Ubuntu Linux vs Windows Vista: The Desktop Battle
[ Sunday, 2 December 2007, michuk ]
It may be a brave opinion but I predict that Ubuntu Linux and Windows Vista are going to be the two operating systems that will take over the largest chunk of the desktop OS market during the next couple of years. This comparison is based on my experience with both systems during the last couple of weeks on two different computers.
Author: Borys Musielak
For the purpose of this article I am going to focus on Gutsy Gibbon, a recently released version of Ubuntu Linux and Windows Vista Business Edition which is about one year old. This is to avoid confusion that we are talking about some different animals, since both Ubuntu and Vista provide a number of alternative versions differing in features and target user (although I’m completely lost when it comes to say what the reason for different Vista version is).
Also I would like to mention that this is by no means a full comparison of these two selected systems. I chose to focus on things that seem to have the biggest importance for the end user (like me) who just starts to use a new operating system. These things include: general look and feel, software and hardware support, stability and maturity. At the end I’m going to cover some of the advanced features, too.
So, here we are…
General look and feel
My first impression when I saw Windows Vista installed in a computer store was “wow, this looks pretty modern”. My first impression when I saw Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon was “wow, it looks pretty simple”. No offense here — default desktops of both systems are nice and elegant. They are however very different. Microsoft guys made a bold decision to reorganize the old good Windows look and feel. Old childish-looking desktop has been replaced with a more business-friendly one. Also the behavior of the main desktop elements changed a bit. This has a positive refreshing effect but at the same time confuses whole lot of people used to the traditional way “Start” menu and desktop works (fortunately you can still revert to “traditional” behavior in the preferences) . Gutsy Gibbon, on the other hand, did not introduce many changes in the main interface. It still comes with GNOME, precisely version 2.20 of this environment, and except for minor polish in details, it looks pretty similar to the first Ubuntu system — Warthy Warthdog — released 3 years ago, in 2004. This is not an accusation at all — to the contrary — I believe that this is what most of the people prefer and expect.
Default desktop side-by-side
Custom desktop with large icons in Vista and Gutsy
Main menu side-by-side
After a first look at the desktop I started exploring the user interface of both. In Vista I easily added a few widgets to my desktop: a clock, a weather widget and sticky-notes. I also played with different ways the icons can be displayed on the desktop. I got used to the new looks pretty fast and I have to say I like it way better than the looks of Windows XP which was always the first thing I used to change when I was forced to work with that OS. In Vista I chose to stick with the default selection in most cases and I felt good with it.
To be precise, I like the default look & feel of Ubuntu as well. apart for being just clear and elegant, it is very consistent as well. In Vista I had big trouble finding certain options or configuring stuff. Things just were not located in places I would expect them to be. The huge start menu does not make it easier, either. I have a feeling that apps and folders are placed pretty randomly around it. No such problem in Ubuntu. In order to look for files and folders, there is a “Places” menu. For configuration there is “System”. In “Applications” I find only the programs, grouped nicely into meaningful categories, as opposite to company names.
But this all is pretty subjective and you can find it the other way around. It probably mainly depends on your habits and personal preferences.
Score for looks 1:1
“Computer” folder in Vista and Gutsy
“Home” folders compared
Getting additional software
So I had some fun with the default desktop already, now I want more fancy stuff to play with. This is where additional software come in place. In Ubuntu I launched the Synaptic Package Manager and selected tons of additional programs, such as Opera Browser (I like the choice), Psi (my Jabber client of choice),K3B (for burning CDs), Mozilla Thunderbird (for e-mail, I can’t stand Evolution), DigiKam (the best open-source simple image viewer and manipulating tool), and ubuntu-restricted-extras package which installed for me Java, additional fonts, multimedia codecs and Flash player for all browsers — something I hate to do manually. The whole process took me some 10 minutes and I had Ubuntu loaded with all my favorite apps. Nice job, Ubuntu!
In Vista it did not go all that nice. As there is no central repository of open-source apps, I had to manually install all of them browsing through different web pages and wasting time clicking the Next and Finish button a million times. I was all set after some 45 minutes. Still not bad. But I knew where to look for. Why isn’t there apt-get for Windows, yet? A reliable one? Bill only knows…
Ubuntu 2 — Vista 1. But game’s not over yet!
Control panel of Vista vs Ubuntu’s gnome-control-center
Hardware support
Both systems detected all my hardware without complaining. My wireless card worked. The screen resolution has been set properly. The sound was nice. No problems whatsoever. Issues started to come when I wanted to do some extra stuff.
I connected my Nokia phone to my laptop using USB cable. It had a similar effect on Vista and Ubuntu — in both cases it asked me whether I wanted to import my photos. Sure I did. Unfortunately only Vista allowed me to do so. In Ubuntu the phone disconnected after downloading 2 pictures. Unplug/plug back in trick did not happen to work. I still could not import my photos from a mobile. This sucked.
Then I wanted to turn off the computer for a while. I never really turn the computer off. I hate relaunching all the running apps. I hibernate it or suspend instead, depending on how much time I plan to be away. Hibernation (suspend to disk) worked perfectly in both systems. Vista only took faster to wake up ((which surprised me since it took longer to boot). Suspend to RAM aka “sleep” worked only on Windows, though. Ubuntu told me it had “issues”. I don’t care for them. It failed. It shouldn’t.
Before you start bashing me… My laptop is all Intel-based. Intel likes open-source and releases its drivers on open-source licenses. If not, it publishes the specs. My laptop should be fully supported in Linux. That’s what I would expect, at least. That’s why I’m not buying from NVidia or Lexmark. Still it failed to do things Vista had no problem with. I was not impressed.
I haven’t tried Bluetooth support and SD card readers, yet. But I suspect doing so would not change the overall view considerably.
Ubuntu 2 — Vista 2. The game starts anew.
Stability and maturity
I have only used both operating systems for only a few weeks on a daily basis. Thus it’s hard to produce some firm verdict which of them is more stable and mature. One should suspect Vista since it has been on the market for almost a year now while Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon has been just released. My observations are, however, of a different kind. Here are some random notes I’ve made while using both OSes:
- Vista seemed to have a bad influence on some of the standard applications I tend to use. For instance, simple app like Notepad++ used to crash for unknown reasons (never had this effect in XP). What is even more strange, after crashing I could not start the application again. The reason was its process still residing in the system, even though there was just no application window anymore. After a while I got used to using the CTRL+ALT+DEL combination, searching for a zombie app and killing the process explicitly. Still, not a very nice thing to do that was…
- Internet Explorer 7 hung up when I tried using a website with Java applet on it. There is not JRE installed in Vista by default.
- Ubuntu, on the other hand didn’t really like Firefox. It crashed every now and then after loading it with the following add-ons: AdBlock Plus, All-in-ne Sidebar, Tab-Mix-Plus, Del.icio.us and Google Toolbar. Firefox with same add-ons worked fine on Vista.
- Compiz and poor video cards is not a great duo. Compiz with poor video driver support is even worse. I stopped using it when it kept putting my system into amazingly strange states from which I could get out by hitting CTRL+ALT+Backspace (kills X) only.
- Using suspend to disk or RAM is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you gonna get when it wakes up. Usually it’s poorly functioning video, networking or hotplug system. Restarting
dbusoften helps. Rebooting computer always helps. But why use suspend when you still need to reboot? Curiosity… - When Vista hangs up, reboot is required. When Gutsy hangs up, X restart is enough. Is this way better? No it isn’t. It shouldn’t crash in the first place!
So summing up, Vista and Gibbon are equally unstable, at least in my hands 
Perhaps Vista is a bit more random. Ubuntu just hangs up in well-defined situations (e.g. when I want it to suspend). Still no excuse. It may do better next time but for now…
It’s still 3 — 3 and we are two laps to go!
Robustness
OK, here I have to admit: Vista sucks. It takes 2 minutes to load on my Intel Core 2 Duo 1.2Ghz, 1GB RAM Toshiba laptop as opposed to something around 45 seconds for Gutsy Gibbon. Its user interface is slower too, the apps take longer to launch and the general feeling is a bit clumsy. I honestly can’t believe why this is the case since I couldn’t really notice many significant changes in functionality between Vista and XP. Still it runs like a turtle.
However, I have to admit that on a powerful moder 3Ghz, 4GB RAM desktop, Vista worked just wonderful and I could appreciate its fancy looks and nice graphics. Was it worth to sacrifice as many system resources only to get some additional bliss? Hello no.
Funny thing is that Ubuntu put a lot of similar windowing effects to Gibbon (thanks to setting Compiz the default window manager) without compromising on responsiveness.
Point for Ubuntu. It’s 3:2 for the Debian-derivative.
Flexibility, Advanced features
One of the main things I require from an operating system (and any program actually) is that it should bend to my needs, not vice-versa. I like to have the power to change any particular option I want but I don’t want to spend a lot of time looking for “tweak your OS” kind of programs on the Internet, analyze their effect on the general stability of my system and so on. Basically I want the OS to provide me with sensible defaults but not hide advanced features at the same time. I want to use them as well! As both Ubuntu and Vista target “Joe user” I knew I won’t find these systems perfectly adjusted to my needs just from the start. However, Ubuntu did a way better job in adjusting to my needs.
It’s about the features, idiot. Ubuntu — just like any other GNU/Linux distribution — give me tons of advanced features for free. Its powerful console enables me to perform tasks such as image resizing, file management, port forwarding, system monitoring, remote administration and tons of others relatively easy. Things for which in Windows I need to employ Cygwin (which is basically a UNIX emulator) or expensive third-party apps, in Ubuntu I have for free.
This is not all. Ubuntu gives me an incomparable level of configurability for my desktop needs as well. I can adjust my desktop to my needs almost to an infinite extent. I can choose a very basic desktop (like WindowMaker or Fluxbox) for maximum performance, I can opt for KDE for the configurability and features. I can employ a custom file manager, window manager or session manager, not relying on the default choices made by the distributor.
In general — I have the power to change. I have the freedom to change. Some people don’t like the choice. Some people even prefer not to be given any choice. Lot of people in Poland and Eastern Europe miss the communists since they gave no choice — everyone was equal. Equally poor and unprivileged. But people are different. They are not machines. I don’t want anybody to force me to behave in a certain way. Whether it is Google, Microsoft or Josef Stalin. Thus I choose the flexibility and choice, even though in some cases this may mean lower quality or fewer features. This is my choice. Yours may be different.
Point for Ubuntu. It’s 4:2 and it’s game over. Still remember that I’m biased.
Firefox running polishlinux.org in both systems
Profiles
So, to sum it up. Here are the profiles of Vista and Ubuntu users. Just find out which one is you 
| Vista user | Ubuntu user |
|---|---|
| If you are new to computers or only used Windows XP or earlier before, you are a good candidate for a Vista user. You also need to have a very modern PC (if you purchased a new one during the last year, you are likely to be Vista-compatible) and easily adapt to changes since Vista really is a bit different than XP (and no, it’s not the lack of the “Start” button that is the hardest to accept :P). | If you are a bit more literate with computers that your auntie or if you have a bit older PC than a brand new Intel Core2Duo or if you are more demanding from your operating system than “it should just work”, go for Ubuntu. Before doing so, just make sure none of your key software is Windows-only, since fighting with Wine to make it run on GNU/Linux may be a terrifying experience for a newcomer. |
Conclusions if any
As you can see both systems have their glitches but in the end both should work for you, as long you don’t try to “fix” too many things on your own. It’s always good to have a computer guru available as your first aid with the OS, especially at the beginning. Finally, in both cases make sure your hardware is supported. Both OSes are pretty new so not all the hardware (especially exotic WiFi adapters, TV cards and so) is supported, yet. If you don’t know how to check that, just buy a computer with operating system preinstalled. It’s easy these days to buy either a Vista or Ubuntu laptop or Desktop. Dell supports both of them, as one possible choice.
Propagate this post
Subscribe to RSS feed for this article!
Very brave, indeed!.
As a die hard W2K user (NT5 vs. NT5.1, meh why put up with WGA and all the extra hassles) who is also a network tech and ex machine language coder…
I was faced with all the “Requires Windows XP” messages that would start popping up on applications, games & drivers on my W2K load. Faced with an eventual upgrade to Vista x64 (no way I was going to use 32 bit if I was to upgrade, jump straight past XP and x32 to Vista x64 if I was to bite the bullet) for hundreds of dollars or complete liberty from purchasing my OS and facing the learning curve for a Linux distro, I first took a stab at a Linux Distro (cant beat the price!).
I was disgusted. I used to use UNIX in the 90s, so the command line architecture wasn’t at all foreign (albeit I’m quite rusty after 10 years!). Linux on the desktop is a joke.
Just getting a browser to work or installing the flash plugin was a nightmare. I was expecting a learning curve to customize my system and learn the ins and outs of a new OS but given what I heard from Linux hyper-advocates (and not being a particularly big fan of MSFT and Windows in the first place) I had expected that it would have been.. well… somewhat… true?
The distribution out of the box worked great. Provided all I wanted to do was run the tools that came with the distro. Once I got past that and had to actually reach out and do stuff the nightmare began. After 5 days on a spare laptop, I gave up. I was so disgusted that all these tales of hope and promise and milk and honey (and the end of Microsoft’s grip on the desktop) were absolute crap. Linux was a nightmare. Great if you love to tinker around perpetually over tiny little things and edit flat config files and command line build and compile quote “Linux” applications and features. Not so great if you want to get ANYTHING done at all. Like play an MP3. Or install Windows Media or RealPlayer support. Or Install Flash Player to watch Youtube.
So I went and tried out Vista x64, albeit reluctantly. I did it on my main machine, spending hours and hours backing up my old W2K system in the case the horror stories were true and I’d go running back to no-mans-land with my tail between my legs.
My experience was the opposite. I dont know what all of these problems people are having with Vista, but it must be with the x32 version or some wack cracked edition. I got Vista Ultimate x64 and I’ve never had an easier time setting the machine up. It did everything itself, and installed in record time, quicker even than the lighter footprinted W2K (arguably, probably faster than 98 did, although the hardware back then was pretty weak compared to my A64×2, so the comparison is debatable).
Running programs on the Vista x64 was like greased lightning. I’ve never desktop computed so fast. I was running W2K on my A64×2, so the hardware is comparable. Firefox or IE opening in under one tenth of a second? WOW. The security pop ups kind of got on my nerves for a while, but since they are only for Admin rights, once everything was installed I got to see it more like a regular user would.
The most modern and “killer” desktop friendly linux distros remind me of AmigaOS. Thats not an insult, I used to love my Amiga and if I could get my hands on one I’d get it and tinker with it just to feel that magic again (I’ve played with the emulator WinUAE to keep sharp on my UNIX commands from time to time and play old classic games). But that technology was 12 years ago!
Honestly, with MacOS and Vista x64, Linux on the desktop is doomed before it ever gets started. I get paid $49 per hour to tech networks and run arcane command line utilities and edit flat files. Why would I spend $4000 worth of my own time to set up my home PC computer, when I could drop $399, get a wicked OS, and spend the rest of the time drinking beer and playing games (which wouldn’t work on Linux anyway).
Linux had it’s chance to get on the desktop, that time was the 2003-2005 period, that was the sweet spot to get in before the Vista launch and grab hold of people with something fresh, new, free, and take the spring out of Microsoft’s Vista step when that day finally arrived. However that time is now long gone. Microsoft has worked the kinds out of Vista, and the MacOS seems to be winning over thoes who find Windows to be too complicated.
Linux on the desktop is in the worst possible space: free, but more complicated and frustrating than Windows, which is more complicated and frustrating than MacOS.
Even in the complex server environment, Windows is taking back ground with Server 2003 and 2008. Server 2000 was good but lacking on security and features.
Again, Linux has blown the gains that it has made. Apache, despite years of being the defacto best solution, still uses an arcane scripting configuration system. IIS had hopeless security problems in 2000 and NT4, but these are very much resolved in 2003 and later and it sports an easy to use GUI.
Linux will always be the most efficient, lowest cost to maintain OS for simple computers running simple repetitive tasks. Those kind of computers where you let them run, turn off the monitor and forget about them until the PSU dies. Linux has that market cornered and does it well. These visions of grandeur are over, the Window is passed. If you can’t sell me when I’m looking to buy in - with all my technical experience and personal nterest in learning technological things and tinkering with the OS, you wont have a hope in hell of selling the average Joe or Jane user who couldn’t care less, they just want it to work.
Ok,
Seriously, if you could not get Ubuntu to play an mp3 or browse a web-page, I am forced to conclude you are an absolute idiot. Seriously, I am afraid you might be really, really, stupid.
I love these “UNIX guys” from way back who can’t get it to work, but my Mom can.
Give me a break.
Look at his website, it’s an absolute joke. If that’s anything to go by it’s no wonder he couldn’t click his way through to web browsing MP3 playin goodness! My sister and my Mum can manage it for cryin out loud.
Who honestly cares if the average Joe or Jane wants to install Linux? The average Joe is stupid and ignorant, and doesn’t care about being brainwashed by Microsoft.
My advise is stay away from both of them. Vista is very buggy in fact I just dumped it from a brand new laptop and replaced it with a quality Linux distro. And it would probably be wise to look around at all the other distros out there before being led to anything with gnome. Ignore the hype and do your own research first. Remember microsoft got their market share because they had the most money not because they were in any way innovative. Same with Ubuntu.
That’s just rubbish. Whatever Microsoft’s faults are, they got where they are by offering a slightly better user experience than anything else on the market at the time.
DOS was slicker and better marketed than CP/M, and early Windows was flashy enough for the ‘average’ user and cheaper for PC companies to install than OS/2. For better or for worse, MS ended up creating a standard. While UNIX was always the techies choice it didn’t actually do what most people wanted. Apple has always been closed hardware wise, expensive and niche oriented until lately. VMS was just crap unless you were trying to manage a traffic light system.
Without MS we’d be in pretty poor shape. Ubuntu are doing a Microsoft - they’re using the linux leadership vacuum to try and set a de facto standard - it looks like they might succeed. Good on them!
You are just plain wrong in everything you said and I’m going to point it out step by step.
1. “They are offering a slightly better user experience than anything else on the market at the time”. When PC users used to sit in front of their black (DOS) or blue (Norton Commander) screens, Apple users could enjoy their System 7/8 in millions of colours and high resolution graphics.
2. “DOS was slicker (…) than CP/M”. But you failed to mention it was worse than Concurrent-86 or DR-DOS.
3. “MS ended up creating a standard”. What is this standard full name? What standardizing organization has approved this standard?
4. “Unix was always the techies choice”. MacOS X users must be very surprised with this statement.
5. “Without MS we’d be in pretty poor shape”. Without MS we’d be running our shiny PCs with OS/2 or BeOS or Macs with OS X. I reckon Linux/FLOSS people would be less motivated to create a viable alternative to proprietary OSes.
6 “[Ubuntu] - thay’re using the linux leadership vacuum to try and set a de facto standard”. I am afraid it’s totally the opposite. Ubuntu follows LSB standard, sticks to FreeDesktop guidelines, complies with Gnome HIG. Even replacing init with startup was made without violating well established Unix foundations.
I think you are entirely wrong here. Linux was created because MINIX was a proprietary. It was supposed to be a free replacement for MINIX kernel.
GNU was created to be a free replacement for UNIX tools in general.
Microsoft didn’t have the OS monopoly at that time.
If OSX, Be/OS or OS/2 was free as in freedom, sure it would make the things different, though.
“When PC users used to sit in front of their black (DOS) or blue (Norton Commander) screens, Apple users could enjoy their System 7/8 in millions of colours and high resolution graphics.”
You’re saying that when MS had *nothing* but DOS, that Mac had 24bit color??? I recall Mac having a monochrome (or was it 4bit color?).
“Unix was always the techies choice”. MacOS X users must be very surprised with this statement.
No they aren’t because most don’t have a clue about it being UNIX, rather they are running a proprietary closed GUI frontend OVER unix. I could potentially have a stripped unix and run a fully functional XP in a VM session and hide it from the user. “Unix” is not what makes OSX what it is, it is purely the closed peices.
“[Ubuntu] - thay’re using the linux leadership vacuum to try and set a de facto standard”. I am afraid it’s totally the opposite. Ubuntu follows LSB standard, sticks to FreeDesktop guidelines, complies with Gnome HIG. Even replacing init with startup was made without violating well established Unix foundations.
Unfortunately nothing you say addresses the statement. By “defacto” standard they are not talking about technical specs and guidelines that make no sense to the end user. Rather the concept of having people recognize linux at some usable standard. In that people can say something like “at least as good as Ubuntu”, because all the other distro’s *really* suck. And yes there is wayyyyy too much anarchy and disorder to truly represent linux to an end user without mentioning things like kernel version and HIG standards.
“You’re saying that when MS had *nothing* but DOS, that Mac had 24bit color??? I recall Mac having a monochrome (or was it 4bit color?).”
You recall wrongly. We could also point to the Amiga, the ST, the Archimedes. If that doesn’t suit you, we could aim higher and point to Irix, Solaris, and so on.
You think my timing’s a bit off? Windows was released? Of course it was, but nobody was using it. Everything still ran much better under DOS.
The best Macs even in 1995 did not come standard with 24bit (ie. “millions of colours and high resolution graphics”). They more or less had the same capacity of X86-Pc’s which had graphics. Even in 1994 Windows 3.1/NT3.x was in *widespread* use. (Gaming was in DOS, but that has nothing to do with your argument)
Amiga/ST had true 24 bit color??? or are you talking about palettes? Wasn’t Archimedes basically a VGA?
“Irix, Solaris, and so on” are NOT Macs and in NO way whatsoever an end user desktop systems!
I won’t disagree that Mac had several competitive advantages, however you are just making stuff up if you think that primarily DOS was used in the days of System 7 and 8.
You’re both wrong. Microsoft achieved the market share they have by creating non-competitive contracts. They never had the technological lead.
To understand how Microsoft came to become dominant in operating systems, it is important to keep in mind the roles played early on by the then dominant pc computer magazines, especially in dethroning IBM’s OS/2.
During those early years, the editors and columnists of pc computer magazines acted as if they existed solely for the purpose of promoting Microsoft (and all its products) and bashing rival systems. No doubt, this was partially furthered by the emerging practice of receiving free products from Microsoft but the main reason I suspect for their then slavish adherence to anything Microsoft was the perception that Microsoft was a tiny (geeky) upstart battling giant established companies like IBM who didn’t cater to them by providing free products or involvement.
In this heady atmosphere, Microsoft, Bill Gates, Balmer, etc., simply became “the boys from Redmond” while IBM, especially its early product TopView and later OS/2, became the beast. In particular, OS/2 which was then a revolutionary and outstanding product was criticized heavily by the pc computer magazines for being a memory hog, requiring new drivers, software modifications, and a new learning curve. Later, of course, all of these features became commonplace aspects of Windows 95, 98, ME, XP, etc.
But during this early phase of backing the so-called young, geeky Microsoft upstarts against established IBM, the writers of these pc computer magazines were oblivious to how much money Microsoft and Bill Gates were making, even compared to IBM. Only after it became apparent to them later that Gates and Microsoft were billionaires tens of times over, while they (the writers at the magazines) remained relatively poor (indeed, quite a number of these magazines simply ceased to exist), did the writers abandon ship, reverse course, and began their current practice of being equally critical of Microsoft, and recognizing Microsoft as the heavy and not the tiny upstart they had promoted.
Finally, it took the battle with Netscape for most pc computer magazine writers to realize finally that Microsoft was not really the innovator it claimed to be but rather the growing monopolist that was adopting unfair trade practices to crush both tiny upstarts and established companies. But by then, the realization was too late for the pc computer magazines writers meanwhile accomplished, for free, the promotional work that Microsoft could not then have achieved alone.
Napoleon1
I think a very good and entertaining introduction is the Film called “Pirates of Silicon Valey”
Personally, I think Knoppix is much better than Ubuntu, thought Kubuntu is okay as it has KDE.
The best KDE ever is SimplyMepis. It is based off debian with code from ubuntu. it’s good. period.
I agree with Greg, kind of anyway. I’m a Gnome-guy myself, but Ubuntu is not a very stable OS, compared to the likes of big daddy Debian.
Well folks, seems to me that Ubuntu on a laptop is a bit shaky, but on my desktop it’s solid as a rock. I use Xubuntu with the Xfce desktop, it is lean and snappy compared to KDE and Gnome which are more kind of MS Windows like. Firefox works great on my system. Compiz is one of those “I can do that too” kind of responses to Vista’s memory neuralizer marketing (for MIB fans). The “flashy thingy” blinds you to all the changes and challenges you will have to deal with in Vista. The Aero desktop does not compare to the virtual desktops which Linux has had for years now. Even as Linux progresses, it is still a “kit”, which can be fashioned to meet your preferences. With MS “you will be assimilated”.
you all say that ubuntu is a bad choice,
but from my personal experience it’s a very newbie friendly dist.
i never really got debian to work, gentoo, gave up before i started and so on. off course a lot have changed doing they years. like better hardware support. but still I find many newcomers downloading ubuntu, because it’s user friendly and does not mainly rely on console usage.
“Remember microsoft got their market share because they had the most money not because they were in any way innovative. Same with Ubuntu.”
I completely agree with you. Ubuntu isn’t that good, its more pub that functionality.
My choice for beginers would be Mandriva 2008 or OpenSUSE. Note that i’m not using none of these, i’m using Arch, but between all distros that i have tested, my choice for a user friendly distro would be Mandriva.
I also agree that like Microsoft, Ubuntu is growing primarily because of marketing and money.
However, I believe this is a good thing. What GNU/Linux needs most is greater market share, then all the issues that people have will for the most part be fixed (hardware support, support for third-party software, etc…). This greater market share can only come from marketing, something Ubuntu seems to understand. So hopefully Ubuntu can drive Linux adoption until it has a first-class standing with hardware manufacturers and software vendors.
Then, and this is the good part, because Ubuntu is built using open source software, there will be no lock-in and people can just use the Linux that best meets their needs, without having to battle to get their Wireless card, Suspend, etc… working.
And then, there shall be peace on Earth!!!…..
All joking aside I actually use Ubuntu because for me, it simplifies all the obvious tasks and still gives me a nice flexible CLI for more complicated tasks, which I find are actually easier through a command line than through a “wizard” type thingy.
Microsoft’s approach to Vista has been as simplistic as a steamroller — slam the market hard with advertising and bully the OEMs by taking away their XP licenses. Despite their weight, Dell stood up to them and customers continue to demand XP. Vista has been widely rejected even by diehard Microsoft supporters and Microsoft’s hard-sell methodology is not bringing either customer or OEMs onside.
There will come a day when Microsoft have to give their customers what the customers want, not what Microsoft has decided is good for them. With a Linux desktop you can choose: Fedora, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Novell and others. They are all mature and viable, and each is configurable — so you get the system you want.
In all honesty, what the existing Microsoft customers want is a stable XP system, with bugs fixed, secure and leave the user interface alone. There’s no reason to change the user interface, no reason to randomly mess with stuff. The trouble is that Microsoft’s business model is based around forcing people to upgrade and keep buying new systems when they don’t want to.
Tel I pretty much agree with you. I’ve seen this argument ever since I got into computers ten years ago. Linux is better because blah blah blah… Windows is better because blah blah blah. In my opinion no OS is the best, because it all depends on preferences and needs. All OS’s have there quirks and problems none of them are perfect. I’m MCSA and I have supported Windows systems since I started in the IT field. I’ve found that you can do almost anything in Windows that you can do in Linux. Especially recently with more support for open source programs on windows and also because Microsoft pretty much tries to copy many of the features in Linux.
However, they don’t set it that way by default, it usually requires a reg edit or resource tool kit etc. Over the years I have always tried to dabble with one Linux flavor or another, but I would quickly switch back after spending hours trying to accomplish simple tasks like adding MP3 support or installing a wireless card. That’s just ridiculous, there is no reason for me to be that much of a geek; even if I was successful. Recently I was tasked with deploying Office 2007 to ~300 workstations at my job. I figured I would use a Microsoft product (Active Directory) to deploy another Microsoft (Office 2007). Well, after three weeks of being half successful with random and unpredictable results (which meant I had to manually install it on every machine due to time constraints) I decided then to give Linux another try. So that night I downloaded and installed Ubuntu and I have been very happy since. With Ubuntu I was able to easily install software, hardware, and make configuration changes. I installed xsane and it worked with scanner and my printer already came with Linux drivers. Additionally, I was able to get my dual monitor setup working with envy. My system is about 4 years old but I currently see no reason buy another. I even loaded Vista on it weeks prior to installing Ubuntu but uninstalled after two weeks since it didn’t support may scanner and HP wasn’t planning on releasing new drivers for it since it was too old (2years old). Also, I was never impressed by the Vista interface, it looks more like an interface for one of the vtech computer toys or a cheap rip off of the MacOSX interface. While I’m sure I’ll run into hardware support issues on Ubuntu later on; that’s ok. Because the only way to get more hardware support for Linux is to build the market share of people using Linux. I’m already starting to see more and more companies offering Linux support in some fashion. As far as stabilty goes, well that’s always going to be sorta hard to measure. There are many different ways to determine that and like I said earlier no OS is perfect they will all crash at some point (as long as humans are programming anyway). I think Ubuntu has what it takes to actually get people to switch to Linux. They see the big picture and understand what most people want in a OS; not just catering to the geeks that never leave their house and jerk off to code compiling. The bottom line is since both OS’s are not perfect then go with Linux. Why… because it’s FREE and the support is about the same. That’s where Microsoft loses my vote, if they expect me to pay for software that may have the same problems that free software has, if not worse, they’re crazy. Then on top of that pay for support to fix their already broken crap. If I’m going to pay nearly $400 for an OS it better be dam near perfect out of the box; not some OS patched together like a quilt. If I wanted that then I’ll download a flavor of Linux for FREE, and if I want, pay for support. I do some computer repair work on the side and I will try to switch users to Ubuntu whenever I can; it’s time for a change.
The reason gutsy is better than vista is simpel.
- fast
- highly tweakable (system and desktop)
- good hardware support
- synaptic/add remove
- no viruses/malware
- free
- free software
- baffles people if they use your pc. They don’t know such good looking operating systems exists, and thought aero is the best a computer can do. :p
i’m running gutsy with wii-black gtk2 theme, curved awn dock black, black and white icons, conky, … And it’s stunningly beautiful.
They don’t call PCLInuxOS “the distro hopper stopper” for no reason. Check it out: http://www.pclinuxos.com/
I tried this distro, after using ubuntu for a while. It was nice and the things that worked by default were very stable. Unfortunately I needed to ppp via a cell phone over usb and searched high and low for the information on how to do it in this distro after about 4 hours I finally got it working. Then I wanted to be able to set up a printer to create pdf files and had the same experience searching and searching and it taking hours to find. The reason I switched back to ubuntu for all 4 of the machines on my network is that as of yet I have not found anything I needed to do that I could not find clear and concise instructions and information on how to do it just by doing a quick google search containing the word ubuntu and either gutsy or feisty and what the problem was. Additionally there was something about the packages in the pclos package manager having to be custom packaged for pclos and not just .deb files.
I have enjoyed my ubuntu systems. I managed to convert my sister in Miami, and my son in Lake City to use ubuntu over MS. After having to constantly clean the malware off their MS systems I suggested they try it instead. Guess what, they are both still delighted that their computers just work, and we have regular video conferences on skype now that their pc’s arent such dogs.
I think the ubuntu development team has the right idea, and is on the right track. I look forward to hardy heron and if you have not tried ubuntu yet you should.
XP Service Pack 3 is what the Windows World Needs.
As far as Linux goes, as long as there are 100s of distributions, it is hard for any one to rise to the top. I personally prefer RedHat derivatives but on any Linux the hardware support (drivers especially) are still lacking. Try going to your local store and picking up a scanner/copier/printer that works WELL on Linux. Still not there after all these years. Still better as a server than a desktop OS. If you want *NIX based desktop OS that is compatible with hardware, Apple has the closest viable option.
first thing: these are not the “default desktops”!!!
Yes they are. At least my default desktops, the ones I got from Toshiba with Vista preinstalled and a ccustom Ubuntu install.
As a side note, there is at least an apt-get like program available for Windows: win-get (and opensource)
Only that it doesn’t work
There are windows-like installers for Linux as well. Autopackage for instance. But… it doesn’t work
Or perhaphs it even works but noone uses it. Same with win-get.
I will go out on a limb and say “It ain’t gonna happen any time soon.”
I think you missed one big big point here. At first Vista is probably good in all aspects but one thing that once you say it out, Windows fans will never be able to say ONE single word: Disk Fragmentation.
For years Windows never fix the problem of disk fragmentation and even you can equip with Diskeeper (or the built-in diskeeper lite, which is the default windows defragmentor), you never get back the newly formatted HD performance even you clean up all temporary files, uninstall all unnecessary programs and defrag it. I know it’s about the FS problem but hey, where’s the new WinFS they talk about it for so long and never seen it in action? does it actually help? Trying using Windows with 20 apps installed and running for 1 month, you will definitely want to re-format and refresh your windows.
Linux? no way, install JFS, ReiserFS or even just EXT3 with partial journaling, I never experience slow down no matter how many apps I install for so many days!!
Argue with me, windows fans. I am not linux geek, I still use windows daily but for this I just can’t stand it! For others, Vista …well…XP is doing a good job. Vista, I guess they have to fix some bugs first…c’mon, I almost finished my dinner for windows to just load the updates after the reboots (12 minutes guys)!!!! My machine is the HP 2610CA with AMD Turion X2 TL-58, 2GB RAM. Hey I know it’s not rocket speed but I don’t think it needs 12 minutes to load the updates, 5 minutes to shutdown. I am talking about a new fresh systems with all HP games, anti-virus and all other comes with trial-wares uninstalled and even better, I defragged!! Still took me so much time to just startup and shutdown?! This is not quite acceptable.
What’s your comment? Maybe you have something that can help me because I may miss something that can optimize Vista’s performance but so far I have no clue after tuning the following stuff:
1. Turn off the gadgets
2. Tune down to basic windows theme and classic folder options and task menu.
3. Turn off “Index this drive for faster search”
4. Set fix amount page file (1.5x of my current memory)
5. Install diskeeper pro with advanced options selected and defrag partition weekly and defrag the MBR once.
6. Turn off additional services even I install OOo and Apache (removing them from startup and regedit).
7. Install all windows patches.
8. Turn off Firewall, ACL (Vista) and Windows Auto-update.
9. Turn off notifications on #8.
So tell me what else I can do to tune up my Vista’s performance?
Fonts don’t look good in the Linux screenshots; not too bad in the Vista ones.