Windows less compatible than linux...

I just thought some people would find this amusing. So here goes...

I recently switches to Ubuntu from Windows XP x64 due to fact the amd64 version of ubuntu is more compatible with my hardware on my Acer Aspire 5002 laptop and my peripherials(printer) than Windows XP x64. There are more drivers available for 64-bit under linux than there are for Windows XP x64. Not to mention more applications. There were few applications I found designed for x64 version of Windows and in ubuntu everything is designed for the amd64 processors its quite amazing.

-One very satisifed ubuntu user and one very dissappointed windows x64 user.

I don't have a 64 bit Windows or Ubuntu, now do I know someone who has it, so this si basically a news for me, that Windows 64bits is less compatible than Linux UBuntu 64 bit :D

well, for the most part, there's very simple reason; commercial windows programs are only given out as binaries. Linux programs are usually open-source. therefore, with a bit of tinkering, most linux software can be compiled for 64-bit processors.

I've tried WinXP Pro x64 and everything works prefectly on my system, granted the scanner was never compatible with WinXP SP0-2 and the printer had to be used as a Lexmark Z22-31 printer.

I also use Ubuntu and FC4 and under both of them they consumed just as much memory as windows did and my printer is still registered as lexmark Z32, which doesn't want to print properly and lexmark Z31 and Z22 don't work at all.

However, my experience with x86_64 and x64, I was more productive, secure and stable with x64 and x86_64 is very problematic and difficult to keep running properly.

This is really a sign that linux, and unix in general, is ahead of the times ;)

First for everything. Unix.

I have a OS X/Ubuntu dual-boot schene right now, and it's easier to get my diverse constellation to work under Ubuntu than it is under OS X. It all works under OS X (Darwin Linux based), but since Ubuntu demands *much* less memory, it just works better...

I have a OS X/Ubuntu dual-boot schene right now, and it's easier to get my diverse constellation to work under Ubuntu than it is under OS X. It all works under OS X (Darwin Linux based), but since Ubuntu demands *much* less memory, it just works better... Don't you mean Darwin BSD based... Yes you are right it does run better in many aspects...

I just thought some people would find this amusing. So here goes...

I recently switches to Ubuntu from Windows XP x64 due to fact the amd64 version of ubuntu is more compatible with my hardware on my Acer Aspire 5002 laptop and my peripherials(printer) than Windows XP x64. There are more drivers available for 64-bit under linux than there are for Windows XP x64. Not to mention more applications. There were few applications I found designed for x64 version of Windows and in ubuntu everything is designed for the amd64 processors its quite amazing.

-One very satisifed ubuntu user and one very dissappointed windows x64 user.

Thats why its important to have open drivers and software. Thats why not everyone loves Ndiswrapper as a solution.

Ubuntu works well on a PPC computer for the same reason- open stuff is easier to port than closed things! I guess that ones a duh.

Actually, Windows is more compatible than Linux is because Windows lets you run viruses/ trojans/ worms/etc. Windows is also easy to crack into which makes file sharing a breeze. Windows also makes it much easier to join zombie nets.. oh.. wait..

good observation -- without commercial vendors seeing a justified need to develop for the platform, Windows is pretty much worthless. Anyone who has used oddball editions of Windows (Itanium) and tried installing common commercial software see the wall pretty fast :)

I found myself needing linux (but not ubuntu...) to get into a laptop I was repairing. It had Win98 on it, and I had no way of getting files on or off it. I have a thumb drive, but 98 needs drivers for it. I booted it with dsl (damn small linux) to copy the thumbdrive driver to the hard disk before I could use it! :-) I didn't try ubuntu, as it only has 32MB RAM...

EDIT: In fairness to Windows, that example is more about the difference between 1998 and 2005 than Windows and Linux. XP would have seen it right away (although it wouldn't have run so well with only 32MB...)