Thursday, April 1, 2010

Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 Beta 1

So I recently decided I wanted to find out more about Windows 7, have the opportunity to form an opinion about it. Having mostly heard good things, I wanted to give it a try and find out if the guys at Redmond finally got it right.

In the last few days I have been busy testing Ubuntu 10.04 Beta 1. As you can imagine, the idea to test them back to back came very quickly, and I just had to find out a fair and easy way to do so. I decided I would use Virtual Box 3.1 for the job. I wanted to find a way to provide the exact same resources to both and a virtual machine, even with its flaws, would at least be fair (which is another way to say that I can't afford two identical machines just for testing).

These are the resources I assigned to both:

VirtualBox machine parameter Value used
Disk Space 20 GB
Memory 1024 MB
Video Memory 64 MB
3D Acceleration YES

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLEEEEEEEE...

Before I go on to the test, I want to acknowledge that this is obviously not a fair comparison. Ubuntu is quite solid already, but still only the first Beta. Not only it is an unfinished product, with many branding and functionality changes still pending, but crashes and lack of stability could be somewhat expectable. Windows, on the other hand, has been live for approximately 6 months, so it is (or at least should be) a very mature product by now. Taking that into account, and the fact that I didn't take a very "scientific" approach to this comparison, I want to stress that it is by no means exhaustive. I wanted to keep some consistency throughout, so the results would be meaningful, but this is clearly comparing at a very high level.

BOOT AND SHUTDOWN TIMES

One feature that has attracted lots of attention lately is that of boot and shutdown times. Most OS manufacturers want to close down the gap between the start/stop experience of a PC and that of other electronic devices,such as a TV, for example. Google was probably the most explicit and aggressive, targeting a 7 second startup time with Google Chrome OS (which by the way is Linux based). Both Windows and Ubuntu keep trying to reduce their startup and shutdown times, so I wanted to check how they were doing.


Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Linx Beta 1 Login Screen


Windows 7 32bit Ultimate Login Screen

I split these processes in stages, timing 3 times each:

Stage 1: From the moment I start each virtual machine (including BIOS load) to the login screen.
Stage 2: From login screen to a fully loaded desktop.
Stage 3: From clicking the shutdown button to complete halt.

The resulting average times go as follows:

OS Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
Ubuntu 10.04 Beta 1 31 sec. 14 sec. 8 sec.
Windows 7 Ultimate 32bit 45 sec. 12 sec. 11 sec.

Ubuntu is clearly ahead, but Windows times represent a notable improvement over previous versions. Having said so, I have to say that both installations are brand new and completely clean, which makes these results misleading to a certain extent. Any Windows user knows the impact of performance degradation as time and use wear apply. Disk fragmentation is quite a big concern, but it is mostly down to how the registry becomes bloated quite quickly that makes the biggest difference.

In other words, if these two installations happened to take place in two identical machines and their users repeated this same test after a year of normal use, the gap would increase. Ubuntu in particular and Linux in general manage that degradation in an optimum way, so impact on the end user is reduced or not even noticeable.

...AND THE WINNER IS: Ubuntu is in the lead out of the box, but it is even more important how the gap will be accentuated as time goes by.

RESOURCE USAGE

Another important element in this comparison is how each OS uses the resources available. I know that hardware in general is continuously becoming cheaper and more accessible, but that should not justify the lack of optimization in an operating system, or in any software application for that matter. In fact, the spiral of increasing hardware power required by software in general is merely a way to justify perpetual consumption, if you ask me.


The GNOME system monitor used by Ubuntu

Because this is an operating system comparison, I thought it would be fair to compare memory, CPU and disk space usage, checking the first two a few minutes after the desktop is fully loaded and stable. I didn't want to compare resource usage with applications loaded, because I believe that if an application was developed with poor resource usage, that should not be blamed on the OS.

Once again, the results shown below come from averaging three different measures,each from a different session.

OS Memory CPU Disk Space
Ubuntu 10.04 Beta 1 139 MB 35% 2.4 GB
Windows 7 Ultimate 32bit 460 MB 45% 13.3 GB
NOTE: The CPU results varied heavily from one measure to another, specially in the case of Windows, so please understand the average as a rough orientation.

I never used Windows Vista myself, but my understanding is that its use of resources was terrible. I believe Windows 7 is doing a much better job, but still quite far from the results obtained by Ubuntu. In fact, the differences are quite astonishing, specially in the case of memory and disk space use.


The heavily improved resource monitor available in Windows 7

Ubuntu seems to happily manage itself with around 22% less memory than Windows 7. That's a very big gap, which may look harmless here, but makes a big difference when we start opening many applications at the same time. However, the biggest difference comes when comparing the disk space used by each installation. Windows takes 34.5% (around 6.5GB) of the 20GB provided, while Ubuntu is content with a little over 12%, an impressive 2.4GB for a full blown installation. This is even more impressive when we take into account that Ubuntu already includes the full OpenOffice suite (minus the "oobase" package) and a more complete set of applications in general.


Windows 7 takes a massive 13.3 GB after installation!

Once again, it is interesting to put things into perspective and look at how each machine would develop as time goes by. An MS Office installation is likely to take place on the Windows box, along with social networking (the usual MSN, Twitter, skype, etc), a proper antivirus, Adobe reader, etc. Let's not forget about Service Pack releases, the first one for Windows 7 likely to be released at the end of the year. Last but not least, let's throw in the numerous and frequent security patches necessary for about anything Microsoft. I believe that a Windows 7 user could easily eat another 3-6 GB of disk space in about a year, just counting application installations and patches, not data.

On the other hand, Ubuntu already includes a wide variety of software that makes life easier. Lucid Linx already integrates social networking and chatting clients (epiphany and Gwibber), both of which can cover the most popular "protocols" (Twitter, MSN, Yahoo Chat, Google Chat, etc.). No antivirus software is required, and security patches usually take a few hundred Kb, if no less. A full kernel upgrade takes usually about 80MB, and older kernel versions can safely be removed after the upgrade.


Ubuntu 10.04 magically manages to take only 2.4GB!

Some may think "so what if Windows takes 10 or 15 GB of space, my drive is 300GB!", and they'd have a point, for disk space consumption is not the biggest concern. It is about how an operating system behaves when it takes such mammoth dimensions that matters, and the answer is clear: poorly.

Edit: I fixed some inaccurate information about Windows 7 space consumption, my bad! (Thanx Richard, good catch!)

On a different note, I find it very convenient that Ubuntu (and pretty much any Linux distro) take so little disk space. I usually carry with me Ubuntu and Fedora installed on a USB drive, something I can't even think of doing with Windows 7. (NOTE: It may be possible in a 32GB+ pendrive, but I am not paying 70+ euros to try!).

...AND THE WINNER IS: Ubuntu has the edge from the get go, but once again it is that long term Windows degradation that gives it the winning spot.

HARDWARE RECOGNITION

This is one of the areas in which Windows 7 seems to shine. Obviously, a virtual machine does not prove anything, but I am basing my comments on the feedback I get from other users and the apparent consensus over internet forums. I know that's far from a serious conclusion, but I have no easy way to measure it or reason to think otherwise. In fact, it only makes sense that Windows would have the edge after so many years of keeping almost exclusive attention from hardware manufacturers.

Ubuntu, on the other hand, seems to be getting some negative feedback on this department lately. The latest version, Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala, has taken quite some beating about this. The main concern is not about not being able to support every single device under the sun (which is impossible for any OS, but much more so with the weak manufacturer support Linux suffers from), but because it was having problems with devices supported in previous releases.

I have already discussed about Linux problems in this department, but let's just say it would do better by improving the following four areas:

- A unified and standard packaging system. Although it could be argued that this has added to Linux security, it is hurting its users because of the inherent complexity it represents. If a hardware manufacturer wants to make an effort to support Linux users, how exactly does it do it? Creating DEB packages for Debian? For Ubuntu? RPMs for Red Hat? Mandriva? Fedora? It quickly gets out of hand and becomes ridiculously complex to manage and support.

- An optimized kernel compilation process. I believe certain areas should be left out of kernel compilation. Lots of users are having problems with proprietary drivers, which need to be installed again after each kernel upgrade.

- Lack of standards. Video and specially audio are lacking from solid standards developers could aim for. As an example, certain distros choose ALSA over Pulse Audio server, while others stick close to the latter.

- Better user education. The whole Linux community needs to stop pretending Linux can run any hardware available. Instead, we should make it clear to new comers that they need to put a bit of thought before they buy hardware or install Linux on their machine.

...AND THE WINNER IS: All in all, I think Windows has the edge here, for an average user couldn't care less about whether his Windows is OEM or not. With that in mind, Linux in general and Ubuntu in particular keep on an ever improving path to optimum hardware recognition. Just a few years ago it was a nightmare to get a modem or a simple USB drive recognised, and look where it's got now!

NOTE: Funny enough, Windows 7 was unable to set up the right screen resolution for this test, even after installing Virtual Box "Guest additions". That is what is causing the black stripes on each side of the Windows screenshots.

USER INTERFACE AND LOOK&FEEL

I have to say Windows 7 makes Windows XP look poor and ugly. The user interface has been redesigned and fine tuned. In my opinion, there is an obvious improvement in this area, specially considering that the changes applied still manage to mantain a familiar vibe. It feels like Windows 7 is a familiar evolution, not an awkward departure. As a result, even if I had never used Windows Vista, I was able to find my way very quickly and easily for about 95% of the things I wanted to do.

In addition, the default overall style is very good looking. The windows and icons have all been heavily improved and make for a much more pleasant experience. I was particularly impressed by the default wallpapers and some sleek widgets.


The beautiful Windows 7 desktop

In turn, Ubuntu 10.04 (keeping in mind that this is still a beta and that further branding work will surely be added) looks are not as sleek out of the box. I am not among those hating the "brown departure". In fact, I was very pleasantly impressed by the default desktop looks, so much so that it was the first time it crossed my mind to not change anything. Leaving the controversy raised by changing minimize and close buttons to the left side aside, I very much liked the default window and icon themes.


The Ubuntu 10.04 beta desktop

As far as ease of use is concerned, that's always a difficult thing to measure in Linux. Obviously, Ubuntu is a different operating system with different (not better or worse per se) ways of doing things. People rarely like change, so "different" can easily be linked to "complicated". Moreover, I believe it is impossible to balance the "ease of use" and "flexible and full of features" concepts. You either choose one or the other.

Windows clearly bids for ease of use, heavily limiting customization freedom. Icons cannot be resized, Widgets only allow two different sizes, and its location on the desktop responds to an inflexible grid design. On the other hand, Ubuntu opens the door to customizing pretty much about anything. There are many window, control and icon choices available out of the box, but so many more made available from the community. When a new Ubuntu user gets past the initial adjusting to a new environment, the possibilities available are immense... And if all that was not enough, simply installing the compiz effect suite takes the desktop experience to a whole new level.

In my experience, when I show a Linux desktop to Windows users, that powerful visual experience is what is most captivating. I have to say I am far from being a user who takes compiz to its limits, but watching the "desktop cube" in action, the wobbly windows and other type of desktop effects is truly impressive. However, I must stress that beyond that initial visual shocking effect there is an interface that adds lots of value to user productivity. As soon as you start getting past the "eye candy" side of it and start customizing your desktop to get the most out of it, that's when you really start to see the real benefits. I know because there are lots of things I miss when I go back to a Windows desktop, and I feel "slowed down".

...AND THE WINNER IS: Pretty tight, but Ubuntu gets the edge, if only for the endless possibilities and freedom it offers to its users.

SECURITY

Always a controversial concept when talking about Windows, I have to say I found Windows 7 brings big improvements in this area. The amount of security features available out of the box is already quite good, but even a free antivirus is eligible (although I have no idea how good or bad it actually is). Logically, this article is based on early impressions, so it is hard to judge how vulnerable Windows 7 really is, but it was nice finding that the new UACs stopped me from creating a file under "Program Files", I could only create a folder there. Modification of any of those systems files was equally disallowed. In fact, it seemed I was only allowed to create or modify stuff on certain areas, which made me understand why some claimed Windows 7 was inspired on BSD.

Personally, I feel the guys at Redmond might have taken things too far. I was using an administrator profile on the machine, apparently capable of doing anything, but I found no way to create a file inside that restricted location. Ironically, the system kept prompting me to contact the administrator so that access to that location could be provided! (Wait a minute, I should contact... myself?!)

It seems that, despite what Microsoft claims, Windows 7 security improvements still make the use of several anti-malware tools a must. You can read more on that from THIS ARTICLE

...AND THE WINNER IS: Ubuntu and Linux in general keep a strong lead on this one.

APPLICATIONS

As mentioned above, Ubuntu includes a quite rich set of applications out of the box. The OpenOffice suite is probably the star now that GIMP has been left out, but other important applications such as evince (PDF reader), F-Spot (picture manager), Transmission (Torrent download client), Evolution (email suite), UbuntuOne (cloud storage service, up to 2GB for free), Brasero (powerful CD & DVD recorder) or RhythmBox (an iTunes-alike music player). That's not all, but I guess it gets the point across.

The most important thing to keep in mind, though, is that Ubuntu only requires an internet connection to open the door to a huge collection of great and free applications.

...AND THE WINNER IS: Ubuntu. The catalog of available applications out of the box is already impressive, but even more so what can easily be installed from its repositories, safely and with no cost.

HELP & DOCUMENTATION

Ubuntu keeps improving in providing good documentation and help, but I must admit it is still far from what a Windows 7 user gets. Windows documentation feels more mature and abundant, which is no surprise, considering one corporation owns everything that's installed. In the case of Ubuntu, many of the applications installed, even the desktop manager, are driven by third parties. That situation makes matters even more complicated to create a well rounded set of documentation and help media.

As a side note, I have to say that the Ubuntu community plays a very important role here. It is a radically different approach to what Windows or Mac users are accustomed to, but once you get around it, there really is nothing like interacting with other "Ubuntuers".

...AND THE WINNER IS: Windows gets the edge here, because of its more complete and easy to reach documentation.

CONCLUSION: WHAT IS AND WHAT SHALL BE

As I was comparing these two great operating systems, I kept coming back to a concept of present and future, of stillness and motion, of immediacy and potentiality.

Windows 7 feels like a very good step forward, a great improvement over previous versions (although it has to be noted that it wasn't hard, specially after the Vista fiasco), easily providing all its power at a few clicks distance. The Look&Feel, security and performance aspects all seem enhanced, making it a very good choice for users with little computing experience, or for those not particularly interested in computers. People using their PC primarily for browsing the web, social networking, gaming or listening to music will get a kick out of all the improvements coming with this latest version.

Having said so, I kept feeling Windows 7 would never surprise me again after a mere couple hours of use. Windows offers immediately its goods, but once discovered, all paths beyond them seem to end very quickly. In turn, Ubuntu felt more like an empty canvas, offering a vast amount of choices. From system configuration to Look&Feel and applications available, there were options all over the place for the end user to pick. In that sense, Ubuntu and Linux don't feel immediate or still, but ever changing and evolving after the user's will and skills.

Aside from its inherent flexibility, Ubuntu keeps a 6 month release schedule, which allows it to stay much more current and fresh. While Windows 7 will remain almost unchanged for a good 3-4 years, Ubuntu 12.04, for instance, will likely be very different to 10.04.

Building on that same concept, I also think an Ubuntu user keeps getting an optimum experience through time, not being forced into a rat race of hardware upgrades. A Windows user though, gets the best experience right after the initial installation, but it's all an uphill struggle from there on.

This concept more than any other is what makes me regard Ubuntu 10.04 higher than Windows 7, for I am not simply looking at what each can offer me today, but how my user experience will unfold as time goes by.

From the sections that make up this article, though, it could be argued that they are pretty even, and I think that wouldn't be far from the truth. Ultimately, it is down to what the end user values most that will decide which one is the winner for her/him.

...So tell me, what is your choice and why?

Thanks for reading!

124 comments:

  1. Hi Friend,
    This is a great article.. Keep posting such a good information.
    Thanks once again... !!!!
    Good Day
    Harsh Shah

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ubuntu is fine until you start using OpenOffice or any of the graphics in a real world scenario. Fine for amateur home use. Complete fail when you have to do proper work - the functionality and compatability is not there. There is no way would I swap Office 2008 and CS4 for anything that Ubuntu can install. OS X 10.6 wipes the floor with both Win 7 and Ubuntu.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @adrian.
    I work in an actuarial firm, you could say we use OpenOffice, especially Calc more than any normal user would, and we find it perfectly capable. It was hard to adjust at first, but that was not because openoffice had any weaknesses, but because we were originally used to doing things the Excel way.

    As for the graphics software, I wouldn't know, but that is not Ubuntu's fault, is it? Adobe, Corel, et al have refused to release Linux versions of their software.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi all,

    Thanks for your comments!

    @Adrian: I have to say I fully agree with horace's comments. I can't believe how many people keep measuring OpenOffice under MSOffice parameters. Please, understand OpenOffice is a completely different Office suite, and it is not mandatory for it to provide MSOffice compatibility, much considering how MS has managed their proprietary formats.

    Having said so, I must say things are getting much better now with the new XML formats, and OpenOffice now claims full compatibility with docx or xlsx formats.

    The best recipe? Implemente a progressive migration to OpenOffice, starting with creating documents only in the new MSOffice formats. Once all of your documents sport those formats, start using OpenOffice exclusively. It will take time, but with some planning it is perfectly achievable, and the long term savings are worth it, not to speak about the benefits of empowering open source software.

    As for OS X, I haven't really have much chance to try except for a few minutes at the apple stores, but other than those (costly) applications you mention, I couldn't find a single reason to pay more than double the amount of money I need to set up a powerful Linux box.

    Mac used to be much better, but now that it's using x86 architecture there's not a big gap.

    Btw, no way I am getting into such tightly controlled OS, there's nothing like the freedom Linux allows, IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  5. don't forget Ubuntu has a user manual now!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. A more Lucid Linux.

    I'm using the 64 bit beta on a Dell Studio 17 laptop with absolutely zero issues (including the ATI Driver that just became available yesterday)... Everything works, the interface is slick and non-obtrusive-I love the social networking integration- and the Software Center and Ubuntu One have both reached a handsome adolescence.

    Ubuntu 10.4 is by far the best from Canonical so far.The fact that its a LTS release is even better.

    And by the way I boot into a connected desktop in about 15 seconds! Win 7 on the same machine takes at least 45.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have to disagree with adrian, Gimp is a perfectly acceptable graphics program (installed out of the box) and with its ability to use nearly any plugin it does an incredible job on graphics, OpenOffice simply works.. I have yet to find one document, spreadsheet, presentation I made with Office 2010 not work (and actually look better) in OpenOffice it wins hands down.

    OS X 10.6.3 has killed every single one of my flash drives.. D E A D this is just one of the many issue it has.

    Me I am sticking with Ubuntu, so far everything just works and thats how it should be.

    ReplyDelete
  8. How dare you compare a beta version of linux with an shrink wrapped commercial version of Windows?

    You can of course :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Having installed various Linux distributions and Windows versions on hundreds of different (and real) hardware configurations, I've found Linux to generally have better support for more mainstream hardware such as printers, scanners and (non-3D) video - and, happily in the past couple of years, wifi. This is because open drivers, once committed to the repository, stay forever while drivers for Windows Vista / 7 were not ported over from XP (which had a different driver model), effectively stranding legacy hardware.

    More esoteric hardware such as bar code scanners, as well as accelerated 3D video drivers, are less available for Linux. The latter sometimes has negative implications for running full-screen video and high-end games, even though most Linux distros feel more responsive in daily use.

    Overall, though, I generally expect most of the hardware to just work with Linux, while I schedule time to research and manually install drivers on Windows when available. And more than once when on-site reimaging a single Windows computer, I've had to boot into Linux LiveCD mode to download a Windows network driver just to get the Windows machine bootstrapped.

    Such is life.

    I have a much more detailed comparison of Win7 and Ubuntu installation at http://ricegf.posterous.com/installing-your-own-os-whos-easy, which includes a link to far more detail than any sane person could enjoy. :-D

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ubuntu is just awesome...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Guys, my opinion is that THE main problem with ubuntu is game support: my kids are yelling at me when I get to their computer with my ubuntu CD...

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm a user of both, side-by-side. I use Win7 as a Media Center server for my 360. I agree with you on most points.

    Keep in mind, however, re: memory usage, that if you're not using it, it's going to waste. Most of the time (in the case of either OS) if you need the space, the OS moves out of the way.

    Caching is a big part of this, and it's one of the reasons Win7's memory footprint is so big.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You can easily change icon sizes in Win7 by holding ctrl and using your mouse wheel to increase and shrink icon size. You can also get to that easily though opening the start menu and typing in icon size. I found that with a quick google search.

    That said, I've been testing 10.04 since alpha 1 and it gets better every day. I can finally get my Virtualbox Guest additions to work now with the updates last week.

    I do really like the social aspect of 9.10 and the improvement to that in 10.04. If they keep going for the social aspect I think they can carve out a bigger following as that integration is not found in OS X or Windows.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Interesting stuff. Mostly agree as I use Ubuntu exclusively on a workshop computer and a netbook (NOT UNR).
    I have to point out that your graphic of Windows disk usage shows 13.3 GB free and NOT 13.3 GB used as you report in the post. That means Windows is actually using half the disk space you say it is. And I hate defending anything Windows as well! Mind you, that's still several orders of magnitude more than Ubuntu uses.
    As for hardware recognition, you digress from the matter in hand by going on about Linux distros in general rather than sticking with 10.04 which you were testing. Further, my experience has been that Win 7 is compatible with less hardware than Ubuntu in each and every installation I have built for customers. No exceptions.
    Games don't come into it for me as my customers are businesses. But stability is important, and we've yet to see how W7 will do with the latest anti virus signatures being downloaded hourly/daily and trying to open a 500 page document stored on the NAS device.
    When my customer demands reliability, I HAVE to recommend Ubuntu over Win 7 every time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @vincent, right you are! It's fair to note that Macs and PS/3s also won't run Windows games, either, nor will the XBox run Wii games. So I believe you will *always* have this issue, even if Ubuntu had more and better support for commercial games than Windows or Mac.

    That said, however, the number of commercial games for Ubuntu is unnecessarily low. The two-prong solution is for gaming houses to support OpenGL, which runs on all platforms, rather than DirectX, which supports only Windows and XBox; and for Ubuntu users to *buy* their games to help them compete with Microsoft-only game houses.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey, great article you got there!

    But, while most the decisions where completely fair, the Apps winner should be Windows.

    I haven't touched Windows in years, but I virtually drool when I see some VSTis and professional software like Photoshop, Ableton, Cubase, FLStudio, Premier, etc.

    I love GIMP, and never couldn't do anything Photoshop can, and I can stand LMMS and Ardour2 when making music, but it's not the same, Adobe has been making software for 28 years !

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks all for your interesting comments, keep them coming!

    @dave: Thanks for the tip on changing icon sizes. Strange that it does not follow the usual Windows logic, it is a bit unintuitive, but it works. However, in true Microsoft fashion, it changes all icons! (Once again, lack of flexibility!)

    @richard: You are completely right, I made a mistake about the disk size, will edit the article and fix it, good catch!

    Thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
  18. @alvare: Hmmm... Well, I spent a couple years producing music with Windows and Sonar, and now that I use Ubuntu Studio and Ardour, I really can't say I miss much! You do know that you can use VST effects in Ardour, right?

    In any case, I have to say I was not just taking into account the features of certain applications, but the sheer volume of them, the quality to cost ratio, and the freedom they allow the end user. On top of that, I like being able to add my two cents on testing, developing, etc.

    My point is, I can set up a PC with powerful resources and create professional music, photo or video edition with Linux at virtually no cost. The gap between GIMP and Photoshop or Ardour2.8 and ProTools does not really justify the investment involved...

    I honestly believe Linux offers better alternatives for the standard user who doesn't necessarily use that kind of tools professionally and don't want to put a kidney down, which is the big majority.

    In fact, I think that's why there is so much piracy in Windows... Professionals will pay for Photoshop and ProTools, but how about the rest?

    ReplyDelete
  19. How completely lame.

    * You fail to take into account Windows memory cache, gnome system manager calculates this automatically. What you see there is (used - buffers - cache), to be fair you'll need to do the same calculation for Windows.

    http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/hwdesign/MemSizingWin7.mspx

    * You fail to take into account space used for system recovery (system restore). (Note: how do you roll back system changes in Ubuntu again?)

    http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/19/disk-space.aspx

    * Windows doesn't use 30GB of data to boot, your argument that using more space to install causes performance problems is stupid.

    * Ubuntu is absolutely NOT inherently more secure than Windows *ESPECIALLY* since you can drop and execute binaries in /home, and users are able to put files in ~/.config/autostart without permission.

    http://ohioloco.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=8939253&postcount=22

    * Lucid looks like shit compared to Windows 7

    * Ubuntu wins on application availability, are you kidding? Just about anything you can install in Ubuntu is available for Windows, you can't say that about anything available for Windows being available for Ubuntu.

    You need to turn off your bias, and re-evaluate objectively.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @fewt: Well, I was actually shocked I was getting so many comments and no bashing!

    You are obviously entitled to your opinion, of course, and I respect it.

    Let me just say I acknowledged from the start this was a high level comparison. I don't agree with your claims that I missed this or that, I simply don't see things the way you do. We could only get to an understanding with a long conversation and diving deep into details, which again, is not the purpose here.

    In addition, I won't bother discussing your points because I believe respect should always come first.

    Once again, thanks for your comments!

    ReplyDelete
  21. It wasn't bashing, that's a common misconception made by Linux youth when presented with a dissenting opinion that isn't easily defeated.

    "I don't agree with your claims that I missed this or that, I simply don't see things the way you do."

    Ok, no problem. We'll agree that this is an opinion (it is a blog after all) and that the article is void of fact. I linked you to information that would help you understand why I made the opposing statements that I did.

    Except in the case of Lucid looking like crap, that was an opinion not a fact.

    "We could only get to an understanding with a long conversation and diving deep into details, which again, is not the purpose here."

    I like details, as they tend to lead to facts. I also dislike the use of emotion or feelings to try to sell one thing over another, especially when the case cannot be made otherwise, but to each his own.

    "In addition, I won't bother discussing your points because I believe respect should always come first."

    You mean you are unable to dispute them. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  22. vincent - I run DOS games (DOSBox) and Windows Games (Wine) with no issues. Some DOS games are a bit touchy when it comes to sound but if you tweak the DOSBox config file to match your sound cards specifics (sound freq range for example) it works beautifully. I havent found one game I cant run.

    ReplyDelete
  23. fewt is quite funny. Without being dragged into a 'dogfight' with this guy (or gal whichever the case might be) I will simply say:

    1. Windows memory cache is a joke, Windows has always had excessive memory usage issues and all the consequent performance problems caused by it. Win 7 is by no means better. Maybe you need to read up on SuperFetch and its problems.

    2. Rolling back system changes in Ubuntu is actually very simple, one can either use terminal commands (easily found by reading the help files) or a simple install of Back In Time makes the rollback user friendly and painless.

    3. As far as security issues.. posting a link to your own trolling is hardly an effective argument. Every OS has security issues that get corrected when discovered. Linux in general is far more secure then Windows has ever been, you know it and I know it. The Register has done write ups comparing Windows Security to Linux for years.. guess what, Linux ALWAYS wins. I also had a good laugh at your Open Source claims. apparently you need a lot of education on Open Source, you looked quite silly in that 'debate'

    4. Cant really argue about your claim that Lucid is 'ugly' (I had to clean up your language) opinion is just that, opinion.. I happen to like Lucid's look.

    5. Yeah, Ubuntu does win on application availability. If you are talking quality and cost (which is what the blog writer was commenting on by the way, you need to pay more attention)

    In my opinion its you that are biased and ill-informed and frankly not worth arguing with.

    ReplyDelete
  24. लिनक्स का कोई मुकाबला नहीं. अभी मेरे नए निकॉन कैमरा का ड्राइवर विंडोज 7 में इंस्टाल नहीं हुआ मगर उबुन्टु लिनक्स में आसानी से कैमरे की फ़ाइलें यूएसबी से ट्रांसफर कर लिया.

    मगर, विंडोज का विकल्प भी नहीं है - सैकड़ों बेहद जरूरी विंडोज आधारित प्रोग्राम को चलाने के लिए विंडोज तो चाहिए ही. वाइन अभी उतना दमदार नहीं है, और समस्याएँ पैदा करता है.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think a technical comparison at a moment in time misses the greatest difference of all. These operating systems are the product of very different philosophies.

    I use both 10.04 and Windows 7 every day. Without doubt Windows 7 is slicker and more advanced right now and it has fewer bugs. I'm reporting crashes with Ubuntu every day (with apps like Tomboy e.g.--because I'm running beta software).

    But 10.04 is already highly competitive and the gap is closing visibly, and I want it to succeed. The idea that something that good is free and has a seemingly unstoppable momentum is terrific. Microsoft has a problem, not that it's stuff isn't good enough (which is often the case) but that in the end it will have a problem competing with free. It will have to shift its revenue to services and advertising, where it will be going up against Google. Technical superiority at a cost v good enough and getting better fast and free?

    It's not a tough choice. Network effects have helped Microsoft, with Office in particular, but the whole thing is simply not an impregnable fortress.

    Whatever the quality gap is in time (today's Ubuntu is better than Windows Vista or XP) it's closing and the movement is inexorable.

    The very fact of this comparison speaks to Ubuntu's rise, which is only beginning and which will continue as hardware costs fall and as Ubuntu gets design and polish to make it as easy and attractive for non-technical users as OSX.

    Anyway, the leading desktop OS will be somewhat moot with the emergence of the web as an operating system, and this Microsoft will not control. Mobile devices will play a big part in this and Microsoft has proven incompetent in this space so far.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "1. Windows memory cache is a joke, Windows has always had excessive memory usage issues and all the consequent performance problems caused by it. Win 7 is by no means better. Maybe you need to read up on SuperFetch and its problems."

    There is nothing wrong with SuperFetch, nor are there any performance problems with Windows caching.

    "2. Rolling back system changes in Ubuntu is actually very simple, one can either use terminal commands (easily found by reading the help files) or a simple install of Back In Time makes the rollback user friendly and painless."

    Yes, if you want a broken system! Try rolling back evolution, or upgrading wine both challenging tasks.

    "3. As far as security issues.. posting a link to your own trolling is hardly an effective argument. Every OS has security issues that get corrected when discovered. Linux in general is far more secure then Windows has ever been, you know it and I know it. The Register has done write ups comparing Windows Security to Linux for years.. guess what, Linux ALWAYS wins."

    I'm sorry, you are completely wrong. While it is absolutely more difficult for malware to impact Linux system files, selling that it is more secure is silly unless your data has no value.

    "I also had a good laugh at your Open Source claims. apparently you need a lot of education on Open Source, you looked quite silly in that 'debate'"

    Of course you did, you are just another user that's the difference between you and I.

    "4. Cant really argue about your claim that Lucid is 'ugly' (I had to clean up your language) opinion is just that, opinion.. I happen to like Lucid's look."

    Fair enough.

    "5. Yeah, Ubuntu does win on application availability. If you are talking quality and cost (which is what the blog writer was commenting on by the way, you need to pay more attention)"

    Quality and cost? WOW, Ubuntu quality is on par with Windows ME for quality (ME may be better). Concerning cost, time is money and this distribution eats all of your time if you let it.

    "In my opinion its you that are biased and ill-informed and frankly not worth arguing with."

    Yes, I am obviously biased and ill informed because I said something you didn't want to hear. Too bad everything I said is true, and your use of your feelings and opinions doesn't defeat my statements. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Fewt - Superfetch is a waste of CPU, HDD, RAM time.... you know I am not going to debate this with you... you are on an Anti Ubuntu campaign.. kinda like an ex smoker who now has to spread the word about kicking the habit LOL You got your feelings hurt and tucked tail and ran off crying about it to whomever would listen.. your creditability went out the door.

    Later

    ReplyDelete
  28. @bupahs: Thanks for bringing in some reasoning, I agree with most of your points there.

    @fewt: I have no issues with healthy debating and discussing, but not with the arrogant and demeaning attitude you are bringing along with each of your posts.

    You like Windows? Fine, stick with it. Some of your points are interesting, it is how you bring them along I don't like.

    Tone it down, or I will start deleting your posts. I am not going to let this get into a flame war.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @bupahs - Stick to your day job, hopefully you are better at it than arguing Windows vs Linux. Maybe you should learn how Linux manages memory because aside from SuperFetch it is very similar.

    I see that you are resorting to personal attacks now though, I'm not surprised. Those who aren't smart enough to debate effectively always do.

    @chema - I never said that I liked Windows. ;) My intent wasn't to start a flame war, only to bring the facts. My apologies for the level of arrogance in my posts, I often come across that way unintentionally, it is just my personality.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Fewt - Superfetch is a waste of CPU, HDD, RAM time.... you know I am not going to debate this with you... you are on an Anti Ubuntu campaign.. kinda like an ex smoker who now has to spread the word about kicking the habit LOL You got your feelings hurt and tucked tail and ran off crying about it to whomever would listen.. your creditability went out the door.

    Later"

    Keep your day job bupahs. Instead of presenting any actual evidence, you've devolved into attacking fewt. Just to tell you, fewt has contributed heavily to the Ubuntu project, without recognition. He's more qualified than you, he has more experience than you, and he absolutely knows more about it than you do.

    Let's start with me: I'm a developer with shared source access to the Windows NT 6.1 Core OS. I have access to every OS built by Microsoft. To say that Windows wastes resources is a lie. Some applications do have issues, but it's nowhere as bad as 60% of the Linux applications available. To say that superfetch wastes resources is a tribute to your own ignorance. In nearly all tests, superfetch beat out the control in performance. It rarely uses CPU time (DMA interconnect) and it cannot possibly waste HDD time. It never talks to the HDD.

    That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  31. fewt - Personal attack? I think not, its well known (cause YOU posted it all over your blog in a no so quiet way) that you got bashed, got angry and tossed the in the towel on Ubuntu, you've been on a 'Ubuntu Sucks' campaign since. So no its not a personal attack at all.

    ------

    Matt - its not an attack when the person your commenting about made it quite clear how they feel about Ubuntu and why. As for your assumption that I am somehow less experienced, know less and am not as qualified, do you know me? I think not.. I wont stand up and say I know more then fewt, never claimed to but for you to jump in and make assumptions about what I do or do not know.. well.. nuff said

    I wonder why then there are so many tech blogs telling one how to disable it (superfetch). I wonder why so much time has been wasted on needless tweaking of settings to keep superfetch from dogging down the system and crashing, Win 7 superfetch is even more regressive.. but no there is no problem with it at all, I wonder why my Vista system had so many superfetch errors then.. if it has no issues. In a perfect environment superfetch is a good idea, but like so many MS 'features' real world application shows its flaws.

    I dont have a series of cool letters after my name, the apps I write are simple Windows Mobile scripts, I am not MS certified.. but I am a real world user.. sometimes real world users know a little something

    ReplyDelete
  32. @bupahs - "sometimes real world users know a little something"

    Well, I for one am still waiting to see that little something from you.

    For your information I first said Ubuntu sucks October 2009, many months before I told Mark to F off. If you are going to try to use my words against me you could at least get them in the right order. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  33. fewt - this could go on and on and on, so here is that little something

    ReplyDelete
  34. @bupahs - finally! HAH! :P

    ReplyDelete
  35. I liked your review, it's simple and to the point. I prefer using Kubuntu or OpenSuse - I'm a KDE girl... ;-) - and the choice is mainly based on safety and stability (yes, with KDE). It may sound silly, but I also enjoy that "magical solution" element that comes with every main Linux distribution. Since most of the applications are open source, they get the bugs fixed in record time compared to restricted or proprietary apps. For instance, last week I had a major bug in Amarok, which kept me from even launching the application (my bad, was my first thought). I reported the bug, started using Rhythmbox and moved on... Why? because three days later happened what I knew would happen: I ran my daily updates and the solution came! hahaha

    On the other hand, I also keep a small windows partition which I only use for video games (which I only use like once a week during my vacations). I also need to use some Adobe and Corel applications (for work), but I have a virtual machine in Kubuntu with Windows XP installed for that. I just don't like Windows.. (and it's a personal taste thing). I don't like its look & feel, the fact that I have to defrag the hard drive or perform a clean install every year so it won't get laggy, the fact that I have to reboot for almost anything... That's why I use the virtual machine. It's faster and easier, and I can still use my linux system at the same time.
    I'm not a software engineer (I wish I were, though), I'm just your average user and I don't have the time or will to worry about virus, spyware, upgrading hardware, etc.
    The performance I get from my linux systems is flawless, excellent and I don't think I would trade it for anything at least twice better!

    ReplyDelete
  36. @anna: Thanks for your comments, I am glad you enjoyed my comparison. You may want to look at the review of KDE4.4.1 I recently wrote and let me know what you think.

    @fewt, Matt, bupahs: Hope that was it, really! ;-)

    From now on, can we just keep the discussion around the comparison and technical stuff?

    Thx!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hola!

    yeah, I like the comparison, but I would love to see that, although you mention "Ubuntu in particular, Linux in general...", you take a more open minded view of Linux. Just my opinion, that's it. I see (in a few years) people asking which distro of Ubuntu do you have? =P

    Saludos!

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Alejandro: Thanks for your comments.

    I see your point, and I agree to a certain extent. In fact, whenever I write articles, that's one of the things I struggle with. When you talk about a certain functionality for Fedora, that probably makes no sense under Ubuntu, Debian or Mandriva, and that applies any way you look at it.

    As a result, I had to make some compromises and stick with Ubuntu. I believe it is the most popular distro nowadays, and also my favorite, so off I went with it! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  39. @fwet no Has said it or maybe I glossed over it. but your points are irreverent because they are based on false pretenses. Ubuntu (all Linux distros) usally only report userland ram usage, EVERYthing else is being used as cache and buffers. Does do windows that?
    Linux lets you run binaries in ~/ (witch is /home/your-user-name by the way.) and sub-directories by design. That is part of your personal space, and Linux assumes you know what your doing. You can totally foul up your home directory and not effect anyone else's home directory or system files.
    Windows security is leaning towards protecting the type of user who has no real interest in computers and will blindly click ok just as fast as the window comes up. Linux security is multi-user from the ground up, designed to give the user complete control over his personal space. It assumes the user is willing to take an active part in his own security while setting sane defaults. Some systems vary at how effective they accomplish this, but settings can always be changed.
    Ubuntu takes about an 30 min to install and another 20 or so to customize, its stable and portable, and can be completely copied at any point in time. plus it can be easily configured to store your data separate from the system. (It only doesn't by default so as not to confuse win converts I believe.) So in the event you mange to mess your install badly enough. Its easy to reinstall and keep your data and settings. with all that in place why is there an need for recovery space again?
    Ubuntu's or any os's "looks" are completely subjective But if you want to argue about it.. Windows 7 is slick I'll give you that, but when you look closer, thats it. Theres nothing else but shiny candy glass effects, don't you get tiered of wearing your sunglasses at your desktop? While Ubuntu's default is more a muted matte finish, better suited for actually working. And if thats not to your taste there are literary thousands of choices out there, including win7 and OSX clones.
    App availability? your kidding right? let me guess, missing MS office, CS4? next your going to complain you can't play super Mario on xbox. Apples and oranges dude. There are suitable alternatives.
    Your a tool fwet, and a troll. So you can now commence twisting my words, ignoring my arguments and linking to BS facts and stats while you collect that fat paycheck for MS propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Your a tool fwet, and a troll. So you can now commence twisting my words, ignoring my arguments and linking to BS facts and stats while you collect that fat paycheck for MS propaganda."

    Being smarter than you about technology doesn't make me a troll. Implying that I collect some paycheck from Microsoft because I know more about both Linux and Windows than you obviously do just shreds your credibility.

    The rest of what you wrote isn't even worth my time. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Isn't I nice I gave you an easy out. No need to address the facts. You have no idea what I know And I didn't imply you collect from MS, I flat out accused you.

    ReplyDelete
  42. fewt,

    You certainly know more about computers than I do. But at least my mother cared enough about me to teach me better mannners than yours did.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @CK - Actually Corey, I do. If you were just a slight bit smarter you would know that I don't get a check from MS. I didn't address your comments because you aren't even skilled enough to spell correctly much less understand for instance how GNOME system monitor (yes that's right it wasn't Ubuntu doing that) reports memory.

    Let me help you with that:

    echo $(free | grep Mem: | awk '{printf $3" - "$6" - "$7}') | bc

    OH NOES the M$ dude can use shell!

    As for Linux letting you do whatever you want in ~ well that's a pretty significant security problem, too bad you are too f-ing dumb to know that though, huh?

    Crawl back in your hole before I really decided to play with you. How's that Shiki "Frost" theme coming, anyway?

    @Steven - I am what I am.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Wow, I had not check comments lately.

    I will only mention this one more time: the next personal attack post will be deleted straight away.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  47. fewt,
    I have a simple question.
    I know Ubuntu requirement for normally working with most of application is about 300MB ~ 500MB.
    How much memory do you need only for normally working Windows7?!

    ReplyDelete
  48. @ismail - I wouldn't recommend less than 1GB unless you were going to immediately disable services after installing.

    I've had Linux distros using as little as 12MB of memory, and distros that have used more than 8GB (very large documents / images). It all depends on the use case. The same is true for either Linux distros or Windows. How do you define your apps?

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @ismail - Why wouldn't I fairly compare? What are you trying to prove here? I didn't say anything about "server" services. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  53. @fewt:
    Minimum requirement of each OS(Ubuntu and Windows7) for same usages and applications, clearly shows facts about resource utilisation (most important responsibility of any O.S.) and overheads of running O.S.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ismail - I don't agree. The minimum requirement for an operating system is just that, it's a minimum needed to perform an operating system installation.

    Actual utilization and user specific requirement defines how you size memory.

    Technically you can install Ubuntu w/ 64MB of memory, but it would be useless as a system to run GNOME, Open Office, and GIMP.

    It would be fine for a non GUI running naim, pine, and vim though.

    https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements

    The most important responsibility of an OS is to perform the tasks required by its user.

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  56. ops lost the link, try again.

    @ fwet I see you can use Google, good boy. I haven't hidden my identity so you've proven nothing, except you have tendencies toward stalking. And attacking my grammar.. the last ditch effort of a troll, I least I attempt to express myself without cursing or insulting others.

    I think you know too much for your own good, I've watched every conversation I've seen you participate in turn into, well this. Your an antagonist, and you bring out the worst in people. And I believe you enjoy it. this post http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1032102 was written with you in mind wasn't it?

    The worst part is, I know better than to engage you. It leads to nowhere. But you have that special skill to get under people's skin, while you sit in solitude somewhere inciting flame wars. I was wrong your not paid by MS, that was me trying to make sense of you behavior. Your just a jerk.

    BTW Shiki Frost is on hold while I wait to upgrade, lotsa new GTK/Murrine tricks to try out Thanks for asking. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  57. @chema martín
    My apologies to you. Fewt is well, Fwet. He got me and I felt a need to call him what he is, I'm done now.

    ReplyDelete
  58. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  59. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  60. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @ck: No need to apologize, you needed to call him whatever and I need to stop this, so your last "attacking" post is now removed, just like those from fewt and Steven that added little or nothing other than fuel to this nonsense flame war.

    I really feel it is a shame that it's gone wrong like this, because you guys are all very skilled and have very interesting points of view. A constructive discussion would have helped many to learn more about Linux and OS in general.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @chema - Unfortunately the truth is pretty painful, and not often well received. As for my intent, it was never a flame war, and I'm sorry if your less experienced readers didn't get that.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Wow, I just bumped into this blog. I have read some of fewts blogs as well as used some of his apps/scripts. But I didnt know fewt is such a fiery person (no offence, every person has distinct characteristic).

    Now, on Windows 7 vs Ubuntu 10.04. As an average user, I must say both of them are very good OSes. I use ubuntu at office and on my netbook. And then I use Windows 7 at home (primarily for Media Center and Win Games). And I am very happy with both of them. They do the tasks as per my needs and efficiently.

    ReplyDelete
  64. First I must say that I enjoyed this comparison and its intent. But from a perspective point of view I think some details are seen through a lens rather than for what they are. For example SuperFetch for Windows 7. I know this has been beaten and bashed to death by some of the commenters posts but from my point of view Microsoft finally got memory caching right. Especially in the sense of CPU usage and disk caching. Windows 7 runs great on a system that wouldn't even barely boot Vista and in the same note runs it just as well as XP on the same said system.

    I am not in the least interested in becoming part of this flame war here but I think everyone here has made great contributions of information while at the same time viewing certain aspects through a fish eye lens. Meaning, like a person that owns a certain type of sports car will swear his car is the best thing since sliced bread while at the same time will acknowledge that the competition has similar features but just cant do it like his branded feature can.

    At the end of the day OS preference lies not only in the user aesthetics but the experience, needed flexibility, and usage. Most users could care less whats running under the hood. When you login, you need it to just work.

    Ive been a Windows user since Win 3.x and Linux user since the late 90s. From my experience both sides offer compelling reasons to use them and reasons not to. Linux's lack of support for some high end hardware and inability to play the latest and greatest games without reading walls and walls of text hurt it in the home market. Lots of people tell me I would switch but will it play my favorite game? Windows misses on the in your face need to upgrade hardware per OS release, ridiculous cost, and intrusive licencing practices in my opinion. (My system crashed then once finally recovered, proceeded to tell me my install wasn't genuine!)

    In closing Windows 7 wins with its broad marketing power and ease of compatibility with other major brands (iPhone, Xbox, games, Media Center linked products, and manufactures interest in making Windows only software for their products). Ubuntu although has lessened this gap but it still remains. On the other hand Ubuntu wins with its ease of use, long list of great default application options, price, stability. Morale of this story? Normal users don't care about the technical details and I think poster of this blog did a great job of relaying the information in a simple to digest way. To each his own.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @adrian
    CS4, true
    OpenOffice, you failed with that argument.

    OpenOffice uses too little memory in default, ture but you can set it to 128 instad of 20 for example

    ReplyDelete
  66. Of course, you can just make Ubuntu 10 look like win7. problem solved, except for how to get the highlighted rectangle around the whole icon instead of just the text.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I just love ubuntu. But i've 3 issues with linux, that i failed to solve.
    1. i have apple ipod nano, and i know that we can sync songs using the many players available for ubuntu. But using iTunes, we can enable the genius feature in the iPod. this is not possible for ubuntu. if it is possible in ubuntu, then please mail me the name of the software at udey.rishi@gmail.com

    2. I couldn't find a video converter. reason is same, for my ipod. or is there any good converter available?

    3. we can't set up a scheduler on ubuntu. like in windows, i've set up a schedule (using the software "auto power on & shut-down") to wak the pc from sleep at 2am connect to my DSL broadband internet, start utorrent and start downloading and then turn off the pc at 8 am. this is because my ISP doesn't charge from 2am to 8am. i can't use this "free-time-internet" without the cost of my sleep in ubuntu.

    does anyone have solutions to these??

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thanks all for those comments!

    @udey rishi: I don't have an iPod, so can't help on the first item. As for video converters, there are some. In my experience, Avidemux is the most convenient, sporting a balance between ease of use and power. It provides template formats for exporting to iPod, PSP, etc.

    As for the scheduler, well, have you tried CRON? It is obviously less user friendly, but if you know your way around scripting, you can do wicked stuff. I personally don't know of any GUI interface, always use it from the GUI.

    Good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  69. I bought a Lenovo thinkpad edge, with W7 incorporated. Brand new. I really tried to give W7 a chance, 'cause many people assured me, there was a very good improvement. listen, i aint no IT guy... I just use text editors, surf the internet, listen to music, photo management and edition... maybe a bit of html. But after an hour or so, i quited on W7: security issues, problems reading USB memory sticks, cannot play .ogg files... I could learn to configure it, and all, but at the end I'll have a OS that is insecure and crashes (at least) from time to time. I installed K10.04 last night. I needed to configure mp3 libraries, the flashplayer, and maybe some other things like the inc. camera and the WLAN card. But I know, that at least in 3 weeks, I'm gonna have a system I can trust. My last laptop (IMB R40) was the prof of this for the last 7 years.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @ fewt

    "* Ubuntu is absolutely NOT inherently more secure than Windows *ESPECIALLY* since you can drop and execute binaries in /home, and users are able to put files in ~/.config/autostart without permission."

    You mean running random scripts/binaries is a security risk? Wow what a shocker.

    The nice thing about Ubuntu is that even if your /home is trashed due to some malicious app, at least it won't bring your whole system down. (unless you run it with root privileges)

    Btw you should try being a bit less aggressive on the internet. (yes lol I know) Calling people dumb is easy but it weakens your arguments when someone is looking for information and has to sift through your personal attacks to find it.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @robert

    Given sufficient incentives, users will run random things from the Internet. (Dancing pigs problem)

    On malware not bringing the system down, that is hardly any consolation considering that my personal data is the most important thing on the system. I can reinstall the operating system and the applications, but what about the book I was working on? What about my PhD thesis? Bear in mind that not all users have backups.

    Malware in Windows is already transitioning to user-mode. In the future, we may not see malware doing obvious things such as targeting system files or trashing your home folder, but siphoning off your data silently. Linux may be good at multi-user security, but it won't protect against malware running as you. As fewt said, Ubuntu does not prevent you from executing things from your own folders.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @fewt

    Shocked I was, that a core developer of Eeebuntu, held such arrogance and disrespect for your fellow netizens. And isn't it an irony that you proudly labeled yourself as 'OSS Guy, Linux & Perl geek, RedHat Certified Engineer.' I agree with some of your opinions, but next time, try to learn some manners :) One last thing: Linux is free for all, if you don't like it, stay away from it, the developers don't owe you a favor or anything.

    ReplyDelete
  73. W7 is impressive compared to other Windows OS. When it comes to stability and recovery. I have never been so impressed with Ubuntu until they came out with 10.04. In a few years time, it can be at par with OS X.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Along with others, please add this point too :

    If not for the rise of (interest) on the linux, Microsoft may (will) be still giving us only Win 95, and office 1997, and of course IE 6, because there is no need for them to create new to make more money.

    In the third world countries - just try to buy MS Office - and install at home !!!. I dont think that anyone who buys MS Office 2010 - is going to use all the features it offers, other than mostly writing documents, that is all. Becuase if he is going to do anything else, there is no need for Photoshop, Illustrator, Pagemaker, Corel Draw 14 etc. (he is not going to use 2010, right). In this case then OOO 3.2 is more than enough, for most of the people who does going to do only documents - through Word or Writer.

    thanks

    ReplyDelete
  75. Good article, I agree that Ubuntu wins the fight here. I switched from Windows 7 to Ubuntu 9.04, then a few weeks later 10.04 came out. Since the release I've just explored the seemingly endless possibilities (especially the visual effects through compiz). The only real drawback is the hardware recognition, but at least the OS was able to get the important hardware to work (doesn't detect my built in webcam).

    ReplyDelete
  76. Well, I can see the jump in dates on this blog, but I just have to post my opinion. I tried Ubuntu 10.04 on a second hdd in my rig, after an hour the drive was formatted for use in Windows 7. As far as superfetch, yes I disable it, seems to be faster without it. Also Windows Search is disabled, I hate my hdd light going like a christmas tree while I game. But that's just it, I game, I have gaming hardware, I expect performance. This is just my experience, but while in ubuntu, flash performance was hella crappy. Sound hardware acceleration seemed non existant as when I was multitasking while playing music, well the music constantly skipped/paused. 3d acceleration was crap. Played world of warcraft with wine and well, got less than half the fps I usually do in windows. I just had a crappy experience. As far as software availability, for me Windows wins. I don't trust software written by individuals, I trust the software written by proven corporations. I want to audio/video edit, I will use ProTools, FLstudio, Sony Vegas, or any adobe product. You get what you pay for, Linux is free, you get the quality of free. I will gladly pay for the quality I receive in windows. My W7 installation has had absolutely 0 problems since it was installed a year ago. Hardware upgrades went smoothly. Oh and Ubuntu became un bootable after I installed the latest ATI driver for my video card. Not linux's fault I know, but it doesn't happen in Windows. Until the manufacturer's start supporting linux, linux will always just be for tinkerers and techheads like me, but not for the mainstream or for productivity. I spent so much time tweaking ubuntu and googling for how to do this or how to do that that my productivity dropped to 0. So yes, I will stick to W7. All the tech in the world doesn't matter, Ubuntu could be 10x better than Windows in the statistics, but people will still use Windows. And lets not forget that open source and freeware software is also available on Windows. I love Audacity actually. I use Firefox and Google Chrome over IE, ect. In summary, my opinion is Windows is geared for most people that use computers, and will provide the best reliability, security, and stability since everyone under the sun supports windows. Linux is for people who like to tinker with tech, get under the hood, and write their own drivers/wrappers to get things to work. Finding workarounds for things they would like to do. For an OS to succeed it has to be able to do everything. For that Windows has and will continue to succeed.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Your post was very informative and was a learning experience for me. I am much interested in Windows 7 operating system and about its features. I will definitely keep coming back to read interesting updates about Windows 7.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @fewt
    "You need to turn off your bias, and re-evaluate objectively."
    I think everyone here is trying to be as unbiased as possible. I have no doubt that chema was unbiased.
    Very nice article here! Chema you did a wonderful job. I can't wait till I install Ubuntu(I'd already have it if it weren't for all my USB's being filled up).

    ReplyDelete
  79. Very nice and interesting comments all, thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
  80. nice review man...great....i would realy like to go for ubuntu...!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  81. I guess this is showing my age, I can recall when their was no operating system. Microsoft came out with I think was 3.1 and then 3.11 for work groups. How can we forget Win 95, Millennium, and Vista. Did we have any troubles? I guess plug and play depended on what ISA or PCI device you were using. Then Dos was set aside for the great NT technology starting in or around 1999. Vista was a joke and XP I have to admit was a more user friendly operating system, yet where is the security that Microsoft promised. I love Linux Untunbu 10.4. Yes I had wireless issues just had to blacklist a couple of conflicting drivers. I believe Linux should charge a fee for their operating system, do more networking with hardware manufacturers, and take the giant Microsoft on.
    I would love to see a Linux advertisement on TV.
    A special thanks to the engineers, the students
    and all those at Linux that has given the consumer a second choice.

    ReplyDelete
  82. In reference to my above post I did not mention
    Windows 7. I had XP Professional service pack 2, finally decided to change that last magical upgrade to 3. Lost my operating system. Reinstalled Windows XP after clean format. Thanks to Windows
    Genuine Advantage wanted me to call for activation. Have you ever contacted Microsoft for technical support? I now use that Windows XP Prof.disk as a coaster. Microsoft has taken my last dime. I will never forget Bill Gates saying that most users will not see any bugs in Windows 95 for the average user. Why should I believe MS now. Once again thank you Linux:))))))))

    ReplyDelete
  83. i am a content writer, i have very little scope about operating systems but i try out everything that comes out. so that gives m ea working knowledge of all platforms (except Mac, never tried it).
    dear blog writer, your post was really nice. teh comments made by certain users also helped me understand more about lucid lynx. i have been trying ubuntu for almost 4 years now but after a few months i used to go back to windows. i must say lucid lynx seems to be vast improvement over karmic koala. since the resource usage is less,my toshiba satellite L510 goes on for more than 5hrs on a single charge ( while writing articles). the increase in battery life is a huge upside for me.

    here is what i think about ubuntu.
    slowly but surely it is catching up with windows and most importantly Mac. i personally feel ubuntu will be at par with Macs by teh next year.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Daschmi

    I have read through the article and all of the comments (some being better than others) and have to say that it was a fairly well rounded evaluation of both OS's.

    But as any software affectionado, I have to add my two cents.

    I know that you did these tests in a VM with the same specs and that you did not do any fine tuning, as any gamer or techie would do. I find it interesting that win 7 comes out with about 450 MB ram usage and Ubuntu 10.04 (from my own experience on a system with similar specs) can run with decent bells and whistles for the same cost of system usage.

    BUT..

    For it to viable to most home users, there has to be easier ways to tweak your system (one of the best things about linux). With the increasing implimentation of GRUB2 and some of the other updates, I find some poor documentation on them, as you had stated in your post.

    Mr. Green from Linux User and Developer, once stated that education costs money, but so does ignorance. Learning about an OS costs time, a commodity in most standards. Taking that philosophy, i decided to learn more about the linux OS and use some of it's philosophies in my Vista box (being that I am primarily a Windows User). I turned that nightmare of a system into a lean machine. Taking that same approach, I am branching into Linux. i have been dabbleing in it for some time and have priorly used it as a rescue OS or a guest OS through the LIVE CD option (I use MINT 9). I liked it enought to toy around with it and to reinstall it 6 times in the past 2 months until I learned it's limits. It is how i learn, and i did the same thing with windows when i wanted to tweak the hell out of it. I did nto mind being that I was using it as a learning experience. As the Author stated (paraphrased) We are here to learn about the OS's as objectively as possible. That is why I am not going to state which is better or which is not. Too many fanbois out there of both OS's myself included. Objectively, i am very impressed with Ubuntu's (Mint's ) new offering in the LTS distro. Fairly user frinedly and intuitive. From an objective point, it is different. Getting used to the standard Gnome Menus took a little bit of time, and I prefer it to the Mint Menu that used up more resources compared to the standard Gnome stock one. My comment reference earlier about education and ignorance both being costly, I interpret as this; With any OS, if you are willing to apply yourself to learning about its software andput effort into understanding how it runs, you will have less issues that the "standard" user who plugs it in and simply runds it and expects it to run fine forever without any intervention. Thats my 2 cents worth.

    ReplyDelete
  85. It is always very difficult to compare two completely different OSes but I see many interest comments here and share many experience people have here. I tried installing a few different distros and they are all very good for general computer users. I started using Ubuntu since 8.04 and my server is running on Ubuntu 8.04. No problem since I installed it since 2006 and I got updates whenever available. I am not a technical person, just like to try something different. I think most people in this blog have their points. It is no need to argue which one is better as they are very different and people have different demands. Just choose whichever you think better suit you. Among the few different distros (Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, Archlinux and Open Solaris) Ubuntu and SuSE come out the easies to install. Debian is equally easy to istall as well. Open Solaris can only install on a primary partition and Archlinux is the most difficult one. I believe Fedorea and Mandriver should be easy as well. Recently I installed Ubuntu 10.04 LTS dual boot with my Windows XP and everything went fine and it just have almost everything I needed even a video editing software! However, there are a couple of issues: 1. Sound hardware suddently disappeared and needed to be reboot to get it back and then without warning disappeared again. I google and found a workaround to disable pulseaudio but the volume control is gone and microphone on Skype is not working either.
    2. The WiFi performance is very poor and I come acorss many 'connection timeout' in Firefox and updating. These were not happened before the 9.04 issue. I would like to see if anyone have similar experience to me as my hardware are not upmarket hardware, they are only general spec. HW for a humble computer user.

    Eric

    ReplyDelete
  86. I'm the smartest guy in the the world and I have to say, Ubuntu is better!

    ReplyDelete
  87. If this OS can install perfectly the first time (and recognize all my devices and drivers), run on a 5 or 6-year-old computer with 4GB of RAM, and run as fast (if not a little faster) than my Macbook Pro, and do everything I do on the Mac, I have a hard time justifying the cost of Windows (of which I've been a staunch supporter of for years.) Plus, the rotating cube (compiz) just thrills me every time I swap screens...actually really convenient for me. And my nVidia graphics card is welcomed with open arms by UBUNTU; there's nothing to gripe about from my standpoint. Linux has a permanent place on my desk beside Windows and OSX now.

    ReplyDelete
  88. v. nice article , for those who are concentrated on the technical accepts - http://www.softpanorama.org/index.shtml

    Extremism is dangerous - everywhere , even in IT.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Currently the only option for a consumer desktop is Windows unless you want to spend $1200 on a Mac. There is an market for a competitive OS, and Linux is the only company poised to do that. There are clear advantages. They're cost, security, performance, and software availability. The problem is that Linux is clumsy and hard to configure.

    As a consumer, I don't have time to type in commands, I want my computer to work the first time. The OS is the most important piece of software on my computer. It houses a lot of personal information, so a "free" OS is actually a HUGE disadvantage. "Free" often means "cheap." That's why people spend money buying android phones instead of getting a free flip phone.

    The biggest problem for Linux is that it's poorly marketed. Google managed to crack the consumer market using Linux with Android. That's what we're looking for.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Ubuntu is a good start. One problem is how it's packeged. The package design is just plain ugly and by looking at it, I'd never know if it's an operating system, especially if it's retailing at $19.99. It looks like just another box with cheap software. I would suggest a package design that looks simple and sophisticated. Another suggestion would be to raise the price by offering everything including the kitchen sink in a $79 package and make sure the software is well integrated. That strategy is how Hyundai and Kia became successful.

    The OS needs to be more flashy. It needs more flare and it needs more originality in order to get people's attention. This means, you need kiosks at Best Buy with cool demos.

    Ubuntu is a weird name. Brand the OS under something more catchy

    ReplyDelete
  91. wow, "ubuntu is a wierd name"... someone needs to do a little research as to what it means. and the point is not to make money, but to offer the user freedom. and the $19.99 is another companyu making money off of free product by putting it in a package. i did not pay anything but bandwidth for it. because it is open-source (free to use and free to change/remix/edit/distribute)

    ReplyDelete
  92. Hyundai and Kia became successful by being cheaper than other companies. And in one of those cases being bought by another more successful company.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I'm a Ubuntu user myself, writting this from my Eeepc 901 with Ubuntu 10.04 slapped on it. All I do miss is gaming and I do that with WIn7 on my home quadcore pc (that's at home, I'm in my college town now). But I must say....You really kind of took Ubuntu's side there pall, I mean, I love it too, but I have to agree with Fewt (or something) when he said you let you emotions guide you with your decisions. Either way, I think my days with this distro are numbered. As much as I love it, I won't stick around with Ubuntu if they move to Gnome 3. Damn java infested code reminds me of the interface on my old cellphone. Going back on topic, good post and greets from Romania!

    ReplyDelete
  94. Thanks for the article, I use XP - Win 7 & Ubuntu 10.04 on a variety of machines and have dabbled with Vista. I first used W7 RC on a 2 ghz single core laptop, ram max. 1GB - it ran very well but required "hacking" to enable to on-board graphics & I had to manually install the wi-fi PC Card (remember those? using a Vista driver.

    Most programmes I tried would run if compatible with Vista. Windows 7 RC was more stable than Vista - the only time it appeared to struggle was handling graphics files, especially cut & paste from say website into Word.

    Two advantages I find using Win 7 everyday: one is the indexing so that if you search on one word in "My Documents" the answers come up immediately.

    The second is the vast array of free & compatible software: for photos I use a basic programme called FastStone which will display my pictures quickly & correctly within Windows.

    Ubuntu is a brilliant programme & the first Linux for me to be able to use wi-fi on a laptop. It struggles with mundane things: it recognises & installs drivers for HP printers but no such luck with my Epson BX300F workhorse which prints, scans within Windows & faxes standalone with no problems all day.

    Ubuntu doesn't play mp3 files out of the box - I understand the license issues - and sorry to say but Open Office isn't even close to MS Office in usability. Last but not least no programmes in my industry are Linux ready, you could get by with XP & IE6 if you had to but not Ubuntu.

    Linux kinda restores some faith in humanity, due to the philosophy & the fact they can even be compared to Windows - but if I have to earn a living using this thing then any debate begins & ends with MS.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Ultimate thing is that windows 7 cost around 100$
    But ubuntu is absolutely free
    they even ship you the cd for free to your doorstep

    ReplyDelete
  96. when you give stress to drawbacks of linux just look at the cost

    ReplyDelete
  97. Lawrance Andrew,

    I found this on the ubuntu web page:

    ubuntu |oǒ'boǒntoō|

    Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning 'humanity to others'. It also means 'I am what I am because of who we all are'.

    Except for the rude comments, I have found this is a very informative blog. I just might download Ubuntu on my pc laptop. I don't see how it can be any worse than all the problems I have had to endure for two years with Windows.

    Thank you Mr. Martin for creating this blog. You did a great job

    ReplyDelete
  98. Hi. Fewt made some important remarks, but like you said it's not a fair comparison. But I liked it, thanks :). I like Ubuntu a lot. It's fast, has compiz-fusion and it's free. It's great for personal use, a server or to make a cross compiler tool :D. But computers were made to solve problems. For that you need tools and resources. That's were Windows shines. It's easy for anyone to install it and setup the tools they need and since Windows is widely used there are many kinds of tools available. So what if you have a 3D desktop and 11 sec boot time. My Win7 Ultimate has Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate, MatLabs, Office 2010 Pro Plus, FL Studio XL, Photoshop CS5, Sony Vegas 9.0, UDK. My Furute: Ubuntu on QUAD CORE + Win7 in VMWare (using seperate HD), side-by-side in the cube dekstop on my plasma tv :). Totaly off topic o_o.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Very biased. How does Ubuntu win on the applications category?

    ReplyDelete
  100. I would like to challenge Windows 7 to Ubuntu Linux in actual foss applications... try ripping a DVD movie, converting music from FLAC to mp3, converting Xvid video at 1280x1080p resolution and downloading a torrent file with you web browser opening 3 tabs at least and listening to music at the same time in a machine with a dual core, 2GB memory, Intel Video card... that's a great challenge... the actual using of applications in an os.

    ReplyDelete
  101. @Fewt
    "Let me help you with that:

    echo $(free | grep Mem: | awk '{printf $3" - "$6" - "$7}') | bc

    OH NOES the M$ dude can use shell! "

    haha , LOL, cant stop laughing at this guy,
    really, does that make you a linux expert??
    get a life troll, and come back with real knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Lol, a bunch of kiddie fan boys bragging about an operating system that is free yet for "some unexplainable reason" can't beat out the expensive one (Windows) in market share. True story.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "Ubuntu feels like an empty canvas."

    Really well said!Thanks for all the info!

    ReplyDelete
  104. Dear Fewt,
    both OS's are professional grade so there is no point arguing any further. It is really your choice if you are going to use Ubuntu or Windows 7. Usability is in pair, look and feel is in pair. It is really your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Lol, a bunch of kiddie fan boys bragging about an operating system that is free yet for "some unexplainable reason" can't beat out the expensive one (Windows) in market share. True story.

    --What market share?
    Supercomputers predominantly run a variant of Linux.
    --Web Server Market Share?
    Humm, whats that?
    But really seriously since you mentioned kids. Did you know that MS holds that much Desktops because of the kids? I bet you dont believe me, but most of the desktops are used for playing games. Take care brau!

    ReplyDelete
  106. IN CONCLUSION:

    Windows have more than 20 years of experience, it's in a well supported version and almost al software in the globe can run on it.....and STILL you guys can't decide weather or not it is better than a OS that was released just 6 years ago, in a BETA version.

    Just wanna say that :)

    ReplyDelete
  107. Thanks for article it was pretty informative but like other commenters have said, the article did seem to written through rose tinted glasses.

    I'll be honest here, I've had to install Windows 7 today on my SSD at least 5 times because of trying to optimise it for the SSD which btw is great, and was looking at another O/S that hopefully wouldn't frustrate me more than 7 did (tbh i much preferred XP, none of this admin this and admin that malarky).

    I happened upon Ubuntu on my college course and from what i've read, its really shaping along and seems to be one of the more developed desitributions currently out. Frankly the price is brilliant but unfortunately, game support seems lacking for this O/S and compatibility issues. Given some time I'm hoping for this O/S to mature like a fine wine until then i'll stick to Windows and for the comment above: just brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Wow. I never would have thought you could compare a lacking in features and still come with a better distro. I mean, I suppose all that waiting to boot up a superior operating system is pointless. I mean I wish I had the exact ratio on how many programs (that already exist) run on windows. Compared to linux. And the amount of time it takes to go through dependencies to install a program from scratch rather then running a precompiled msi or exe,
    but I suppose minimalists entirely forget that most people like professional programs (and sometimes games that don't suck).

    ReplyDelete
  109. I had so much trouble deciding what to pick that I decided to install both: Windows 7 on my primary PC, and Ubuntu on the older one. What I really don't like about Ubuntu is the difficulty of finding good professional software and that there's always something that just doesn't work, which is extremely annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Boot time is pretty meaningless, and so is resource usage, as I prefer that the OS make use of the resources that I have. What matters: Can it run the software I need it to run, and does it support my hardware? Linux still fails here. As far as bugs go, Linux apps seem to contain far more of them than equivalent Windows apps.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I can't believe how much of this I just wasn't aware of. Thank you for bringing more information to this topic for me. I'm truly grateful and really impressed.
    20110120 pilipalagaga
    windows 7

    ReplyDelete
  112. Well, this was an interesting read.

    Personally I just switched from Windows 7 to Ubuntu. Why? Why not? It does what I need it to do.
    But, neither Windows 7 or Ubuntu can come near the feeling of the "Classic" AmigaOS in my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Nice article! Very insightful!

    Yeah, I agree with the eye-candy Windows 7 is giving end-users. I found it really fun looking at it at first, but then, after a while, it's basically just Windows, you know. Antiviruses. Trial MS Office. Another browser coz the one preinstalled is... Windows Live Essentials even has to be downloaded first - Why is it not preinstalled if it's so essential, huh?

    Hahaha! I like this Fewt vs. the World thing. Though I really don't have any ideas on the techie stuff they keep on arguing about. Just an everyday computer user here. Then again, I prefer Ubuntu coz it's something new after having used Windows since 1995. It's easy to use for an average end-user and it has everything that I need: a web browser, photo manager, email and chat clients. Plus it doesn't require defragging or antiviruses. I love the customizations: wobbly windows, 3D cube, an expose-like configuration like the one in Mac OS X, and so much more.

    ReplyDelete
  114. @FEWT

    You're a dick. You should go out with your friends sometimes - if you have any.

    ReplyDelete
  115. windows disk usage : 13.3 GB
    ubuntu : 2.4 GB
    NVIDIA driver is about 130MB and do you know how many such drivers are included in 13.3 GB.
    I installed ubuntu today, but I found that my ASUS WL-138g wifi card is not supported, what i did? deleted ubuntu. I realy wanted to try ubuntu.
    on my quad-core windows 7 boots about 25sec, do you realy think its metter if ubuntu will boot in 20sec?
    Ubuntu is free...
    Windows is 100$-200$
    but I need 1:30h to install Windows 7 and all software I need, with Ubuntu - mayby 1 day for some driver. PC is a tool to use to make a job-money and its worth to pay 200$ and dont waste 2 dayes to install some drivers or software.
    I realy don't understand you when saying that ubuntu is more user friendly. Lets say Ubuntu is good for linux guyes, but for general user Windows is best.
    BUT I know that competition is good and maybe because Ubuntu and some OS we now have such a nice Windows 7.

    I am not a general user , I am Tech-Director in telecomunication company.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I teach guitar and am a performing musician. I have to do publicity, accoutancy and frequently record my students in the studio. For years I have used Word, Corel,Sonar etc on Windows for all these activities, and having experimented at length over a 2 year period with various Linux distros have now finally brought the curtain down on Windows. There are Linux based programmes that meet my every need, they're fast, reliable and free. I save a huge amount of start-up and processing time, I avoid viruses and malware, and my costs are minimal, only paying for Guitar Pro as Tuxguitar has some printing issues. The bottom line is that if you buy into the open source philosophy and really want it to work, you'll make it work - but there will be a learning curve. If you like features and sophisticication - Windows, if you like clean,simple and economical - Linux

    ReplyDelete
  117. Ubuntu is very good in my opinion, and it is cheaper and faster than Windows 7.

    But I also have to agree that I would not be able to work as good as if I work in linux, because of applications like photoshop that are much better than others in ubuntu (like gimp).

    So, for that reason, now I have installed ubuntu 10 and windows 7 in my PC.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anonymous said...

    windows disk usage : 13.3 GB
    ubuntu : 2.4 GB
    NVIDIA driver is about 130MB and do you know how many such drivers are included in 13.3 GB.
    I installed ubuntu today, but I found that my ASUS WL-138g wifi card is not supported, what i did? deleted ubuntu. I realy wanted to try ubuntu.
    on my quad-core windows 7 boots about 25sec, do you realy think its metter if ubuntu will boot in 20sec?
    Ubuntu is free...
    Windows is 100$-200$
    but I need 1:30h to install Windows 7 and all software I need, with Ubuntu - mayby 1 day for some driver. PC is a tool to use to make a job-money and its worth to pay 200$ and dont waste 2 dayes to install some drivers or software.
    I realy don't understand you when saying that ubuntu is more user friendly. Lets say Ubuntu is good for linux guyes, but for general user Windows is best.
    BUT I know that competition is good and maybe because Ubuntu and some OS we now have such a nice Windows 7.

    I am not a general user , I am Tech-Director in telecomunication company.
    ===
    Well put! Exactly what I face now, I need a tool, not a toy!

    ReplyDelete
  119. Anonymous, if you are happy with Windows, that´s great, I respect it, but I can hardly understand how you can speak of Ubuntu like that if you barely have any experience with it. According to your comment, you deleted it almost instantaneously.

    While some Linux benefits are obvious right away, many not so obvious become apparent after weeks, sometimes months of continued use. Another thing to keep in mind is that I was comparing Ubuntu 10.04 with Windows 7, but if you asked me about Ubuntu today, which is in the middle of swallowing huge and risky changes like Unity and GNOME 3, I would find less reasons to go with it.

    Again, if you are happy with Windows 7, by all means stick to it, it is a great OS, but with so little experience on the Linux side, your opinion might be biased.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Great article, and some very interesting comments following it!
    I have been using Linux for only a few years, starting with Ubuntu Intrepid back in 2008. Up until now, I have used many different linux distros, currently it's Zorin OS 5.2 64bit, which works great and has eye candy to boot. The reason I have tried out numerous distros is not because I was unhappy with one, but because they are all free and I could! They all do everything I want them to, and it costs me nothing to try them out. They all look a little different, perform a little differently, but I haven't yet come across any that I have had major problems with (that I haven't caused myself, that is!). I love the variety offered by different linux distros. How many different versions of Windows 7 are there? (I said different versions, not just unlocked versions of the same...)
    I also use Windows Xp and 7, and I agree that 7 seems to be a great OS and a big improvement. It too does all I ask of it, but I do tend to miss my linux os when I'm not using it. It annoys me that Windows is always updating virus definitions and scanning things, and needs regular defrags to keep up to speed, and every time something is changed, it's a reboot! I maybe expected this to change with later editions of Windows, but it's still the same. I don't need to worry about this stuff with linux. I can find programs (and good ones) to do what I want to, and there is a wealth of free goodies ready to use. Any time I am not sure about something, or how to fix a fault, I just head for the blogs, support pages and user groups and there's the answer. I wonder, does linux have more issues, or does windows also have issues, but just doesn't have the dedicated groups available to discuss and fix them? Do we just not hear of many of them? I wonder how many of the "regular" users just uninstall a program because it didn't work, because they don't know any better, and say nothing? It's true, linux users love to tinker, and I think this is what Open Source is all about. I've learnt heaps since using linux, and do lots of stuff I never would have even known about if I had just kept on using windows. I think this is the essence of linux. It's made by people to SHARE with people, and can be added to, modified and tinkered with by anyone, and if you break it, it's free to try it again or try out a different version, and learn something during the journey. I don't care if it sometimes takes a bit of work to figure something out. After I have done it once, it's easy! We all expect the best, easiest and cheapest, and here we have something that is FREE to get and use and works great, and people still complain about it! I could understand if you paid quite a lot of money for an OS and it wasn't what you expected. Then you would feel a bit burnt. But Ubuntu is free (and a great OS). If you don't like it, go and buy something, but you are missing the point totally. It's free to share and enjoy! It's hard to feel ripped off by a freebie...
    If you can't get by without Windows, then use both! It's pretty easy to do.

    Chema, I find your blog articles very interesting. They are your own opinion, and thanks for sharing them with us. People need to open their eyes and be willing to learn from other people's observations and interests, not be blinded by their own knowledge. It's hard to hear new information when you are so busy shouting out your own :-)

    Sorry about the rant, I know I sound a bit like the Dalai Lama, but it's just my own opinion! Don't burn me for it...

    ReplyDelete
  121. if talk about 3D graphic and animation, windows is obviously better. I had made graphical aps that takes les then 40% CPu on win 8, but ~80% on ubuntu 12.
    also i don' think linux is simple more user friendly, just try to use it. ok, if you use browser, listen music or video all is fine. Go pro and you will stuck without high level technical skills.

    I think linux win on aesthetic, just like MAC. windows developers have no such taste of minimalism, that is fact. even win 8 metro stile is far from perfect.

    ReplyDelete
  122. You said icon sized can't be changed on Windows.
    Changing the size of icons on Windows desktop: Hold CTRL and scroll up or down with mouse.

    ReplyDelete