Ubuntu or Windows 7

[mickey megabyte]

DSL is 50MB....

..and it looks like crap.

my current lightweight favourite distro is slitaz, only 30MB and looks and feels modern. it's worked 'out-of-the-box' including wifi on every machine i've tried it on and boots real quick, especially off a usb thumb drive.

i only use it as a rescue disk to retrieve files from and re-partition dead windows boxes, but it can be used as a desktop os for real old pcs with limited resources by adding a bit of software.

try it, you'll be surprised.

 

[madtownidiot]

Why would people want to spend their time doing research, when what they want is a system to install, that is totally user friendly, with a full range of applications and any game they want to play,

For a person who has XP (archaic) Several Linux versions, and also has both versions of 7 Pro, come on be honest the 7's are head and shoulders above the others.

If you believe otherwise then you're well named.

You're partially correct. Most people do want a user friendly application that's easy to install and comes with a full range of applications. My username would be more fitting to you if you think that doesn't apply to linux.. in fact Ultimate Edition comes with dozens of applications you'd have to pay for in Windows, is free, and can be installed from a flash drive in about 20 minutes..

However,
Some people like the ability to compile a fully customized operating system that only runs the processes they want to run, doesn't phone home every few days or hours to make sure the OS that's installed hasn't been altered in any way, that doesn't need an anti-virus, anti-malware and constant maintenance to keep running, that doesn't constantly remind you of things you already know. Some people like the ability to change the every feature on the desktop, or have several different desktops at once, all different, running from a single machine. Almost everything the average user wants a computer for can be accomplished in linux running booted into memory from a 1GB flash drive.. even a computer that has no working HDD. To be honest, windows 7 is a great operating system, but it isn't so freakin great that all other operating systems should be eliminated. And if there are no games available for Linux, it's only because there's no money in developing them.

Computer wise, limiting yourself to a single operating system is just as ignorant as only learning to speak a single language.

 

[mr pc]

Linux (Ubuntu) gave me the opportunity to turn a rather useful Compaq Presario with a dreadfully destroyed version of XP into a new machine - granted the hardware isn't something to brag about but Ubuntu runs excellent on it.

This opportunity exposed me to the world of Linux and I've been rather curious of the different types and styles of distros - some work and others not so much, but still it's awesome to see such variety and at no cost.

Now I may be entranced with the workings of Linux I am by no means impressed with some of the programs running on it, especially the graphics alternatives - having worked on Adobe it's hard to adjust to alternatives. Open Office's very close clone of MS Office is nice though.

Now if I can figure out Samba or get these machines (Win7 home/Lucid Lynx) networked all will be fine.

 

[andrewjanderson]

I have worked with Windows mainly since Windows 98 SE, and Windows 7 is the best one I've used yet. I would also say that it is not the only OS that should be used, as there are different needs for different people.

I have two HDDs in my desktop, with Windows 7 Professional x64 on the larger main drive, and Ubuntu 10.04 x64 on the 80GB drive. I like to use and explore the different options of Ubuntu while employing full use of hardware, but I do not want to pick just one OS or the other. That's one great thing about Ubuntu, you can install it along with Windows 7 at no extra cost.

In response to the OP on this question, in my experience Ubuntu has always run lighter and about as fast, if not faster, than Windows 7. I would encourage you to try Ubuntu out to see if you like the way it works, before you make the decision to install it even if it is faster.

Even if the OS is faster, if it doesn't do what you want, or doesn't work right on your system without some tweaking, don't use it.

 

[Al Fairclough]

I have used Linux for many years and watched it evolve into the fine OS it is today. That said, I switched my entire box over to Windows 7, because it feels 'snappier' and now with IE9, it has all I can ask for. The bottom line is that MS has finally come out with an OS that suits my needs and is quite polished. As for Ubuntu 10.04, I still have the disk in my drawer and haven't tossed it yet. I wonder what that means? :sarc:

 

[wysiwyg]

Some people like the ability to compile a fully customized operating system that only runs the processes they want to run, doesn't phone home every few days or hours to make sure the OS that's installed hasn't been altered in any way, that doesn't need an anti-virus, anti-malware and constant maintenance to keep running, that doesn't constantly remind you of things you already know. Some people like the ability to change the every feature on the desktop, or have several different desktops at once, all different, running from a single machine. Almost everything the average user wants a computer for can be accomplished in linux running booted into memory from a 1GB flash drive.. even a computer that has no working HDD. To be honest, windows 7 is a great operating system, but it isn't so freakin great that all other operating systems should be eliminated. And if there are no games available for Linux, it's only because there's no money in developing them.

Computer wise, limiting yourself to a single operating system is just as ignorant as only learning to speak a single language.

Some people, by that you mean a few geeks run Linux, all that rubbish about phoning home, and not needing AV etc, you know as well as I do why it isn't necessary, its a thing thats not worth the hackers time because so few people use it.

There are even more Macs than Linux and they only have a small share of the market, be honest if Linux was so good it would be up there alongside Windows competing for a bigger market share, people aren't stupid or ignorant to know whats good, and what isn't,

Your comment about one system and one language shows your own foolishness, I reckon the majority of the worlds peoples only speak one language, and have no wish to learn another and you reckon thats ignorance, and all the people that use one system are ignorant as well,

You find a good system and stick to it till something better comes along,

I wonder why you have more than one system its tells me you aren't sure what you want, me I've seen all the others and decided this is the best,
and that is the only criterion, no ifs, no buts.

Oh and if you wonder about the Vista, thats purely for the oddments that don't run on Seven, and that is down to the manufacturers who won't upgrade to Seven.

Anyway Vista is nearly as good as Seven but not quite.

 

[Lemur]

DSL is 50MB....

..and it looks like crap.

my current lightweight favourite distro is slitaz, only 30MB and looks and feels modern. it's worked 'out-of-the-box' including wifi on every machine i've tried it on and boots real quick, especially off a usb thumb drive.

i only use it as a rescue disk to retrieve files from and re-partition dead windows boxes, but it can be used as a desktop os for real old pcs with limited resources by adding a bit of software.

try it, you'll be surprised.

Very cool. Actually never used DSL.

 

[deepakumar]

Well i can say what few already said there are few pros & cons:
Cost: Windows 7 is paid will Linux based OS are FREEEEEEE
Performance: Windows 7 is little unstable as compared to Ubuntu
RAM usage: Well ofcourse Windows 7 use more of system resources as compared to Ubuntu
Security: I guess most of people who've used both will agree on 1 thing Linux based OS are less vrius pron as compared to our lovely & sweet Windows
User friendly: Of course this is biggest Plus point for Windows OS that they are user friendly while Linux based OS are meant for serious guyzzzzz
Games:Another plus for Windows bcz all games in the world are Windows based but NONE for Linux or Ubuntu (thats my SAD part, bcz i love some of those games)
& the list goes ON......but again its on 1s own personal use on the basis of which 1 should select....my personal view i would rate Windows 7 9.2/10 & Ubuntu/Backtrack 9.5/10......

 

[pparks1]

Some people, by that you mean a few geeks run Linux, all that rubbish about phoning home, and not needing AV etc, you know as well as I do why it isn't necessary, its a thing thats not worth the hackers time because so few people use it.

Well, that is one way to look at it. Another is that Linux comes from the Unix world which was a multi-user operating system since the very beginning. Therefore, for well over 40 years now, they have had a system were day-to-day accounts run as limited users and admin rights are only used when necessary. In addition, many services and such run with very limited access and chrooted environments....so even if compromised, don't have much access to the rest of the system. Windows on the other hand started as a single user environment where the person is admin and has full control. It's been that way through XP and only started changing somewhat with Vista and now Windows 7. They don't have the 40+ years of experience with refining this process.

be honest if Linux was so good it would be up there alongside Windows competing for a bigger market share, people aren't stupid or ignorant to know whats good, and what isn't,

The thing with the Linux environment is that there isn't just 1 single product like we have with Windows. It's all about freedoms and customizations and getting what you need. There are thousands of different distros available each with their own little niche. Thus, it doesn't necessarily lend itself to a market where mass market workstations would ship with a particular distribution of Linux installed.

I'm no fool...i know that we live in a Windows world. But my experience doesn't say that Linux isn't good as you have said above. I honestly don't think I would ever really want Linux as a desktop for mass market as compromises and standards would have to be implemented which couldn't be modified and that would go against the whole principal of Linux based operating systems in the first place.

I wonder why you have more than one system its tells me you aren't sure what you want, me I've seen all the others and decided this is the best, and that is the only criterion, no ifs, no buts.

I have multiple systems (physical), because I have additional people in my household and have no interest in having to share the computer time with everybody else.

For my kids, to surf the web and play online games at Nickjr.com...Windows 7 to me isn't the best choice because I have to pay nearly $200 for a copy of Windows 7 home premium. So instead, I can buy a bunch of low-end to middle of the road hardware on NewEgg, install Linux for free and they can have a solid computer that is almost impervious to any of the web dangers for a very small price.

Oh and if you wonder about the Vista, thats purely for the oddments that don't run on Seven, and that is down to the manufacturers who won't upgrade to Seven.

My wife has a laptop that runs Vista and it works pretty much just fine. I see no reason whatsoever to spend any money to upgrade that box to Windows 7.

So, as you can see from my post..while I think that Windows 7 is great and have been running it since Beta on my personal workstation...and I run it on my laptop and desktop at work...there are other places where I choose to not run it because it doesn't make any financial sense to do so. So, in my base....Windows 7 isn't a hands down winner. It all depends upon need.

Anyway Vista is nearly as good as Seven but not quite.[/QUOTE]

 

[deepakumar]

@ pparks1
i agree with you on most of info what you mentioned like upgrading to Win 7 on your wife's lappi since its working fine & having Linux on your machine so kids can play online games...will add one more thing Windows believes in Marketing then anything like wise is Intel will Linux & AMD are silent palyer in real sense & still they are running in my two desktop & 2 laptop for the last 8 years....

 

[madtownidiot]

Some people, by that you mean a few geeks run Linux, all that rubbish about phoning home, and not needing AV etc, you know as well as I do why it isn't necessary, its a thing thats not worth the hackers time because so few people use it.

In this case you're partially correct, but what true crackers (criminal hackers, as opposed to people with above average skill with computers who have no criminal intent) are after are large enterprise servers and mainframes, most of which use linux, and generally aren't very successful, so maybe the reason is because Linux is inherently more secure than windows

There are even more Macs than Linux and they only have a small share of the market, be honest if Linux was so good it would be up there alongside Windows competing for a bigger market share, people aren't stupid or ignorant to know whats good, and what isn't,

It would be a little different if macs weren't designed to stop working when OS-X is removed, and all other major computer manufacturers didn't require windows to be preinstalled on almost every computer they sell.

and if this wasn't this wasn't part of the windows EULA until windows 7 was released:

By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine their return policy for a refund or credit.

After losing several lawsuits where people tried to get a refund for windows and were refused, they changed the eula to this:

By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine its return policy. You must comply with that policy, which might limit your rights or require you to return the entire system on which the software is installed.

Which makes it nearly impossible to get a refund for windows on a new computer if you don't want to use it

That's only a small part of the reason linux isn't more widely used. If you would like I can come up with several other documented facts that prove windows is only as popular as it is because Microsoft stifles any competition.

Your comment about one system and one language shows your own foolishness, I reckon the majority of the worlds peoples only speak one language, and have no wish to learn another and you reckon thats ignorance, and all the people that use one system are ignorant as well,

Again you're wrong. It's generally believed that 60-75% of the worlds' population is multilingual. I speak four languages, which makes it easier to communicate with some of my neighbors and probably contributes to my ability with computers

I don't just reckon it's ignorance to only learn one language or one operating system, I'm stating a fact.. from the webster's dictionary:

Ignorance:
1. The condition of being ignorant; the lack of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed.

2: A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge which one may acquire.

You find a good system and stick to it till something better comes along,

I wonder why you have more than one system its tells me you aren't sure what you want, me I've seen all the others and decided this is the best,
and that is the only criterion, no ifs, no buts.

Maybe that's what you do, but I have several computers, and I make a living fixing them for others. I like having a choice of operating systems on all of my computers. Everyone's entitled to their opinion but my opinions are all based in fact. Any other points you would like to argue? I enjoy a good debate...

 

[Keiichi25]

Actually, I like to point out some things...

Microsoft isn't 100% stiffling the market for PCs as far as OS. On the contrary, what it really is doing is oversaturating itself on the PC side that makes it 'stand out' more than Linux.

I have been working on computers for well over 20 years, and seen the rise of Windows OS as well as worked with Unix/Linux and Macintosh OS. The reason I am such a heavy Windows user is the fact that the PC hardware was cheap, Windows was easy to get a grasp up and work with. The many flavors of Linux in the early years were a bit difficult to work with unless you spent time learning how to get it going.

In the time that Windows became the popular OS for PCs, more so when Win95 actually made PCs stand ground and even overtake the Macintosh as far as just simple ease of use and then for Internet access, that is when Windows became less secure than Linux.

Remember, Microsoft started its push to have a lot more interoperability, but also put out coding tools to HELP people develop software, which, in turn fueled Windows being even more popular by the fact that there were easier ways for programmers to make programs for Windows each time. Those who wanted to do programming for Linux/Unix, on the other hand, were only the ones who were into serious coding. Windows Visual Studio based coding is not super complex and there are several black box code items that allow people who have little understanding of basic programming to be able to whip up programs and make it look pretty (I should know, I used to work with a programmer who had no University education on Computer Science Coding practices and development, but wrote a bunch of code in Visual Studio. He has admitted to one person he just wings it)

The point of the matter is, coding for Windows is not 100% difficult, and not surprising there are holes in Windows because of the simple fact that the design was meant to be user friendly and developer friendly as well. Windows is extremely popular purely on the saturation of programs and ease of use.

Linux, on the other hand, has several different flavors and developers who focus on particular flavors at times. When I last looked at Linux before Ubuntu... I found setting up Mandrake Linux to be a bit of a pain. I tried my hand at Redhat and still had some issues and that was about 7 years ago. Ubuntu had some problems with certain hardware setups which took me a while to work out, but also finding in one situation, Ubuntu hated certain KVM switches so I couldn't use the GUI interface but could use the console in order to do things.

In an enterprise environment, unless you are skilled or reasonably prepared, both experience and hardware wise, for Linux... Linux will not be the choice for some companies in comparison to Windows. This is not to say there are no companies that uses Linux machines, on the contrary, there are a few in my area that do use it. However, from what I have seen in the most current leanings, is that some find Microsoft Enterprise Environment more to their liking as far as management and working with users and tend to shy away from Linux unless people have spent a fair deal of time working in a Linux/Unix environment.

And again, Linux/Unix now has abilities that Windows users can use, such as Samba file sharing, but from a general point, I believe that businesses, unless setup for it or have actual experience in Linux environment, will prefer the ease of use of Windows due to the fact majority users have had experience with that environment over a Linux based one.