What are the Main Reasons You Use Windows Instead of Linux?

Mainly because, many of my astronomical software that I have bought, and image rendering programs, is using windows as a platform. Secondly, I feel more at home when I using Windows. Like others, I have used much time to get a firm grip on Windows, and I don't feel that I have the time to throw all in , to learn another OS. I guess I have become a bit lazy, regarding to that.

 

I like Linux (Sabayon on a laptop) but my main system is Windows 7. Linux detects HW great but I'm slightly annoyed by tiny things - like lack of crisp fonts, or how difficult it is to grab a window and resize it compared to Windows.

 

I've been dabbling in Linux lately and have installed it on my netbook, but for my desktop there a few reasons why I'll need to continue using Windows (via dual-boot) for the forseeable future:

1. Games. By far, this is the biggest reason, as Linux simply doesn't support many games. Even with Steam on Linux, you'll be limited to whatever games are ported to Linux or relying on WINE.

2. Media playback. I can play videos pretty well in Linux, but for the absolute best quality I want to use the MadVR renderer, which is only available for Windows.

3. Specialized tasks, like applications for certain hardware. If you buy a device that needs an application to program/configure it, often it requires Windows. Examples that I have are the N52te (which will work in Linux like any other keyboard, but needs a Windows driver and application to program it) and a Logitech Harmony remote. My niece has a LeapPad that needs Windows to update it.

 

This whole incompatibility problems is really funny when you think about it. I've been using Windows for years and I could make similar complaints about IE dependency by applications and web services. In a lot of ways, this is still a point of conjecture for me. How do users address this when running other platforms like Linux?

 

I voted the first option.. I really tried few years ago(maybe today that's changed), but after i installed ubuntu i could not connect to the internet..

Not sure why,i don't remember the errors, but those lost hours discouraged me to try it again..

 

Not enough support for games, and too buggy. I have had most every Linux VM I have used corrupt itself beyond repair. In the last week I have tried to install LMDE (Linux Mint Debian Edition) twice. The first time it corrupted itself to an unbootable state after updating and the second time I could not get all the way through the install.

 

Try more stable and friendly builds such as Ubuntu 12.04. I have installed it a dozen times and ran it for 3 weeks straight without problems.

 

I have 12.04 and it has been mostly fine. 12.10 and 13.04 not so much. I have the current Mint 15 (Ubuntu based) running without issue so far. But I don't play with them much. I expect them to break if I do. It seems about 50/50 that the whole VM will destroy itself when there are updates to install.

 

This is not the right time to install LMDE. They didn't have any updates for 9 months, and after waiting for a couple of months, existing users finally got a huge update couple of weeks ago. By looking at their forums, one can see this update is breaking things.

I will tell you why. Linux Mint Debian Edition, known as LMDE, is based on Debian Testing. Debian testing is, you can guess from its name, a testing platform--It's another thing that it's more stable than distributions like Fedora and Arch.

As gnome 3.8 is coming from debian unstable to testing, this is the time when it will break cinnamon--as cinnamon depends upon a huge number of gnome3 libraries. Also, LMDE is the last priority of Mint team--Ubuntu based editions being the first priorities.They don't maintain it quite well.

You are better off trying Ubuntu and Ubuntu based Mint, and if you are feeling adventurous install Debian. It has a graphical installer and you will be fine if you understand simple English. There is no way Ubuntu LTS and Debian Stable will break just by updating. There is a 0/100 chance.

Breaking Debian stable is no mean feat.

 

Thanks, I was not aware of that. The website promoted it as more stable than the Ubuntu based version (turned out to be very untrue) and the reviews I have seen all said good things about it. I guess I will stick with the Ubuntu based version.

 

Games, high end hardware support.

 

Can't update my tomtom navigation under Linux.

 

For many years I have been using Linux almost exclusively (though I had a dual boot system).

A few years ago, I basically went back to using only Windows (or more than 99% of the time).

My ONLY (!) reason is:
eye strain caused by font rendering in xorg
(caused by libfreetype, libXft or whatever is responsible of the slightly blurred font rendering)

In Windows (XP, but also 7), I use, what is called "standard font smoothing" (something many young users will most likely not know any more), this means: Neither do I use aliased, jaggy fonts, nor do I use cleartype (subpixel hinting).

Standard font smoothing is just good old greyscale antialiasing.
Of course, Linux/xorg has this option, too.
BUT:
Whatever setting, whatever font, antialiased fonts (even if no subpixel hinting, but greyscale smoothing) in xorg are slightly more blurred than in Windows.

And this causes eye strain and eye pain (for me, at least), while I can work with windows for like 12 hours.

I am very frustrated that nothing helped in Linux (no crazy endless finetuning with "infinality", no socalled "sharp fonts"... simply nothing!).

This is not going to be a pointless Linux attack, it is just my personal experience. Otherwise, I would use and recommend Linux. I just can't any more - and this is solely because of the less than perfectly crisp font rendering (and no, disabling antialiasing is not an option either, and I don't need to do this in Windows!). My eyes are only compatible to greyscale smoothing, neither antialiased nor cleartype works! And greyscale does not work in Linux (for me), while it does in Windows.


Sorry for the lengthiness of this comment.

 

2-3 yrs ago I installed Ubuntu on a XP desktop, creating a dual boot system. The intent was to learn Linux and wean myself off Windows. For several month I spent most of my time with Ubuntu, but after I got the hang of it, I found myself spending a great deal more time in XP. Having been around Windows for some 20+ yrs, even with all of its vulnerabilities, I am still more at home in a Windows environment.

 

It was difficult for me to vote because I have several reasons for being on Windows. I've always found myself facing difficulties with graphics and sound cards under Linux. Almost all were very minor, but not so easily solved unless I intended to check hardware support ratings and purchase by them. That is something I feel I should not need to do in order to successfully use my computer. For me, the more important reasons were game support and the lack of solid, reliable open source options to replace my widely used professional programs. I dislike Steam greatly, so their newest efforts in Linux support matter little to me.

 

Well put Dave. Generally you can sum up Windows vs Linux like easy-to-use vs, well umm vs Linux, that means searching on forums and websites to solve various problems.

 

Well, to be fair to Linux, it has made leaps and bounds in progression from several years ago. I'm sure you'll recall a time when the older your computer was, the more likely Linux was to be useable. Its community I do admit can be rather toxic at times.

 

some years ago i tried Kubuntu. the interface was nice, but i really disliked the trouble to make everything work out (mostly drivers). i spend many hours to solve minor (but irritating) problems.
maybe now Linux is better at such things, but Windows is much more user-friendly. as for the viruses, for which every Linux enthusiast is blaming Windows, i just use an up-to-date Windows, an antivirus, firewall and common sense. never got infected in all these years.

 

Mainly familiarity, ease of use with peripherals, solutions to problems easily found due to the enormous number of users worldwide, last but not least cultural, I learnt to use a computer on Windows, a bit like a native language, one feels comfortable with it... I dabbled with Linux, Ubuntu for a few months and I really like Puppy Linux, but Windows is still in a different league.

 

At home I use WP7. At work, my laptop runs Sabayon Linux, a great rolling distro based on Gentoo.

I find Windows (7) to be more consistent and reliable compared to Linux where the speed of development or if you want to call it evolution, is little too fast and where seemingly arbitrary decisions the decision makers make are often not so favorable for the basic users who don't want to tinker with their system.

The switch to Systemd springs to my mind. Not worth the effort in my opinion, where payoff is too small, and shows the mindset of the developers: "Yeah, let's break it (system v) because we can" instead of "Why break it when it works?".
Fortunately, the switch from System V to Systemd in my case was painless (Sabayon!) but I know there's been a tide of complaints from users who weren't so lucky.

I prefer having a system where I can set and forget.

Someone mentioned Linux' fuzzy fonts and I agree it's eye-straining.

Other than minor annoyances (annoyances that don't exist in Windows because we take for granted these things will work), I find Linux quite stable and there are cool software that Windows doesn't have.

 

Doesn't support software that I want and/or need to use.

That and I'm just more familiar with Windows. It was always on the computers I used as a kid at friends houses. And the first one my dad bought me. I really got into console emulation.

 

I just never tried other OS than Windows.

 

For me, installing linux and getting it up and running isn't the problem. Configuring, building, and equipping it to equal and to behave the way I want is more complicated than I expected. On my Windows units for instance, nothing calls home, connects out, or auto-updates. Other than those used by Tor, all the ports are closed, not just blocked by a firewall. Unwanted services, components, and applications have been removed or disabled. My largest Windows OS uses just over 3 GB fully equipped. My primary OS, a modified 98SE consumes less than 1.2GB, fully equipped. On both OS, internet access and parent-child permissions are tightly controlled on a per-process basis. On linux, I don't know how to implement the equivalent security policy. I'm not sure if it's even possible or if the equivalent tools for linux even exist. Is there a linux firewall that is as configurable on a per process basis as Kerio 2.1.5? Is there anything that gives the same amount of control over applications and system processes as SSM? To my knowledge, there is nothing similar to either for linux. Most linux users say they're not needed. I feel that they are. It would take a large investment in time and learning just to get to the same point on Linux that I am on Windows, time that I don't really have to spare.

 

Agree, I have the some problem. I only found something for internet connection, as Snort: http://www.snort.org/, but it's not so intuitive as similar software in Windows.

 

I guess I would ask why do you feel that they are needed? The most common mistake most new linux users make is bringing their Windows mindset to Linux, where most of the time it is inappropriate...