Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 - Strengths and weaknesses

[Night Hawk]

Off to the Chillout Room for this one alright! While most here already know which they prefer.....(pssst 7 of course!) some may not have had a chance to sign up for beta testing or had a chance at the Release Candidates.

October 30th, 2009

Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 - Strengths and weaknesses

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 5:09 am

Over the past few days I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the differences between Microsoft’s latest Windows 7 and Canonical’s Ubuntu 9.10. Specifically, I’ve been thinking about the strengths and weaknesses of each of the operating systems. Is a free operating system really as good as one that you pay for?

Let’s take a look at several aspects of using operating systems and examine the various strengths and weaknesses of each OS.

Installation

Windows 7

• Pros
  - Install is quick, easy and painless.
  - After working through a few wizard screens at the beginning, the install is automatic
• Cons
  - None really

Ubuntu 9.10

• Pros
  - Option to “try before you install” using the Live CD feature
  - Can easily install as a dual boot or even inside Windows using the Wubi installer
• Cons
  - Unless you’re luck to get a CD, you do have to mess about with .ISO files and burn a disc. If you’re happy doing that, it’s not really a problem.

More at: Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 - Strengths and weaknesses | Hardware 2.0 | ZDNet.com

 

[Jordus]

I dont think anyone could have drawn more obvious conclusions.

Dude needs to work for Gartner or Forrester, lol

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there

I thought he DID work for Gartner.

At least you could have included the Windows CONS

1) No decent scripting or Shell (like Bourne or C-shell in Linux)
2) No CRONTAB (for automatic launching of jobs / scripts)
3) You can't run Windows with a disconnected terminal -- you can start a linux server and then unplug the monitor -- your server will just keep running -- if you need to enter a command either do it remotely or re-plug in the monitor again on the local machine.
4) No Choice of GUI (or NONE if you don't want to start the X-server in Linux).

Mind you these are applicable to LINUX in general not Ubuntu.

Linux Cons -- almost impossiible to make idiot proof - I suspect some people would kill their own systems by logging in as root (or SU) and the recursively running something like rm. If you are root the system won't stop you from even destroying it. Windows has a little protection there -but in either case its still quite easy to hose up a system.

Whether these cons are significant depends on what sort of user you are and I would suspect for those that haven't played around with Linux or managed server systems won't find these particularly debilitating.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[johnwillyums]

I heard that Ubuntu cannot read/write on different hard drives eg cannot play your music from another drive.
Anyone know if this is a fact as it is the only thing stopping me putting it on as a backup os.

Cheers, J

 

[pparks1]

I have had no problems mounting other drives under Ubuntu. I only keep my songs on my NTFS windows volume on my laptop...but my Ubuntu dual boot install has no problems accessing that music.

 

[johnwillyums]

Thanks pp. Wonder where I got that idea from...

 

[Dinesh]

I never knew that dual booting windows 7 with ubuntu will be that easy. All I did was booted from ubuntu live cd and there was an option to Install Ubuntu 9.10 side-by-side with Windows 7. That's it. No issues and happily dual booting them.

 

[pparks1]

Yeah, things have gotten a whole lot easier across the board between setup, hardware support and dual boot options.

Ubuntu has a fun little installer called wubi that you can run from within Windows and it simply creates a virtual machine hard drive file, and loads Ubuntu into that and just puts an entry into the Windows bootloader screen. So, you really cannot screw anything up with that. And if you decide it's not for you, you simply remove from Add/Remove programs. Of course, on things like laptops...wubi doesn't lend itself to sleep and hibernate...so if those are features you need...a true dual boot is really your best option.

 

[Dinesh]

Yeah, things have gotten a whole lot easier across the board between setup, hardware support and dual boot options.

Ubuntu has a fun little installer called wubi that you can run from within Windows and it simply creates a virtual machine hard drive file, and loads Ubuntu into that and just puts an entry into the Windows bootloader screen. So, you really cannot screw anything up with that. And if you decide it's not for you, you simply remove from Add/Remove programs. Of course, on things like laptops...wubi doesn't lend itself to sleep and hibernate...so if those are features you need...a true dual boot is really your best option.

Earlier I had installed Ubuntu thru Wubi. As this is a laptop, I really missed hibernate feature. Also, using Wubi, you cannot install several .deb packages as it gives an "I386" error. Hence I thought to dual boot Ubuntu with Win7 and I m happy now.

 

[whs]

I run Ubuntu and Win7 in virtual partitions (virtual Box) on a Vista host. I think that is the ultimate because I can switch between those systems in no time. Have to admit that I still have trouble with Ubuntu because for me it is not very user friendly. I installed it out of curiousity but don't intend to use it for any serious work. For me, Vista is the ultimate - but you need a lot of muscle in your system.

 

[AvatarOfTheShip]

Linux in general lacked an NTFS filesystem driver for a long time. Then they had read but not write access. Now they're all-singing all-dancing

 

[johnwillyums]

Interesting you say that WHS. I like having a dual boot. It's a great help if you screw up in one OS you can seek advice on the other.

So I was thinking of dumping Vista HP x64 and trying Ubuntu 9.10. This is partly so I can install Vista on my old machine and sell it but also because I sort of felt Windows 7 was better and superseded it.
You obviously have a different opinion. Care to elaborate?
Also. Would a triple boot be easy?

Cheers, John

 

[Jordus]

Hi there

I thought he DID work for Gartner.

At least you could have included the Windows CONS

1) No decent scripting or Shell (like Bourne or C-shell in Linux)
2) No CRONTAB (for automatic launching of jobs / scripts)
3) You can't run Windows with a disconnected terminal -- you can start a linux server and then unplug the monitor -- your server will just keep running -- if you need to enter a command either do it remotely or re-plug in the monitor again on the local machine.
4) No Choice of GUI (or NONE if you don't want to start the X-server in Linux).

jimbo

1. Im pretty sure PowerShell is revered for being so robust and revolutional in the world of Windows.
2. Funny, I've been using scheduled tasks for years to launch jobs and scripts.
3. You can absolutely unplug a monitor and keep using Windows. Have you ever heard of remote desktop or WinRM? Or the fact that PowerShell 2.0 allows remote management?
4. You do have a choice in GUI/No GUI if you are talking servers, because Server Core doesnt have a GUI. Why the heck would anyone with a CLIENT OS not want a GUI?

 

[whs]

Interesting you say that WHS. I like having a dual boot. It's a great help if you screw up in one OS you can seek advice on the other.

So I was thinking of dumping Vista HP x64 and trying Ubuntu 9.10. This is partly so I can install Vista on my old machine and sell it but also because I sort of felt Windows 7 was better and superseded it.
You obviously have a different opinion. Care to elaborate?
Also. Would a triple boot be easy?

Cheers, John

If you have only one system, dual boot may make sense. But I have 4 PC's, so I can always walk to the next one. Besides, I never had a system go down. Dual or triple boots are possible, but very finagly. You always get a mess with the boot records and if you have Ubuntu in the middle you have to deal with Grub - not my thing. When I want to delete a system in virtual Box, I delete 2 folders in the host system - done in 5 seconds. Deleting Ubuntu in a triple boot is real fun, believe me.
As far as Vista and Win7 go, I consider them very similar. The main advantage of WIN7 is the smaller footprint and more speed. But that can be offset with more muscular hardware for Vista. WIN7 will be a fine system, no doubt - in a year or two. I will be running one Win7, just to keep up-to-date. But for my daily work I will keep Vista for the time being.

 

[Night Hawk]

Linux in general lacked an NTFS filesystem driver for a long time. Then they had read but not write access. Now they're all-singing all-dancing

Certain live distros like ubuntu, Knoppix, and Puppy Linux have been able to access and recover files from Fat16, 32 and NTFS volumes when booted live for years now. There's a few articles on how to do that while booted live from a cd.

In fact a usb flash drives were set aside here with distros installed to bail someone out if the occasion arises on any XP, Vista, or now 7 system. The latest 9.10 x86 will go right on the Virtual Box while it takes the Portable Virtual Box to see the 64bit Linux or even one of the RCs installed and run on a virtual drive there.

But taking everything into consideration the main OS still ends up being 7!

 

[smarteyeball]

IWould a triple boot be easy?

Yes. I'm currently multi-booting 5 OS'es, with ubuntu installed last.

If you opt to install Ubuntu on it's own partition (as opposed to using the WUBI installer) the Grub2 boot loader automatically adds the Windows 7 boot loader to the list.

 

[Night Hawk]

I run Ubuntu and Win7 in virtual partitions (virtual Box) on a Vista host. I think that is the ultimate because I can switch between those systems in no time. Have to admit that I still have trouble with Ubuntu because for me it is not very user friendly. I installed it out of curiousity but don't intend to use it for any serious work. For me, Vista is the ultimate - but you need a lot of muscle in your system.

Glad to hear someone still thinks highly of Vista! The first thing found with the previous version was stability over what it followed.

I was able to convince someone running the 64bit Ultimate edition to give the 64bit RC a try. He ended up hosting a 7 launch party! He swore by Vista until running the RC and now the retail 7.

Ubuntu, Puppy, Knoppix, and a few of the small distros are usually the easiest to run. You simply have to get used to a different OS platform while the desktops have been made to look closer to Windows.

The one thing about the "cons" seen with Linux not mentioned in the article was downloading a distro in rar files! This is where you install and run the distro off of the drive not burn to disk or write to a flash drive. The same can also be said for the Linux drive tool GParted where you can either download that in iso or zip files.

 

[TechieJustin]

So burning an ISO is a con?

I guess that's why Windows will never have native support for burning ISO's.

 

[pparks1]

So burning an ISO is a con?

I guess that's why Windows will never have native support for burning ISO's.

Windows 7 has native support for burning ISO's.

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/548-burn-disc-image-iso-img-file.html

 

[TechieJustin]

So burning an ISO is a con?

I guess that's why Windows will never have native support for burning ISO's.

Windows 7 has native support for burning ISO's.

Nevermind then. Learn something new every day.

I also learned IRA contributions are an above the line deduction.