Vista versus linux Ubuntu

[Will]

Over the last few days I have been testing Linux Ubuntu version 6.10 (edgy
eft)

here follow some findings

pro's of Vista over Ubuntu
vista looks better
vista is more advanced
vista has more features
Vista has the potential to be highly productive
vista is very stable (well at least for me it is)

pro's of Ubuntu over vista
Ubuntu is free
Ubuntu doesn't have SPP WGA or WGAN
Ubuntu is very fast
Ubuntu is very stable (not a single BSOD's at all and no lockups)
Ubuntu does everything a home user would want out of an OS
Ubuntu although not at the same level as Vista it still has a very tidy
looking user interface and linux has come a long way since the old days of
manually configuring files inorder to install apps, application setups are
very easy in Ubuntu plug and play detection is very good in Ubuntu.

My conclusion if you are an advanced user and need a high level of
productivity you really need to stick with MSFT and buy Vista.
But if your just an average home user and all you do is use the internet for
some casual browsing and sending emails and run some office applications
then Ubuntu is well worth considering.

P.S Ubuntu also daul boots very well with both Vista and XP pro (for those
who would like to use both)

 

[Roy Coorne]

Will schrieb:
....

My conclusion if you are an advanced user and need a high level of
productivity you really need to stick with MSFT and buy Vista.
But if your just an average home user and all you do is use the internet
for some casual browsing and sending emails and run some office
applications then Ubuntu is well worth considering.

....

My understanding was/is that Linux is used by advanced users, even in
Redmond, especially for servers - and that Windows (98/XP/Vista) is
necessary for home users who are doing serious gaming!



Roy (XP SP2 and Vista b. 5744)

 

[Kerry Brown]

Over the last few days I have been testing Linux Ubuntu version 6.10
(edgy eft)

here follow some findings

pro's of Vista over Ubuntu
vista looks better
vista is more advanced
vista has more features
Vista has the potential to be highly productive
vista is very stable (well at least for me it is)

pro's of Ubuntu over vista
Ubuntu is free
Ubuntu doesn't have SPP WGA or WGAN
Ubuntu is very fast
Ubuntu is very stable (not a single BSOD's at all and no lockups)
Ubuntu does everything a home user would want out of an OS
Ubuntu although not at the same level as Vista it still has a very
tidy looking user interface and linux has come a long way since the
old days of manually configuring files inorder to install apps,
application setups are very easy in Ubuntu plug and play detection is
very good in Ubuntu.
My conclusion if you are an advanced user and need a high level of
productivity you really need to stick with MSFT and buy Vista.
But if your just an average home user and all you do is use the
internet for some casual browsing and sending emails and run some
office applications then Ubuntu is well worth considering.

P.S Ubuntu also daul boots very well with both Vista and XP pro (for
those who would like to use both)

Actually I think you have it the wrong way around. Linux is more suited to a
advanced user. Imagine your typical home user using Linux in the following
situations. They buy a new USB all in one printer/scanner/copier/fax. They
buy a new digital camera. For their birthday they get a new game. As part of
their job they are given a Power Point slide deck to modify. It includes
video clips and VML graphics. An advanced user could probably make all of
this work in Linux. A typical home user could not. At the present time both
users may have problems with the all in one machine and the game with Vista
but once Vista is released those types of problems will go away quite
quickly. With Linux they have existed for as long as Linux has. An advanced
user can be just as productive with Linux as with any version of Windows.
The typical home user would be very frustrated with Linux very quickly.

 

[Will]

You do have a point there
I should rephrase the term "home user" to "advanced user with basic needs"
Although I would have to say when it comes to installing hardware Ubuntu
has made vast improvements over for example Redhat which is now fairly old
but it was my last linux experience before trying Ubuntu
Ubuntu detected my webcam, both my printers, my digital tuner card and my
digital camera's Xd card, This was a huge surprise for me I didn't expect
that.
However gaming is a different matter Vista is the one for that, but then
again not everybody plays games on the PC

 

[MicroFox]

Kerry this might come to you as a suprise...
but in a few short years ubuntu will be easier and more user friendly in
every aspect... in that same time
microsoft will have gotten tremendous blows from sales
from vista and office2007 since they will be avoided...

This will flip the whole technology upside down...

sit there and you will see this happen just as I am saying it.

5 years..... linux will be the dominant OS

I would have never have thought this possible.. but then again I would never
had thought microsoft
was capable of making so many mistakes all together and destroy their
products.....

this is more of a self destruction more than anything.. but this creates a
window for other
technologies to take advantage ....

The same thing is happening as we speak with ie7 and firefox. Because people
wanted a ie7 so much,
and they were tremendusly disapointed by the bugs, incompatibilites and bad
design of the UI,
they flocked to firefox 2 instead of going back to ie6...

as you can see this is a self destruction, because mozilla didnt have the
power to make all these people
shift browsers.... so it was microsoft that helped mozilla...

the same thing is happening now... microsoft is helping apple and linux
platforms..

You will see this happen... if you could for a little release yourself from
microsoft blinding propaganda....

you will see it. I am correct about this. But you may need to recieve more
information to start believing it...

MS is trying to grab suse into a deal of some kind.. some people in
Microsoft are very conserned...

the company has no guidence and its falling apart.. and its fruit of this is
vista... the worst OS microsoft has ever made.

 

[Jeppe]

Over the last few days I have been testing Linux Ubuntu version 6.10
(edgy eft)

here follow some findings

pro's of Vista over Ubuntu
vista looks better

Yes it does.

vista is more advanced

In some areas.

vista has more features

In some areas.

Vista has the potential to be highly productive
True.

vista is very stable (well at least for me it is)
True.


pro's of Ubuntu over vista

Ubuntu is free

Nice, isn't it.

Ubuntu doesn't have SPP WGA or WGAN

These have never bothered me.

Ubuntu is very fast

So is my XP or Vista.

Ubuntu is very stable (not a single BSOD's at all and no lockups)

I can't remember when I've had BSOD or lockup with RTM quality OS.

Ubuntu does everything a home user would want out of an OS

Maybe, but my favourite apps don't work in it. Not to mention nearly
every game available is not available within Ubuntu.

Ubuntu although not at the same level as Vista it still has a very tidy
looking user interface and linux has come a long way since the old days
of manually configuring files inorder to install apps, application
setups are very easy in Ubuntu plug and play detection is very good in
Ubuntu.

It may be very good in some areas, but not all. Namely sound cards,
printers and multimedia equipment. Reminds me of early windows
Plug-and-Pray method.

My conclusion if you are an advanced user and need a high level of
productivity you really need to stick with MSFT and buy Vista.
But if your just an average home user and all you do is use the internet
for some casual browsing and sending emails and run some office
applications then Ubuntu is well worth considering.

This is true for some users.

P.S Ubuntu also daul boots very well with both Vista and XP pro (for
those who would like to use both)

This is not exclusive for Ubuntu.

 

[Bill Frisbee]

Will,

You forget the most important thing of all.

Ubuntu can't use 1/10th the software Vista can... that's the big ding
against Unbutu.
Not to mention the total lack of a unified support escalation at all...


Bill F.

 

[Kerry Brown]

It wouldn't be a surprise. I think it unlikely unless someone spends major
money on a marketing campaign and enforces some standards but the potential
is there with Ubuntu.

 

[Alias]

However gaming is a different matter Vista is the one for that, but then
again not everybody plays games on the PC

Nowadays, games on the PC are just clones of games made for Playstation,
XBox, etc. I was very disappointed in TR7 that was like that, for example.

Alias

 

[arachnid]

Will,

You forget the most important thing of all.

Ubuntu can't use 1/10th the software Vista can... that's the big ding
against Unbutu.

I've got 15,000 free applications at my fingertips and installable with
just a few mouseclicks. How many Vista applications can you afford?

 

[Robert Moir]

I've got 15,000 free applications at my fingertips and installable
with just a few mouseclicks. How many Vista applications can you
afford?

Leaving aside the fact that Free software is available on Windows too, you
and Bill have both fallen into a classic trap. The amount of software
available on a particular platform is irrelevant. What matters is whether or
not the one, two, or ten pieces of software (or at least completely
fuctional equivilants) that you need are available.

 

[Bill Frisbee]

Free != what people want or need.

I'd like to use my applications that I currently have not some bad copy of
them.

Yeah like people really wanna play say TuxRacer instead of WoW or
Battlefield 2142...


Bill F.

 

[Bill Frisbee]

No, this was EXACTLY what I was saying.

Most apps that people run simply don't run under Linux... and when running
under something like WINE, run with features missing.


Bill F.

 

[arachnid]

Leaving aside the fact that Free software is available on Windows too,

Many of the top open-source projects have been ported but hardly the
entire range that I have available on a Linux-native system. One can find
ports of some of the lesser-known tools and applications, but these are
often incompletely ported, unmaintained, and/or just don't work smoothly
together the way *nix applications do in their home environment. And then
there are some, like Synaptic, that don't port at all because Windows is
such a different beast from Linux.

(I'm deliberately ignoring closed-source Windows freeware. There are
a few *great* free applications out there, but there's also a whole lot
of adware, spyware, demoware, obsolete abandonware, and software produced
by lone hobbyists who refuse to share their source with a team. Without
either a commercial interest or open source code, there's just no way you
can count on this stuff to be there long-term)

you and Bill have both fallen into a classic trap.

The amount of software available on a particular platform is irrelevant.
What matters is whether or not the one, two, or ten pieces of software
(or at least completely fuctional equivilants) that you need are
available.

An application is not "available" if you can't afford it. Sure, I can
afford a single $50 application. But how about two dozen $50 applications?
Even if I can afford to spend that much on software, can I justify $1200
for software? Where commercial software users make do without because the
cost is prohibitive or not justified by their need, I just reach out to my
collection of 15,000 applications and choose whatever I want. So which of
us really has the most applications "available"?

 

[arachnid]

No, this was EXACTLY what I was saying.

Most apps that people run simply don't run under Linux... and when running
under something like WINE, run with features missing.

People generally switch to Linux to get away from the whole closed-source
scene. The last thing they want is to bring high software prices, DRM,
WPA, WGA(N), adware, spyware, and single-machine EULA's with them.

 

[Robert Moir]

Many of the top open-source projects have been ported but hardly the
entire range that I have available on a Linux-native system. One can
find ports of some of the lesser-known tools and applications, but
these are often incompletely ported, unmaintained, and/or just don't
work smoothly together the way *nix applications do in their home
environment. And then there are some, like Synaptic, that don't port
at all because Windows is such a different beast from Linux.

The reverse is true. And again for Macs. Some applications only work well on
one platform, thats certainly true enough.

(I'm deliberately ignoring closed-source Windows freeware. There are
a few *great* free applications out there, but there's also a whole
lot of adware, spyware, demoware, obsolete abandonware, and software
produced by lone hobbyists who refuse to share their source with a
team. Without either a commercial interest or open source code,
there's just no way you can count on this stuff to be there long-term)

I'm surprised you missed the effort I went to to say "Free" software, as
opposed to "free". I wasn't talking about freeware. I was talking about Free
software.

An application is not "available" if you can't afford it. Sure, I can
afford a single $50 application. But how about two dozen $50
applications? Even if I can afford to spend that much on software,
can I justify $1200 for software? Where commercial software users
make do without because the cost is prohibitive or not justified by
their need, I just reach out to my collection of 15,000 applications
and choose whatever I want. So which of us really has the most
applications "available"?

That whooshing noise would be my point passing just above your head.

You already come so close to grasping it too, when you talk about "top"
projects and how sometimes they're only available on just one platform.

I'll say it again, slightly differently this time. The number of packages
available is irrelevant. I make a list of what *I* need to do, and look for
packages that meet those needs. I either find something that meets my needs,
in which case I'm happy, or I don't find something to meet my needs, in
which case the amount of packages available that didn't meet my needs is
irrelevant.

 

[Kevin Young]

First off I'd like to compliment everyone that has contributed to this
thread to date. It is nice to see some constructive discussion instead
of the Linux is crap, Vista is crap type talk discussions between Linux
and Windows to often result in.

I would like to weigh in with my own views but before I do you should
know that I am a long term Windows and DOS user that moved to Novell
SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED) just over a week ago. This move
was made because I was unhappy with MS policies related to WGA, WGAN,
SPP and the Vista EULA at the time. I understand that MS has relented
on the EULA and applaud them on that but because they are sticking with
the other technologies and adding some to Office I intend to stick with
Linux.

Having used XP, Vista and SLED, here is how I would evaluate or position
each:

Installation: SLED Wins - Operating System and most applications are
installed at the same time

Hardware recognition: XP Wins with Vista and SLED being tied

Hardware Requirements: SLED and XP tied, Vista third place

Boot Times: Comparable

Drive space: SLED Wins

Performance: Comparable

Look: Vista Wins, XP and SLED tied

Multimedia: Vista and XP win

Office Applications: Comparable

Internet Applications: Comparable

Games: XP Wins

Security: SLED Wins, Vista second, XP third

Virus\malware: SLED Wins, Vista second, XP third

Stability: SLED Wins, XP second, Vista third (Note RC version only)

Ease of Use: Comparable

Copy Protection: SLED Wins hands down

Price: SLED Wins

As you can see there are trade offs and really no clear winner. It is
more a case of which OS meets more of a users individual needs. Since
gaming and multimedia were low on my personal priority but absence of
WGA, WGA N, SPP, along with better security were high, SLED is a good
fit for me. For others, gaming may be critical so sticking with XP for
now may make the most sense.

 

[arachnid]

arachnid wrote:

I'm surprised you missed the effort I went to to say "Free" software, as
opposed to "free". I wasn't talking about freeware. I was talking about
Free software.

I didn't miss it. My first paragraph was about open source. Since open
source is a sort of freeware, my second paragraph explained why I see
open-source freeware differently from closed-source freeware.

That whooshing noise would be my point passing just above your head.

Or mine passing over yours. Unless you're wealthy, price is very much a
factor in considering the "availability" of applications to fit one's list
of needs.

 

[Will]

At this stage Games are a big issue with a lot of users and a valid reason
for poeople sticking with Xp or Vista

However over the last few years there has been a big shift towards game
consoles such as Xbox and Playstation and I see far less games being
developed for the PC

This trend is something that MSFT is cashing in on seeing that the Xbox is
now fully compatible with Vista

If this trend continues we could well see the end of high end games for the
PC they simply won't be made for the PC anymore ( I feel this is a shame but
sadly it looks like the way it will go) The basic arcade games will always
be around for the PC but this will also be the case for linux and with a
decent video capture card you can always connect an Xbox to a Linux PC as
well

 

[arachnid]

First off I'd like to compliment everyone that has contributed to this
thread to date. It is nice to see some constructive discussion instead of
the Linux is crap, Vista is crap type talk discussions between Linux and
Windows to often result in.

I would like to weigh in with my own views but before I do you should know
that I am a long term Windows and DOS user that moved to Novell SUSE Linux
Enterprise Desktop (SLED) just over a week ago. This move was made
because I was unhappy with MS policies related to WGA, WGAN, SPP and the
Vista EULA at the time. I understand that MS has relented on the EULA and
applaud them on that but because they are sticking with the other
technologies and adding some to Office I intend to stick with Linux.

LOL! And a week after you choose SuSE, Microsoft partners with Novell.

Don't you hate it when the universe plays practical jokes on you?

Having used XP, Vista and SLED, here is how I would evaluate or position
each:

Installation: SLED Wins - Operating System and most applications are
installed at the same time

Hardware recognition: XP Wins with Vista and SLED being tied

Hardware Requirements: SLED and XP tied, Vista third place

Microsoft's closed-source model is coming back to bite them. They had the
same problem with drivers moving from 32 to 64 bits: They're dependent on
hardware manufacturers to provide drivers, but the manufacturers don't
want to provide drivers for older hardware when they could instead
leverage the situation to increase hardware sales.

Boot Times: Comparable

Drive space: SLED Wins

Performance: Comparable

Look: Vista Wins, XP and SLED tied

AFAIC, GUI's hit their height of functionality with the look and feel in
the mid-90's and have been going downhill ever since!

Multimedia: Vista and XP win

I'm curious about this one. Is this because (as a consequence of the
DMCA) you have to add media players aftermarket, or did you do that and
just find the open source media players not to your satisfaction?

Games: XP Wins

Definitely. High-performance games just don't work well with the
open-source model. Game programmers are actually only a small part of
a game-development team. The rest of the staff includes directors,
authors, actors, a film crew, artists, composers, musicians, recording
studios... and interaction is so intensive that they all need to get
together in one place. So, Linux is totally dependent on the game-makers
to come onboard, but they won't be interested until OSS market share
increases.

I'm not much of a gamer myself but the linux gamers I do know swear by
cedega. However you still have to pay close attention to which games you
buy so that's not a complete solution. You can also get unofficial
Playstation and Nintendo emulators and run games for those consoles,
though I don't imagine they work too well if the graphics are especially
intensive.

As you can see there are trade offs and really no clear winner. It is
more a case of which OS meets more of a users individual needs. Since
gaming and multimedia were low on my personal priority but absence of WGA,
WGA N, SPP, along with better security were high, SLED is a good fit for
me. For others, gaming may be critical so sticking with XP for now may
make the most sense.

Since they have to pay for a Windows license when they buy a machine
anyway, most Linux gamers maintain a Windows partition for games.
Virtual-machine technology may soon speed up the graphics, which currently
have to be done in a software emulation of the graphics card but should
soon tap directly into the graphics chipsets. I've been wondering if this
has anything to do with Microsoft's decision to disallow installation of
the lower-end Vistas on VM's?