Virtually anything you can do with Windows/Mac can be done with a Linux comparable distro or GUI OS. Linux keeps growing and it's price always remains free, and people will pick up on this more throughout the years. It will be the end of Windows and Mac before you know it. It's hard to compete against free equivalency.
Wow, that was the most pathetic attempt at trolling me I've ever seen. Truth is my wife has a laptop with Windows 8 and she only uses it for email, news, and facebook and their games. Plus she doesn't care for any games I'm interested in programming or playing (FPS, RPG, Sports, etc).
My brother-in-law has a Mac and it is constantly crashing.
My Windows distros are constantly freezing or crashing (when it isn't updating everything under the sun).
My Linux distros also crash and have issues (like my desktop a while back crashed and had to be re-installed after trying to upgrade to 12.10 and my laptop won't let me update/upgrade/remove/install due to an issue after installing Steam and doing what it recommended).
They are software and are prone to the same possible errors and issues. If you haven't had any issues with any of them it only means you have been lucky and doesn't make one better than the other.
Linux has been equal to Windows (or slightly better) for the last 3 years that I have been using it.
I heard Linux has been equal to Windows for at least 6-7 years. Yet people still pay for Windows. It is very difficult to overcome the anti-competitive monopoly of Microsoft.
- As far as the comparison between Windows and Linux in my experience:
Windows is far superior for gaming.
Windows is superior for hardware support.
Windows is considerably inferior for work.
Windows requires much more maintainance.
Linux has FAR superior security. Windows has caused me to lose many days of work due to horrible security model. Even with two faulty system upgrades on Linux, where I had to reinstall the system, I never had to format the drive or lose any personal files.
Note that I have had to reinstall Windows due to a system failure many more times than I have ever had to reinstall Linux.
Provided that Linux is free, I find it to be a far superior system to Windows.
When the day comes where you can actually play current AAA games on a linux distro without major workaround I would say that linux is better then windows, but sadly that day is not here and won't be here for a while.
So there is some things that can't be done on linux. So I personally don't mind paying for windows if it allows me to play the current games I like, and has a easy interface to use.
Another reason people use windows and mac instead of linux is because they just wouldn't be able to understand how to use linux. There is millions of people that can't even change their background image on their computer yet alone run a program through the command prompt.
The only times I've ever had issues with Windows is when I changed a setting in a way I wasn't supposed to. I don't change settings unless I have to anymore, and I don't have any issues with Windows at all these days.
When it comes to getting your computer to work, if it works, leave it alone. It's not like code where you're supposed to be continually refactoring it to make it better.
That's why I use Windows, but it's certainly not the best.
In fact, no operating system is as I would want it, and unfortunately I think it will be a very long time before my vision of an OS can come true - there are just too many old practices from when there were constraints, and hey're still in use today. File name limitations, string-based paths, consoles, the whole newline fiasco, and more that I really don't care to list because I don't like thinking about them. They all have ton continue to exist because everything has to be compatible with as much other existing stuff as possible.
I feel like backwards compatibility is killing major advancement.
Scenario A - stuff is built to be backwards compatible. Every new release is full of archaic features that bloat the complexity, hinder innovation and whatnot.
Scenario B - stuff is not built backwards compatible. Software engineers come up with whatever awesome stuff - the sky's the limit. Nobody is using any of it though because the new awesome CPU architecture is not compatible with any of the latest awesome OSes and new versions of those same OSes are not compatible with any of their older applications. People update their machines only when they really have to (every 15 years). Due to lack of interest IT industry is stagnated until some guy says "what if we made stuff backwards compatible?". See scenario A.