Ubuntu Linux vs Windows Vista

[SrDriver]

"Ubuntu Linux vs Windows Vista: The Desktop Battle"

Interesting article!

Link To Article

I have tried several distributions of Linux and am currently running Linux Mint 4.0 which is based on Ubuntu Gusty Gibbon 7.10.

 

[CivicFan]

I don't think Linux and Vista are comparable. Vista is a generation ahead of Linux as a desktop OS.

 

[SMB]

Originally Posted By: CivicFan
I don't think Linux and Vista are comparable. Vista is a generation ahead of Linux as a desktop OS.


I agree. If I have to choose an OS, I'll choose Ubuntu over Vista.

 

[Mystic]

We have a programmer where I work who is helping to program new computer equipment that we have. He works for a different company and not us although we also have our own computer personnel. I asked him about Linux.

He said that at first he was really excited about Linux. But after he tried to use Linux as a desktop operating system and possible replacement for Windows he was disappointed. He said that the Linux GUI (graphical user interface) is far behind Windows and that he could not get the programs he needs to work with Linux. He has specialized programs and specialized hardware that he needs that will not work with Linux. And this guy is no fan of Microsoft.

I think this is the bottom line with Linux. Sure a person can use Linux as a replacement for Windows. And Linux can work fine with a person who has limited requirements. If all a person does is surf the internet, send and receive email, and type up the occasional letter or memo Linux will work fine.

It is a different story if a person does more with a computer than the typical person. Anybody who has specialized software and hardware, or anybody who does a lot of work with photographs and needs photo printers and scanners is better off with a Windows or Apple computer.

People can hate Microsoft all they want but I can think of only one major problem with Windows-security issues. Otherwise Windows is quite useable and there is plenty of software available and most hardware is compatible.

Apple computers do not even have the security issues (probably just because Apple is a lesser target) and there is a considerable amount of software that is compatible and a considerable amount of hardware that will work. Not as much software and hardware as Windows but a lot more than Linux.

So why would anybody shoot themselves in the foot? The best desktop operating systems available are Microsoft Windows and Apple.

Linux operating systems are often used as servers but there are other server operating systems available like Unix, OpenBSD, Mac OS X Server, and Windows servers. Any major company is typically going to be using Windows or Unix servers and there was a major credit card company that was using Mac OS X.

I tried Linux myself but when I discovered how hard it is to find compatible photo printers and scanners I said no. If a computer operating system does not fulfill your needs that computer operating system is useless. The Linux people have been making promises about 'wait until next year' for it seems like forever. People cannot wait forever for 'next year' to arrive. Vaporware is vaporware.

 

[Mystic]

Just as an addition to the above an Intel Mac Apple Computer can run BOTH Windows XP and Mac OS X on the same computer. So what software and what hardware is not compatible with a computer like that?

Any Windows XP computer can run the vast majority of software and hardware available and when Windows Vista is more commonplace you can bet it will run most software and hardware available.

I have met some Linux people who are flat out fanatical about their favorite operating system. This is another problem I have with Linux. When somebody is so fanatical about a mere computer operating system that they are in need of mental health evaluation there is a problem. NO computer operating system is deserving of fanatical faith. ALL computer operating systems today will someday be primitive compared to what will come in the future. At some point in the future everything in use today, regardless if you want to talk about Mac OS X, Windows, Linux or whatever, will be totally useless and forgotten.

The best computer operating system is the one that enables you to get your job done and fulfills your needs. Don't fall too much in love with it because eventually you will be using something completely different.

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: SMB
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
I don't think Linux and Vista are comparable. Vista is a generation ahead of Linux as a desktop OS.


I agree. If I have to choose an OS, I'll choose Ubuntu over Vista.


Definitely.

 

[SrDriver]

I have no issues with printers, scanner, wireless, digital cameras, and use "The Gimp" for my photo editing - graphics in both Linux and Windows. I "The Gimp" has been ported into a MacOS version too.

Not a lot of difference between Unix and Linux. OpenBSD just released a new desktop version although I have not tried it.

One problem that many can attest to is that new computers shipped with Windows XP or VISTA have much trialware etc., on them that bogs things down + too many do not come with enough RAM - proper video card especially with some versions of VISTA.

I have run some Windows software under Linux using Wine but have software distributions for Linux that meet my needs most of the time.

I have a few programs that I prefer to run in Windows in a native environment and have my computer setup in a dual boot mode.

At work before I retired over the years we ran various operating systems - networks and each had a purpose. One will find both good and bad with all.

One can actually use VMware and run an entire Windows operating system within Linux or Virtual PC on a Macintosh to allow it to run Windows programs.

Being retired, the simple method of dual booting serves my purposes well for home use.

I also have a Linux distribution setup on a USB Thumb drive than can be run within Windows that I use when travelling.

It can be run from a Windows box and does not leave any footprint on the Windows system.

 

[XS650]

I use Linux some of the time, not full time for many of the reasons you have covered.

If Windows disappeared from the face of the Earth, I could easily do what I want to do in Linux, but Windows is still here and often the easier approach for me.

If I were to buy a new factory built computer, there is a good chance it would be an Apple, for the reasons you gave. I haven't bought a factory made desktop since about 1984 though.

Originally Posted By: Mystic

Linux operating systems are often used as servers but there are other server operating systems available like Unix, OpenBSD, Mac OS X Server, and Windows servers. Any major company is typically going to be using Windows or Unix servers and there was a major credit card company that was using Mac OS X.


Do you have a source for that? Last I heard Linux servers still had the majority of the market with Windows 2nd and Unix a distant 3rd. And not just mom and pop servers. Google is on their version of Linux and lets not forget BITOG is on Linux

Quote:


I tried Linux myself but when I discovered how hard it is to find compatible photo printers and scanners I said no.


I don't have a problem with hardware support. Printer and scanner support is quite good now.

As you said, specialized software is still a problem for Linux. They have replacements for most things, like The Gimp for Photoshop, but they generally just aren't as good, and equally important to the average user, they are different.

 

[groucho]

Vista is so nextgen that manufacturers had to offer XP as a substitute in order to sell the boxes. Vista also requires gobs of RAM. The RAM increase is required for the Vista bloat. The business community has rejected Vista generally.

Linux is useful for older boxes as there are distros designed for older boxes that couldn't boot XP let alone Vista. Got an old Pent. II or III? It will run with Linux. An attachment to MS is attachment to obligatory hardware replacement generally.

If one is doing serious photo work, an Adobe product(s) is purchased for big bucks above the cost of any MS OS or a MAC OS. Mac has been a BSD variant for some time now (UNIX). Photoshop and the others are OS specific. GIMP is not PS. GimpShop is not PS. Not everyone can be a Penguin Pete.

Linux outside the US is quite popular since it is generally obtained without cost and also runs on minimal hardware.

I like linux for a variety of reasons. I don't insist that others use it. There are certain benefits to open source.

 

[Pablo]

Quote:
3Ghz, 4GB RAM desktop, Vista worked just wonderful


There you go.

 

[Crashbox]

I also have some very specialized programs which require MS Window$, and Linux still has some media and wireless networking issues though the latter is likely due to manufacturers' bias toward M$. I am currently in my favorite coffee shop on my laptop PC and using XP because the wireless functions flawlessly. The hardware mfr's really need to make their products Linux-friendly.

At home this past year or so, however, it is a different story with my four-year-old Athlon 64 desktop machine- I've been using Linux almost exclusively and truly love it in spite of the fact I need to roll up my sleeves on (becoming much rarer) occasions. Linux runs dramatically smoother than XP; the latter sometimes suffers from intermittent lobotomization. I wish that Linux had the market majority.

 

[eljefino]

There's also the quasi-legal "addon"s you generally have to do to linux to make it play DVDs, etc. Fought and lost with a wifi card, had to d/l the windows driver and "wrap" it in linux. Presumably for legal reasons the distro couldn't come preconfigured.

Reminds me of when margarine used to come with that little pack of color you had to squish in.

 

[XS650]

Originally Posted By: eljefino


Reminds me of when margarine used to come with that little pack of color you had to squish in.


I knew it, the dairy industry is behind this.

That's a blast from the past. Last time I saw that was about 1949 in Washington State.

 

[Crashbox]

I wonder if the coloring was DMAB (4-dimethylaminoazobenzene) or Deadly Margarine And Butter- it was found to be an efficient carcinogen... I've never found out what DMAB was actually used in but hearing about those capsule things reminded me of it again. My mom told me about the coloring capsule thing...

 

[Vilan]

I just upgraded to Vista from ME yesterday. About an hour to install more RAM and a new hard drive, then about an hour to do a clean Vista install, most of which was spent twiddling my thumbs.

All the software I've tried to install has worked just fine... games, antivirus, utilities. Not a single crash yet. Some things are a bit slower than before but maybe I haven't quite got it tweaked properly yet. Or maybe it's just a memory hog like people say.

But overall I'm impressed, and I'm no Microsoft fanboy. My dad uses Linux and I've seen him beat his head against the wall trying to get it to recognize his setup.

 

[ConfederateTyrant]

Quote:
Or maybe it's just a memory hog like people say.

Since you did the install yourself, that's most likely the cause for it to run slower. New computers come with so much bulls*** software, or 512 megs of RAM, that people tend to quickly blame Vista for the performance deficiency.

Turning off Aero (if your graphics card supports it, which mine doesn't and may explain why mine runs really fast), User Access Controls (it's under the User Accounts selection in Control Panel), and installing at least 2 gigs of RAM (anything above 1 gig is good, and anything below 1 gig is going to really bog the system down) is going to make it run great. Use an anti-virus that doesn't use up a lot of resources, such as AVG.

 

[Vilan]

I do use AVG. And no Aero, I have Home Basic... one of its selling points (to me anyway) was that it had less memory fluff than the other versions.

I added 1 gig RAM on top of the 256 meg I had previously, wonder if the different RAM chip sizes might bog it down a bit. My "Windows Experience Index" for RAM is 4.1 though which is pretty solid. Nothing really unbearably slow, I just expected a bit better with a gig floating around up there.

 

[SrDriver]

Although I use Linux for most of my home computing needs, I do have a few programs that I prefer to run in Windows and have my computer setup to dual boot.

Many have a USB flash (thumb) drives laying around and here is a simple way to add more Ram under Windows Vista by using it.

Link To Web site.

 

[ConfederateTyrant]

Quote:
I just expected a bit better with a gig floating around up there.

I understand, but I must say that you have the true recommended minimum RAM that Microsoft should be stating. 1.25 gigs is much better than 512 megs, or 1 gig, of RAM.

Try using the Readyboost feature with some USB drives, if you have any that support it.