Is Windows more stable than Linux?

[Offshorededi]

Linux is more stable and provide you much more control than windows OS. Linux being open source is highly reliable for your hosting needs. As per our experience more than 90 % of the clients are using linux platform for their projects.

 

[CainHosting]

Linux is by far more stable than Windows in every way.

I've had a personal Ubuntu server running for 12 years straight, no restarts. Try that with Windows.

 

[AlienVPS.com]

Well I don't think it is a good idea to run Linux on your every day PC. Windows will always be the best choice. When it comes to server management I always use Ubuntu.

 

[LittleCreek]

Well I don't think it is a good idea to run Linux on your every day PC. Windows will always be the best choice. When it comes to server management I always use Ubuntu.

I would say it is the best choice for you. Many people use computers quite effectively without Windows. I use a Mac at least half the time and a Chromebook as well.

 

[ughosting]

Back in the 90s, we were shown the projections of what Unix/Linux and Windows would be capable of over time and each year, the gap between the power of Linux and Windows widened. Generally, because Linux is more efficient, given a little bit of extra CPU or memory, Unix/Linux could do more.
Also, in the 90s, Unix/Linux was C2 secure out of the box, as was Windows, until you plugged it into a network. (Genuine fact, not a joke).
By the 2000s, Windows had been good, stable enough, and secure enough for hosting applications.
Windows is more expensive because you need to purchase one license per machine, and you need to give it a little more CPU and Memory than you would a Linux box.
I've not seen any objective evidence that the OS itself is unstable when configured correctly.
It really comes down to whether you need a Windows machine or a Linux machine to run your environment.
I've recently worked for an Enterprise whose Windows code had been rewritten from .Net Framework to .Net Core, got containerised and ran Kubernetes/docker pods on Ubuntu nodes, which significantly outperformed the .net Framework code which had to run on Windows nodes.
When Microsoft themselves run their SQL Server services on Linux in Azure, I'm questioning whether Windows rather than Azure will be a platform in the future.
It still remains the business desktop operating system due to the ease of locking it down.
Yet, as a Unix/Cloud person. I just wish that Unix/Linux would give me the flexibility of the NTFS filesystem. (although you can keep the fragmentation)

 

[CainHosting]

Back in the 90s, we were shown the projections of what Unix/Linux and Windows would be capable of over time and each year, the gap between the power of Linux and Windows widened. Generally, because Linux is more efficient, given a little bit of extra CPU or memory, Unix/Linux could do more.
Also, in the 90s, Unix/Linux was C2 secure out of the box, as was Windows, until you plugged it into a network. (Genuine fact, not a joke).
By the 2000s, Windows had been good, stable enough, and secure enough for hosting applications.
Windows is more expensive because you need to purchase one license per machine, and you need to give it a little more CPU and Memory than you would a Linux box.
I've not seen any objective evidence that the OS itself is unstable when configured correctly.
It really comes down to whether you need a Windows machine or a Linux machine to run your environment.
I've recently worked for an Enterprise whose Windows code had been rewritten from .Net Framework to .Net Core, got containerised and ran Kubernetes/docker pods on Ubuntu nodes, which significantly outperformed the .net Framework code which had to run on Windows nodes.
When Microsoft themselves run their SQL Server services on Linux in Azure, I'm questioning whether Windows rather than Azure will be a platform in the future.
It still remains the business desktop operating system due to the ease of locking it down.
Yet, as a Unix/Cloud person. I just wish that Unix/Linux would give me the flexibility of the NTFS filesystem. (although you can keep the fragmentation)

Yea Windows and IIS was all the rage for asp.net, but now the best path that we've taken is NGINX as a reverse proxy. All the benefits of NGINX without any of the license fees usually associated with asp.net hosting.

Also, Azure is quite expensive.

 

[MainVPS17]

Linux is often considered more stable and reliable than Windows, especially for server hosting. Linux servers tend to have longer uptimes and require fewer reboots for updates, making them a preferred choice for hosting websites and applications. However, Windows hosting is also stable when properly managed and is preferred for hosting websites and applications that require Windows-specific technologies like ASP.NET or MS SQL databases. Ultimately, the choice between Linux and Windows hosting depends on the specific requirements of the website or application being hosted.

 

[serverlynx]

Go with Windows only if you need some windows apps to run, otherwise linux is just the default choice and probably the best one.

 

[juliaalan]

It is important to understand that both linux and windows are more stable and reliable when you configure and manage appropriately.
Linux: It is commonly used in server environments. It will effectively utilize the system resources and provide high performance. They offer the package management system to simplify the server updates to maintain the server security and performance. In linux there is a strong permission system that helps to prevent unauthorised access.
Windows: Windows server is used in enterprise environments. They have features like active directory which is crucial for managing large networks and other user accounts. They regularly provide the updates and support to the customers to maintain the servers up to date.

 

[John @ S4]

It's not really the point, but in my experience BSD is more stable than either.

With that out of the way... modern versions of Windows and most Linux distros are all stable if they are configured in sensible ways and you aren't installing any untested beta software packages.

The only case where Windows might be conceived to be more stable is on desktops (especially laptops) with unusual hardware specs, as everyone releases Windows drivers for the hardware and Linux support can be a bit more patchy, i.e. touch screens, unusual sound or video chipsets. On a server though, I'd choose Linux over Windows every time.

 

[Support.MainVPS]

Still confused that if windows are more stable than Linux. Well, don't worry all your confusion regarding the stability of the windows server will be washed off after this write-up. Well, without wasting any time, let's begin. Well, Linux was originally designed to provide a powerful, stable and reliable, and easy-to-use environment as it has been running for years as the leading web hosting service without failure.

The other reason is that Linux users' computers are more stable than windows users' computers, and it's the main factor for the stability of the Linux server. Another factor is the Linux distro which comes with a relatively stable set of operating capabilities. So basically by this, we can get to know that windows are more stable than Linux.

both Linux and Windows have evolved significantly over the years, and both can be highly stable operating systems when configured and used properly.

 

[webling]

I have both Linux and Windows servers. However I don't run my windows server on the internet, only on my LAN. In my experience Linux is far more stable and needs rebooting far less. Remote access to Linux is far better in my opinion also.