Windows vs Linux (ubuntu)

[zorlab]

Wonderful support here.
I messed around with Breezy a few years back Got a few headaches.

Now after some time with Windows, again I find myself totaly frustrated with the amount of errors, hastle popups, and the crashes in my Vista install ....... so, with the help of a fine tutorial here at ubuntu forums, I was able to get up and running, a dual boot - Widows/ubuntu on my Sata raid array0.

Yippie!!! But so far I have had problems with Ubuntu 7.10 also, much to my dismay. Question is, is ubuntu stable? Is it far better than Ms windows, which I was lead to believe, until I read a thread about "I quit"?

What kind of trouble should I expect?

Thanks for your for endulging me, I really don't want an operating system I can 'learn from' that require a certain level of frustration; is ubuntu for me? Is there a bettter distro for me?

Is linux the answer to those who believe that Windows is a clankety, bulky, memory hog machine, that is too heavy for its own good?

[Herter]

I'm primarily a windows user, but I've installed Ubuntu on my laptop.. Ubuntu is stable, but my Windows XP is just as stable. Ubuntu is alot more work, since often I need to install packages and so forth, while in windows its often alot easier because all files needed are included in the installer. However both are simple, easy to use and stable, in my experience at least..

I'll never quit windows for Linux, but I will be using Linux (Ubuntu) alot, perhaps even more that windows sometimes..

[NightwishFan]

Linux vs Windows has been discussed many times and it is all a matter of personal preference.

That being said, I would like to say your amount of headaches will be about equivalent with your hardware. I am lucky to have great compatibility with Linux. If you have good hardware the headaches will be minimum since there is little or no driver hunting. Personally I enjoy finally having a ridiculously fast 64-bit OS with my 64-bit processor. (I know 64-bit Windows exists but there is no way I can just buy it every time I get a new computer to replace the pre-installed 32bit OS) Ubuntu is free, Windows is not. In fact, Windows is virtually impossible to buy, being as you merely own the license to use it. I strongly support the free software movement as well. (In fact I first started linux because I began to use only OSS on my windows box and I figured, why not use a FOSS OS, and I have never looked back). About the best distro. Above me it says I use Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy and Puppy Linux. I have had my reasons to drop all but these two distros. Puppy is the most efficient high speed distro, works on almost everything and and perfect for demonstrations. It is also so portable, I love it. Ubuntu has the greatest support, and .deb and synaptic have worked perfectly for me so far.

http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/ is a good read.

[meho_r]

Ubuntu is alot more work, since often I need to install packages and so forth, while in windows its often alot easier because all files needed are included in the installer...

This is strange. What kind of files do you mean? Installation of both is automatic.

And, BTW, when you install Windows, you got "naked" OS. After installation you should at least:

— find and download Graphic Card drivers (one click in Ubuntu)
— install drivers for your printer/scanner (in Ubuntu there's no need for any action as it recognizes it automatically in most cases)
— install Office Suite (installed in Ubuntu)
— install some of graphics program perhaps (GIMP is installed in Ubuntu)
— download and install some codecs like K-Lite or similar (usually one click in Ubuntu), etc.

Not to mention Win's activation process and updates ;)

There are more, but for me even this short list is enough. Ubuntu is a way easier to install and maintain. I like "centralized" software management (Synaptic), you don't have to search for apps on Net, everything is in one place. Additional repositories add to already large number of apps, all dependencies are automatically resolved...

[zorlab]

Well that helps a bit.... Still think Windows should be trashed ;0)

[NightwishFan]

I will never use a Windows again. If it cannot be done in Linux, I will make it so or do it not at all.

[fyo]

It depends on what you mean by "stable"...

I haven't had Ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10 crash or otherwise become totally unresponsive. I have had apps crash, freeze or die, however.

The main difference between Windows and Linux for me has been how the OS responds when an app crashes. For example, if IE dies or even freezes, Windows as a whole usually dies or freezes. That doesn't happen in Ubuntu.

OK, so you don't use IE. Who in their right mind would...

So take Windows Explorer. The last time I booted into Windows, it was to test a DVD with a bunch of photos and videos from my digital camera. Unfortunately, Windows Explorer decided to choke on the videos and the system completely froze. This is unacceptable for any number of reason, but it's also hard to understand in many ways. I have a dual-core system (as many have these days) and I seriously doubt Windows was maxing out both cores...

A similar case in Ubuntu (where Nautilus plays the role of Windows Explorer in GNOME and Konqueror in KDE) would just freeze Nautilus and everything else would work just fine. You kill Nautilus and launch another one. No big deal.

Even IF you could kill Windows Explorer (which I couldn't), it takes a whole bunch of stuff with it on Windows, which can cause data loss and will probably force you to reboot.

[zorlab]

Fyo Best explanation I have heard, well said, thanks.