On 2007-07-16, waterskidoo <water.skidoo@xxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> On 2007-07-16, Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Windows supports more hardware than Linux, especially new hardware.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Maybe marginally, if you stick to x86-based stuff.
>
> This seems to be a popular debate in various groups and I don't feel
> there is a concise answer. Linux supports *more* hardware than Windows
> for sure just by virtue of it being able to run multiple platforms.
> However when comparing to Windows it's generally assumed that x86
> hardware is being discussed, as it should. Even so, again it depends
> on what *more* means. It also depends upon what *Windows* means.
> If one were to do a level set and say ok, right now at this minute
> using current version of Windows vs current version of Linux,
> I would tend to believe Linux supports *more* hardware simply
> because it is able to support more legacy devices than Vista
> can due to manufacturers abandoning support for such devices.
> However the practicality of such devices has to be considered.
> IOW, there will always be someone using a 15 year old scanner,
> but in the scheme of things what percentage of people still
> are using hardware that old?
A good portion of the persons not using hardware "that old" are
restricted by the combination of Windows and manufacturers who don't
update drivers. Put people like that on linux and they often haul out
the "old" hardware that might only be a couple of years new.
I know this to be true in some cases. I see it. I hear it. It's not a
case of people going out looking for "old" hardware. It's a case of
people continuing to use what has worked for them for years, and they
discontinued use because it wasn't supported any more.
> So in that vein *more*, meaning total number without regards to
> practicality, Linux would be first. Another example is full
> 64 bit support, where Linux I believe was first excluding
> the DEC Alpha chip version of NT of course.
When considering practicality, linux is *still* first when you take
away the Windows variable. Hard to do I know. But the point being that
a lot of hardware is "retired" because people can't get it to work with
newer Windows, not because the hardware is bad.
And the only way the Windows variable gives it the upper hand is if one
considers only newer hardware, and hardware that's no more than an
interface to the software that does all of the work (like Winmodems,
Winprinters, some wireless boards, etc). Even in the case of newer
hardware there's little that doesn't work with linux out of the box or
via a download.
--
Her kiss was warm and soft as vomit on a summer sidewalk.
|
|
