Linux VS. Windows DVR

There are two different types of surveillance DVRs – those that run on a Windows operating system, and those that run on a Linux operating system.  Years ago, the Linux DVRs were more reliable due to weaknesses in the Microsoft ME operating system.  However, due to the stability of Windows XP, both types of products are now equally as reliable when it comes to the core operating system.  However, due to large inadequacies that exists in the hardware construction and DVR software design of Linux type DVRs, Windows DVRs have become the clear choice for most surveillance applications.

So…. what exactly is a “stand-alone? surveillance DVR?  Frankly, we don’t know who coined the term.  However, we do know that it is highly misused and misunderstood.  The fact of the matter is that both Windows and Linux style DVRs are similar in hardware design.  Both style DVRs require a main board (motherboard), processor, RAM, a graphics card, video processing chip, network adapter, and storage hard drive.  However, a main, and very critical, difference is that most all Linux DVRs put all required hardware on a single board.  This creates a situation whereby once a single component on the main board fails, that the product is commonly rendered useless.  And since the main selling point of Linux DVRs is their low price-point, they are very commonly constructed as economically as possible typically using below-par unskilled labor and manufacturing techniques.

 

 

Unlike Linux style DVRs, Windows DVRs are almost always constructed of mainstream hardware components.  These components are most always of higher quality than those found in Linux DVRs.  Perhaps even more importantly, they are also readily available from most any computer or consumer electronics store.  Therefore, if a hardware failure is recognized in a Windows DVR, it should be relatively easy to quickly find an inexpensive replacement part to repair the problem.  The only exception would be the actual multi-capture PCI card.

 

Hardware Bottom Line… Windows DVRs typically utilize higher quality hardware components that are readily available in the event of failure.  In the event of component failure in a Linux style DVR, the entire unit typically has to be sent back to either mainland China, Taiwan, or South Korea for repair (if still under warranty).

 

 

Software design, reliability, usability, and overall practicality differences between Windows DVRs and Linux DVRs are also greatly different.  Although there are many grades of surveillance software that drives Windows-based DVRs, overall, even moderately well designed Windows DVR software will almost always out perform that found in Linux-based DVRs.  Simply, it’s a matter or usability as most all Linux DVRs operate off of deep menu-driven controls rather than being point & clickable with a PC mouse.  Although low level controls like start, stop, play, etc can typically be easily controlled via the front panel on a Linux DVR, other important functions like camera set-up, record scheduling, motion detection control, video searching, and so on are typically controlled via difficult to use menus.  Even worse, many features like advanced motion detection zoning and automatic user notification via phone, fax, or beeper when motion is detected are not even available on most all Linux DVRs.  Perhaps even of greater concern is that most Linux DVRs use open source surveillance software that is not properly tested for commercial surveillance applications.

 

 

Software Bottom Line… Windows-based DVRs are easier to use and offer greater features than Linux style DVRs. 

So, when is a Linux style DVR a better choice?  Given that the hardware is typically manufactured on a single board and the Linux operating system being free of charge, Linux DVRs do typically cost considerably less than Windows DVRs.  Provided that cost is a greater issue than system reliability, ease of use, and features, Linux DVRs are a very viable option.  Although Linux DVRs have their shortcomings when compared to Windows DVRs, the fact remains that they are typically by far a better and more viable option than any Analog CCTV system (time lapse vcr, multiplexer, etc).