Is Moving From Windows to Linux The Right Choice For You?

toggle-button
 
The intention of this article is to provide Windows users with some basic information about why and how they might choose to move to a Linux based operating system instead. 
 
In general, Windows users tend to stay with what is the most familiar computing environment, but many complain about it. 
 
Moving to a Linux based system instead is now a much easier operation than it was a few years ago. Linux systems have become much simpler to install and use, and some have even been developed to mimic Windows so Windows users will feel more “at home” in their new environment. 
 
Windows operating system logoWhat are the main reasons why Windows users stay put?
 
  • Influence exerted by Microsoft
  • Familiarity with the operating environment
  • Hardware support at which Windows excels
  • A misconception that stuff they need doesn’t work with Linux
  • Confusion. Anyone researching Linux for the first time is likely to be confused by the sheer number available and also the different desktop environments such as KDE, Gnome, Xfce etc.
 
Linux logoWhat are the reasons why folks might decide to change?
 
  • Security. Apart from exploits targeting *servers, Linux can be regarded in general terms as being virus free.
  • Speed. In general, most Linux systems run many times faster than Windows.
  • Customization. Pretty much everything in Linux can be changed to suit your personal preference. With just a few minutes work you can have a system that looks very different to the default package. There are tons of examples of standard and customized Linux systems in these two forum threads. (work backwards from the last pages to see examples of the latest releases).
  • Try before you (don’t) buy. Most Linux systems provide a “live” mode option that can be run from a DVD or USB drive. This provides the ability to try out a selection of Linux distros to see which might suit you best. This does not affect your installed Windows system in any way. 
  • Support. Most Linux systems have their own support community where users can post queries and receive help with problems.
  • Ready to go out of the box. Unless you choose a minimalistic Linux distro, all the programs you need for daily use including web browser, mail client, office suite and media player come pre-installed and ready to use.
  • Dual boot with Windows. You can install one or more Linux systems alongside your existing Windows installation and choose which one to run at boot. You can also access your Windows files from your Linux system(s). There are comprehensive guides detailing how to dual boot specific Linux distros with Windows. See also our own guide here for dual booting an existing XP installation with Linux Mint.
  • The ability to run many of your Windows programs in Linux using a special program called Wine (explanatory video).
  • Ease of maintenance. Updates for your Linux system and all your installed programs are automatic. 
 
* Other exploits do exist, including Linux specific rootkits. However, Linux was designed to be secure from the outset and unless users ignore the default safeguards, the chances of a home system being compromised are to all intents and purposes, nil.
 
Where do I start?
 
Read some reviews. Good sources are:
 
 
There are also some great reviews on YouTube including: https://www.youtube.com/user/LinuxSpatry
 
A not too accurate guide to the popularity of individual Linux distros can be found here: http://distrowatch.com/
 
“Popular” however does not always equal better and many of the lesser ranked distros are worthy of consideration.
 
Choose a distro and download the ISO image for it. Always use a torrent download if one is available as the results will be more consistent. Use Google to find a torrent download if one is not provided by the developer. Then burn the ISO to a DVD or USB drive using the slowest speed possible (for DVDs). I use ImgBurn for Windows (beware of the unwanted bundled components!!) and either UNetbootin or Win32 Disk Imager to transfer the files to a USB drive. 
 
Use the resulting DVD or USB to boot into a live session of your chosen distro. Now you can try out all of the different functions you would normally perform to check everything works as expected. Hardware compatibility with Linux is not as good as for Windows. Some systems for instance will not run at all in my NVIDIA desktop and yet work perfectly in my Intel system. AMD systems may also be inconsistent with some Linux distros. Even if some functions do not work, these are mostly fixable and the solutions will already be in the Linux forums. To avoid spending time researching fixes however, it is important to at least check that your network connection(s), sound and video function correctly before committing to a full install. I have always enjoyed better results by installing from a live session, rather than choosing the direct install option when booting from the live DVD or USB.
 
Don’t be put off by the default “look” of a distro because everything you see can easily be changed (see the screenshot links above).
 
 
Recommendations:
 
I guess from the popularity stakes alone I have to include Ubuntu and Linux Mint, but I wouldn’t use either. :) Also, providing a big list of options here is only going to add to the possibility for confusion already highlighted above. So, here are just a few covering a selection of the various desktop environments (DEs) *available.
 
Ubuntu (Unity desktop)
Linux Mint (Cinnamon desktop)
Point Linux (MATE desktop)
Manjaro Linux (KDE desktop)
Zorin OS (custom desktop)
ChaletOS (Xfce desktop)
Voyager (Xfce desktop)
Trisquel 7 (Gnome desktop)
Elementary OS (custom desktop)
Peppermint (LXDE desktop)
 
*Many distros offer a choice of DEs although (mostly) these need to be downloaded and installed separately.
 
Release Types:
 
Some distros offer a variety of release types such as Standard, LTS (Long Term Support) and Rolling. Standard releases might come out every six months or annually. Usually an upgrade is possible from the previous version but this operation is not always successful. Rolling releases are continuously updated so in theory you would never need to reinstall. These however tend to be more unstable than the other release types. LTS releases can be supported for up to five years and tend to receive more love from the developers and be more stable in use.
 
 
 
 

Please rate this article: 

Your rating: None
4.382355
Average: 4.4 (34 votes)
toggle-button

Comments

I have an old E Machine T6532 desktop that currently has the original Windows XP. It has been in a closet for years but works fine. It has an 2.2GHz Athlon 64 3500+ processor. I prefer to keep the machine just for nostalgia purposes as it was the first PC I bought.Would any of the Linux distros work well on this desktop? My activities would be limited to net browsing, YouTube, email and word processing.Thank you

My "new" PC is an eMachine that I got when a buddy of mine died. It's 6+ years old and I edit photos, audio, web pages, and even videos; design 3D architecture, and electronic circuit simulation and schematics. It has 3 GB ram but it never bumps up against the limit. I run 2 or 3 Linux distros just for fun. (It also boots Windows 7, although I haven't updated it or used it in ... maybe 2 years, I don't know.)

The only thing you have to be careful about is the video. I have a 1920x1080 screen and an NVidia video in the computer, and the proprietary NVidia driver gives me fits when it gets updated. If you have a smaller screen it will probably work fine. Best way to find out is try it, you can't lose. Load a couple distros on a flash drive and boot 'em up. Check out how all your hardware works; sound, video, wifi, etc..

I've put a stripped down Debian on a 256 MB laptop that had Windows 2000. PCs that ran XP, I usually try Lubuntu 32 bit. (Note that you have to use the legacy installer, because the "new" installer takes too much memory). Puppy is another good one. There's a bunch listed in Distrowatch on their "search" page, just type in "old computer" in the search.

If you've got a 64 bit PC with a mammoth 2 GB of memory, anything should work. Mint is my usual favorite, Ubuntu MATE second.

In direct response to talkback:

I don't have much Linux experience but Linux Lite looks really good out of the box.
https://www.linuxliteos.com/

It comes with everything you'd need for the activities you mentioned and you can try it from the live distro before you commit to install.

A lot of distros are designed specifically to run on legacy hardware but that doesn't mean others won't. With AMD, it's really a question of try and see before you make a full install, but this isn't any real problem because most provide a live DVD or USB system you can try out first, just to make sure everything works. You can either download a few blind or Google your system specs + " best Linux" as a query but then you'll likely get a hundred different recommendations. :) MC - Site Manager.

A useful article which has prompted some thoughtful discussion.

I started looking at Linux options when WinXP (which I have used and liked for years) reached the end of the road. I have a laptop with Windows 7.... but cannot ever imagine moving to Windows 8. Hence the exploration of Linux.

I was a little surprised to see that rolling-release distros were so swiftly dismissed. Apart from - obviously - security - I wanted two things from a Linux OS: reliability/stability (or ease of use with no crashes or tantrums), and longevity (no obligation to keep changing or reinstalling every time a new variant came out).

The fact is that because all Linux distros are so tune-able, the developers are constantly revising them. Fine, if you are one of those who trades in your car/computer/OS every year or less for the latest showroom model. I prefer to drive something that does the job well, looks good, and doesn't break down or need constant servicing, and that I can run for years without worry.

Many popular Linux distros are just custom coachbuilds on the same basic underlying chassis (often Ubuntu). Nothing wrong with that, except that all these other distros have to adjust when the underlying chassis gets redesigned.

Rolling releases seem to me much more evolutionary, changing very gradually rather than producing a new model/version every few months.

I have been trying out PCLinuxOS, which is a rolling release. I don't find it unstable. It is well-proven, and competent without being flashy. Its developers are also quite rigorous about testing whatever updates are provided, and tend to discourage unorthodox tweaking and tuning (customising) because that's often the way to induce instability and crashes. For anyone looking at Linux options I'd suggest PCLinuxOS (which does offer various desktop environments from lightweight MATE to the all-in KDE) is worth a try.

Not that I discount others. Of the various other Linux OSs I have tried out, I'd rate Mint as the slickest and most user friendly, Zorin as the most familiar to Windows XP or 7 users, and - for those wanting to keep alive old, slow computers with limited processor and memory capacity, LXLE.

My advice to those thinking of making the change to Linux: try out a selection of distros. It costs nothing, you will undoubtedly find an OS which suits you, and you will come to like it.

Dear br1anstorm,

My personal thanks for this well written comment. I very much agree with most of what you said and will give PCLinux another try (my first try years ago was not satisfactory).

In the second paragraph you say "... but cannot ever imagine moving to Windows 8 ...". This puts your other thoughts sort of in question.

I routinely set up Windows 8 and 8.1 systems so that they work 99% exactly like Windows 7, desktop and all.

If you have reasons to reject the added security of UEFI then okay, no Win 8.

But I suggest that you try free Classic Shell (http://www.classicshell.net/). Disclaimer: I am in absolutely no way affiliated with Classic Shell.

Just a brief response on my attitude towards Windows 8. I shouldn't perhaps criticise what I haven't tried and tested, but I am no expert - just an ordinary consumer. My misgivings about Win8 are as follows:

1) interface: as a traditional laptop/desktop user, I find Win8's normal configuration and interface unappealing. It is clearly designed more for the tablet-user. I know it can be tweaked (with or without 3rd party apps) to look like Win7. But I figure - why add another layer of complexity to make it look like something it ain't?

2) RAM/CPU demands: I haven't done any testing or research. But I have simply assumed that - as with every iteration of Windows - the latest OS needs more processor power/speed and more RAM than its predecessors. Great if you have just bought or built new powerful hardware. But if you are using computers that are a few years old, might they struggle a bit with Win8?

3) cost: well, surely most people prefer free or low-cost/voluntary donation to expensive payment towards mega-corporation's mega-profits. I also admire the commitment and effort of those who create open-source software, and like in some small way to encourage this. For me, that's as good a reason as any to look to Linux and leave Windows behind: which was in a way the theme of MC's original post...

br1anstaorm,

Thank you for the reply, I read it with great interest.

But I am sorry that I have to assume that you got it wrong: "... why add another layer of complexity to make it look like something it ain't? ..." would only be a correct statement about Windows 8 if it meant the Metro/Modern interface.

The Metro/Modern interface got slapped on top of Windows 7. Except for the UEFI dependency and very few functions that idiotically got migrated to the full screen interface it is exactly Windows 7.

And that will to a large part still be true for Windows 10, at least for what I can see from the available previews (which I have run ALL, in Virtualbox though).

eikelein - I realise you are seeking to clarify things and perhaps reassure me. I was indeed thinking largely of the metro/touchscreen features of Win8.

I'm not being partisan, nor am I biased for or against either Windows or Linux. My situation is essentially this: I am an XP user, just about willing to use Win7 on my most recent laptop, but basically no longer keen to be tied to Windows because I am unenthusiastic about (a) the cost of moving to Win8 and beyond; (b) some of the newer features of Win8 - like Metro; and (c) the continuing headache that comes with Windows over security and the need for antivirus software etc.

I am not so dogmatic as to believe that the Linux alternative(s) are perfect or trouble-free. But on my limited experience so far, I am finding some Linux distros easy to adjust to, very attractive in terms of visual appeal and performance, and surprisingly versatile (there are few Windows software programmes I use which don't have an equally capable Linux counterpart).

Like others, I think I am likely to continue to run with both Windows and Linux OSs, either dual boot or on separate machines, until I am ready to make a final transition.

@br1anstorm:
Thanks for the elaborate clarification.

I am in a vaguely similar situation, I am looking for a low resource and appealing Linux distro that my typical customer can use without a steep learning curve. And I believe yesterday I found the first candidate, LXLE (http://lxle.net/).

I still want to try two other potential candidates. Looks good so far.

I have tried both LXLE and Linux Lite (see http://www.linuxliteos.com/linuxlite.html) on one of my older less powerful laptops. Both seemed pretty good.

A friend mentioned this old thread in an email to me and thus I realized that originally I had intended to respond with my choice of a "light" Linux version. Here it is:

Linux Lite (https://www.linuxliteos.com/) has become my system of choice.

It ran/runs "out of the box" on the following machines very reactive and "lively", even with a dozen or more tabs open in Firefox:

1. Old ca 2003-04 Dell desktop, 2GB, older 160GB HDD
2. Ca. 2006 Gateway desktop, 4GB, 250GB HDD
3. 2007 HP laptop, 2GB, 250GB HDD was failing, replaced with 100GB Crucial MX100 SSD (faaast)
4. A 2008 Asus laptop, 4GB, 250GB HDD
5. A 2007 HP desktop

All the machines above have older, "slower" cpu chips (Celeron, A4, A6, Turion and all are 2.2Ghz or slower. No hunting for drivers, even my Brother printer works.

My bottom line - so far: If you have a pre-Winows 8 computer from a major manufacturer (NO hardware modifications or add-ons!) Linux Lite seems to be running just fine. YMMV!

The only machine where I have not gotten Linux Lite to boot into Live mode from USB is a new (early 2014) HP laptop (Safe Boot/UEFI boot turned OFF) with a brand new SSD drive. The built-in disk test runs okay but no dice.

I have tried LXLE; subjectively I see it as much more geek-y than Linux Lite.
On machine #4 Zorin 9 ran fine in Live mode from a USB stick, installed (seemingly) okay but does not boot up into a usable desktop; grrrr!
And XUbuntu proved too much of a workload for some of above machines.

Your misgivings about Windows performance are largely misguided: 1) You can use Windows 7 and 8.1 without customization and the only differences that should impact you are that the default start menu and some settings are only available using the new interface. That new interface is hardly ever seen if you have your main programs on the desktop taskbar which is a faster way to access them rather than using either form of start menu. 2) Every iteration of Windows has not had higher hardware requirements. Windows 8 usually requires less than Windows 7 which generally requires less than Vista for equivalent performance. Certain features do require newer hardware particularly for new features in the areas of security, power, virtualization, and touch screen. The first three are particularly good reasons for migrating from Windows 7.

I defer to your greater knowledge, Remah. But remember I have been and still am an XP user. I do have one laptop with Win7 (which I still regard as pretty new!).

But the jump from XP to Win8 is a big one, both for my computers and - in a way - for me. A simple upgrade isn't possible. I could only get Win8 by buying it and doing a clean install. I don't think the gain is worth the pain.

Win8 no doubt does some things better than XP and 7. But I don't need, and my computers can't do, touchscreen. Nor virtualisation. And the ever-present obligation to take precautions against virus-infection and other security threats remains in Win8 to a degree that simply does not arise with Linux.

Linux OSs aren't perfect. But these are some of the considerations which result in my own answer to MC's original question in the title being "yes".

Worth mentioning too I think re: br1anstorm's comment that I generalized somewhat in the article in an attempt to keep it simple. This reflects my point of view regarding rolling distros although for the already knowledgeable, PCLinux is a very different animal to say Manjaro and as such users are far less likely to have problems with it. That said, there's another aspect to PCLinux that might put some others off. http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/pclinuxos-2012-08.html Admitedly the above review is on the old side now but the underlying trend remains the same. On the other hand, another group of users may love it for this alone because it is pretty much tested to death before it hits the streets. MC - Site Manager.

Fair comment, MC. I do recall seeing that review by dedoimedo (whose views, advice and tutorials I greatly respect). In a way he's right: PCLinuxOS is not "cutting edge", if it ever was. I can't argue with his criticism of the partition/installation process, although as a novice I didn't find it at all problematic. But I don't think it's fair to suggest PCLinuxOS is on a downward spiral. To pick up on my earlier car analogy, it may not have the leather seats, glitzy paintwork or flashing dashboard lights of the latest model from the Ubuntu showroom (check out the "Unity" desktop....!). But under the hood and on the road, it works just fine.

There is one other point which I think would-be Linux users need to weigh up: the community support. Because Linux distros are developed and championed mostly by groups of enthusiasts, the support comes mostly from the associated community of developers/users. This can make a real difference to the newbie's experience. It's dangerous to generalise, but in my experience there are three broad categories of community and support:

1) the massive and diverse community associated with the main Ubuntu-based distros. This embraces a range from total novices to uber-geeks. There is a multitude of sites and forums - almost too much. This can be daunting or frustrating. Finding meaningful answers to the questions a new user inevitably has, is like navigating through a jungle and often trying to decipher techie language that experts take for granted.

2) at the other extreme there are specialised Linux distros which have been developed by people looking for particular OS characteristics. These tend to have small, if dedicated, groups of supporters. Some distros(PuppyLinux?) are devised for small, old systems with minimal capacity. Some (ArchLinux?) seem to be better for geeks who have no fear and great expertise. Some Linux OSs seem to be aimed at those who like gaming or need heavyweight graphics capacity. And there are doubtless other distros which for whatever reason have a tiny fanbase and a minimal support community. Some emerge, flourish for a while, then fade. So...

3) I therefore found myself gravitating to those Linux distros which had a reasonably long track record (thus proven), with a community big enough to be helpful, ready to communicate in plain language rather than cryptic acronyms, and not so huge and diverse as to be difficult to engage with. On all those counts I discovered that PCLinuxOS, and Linux Mint, were among the most accessible communities as well as among the most user-friendly distros. But that has just been my experience. In the classic acronym, YMMV!

Isn't this a bit one-sided? It reads less like "Is Moving From Windows to Linux The Right Choice For You?" and more like "Why Linux Is Better Than Windows and You Should Have Moved Already."

Here's a good reason for sticking with Windows: what if I don't want to spend hours on end exploring the infinite number of different ways that "everything in Linux can be changed to suit your personal preference" ? What if I don't need that kind of fine-grained customization? Especially if the obscure combination of features I decide to look at happens to trigger some bug that wasn't adequately tested for and for which the developers (or the "community") has no particular interest in developing a proper fix? And even if said combination of features works, what if the developers have no interest in keeping it that way?

Also, I'd like to see your benchmarks for the statement "In general, most Linux systems run many times faster than Windows". (I hope you're not referring to boot times. I leave my computer on all the time and could not care less about boot times.)

We all know people who haven't changed the wallpaper on their XP system because they're afraid to "blow it up". In fact, for some of these people, that is a valid concern.

I pull out my Mint USB stick and tell them that in 15 minutes they can have a new operating system, complete with apps like an office suite, video/audio players, and image editors.
With another 30 seconds, we can find a nice wallpaper, I can show how the menu works and where the files go, and we're good to go.

Okay, and then what? Does their XP system not already have an office suite, video/audio players, and image editors? And won't they remain afraid of changing the wallpaper on their Mint system for fear of "blowing it up" ? More importantly, if they were happy running on a computer where nothing ever changed, what purpose is there in installing an OS touted as being particularly customizable?

(I hope you're not suggesting that the installation of an entire new operating system is necessary because of whatever difficulty there is in changing the wallpaper in XP.)

My point just went woosh over your head. I can install Mint quickly and a user can have a complete operating system with all the apps they're apt to need, and won't have to fool with. They can use the stock wallpaper forever. They don't have to customize anything.

Why would they do that, when XP will run forever? Well, I have a ten year old car, and it does what I need it to do, but doesn't have antilock brakes, a backup camera, tire pressure monitoring, LED running lights, GPS, or mp3 player input. At some point it will be uneconomical, impractical and/or unsafe to drive long distances, so I'm shopping for a new(er) one. I'll probably get one off the lot that has the best mix of features I want, although I could order exactly the features I want and wait for delivery.

XP is fine if you never want new features and never go on the internet, and never buy new hardware. Same with Windows 2000, or 98, or 95. If they serve your needs, fine. I've moved on, and I surf the web (with no antivirus).

If you want a new operating system or PC, you will have to learn it and set it up. If you buy Microsoft, you are stuck with whatever they want you to have. If you are overjoyed with Windows 8 or 10, good for you. But if you try Linux, you have a choice of many different distros, with different desktop "looks" and different purposes. You may want a multimedia server, an educational suite, some odd language, or just something that runs on an old machine. You might like Gnome's icons, KDE's menus, or a tiled window manager. Whatever, just download it, install and go. If you don't want to change the wallpaper, fine. If you want to add more desktops or apps, change themes or colors, have wobbly windows, etc. just do it.

The big difference between Windows and FOSS is important to some people. It's not just "free, as in free beer", it's "free, as in freedom". What's the big deal if the NSA has a back door into your operating system? Well, I have nothing to hide and probably you don't either, but there's a principle involved. Also, I don't like the idea of a proprietary "standard".

I hope the site still had the "Up vote" button [atleast for the registered users] because this comment deserves it. :)
Be nice guys, if peeps wanna use Linux they will, if not then they won't. Agree to disagree and move on please:-). Personally i have dual boot for the best of both worlds. garth, site moderator
Me too. For every PC that I use, I turn it to a dual boot machine and get the best of the two worlds.
My machines are also dual booted with Windows 7 although Windows only takes up about 5% of my uptime. A note too about wallpaper since this has been mentioned in other comments. For the thousands of folks who got Win 7 Starter with their notebooks, it is necessary to either hack the registry (never recommended) or install a third party program in order to change the default background. This type of restriction cum lower class status imposed by Microsoft is one that bugs me a lot, as does the supposed elevated status of Ultimate when the majority I know running this never use the additional features. MC - Site Manager.

I have to agree with Jorpho on this one. I have distro hopped for the last 2-3 years trying to find the right "Linux" that just worked.

Quote "Speed. In general, most Linux systems run many times faster than Windows."

This is the single statment that got me to write a reply. In my findings this is so NOT true. Yes Linux works, and now days it works generally well. Day to day use it is no quicker than a typical windows 7 setup on an average i5 machine.

Now this is just a view point - I have no proof of timings or fabulous screen shots of "Top" etc showing use of resources etc. Why? Because I dont care. I am not one of those who tweaks and fixes and tunes to get my machine to run using just 384k or some other arbituary low figure. i5 with 6gm Ram... what do I care if my machine uses 5.7Gb as long as it works and works well. If it starts to "lag" I usually say - ok what don't I realy need running and start to close things down and this happens more often with Linux than it does Windows. In my experience.

I too leave my machine on 24/7 so not fussed about start up times. I just want to be able to work/play - do multiple things at the same time and not spend hours on a forum trying to find a fix for something that gets broken when an update occurs.

For me... Windows 7 just simply works. It does everything I want. That said - I am a glutton for punishment and I love "playing" with Linux to see if I can conquer it. and conquer is the apt word (sorry couldn't resist that one). I have to fight - tweak - configure - groan - start again - until I get Linux the way I like it.... then BANG!!!! it all goes pear shaped after an update... Sigh!!!

If you simply want a machine to go on the internet and surf Facebook etc - do e-mails and a few documents then Linux can work for you. There are now some truly lovely Distros out there.

But when I need to do something and and do it NOW... I reboot to windows. OK rant over. Its a good informative article (if a little biased). A good example of why I always refer people To Gizmo's site. With the comments section you get to hear for and against, presented in a professional manner to allow you to make your own mind up. Keep up the Great work.
ps scuse typo's and gramatically incorrect punctuations etc :)

@Zebedeeboss:

I read your comment with interest and , I admit, some glee. Thank you.

What I miss are names. Example:
You write "There are now some truly lovely Distros out there ...".

I'd like to learn from your experience, so WHICH ONES are "truly lovely in your experience?

Greetings from snowy Wisconsin.

@eikelein

These are purely my choice as the ones that gave me least trouble installing and configuring to my needs. The fact that they needed minimal configuration make them my current working installed favourites.

In no particular order - Voyager - LXLE - PeachOSI - Netrunner - Mint 17.1 KDE.

Harder to set up (for me) but still work well - Manjaro - Salix

I am more familiar with Debian/Ubuntu based systems as I have "played" with them more. I emphasise the word play as I am just a pc user and by no means an IT Guru.

Recipricol Salutations from Chilly NW Kent - UK.

@Zebedeeboss

Thank you very much kind sir, much appreciated.

Daytime high temp today +5º F (-15º C). No complaints though, that's living in Wisconsin.

I have experienced the odd update breakage with Linux but so long as users stay away from rolling releases, such incidences will be fairly isolated. Windows too is not immune from these issues. http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/540791/unbootable-after-windows... Third party security updates have also been the cause of major issues. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21352762 https://blog.avast.com/2009/12/04/apologies-for-bad-definition-update/ Regarding speed, my experience with an i5 desktop running Windows 7 and Chalet OS as a dual boot is that opening software, file transfers, surfing and the other daily functions I perform are faster with the Linux system. The key here though is that an i5 is not an average machine. Many, especially notebooks, have far less power than that provided by an i5 setup and this is where Linux scores because many are ideally suited to lower powered systems. In general though, yes, Windows mostly does just work as hardware support is excellent but from my perspective I was prepared to sacrifice a little time to sort out compatibility issues because of the other benefits of changing. This of course might not be reason enough for someone else. MC - Site Manager.
In terms of speed I can only relate to the daily tasks I perform on a dual booted machine running Windows 7 and an Xfce based version of Linux. The most noticeable difference between the two systems is browsing and as this takes up a lot of my time I prefer to use Linux rather than Windows. No doubt I could close the gap somewhat by disabling my Windows antivirus and other security software but this is not something I would be comfortable doing, or recommend to other users. Some others share the same experience. http://www.quora.com/Why-does-Linux-seems-much-faster-than-Windows http://www.techdrivein.com/2014/02/why-is-linux-faster-than-windows.html http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=74 If you wish to debate this further, please use the forum thread. MC - Site Manager. http://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/system/14871-windows-vs-l...

Pages