In article cHXme.26062$on1.10670@clgrps13,
"Lorin David Schultz" wrote:
"Tim Smith" wrote:

If the system is not being used as a dedicated audio workstation, but
is also being used for general purpose stuff, Windows usually
requires more maintenance than Linux or OS X.



Like what? I'm not arguing, I just don't get it.

There are several areas:

1. For the typical user, dealing with viruses and/or spyware.

2. For those who are into games, dealing with drivers and DirectX.
Whenever you get a new game, that requires a later version of DirectX
than you have, it often requires a lot of fiddling to keep your old
stuff working. Same when ATI or NVidia releases new drivers.

3. Hardware setup. Wireless networking on Windows, for example, can be
much more time consuming to set up than wireless on OS X, because too
much is left up to the hardware vendor, and hardware vendors often have
some strange notions as to how to design setup and configuration
software.

4. Keeping software up to date. With most Linux distributions and with
OS X, you don't need any third-party software for safe, effective basic
computer use. With Windows, you need to get a third-party browser and
email client, or at least get third-party add-ons to the bundled browser
and email client. That means you end up with important software that is
not covered by Windows Update, and so you've got to deal with keeping
that software up to date. On Linux or OS X, everything you need for
basic computer use is included, and covered with the system update
mechanism.

--
--Tim Smith