Windows 7 versus Ubuntu 9.10

[eltherza]

Ubuntu 9.10 - Getting better and better! (I like it much better than 8.10)
Windows 7 - Awesome stuff too!

Conclusion: Happiness all round!

Serisouly, both are coming out amazingly good, and which ever you prefer it's a step up for both.

 

[pkid]

I thought they weren't using Plymouth but rather XSplash??? Windows 7 will be released on 22 October 2009??? 10.04 is the next LTS. I have never seen a more incorrect article...

 

[Tassidar]

I thought they weren't using Plymouth but rather XSplash??? 10.04 is the next LTS. I have never seen a more incorrect article...

Both of these errors have been posted on already, but yes that article is highly inaccurate.

 

[haxxor]

Just out of curiosity.....

How much will Windows 7 cost, when released in SA?

How much will ubuntu 9.04 cost, when released in SA

 

[aott]

Both of these errors have been posted on already, but yes that article is highly inaccurate.

Those are indeed errors I made. The LTS one was because of confusion on my part while the xsplash one was ignorance. I apologise for these.

Alastair

 

[VonPickle]

Blame Creative for that.

Oh I do. Just picked up somewhere that 9.10 will have the first half-decent support for X-Fi cards, can't wait to test it out.

 

[_TrXtR_]

Just out of curiosity.....

How much will Windows 7 cost, when released in SA?

How much will ubuntu 9.04 cost, when released in SA

Different currencies, the one costs hours and hours of labour, the other costs money which was received for doing hours and hours of labour.

I dont think I would bother with the free one though... I'd rather pay hard earned money for windows 7, than having to spend extra time at home working.

 

[porchrat]

Different currencies, the one costs hours and hours of labour, the other costs money which was received for doing hours and hours of labour.

I dont think I would bother with the free one though... I'd rather pay hard earned money for windows 7, than having to spend extra time at home working.

That depends on what you use Ubuntu for.

If all you do is check your email and surf the web then the free one definitely makes more sense. Hands down.

For everyone else. I suppose it depends what you use it for. Honestly I find Linux easier to work with than Windows, perhaps just because I am more familiar with it. Who knows.

Actually now that I mention it does Windows come with something similar to the 'grep' function? because that would come in handy.

And a stream editor. As 'sed' is also quite useful.

 

[Bismuth]

Just out of curiosity.....

How much will Windows 7 cost, when released in SA?

How much will ubuntu 9.04 cost, when released in SA

9.04 was free, 10.04 should be about the same, give or take.

Not sure what Windows 7 will cost, I did see a list posted somewhere with the DSP prices.

Not sure when I will try Windows 7, maybe at work, they are talking about upgrading the hardware to run it. At home I've been thinking of going all Ubuntu on the next upgrade.

B

 

[Tassidar]

Different currencies, the one costs hours and hours of labour, the other costs money which was received for doing hours and hours of labour.

I dont think I would bother with the free one though... I'd rather pay hard earned money for windows 7, than having to spend extra time at home working.

Actually, with the right hardware, it's MUCH quicker and easier to install ubuntu, especially considering that you don't then have to spend extra time installing a word-processor, a virus scanner, a half-decent browser, and a whole load of other apps.

When was the last time you used Ubuntu?

 

[_TrXtR_]

Actually, with the right hardware, it's MUCH quicker and easier to install ubuntu, especially considering that you don't then have to spend extra time installing a word-processor, a virus scanner, a half-decent browser, and a whole load of other apps.

When was the last time you used Ubuntu?

The 'right' hardware is like winning a lotto. Ive run ubuntu on all the 'supported' systems... there's alway trouble. And... seriously, installing word and all the other junk is worth the little effort it takes.

3 months ago 9.04 and I wont go back, and my girlfriend beggs me not to.
I have allot of battle scars and have installed and used ubuntu on many hardware platforms including laptops.
The thing in the end was when trying to hookup my girlfriends ipod. It was embarrissing... after 15 minutes of things not working,
I decided it was over.

Ubuntu is good for browsing the internets and editing word docs. You can get away with movies and music too, and probably more so with 9.10.
With windows I also get to play games.

But, imo eventually gaming would be a console only thing.
Even if that had to happen, I just couldnt make the move away from windows 7.
They should actually make consoles come with full blown windows 7. I'll be sold.

For everyone else. I suppose it depends what you use it for. Honestly I find Linux easier to work with than Windows, perhaps just because I am more familiar with it. Who knows.

Actually now that I mention it does Windows come with something similar to the 'grep' function? because that would come in handy.

And a stream editor. As 'sed' is also quite useful.

Windows doesnt include junk that the majority of the population would never use, you can download it though. Terminal's are for old people born long ago. I'm more familiar with linux (ubuntu) than windows... because I have had to spend years and years of solving it's problems.

 

[guest2013-1]

Strange to hear you guys struggle with graphics cards... ubuntu 9.04 installed on my laptop and everything that windows never could pick up from the start was installed, including my graphics drivers/wireless and onboard lan... all of which (up to Vista still) had to be installed separately off of driver cd's or downloaded drivers.

Ubuntu was the only OS to have everything installed once off...

 

[porchrat]

Terminal's are for old people born long ago.

OK that is disturbing.

Consoles and CHUIs in general are often the best way to get things done. Many servers don't have GUIs and there really is no reason for them to possess GUIs.

I use the console every day. It is one of the most useful tools in Linux. If I had to choose between nautilus and the console for navigating directories I choose the console every time. The commands are faster than moving to the buttons and it contains all of the fundamental functions of the OS in one place. No one GUI can ever compete with the efficiency of the console.

 

[Nod]

The thing in the end was when trying to hookup my girlfriends ipod. It was embarrissing... after 15 minutes of things not working,
I decided it was over.

Getting your iPod to work is as easy as plugging it in. I haven't had any problems

 

[Tassidar]

The 'right' hardware is like winning a lotto. Ive run ubuntu on all the 'supported' systems... there's alway trouble. And... seriously, installing word and all the other junk is worth the little effort it takes.

3 months ago 9.04 and I wont go back, and my girlfriend beggs me not to.
I have allot of battle scars and have installed and used ubuntu on many hardware platforms including laptops.
The thing in the end was when trying to hookup my girlfriends ipod. It was embarrissing... after 15 minutes of things not working,
I decided it was over.

Ubuntu is good for browsing the internets and editing word docs. You can get away with movies and music too, and probably more so with 9.10.
With windows I also get to play games.

But, imo eventually gaming would be a console only thing.
Even if that had to happen, I just couldnt make the move away from windows 7.
They should actually make consoles come with full blown windows 7. I'll be sold.


Windows doesnt include junk that the majority of the population would never use, you can download it though. Terminal's are for old people born long ago. I'm more familiar with linux (ubuntu) than windows... because I have had to spend years and years of solving it's problems.

Really, on most of the computers I've tried it on, it works straight out of the box. Wireless networking can be a bit of a problem, but I've abandoned wiresless after finding it slow and unreliable, even on XP.

Alot of this, however, is the fact that hardware vendors don't support Linux that much.

It seems somewhat ironic to me, that after having been working on a linux server with command line only, I found myself craving the command line in windows as a quicker way of getting things done.

Many people just browse the internet and edit documents, and for that I would recommend ubuntu above windows.

However, I agree, that if you want to run specific apps, play the latest games etc... then linux probably isn't for you.

Horses for courses.

At any rate, I'm sorry you've had a bad experience. To date my experinece has been largely positive, with a few (mainly wifi) exceptions.

 

[Tassidar]

OK that is disturbing.

Consoles and CHUIs in general are often the best way to get things done. Many servers don't have GUIs and there really is no reason for them to possess GUIs.

I use the console every day. It is one of the most useful tools in Linux. If I had to choose between nautilus and the console for navigating directories I choose the console every time. The commands are faster than moving to the buttons and it contains all of the fundamental functions of the OS in one place. No one GUI can ever compete with the efficiency of the console.

+1

 

[_TrXtR_]

OK that is disturbing.

Consoles and CHUIs in general are often the best way to get things done. Many servers don't have GUIs and there really is no reason for them to possess GUIs.

I use the console every day. It is one of the most useful tools in Linux. If I had to choose between nautilus and the console for navigating directories I choose the console every time. The commands are faster than moving to the buttons and it contains all of the fundamental functions of the OS in one place. No one GUI can ever compete with the efficiency of the console.

This is a comparisson between running windows 7 and ubuntu. There's no real point in discussing a feature that is never used by a user.

Really, on most of the computers I've tried it on, it works straight out of the box. Wireless networking can be a bit of a problem, but I've abandoned wiresless after finding it slow and unreliable, even on XP.

The thing that I am trying to point out is that you have no true way of knowing wether something will run ubuntu.
And as much as you think it's cool disabling youre wireless because it's unstable... tell my buddy and his laptop that. He'll freak, it's the most important component he needs working, and it doesnt work?
Ive had less touble with wireless, only one card that I had to get a custom driver for which was rather unstable, but it got the job done.

At any rate, I'm sorry you've had a bad experience.

Done be sorry! I'm quite happy it happened. Ive never ran vista in my life.
And the move straight to windows 7 has been so amazing. Can you believe I plug my phone in, and it instantly worked!? Ofcourse it's just my luck it happens to run windows mobile hehe... another can of worms there.

Getting your iPod to work is as easy as plugging it in. I haven't had any problems

Maybe an old ipod. Her's was brand spanking new.
Ipods are not meant to work on ubuntu. It's not an ipod supported feature, and neither does ubuntu support it. The functionality is there though, if it works for you that's great, if it doesnt too bad. In my case it did not work. Worked with 2 other ipods, but not that one.

Strange to hear you guys struggle with graphics cards... ubuntu 9.04 installed on my laptop and everything that windows never could pick up from the start was installed, including my graphics drivers/wireless and onboard lan... all of which (up to Vista still) had to be installed separately off of driver cd's or downloaded drivers.

Ubuntu was the only OS to have everything installed once off...

Yeah, you get gnome 2 and forced to have the machine killer 'evolution' running in the background. If you dont like evolution, you need to drop gnome.

Ubuntu will install and run fine on most systems. I agree with that.
The thing is though, if you have an existing hardware setup that just happens not to agree with it, youre out of luck. And doesnt matter how much the vendor's get blamed, in the end it's ubuntu that's not usable.

But also, it's more about usability than installation. Install is a once off thing and can look like shhh for all I care Its the every day running type stuff.

Like trying turning off ALL desktop icons 3 hours before a meeting.
Oh wait... you cant

 

[Tassidar]

This is a comparisson between running windows 7 and ubuntu. There's no real point in discussing a feature that is never used by a user.



The thing that I am trying to point out is that you have no true way of knowing wether something will run ubuntu.
And as much as you think it's cool disabling youre wireless because it's unstable... tell my buddy and his laptop that. He'll freak, it's the most important component he needs working, and it doesnt work?
Ive had less touble with wireless, only one card that I had to get a custom driver for which was rather unstable, but it got the job done.


Done be sorry! I'm quite happy it happened. Ive never ran vista in my life.
And the move straight to windows 7 has been so amazing. Can you believe I plug my phone in, and it instantly worked!? Ofcourse it's just my luck it happens to run windows mobile hehe... another can of worms there.

Maybe an old ipod. Her's was brand spanking new.
Ipods are not meant to work on ubuntu. It's not an ipod supported feature, and neither does ubuntu support it. The functionality is there though, if it works for you that's great, if it doesnt too bad. In my case it did not work. Worked with 2 other ipods, but not that one.


Yeah, you get gnome 2 and forced to have the machine killer 'evolution' running in the background. If you dont like evolution, you need to drop gnome.

Ubuntu will install and run fine on most systems. I agree with that.
The thing is though, if you have an existing hardware setup that just happens not to agree with it, youre out of luck. And doesnt matter how much the vendor's get blamed, in the end it's ubuntu that's not usable.

But also, it's more about usability than installation. Install is a once off thing and can look like shhh for all I care Its the every day running type stuff.

Like trying turning off ALL desktop icons 3 hours before a meeting.
Oh wait... you cant

Some of us do use the console / terminal so it isn't a useless feature.

Actually, one of my colleagues is having trouble with wireless in XP so am thinking of switching him to Ubuntu, since the wireless module is much better designed. Admittidly the XP wireless system is very old now. My comment about switching to wired is personal preference. But I found that between my wireless card and my router, in the next room, there was no connection in XP (didn't try ubuntu), besides, I back up to my server every night, and wired is just much faster for that.

You're not forced to use evolution in gnome. Where did you possibly get that idea from? sudo apt-get install thunderbird or Add-Remove programs -> Thunderbird or ... you get the message.

AFAIK Linux supports more hardware natively than Windows. Its just the its easier to get drivers for Windows, but yes, it can be a problem. I recommend checking your system hardware before installing ubuntu, or just running a live CD. If you find problems, rather just install windows. I agree, that it's pointless to waste time on something that doesn't work.

Please elaborate on the everyday running stuff, I don't really follow you.

 

[_TrXtR_]

You're not forced to use evolution in gnome. Where did you possibly get that idea from?

you are. You can install something else and use that, but evolution will still run. And no you cant uninstall it. It's possible I'm wrong... but I spent hours on this issue, and the statement was also pulled from the web somewhere, if I really put in some effort, I'd find some material for you not comming from me. I think you have to reinstall gnome with the lite version or something or the other. Check when you start up ubuntu you'll see the running evolution process. For me that thing had a memory leak easily eating up all my memory. That's where my need was to get rid of it, since I dont use it.

I'm not going to elaborate on every day things. It will actually require me to install ubuntu again and making a list of these things. I'll be installing windows 7 again when I get my hands on the retail box. When I do this I'll also be installaing ubuntu, to compare. Maybe then I'll have an elaborate list.

I dont remember ever saying the terminal is useless. I'm rather mean that we are power users, and we are also the minority. To me this article applies to home users, but I geuss we can include the minority in it too

My dad surprised me the other day by buying a cheap usb tv tuner.
I'm willing to put my money down that if he was running ubuntu, I would have had to give atleast a day away to get it working for him, I doubt that it wouldve worked though, those cheap usb things are meant to run on windows.

 

[Bismuth]

I've plugged my Windows Mobile Phone into Ubuntu, and it's just worked, either as a 3G modem, or storage card. Had more hassles with it under XP, maybe it would work better under 7, idk.

I use the terminal quite a bit, actually miss it when forced to use XP.

Had no issues with wireless in Ubuntu, that's on D-Link hardware though.

Had no issues with gfx (nvidia) in Ubuntu.

As Tassidar said, you don't have to use Evolution.

Can't comment on the ipod issue, old or new, as I don't have one. Have got a friend with a shuffle, will test it out.

B