Difference between ubuntu and vista

[NfF]

Difference between these two OS

1.Ubuntu is much more complete-like the openoffice.org
vista...nah fork out ur money if u want office.

2.Nicer graphics--vista has a close rival

3.Fast Start-up:less than 3 mins.

4.u can modify the software,crash it smash it kick it..whatever.

5.customisable!available without downloading

The Downs of Ubuntu:

1.TOO MANY WIRELESS PROBLEMS-LIKE INSTALLING A SIMPLE NETWORK ADAPTER.
2.DOESN'T SUPPORT MANY FILE FORMATS-MP3,WMA,AAC-WINDOWS32EXE. MOST OF THE APPLICATIONS WE USE ARE IN WINDOWS FORMAT.SO WE ALL APPRECIATE IF THEY SUPPORT WINDOWS.EXE.
3.1 PLEA FROM ME---->PLS MAKE THE PARTITION MANAGER SIMPLER.LIKE XP PARTITION MANAGER
NAME THE HARD DRIVES E: OR F: THATS ALL. NO CRAP BOUT dev/hda. WE ARE NOT ENGINEERS.
4.BESIDES DEPENDING ON THE BUG FIXES ONLY..LOOK AT WINDOWS STRENGTHS. SIMPLICITY OF USE IS THE NO.1 PRIORITY. IF THE PROGRAM IS SIMPLE TO USE AND INSTALL..WOULDNT LIFE BE MUCH EASIER FOR ANYONE?
5.PLS PLS PLS SUPPORT MORE FILE FORMATS. DO THIS AND MAYBE UBUNTU MAY DETHRONED VISTA/OR MORE PREFEBALY LINUX OWNS WINDOWS.

soz for the caps.
these are the problems bout ubuntu
thx
nff

[Cene]

..what?

Please understand this:
LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS! Don't try to use it like it was!

Everything is different.. You are used to Windows-like partitioner, file systems, running exes etc, but it doesn't mean they are the only real way to do it.
You will never see different partitions like C:, D: or E:. If you want like that go back to VistAIDS.


All "non-working" formats you listed work for me. Exe's too, more or less, with wine. Maybe the problem is between the monitor and chair. And no, i don't mean keyboard.

What do you mean by file formats?
If you mean something like mp3's, video files etc, install the codecs. You need to do that in Windows too in order to see .mp4 or .mkv files, right?
Win32 .exes - Where you need to run so many of exes? Again, LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS - I've never needed to run any exes, excluding few games. There is always an alternative, may it need compiling from source or not.

If you mean file systems:
It is Windows that needs more support.
Just a short list what Linux supports on file systems:
FAT16
FAT32
NTFS (only partially)
Ext
Ext3
Ext2
ReiserFS
JFS
XFS
RAMFS
UDF
UFS
HPFS
(proc)
(Swap)
...

What Windows supports?
FAT16
FAT32
NTFS
... And what? That's all.
Also, the most-used Windows filesystem format, NTFS, is closed-source and poorly designed. It gets fragmented and needs defragmentation from time to time in order to work well.


Conclusion:
They are not problems in GNU/Linux, they are problems wich occur when user thinks that Linux = Windows without viruses, or refuses to READ THE FSCKING MANUAL!

[wirelessmonkey]

"2.DOESN'T SUPPORT MANY FILE FORMATS-MP3,WMA,AAC-WINDOWS32EXE. MOST OF THE APPLICATIONS WE USE ARE IN WINDOWS FORMAT.SO WE ALL APPRECIATE IF THEY SUPPORT WINDOWS.EXE"


Um... for the most part, all of these formats are supported in Ubuntu, just not by default. If you were to use automatix (www.getautomatix.com) they're particularly easy to install, or search for them in synaptic/apt/package manager of choice.

.exe files are "Windows Executables", designed specifically for M$ Windows. Wine/Crossover/Cedega have done a wonderful job building up a compatibility layer that allows you to utilize them anyway, but you need to remember.."Linux is NOT Windows"

[bigken]

as far as a partition manager you cant any easier than gparted

for codecs mp3 ect try and open them in totem and it will find the required extensions or use automatix once you get your head round the fact that its not windows things will fall into place and use this forum the people here are very helpful

anyhow hope you enjoy ubuntu ;)

[tgoose]

/dev/hda is not comparable to C:

/dev/hda is the name given to the physical (I think) partition itself, wheras C: is a logical drive

Logical drives on Ubuntu can be called just about anything. I have one called /media/music which is a bit more descriptive than "K:" on Windows. And Ubuntu has the advantage that it always mounts in the correct place. Windows changes drive letters depending on what is connected first for external drives, which has to be changed in the disk manager (it took me a long time to work this out.) If a drive has the wrong letter than anything trying to access a database of files will look in the wrong place and nothing will work. I used to have that problem a lot on Windows but it's non-existent on Ubuntu.

Ubuntu also works with much more file formats out the box. I can't play ogg or FLAC on Windows, for example. I can't open any archives except zips (I think.) I can't run bash scripts, or debian packages, or Linux binaries.

On Ubuntu I can open MP3, AAC, WMA with one extra install. To support RAR, tarballs, ogg and FLAC alone on Windows would need at least three installs. And unless things have changed it doesn't support AAC out of the box either (I may be a little out of date, however.)

I also much prefer gparted to the Windows partition manager (I use the live CD of gparted to partition Windows machines and Macs, rather than their built in tools which I find to be lacking.)

As for wireless networking, that is definitely a downside to Linux in general. But short of building their own hardware, there's not a lot either Linux or Ubuntu developers can do about that.

I wouldn't expect Windows binaries to run on Linux any more than I'd expect Linux binaries to run on Windows. Ideally, Windows binaries wouldn't even exist but in the meantime we have WINE, which is more than you can do on Windows for Linux software.

[Lord Illidan]

To the OP : Learn more about Ubuntu and Linux in general before you start comparing.

The C:, F:,E: thing is complete BS in my opinion. Nowadays, I prefer referring to my drives as /dev/hda or /dev/hdb...and then getting /media/music, /media/data for example. More descriptive, and not just referring to a drive letter.

About the formats, most of them are supported, just install what you need.

The Windows partition manager that appears during an installation is also B.S. Gparted is much better. Regarding wireless support, that's the real problem, imho.

[DM was on fire!]

I'll tell you the difference between Ubuntu and Vista.
Ubuntu doesn't suck and require thousands of dollars of new hardware.

End of story.

[smoker]

The Downs of Ubuntu:

1.TOO MANY WIRELESS PROBLEMS-LIKE INSTALLING A SIMPLE NETWORK ADAPTER.
2.DOESN'T SUPPORT MANY FILE FORMATS-MP3,WMA,AAC-WINDOWS32EXE. MOST OF THE APPLICATIONS WE USE ARE IN WINDOWS FORMAT.SO WE ALL APPRECIATE IF THEY SUPPORT WINDOWS.EXE.
3.1 PLEA FROM ME---->PLS MAKE THE PARTITION MANAGER SIMPLER.LIKE XP PARTITION MANAGER
NAME THE HARD DRIVES E: OR F: THATS ALL. NO CRAP BOUT dev/hda. WE ARE NOT ENGINEERS.
4.BESIDES DEPENDING ON THE BUG FIXES ONLY..LOOK AT WINDOWS STRENGTHS. SIMPLICITY OF USE IS THE NO.1 PRIORITY. IF THE PROGRAM IS SIMPLE TO USE AND INSTALL..WOULDNT LIFE BE MUCH EASIER FOR ANYONE?
5.PLS PLS PLS SUPPORT MORE FILE FORMATS. DO THIS AND MAYBE UBUNTU MAY DETHRONED VISTA/OR MORE PREFEBALY LINUX OWNS WINDOWS.


i don't have any problems like you have mentioned, with a little commonsense and learning you have a great operating system in ubuntu, it sounds like you should stick to windows:D

[tanelt]

To sum it up, the difference between Ubuntu and Vista is that one is a server OS and the other is an unstable DX10 gaming console.

Both are nowhere near being ready for desktop.

[wataboutbob]

The only thing that is important is which OS works best for your given hardware configuration and the price that you're willing to pay.

With care and UAC, I think Vista is reasonably secure. It was as fast as Feisty when booting, opening applications, windows and navigating over my LAN. But......... I saw a performance hit in the games that I normally play (which is why I use Windows in the 1st place) and Vista wanted a partition size of atleast 15 GB whereas XP would happily install in an 8 GB space. Is the Aero UI in the Ultimate edition worth USD 400 ? nope. To the OP, I believe OOffice works with vista (though I never tried it myself)

So the deal breaker for me was that Vista needed more space to install, the games I owned ran slower and while it may have improved as an OS, it really isn't something that offers more than XP (maybe I'll change my mind when Crysis and World in Conflict - both DX 10 games come out)

where's the difference between Feisty and Vista? heck, how can I compare 2 different OS's with different programs anyway. Both of them let you accomplish your given tasks. One will do it with a lesser requirement for hardware and at a cheaper price.

[steveneddy]

Ubuntu has advantages that Vista doesn't and vice-versa. If you like Vista, use Vista. These forums are full of people that use and like Ubuntu. I even bought a laptop with Ubuntu preinstalled and I will buy another one at the end of this year. I like Ubuntu myself. I am not ties to Windows, and as a matter of fact, I don't have but one PC running Windows, and that is XP to help friends that have XP installed, so i Remote Desktop to their machines easier. For the most part the windows is off for 29 days out of 30.

My Ubuntu laptop with nVidia graphics looks better than any Windows machine I have ever used. If I take my laptop to the computer store and fire it up, I can get a crowd gathered around me in about 2-3 minutes. It looks better than anything Windows offers, hands down.

If one likes to game, the Windows is the platform for you. If you are a graphics designer, then a Mac would be in order. Every OS does what the user wants and the user can decide if Windows, Linux or Mac is right for them.

It's about choice. If you don't like Linux, then stay on Windows, no on e is stopping you.

I like choice and freedom. I choose Ubuntu.

[kamaboko]

How many of you actually own a copy of Vista and Office 2007 and use it daily, thereby having an informed opinion about the product? If you don't, shut the whack up. It's tiring to hear pimple faced kids knock an OS they don't work with daily. Walking through Best Buy or Fry's and dabbling with it for a few minutes doesn't count.

[karellen]

the thread OP seems uninformed to me. these kinds of requests are very hard to be taken seriously...
there's always a choice. and a better alternative for everyone. make use of that choice. and enjoy what works best for you

[kazuya]

To each their own. Ubuntu is way useable to me than say windows vista or xp. The OS gives you a great deal of choices to do almost whatever you want for the price of zero. Not only Ubuntu, 100 or more other distros do the same for their users. Vista is okay for some people, but for many like myself, it is a bottleneck. It is limiting, expensive to maintain and too time consuming to get to work as users may like or want.

Moreover, Vista forces users to abandon great machines for way over priced and newer ones to utilize an OS that does not perform as great as its counterparts..

For gaming, XP is still the best as most game manufacturers write games for windows platform. Hero online comes to mind. I tried Crossover office, but it was to no avail. I think, this would soon be rectified though.

For everything else, Linux is much better...

Certain other proprietary tools are written for Windows.. But once you use linux for more than a month, you can never go back to windows comfortably.. At the least, you'd dual-boot until you eventually quit XP. Again, it depends on what the user does most of their time.

I could never operate productively on an XP machine any longer. I am a multi-tasking user... Windows OS is not quite adequate for me..

[LaRoza]

The Downs of Ubuntu:


2.DOESN'T SUPPORT MANY FILE FORMATS-MP3,WMA,AAC-WINDOWS32EXE. MOST OF THE APPLICATIONS WE USE ARE IN WINDOWS FORMAT.SO WE ALL APPRECIATE IF THEY SUPPORT WINDOWS.EXE.
3.1 PLEA FROM ME---->PLS MAKE THE PARTITION MANAGER SIMPLER.LIKE XP PARTITION MANAGER
NAME THE HARD DRIVES E: OR F: THATS ALL. NO CRAP BOUT dev/hda. WE ARE NOT ENGINEERS.
4.BESIDES DEPENDING ON THE BUG FIXES ONLY..LOOK AT WINDOWS STRENGTHS. SIMPLICITY OF USE IS THE NO.1 PRIORITY. IF THE PROGRAM IS SIMPLE TO USE AND INSTALL..WOULDNT LIFE BE MUCH EASIER FOR ANYONE?
5.PLS PLS PLS SUPPORT MORE FILE FORMATS. DO THIS AND MAYBE UBUNTU MAY DETHRONED VISTA/OR MORE PREFEBALY LINUX OWNS WINDOWS.

soz for the caps.
these are the problems bout ubuntu
thx
nff
2. Most of the apps I use are Linux.
3. GParted is very easy, it works on Windows partitions, whereas Windows only works on WIndows and cannot be run live. Do you know why Windows uses drive letters? It was a a pre-MS-DOS thing, I think it was to be compatible with CP/M. You can mount a drive anywhere you want, letters are not good, they only are useful for A: B: and C:, anything else is guess work.
4. sudo apt-get install openoffice, is a lot easier than spending $150 dollars for a disk, and then needing to call Microsoft to get the long activation code.
5. What File Format, Linux supports a lot more than Windows, including Windows formats.

[mr.farenheit]

many differences. main thing i love about ubuntu and linux is i can do what ever the hell i want. at least ubuntu and linux is original. i tried a new pc with vista and damn near thought i was on a mac.