Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04
Barence writes "PC Pro has performed a comprehensive test of Windows 7 vs Ubuntu 10.04. They've tested and scored the two operating systems on a number of criteria, including usability, bundled apps, performance, compatibility and business. The final result is much closer than you might expect. 'Ubuntu is clearly an operating system on the rise,' PC Pro concludes. 'If we repeat this feature in a year's time, will it have closed the gap? We wouldn't bet against it.'"
I have Windows 7 on our gaming boxes just to keep things simple...but I run Ubuntu on our laptops, for size and speed considerations. We also run Ubuntu on our HTPC.
They have their purposes...I couldn't imagine exclusively using only one or the other.
Living With a Nerd
Keep marketing linux as a "replacement" for windows and you guarantee to always fail. Market it for what it is - better for many types of situations, but definitely not a rsimple eplacement for windows any more than osx is.
Otherwise you're fighting the battle on the other side's home turf - and they're bigger and more entrenched.
And when people try ubuntu and realize that it is not necessarily a matter of it being a replacement os, they tar all linux distros with the same fail.
the games won't work on Unbuntu without trying to use Wine
Since when do SWF games such as FarmVille and Tetris Friends not work on Ubuntu?
At this point, most devices have been updated to at least officially support Vista (and, by proxy, 7)...how old is your Cannon stuff?
I wouldn't use your experience as a condemnation of Windows 7 so much as a reason why, in your case, ubuntu is a better choice. Still, how old is your Cannon hardware?
Living With a Nerd
Even among PC Pro’s technically literate readership, only 4% are running a Linux OS[...]
[...]then venture into Ubuntu’s equivalent of the command line – dubbed Terminal – and enter a couple of lines of code to start the installation. Hardly a user-friendly experience, and an unwanted throwback to the days of Windows 3.1.
Yeah...technical literacy at its finest...
Sad, but true.... I am not regular home user, i am actually a developer, but nevertheless, i also play a lot of games, and thus i am forced to have both OS........ In fact, i solved my problems by having a lots of VM's. Windows, Linux, you named it, i have it.
I'm a developer too, but I just have either another computer, or a removable drive with Windows on it that I can pop in when I need to use Microsoft's stuff.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
At this point, most devices have been updated to at least officially support Vista (and, by proxy, 7)
In general, yes that is true. However, printer and scanner manufacturers have been notorious with their lack of legacy support for Windows 7/Vista, let alone 64 bit versions. Sure, their new scanners and printers have full support and work fine, but if your printer is more than a few years old (released before Vista) you're very lucky if you 32 bit drivers which enable even half the functionality.
I wonder if this is a conscious decision by the manufacturers, who think you'll blame the OS for your problems, and that you're more likely to buy a new printer than convert to an entirely new OS. After all, the printer worked fine until you got a new computer! Honestly, that doesn't seem so far fetched to me.
Unfortunately Valve say there are no plans for a Linux version of Steam.
But Steam runs in Wine and so do a surprising number of Steam games; I was playing Left 4 Dead and Fallout 3 at the weekend in Ubuntu, for example.
And given the vast variation in Linux distros, you're probably better off releasing Windows games that are Wine-compatible than a Linux binary that won't run on Ubuntu 12.04 or Redhat 6.3.
Every commercial Linux app I've seen has a deb available for Ubuntu/debian these days or at the very least a loki-type installer. Installing is as simple as double clicking on the file and typing in your password. Less of a hassle than Windows IMHO.
It's also nice that the package manager in Linux keeps everything up to date. Having 5 or 6 updaters always running in the background is a waste of resources and a massive security hole. That's a non-starter.
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
I have a small recording studio in which I run a 16-channel simultaneous recording firewire mixer. I use Adobe Audition 3 for my sessions. I can't really move to another platform because I already have so many recording sessions in this format (although, I don't really want to move, either -- I'm happy with Audition).
I recently purchased an i7 with Windows 7 64-bit. I tell you, it does everything I've ever asked it to do, and it handles the incoming 16-channels flawlessly.
I don't think I would trust this set up on Ubuntu. For one, my firewire mixer simply would not work with Ubuntu (natively). And if it could work in WINE, I don't see how it is better than what I have now. Isn't it just likely to introduce hiccups?
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
I also have to deal with a confusing variety of distros
You really only have to deal with the distro you choose.
poor documentation
There's man pages, info pages, --help, and if you need your hand held just google it.
asking how to do something in Linux that you could do in Windows
Try asking on a Windows forum about something you can do trivially in Linux sometime.
And downloading and installing software, even using the built-in installer, is a confusing nightmare.
Ok, now you're just trolling. There's a pretty GUI app installer for every distro.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I don't understand how this comment is in the least bit Insightful. It's incredibly poor and short-sighted.
Sometimes it's useful to know what it's like understanding the Linux experience in fresh eyes. There are things that pop out that you wouldn't really consider if you're too used to Linux or too unfamiliar with Windows. Say, for example, what popped out at me was when they mentioned that they had a hard time because they couldn't maximize windows by dragging them to the top of the screen (which must be some new-fangled Win7 functionality and is completely foreign to me as I haven't touched Windows since XP SP2). They went so far as to take off major points for this at the end when they would easily have adapted away if they bothered using it for more than a month but is still important in the first impressions of a complete newbie. Or how they actually were impressed with Rhythmbox and the fuctionality which surprised me. Or how they said it was impressive how easy it was to install, which is definitely worth a few bonus points for Ubuntu. Or how Ubuntu provides some nice features (Ubuntu One, Software Center) which new users seem to like and don't have alternatives for on Windows. Or how they easily adapted to new software alternatives (like Evolution vs. Outlook or Rhythmbox vs. WMP).
There's actually a ton of useful information for understanding what it's like for new users. In fact, they never even once lamented that they couldn't run games on it, which just goes to show that it's not the end-all-be-all for every user as you suggest. Try opening your mind a little.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
> I have to say that Adobe Flash is horrible on Linux, it uses far more CPU time and its not as smooth either.
Flash is no worse on Linux than any other platform. This includes Windows despite all of the nonsense about how
the new versions of Flash allegedly are better at supporting things like PureVideo. I was trying this out for
myself just last night and was sorely disappointed by all of the hype that led me to believe that Windows would
do better in this regard.
It does not use far more CPU and it is not any less smooth.
Linux is also far less likely to completely freeze as Flash is having it's usual problems.
Yes, I decided to go back to playing Hulu in Linux because doing so in Windows 7 was becoming painful and annoying.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
As long as Ubuntu can't use iTunes (and no, not some other content mall that doesn't have all that iTunes has), Ubuntu can't compete with Windows for the home user market, or probably the school market, or even for a lot of the business market.
Yes, Apple's content monopoly is the key to protecting Windows' OS monopoly. The world is as strange as it is round.
--
make install -not war