informationweek.com— Is Linux finally ready to take on Windows as a desktop OS? We tried out both Vista and Ubuntu on individual PCs to see which works better. Here's who won.
Apr 27, 2007View in Crawl 4
I haven't personally used Vista since its beta 2 release so I can't really give an educated opinion on the conclusion of the comparison. However, it always bugs me when Windows advocates point out how trivial it is to add the missing oss to their windows machine. Ok Vista doesn't come with OOo, but it's a trivial task to download and install it so we really can't deduct too many points from Vista on that account. Whether or not that task is trivial really depends on your target audience. The author began his comparison by saying: "For some time, the folks at Ubuntu have been trying their best to make Granny -- and most everyone else -- happy." Yeah, like Granny is going to know what the heck Open Office is, where to get it, and how to install it. Plus it's going to take an awful long time to download using that aol dial up account of hers. So saying: "On the Vista side, it's not hard to add OpenOffice manually" isn't always true.I'm not saying I disagree with the author's conclusion. I just think this is a topic that comes up in a lot of Linux/Windows debates. If the comparison was grading on which OS was more "Granny Friendly", then I honestly don't see how Vista (given my experience with beta 2 only) could have come out on top. If the comparison was for users that are more tech-savvy, more importantly, users with prior windows experience, then yeah, I can see why Vista came out on top.- SteveO
The article compared windows "remove software" feature (Which is only able to show you a list of installed software and remove it) with ubuntu's "add / remove software" feature which is capable of doing the same, but also capable of adding new software from a list of thousands and thousands of known packages all with searchability and descriptions of each, all just by checking the box next to them. What does the author say about that? He says they are a tie, becuase they're both equivalent.Hahaha.Just goes to show a super bias in the article.
The _Only feature of Vista_ is Aero, what needs- at least 512 MB RAM,- a great deal of video RAM,- a fast processor,however i like more SuSE than UBUNTU but both of them can make that transparency effecton a P2-400 Mhz processor with 128 MB of RAM quiet smoothly since abt. 2 years ago , since KDE 3.5...- with the same processor around 1,7 ghz,- with the same videocard (with a GE-FORCE 4 MX440 for instance) and- with the same amount of RAM, like around 384 MB you can run: a FULL 110% compatible Windows XP system inside a XEN Virtual Machine under both SuSE and UBUNTU... while the whole Windows XP window is transparent if it is your perversion :)Question: what Microsoft really wants with this Vista crap??Answer1 : perhaps to be sure his Big Brother OS on his users machine to run.
I'm a little bias on the Ubuntu Linux Vs. Windows Vista debate. I have been using Ubuntu for the last 2 years as my only home OS. I feel that the Write up (Ubuntu Linux Vs. Windows Vista) fails to miss some of the finer points such as Virus Protection, Update patches, calling home and How the default fire walls work in both Ubuntu and Vista.Viruses on Linux are virtually not an issue. While in Vista its sill a major problem. Linux over all, is much more secure by its own nature. Root kits do pose a problem for Linux but it is easy to scan for them and they are few and far between.Patches for Ubuntu are much better and released faster than Vista's. Thats just a bi-product of Ubuntu being Open source. "everyone gets to see the code!"Vista calls home a lot and your limited to how many times you can install Vista. Personally I don't want my computer giving any informational to a third party without my knowledge. Further more, if I want to reinstall the OS should be free to do so as many times as I want without jumping through hoops. Its my OS, I paid for it, stop considering me a cook Microsoft. Ubuntu can be installed as many times as the user wishes with no hoops.The fire wall in Ubuntu closes all the ports from outside world to start. Vista leaves most of them open, leaving the system open to attack.Two other major points to Ubuntu's credit are the GUI is very customizable unlike Vista's GUI and that using the package manager allows Ubuntu to install over 33,000 FREE apps all neatly organized and easy to find. Try searching on the internet for 33,000 apps for windows, it will take days.
gordigorApr 28, 2007
@PostenlI run Vista (and XP) behind a router and haven't had a virus in five years, without run virus software.
msound96Apr 28, 2007
I haven't personally used Vista since its beta 2 release so I can't really give an educated opinion on the conclusion of the comparison. However, it always bugs me when Windows advocates point out how trivial it is to add the missing oss to their windows machine. Ok Vista doesn't come with OOo, but it's a trivial task to download and install it so we really can't deduct too many points from Vista on that account. Whether or not that task is trivial really depends on your target audience. The author began his comparison by saying: "For some time, the folks at Ubuntu have been trying their best to make Granny -- and most everyone else -- happy." Yeah, like Granny is going to know what the heck Open Office is, where to get it, and how to install it. Plus it's going to take an awful long time to download using that aol dial up account of hers. So saying: "On the Vista side, it's not hard to add OpenOffice manually" isn't always true.I'm not saying I disagree with the author's conclusion. I just think this is a topic that comes up in a lot of Linux/Windows debates. If the comparison was grading on which OS was more "Granny Friendly", then I honestly don't see how Vista (given my experience with beta 2 only) could have come out on top. If the comparison was for users that are more tech-savvy, more importantly, users with prior windows experience, then yeah, I can see why Vista came out on top.- SteveO
gmorganApr 28, 2007
Wine works easily with Ubuntu. All you need to do is associate .exe with Wine.
vektuzApr 28, 2007
The article compared windows "remove software" feature (Which is only able to show you a list of installed software and remove it) with ubuntu's "add / remove software" feature which is capable of doing the same, but also capable of adding new software from a list of thousands and thousands of known packages all with searchability and descriptions of each, all just by checking the box next to them. What does the author say about that? He says they are a tie, becuase they're both equivalent.Hahaha.Just goes to show a super bias in the article.
flashdesignerApr 29, 2007
The _Only feature of Vista_ is Aero, what needs- at least 512 MB RAM,- a great deal of video RAM,- a fast processor,however i like more SuSE than UBUNTU but both of them can make that transparency effecton a P2-400 Mhz processor with 128 MB of RAM quiet smoothly since abt. 2 years ago , since KDE 3.5...- with the same processor around 1,7 ghz,- with the same videocard (with a GE-FORCE 4 MX440 for instance) and- with the same amount of RAM, like around 384 MB you can run: a FULL 110% compatible Windows XP system inside a XEN Virtual Machine under both SuSE and UBUNTU... while the whole Windows XP window is transparent if it is your perversion :)Question: what Microsoft really wants with this Vista crap??Answer1 : perhaps to be sure his Big Brother OS on his users machine to run.
amoore260May 2, 2007
I'm a little bias on the Ubuntu Linux Vs. Windows Vista debate. I have been using Ubuntu for the last 2 years as my only home OS. I feel that the Write up (Ubuntu Linux Vs. Windows Vista) fails to miss some of the finer points such as Virus Protection, Update patches, calling home and How the default fire walls work in both Ubuntu and Vista.Viruses on Linux are virtually not an issue. While in Vista its sill a major problem. Linux over all, is much more secure by its own nature. Root kits do pose a problem for Linux but it is easy to scan for them and they are few and far between.Patches for Ubuntu are much better and released faster than Vista's. Thats just a bi-product of Ubuntu being Open source. "everyone gets to see the code!"Vista calls home a lot and your limited to how many times you can install Vista. Personally I don't want my computer giving any informational to a third party without my knowledge. Further more, if I want to reinstall the OS should be free to do so as many times as I want without jumping through hoops. Its my OS, I paid for it, stop considering me a cook Microsoft. Ubuntu can be installed as many times as the user wishes with no hoops.The fire wall in Ubuntu closes all the ports from outside world to start. Vista leaves most of them open, leaving the system open to attack.Two other major points to Ubuntu's credit are the GUI is very customizable unlike Vista's GUI and that using the package manager allows Ubuntu to install over 33,000 FREE apps all neatly organized and easy to find. Try searching on the internet for 33,000 apps for windows, it will take days.