Why I stopped using Microsoft products and how Linux differs from Windows

If you're curious in why I switched to Linux and never looked back, here's the lowdown:  Due to Microsoft's restriction of its own site for installing Windows in Russia, this motif has recently gained a lot of traction. 

Of course, this was never a major problem for proficient users. Many people considered changing to a different OS. To the same extent that Windows is a commercial endeavour, so too is MacOS.

No one can say for sure that Apple won't follow suit after this move by the firm with the largest desktop user base in the world. Linux, which stands for open source software, is now a lot more appealing in this context.

Given that certain distributions are made at no cost to recipients, but are actually held by for-profit businesses, it is possible to view this idea as contingent (for example, Red Hat and SUSE).

I'll explain why I joined the penguins in this piece. First off, I'd want to say that Linux has been lot easier for people coming from other operating systems to pick up and use in recent years.

Nonetheless, some people persist in believing that Linux is too complicated for everyone but experienced coders and admins. Unlike Windows, where the OS makes all the decisions for the user, this one has a different philosophy.

The Linux worldview

By "free software," advocates of Linux refer to both the ease with which the system can be distributed and modified, as well as the freedoms users enjoy when doing so.

The Linux user has complete administrative control over his system. It is entirely up to him to determine how his computer operates, which software he installs, and which background processes he permits. While Windows makes it simple to get up and running, it also takes away the user's freedom of choice. It is not my intention to insult Windows users when I discuss the advantages of Linux. I'd like to present an alternate view and let the reader decide.

He switched because of Linux's many benefits, which he discovered for himself.

Rapid processing speed

Personalization

Stability

An abundance of options for various jobs

At this point, I think we can call things to some sort of order.

Rapid processing speed

The system is far more efficient than Windows, using much less RAM and CPU, and getting rid of any extraneous processes or files. In order to illustrate my point, I will provide a specific illustration. My previous desktop installation of Windows 10 Home gobbled up 4 GB of RAM even when there were no user-initiated processes running. According to the latest industry research, all mainstream business laptops now have 8 GB of RAM.

All of the aforementioned is often implemented in game mechanics. In light of this, the following is what actually transpired. Half of the memory in a brand new laptop is immediately used up by the operating system. On to Linux, now. The graphical interface is the determining factor. The most resource-intensive desktop environment, KDE Plasma, uses an average of 500 MB of RAM even when no programmes are running.

Of course, this comparison isn't perfect because, like Windows, there are other things happening in the background besides the graphics. A bit over 1 GB of RAM is available on the Manjaro distribution while using Plasma as the desktop environment. Four times as quick. A new lease on life for PCs with 4 GB of RAM. Here, let's simplify the answer even further.

Xfce on the same Manjaro uses about 500-600 MB. And if you use Arch Linux with Xfce and don't overburden it with programmes, you may drop your memory usage to the low hundreds of megabytes. Computers that are 10 to 15 years old will be able to function normally for another several years.

However, Windows XP is the only version that will run on those computers, and Microsoft has long since ended support for it. The 32-bit version of Arch Linux is still actively maintained. This product might not be all that appealing to those with up-to-date and powerful gear, so let's move on to the next one. Xfce on the same Manjaro uses about 500-600 MB. To get the consumption down to 125-200 MB, you can use Arch Linux with Xfce and not fill it up with some programmes. Computers that are 10 to 15 years old will be able to function normally for another several years.

However, Windows XP is the only version that will run on those computers, and Microsoft has long since ended support for it. The 32-bit version of Arch Linux is still actively maintained. There's a chance that this product won't appeal to people who already have high-end computers and other technological gadgets, so let's move on.

Xfce on the same Manjaro uses about 500-600 MB. And if you use Arch Linux with Xfce and don't overburden it with programmes, you may drop your memory usage to the low hundreds of megabytes. Computers that are 10 to 15 years old will be able to function normally for another several years. However, Windows XP is the only version that will run on those computers, and Microsoft has long since ended support for it.

Up to this day, Arch Linux for 32-bit platforms has continued to get updates and security patches. This may not be appealing to you if you have very recent and powerful hardware, so let's move on. The 32-bit version of Arch Linux is still actively maintained.

This product might not be appealing to those with up-to-date and potent computing setups, so let's move on to the next one. The 32-bit version of Arch Linux is still actively maintained. This product might not be all that appealing to those with up-to-date and powerful gear, so let's move on to the next one.

Personalization 

I believe this benefit will appeal to everyone who is concerned with the outward and inner workings of the system. Everything in Linux may be adjusted to your liking, from the desktop widgets to the system's overall operation.

The settings for anything can be altered by rewriting the corresponding configuration file. If you have the right kind of knowledge, you may make your very own OS from the ground up. The same holds true for the visual style, which offers a wide variety of widgets, icons, and colour schemes. In addition to the many that come installed by default, many more are available for install. Linux could be a great choice for minimalists. 

Initial releases of the same Arch do not have graphical user interface apps. Because of this, you can put in place only the components you actually need.

KDE will supply beauty, but beauty is, of course, relative, and each person has their own standards of what they find appealing. Anything can be altered to suit your needs. And Windows allows you to customise your desktop background, colour scheme, and icon set to an extreme degree. It's not uncommon, either, to need specialised software in order to accomplish this.

Stability

Having this benefit is crucial. It's important to keep your fingers from flying off the keyboard while working on a computer. I guess we've all encountered the dreaded blue screen of death that can force a complete reinstall of Windows without saving any of your work. The same is true on Linux, particularly on distributions that employ the most up-to-date solutions (Arch, Manjaro), but failures are quite unusual on long-term supported systems (Debian, Ubuntu, and all their derivatives).

Because each LTS release receives immediate maintenance for at least five years, users who value reliability over cutting-edge features can skip any updates after installing the system without worrying about breaking it. In Linux, updates are not mandated. We all know that on Windows,

An abundance of options for various jobs

There are literally thousands of different Linux distributions, each one tailored to a certain use case. Some are designed for general office use (like Ubuntu), others are tailored to specific professions (like NixOS), yet others have cutting-edge software solutions (like Arch), and still others are less cutting-edge but more tried-and-true (Debian ). Any individual or organisation can select a distribution kit that suits their needs and preferences.

Outcome

I've written this piece to explain why so many people are making the switch to Linux. It's possible that you disagree with me; maybe you find Windows or another OS more appealing.

Each individual makes his or her own decision, and I have no doubt that proponents of other systems will tout dozens of benefits. I welcome thoughtful feedback and interesting discussions.