In Windows you can do this too by default, without the need to install nothing. In the setting you can create several desktops or monitors, separate or continuos. By default Windows include a lot of features, even speech to text or command, you can create your own fonts with a tool that Windows has by default (eudcedit) and a ton of other tools it has.
That Linux can do more than Windows is nonsense, this isn’t the advantage Linux has, en both you can do way more than you ever need.
No it can’t. You don’t even know what I’m talking about, clearly. I said “desktop environments”. I didn’t say anything about virtual workspaces. The only alternative desktop environment I know about for Windows is Stardock, and even that was a massive hack. I don’t even know if they still exist.
By default Windows include a lot of features
Ironically, this is one of Windows’ largest issues. They give you everything including the kitchen sink, but they used construction glue to hold everything in place. So all those features you don’t need or want (Xbox Gamebar, or whatever it’s called now) is impossible to remove without breaking the system.
even speech to text or command, you can create your own fonts with a tool that Windows has by default (eudcedit) and a ton of other tools it has.
Oh sure, like any mature OS for the past two decades.
That Linux can do more than Windows is nonsense
I guess you missed the tongue-in-cheek tone from my comment. But even so, Linux being able to do more than Windows is a valid point. And the things it does the same as Windows, it sometimes does them better (things like performance and stability)
For example: On Linux, I can setup a new drive with BTRFS or even ZFS. Can’t do that on Windows, because our choices there are: FAT32, exFAT, and good ol’ NTFS.
Well, if you mean customize the Desktop, there are certainly several apps. The first which ocurres me is Rainmeter (FOSS), also Rainlendar(Freemium), and some others. Not a big Problem with this.
I don’t mean the obvious functions and features of Windows, like Xbox, but a lot of apps included, such as the aforementioned eudcedit or the somewhat more well-known GodMode. The problem is that these are very little to nothing documented by MS.
Where I give you the reason is in performance, although at this point Windows has also improved a lot, at least in this aspect I have no complaints at all in W10 (well, at least after removing all the unnecessary services that it brings by default). On Linux it is perhaps somewhat better, but it also depends a lot on the Distro you use, some can also be quite resource hungry.
Regarding stability, I have no complaints since W7 either, Windows is a fairly stable system, even more W10. In old Windows an Appcrash mostly also crashed or blocked the system, not so in last versions. In W10, if an app crash, Windows simply takes you back to the desktop, killing the process, or a Menu appears when an app doesn’t respond, giving you the choice if you want to wait if it finishes responding, or kill the process.
No, that’s not what I mean. DEs are so involved that sometimes just changing the DE on the installer qualifies as a new distro. Rainmeter is literally just theming your desktop. Not even close.
or the somewhat more well-known GodMode
Linux comes with God mode out of the box. It’s called root.
Edit: I just want to point out that I actually know what god-mode is on Windows. However, I find it funny that Microsoft called it “god-mode” when on Linux those are the most mundane settings you could find. If you think god-mode is interesting, then KDE Plasma would implode your brain and spawn a microverse. You can even configure how Windows behave and how you interact with them on a per application or per window basis. And that’s just scratching the surface.
/End Edit
although at this point Windows has also improved a lot,
Most of that improvement is a direct result of better hardware. I’m not kidding. Try to install Windows 10 on an HDD. The disk gets thrashed so hard that it’s a miracle they don’t catch on fire.
Another fun fact is that Microsoft changed the boot for Windows 10 to compete with Linux and macOS. Windows now shows the desktop to the user before even loading services. So you see your desktop, but you can’t use it right away. On both Linux and macOS as soon as you see your desktop, your system has loaded.
some can also be quite resource hungry.
All of them are better than Windows. A lot of this comes down to the CPU scheduler. The one Windows uses is slower than just about every other OS out there.
In old Windows an Appcrash mostly also crashed or blocked the system, not so in last versions.
This hasn’t been the case since well before XP. In fact, for most OSes this hasn’t been the case for at least a decade or two.
I shut down the Laptop every night (Power off, no fast boot enabled), when I boot the Laptop in the Morning it shows 3-4 s the Logo and a second after this the log screen, after entering my password in less than 10 seconds it shows the Desktop with all icons and WiFi enabled and online, 10 seconds later I’m posting in Lemmy. Maybe it loads slower in your case , if you have enabled all the default services, I use only the essential ones, desactivated Hibernation and Index, the first one the worst Memory Hog which I don’t use anyway and the second not needed with an SSD apart of slowing down the system, services like a printer, I don’t have, servies for Digital pad and similar things I don’t use, no animations. Start apps are only Crow Translate (~20 Mb) and ShareX, not much heavier. No AV apart the Defender which is pretty good currently. No Desktop icons, only in the Taskbar for the most used which I access with WinKey +1, 2, 3, etc… No waiting time when appears the Desktop (maybe the difference to use an SSD instead of an HD), all pretty fast and snappy.
Lenovo 15 AST, AMD Radeon 8 Gb +3Gb GPU, 256 Gb SSD for € 350 new, two years ago, not really an high end NASA PC, as you can see.
I literally said in my previous comment that Windows 10/11 is unusable without an SSD. And then you present to me a system with an SSD that’s “pretty fast”. Ok.
You also detail how you rewire half the system’s internals to get it useable. That’s not what I’d call performant.
Just about every Linux distro is 100% ready to go in terms of performance. No tweaking to get things working at all. Only customization stuff, which is not what you were describing.
I setup a friend’s old system to Linux that was brutally slow with Windows. It’s a Core Duo (12+ year old CPU), 4GB RAM, and an HDD. She uses it every day for remote work. She says she’d never know it’s an old system if no one told her. That’s performance.
I agree with you, if Windows were not so Bloated, it would still be an OS with excellent performance. But I already said at the beginning that Windows requires an afternoon before first use to gut it and throw out all the garbage and services (to improve the user experience") that it comes with by default, this is probably the biggest disadvantage it has compared to Linux. The weight of the OS itself and the system requirements are not much different than one of the larger distros, it even works well on tablets conveniently reduced to the basic OS.
My previous laptop did not have an SSD and it worked quite well there too (there I used it in dual boot with Kubuntu), but this, if is used as it comes by default, which the vast majority of users probably do, then it is logical that Linux performance is much higher. This is why I also said that Windows requires an advanced user to function as it should.
Anyway, in the moment I don’t have reasons to change to Linux, at least until I have support for W10 (>2025 min). It works as it should and I am not in the habit of changing if something works the way I want it to. My life with the Laptop is 99% online and for this the OS with which I do it is quite irrelevant to me.
It works as it should and I am not in the habit of changing if something works the way I want it to. My life with the Laptop is 99% online and for this the OS with which I do it is quite irrelevant to me.
This is ultimately the only argument that really matters. If it works for you, then just use it.
It already can. It can even run a huge amount of Windows-only software.
In fact, Linux can do way more than Windows can (like installing multiple desktop environments and switching between them as you like).
In Windows you can do this too by default, without the need to install nothing. In the setting you can create several desktops or monitors, separate or continuos. By default Windows include a lot of features, even speech to text or command, you can create your own fonts with a tool that Windows has by default (eudcedit) and a ton of other tools it has. That Linux can do more than Windows is nonsense, this isn’t the advantage Linux has, en both you can do way more than you ever need.
No it can’t. You don’t even know what I’m talking about, clearly. I said “desktop environments”. I didn’t say anything about virtual workspaces. The only alternative desktop environment I know about for Windows is Stardock, and even that was a massive hack. I don’t even know if they still exist.
Ironically, this is one of Windows’ largest issues. They give you everything including the kitchen sink, but they used construction glue to hold everything in place. So all those features you don’t need or want (Xbox Gamebar, or whatever it’s called now) is impossible to remove without breaking the system.
Oh sure, like any mature OS for the past two decades.
I guess you missed the tongue-in-cheek tone from my comment. But even so, Linux being able to do more than Windows is a valid point. And the things it does the same as Windows, it sometimes does them better (things like performance and stability)
For example: On Linux, I can setup a new drive with BTRFS or even ZFS. Can’t do that on Windows, because our choices there are: FAT32, exFAT, and good ol’ NTFS.
This is definitely true for most average users.
Well, if you mean customize the Desktop, there are certainly several apps. The first which ocurres me is Rainmeter (FOSS), also Rainlendar(Freemium), and some others. Not a big Problem with this.
I don’t mean the obvious functions and features of Windows, like Xbox, but a lot of apps included, such as the aforementioned eudcedit or the somewhat more well-known GodMode. The problem is that these are very little to nothing documented by MS.
Where I give you the reason is in performance, although at this point Windows has also improved a lot, at least in this aspect I have no complaints at all in W10 (well, at least after removing all the unnecessary services that it brings by default). On Linux it is perhaps somewhat better, but it also depends a lot on the Distro you use, some can also be quite resource hungry.
Regarding stability, I have no complaints since W7 either, Windows is a fairly stable system, even more W10. In old Windows an Appcrash mostly also crashed or blocked the system, not so in last versions. In W10, if an app crash, Windows simply takes you back to the desktop, killing the process, or a Menu appears when an app doesn’t respond, giving you the choice if you want to wait if it finishes responding, or kill the process.
No, that’s not what I mean. DEs are so involved that sometimes just changing the DE on the installer qualifies as a new distro. Rainmeter is literally just theming your desktop. Not even close.
Linux comes with God mode out of the box. It’s called root.
Edit: I just want to point out that I actually know what god-mode is on Windows. However, I find it funny that Microsoft called it “god-mode” when on Linux those are the most mundane settings you could find. If you think god-mode is interesting, then KDE Plasma would implode your brain and spawn a microverse. You can even configure how Windows behave and how you interact with them on a per application or per window basis. And that’s just scratching the surface. /End Edit
Most of that improvement is a direct result of better hardware. I’m not kidding. Try to install Windows 10 on an HDD. The disk gets thrashed so hard that it’s a miracle they don’t catch on fire.
Another fun fact is that Microsoft changed the boot for Windows 10 to compete with Linux and macOS. Windows now shows the desktop to the user before even loading services. So you see your desktop, but you can’t use it right away. On both Linux and macOS as soon as you see your desktop, your system has loaded.
All of them are better than Windows. A lot of this comes down to the CPU scheduler. The one Windows uses is slower than just about every other OS out there.
This hasn’t been the case since well before XP. In fact, for most OSes this hasn’t been the case for at least a decade or two.
I shut down the Laptop every night (Power off, no fast boot enabled), when I boot the Laptop in the Morning it shows 3-4 s the Logo and a second after this the log screen, after entering my password in less than 10 seconds it shows the Desktop with all icons and WiFi enabled and online, 10 seconds later I’m posting in Lemmy. Maybe it loads slower in your case , if you have enabled all the default services, I use only the essential ones, desactivated Hibernation and Index, the first one the worst Memory Hog which I don’t use anyway and the second not needed with an SSD apart of slowing down the system, services like a printer, I don’t have, servies for Digital pad and similar things I don’t use, no animations. Start apps are only Crow Translate (~20 Mb) and ShareX, not much heavier. No AV apart the Defender which is pretty good currently. No Desktop icons, only in the Taskbar for the most used which I access with WinKey +1, 2, 3, etc… No waiting time when appears the Desktop (maybe the difference to use an SSD instead of an HD), all pretty fast and snappy. Lenovo 15 AST, AMD Radeon 8 Gb +3Gb GPU, 256 Gb SSD for € 350 new, two years ago, not really an high end NASA PC, as you can see.
I literally said in my previous comment that Windows 10/11 is unusable without an SSD. And then you present to me a system with an SSD that’s “pretty fast”. Ok.
You also detail how you rewire half the system’s internals to get it useable. That’s not what I’d call performant.
Just about every Linux distro is 100% ready to go in terms of performance. No tweaking to get things working at all. Only customization stuff, which is not what you were describing.
I setup a friend’s old system to Linux that was brutally slow with Windows. It’s a Core Duo (12+ year old CPU), 4GB RAM, and an HDD. She uses it every day for remote work. She says she’d never know it’s an old system if no one told her. That’s performance.
I agree with you, if Windows were not so Bloated, it would still be an OS with excellent performance. But I already said at the beginning that Windows requires an afternoon before first use to gut it and throw out all the garbage and services (to improve the user experience") that it comes with by default, this is probably the biggest disadvantage it has compared to Linux. The weight of the OS itself and the system requirements are not much different than one of the larger distros, it even works well on tablets conveniently reduced to the basic OS. My previous laptop did not have an SSD and it worked quite well there too (there I used it in dual boot with Kubuntu), but this, if is used as it comes by default, which the vast majority of users probably do, then it is logical that Linux performance is much higher. This is why I also said that Windows requires an advanced user to function as it should. Anyway, in the moment I don’t have reasons to change to Linux, at least until I have support for W10 (>2025 min). It works as it should and I am not in the habit of changing if something works the way I want it to. My life with the Laptop is 99% online and for this the OS with which I do it is quite irrelevant to me.
This is ultimately the only argument that really matters. If it works for you, then just use it.