Hell yeah. I changed my main OS to Linux mint. First time on Linux, and I love it so far.
I only use Windows for stuff that Linux cant run yet.
I keep wanting to switch, but the fact you just said you still use windows for some things is enough for me to just stick with windows, until Linux can do everything windows can then I feel like constantly switching is more hassle than whatever improvements Linux provides
I have both windows and linux on my laptop. I think I opened windows some time one or two years ago. I do however have a desktop with windows for gaming, though that has improved on Linux a lot in recent years.
I installed Mint as dual boot over a year ago and the only reason I ever booted back was one game that didn't run quite well enough. Of course depending on your wants and needs it may vary, but you won't know until you give it a shot.
I wonder if there is anything on Linux that lets you install windows as a container, like a reverse of WSL
The only thing holding me back is warzone which requires windows because of the anticheat.
All of my other games work better on a lightweight Linux install with proton compatibility than on Windows.
Well, my favorite is The Dark Mod (OpenSource), it works on all OS, but generally most games are Windows only, at least if you want more than sidescrollers or games like those 20 years ago. The problem is not that Windows is better for gaming than Linux, rather the opposite, the problem is only the availability of games for Linux, not something else. Mac users have them even worse, at least if you don't settle for things like Mario Bros or 8 Bit sidescrollers.
until Linux can do everything windows can
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.
In Windows you can do this too by default
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.
en both you can do way more than you ever need.
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.
if you mean customize the Desktop
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.
Lenovo 15 AST, AMD Radeon 8 Gb +3Gb GPU, 256 Gb SSD
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.
Not sure exactly how the Linux multiple desktops work but windows is able to do this also, unless I'm confusing it for something else
unless I'm confusing it for something else
You are. What you're talking about are virtual desktops or virtual workspaces.
I said "desktop environments", which is a specific thing in Linux. It's the GUI and suite of tools that come with it. They all tend to have a usecase in mind and different philosophy. There's Gnome, KDE Plasma, xfce, lxde, Budgie, Cinnamon, Sway, and a whole bunch more that I can't remember.
KDE Plasma exist also for Windows and even MacOS. https://docs.kde.org/stable5/en/khelpcenter/fundamentals/install.html
Well now, that's certainly something I didn't expect!
Although the site for the Windows installer doesn't work
No, nothing like that. It can seem that way from a quick glance, but there's so much more under the surface.
It's such a large change under the surface that sometimes the exact same system, but with a different DE is considered its own distro, but usually they're called spins.
Sad but true. My work laptop dual boots mint and windows 10 and while I greatly prefer mint I use windows more often because it’s easier when everything I need works in one OS. I literally only use the Linux side when windows shits the bed lol
Now my servers are Linux whenever possible, that’s a different story
What specifically do you still need Windows for? It's possible that you can get it all running under Proton.
Cool beans. More power to you. But regardless of the reason, it does mean Linux does not run many games and does not get close to Windows in compatibility with several popular titles.
You're getting downvoted by people, but your position is totally valid.
"Linux works perfectly for everything if you just don't do the thing you want to do" is a less than compelling argument.
And to be fair I could not even get Valorant running on windows. I am guessing become of something like ShutUp10 or whatever it's called. I did not bother with figuring it out. I'm on linux for a while now.
I was reading the thread thinking "well, it is a good argument" but kernel level access? no thanks.
Yeah get down from your high horse.
Isn't Linux super free and the user can do whatever they want? Well, I want to trust the kernel add-ons by a game company.
Do you use an American made CPU? AMD or Intel? Congratulations, you're worried about "ring 0" but there's microcode in your machine today that can intercept everything, work before boot, and even access the network without your control.
And yeah... last time I checked, to control Razer RGB lights on Windows you just need an executable that doesn't even request admin privileges. On Linux? It requires two OpenRGB kernel patches.
So yeah, sure bud, Linux user's massive brain, ethics and security are why games aren't offering native versions.
Ironically, Windows has the largest FOSS catalog of any OS, apart from soft proprietary of course. Also, many official and professional business apps are only available for Windows. Gaming can also be a reason to use Windows, although this is slowly changing.
I only use Windows for stuff that Linux cant run yet
Can you share some examples? I'm genuinely curious.
What specifically do you still need Windows for? It's possible that you can get it all running under Proton.
