this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
1007 points (94.8% liked)
Memes
45645 readers
1102 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hell yeah. I changed my main OS to Linux mint. First time on Linux, and I love it so far.
I only use Windows for stuff that Linux cant run yet.
I keep wanting to switch, but the fact you just said you still use windows for some things is enough for me to just stick with windows, until Linux can do everything windows can then I feel like constantly switching is more hassle than whatever improvements Linux provides
I have both windows and linux on my laptop. I think I opened windows some time one or two years ago. I do however have a desktop with windows for gaming, though that has improved on Linux a lot in recent years.
I installed Mint as dual boot over a year ago and the only reason I ever booted back was one game that didn't run quite well enough. Of course depending on your wants and needs it may vary, but you won't know until you give it a shot.
I wonder if there is anything on Linux that lets you install windows as a container, like a reverse of WSL
The only thing holding me back is warzone which requires windows because of the anticheat.
All of my other games work better on a lightweight Linux install with proton compatibility than on Windows.
Well, my favorite is The Dark Mod (OpenSource), it works on all OS, but generally most games are Windows only, at least if you want more than sidescrollers or games like those 20 years ago. The problem is not that Windows is better for gaming than Linux, rather the opposite, the problem is only the availability of games for Linux, not something else. Mac users have them even worse, at least if you don't settle for things like Mario Bros or 8 Bit sidescrollers.
It already can. It can even run a huge amount of Windows-only software.
In fact, Linux can do way more than Windows can (like installing multiple desktop environments and switching between them as you like).
In Windows you can do this too by default, without the need to install nothing. In the setting you can create several desktops or monitors, separate or continuos. By default Windows include a lot of features, even speech to text or command, you can create your own fonts with a tool that Windows has by default (eudcedit) and a ton of other tools it has. That Linux can do more than Windows is nonsense, this isn't the advantage Linux has, en both you can do way more than you ever need.
No it can't. You don't even know what I'm talking about, clearly. I said "desktop environments". I didn't say anything about virtual workspaces. The only alternative desktop environment I know about for Windows is Stardock, and even that was a massive hack. I don't even know if they still exist.
Ironically, this is one of Windows' largest issues. They give you everything including the kitchen sink, but they used construction glue to hold everything in place. So all those features you don't need or want (Xbox Gamebar, or whatever it's called now) is impossible to remove without breaking the system.
Oh sure, like any mature OS for the past two decades.
I guess you missed the tongue-in-cheek tone from my comment. But even so, Linux being able to do more than Windows is a valid point. And the things it does the same as Windows, it sometimes does them better (things like performance and stability)
For example: On Linux, I can setup a new drive with BTRFS or even ZFS. Can't do that on Windows, because our choices there are: FAT32, exFAT, and good ol' NTFS.
This is definitely true for most average users.
Well, if you mean customize the Desktop, there are certainly several apps. The first which ocurres me is Rainmeter (FOSS), also Rainlendar(Freemium), and some others. Not a big Problem with this.
I don't mean the obvious functions and features of Windows, like Xbox, but a lot of apps included, such as the aforementioned eudcedit or the somewhat more well-known GodMode. The problem is that these are very little to nothing documented by MS.
Where I give you the reason is in performance, although at this point Windows has also improved a lot, at least in this aspect I have no complaints at all in W10 (well, at least after removing all the unnecessary services that it brings by default). On Linux it is perhaps somewhat better, but it also depends a lot on the Distro you use, some can also be quite resource hungry.
Regarding stability, I have no complaints since W7 either, Windows is a fairly stable system, even more W10. In old Windows an Appcrash mostly also crashed or blocked the system, not so in last versions. In W10, if an app crash, Windows simply takes you back to the desktop, killing the process, or a Menu appears when an app doesn't respond, giving you the choice if you want to wait if it finishes responding, or kill the process.
No, that's not what I mean. DEs are so involved that sometimes just changing the DE on the installer qualifies as a new distro. Rainmeter is literally just theming your desktop. Not even close.
Linux comes with God mode out of the box. It's called root.
Edit: I just want to point out that I actually know what god-mode is on Windows. However, I find it funny that Microsoft called it "god-mode" when on Linux those are the most mundane settings you could find. If you think god-mode is interesting, then KDE Plasma would implode your brain and spawn a microverse. You can even configure how Windows behave and how you interact with them on a per application or per window basis. And that's just scratching the surface. /End Edit
Most of that improvement is a direct result of better hardware. I'm not kidding. Try to install Windows 10 on an HDD. The disk gets thrashed so hard that it's a miracle they don't catch on fire.
Another fun fact is that Microsoft changed the boot for Windows 10 to compete with Linux and macOS. Windows now shows the desktop to the user before even loading services. So you see your desktop, but you can't use it right away. On both Linux and macOS as soon as you see your desktop, your system has loaded.
All of them are better than Windows. A lot of this comes down to the CPU scheduler. The one Windows uses is slower than just about every other OS out there.
This hasn't been the case since well before XP. In fact, for most OSes this hasn't been the case for at least a decade or two.
I shut down the Laptop every night (Power off, no fast boot enabled), when I boot the Laptop in the Morning it shows 3-4 s the Logo and a second after this the log screen, after entering my password in less than 10 seconds it shows the Desktop with all icons and WiFi enabled and online, 10 seconds later I'm posting in Lemmy. Maybe it loads slower in your case , if you have enabled all the default services, I use only the essential ones, desactivated Hibernation and Index, the first one the worst Memory Hog which I don't use anyway and the second not needed with an SSD apart of slowing down the system, services like a printer, I don't have, servies for Digital pad and similar things I don't use, no animations. Start apps are only Crow Translate (~20 Mb) and ShareX, not much heavier. No AV apart the Defender which is pretty good currently. No Desktop icons, only in the Taskbar for the most used which I access with WinKey +1, 2, 3, etc.. No waiting time when appears the Desktop (maybe the difference to use an SSD instead of an HD), all pretty fast and snappy. Lenovo 15 AST, AMD Radeon 8 Gb +3Gb GPU, 256 Gb SSD for € 350 new, two years ago, not really an high end NASA PC, as you can see.
I literally said in my previous comment that Windows 10/11 is unusable without an SSD. And then you present to me a system with an SSD that's "pretty fast". Ok.
You also detail how you rewire half the system's internals to get it useable. That's not what I'd call performant.
Just about every Linux distro is 100% ready to go in terms of performance. No tweaking to get things working at all. Only customization stuff, which is not what you were describing.
I setup a friend's old system to Linux that was brutally slow with Windows. It's a Core Duo (12+ year old CPU), 4GB RAM, and an HDD. She uses it every day for remote work. She says she'd never know it's an old system if no one told her. That's performance.
I agree with you, if Windows were not so Bloated, it would still be an OS with excellent performance. But I already said at the beginning that Windows requires an afternoon before first use to gut it and throw out all the garbage and services (to improve the user experience") that it comes with by default, this is probably the biggest disadvantage it has compared to Linux. The weight of the OS itself and the system requirements are not much different than one of the larger distros, it even works well on tablets conveniently reduced to the basic OS. My previous laptop did not have an SSD and it worked quite well there too (there I used it in dual boot with Kubuntu), but this, if is used as it comes by default, which the vast majority of users probably do, then it is logical that Linux performance is much higher. This is why I also said that Windows requires an advanced user to function as it should. Anyway, in the moment I don't have reasons to change to Linux, at least until I have support for W10 (>2025 min). It works as it should and I am not in the habit of changing if something works the way I want it to. My life with the Laptop is 99% online and for this the OS with which I do it is quite irrelevant to me.
This is ultimately the only argument that really matters. If it works for you, then just use it.
That is, we all know that Windows is a privacy nightmare by default (somewhat less EU versions* because GDPR, there it's telemetries only go to MS, not to half the Internet, with even keyloggers by TowerData as in the US version) and Linux infinite better in this point. But apart of this, respect security and stability Windows isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be, at least not since W7 (~8 ?), if viewed from the perspective of stability, security, and manageability as an OS. Adding the infinite catalog of software, also FOSS, which is not in any other OS. No OS is perfect and there are also a lot of linux distros that are utter crap, not all that glitters is gold and each one has its pros and cons. What I am certainly never going to buy is Apple, I think they have rested too much time on their laurels and become too elitist, exclusive and hermetic, adding the high prices that are based more on design than utility and features, apart from compatibility with practically nothing, except Apple, a "joy" for any dev
MS US
MS EU
Not sure exactly how the Linux multiple desktops work but windows is able to do this also, unless I'm confusing it for something else
You are. What you're talking about are virtual desktops or virtual workspaces.
I said "desktop environments", which is a specific thing in Linux. It's the GUI and suite of tools that come with it. They all tend to have a usecase in mind and different philosophy. There's Gnome, KDE Plasma, xfce, lxde, Budgie, Cinnamon, Sway, and a whole bunch more that I can't remember.
KDE Plasma exist also for Windows and even MacOS. https://docs.kde.org/stable5/en/khelpcenter/fundamentals/install.html
Well now, that's certainly something I didn't expect!
Although the site for the Windows installer doesn't work
So it's basically themes and preset packs of apps?
No, nothing like that. It can seem that way from a quick glance, but there's so much more under the surface.
It's such a large change under the surface that sometimes the exact same system, but with a different DE is considered its own distro, but usually they're called spins.
Sad but true. My work laptop dual boots mint and windows 10 and while I greatly prefer mint I use windows more often because it’s easier when everything I need works in one OS. I literally only use the Linux side when windows shits the bed lol
Now my servers are Linux whenever possible, that’s a different story
What specifically do you still need Windows for? It's possible that you can get it all running under Proton.
Yeah, we're not fond of giving ring 0 to BigShittyGameCo.
You're getting downvoted by people, but your position is totally valid.
"Linux works perfectly for everything if you just don't do the thing you want to do" is a less than compelling argument.
Not everyone considers granting kernel level access to untrustworthy entities a feature.
And to be fair I could not even get Valorant running on windows. I am guessing become of something like ShutUp10 or whatever it's called. I did not bother with figuring it out. I'm on linux for a while now.
I was reading the thread thinking "well, it is a good argument" but kernel level access? no thanks.
Ironically, Windows has the largest FOSS catalog of any OS, apart from soft proprietary of course. Also, many official and professional business apps are only available for Windows. Gaming can also be a reason to use Windows, although this is slowly changing.
Can you share some examples? I'm genuinely curious.