Hey guys,

To be honest, I'm doing a research paper on the comparison/contrast between XP and LINUX.

so guys.... throw in what you know! plz... help me out... if you've done this paper, y not throw the whole paper at me. (better not be something that you found on net)



thanx

 

Windows XP is better for the average person, i think its more user friendly. Linux is for servers mainly.

 

any body else?

 

Main thing...open source code. Linux yes, XP no.

There are a LOTTT of differences, and very few similarities past "they are OS's" and "they have GUIs".

 

^ its really helping my paper lol .... write few paragraphs or something

 

Plagirism is bad.

 

:bowdown: :bowdown:
HELP THIS POOR GUY
:bowdown: :bowdown:

 

Just search for why linux is better than windows.

 

hey guys dont be afraid to use other stuff like 2000 PRO, or DOS....

I thought u guys were my online homies now I see how it is, None of u cant help this homie huh?

 

xp and windows os's that support NTFS are better in general for workgroups layouts due to the fact they have more permission capabailites than linux or any *nix system for that matter. On linux you only have read, write and execute. these can be set for a group, owner or everybody. On windows you can do groups, users or everyone as well, but there are more options available. You can set modify, full control, read & execute, list folder contents, read, and write. There are also advanced permissions that can be set as well.

Linux can be used for a desktop environment as well due to the fact there are such applications as open office (basically ms office), mozilla (replaces netscape and IE; they even have a version of IE for *nix), and other applications that can accomplish almost everything you can do on a windows system.

Thats all i got for now.....i'm to damn tired to keep typing

 

Majority of ppl in this forum are doing computer works. I wonder why there is no one really replying this...

desijatt, you have to work out by yourself now...

 

arn > thanx bro, this is not the first time u've helped... so thanx buddy

rets > i bet u can do some research for me eh? right? i know u can't say no.

 

Things linux shines in, and XP SUCKS at


They are WAY different from one another.


TCPSTACK (handling of all tcp/ip connections) is night and day better in linux. It has the functionality to do packet mangling, NAT, firewalling, Port forwarding in the kernel. I could keep going on and on

Process threading. The 2.6 linux kernel shines in the new way it handles process threads. XP would only dream of being able to multitask so efficiently. Windows applications are usually so poorly threaded that if the app is waiting on one thing it will hang. (ya, when you drag the window around and it doesnt refresh the screen)

Linux DOES NOT HAVE A GUI. It uses a graphics protocol called X11 and a X server which does the X11 protocol (XFREE86). The X server does all of the rendering to the screen. Then you can plugin any window manager you want. The window manager talks to the X11 server to tell it what to draw on the screen and does all the window management. You can switch between the MANY window managers, KDE, Enlightenment, AfterSTEP, GNOME... the list goes on...

This is a very BASIC technical comparison.

Have you looked into win4lin, wine, wine-x, they all run a Windows type API. Which allows you to run windows apps in linux. None of those are emulators, they are all direct API apps.

Do some reading, write your paper. You really didn't specify what you were comparing. Usefullness? technology? speed....

your being way too broad... narrow it down a bit.

I bet the lack is replys is becased we are busy and he should write his own paper. I could talk all day about the differences. I have no time to write all this crap down.

 

Haven't had much experience with Linux Unix, et al... but I have heard that they are stable. Depending where you would use it (or how you would get the hang of it), this OS is pretty darned good.

XP on the other hand is an evolved Microsoft product. It has some nice features but is still buggy. For the typical user, it's simply OK.

For me I miss the stability of O/S 2. Waaaay better than XP.

 

Can the admins delete this thread?
I'm turning in my paper tonight... and there is a site where teachers can paste papers and then search it and it will match my papers wording with other wordings that are on net... so just in case he does that... so plz delete this thread

 

check out my paper.... its 3 pages long if you double space it.
good enough?

Comparison/Contrast
Windows XP, LINUX and DOS

History

Linus Benedict Torvlads, was a second year student of Computer Science at the University of Helsinki and a self-taught hacker. Linux exceeded the MINX standards. Linux is stable and low-cost choice to other more expensive operating systems.
Microsoft Corporation released the first version Windows in November 1985. Over the next two years, Microsoft Windows version 1.0 was followed by several updates to support the international market and to provide drivers for additional video displays and printers.
One of the first operating systems for personal computers was DOS. This operating system was a cut-down implementation of the CP/M operating system designed for the 8088 family of computers. The original implementation, called QDOS (Quick-and-Dirty Operating System), was designed by Tim Patterson for Seattle Computer Products. This product was eventually licensed to Microsoft, and Microsoft then demonstrated the operating system to IBM.
A Brief Timeline of DOS
DOS 1.0 Released in 1981 to supplement the IBM-PC IBM-PC. First version of DOS. Supported 16K of RAM, single-sided 5.25 inch 160K Floppy.
DOS1.1 Fixed many bugs from 1.0 Double-sided floppy support for 320K drives
DOS 2.0 supplemented the release of IBM's XT in 1983. More than twice the commands of 1.x hard disk support (very small, around 5MB)
DOS 2.1 supplemented the release of IBM's PCjr. Some minor improvements were added
DOS 3.0 Designed to support newer IBM-AT Hardware. A few LAN features added, (hardly any)
DOS 3.1 More LAN features and support added
DOS 3.2 Added support for 3.5 inch floppy drive (720K)
DOS 3.3 Added support for IBM's PS/2 and the new 3.5-inch 1.44MB floppy drive. New international character set was added with support for 17 countries
DOS 4.0 DOS Shell added, some minor changes and bug fixes.
DOS 5.0 Implemented in 1991, including superior memory management features and tools Macro support, Shell enhancements
DOS 6.x Support for Microsoft Windows, disk defrag, file compression, backups, anti-virus, Memmaker, etc.

Basic Technical comparison with XP and LINUX

TCPSTACK (handling of all TCP/IP connections) is night and day better in Linux. It has the functionality to do packet mangling, NAT, fire walling, Port forwarding in the kernel. Process threading: The 2.6 Linux kernels shines in the new way it handles process threads. XP would only dream of being able to multitask so efficiently. Windows applications are usually so poorly threaded that if the app is waiting on one thing it will hang. Linux does not have a GUI. It uses a graphics protocol called X11 and an X server which does the X11 protocol (XFREE86). The X server does the entire rendering to the screen. Then you can plug any window manager you want. The window manager talks to the X11 server to tell it what to draw on the screen and does all the window management. You can switch between the MANY window managers, KDE, Enlightenment, AfterSTEP, and GNOME.
Windows XP and windows OS that support NTFS are better in general for workgroups layouts due to the fact they have more permission capabilities than Linux or any *nix system for that matter. On Linux you only have read, write and execute. These can be set for a group, owner or everybody. On windows you can do groups, users or everyone as well, but there are more options available. You can set modify, full control, read & execute, list folder contents, read, and write. There are also advanced permissions that can be set as well. Linux can be used for a desktop environment as well due to the fact there are such applications as open office (basically MS office), mozilla (replaces Netscape and IE; they even have a version of IE for *nix), and other applications that can accomplish almost everything you can do on a windows system.
LINUX
For desktop or home use, Linux is very cheap or free, Windows is expensive. For server use, Linux is very cheap compared to Windows. Microsoft allows a single copy of Windows to be used on only one computer. Starting with Windows XP, they use software to enforce this rule. In contrast, once you have purchased Linux, you can run it on any number of computers for no additional charge. Compared to Windows, Linux is virus-free. Many more viruses run on Windows than on Linux. A program written for Linux will not run under Windows and visa versa. This is the rule, but there are a fair number of exceptions. You have to log on to Linux with a user id and password.

Windows
Windows has two main lines: "Win9x", which consists of Windows 95, 98, 98SE and Me, and "NT class" which consists of Windows NT, 2000 and XP. Windows actually started, in the old days, with version 3.x, which pre-dated Windows 95 by a few years. More hardware works with Windows than works with Linux. This is because hardware vendors write drivers for Windows more often than they do for Linux. When Windows XP came out however, many existing peripherals would not work with it because XP required new drivers and the vendors had little motivation to write drivers for old hardware. This is not true of Windows. Typically Windows 9x does not ask for a user id/password at boot time and even if it does, this can be easily bypassed. In general, Windows NT, 2000 and XP do require a user id/password to log on. However Windows 2000 and XP can be configured to not require a user id/password for system access.

 

'Cause it's been done to death in every other forum. If you want NixWin wars go to DSLReports.com They have a ton of Linux users touting the benies of Linux of WinOS.