Why Linux isn't a replacement for Windows 10 if you can't run Windows 11 - debate!

Yeah, good point @jimbo45

I also consider myself a novice still, even though my profile states otherwise. There is a learning curve for everything. What stops us from learning for most of us is our own ego and ignorance. Anything can be learned. For some it takes a day and for others, decades.

jimbo45 said:

Most Linux's these days just RUN straight OOTB. If you need to install motherboard drivers etc you are either using really obscure hardware or a bonkers Linux distro. The newer "immutable ones" are even simpler.

I must have run in the last 6 months OPENSUSE, ARCHLINUX, UBUNTU,FEDORA,DEBIAN, and LINUX MINT on about 40 to 50 computers of varying sorts for all sorts of users -- never needed a single instance of having to find I needed to load a MOBO hardware driver. Stick to one of these 6 and you can't really go wrong.

Here's an example of opensuse KDE desktop with a Windows 11 VM on it - the menu / interface is "windows-y" enough for typical windows users if they want to try this stuff and it's incredibly simple to get a decently performinhg Windows VM on it if they want to (which can run totally full screen if they want access to Windows apps that aren't available on the Linux desktop). KVM/QEMU virtualisation is a type 1 Hypervisor (like HYPER-V) and can run VM's at all but native speed if set up correctly !!.

View attachment 140302



Cheers
jimbo

Click to expand...

I don't think you have read my post completely. Obviously I needed driver for the MB because I didn't have equalizer in Linux distro. On Windows, if you want equalizer you need to install audio driver for your motherboard.

SlicEnDicE said:

One is never an expert before one knows what they are doing. Everything takes some time to learn. Being a PC expert does not automatically mean you are a Windows or Linux expert.

...but anyways...Linux today is very easy to use. Just point and click in most cases. For the rare occasion you might want to fire up the bash terminal, there exists man pages for every single binary you can run there. They are quite good. If that is not enough, then consult the Arch wiki for further assistance. It's brilliant!

If one can't read manuals and follow instructions, then one should stop using computers all together and go back to school and learn to read and write.MHO!

Click to expand...

Linux is very easy to use only if you want to use your PC for Internet browsing and watching Youtube videos. In other departments Linux is hell. There's a reason why Windows is most popular OS for desktop. And Linux is still very behind because you still use terminal and we're in 2025 year now. We're not in 80's or 90's to have a need of terminal/cmd for everyday use.

With the large user base of Windows, most PC users are familiar with some version. Changing to a newer unknown version of Windows is challenging and some novices worry about it. I even customize Windows 10/11 so they look like Windows 7 and feel more familiar. Telling them to forget Windows and adopt a new OS, it's horrifying. You need a VERY good excuse to persuade them. As easy as using Windows? I don't think so, eventually they will try to do something that it is done differently or not possible and find out themselves this is not the case. Hardware or software support? Nah! Free? They don't care. There is no good excuse for such big change, so I either find a way to upgrade their Windows version or tell them to replace their PC.

ditendra08 said:

Linux is very easy to use only if you want to use your PC for Internet browsing and watching Youtube videos. In other departments Linux is hell. There's a reason why Windows is most popular OS for desktop. And Linux is still very behind because you still use terminal and we're in 2025 year now. We're not in 80's or 90's to have a need of terminal/cmd for everyday use.

Click to expand...

To have any chance to increase its small user base and be a serious alternative as Windows, Linux must first vastly improve its GUI. Everything must be done with the GUI and never need to resort to the Terminal. Also there must be wizards to guide you step-by-step how to install apps, not guessing or having to Google. Just download any app and install, as easy as you can do in Windows. Having done these, is a major step forward. Next is to improve the software support. Encourage major companies to develop Linux versions of their applications and drivers and of course they have to be standardized, not dependent on the distro. I don't see these happening any time soon, so it is safe to predict 10 years later Linux will still have a small user base and there will be many similar debates. I have even read the unbelievable that Linux was harder 10 years ago, but now is easier and better. You cannot persuade me. I occasionally install the current Ubuntu version (because it is the most popular) on a virtual machine and judge for myself. Improvement is very little to justify replacing Windows yet.

ditendra08 said:

I don't think you have read my post completely. Obviously I needed driver for the MB because I didn't have equalizer in Linux distro. On Windows, if you want equalizer you need to install audio driver for your motherboard.

Click to expand...

Actually same argument as I presented before - the Linux kernel seems to have no trouble picking up the audio drivers at boot - assuming (which it is by default these days on those distros I mentioned) the multi-media package is installed - and in the worst case to configure / select audio devices / profiles just click the speaker icon at the right hand edge of the screen -- same as one does with Windows 11.

Things like VLC (again 100% same interface as Windows) have perfectly good equalisers in them and can play almost every codec on the planet plus ripped DVD isos' with menus or whatever.



I accept a load of reasoned arguments -- but seems a lot of B/S is being spewed here before any serious investigation of whether the claims measure up. OK if your hardware is creakingly old that's another issue - but a lot of newer Linux distros won't run on 32 bit CPU's any more.

Loads of other multi-media players whether windows or Linux also have perfectly good equalisers in them - I mention VLC here because it's free universally popular so loads of usage and has the same interface and controls whether you use it on Linux or Windows.

For really pro type equalisers etc any OS will need to have specific software installed but for bog standard equalisers Windows 11 definitly is very poor -- even the old XP system had a good equaliser built in to the OS based I think then on at that time the legendary good SoundBlaster cards (SB 16 etc).

Cheers
jimbo

jimbo45 said:

Actually same argument as I presented before - the Linux kernel seems to have no trouble picking up the audio drivers at boot - assuming (which it is by default these days on those distros I mentioned) the multi-media package is installed - and in the worst case to configure / select audio devices / profiles just click the speaker icon at the right hand edge of the screen -- same as one does with Windows 11.

Things like VLC (again 100% same interface as Windows) have perfectly good equalisers in them and can play almost every codec on the planet plus ripped DVD isos' with menus or whatever.

View attachment 140309

I accept a load of reasoned arguments -- but seems a lot of B/S is being spewed here before any serious investigation of whether the claims measure up. OK if your hardware is creakingly old that's another issue - but a lot of newer Linux distros won't run on 32 bit CPU's any more.

Loads of other multi-media players whether windows or Linux also have perfectly good equalisers in them - I mention VLC here because it's free universally popular so loads of usage and has the same interface and controls whether you use it on Linux or Windows.

For really pro type equalisers etc any OS will need to have specific software installed but for bog standard equalisers Windows 11 definitly is very poor -- even the old XP system had a good equaliser built in to the OS based I think then on at that time the legendary good SoundBlaster cards (SB 16 etc).

Cheers
jimbo

Click to expand...

What if I don't want to use VLC, but instead want to listen to music on Youtube? There's a reason why there's an equalizer for a motherboard driver, which affects whole computer, not the particular player. There's no problem of drivers or equalizers on Windows 11 or 10 or XP. Audio driver works perfectly and funny thing is that even a third party software equalizer on Linux was buggy, having a static sound after any track I was listening in a player. Linux is only good for servers. It will never replace Windows which is far more polished and very user friendly.

ditendra08 said:

What if I don't want to use VLC, but instead want to listen to music on Youtube? There's a reason why there's an equalizer for a motherboard driver, which affects whole computer, not the particular player.

Click to expand...

So long as the audio works you can find almost any amount of audio equalisers around. If the audio driver has to be specifically installed (both Linux and Windows have really brilliant and sophisticated hardware detection now) because you might have an audio card that pushes out sound that even from 97km away sounds like 7 JCB's digging motorway tunnels etc then your argument really doesn't wash.

Windows 11 doesn't have a basic equaliser in it in any case.

Anyway you don't really seem to have a grasp of how a lot of stuff works and I want my Lunch -- so I've said my piece. Just stick to what you use and the way you use it. But PLEASE do a bit more research before posting assertions that aren't correct for most cases.

Linux built in audio drivers are often "generic" meaning that they will work with around 90% of "Standard" hardware. Specific specialized cases like extreme game development etc is another issue entirely.

Cheers
jimbo

just as a matter of interest the International Space Station runs and operates on Debian Linux.
best of luck, Steve ..

Y'all do realize you're just saying the same things over and over, right?

SlicEnDicE said:

What I've been wondering for a very long time is, why Android Studio is miles ahead in performace and responsiveness under Linux compared to Windows. I can't figure out why it's so darn sluggish on Windows. It's the same set of components and software after all...

Click to expand...

Probably because Android at its heart runs on top of a Linux kernel. Presumably Linux can let it piggy-back on its own kernel.

There’s really only one argument in favor of classifying Android as Linux, but it’s a strong one: every Android smartphone or tablet contains a Linux kernel.

Click to expand...

Bree said:

Probably because Android at its heart runs on top of a Linux kernel. Presumably Linux can let it piggy-back on its own kernel.

Is Android really just Linux?

These are three words that the Android and Linux communities have been debating for years — is Android Linux, or just merely loosely related?

www.androidauthority.com

Click to expand...

Yes yes, but that has nothing to do with Android studio in itself. Absolutely 100% nothing.

Bree said:

Probably because Android at its heart runs on top of a Linux kernel. Presumably Linux can let it piggy-back on its own kernel.

Is Android really just Linux?

These are three words that the Android and Linux communities have been debating for years — is Android Linux, or just merely loosely related?

www.androidauthority.com

Click to expand...

Yes yes, but that has nothing to do with Android studio in itself. Absolutely 100% nothing

spapakons said:

Linux must first vastly improve its GUI.

Click to expand...

Linux GUI is by far more powerful and prettier than Windows could ever even imagine. Only your imagination is the limit.

spapakons said:

Everything must be done with the GUI and never need to resort to the Terminal.

Click to expand...

Why? There exists GUIs for most terminal stuff but a lot of that is actually pointless. You can't do everything without resorting to PS or CMD in Windows either. Should we remove those too?

spapakons said:

Also there must be wizards to guide you step-by-step how to install apps, not guessing or having to Google.

Click to expand...

You don't need a wizard. There's a standard way to install apps and every file has its own standard home. You can do exceptions for testing purposes though, but that is highly not recommended for daily use.

XxXxX said:

just as a matter of interest the International Space Station runs and operates on Debian Linux.
best of luck, Steve ..

Click to expand...

Is that an average user PC? Here we argue if Linux can replace Windows for a general purpose average PC (anything with an Intel or AMD CPU). Workstations, servers, mainframes and other specialized computers DON'T count. And there they do it because Windows implementation would cost a fortune in licensing, not because Linux is better, so that partly doesn't count either.

spapakons said:

Is that an average user PC? Here we argue if Linux can replace Windows for a general purpose average PC. Workstations, servers, mainframes and other specialized computers DON'T count. And there they do it because Windows implementation would cost a fortune, not because Linux is better, so that partly doesn't count either.

Click to expand...

Actually Windows wouldn't be reliable and low resource enough. Price has nothing to do with it unless you mean beefier hardware requirements.

Again irrelevant and possibly inaccurate. Current Windows implementations are limited to 4 physical CPUs because they are meant for a standard PC or workstation. If there was a version for mainframes it would support the number of CPUs and RAM required. What makes you think performance would be inferior? Unless you can give some evidence, you are just speculating. And yes, many large companies and organizations adopt Linux because even volume licensing for too many computers would be very expensive. That doesn't make Linux better, only more cost-effective.

spapakons said:

Again irrelevant and possibly inaccurate. Current Windows implementations are limited to 4 physical CPUs because they are meant for a standard PC or workstation. If there was a version for mainframes it would support the number of CPUs and RAM required. What makes you think performance would be inferior? Unless you can give some evidence, you are just speculating. And yes, many large companies and organizations adopt Linux because even volume licensing for too many computers would be very expensive. That doesn't make Linux better, only more cost-effective.

Click to expand...

The Windows kernel itself would be bigger than the whole software suite required to run a space station reliably. You can't even boot it in a few hundreds of KB of RAM.

For companies that a actually makes money, price isn't an issue. Besides, I'm quite certain running Linux would be more expensive in the long run than Windows, and it has nothing to do with licensing.

Josey Wales said:

The Admin just made a post about an Apple Program. Yes this is a Windows 11 forum but it is also a Technical forum. There are also music videos, YouTube videos as well. It seems to me that if one is not interested in Linux then just do not look at that thread. Simple enough.

Click to expand...

This forum section is about: Virtualization and WSL

Side Note: Notepad crashing - could be considered a technical issue, yet old users making a topic about it here: BSOD Crash Analysis - wouldn't stand.

- and this topic is about: a personal misconception of Linux... and why it can't be a replacement for Windows 10. I say misconception, since the scaling issues mentioned - are tied to Desktop Environments using Xorg (not Linux as a whole) - a misguided choice while unaware of XFCE and Cinamon + Xorg limitations.

Also added - "debate" at the end of the topic title - which in a dedicated Windows community (where the majority are Windows users - and some hate Linux with passion) - draws mainly Windows users like Moth to a flame - spewing further misconceptions among their valid statements (there's also factual truths - not denying that) - but obviously (human nature) - the misconceptions act as emotional triggers for some of the few Linux users - even those with a basic understanding of Linux distributions (no qualification whatsoever, 0 experience with the server side of Linux - and, if you ask them about Linux commands - using their own memory - they might remember only the most common commands, like: sudo passwd root, su root or sudo apt install - the rest or copy pasted from the official forum of a specific distro or reddit - while googling for a specific dilemma - yet, they know more Windows CMD commands :). Since it's 2025.... and 90% of currently available Linux distributions - are dumbed down to Windows level - in terms of installation/configuration (if you can do a clean Windows install - and copy paste or follow step by step guides from elevenforum - congratulation - you're qualified to install/try a huge number of Linux distributions).

As mentioned before, you can't judge Linux as a whole - while your experience with Linux is based only on 2 or 3 distributions. Same way it wouldn't be fair to judge Windows as a whole - if you use/d only Windows 7 and Windows 10S... and that's saying to little - taking into account the vast alternatives/options of "Active/Updated" Linux Distributions). That being said - if instead of opening this topic - the OP went to the official Ubuntu forum and opened a topic abut scaling issue with Xubuntu or Lubuntu 16.04 (same way Windows users - open a topic in a specific Windows section - about some dilemma with Windows build 24H2 ) - some of the users from that Linux community - should be aware Xorg is the culprit and recommend latest Kubuntu or Ubuntu Gnome - which uses Wayland. Yes, it uses more resources - but more resources "for Windows users (have 64 GB RAM and TM shows 40% in use)" has a completely different meaning than Linux users:


PS.Part of my previous post (the part for which your answer was directed) - is inspired by past Windows vs Linux debates - where the topics end-up closed (due to increased level of toxicity aimed at Linux - cause again - even generally speaking - as can be seen on most social media platforms let alone Windows dedicated forums: many Windows Users hate Linux with a racist level of passion). So hey, i completely agree with you - that only users with an interest for Linux should answer - Linux related topics, but... as can be seen - more often than not - users who hate Linux are more eager to reply (more than all the Linux users combined). On the other hand... IF an Admin would open a topic about Linux - then and only then, the answers might be productive (I think ) and avoided by those who hate it (while unable to help themselves from laughing or flaming Linux). Again, talking from what i've witnessed before (and inclined to believe that Windows users can't have productive Linux debates). Would love to be proven wrong one day... maybe 1000 years from now, who knows.

pseymour said:

Y'all do realize you're just saying the same things over and over, right?

Click to expand...

I'm wondering why this thread still exists, and what is the benefit of people still commenting on it.