, updated and leaves in the same place. As a result a chain, habitual on Windows, "Learned the name of the program, suitable for a task,-> Found the program-> Downloaded and established" it is reduced to "Learned the name suitable for a task programs-> Installed". Only one step is passed at first sight, and the difference is often impressive. Especially when updating only at once. But whether so convenient system will cope with abundance ON under Windows even? Now I will try to find out it, having estimated ways and funds of performance of the main objectives of the ordinary user for both OS:
- The Internet, where without it? Many popular browsers (Firefox, Chrome/Chromium, Opera) are available both there, and there without special changes. Internet Explorer, Safari (though it in general with OSX) and a lot of small projects, for Linux – Web, Galeon, and also console monsters of Lynx and Links are specific to Windows. To choose is from what, rivals go face to face.
- Work with files, that is the file managers. The most popular option on Windows – "Conductor" though there is also a set of alternatives, among which Total Commander, FAR and other. On Linux the choice is not so extensive, but also not to call it scanty: habitual "Conductor" Nautilus, Thunar and Konqueror (this also can serve as the browser), and habitual panel managers – GNOME Commander are capable to replace, Xfe etc. If you do not use Total Commander in full power and are ready to reconcile to graphic distinctions, special problems will not have.
- Viewing of images is richly presented on both OS. Among examples for "Windows": Windows Image Viewer, FastStone Image Viewer and FastPictureViewer. For Linux: Eye of GNOME, GThumb and Ristretto.
- Editing images. Certainly, to go to a forehead on the tank silly: superiority of Photoshop is recognized by all. GIMP and other though are krossplatformerny, but even close do not approach all richness of functions of a product of Adobe. On the other hand, whether each user needs them? Very many now like to have Photoshop on the computer, without using thus even the 100-th share of its potential. Sense?
GIMP. GIMP is simple
- Media players. Windows Media Player, GOM Player, Media Player Classic (guess for what) compete to Totem, Kaffeine, SMplayer and VLC though the last two exist on both platforms.
- IM clients. Here everything is simple: Skype, Psi and Pidgin of a krossplatformenna, "patriots" some of OS are, for example, Miranda, QIP (Windows), Empathy and Kopete (Linux), and the majority of them are perfectly compatible among themselves.
- Office work. Everyone heard about Microsoft Office, so after all? And what about OpenOffice and LibreOffice? More than it is enough their functionality for performance of all tasks. Only "minus" – bad work with the doc/docx formats which for not clear reasons are the most popular with us.
As we see, the majority of daily needs of the user are easily carried out on Linux. The problem can arise only at perfect need of some specific program. What to do to the decent designer without already mentioned Photoshop, for example? To establish Windows or to buy Mack, truly. But there is also other option: use of Wine. One of brightest "miracles" of free OS, this collection of special libraries and interpreters allows to start "window" ON where to it not a place at all. Not all works (especially at once), of course, but chances are rather great. Even with games. If not Wine, the story about games on Linux would be very sad. They are, but it is not enough in comparison with Windows, especially noisy AAA-projects. If you — the fan of "abrupt" resource-intensive games, it is not necessary even to look in this party. In any case so far: developers (Valve, for example) start paying attention and to the consumer, unusual for them, so everything can change soon.
Audiosurf perfectly feels in Wine
For the interested operating systems at a technological level I want to carry out comparison and these aspects. Let's begin with the most interesting: system requirements. The minimum requirements of the same Ubuntu, the version last at the moment, it is only a little less (in respect of RAM), than those at Windows 8. On the other hand, nobody obliges to use so gluttonous distribution kit: Lubuntu, for example, according to statements of developers is capable to work even with the Pentium II processor. In case of the desktop personal computer it does not mean much, but on the easy laptop of OS guarantees the bigger term of work against the battery – not bad after all, agree. But readers of InfoAdvisor.net should know, what even with the most fancy three-dimensional interface which is easily outdoing Windows, OS on the basis of Linux will quicker work the competitor. The secret is covered, first, in architecture, more economical to resources, and secondly, in rational use of random access memory. It is tried to be involved to the full extent, caching in free as much as possible resources from the hard drive. Why to it to walk? Let brings benefit. Thanks to it operation of applications (after all it is not necessary to address to slow HDD any more) is accelerated and the number of operations of the winchester decreases, that is his life lasts. And if memory is necessary to some program, the most not requested cache from there in a trice will disappear.
Nearly 4 Gb, but about 3 of them - a cache are occupied
For everything Windows pereborchivost concerning file systems is known. FAT, NTFS and ReFS (new development of Microsoft) – here all available choice. I will not begin to go deep in particular everyone, only I will tell that the ideal, at equally high level operating with both big files, and scatterings small does not exist. In any case now. In attempt to reach everything at once usually it is impossible neither that, nor another. For this reason Linux supports very large number of different FS, among which and habitual to the user of Windows FAT/NTFS and ext2/3/4, both specialized XFS/ReiserFS, and a great number of others. Some of them it will be more useful on the server, another – to storage of movies, the third – to documents. And thanks to system of assembling and rigid/soft references catalogs with different file systems can be held row, even without reflecting on it. Big minus – needs to be known feature and each FS, and the mentioned system, to be able to use them. Windows where is simpler: established, and all. There is no choice – there is no problem.
It is a little about assembling – a question more likely esthetic, than functional. In Windows any physical device store (the hard drive, a flash card, DVD with files...) receives the own catalog tree named by a proud letter of the Latin alphabet. On Linux such tree – only one, and disks are presented in the form of its branches. Actually sending process to the device of team of a look "Is also called now as assembling your files will be available here from this catalog". Roughly speaking, present that all stuffing of the My Computer window can be scattered where it will be pleasant, but not in the "bag" which is strictly allocated for it.
Tough and soft references — another story. The second can be compared to Windows labels, at the first analogs is not present. If in brief, the tough reference allows one file taking an invariable place on a disk to stay at once in any set of catalogs. Difference from a label and the soft reference consists in full equality of all such "incarnations", that is impossibility to define the initial. It is possible to get rid of the file with tough references, having only removed them everything to uniform. By the way, it is feature of FS, but not OS. NTFS is able to use references, it is possible to work with them in the command line Windows. But what percent of users is able? And the most important – why the functionality is hidden from them in depths of system?
One more big difference between two systems – approach to an arrangement of programs on a disk. In Windows for each appendix it is accepted to allocate one folder in which all its files will be stored. On Linux too it is possible to arrive so, but it more likely an exception, than the rule. The rule – storage similar with similar, that is all executed files – in one folder, all libraries – in another, settings – in the third and so on. Global minus of similar approach – high complexity of removal ON manually, on a file. On the other hand, the package manager perfectly consults, without participation of the user. Opportunity for different programs to use same, but not to produce "clones" follows from a community of libraries. As a result we receive the smaller sizes of software, to pay for what it is necessary dependences – a situation, specific to Linux, when practically each program demands existence on the computer some another, and often not one. The similar phenomenon for Windows – DirectX and .NET necessary for a large number of software.
Heap of dependences for gdm
It is possible to extend about technical distinctions of different platforms infinitely long. The overall picture became clear, I think: they are not similar at all. Externally – yes, can be, but not from within. And for certain any reader by this moment already asks a natural question – "That I chose?".
It is Linux. For bigger clarity I would like to list the main reasons:
- Freedom of administration and configuration. After a rigid framework of Windows from opportunities eyes run up! A framework of windows is not pleasant – put others or in general refuse them. "Hotkeys" are inconvenient – everything can be adjusted them as it is necessary for soul. Even keyboard layout at need is edited without problems and additional tools. Of course, it is necessary to know that you do – on it everything is constructed here.
- Work speed. After well adjusted Linux "Windows" seem a dreadful dream of an idler. As to you prospect of loading of all OS and main programs (messenger, e-mail client, browser...) for less than ten seconds? Switching off for two-three? Simply faster "moving" during daily work? It is easily achievable here!
- Taylovy window managers and virtual desktops. Personally I simply hate when the display is used irrationally. All these menus, stripes, daggers from above of a window badly irritate me, the most part of time without bringing any benefit and only taking a place. The Taylovy manager gets rid at least of a strip with the name of a window and the Curtail, Close and Develop buttons that already plus. Virtual desktops are some additional "displays" on which it is possible to place windows and full-screen appendices, and then to be switched by one pressing of the button. For the interested – both of these concepts can be tested and for Windows, here only feelings all the same will be not full.
- Clearness. Let not at once, but now I understand a lot of things in the OS and I can solve the majority of its problems at emergence. In Windows it is possible to go crazy from sharp jump of complexity between standard settings (daggers menus) and advanced (the register, politicians), and even the last do not give complete control over a situation.
- Terminal. How many people would not tell about a zamechatelnost of the graphic interface, the old kind console always remains the OS most powerful tool for work with it. Even on Windows full acquaintance to a command line opens the new horizons, and this "terminal" – simply ridiculous bit normal. Here example of ample opportunities of the console: once I needed to catch the processed copy of one site. In total in a day (the most part of time left on acquaintance with syntax and the basic principles of programming in which I am zero) the script from three teams in which loading of pages, their processing, folding in the separate folder with preservation of structure of the server and even the unpretentious AI leading all this business and choosing new pages for a gallop was realized was created. A script if that it is simple the file containing sequence of teams for the terminal.
- And a great number of others, smaller and specific reasons to me in favor of Linux.
If you still could not decide on the main OS, allow to present simple analogy. Let Windows will be the apartment in good, expensive high-rise building, and Linux – a country house (provided that you serve it).
Advantages of the apartment are clear: paid and live, it can even be completed with furniture software in advance. Repair will be made by municipal services, they will take care of all similar. Shortcomings are not less obvious: the apartment, in fact, is not yours in full value of this word. To make an excess window or a door in a wall nobody will allow. To lay conducting by more favorable route – too. Making an extension, the speech does not go at all.
In other words, Windows represents the principle "To me it is necessary to work, but not to adjust and study. Even if to work and it is inconvenient, I will suffer. And the support service has to solve problems".
The country house can be also bought (including with furniture – Ubuntu and Mint here) or is constructed from scratch according to the general plan (to Gentoo, Arch and others). It is quite logical that the house chosen by you will be where the apartment is more convenient personally to you, than. But he will demand extensive knowledge of the device, differently there will be impossible the simplest service. If the decision to build from scratch was made, are necessary including at least basic concepts about architecture to collect to themselves the unpretentious panel dwelling. Knowledge is not present – will remain with the curve box or a dugout then will begin to abuse idea and to consider as fools of all, building houses. Knowledge is – will be able to build anything, though a huge mansion. And let the apartments furniture will not be compatible to it without completion, personally it will be much more convenient to you.
That is Linux represents the principle "To me it is necessary to have first of all conveniences and not to depend on foolish support. Let I will spend a heap of time for training, but then I will make everything in own way".
Here being based first of all on it I advise and to choose (only do not forget that it is not obligatory "to build the house" from the very beginning – it is possible to examine with already ready and to size up). Good luck, be also not mistaken.