What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How to Make Your PC as Fast as the Day You Bought It view!
howlifeworks.com - What's the fastest way to restore a computer to its original blazing glory
122 Comments
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30The author didn't mention (or I might have missed it) that once installed you can continue to upgrade Ubuntu to the next release from the network without any need to ever burn another CD, boot with it and install, Windows cannot be fully upgraded over the network.
Moreover you can update all the programs installed in Ubuntu with one command, or 2 clicks in Synaptic -- there's no way to do that in Windows. - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Ah, that's easy:
Linux - $0
Windows - $199 - $299 (depending on the version), cheaper if you upgrade or if it's included in the price of the computer you buy, probably not less than $50, you may also set some money aside for a good antivirus and for Microsoft OneCare $49.95. - aroedl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21He should also compare the prices.
- Grimboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Yeah, it took me years to learn windows. I'm learning ubuntu very fast.
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I think (s)he was talking about the fact that you can upgrade Ubuntu to the latest version (ie. from Breezy to Dapper) over the internet. To my knowledge, you won't be able to do the equivalent thing with Windows (ie. from XP to Vista.)
- sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11--The author didn't mention the fact that nobody using the RAID ... can even install ubuntu in the first place--
Ubuntu works fine with nForce 4. Use this: http://www.ubuntu-in.org/wiki/SATA_RAID_Howto - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"You cannot compare a Ubuntu and Windows XP install."
Why not? Both installers are doing the exact same thing: setting up their respective Operating Systems. They do a lot of different things during the setup, but these are in fact comparable things: "Windows sets up Ethernet. Hey, so does Ubuntu! Windows checks to see that ethernet files aren't tampered with (Windows File Protection). Ubuntu knows file isn't tampered with simply because no users have access to system yet, and permissions haven't been granted to any entity but the installer. etc. etc." - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Ubuntu is a steller FREE OS, but we all know that 9/10 you get what you pay for."
*****. 9/10 you pay for brand recognition. Are $100 Nautica jeans better than $40 Levis?
Ubuntu is great and stands up well against any OS you will pay any money for. It's delivering Windows Vista features (and many more) before Vista, enterprise stability and rock-solid support. - lazka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8only codec out of the box in Windows is mp3.
what about vorbis, aac, mpc, xvid, h264 and all that stuff? - snoble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6try posting a message like this http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=25362 in the ubuntuforums.com. The ubuntu community is usually quite helpful. There are stories about linux communities being quite hard on novices but they are mostly exaggerated and do not reflect the majority of the communities out there. Good luck.
- eastshores, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15"Heh, Vista is even crappier than XP, huge download, longer installation, memory intensive, demands highend video card, etc."
Because you have run the final version of Vista? That's amazing since it hasn't been released. Even the betas don't require a highend video card. - rmjb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8That PXE boot server functionality is not part of Windows, you have to have a separate product do to that, often it's one you have to pay for (we use Altiris). And it's essentially a hack of the Windows install process that is used.
On the other hand, Ubuntu, and other linuxs, support network installations right out the iso.
- rmjb - madmax85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Move home directory to new partition
- (not possible) 22
That cant take more than 30 secounds? - Haroldx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Linux is NOT Windows.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm - brufleth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@geminitojanus
...Look at your comment. I think it is easy to see how this might not be obvious to an end user. - MihaiM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6https://shipit.ubuntu.com/
Here you can order Ubuntu for free - barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6why do you keep posting this?
- bigtomrodney, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10That's probably the most relevent comment here. If you want to compare fairly then compare XP to RH8, or compare an Ubuntu Edgy Eft test build with a Vista beta. Seriously there's 5 years between the two.
- kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5are you sure you are installing the 64 bit version of Ubuntu?
- lpcustom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5XP may have came out 5 years ago but it has been updated the whole time. Also the fact that it came out 5 years ago give it an advantage more than a disadvantage. All the kinks should have been worked out in that time. Dapper just came out and its actually comparable to XP. The main reason you are being modded down is that XP and Dapper are both in the "release" stage. They are both considered "current" by their developers. Eft and Vista are betas. It's a valid comparison.
- lpcustom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Everyone should read that article ---->
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
before they comment on a windows/linux debate. I remember reading that when it was front page of digg. Great read. - cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -4/+7This guy spamming his computer specs is the personification of everything wrong with digg.
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"I had to download the 3.03GB whatever version to try it out in Live and install it. Since the guy said he used one disk (did not say what kind) I figured he used the DVD iso.
Unless you can prove otherwise, dont act like I am wrong."
Ubuntu's default install only installs stuff on the CD, which is the default download at the top of their download page. In fact, I don't even see the DVD listed on their download page. - bgrolleman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Hmm, good point. But I don't agree with the biased point of view. It is a fact that at this point and time Ubuntu linux is easier to install then windows. And this may or may not change on the release of vista.
My question is, why doesn't MS do anything to improve there user experience? Is it really that hard to add drivers to you install and make those available to your "valued" customers? Or even to allow 3rd party versions. (How about a DELL version of WinXP that installs the needed drivers and office in one go?)
MS has been standing still for so long, that some people can't believe an install could be that easy, ofcourse learning Linux is another talk, but this is a moot point when you take someone who has never used computers before. ( Like my grandmother, who likes Kubuntu and KDE very well ) - mrsticks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wow. I dont know where to start. I've been using both linux and windows for about 10 years now. My first PC came with win 3.1 and I had to install 98 on it. Since 2000, Ive been using Slackware, since '02 Ive used Slackware with Dropline Gnome and Windows 2000. I am not an XP fan, call me old fashioned. And I certainly wont be getting Vista. Windows doesnt do it for me. Recently, Ive installed Ubunut 6.06 on my laptop and a homebrew PVR. Ive had relatively few issues with either. I am considering dumping the Slack / DLG combo for Ubuntu on my main desktop. I've done plenty of downloading / compiling / installing over the years to make the switch to Ubuntu a no-brainer. That's where I'm coming from.
I will agree with you on a basic level. Linux at this point is just out of reach of the average computer user. However, I think if you give the slightly above average user a copy of Ubuntu, they will be able to figure it out. Like I said, Ive been using slackware for a while, and I think it's a tad more difficult than Ubuntu. I feel Ubuntu has made linux a little more accessible to the casual computer user, who might have an interest in Linux.
The install is not nearly as mind-racking and terrible as you might think. And if you indeed had that much trouble, I am truly sorry. With pretty standard hardware, the install should be rather painless. I've got pretty standard hardware, but I still tend to think I am in the majority. If the majority of people are having horrible experiences installing Ubuntu, I dont think we'd see half the buzz we have seen. A buzz I have never seen before actually. I dont go looking for pro-Ubuntu articles, but I rarely see an article titled "Cannot Install Ubuntu." Unless there is a mass open source conspiracy to bury such articles. And maybe there is, Ive got a tinfoil hat in the closet!
Linux isnt going anywhere anytime soon. It's been in the server world for a long time and is now trying tobreak into the desktop world. Instead of bashing it, we should be embracing it. Why should we let Microsoft tell us what is best for us. Freedom of choice is rarely a bad thing. Look at Mac OS X. OS X is proof that a *nix based OS can work on the desktop. And now that they are putting it on x86, I really hope that it's only a matter of time before we see Dell offering OS X on a PC. If only for the sake of giving people a choice. - lbrtuk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"(Or do it manually, which takes even longer.)"
To me, it looks like enabling some sources and installing away.
"And you can't easily install software on Ubuntu without a package manager due to the complexity of dependencies that plagues Linux."
Repeat after me: package management is a good thing. Windows' lack of it is a crippling factor.
To me, it looks like enabling some sources and installing away.
"And you can't easily install software on Ubuntu without a package manager due to the complexity of dependencies that plagues Linux."
Repeat after me: package management is a good thing. Windows' lack of it is a crippling factor.
"I could go on, but only a handful of people are even like to read this before it's buried due to it's unpopularity."
Oh, ok then, martyr.
"Let's see me see... Install VMWare on Windows - 5 minutes. Install VMWare on Ubuntu without a HOWTO - hours. Yeah, it's much easier."
Assuming you have your sources set up (5 second job):
apt-get install vmware-player - VulnoX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"Ubuntu is installed from a DVD"
er... nope... last time I checked I could download and install from a CD...
"The time to learn how to install some programs on Ubuntu"
Er, try the applications menu, then go to add/remove...
"easy to look at for hours as Windows basic"
Yer, grey, nice... couldn't agree more...
"But after about a week of use I just found myself booting back into Windows because around every corner I found myself unable to do something I did in two seconds on Windows, and as much as I want to learn Linux,"
So you don't really want to learn linux... do you?
How do you install it from a CD?
I had to download the 3.03GB whatever version to try it out in Live and install it. Since the guy said he used one disk (did not say what kind) I figured he used the DVD iso.
Unless you can prove otherwise, dont act like I am wrong.
The add/remove in applications does not install everything, and does not get Battlefield 2 or otherwise running, I love how you only quote the parts that you thought you had a response to. Real good work there, like I wouldn't notice?
There were other apps too that did not install or work correctly without some command line changing, thats part of Linux, and something I have never had to do in Windows, that is what I meant.
The ease of installing some apps though, like VLC player was better in Linux because you did not have to search around the web to get it, but I did not say everything was but, just some things. English is a primary language for you, correct?
What do you mean grey? Windows default is that blue bloated thing, but that isnt even what I was talking about, the task bar is not the only part of Windows, genius, once again, thanks for making such a great argument there...
Once again, you cut me off, I said after that "I just dont have the time right now to do it all."
See, I have a job and go to college and researching every roadblock that stops me from doing something prevents me from getting the former done. As well as girlfriend, friends, and sleep, I just dont have time right now. Once I am out of school, which is about a year, then I can give it a shot again.
Look, love arguments, but yours wasnt an argument, it was just reaching and taking things out of context by leaving out the parts of my argument that prove you wrong. - kdehead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3just a guess - but maybe there just isnt a 64 bit radeon driver available? you tried asking on the ubuntu forums? somebody else must have come across the same problem as you.
- mrsticks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2True. Windows is not Linux, but that doesn't mean you can't compare them.
Take a Hummer and a Ford Focus. You could compare them. Agreed, they are both radically different cars, but their purpose and ultimate goal is the same: to get you where you want to go.
Same with Windows vs Linux. They are both OSes, they just behave differently. But maybe it isn't correct to try to compare how they install. Same as you wouldn't compare the build process of a Ford vs Hummer. What he should be comparing is usability, functionality and the like. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6su root
vi /etc/apt/sources.list
(uncomment universe/multiverse) ZZ
apt-get update
apt-get install vlc #personal preference, choose what you like.
20 keystrokes, maybe a minute to wait for APT to grab the universe and multiverse package lists, maybe another minute to install VLC (or whatever, EasyUbuntu/Automatix may take a bit longer but also install a great deal more than just a media player and some codecs). - lpcustom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Those codecs would come with Linux but there are things called laws and legal action that prevent it. It's not that they don't want you to use media. It's that they legally can't ship with those codecs in the US
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Um. WRONG. Completely. In fact, you don't even need to have a CD-ROM (or any removeable storage) drive in your target computer to install Windows XP, nor do you need Windows XP CD to upgrade from Windows 2000 (at least)."
You don't need Windows XP CD to upgrade from Windows 2000?
*****. So, how would that work then? - tronica, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3culbeda, enable the extra repos and sudo apt-get install w32codecs. wow that was f..king difficult.
- Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Actually you can play Solitare etc while Windows is installing. But why would you want to?
Just watch TV, play a console, or do something involving another human while it installs. - tmahmood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think Installations depands on your hardware. If you have a compatible hardware installation goes smooth if not then you are in for a lot of troubles. In my system Windows XP Installations went very smooth but took 1hr to finish. but in my father's system It was pretty mass. on the other hand Ubuntu installation went very good in both Systems. and took less then 20mins in my system and 30mins in my fathers system. but it always causes some trouble setting up my pretty old NVIDIA Gfx card. But I was very much impressed when ubuntu installed just perfectly on my fathers system where XP didn't even detected the Intregated Gfx Card, sound card and Modem.
- frant1c, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Pretty pointless article. The results of such a comparison will vary a lot on different hardware configurations. It's basically saying: hey, installing Ubuntu can be just as simple as installing Windows, and in some cases, even simpler. But the author extends the time of installation to installing 3rd party applications, which doesn't have anything to do with installing the OS. Hell, I'd be happy if Windows came with less additionall apps, because I don't like most of them and I use 3rd party apps anyway.
- doctornkul, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10The author didn't mention the fact that nobody using the RAID feature of their nForce 4 motherboard (probably the most common chipset today) can even install ubuntu in the first place, whether CD, DVD, or instLnx, or LAN.
And by the way - yes, windows can in fact be installed over a LAN. A company I worked with a few years ago had a PXE boot server that had the images of a variety of different operating systems (Windows included), and to install an OS you simply navigated to the one you wanted and pressed enter. Seems fairly standard to use, but I do agree it would be hard for a novice to do that kind of thing. - lpcustom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Well, it has a lot less to do with Linux than Windows. It a nessessary step when you install Windows. So far, it's not needed in Linux.
- im12env, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The term is: Apples and Oranges.....
- youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Quote: "I think there are important differences with bundling in Windows and Ubuntu
Ubuntu actually does provide a full productivity suite, you don't really need to install anything else.
Whereas with windows you have to install Office etc. to get a funtioning system.
In Ubuntu it's a simple process to remove apps you don't want (apt-get remove / synaptic)
In Windows you cannot remove various things at all, and to remove the others involves a complicated sub menu "Remove windows components""
I'm sure MS would love to bundle more software in it's OS but then you would probably complain about that! - notMsFanBoy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"Ubuntu is installed from a DVD"
er... nope... last time I checked I could download and install from a CD...
"The time to learn how to install some programs on Ubuntu"
Er, try the applications menu, then go to add/remove...
"easy to look at for hours as Windows basic"
Yer, grey, nice... couldn't agree more...
"But after about a week of use I just found myself booting back into Windows because around every corner I found myself unable to do something I did in two seconds on Windows, and as much as I want to learn Linux,"
So you don't really want to learn linux... do you? - Aninhumer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Actually I'd better mention codecs or someone will flame me, but windows has less codecs than Ubuntu after install (just mp3 AFAIK) as opposed to vorbis, theora etc. ready installed so you can watch Nelson Mandella tell you about Ubuntu :-)
- dcherryholmes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2culbeda:
Agreed. This is abysmally biased and inaccurate. Of course, the Ubuntu fanboys will digg me down for posting this, but this article completely ignores the community / 3rd party tools for installing and updating windows (not all of which are pay) and the fact that Ubuntu severely crippled out of the gate and you need to use automatix to install codecs, etc. (Or do it manually, which takes even longer.)
This is completely inaccurate. Once upon a time it was true, and now it isn't. How about you windows guys agree to drop this entirely specious argument, and we linux guys will agree to drop the blue screen of death jokes? Nowadays, you download a .deb file, double click it, and an installer says "Do you wanna?". Mash "yes" and enter your password. Done. Or, and maybe this is what you were referring to (although how it is a "flaw" escapes me): you can skip all the search around the web hoo-ha and, for most packages, just open up your "let me search every piece of software you know about" app (Synaptic), and click "gimmee". These are *facts*. - sohlemac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I prefer "comparing days to aardvarks"
Two wholly dissimilar things. - kalmi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2He could have put the ubuntu home folders in an another partition during the installation.(It took him 22 mins!?)
- lpcustom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why did he even do that? He should have just created/used a partition just for /home.He could have done that at install time. At any rate....that isn't a problem someone else would have and shouldn't be included in the time.
- moglenstar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2He could have used a sp2 version of a Windows XP install CD, also.. the kind of features automatix adds (video codecs, etc) are all extra, and he would have had to write about installing codecs, and media players in windows.
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@brufleth
His keystrokes may not be obvious, but all that can be done in the Synaptic options menu. All the how-to documents on the Ubuntu forums and wiki use commands because it's easier to tell someone what to type than say "click here, then there, now go to the second tab...". With commands a user can just copy and paste. - doolittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@generalleoff - yes if you are going to run samba or support then the "clamav" package would be good for virus scanning.
I tried to install it but it is broken with "sudo apt-get install clamav", but easily fixed with "sudo apt-get install clamav-data" and "sudo apt-get install clamav-freshclam" - unfortunately that fix in itself will be a feeding frenzy for the windows zealots, because nothing is broken on windows lol - doolittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so, to do an nlite install you have to
1. install XP
2. download nlite
3. create custom xp install
4. reinstall nlite version of xp
Is it just me, or am I not seeing the time savings here... But it does look like an interesting tool. Maybe create a new digg link for nlite? -
Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is