OPPapers.com

Windows Vs Linux

Today I'm going to tackle one of the hottest topics in the industry, comparing Microsoft's latest offerings to the offerings being released by the major Linux players for both network servers and desktop solutions. I am going to steer clear of "total cost of ownership" arguments, because Microsoft has already funded extensive research that has proven Windows is cheaper to own and operate than Linux. I'm going to be looking at the issue from a pure usability perspective. Which platform saves me the most time? Which platform has the features I need? Which platform has the best third party applications and utilities?
• Windows versus Linux on the Server
Most of my friends and family use Windows 2000, but to power my business network I need the robust features and rock-solid stability of Windows Advanced Server 2003. Windows Advanced Server lets me establish and administer global networks consisting of thousands of clients across hundreds of domains, all with a single wizard. And since all of my buddies at work use Windows Media Player 9 to rip, mix and burn CDs that we can't share with each other or play in the car, we are extremely excited about the Windows Media Player 10 beta that comes integrated with Advanced Server 2003. Now we can rip, mix and burn right on the server! Try getting a streaming video, DVD, CD, mp3, wma, and active content player all tightly integrated into a Linux server. Not likely!

Advantage: Windows
• Windows versus Linux on the Home PC
For home or general office use, I recommend current Windows 2000 users upgrade the systems in their dens and kitchens to Windows XP - Home Edition. The Windows XP desktop is far more advanced than the laughable "home Linux solutions" from vendors like Mandrake and Lycoris, despite what some open source fascists will tell you. Windows XP features the dependable DRM features home users demand (keeps you from getting sued!), while product activation and restrictive EULAs limit what people can do with...