This post explains the experiment in the enclosed Video.
The Windows-Linux battle have long been occurring all over the world. Do I take a side on the battle?
Can't say I don't. I'm a Linux Guy.
I do understand that people find Linux difficult, but this it the software companies fault. Linux in essence is much better than Windows... the problem is that YOU WILL HAVE TO RUN BOTH in order to be always productive... and having only Windows, you'll be able to do everything without needing Linux.
It's a very sad truth. Linux is being unsupported on purpose by major software companies... and some of them should know better (like Adobe for instance now being Kicked by Apple, when it's their software that helped make the apple brand.).
Anyway, I don't hate windows... I hate the company policy behind it and it's way of killing competition in order to monopolize....it's something that I sincerely hate (I'm talking about that crusade against Open-source back when they were going wayyy wrong with Vista). And much like I hate monopolization, every one should have the same thoughts. You see, market monopolization kills market concurrency and diversity. We have evolved due to need to adapt to adversity and it's the same about markets. If a company has a bad product and there are other company's out there doing a good job, the company with the bad product must evolve and get better to stay n the game. Killing this is a bad thing, hence my hating for market monopolizers.
To me, Windows is just a product... not a brilliant one, far from perfect, with a good example of implementation every now and then, but not the worse I've seen from Microsoft. It is however a bad operating system.
Why do I state that? What is an operating System?
In essence, the BEST PART OF WINDOWS is not being a good operating system. It's bloated, big, heavy on the hardware, unstable and expensive.
Windows is however a brilliant GUI and tool set.
Back when Microsoft decided to kill the XP and start the Longhorn, later VISTA project, they should have an introspection.
Microsoft should have asked it self WHAT DO WE DO BEST? There is an easy answer: WE BUILD GOOD GUI's and tools to cope.
Then they should choose a good and stable OpenSource kernel, and work their way through it.
Does this sound familiar? Are you thinking Apple? You should!
Apple did that and then they grabbed a FreeBSD kernel and built an excellent GUI and tool set, calling it OSX and making a BANG.
I'm not going to explain the details of Microsoft's terrible judgement on the Longhorn-vista project set... just going to explain that Microsoft's "today Europe, tomorrow the world" Hitlerian battle, lead it into a dead end.
Statements like "open source is a security flaw" and "open source kills professionalism and induces amateurism", made Microsoft the flagship of the Anti-OpenSource. Evidently, they then HAD to carry it through, while apple just laughed their pants out on a brilliant and LIGHT crusade towards efficiency and hardware platform independence, while increasing profits like crazy.
Can you imagine a Windows GUI running on top of a Debian Kernel? Yup... no one would have stopped Microsoft then... ENTIRE teams could be re-sourced to new projects and software production would just go ballistic. No need to INVEST in kernel creation and stabilization. No need to patch the most important software in the machine on a daily basis, no more viruses and bluescreens... and a huge community worldwide, that today hates them and resists them, would have turned around and help them instead.
Stupidity and "world domination" has never been a good thing. And you know... Microsoft has done some amazing things over the years...it's such a shame that they got this Fight into a personal, irrational level.
The video I'm posting shows how a proper operating system works and handles load without fuss. It's obviously a linux ubuntu.