PDA

View Full Version : Which OS do you spend more time fixing? Windows or Ubuntu?



abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 02:14 AM
Please don't misunderstand this post, I'm not trying to ignite a flame war. However, I must be honest and admit that I spend way more time trying to fix Ubuntu than being productive with it, while the opposite is true of Windows. I'm committed to using Ubuntu, but I haven't yet been able to shed my Windows computer as I initially hoped I could.

I don't dual boot. I have a computer dedicated to each OS. For me, Windows just works - no crashes - no screen freezes - no spyware - no viruses - the same install for years - through a full upgrade from 2000 to XP -to every service pack, security update, etc. etc. I should point out that I built both computers (Windows and Ubuntu) from scratch, so I didn't get a "pre-install" advantage with Windows.

I've never been "forced" to change my Windows computer hardware. However, with Ubuntu, I've swapped out my wireless adapter 3 times, my video card three times and my sound card twice. I've already re-installed Ubuntu from scratch several times (I can't even remember how many). The OS I can chalk up to my lack of experience, but the hardware?

During the entire year that I've been using Ubuntu regularly, I've progressed from 7.10 to 8.10, then back to 8.04.1 - and have had to tackle numerous problems along the way. The most problem-free usage of Ubuntu for me occurred for a couple of months using 8.04. But, as soon as I upgraded to 8.10, with the same hardware, it was like starting from scratch all over again.

I'm totally dedicated to goal of Ubuntu taking it's place as a viable alternative to Windows and OS-X. But, I can't honestly state that presently this is a possibility. I'm sticking with the Ubuntu distribution because it is the current "market" leader and I think that a "too many cooks spoil the broth" approach is contributing to holding Linux back as a mainstream OS. Please help me see the light.

tubezninja
February 8th, 2009, 02:25 AM
Sorry to hear you've had such a bad experience.

In the end however, you should use what works best for you. Clearly, that's Windows in your specific case. I could on the other hand, recount my experiences which have been quite the opposite, but that won't do you any good.


Perhaps as linux distros evolve, you might want to give things a try again alter and your experience may improve. Development certainly isn't a standstill, so the situation may change.

Rokurosv
February 8th, 2009, 02:28 AM
I spend more time fixing Linux, but that's my fault cause I'm drawn to beta/alpha software.
I don't generally tweak/fix Windows, just after a fresh install. I setup everything for my folks and brother and leave it. They know their way around the computer and the web so I don't have to fix any errors or infections, cept for a little maintenance every now and then.

SuperSonic4
February 8th, 2009, 02:28 AM
If by fixing you mean getting a reasonbly safe system then I spend longer on vista because of startup and updating malware protection

On boot time Kubuntu wins - windows seems to load everything at boot >.<

I've had to reinstall kubuntu more often because it gives you the tools to try and fix it wherease I find windows is "this is what you get, deal with it"

Bölvağur
February 8th, 2009, 02:39 AM
For me I have spent way more time fixing ubuntu. But that is because that in Windy... if it breaks... it stays broken.

But for the past year I would assume I have spent equal time on fixing windy and ubuntu, but I haven't really booted into windows for a long time and have almost no programs installed there.

linuxisevolution
February 8th, 2009, 02:46 AM
This is ironic... Sorry to hear about your experience. What's ironic? I just reinstalled XP for the 3rd time today... Then I have to use 6 hours to configure it because NONE of my hard ware is supported. Even though my machine is very high-end ( compared to the older machines in my house :D ).Then another half and hour booting from the Ubuntu cd and reinstalling grub. Guess what took longer to setup? If you guessed Windows, you get a cookie... If you say that it is my fault, I'm taking that cookie back. :p

FuturePilot
February 8th, 2009, 02:46 AM
Sorry to hear you've had such a bad experience.

In the end however, you should use what works best for you. Clearly, that's Windows in your specific case. I could on the other hand, recount my experiences which have been quite the opposite, but that won't do you any good.


Perhaps as linux distros evolve, you might want to give things a try again alter and your experience may improve. Development certainly isn't a standstill, so the situation may change.

I agree with this. Use what works for you. I personally have had more problems with Windows than Ubuntu. Ubuntu works pretty flawlessly for me.

Newuser1111
February 8th, 2009, 02:52 AM
Which OS do you spend more time fixing? Windows or Ubuntu? Ubuntu.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 02:56 AM
Sorry to hear you've had such a bad experience.

In the end however, you should use what works best for you. Clearly, that's Windows in your specific case. I could on the other hand, recount my experiences which have been quite the opposite, but that won't do you any good.


Perhaps as linux distros evolve, you might want to give things a try again alter and your experience may improve. Development certainly isn't a standstill, so the situation may change.

I didn't choose to try Ubuntu because I was looking for a computer platform that "works best". I want to use Ubuntu because I advocate the open-source philosophy that Linux represents. I also advocate the philosophy that critical scrutiny is necessary to improve any design, whether it's a new model of motorcar or an operating system.

I see a lot of criticism directed toward Windows on this forum, I admit I have a distaste for Microsoft (and Apple) from a corporate perspective, But I can't honestly state with any authority that Ubuntu is superior to either proprietary OS. I'm simply presenting my anecdotal experiences with both OS's for discussion.

I'm seeking cogent opinions for my edification. Simply suggesting that I stick with Windows doesn't bolster a position either way.

jimi_hendrix
February 8th, 2009, 03:01 AM
neither

both treat me well

@OP
i know my quotes are amazing right

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 03:07 AM
If by fixing you mean getting a reasonbly safe system then I spend longer on vista because of startup and updating malware protection
I would consider this maintenance rather than "fixing". Perhaps the biggest annoyance of Windows is the necessity to maintain a constant vigil against malware. But, this can't be blamed entirely on the OS.


On boot time Kubuntu wins - windows seems to load everything at boot >.<
The Boot-up and Shut-down time of Ubuntu trumps Windows every time. Windows carries a lot of overhead (read bloat) that's for sure.


I've had to reinstall kubuntu more often because it gives you the tools to try and fix it wherease I find windows is "this is what you get, deal with it"

I think the fact that Windows rarely requires a complete install is a plus.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 03:22 AM
This is ironic... Sorry to hear about your experience. What's ironic? I just reinstalled XP for the 3rd time today... Then I have to use 6 hours to configure it because NONE of my hard ware is supported. Even though my machine is very high-end ( compared to the older machines in my house :D ).Then another half and hour booting from the Ubuntu cd and reinstalling grub. Guess what took longer to setup? If you guessed Windows, you get a cookie... If you say that it is my fault, I'm taking that cookie back. :p

When compared to a Ubuntu install, setting up XP can definitely be a traumatic experience which is always time consuming and sometimes frustrating. I agree that your experience is ironic. I would have to say that your recent experience is the exception rather than the rule. I've installed XP on hundreds of machines over the years professionally in corporate settings, and have never had to repeat it three times, or taken six hours to accomplish it. I would probably have been fired:) On occasion, not all the hardware was supported in the initial install, but I've always made sure I had all the needed the drivers handy, and I've never experienced a windows driver failure as I have with Ubuntu.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 03:31 AM
neither

both treat me well

@OP
i know my quotes are amazing right

That's because the spirit of Jimi Hendrix watches over you.

Noblacktie
February 8th, 2009, 03:37 AM
Fixing? Neither, since I keep all my machines in good nick, don't download junk from the Internet, and run them like every cracker in the world was trying to screw me.

But that involves a lot of time invested in administrating the WinMachines. Ubuntu took 20 minutes to set up, lock down, and that's that.

So, technically, Windows still takes me more time in preventive maintenance though that's moot since I don't run Windows anymore.

But playing... man, I've probably lost more time monkeying around with Linux than I ever spent on Windows, from 3.1 to Vista :D

bpalone
February 8th, 2009, 03:54 AM
Can't totally convert due to some Software that is needed. With that said, I have had good service from both and have been running 8.04 for about 8 months now on 4 machines (including one my daughter uses) without a problem after the initial set up. And, that even went fairly well. Even have a file server running 7.10 that I haven't touched for over a year.

So, I would give both OSes a good grade. I do not and will not have VISTA on the premisies, unless it is on a visitors machine.

I think it makes a lot of difference in how the machines are used. If you are constantly downloading things from the web, then I think you can expect to have trouble from either OS.

jrusso2
February 8th, 2009, 03:59 AM
Please don't misunderstand this post, I'm not trying to ignite a flame war. However, I must be honest and admit that I spend way more time trying to fix Ubuntu than being productive with it, while the opposite is true of Windows. I'm committed to using Ubuntu, but I haven't yet been able to shed my Windows computer as I initially hoped I could.

I don't dual boot. I have a computer dedicated to each OS. For me, Windows just works - no crashes - no screen freezes - no spyware - no viruses - the same install for years - through a full upgrade from 2000 to XP -to every service pack, security update, etc. etc. I should point out that I built both computers (Windows and Ubuntu) from scratch, so I didn't get a "pre-install" advantage with Windows.

I've never been "forced" to change my Windows computer hardware. However, with Ubuntu, I've swapped out my wireless adapter 3 times, my video card three times and my sound card twice. I've already re-installed Ubuntu from scratch several times (I can't even remember how many). The OS I can chalk up to my lack of experience, but the hardware?

During the entire year that I've been using Ubuntu regularly, I've progressed from 7.10 to 8.10, then back to 8.04.1 - and have had to tackle numerous problems along the way. The most problem-free usage of Ubuntu for me occurred for a couple of months using 8.04. But, as soon as I upgraded to 8.10, with the same hardware, it was like starting from scratch all over again.

I'm totally dedicated to goal of Ubuntu taking it's place as a viable alternative to Windows and OS-X. But, I can't honestly state that presently this is a possibility. I'm sticking with the Ubuntu distribution because it is the current "market" leader and I think that a "too many cooks spoil the broth" approach is contributing to holding Linux back as a mainstream OS. Please help me see the light.

If I had that much trouble using Ubuntu I would try something else. I don't have problems fixing either Windows or Linux. Once set up they stay set up.

Messyhair42
February 8th, 2009, 04:05 AM
I mess around/maintain Ubuntu a lot, and i'm learning something new everyday. it's easy to 'fix' ubuntu mostly because of the great resources it has, both offical support and the forums are great. windows doesn't have the community that ubuntu does therefore a lot of windows users are stuck with tech support

jasonsjunk
February 8th, 2009, 04:08 AM
Honestly I would have to say that I spend more time on Ubuntu but that is because I am constantly tweaking things and doing more and more with it. When I start my installation of Linux MCE and start some home automation projects with it I will break things and I will have to spend time to fix them. Windows is you get what you get. Granted it generally works but I have spent some nightmare days removing viruses and spyware. I have had hardware issues with both OS's but Linux and Ubuntu is far more stable.

There is no way I would try to run desktop apps, a webserver, database server, ftp server, and home media server all from the same Windows box and expect it to stay running for more than a few days yet my faithfull Ubuntu box runs them all day in and day out. I have 400 gig of movies and music and Windows would have choked on that long ago unless I defragged the harddrive weekly which takes a long time on a 750 gig system.

Brightbelt
February 8th, 2009, 04:16 AM
Hi Abyssius, I would like to thank you for your thread. First let me say that I *try* to be a technological agnostic or at least neutral with respect to different technologies and OSs. (Not that I am a fan of MS or anything).

That said, the open source philosophy does appeal to me and I can certainly see its merit right up front. There is the saying "Software wants to be free". And I think it means 'free' in more than one sense of the word.

The reason I'm thanking you is that I see a deeper honesty in your question than I usually find in these forums. I love Ubuntu Linux like many folks here, but I don't want to simply be a fanboy cheering on the sidelines while reality begs to differ,

The thought ran through my head the other day like this: 'Boy, if I really add up the time I've spent trouble-shooting issues & configuring things (hardware, drivers etc) on Linux, it would more than triple the time I've spent on Windows....So how can they honestly claim that things "just work" in Linux?'

To be fair to Linux and Ubuntu specifically, there are more choices -- choices in software, desktop customization and overall configuration, So just like anything you would purchase, "the more features there are, the more things there are that can go wrong and need fixing"

Also, there is a sense that things ARE fixable in Ubuntu; when you DO get a problem in Windows, it can sometimes be a problem that no one knows how to fix.

But I think your point still stands. Granted for me, when I was first learning Ubuntu, I had to rely on these forums (Many Thanks :)) and I was inexperienced at trouble-shooting issues and fixing problems in Ubuntu, so that added up in terms of time.

But I've done MANY more OS re-installs in Ubuntu than in XP or Vista combined. And Ubuntu can break, depending upon what applications and how many you put on it.

My understanding is like this: If all I needed was an office suite, email, browsing and photo editing, I'd be using Ubuntu full time. But I need many pro applications and Linux is not there yet on those. (that's another topic altogether).

Thanks and I hang in there with Ubuntu as well. And I'll say one thing: when I need to burn an ISO CD, I log off Apple fast and come straight to Ubuntu and I use Brasero. :)

handy
February 8th, 2009, 04:24 AM
Until I retired a bit over 3 years ago, most all I ever did for 10 years was set up & fix windows systems.

Upon retirement I very happily dumped windows, & started learning Debian, I kept seeing this strange name Ubuntu during my web searching, so I searched it out & ended up getting great Debian help from the Ubuntu forums.

I changed over to Ubuntu after a couple of weeks, & ended up a distro hopper who is happy to call Arch (which resides on an iMac) home.

So these days I don't fix windows or break & fix Ubuntu (or OSX for that matter) at all, but I definitely spend time on installing, tweaking, (breaking &) fixing other distro's (& BSD to a much lesser extent).

If a distro gives you hell, do a little research, ask some questions here in the Other OS Talk (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=147) section & try a different one.

Some hardware combinations just don't sit well with some distro's, for a number of reasons.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 04:27 AM
If I had that much trouble using Ubuntu I would try something else. I don't have problems fixing either Windows or Linux. Once set up they stay set up.

As evidenced by the numerous posts I've perused on this forum, I don't think my experiences with Ubuntu are unique. I had stable operation for a while with 8.04.1, but 8.10 kept tempting me... I'm wondering why specific hardware working flawlessly on a particular version, becomes unstable on a newer version? I can give specific examples, but that doesn't fit the criteria of the community cafe. Some other posts on this thread seem to infer that Linux "will improve in the future". Does this mean that it is still an experiment? If so, how can it compare with Windows?

linuxisevolution
February 8th, 2009, 04:30 AM
When compared to a Ubuntu install, setting up XP can definitely be a traumatic experience which is always time consuming and sometimes frustrating. I agree that your experience is ironic. I would have to say that your recent experience is the exception rather than the rule. I've installed XP on hundreds of machines over the years professionally in corporate settings, and have never had to repeat it three times, or taken six hours to accomplish it. I would probably have been fired:) On occasion, not all the hardware was supported in the initial install, but I've always made sure I had all the needed the drivers handy, and I've never experienced a windows driver failure as I have with Ubuntu.

It normally does not take that long for me either... But my parents wanted a game to install and my hard drive was too small. The first time xp crashed and would not boot. The second, the game took all hdd space and xp would not boot. The third, I told them to buy a new hard drive or go away :p.
It took me 2 hours to find my drivers disk. And then ran into "conflicts" for some odd reason. I've probably done 30 Xp installs -usually they don't go that bad...

handy
February 8th, 2009, 04:31 AM
As evidenced by the numerous posts I've perused on this forum, I don't think my experiences with Ubuntu are unique. I had stable operation for a while with 8.04.1, but 8.10 kept tempting me... I'm wondering why specific hardware working flawlessly on a particular version, becomes unstable on a newer version? I can give specific examples, but that doesn't fit the criteria of the community cafe. Some other posts on this thread seem to infer that Linux "will improve in the future". Does this mean that it is still an experiment? If so, how can it compare with Windows?

Linux & FOSS by its very nature is improving every second.

|{urse
February 8th, 2009, 04:33 AM
I spend way more time breaking linux and fixing it for fun, if thats what you mean lol.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 04:38 AM
Fixing? Neither, since I keep all my machines in good nick, don't download junk from the Internet, and run them like every cracker in the world was trying to screw me.

But that involves a lot of time invested in administrating the WinMachines. Ubuntu took 20 minutes to set up, lock down, and that's that.

So, technically, Windows still takes me more time in preventive maintenance though that's moot since I don't run Windows anymore.

But playing... man, I've probably lost more time monkeying around with Linux than I ever spent on Windows, from 3.1 to Vista :D

I agree about Windows excessive maintenance requirements. And, as you point out, applying good practices allows you to avoid the "junk" Windows has become infamous for. I limit my use of Windows to specific software applications which I need professionally, that simply doesn't yet exist in Linux. I stick with Ubuntu for Internet usage.

I'm keenly interested in Linux because at this point the use of Vista or Windows 7 is inconceivable to me. With this economy, I intend to leverage the use of computer equipment I already own - no matter how old they may be. IMHO, the stunning performance of Ubuntu on older and comparatively humble equipment is an exceptionally valuable feature.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 04:47 AM
It normally does not take that long for me either... But my parents wanted a game to install and my hard drive was too small. The first time xp crashed and would not boot. The second, the game took all hdd space and xp would not boot. The third, I told them to buy a new hard drive or go away :p.
It took me 2 hours to find my drivers disk. And then ran into "conflicts" for some odd reason. I've probably done 30 Xp installs -usually they don't go that bad...

I think this is a more reasonable evaluation. Windows can't be blamed for not enough HDD space. I tried to install Ubuntu using a live CD on a friend's computer recently. It wouldn't boot, even though I knew the CD was good. My friend "poo pooed" Ubuntu, even though it takes him five minutes to boot XP. After looking at his computer in detail, I found out he only had 256MB of RAM. Apparently this wasn't enough to boot Ubuntu. I couldn't blame Ubuntu for that.

jrusso2
February 8th, 2009, 04:50 AM
As evidenced by the numerous posts I've perused on this forum, I don't think my experiences with Ubuntu are unique. I had stable operation for a while with 8.04.1, but 8.10 kept tempting me... I'm wondering why specific hardware working flawlessly on a particular version, becomes unstable on a newer version? I can give specific examples, but that doesn't fit the criteria of the community cafe. Some other posts on this thread seem to infer that Linux "will improve in the future". Does this mean that it is still an experiment? If so, how can it compare with Windows?

Because certain things change version to version like xorg version, wireless stack and kernel and this can break some drivers.

If Ubuntu worked as bad for everyone as you no one would use it. I would try another Linux if I were you.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 04:51 AM
I spend way more time breaking linux and fixing it for fun, if thats what you mean lol.

I've been guilty of this also. At some point does this transition from fun to masochism;)

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 04:56 AM
Linux & FOSS by its very nature is improving every second.

Absolutely true! This is a compelling argument. Sometimes it appears that there's two steps forward and one step back, but I suppose that's the nature of community developed software. As I stated previously, my intention is not to be a Windows apologist. I've already made the commitment to escape the MS grasp as soon as it becomes possible for me.

wstout
February 8th, 2009, 05:03 AM
I really don't spend that much time fixing either one. I probably do customize Ubuntu more, just because I can :) I spend a lot of time fixing other peoples computers who could really benefit from a linux install because they are so slack in their usage considering security. I saw you said that 8.04 worked well and 8.10 not so much. I take the view that if it has to work every time I use the LTS release that's also what I put on other computers, I view the releases in between the LTS as more of a testing release... but that's just my view on it and 8.10 has been working great for me.

hellion0
February 8th, 2009, 05:16 AM
I don't spend much time fixing either, at least when it comes to my machines. (Except that blasted Thinkpad and its older-than-dirt soundcard... story for another day.)

When it comes to others' machines, they're mostly running Windows, and most of the time their systems are somehow broken.

phrostbyte
February 8th, 2009, 05:23 AM
Ubuntu, but that's because I use Ubuntu A LOT more :)

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 05:40 AM
Hi Abyssius, I would like to thank you for your thread. First let me say that I *try* to be a technological agnostic or at least neutral with respect to different technologies and OSs. (Not that I am a fan of MS or anything).

That said, the open source philosophy does appeal to me and I can certainly see its merit right up front. There is the saying "Software wants to be free". And I think it means 'free' in more than one sense of the word.

The reason I'm thanking you is that I see a deeper honesty in your question than I usually find in these forums. I love Ubuntu Linux like many folks here, but I don't want to simply be a fanboy cheering on the sidelines while reality begs to differ,

The thought ran through my head the other day like this: 'Boy, if I really add up the time I've spent trouble-shooting issues & configuring things (hardware, drivers etc) on Linux, it would more than triple the time I've spent on Windows....So how can they honestly claim that things "just work" in Linux?'

To be fair to Linux and Ubuntu specifically, there are more choices -- choices in software, desktop customization and overall configuration, So just like anything you would purchase, "the more features there are, the more things there are that can go wrong and need fixing"

Also, there is a sense that things ARE fixable in Ubuntu; when you DO get a problem in Windows, it can sometimes be a problem that no one knows how to fix.

But I think your point still stands. Granted for me, when I was first learning Ubuntu, I had to rely on these forums (Many Thanks :)) and I was inexperienced at trouble-shooting issues and fixing problems in Ubuntu, so that added up in terms of time.

But I've done MANY more OS re-installs in Ubuntu than in XP or Vista combined. And Ubuntu can break, depending upon what applications and how many you put on it.

My understanding is like this: If all I needed was an office suite, email, browsing and photo editing, I'd be using Ubuntu full time. But I need many pro applications and Linux is not there yet on those. (that's another topic altogether).

Thanks and I hang in there with Ubuntu as well. And I'll say one thing: when I need to burn an ISO CD, I log off Apple fast and come straight to Ubuntu and I use Brasero. :)

Let me thank you for showing a deep understanding of the motivations behind this thread.


...there is a sense that things ARE fixable in Ubuntu; when you DO get a problem in Windows, it can sometimes be a problem that no one knows how to fix.
I'm not sure about this comment. Although this is anecdotal, it's been my experience that with Windows, there's a wealth of information available - from Microsoft's massive Knowledge Base to countless support websites. In contrast, it's been my experience that finding answers for some Linux problems I've encountered requires vastly more scattered research - patience and sometimes it will be unsuccessful. I'm not complaining. I realize that it's the nature of community-based support. Corporate support for a product you pay for is usually more organised and thorough.

I've learned from many years in tech support, that no problem is unique. If it happened to me, it must have happened to many others. Yet, when you look at some of the posts on this thread, the inference is that what I've encountered is so unusual that I should try another distro, etc, etc, This to me is a little disingenuous. I read many Linux forums, have found plenty of people experiencing the same problems I've encountered, and many times I've failed to find a solution. I consider this being honest about things. it doesn't reflect badly on Ubuntu or Linux in general. I'm committed to contributing whatever I can to forward Ubuntu as an OS.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 05:53 AM
I don't spend much time fixing either, at least when it comes to my machines. (Except that blasted Thinkpad and its older-than-dirt soundcard... story for another day.)

When it comes to others' machines, they're mostly running Windows, and most of the time their systems are somehow broken.

In my experience with supporting Windows systems, 99% of the problems I've encountered when there isn't defective hardware, is user-induced and not directly the fault of the OS. When hardware is in known good working order, yet won't operate properly in a system, you can then suspect software, which may lead to the OS itself.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 06:13 AM
Because certain things change version to version like xorg version, wireless stack and kernel and this can break some drivers.

If Ubuntu worked as bad for everyone as you no one would use it. I would try another Linux if I were you.

You sound as if I am some unique case. I haven't encountered a single problem with Ubuntu that I can't find hundreds of similar posts for, in this forum and across the Internet. I'm not saying that these problems are unique to Ubuntu either, as I've seen them crop up in different distros, that even go beyond Debian-based distros.

I would like to point out that one major reason for the dominance of Windows is the OS's adherence to as much "backward compatibility" in both hardware and software as is technically possible. Apple traditionally took a different approach and their market share reflects the consequences of that philosophy.

When a piece of hardware works flawlessly in a particular version then fails in a newer version released six months later, I think that it is incumbent upon anyone that sincerely wants to support a particular OS to bring this to the community's attention without encountering dismissive statements like "try something else". I wonder which attitude does a greater disservice?

Brightbelt
February 8th, 2009, 06:22 AM
Re: insolvable Windows problems...
Hi Abyssius, here, I can be specific & that is Winows Audio problems, more specifically, burning audio CDs on a Winows system. When a Windows system decides it doesn't want to burn audio CDs correctly, no amount of trouble-shooting will ever make any difference.

I've seen top-level tech support guys shake their heads and say outloud, "I just don't know".

wolfen69
February 8th, 2009, 06:39 AM
I think the fact that Windows rarely requires a complete install is a plus.

i have my own pc repair business and completely disagree with this. windows more often than not, will "need" (not require) a reinstall more than linux. but this is coming from someone that knows his way around both OS's.

when a customer gets a virus, (which most of my customers have) it is an almost automatic reinstall. why? first of all, no anti-virus app is 100% effective. secondly, it can take hours to do multiple scans with different virus scanners. thirdly, core windows components could have been compromised because of infection, requiring even more time to fix. for me to back up most people's stuff and reinstall takes 1 1/2 hours tops. it saves them time and money, and gets me referral jobs because i did a very good job for them.

in linux, most of the time i can go into a config file and make an easy adjustment. there's no comparison. windows makes me money because it breaks. my customers that use linux have no complaints. i have yet to go back and fix any linux machine. it just works.

wolfen69
February 8th, 2009, 06:46 AM
If Ubuntu worked as bad for everyone as you no one would use it. I would try another Linux if I were you.

exactly. i've been saying this for a long time. then again, alot of people that are truly enjoying it may not have the urge to hang out in the forums like us masochists. ;)

i think some people equate ubuntu with linux. there are other alternatives. you'd be surprised at what may work perfect.

handy
February 8th, 2009, 07:05 AM
i have my own pc repair business and completely disagree with this.

I had a similar business & agree with wolfen69. The most effective way to repair so many of windows' problems is to reinstall windows. That is NOT how it works with Linux & BSD.



windows more often than not, will "need" (not require) a reinstall more than linux. but this is coming from someone that knows his way around both OS's.

when a customer gets a virus, (which most of my customers have) it is an almost automatic reinstall. why? first of all, no anti-virus app is 100% effective. secondly, it can take hours to do multiple scans with different virus scanners. thirdly, core windows components could have been compromised because of infection, requiring even more time to fix. for me to back up most people's stuff and reinstall takes 1 1/2 hours tops. it saves them time and money, and gets me referral jobs because i did a very good job for them.

For my business & regular customers, I ended up making a Ghost image of their machine, which I kept in a library. As I learned early on when working with windows problems, that the quickest (cheapest) & most reliable way to solve so many (usually registry based) problems, was to do a reinstall. Using the Ghost images I could salvage their data & cast the image from the library, reinstall their data & tidy up, adding any new (since the image was made) software & such. If there was new software on the machine since the last image I would usually make a new image for next time.

The Ghost image method made repairs quicker & it was easier for me, to the point where I could be working on more than one machine in this fashion, so the expense of HDD's to store my library was more than paid for by the ability to get more work done both simultaneously & in a longer day due to not having been so wrung out from the often tedious problem solving.

The other thing I would do, (which I'm sure is quite common) is make an image of a windows system with all of the common software installed on it, for whatever current motherboards I was using at the time, so when someone wanted a new machine, I would order the parts if need be & cast the image onto their new HDD & they were ready to go in no time flat. [Edit:] Post win98, (never sold a copy of ME) I was using a corporate edition of XP pro. :-)

Ghost was good to me. :-D



in linux, most of the time i can go into a config file and make an easy adjustment. there's no comparison. windows makes me money because it breaks. my customers that use linux have no complaints. i have yet to go back and fix any linux machine. it just works.

For all the bitching I did in the past about MS (I don't anymore, I dropped the bitching when I dropped windows) they made me good money for a decade. :-)

djdarrin91
February 8th, 2009, 07:31 AM
I fight with windows more often myself.Since i've installed Ubuntu I haven't had to really do anything to it.

hayden92
February 8th, 2009, 08:10 AM
Being a computer 'geek' for over 6 years I can say that personally I have spent more time fixing Windows.

I agree with whoever said that when you encounter a problem in Windows there feels like there is no support for the problem. In Ubuntu it's almost fun to see how you can get around the problem.

The only reason the Ubuntu has 'died' is because I did a lot of stupid stuff in my early Ubuntu days, such as uninstall evolution, or download a deb from some obsolete website, etc. So really the problems that Ubuntu has had, are caused by me. When Windows would break (not frequently, but when it did), it felt as though my head would explode (even though I would figure it out eventually...)

Oh yes, and another point; do you consider having to reboot every few hours and having to end processes that have become unresponsive with the task-manager as 'fixing'? If so, Windows wins hands down ;)

Hayden

PurposeOfReason
February 8th, 2009, 08:38 AM
I don't 'fix', I modify and decide some things just aren't that cool anyways. ;)

cariboo
February 8th, 2009, 09:12 AM
I also own a computer repair business, I spend more time reinstalling windows then anything else.

As for my Linux powered computers, the only one I have to do any repairs on is the one I use full time, as it is a test system currently running Jaunty Alpha 4. The rest of them, 2 servers and 2 desktops I just set them up and use them, they only get updates when they become available. The servers have both been updated to a newer kernel, but there hasn't been a need to reboot them yet, so they still are running the older kernels.

I also have an XP desktop and laptop, neither needs much maintenance, just the weekly updates.

The laptop does have a propblem in that it won't hibernate if there are any usb devices connected, and the only solution in the Microsoft Knowledge base is to turn off hibernate, or disconnect the usb devices, you'd think after 8 years they could have come up iwth a better solution then that.

Jim

glotz
February 8th, 2009, 09:50 AM
Ubuntu certainly, since I don't do windoze.

Solicitous
February 8th, 2009, 09:51 AM
I'd have to say Ubuntu as I rarely (prob every 2-3 months) boot into Windows :)

Nah all seriousness with Windows I was spending some time each week fixing it (an hour or two). With Ubuntu I havent spent time in the last 18 months really fixing my main machine - installing updates excluded (my PVR I have had to fix but that is from deliberate tinkering and testing).

Experience tells me that if you 'just' use the OS, you will spend no time fixing Ubuntu, whereas Windows you will need to spend time.

mangar
February 8th, 2009, 10:47 AM
I've stopped using Linux around Ubuntu 8.04, after 8 years of almost exclusive Linux usage, because I've got tired of the constant brokenness of every distro I ever tried, and fixing it up again on every release (because the set of broken stuff changes each 6 months..). Yes, I've reported more than 100 bugs to Launchpad on the previous 3 years, many of them where fixed, other are still open 3 years later. I'm done with doing QA for free.

I used a Hackintosh for several months, until it got broken by the 10.5.5 --> 10.5.6 update, and me realizing that except the newness, it really didn't offer me anything Windows didn't (and setting it up required even more time than Ubuntu).

I now use Windows 7 beta, and except spending 20 minutes replacing nVidia's Wddm 1.1 beta drivers with the latest Wddm 1.0 whql'd drivers, skype 3.0 with 4.0, and daemon tools with magicISO, everything, including all of my hardware, worked and still works perfectly fine.

Short summary:
Ubuntu (and all the Linux distro's I've tried - Redhat, Mandrake, Libranet, Debian, YOPER, Ubuntu) suffers from very poor quality assurance, and is not reliable. (Many of my Brainstorm ideas were in the vain of - improve QA, create a regression suite, ensure backward compatibility, etc).

Hackintoshes are a pain in the *** to set up, and does not worth the trouble.

Windows works ( ForMe(tm) ). It's a little bit clunky, got ugly interface, etc, but I don't need to mess around with it.

hyperdude111
February 8th, 2009, 11:06 AM
Because of my family i spend more time fixing windows, but with just me i spen ages on linux.

karellen
February 8th, 2009, 11:16 AM
on my desktop I've experienced zero problems with Ubuntu; my hardware was well supported. on my laptop, since Ubuntu doesn't recognize my network adapter, I use Fedora (which does, out of the box) and Vista. both my Vista and Fedora installs work flawlessly

Johnsie
February 8th, 2009, 11:28 AM
I wouldn't use the term 'fix' I would say 'perform maintenance on' because alot of the time when people want things done it's usually improvements/installation other than fixing.

In my house Ubuntu needs the most maintenance. Most of the computers dual-boot and each one needs to be manually updated with the latest packages. Many of those uopdates contain security FIXes. On the other hand, the windows installations normally update themselves automatically so need less attention.

I installed Ubuntu on machines some for people and every so often I get asked how to do something in Ubuntu. Things like how can I get the pictures off my phone? How can I setup broadband? These things are relatively simple to do on Windows because the installation cd's are designed for Windows and the installer is usually simple. But the Linux users often have to do things manually and that can be tricky for a beginner. There are no driver cd's or utility programs that come with your hardware.

Over all I'd say I spend most time maintaining Windows machines, but that's only because more people use Windows. If everyone used Linux I would be a very busy man.

adamlau
February 8th, 2009, 12:06 PM
Fixing other people's Windows and my own Ubuntu (I like to break things).

Kvark
February 8th, 2009, 12:43 PM
Windows needs more maintenance for me.

It takes more time for me to install and set up Ubuntu LTS just the way I want it and fix all problems. Once I have a system with no problems I don't change anything until it reaches end of life so I must upgrade. Since I don't change anything no new problems appear. I replaced the update notifier with a cron job that installs updates without asking me and backups are done automatically too. So after 1 week of tinkering with Ubuntu LTS to get everything perfect I have 3 years of absolutely zero time spent on maintenance.

Well, except for 20 minutes that one time when an update broke the X server. There was also the day the first 64bit beta of Flash 10 became available and I got so excited I updated manually, finally a Linux version of Flash that doesn't crash all the time (it has crashed only once since then). I also install a new theme from gnome-look.org and change the wallpaper every 6 months. I guess after the initial post install tinkering Ubuntu gets an hour of fixing per year.

I've had a Debian Lenny system too for 1 year now and it's the same with that as with my Ubuntu system. My Windows dual boot however needs regular maintenance, you know the story. If Windows needed the least regular fixing then it would be my main OS.

zipperback
February 8th, 2009, 12:54 PM
Please don't misunderstand this post, I'm not trying to ignite a flame war.

No offense intended but it seems that most of the time when someone starts a post off with something like that, it seems to always start people arguing over pointless stuff. I'm not saying that's what you intended at all, it's just my personal opinion.






I've never been "forced" to change my Windows computer hardware. However, with Ubuntu, I've swapped out my wireless adapter 3 times, my video card three times and my sound card twice. I've already re-installed Ubuntu from scratch several times (I can't even remember how many). The OS I can chalk up to my lack of experience, but the hardware?

Please tell me what the specifications were on the hardware you were forced to switch out.

I can understand about the wifi issue, some wifi chipsets are better supported than others.





During the entire year that I've been using Ubuntu regularly, I've progressed from 7.10 to 8.10, then back to 8.04.1 - and have had to tackle numerous problems along the way. The most problem-free usage of Ubuntu for me occurred for a couple of months using 8.04. But, as soon as I upgraded to 8.10, with the same hardware, it was like starting from scratch all over again.

Ubuntu 8.04.xxx is an excellent choice for people who want a stable release of Ubuntu. 8.04.xxx is the LTS (Long Term Support) release.
It's the one I currently use and I have been very happy with it.




I'm totally dedicated to goal of Ubuntu taking it's place as a viable alternative to Windows and OS-X. But, I can't honestly state that presently this is a possibility. I'm sticking with the Ubuntu distribution because it is the current "market" leader and I think that a "too many cooks spoil the broth" approach is contributing to holding Linux back as a mainstream OS. Please help me see the light.

I would say that in my personal opinion, that Ubuntu 8.04 LTS is a very viable alternative replacement for the Windows desktop.

I used to be a very dedicated Windows user but I don't have Windows installed on any of my computers any longer.

- zipperback
:popcorn:

lucid
February 8th, 2009, 01:22 PM
I've spent far more time fixing issues with Ubuntu compared with Windows. I don't think this is an unusual experience given a Linux OS invites more participation from a user than Windows does. Not a bad thing.


Also, these issues weren't inherently due to a flaw in Ubuntu itself, but rather a consequence of its use such as a lack of third party support (notably software drivers from vendors).

SunnyRabbiera
February 8th, 2009, 01:41 PM
I spend more time tweaking linux then windows, but tweaking is not the same as fixing.
Now in terms of fixing, windows waaay more... Antivirus, antispyware and defrags eat up my time on windows.

tsali
February 8th, 2009, 01:51 PM
I also had computer side business in which I built OEM Ubuntu and Windows machines and supported them for 90 days (free).

Both the Ubuntu and Windows machines left the shop running perfectly. In the first 90 days of ownership, the Ubuntu machines incurred 4 times the support calls as the Windows machines.

I have no idea how they would do it, but I saw machines with corrupt print queues, corrupt home folders, and pppoe profiles that looked right but wouldn't connect to save their lives.

New computer owners were excited about their machines and would purchase new hardware (monitors, printers, etc.) that led to setup problems. Those customers found no logic in the "it's the vendor's fault" argument. They only knew that their new 22" monitor wasn't working. In a couple of cases, users dropped their broadband service and wanted to switch to dial-up - which no distro of linux seems to support well without use of a hard modem (getting expensive and hard to find new).

Bottom line is that Windows was simply more flexible and adaptable for more of these users.

I had to drop Ubuntu as an option because I couldn't afford to support it any longer.

In my own personal experience, Windows is my "go to" OS when I really have to get something done without fooling around with it. I spend essentially NO time maintaining or repairing it. It has always "just worked" for me. I've never seen a BSOD or virus in thousands of hours of use. I've never had to reinstall because of software failure.

Two recent examples: Making a simple slideshow DVD for my parents and doing my taxes.

Ubuntu seems to work well for 90% of day-to-day tasks and has been stable for me recently.

issih
February 8th, 2009, 01:52 PM
Windows...other people's windows!

Linux does cause trouble from time to time, but somehow it doesn't drive me as bonkers as windows, probably because it doesn't assume it knows what I meant it to do rather than doing what I told it to

Whoo
February 8th, 2009, 02:10 PM
Hi all,

I'm using Linux only for more than 10years (whaou).
So I can't answer this question. When you like (or love) computer, everybody call you to solve every informatics problems.


On Linux, there is some troubles but everything find an answer !
On Windows, there is more unsolvable troubles.


I don't know what is your opinion, but I prefer the first option just to understand.


Dominique

LiamWilson
February 8th, 2009, 02:55 PM
I've been using Ubuntu for about 2 years, and I find that I'm still trying to fix those same errors I got when I first installed it. Still, it's fun exploring and messing with stuff.

mamamia88
February 8th, 2009, 03:03 PM
i don't really spend any time fixing either i've pretty much got ubuntu exactly how i want it and i haven't booted windows in weeks

SunnyRabbiera
February 8th, 2009, 03:08 PM
Corporate support for a product you pay for is usually more organised and thorough.

Tell that one to Microsoft...
Last time I called MS's head office I was on hold for hours, with a dull theme playing in the background.
THEN when I finally got hold of a rep, they barely spoke english (I am american, I dont speak Punjabi!) and when I explained to them my issue they sent me to HP's main office (as my computer is a HP)
again three hour music number, then it turns out MS got me the wrong number!
So I spend another hour or so with the actual HP call center but HP's response was far more useful and in plain english (well slightly plain, the call center woman was spanish but had enough english lessons to get the jist of what I was saying)

linuxisevolution
February 8th, 2009, 05:07 PM
I think this is a more reasonable evaluation. Windows can't be blamed for not enough HDD space. I tried to install Ubuntu using a live CD on a friend's computer recently. It wouldn't boot, even though I knew the CD was good. My friend "poo pooed" Ubuntu, even though it takes him five minutes to boot XP. After looking at his computer in detail, I found out he only had 256MB of RAM. Apparently this wasn't enough to boot Ubuntu. I couldn't blame Ubuntu for that.

The hard disk is 20gb.

bill-linux
February 8th, 2009, 05:26 PM
You've asking an interesting question. One which I've thought about a lot since I moved completely from windows to Linux about three or four years ago. (My servers had always run Linux and so was comfortable, I moved to Linux for my desktop eventually. It seems that I spend more time fiddling with linux, but I've often wonders if this is the right question. I moved because Windows kept "updating" me out of the way I like to operate. With linux I can always have (as much as one can say always with any OS!) the minimal IceWM running, emacs at the command line (a mainstay for me), and excellent network and file sharing (via NSF). So, when I think about whether there was savings I'm not able to compare. For example, the latest version of Hardy had an error in the NSF deb -- it would not tunnel through ssh! This was lethal for me - for the way I run my computer system. So, I had to spend time to fix this. (I had to google about, find the error in the code, make a new deb - which I posted for others :-) - and then had nfs over ssh working. I kind of grumbled about the time, but realized that under Windows when I encountered such a problem that was it. Full stop. (That's likely not quite right, but pretty close ... I have changed source for windows in a long time!). So, bottom line: I have flexibility, but takes more time. Did I make the right choice? To hard to answer ......

Mike-97470
February 8th, 2009, 08:44 PM
There is no question in my mind that maintaining Ubuntu running perfectly takes much more time than XP at its mediocre best.

XP drivers work with no confusion and Windows system checkpointing/restore feature is quite valuable. The only problem I've had with XP in the last year is one of the updates, a spyware removal tool, caused system crashes for a few weeks until I guess they got it fixed. But in Windows it's very important to keep virus software up-to-date, getting a virus can easily be as costly as doing something unusually stupid in Ubuntu.

I think a checkpoint function in Ubuntu would be useful--put the restore option in the boot menu. Also although Synaptec records "history", reversing a change is manual, eg: if a package with numerous dependency's is installed, sometimes un-installing the package won't un-install all the dependent packages. But let's say you have a sound problem and decide to un-install ALSA, go ahead un-install libesd-alsa0 and reboot. (This an interesting exercise, but should be done very deliberately.)

In the past year Ubuntu ... Flash stopping working, video driver stopped working and had to be fixed more than twice?!?, Sound Blaster Audigy2 card installation was a big pain, Epson 4490 scanner reinstallation was/is a big pain, and just last week a fresh Ubuntu install got an hd() designator in menu.lst wrong. But hey, I expect that--a year or so ago I think when they added the fancy disk IDs, the installer got hd(0) and hd(1) in menu.lst backasswards--for 2!!! sixth month updates.

I'm trying to remember the last time I had to get a different version of gcc to recompile the kernel and that's a good thing!

Stalker72
February 8th, 2009, 09:14 PM
Windows

Stalker72

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 09:27 PM
You've asking an interesting question. One which I've thought about a lot since I moved completely from windows to Linux about three or four years ago. (My servers had always run Linux and so was comfortable, I moved to Linux for my desktop eventually. It seems that I spend more time fiddling with linux, but I've often wonders if this is the right question. I moved because Windows kept "updating" me out of the way I like to operate. With linux I can always have (as much as one can say always with any OS!) the minimal IceWM running, emacs at the command line (a mainstay for me), and excellent network and file sharing (via NSF). So, when I think about whether there was savings I'm not able to compare. For example, the latest version of Hardy had an error in the NSF deb -- it would not tunnel through ssh! This was lethal for me - for the way I run my computer system. So, I had to spend time to fix this. (I had to google about, find the error in the code, make a new deb - which I posted for others :-) - and then had nfs over ssh working. I kind of grumbled about the time, but realized that under Windows when I encountered such a problem that was it. Full stop. (That's likely not quite right, but pretty close ... I have changed source for windows in a long time!). So, bottom line: I have flexibility, but takes more time. Did I make the right choice? To hard to answer ......

You made the right choice. the only thing that keeps me using windows is specific applications that only exist under windows or MAC such as a professional video editing app on the level of Adobe Premiere or Sony Vegas. I try to stay away from Windows with internetworking.

kaixi
February 8th, 2009, 09:34 PM
I spend much more time on Ubuntu but I don't care anyway. I advocate the open source philosophy.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 09:44 PM
There is no question in my mind that maintaining Ubuntu running perfectly takes much more time than XP at its mediocre best.

XP drivers work with no confusion and Windows system checkpointing/restore feature is quite valuable. The only problem I've had with XP in the last year is one of the updates, a spyware removal tool, caused system crashes for a few weeks until I guess they got it fixed. But in Windows it's very important to keep virus software up-to-date, getting a virus can easily be as costly as doing something unusually stupid in Ubuntu.

I think a checkpoint function in Ubuntu would be useful--put the restore option in the boot menu. Also although Synaptec records "history", reversing a change is manual, eg: if a package with numerous dependency's is installed, sometimes un-installing the package won't un-install all the dependent packages. But let's say you have a sound problem and decide to un-install ALSA, go ahead un-install libesd-alsa0 and reboot. (This an interesting exercise, but should be done very deliberately.)

In the past year Ubuntu ... Flash stopping working, video driver stopped working and had to be fixed more than twice?!?, Sound Blaster Audigy2 card installation was a big pain, Epson 4490 scanner reinstallation was/is a big pain, and just last week a fresh Ubuntu install got an hd() designator in menu.lst wrong. But hey, I expect that--a year or so ago I think when they added the fancy disk IDs, the installer got hd(0) and hd(1) in menu.lst backasswards--for 2!!! sixth month updates.

I'm trying to remember the last time I had to get a different version of gcc to recompile the kernel and that's a good thing!

Thanks for an honest evaluation. I hate the constant definition updates and virus checks under Windows, so I try to stay off the Internet unless my Ubuntu computer is not connecting... What, I've concluded is that Linux is way more sensitive to specific hardware combinations than Windows. This is probably because most hardware is designed specifically for Windows. Linux seems extremely hardware dependent. For example, I had to do nothing except uncheck the digital audio out switch to get my Audigy card working flawlessly, yet you had problems. I had three different NVIDIA cards that worked fine until 8.10. I still can't find a fix although others have encountered the same problem. Right now, I stuck an old PCI Radeon card in - and that works with 8.10! Right now, I'm running three versions on my machine. 8.04.1 32-bit, 8.10 32-bit and 8.10 64-bit. the only "reliable" version for me is 8.04.1, even though I had to give up a 256MB nvidia card for a 32mb, ATI card to achieve this.

It seems that some choose to maintain a position of denial when it comes to Linux. Denial doesn't address problems, recognition and positive actions do.

SunnyRabbiera
February 8th, 2009, 09:50 PM
Well me I know the reasons for most failures with linux on hardware, this world is geared towards microsoft who has bought its way into the market.
But linux adoption seems to be raising and the more its adopted the more it will be supported.
Already companies like HP, Adobe and a few others are turning to linux.
One can tell MS is loosing its grip, especially with flash as of late where it does seem adobe is paying more attention to us, just look at the 64bit version of flash it came out on linux first so that might be a sign.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 09:52 PM
I spend much more time on Ubuntu but I don't care anyway. I advocate the open source philosophy.

I completely second your motion. Open Source software has already proven itself in commerce and I believe it will also prove itself for personal use.

Just as the MAC fans are now finding out, a lot of the problems perceived under Windows is caused by the proliferation of "pirated" software and the use of "cracks" which more often than not, will also deliver malware to the computer. It's laughable to complain about an OS, when it's the use of illegal software that breaks it. But, in the Windows world not everyone can afford the cost of constantly buying expensive apps. Downloading pirated software or illegal MP3's is very tempting, even if it comes along with unwanted extras.

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 09:56 PM
The hard disk is 20gb.

Luckily, Hard drives with much larger capacities are very cheap nowadays. Aside from the small size, this drive is probably too slow to effectively work with XP or Ubuntu.

Maverick321
February 8th, 2009, 09:56 PM
Well I actually spend more time fixing Ubuntu, but that because when it does get broken (usually my fault in someway) it can be fixed and I like the challenge.
When Windows breaks, there is no way to fix it other than a reinstall.

For example, mircosoft and nvidia have decided to disable a key feature on my 7950gt video card. I found this out by installing the newest video drivers that windows update conveniently provided for me. This new driver didn't allow me to use my tv set to view videos in the same fashion as with the older driver. So simple solution would be to reinstall the old driver right? Wrong, this only lasted until reboot and than windows would install the new driver again. No matter what I did this would happen every 1-2 days. only fix was to reinstall windows.

Now how many times has ubuntu "chosen" what driver/programs that you should be using? None.

kaixi
February 8th, 2009, 10:01 PM
Well I actually spend more time fixing Ubuntu, but that because when it does get broken (usually my fault in someway) it can be fixed and I like the challenge.
When Windows breaks, there is no way to fix it other than a reinstall.


Completely true. Fixing Ubuntu is fun. :)

IdahoBackwoods
February 8th, 2009, 10:11 PM
I have used Windows XP Home, Mac OS X Panther and Tiger, and Ubuntu 8.04 and 8.10.

I quit using Windows because the underlying software design is awful, and it required me to spend a lot of time maintaining it. By comparison, Mac OS X and Ubuntu are much easier to use and maintain.

When I first used Ubuntu 8.04 last spring on an old Toshiba laptop, I had a lot of trouble getting it to work with the hardware -- mainly the nVidia graphics and Atheros wi-fi cards, as I recall. But I had never used any flavor of Linux before. Once I got used to Linux, I found it extremely stable.

Recently, my old Toshiba's hardware died; it wouldn't even load its splash screen. So I got a new laptop with Intel hardware. I had NO trouble putting Intrepid on this machine because all the hardware was automatically recognized and configured. I've been using it for a month now, and it is completely stable. Like the Mac, it JUST WORKS. Also, there is very little expense for software: most of it is free!

IdahoBackwoods

bakedbeans4life
February 8th, 2009, 10:19 PM
Windows can be fragile compared to Linux, it also requires more in the way of general everyday maintenance.

Having said that, Windows XP has been a good workhorse for me through the years. It just takes a little more TLC than just about every Linux distribution I've ever tried (not including alpha and beta releases).

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 10:34 PM
No offense intended but it seems that most of the time when someone starts a post off with something like that, it seems to always start people arguing over pointless stuff. I'm not saying that's what you intended at all, it's just my personal opinion.
I was hoping that this thread would be the exception to that rule. My intention wasn't to create a Windows vs. Ubuntu debate. I was actually interested in the varied responses. I am dedicated to open-source, Ubuntu in particular, and intend to make a business out of selling pre-configured Ubuntu systems in the near future. I'm not a Windows apologist, but I've built, sold and supported Win systems for years and never ran into hardware problems like I do with Ubuntu. When you elect to sell desktop systems, your ability to make a profit will be directly affected by the amount of tech support you have to provide. I've been able to manage this with Windows systems, but I'm not yet sure if the same level of reliability can be achieved with Ubuntu. I was hoping that this thread might shed some light on this.


Please tell me what the specifications were on the hardware you were forced to switch out.
I hope this doesn't violate the community cafe rules. I had to replace three different nvidia cards, the first was a 256mb fx-5200 AGP. This worked flawlessly with full 3-D for months until I upgraded to 8.10. I tried two other nvidia AGP cards, another FX-5200 with 128 MB and an older Geforce2 with 32mb RAM. All exhibited the same symptoms. You can find the details by checking my support threads. I'm currently using a 32MB Radeon 7000, without 3D enabled to keep the system going. My system is an ASROCK MB with a Athlon64 3700+ running at 2.4ghz, 1.5Gig DDR400 RAM, 120 gig Maxtor with 8.04.1 32-bit on a single partition, an 80Gig Seagate with 8.10 64-bit on one partition and 8.10 32-bit on another partition. I have a 20X NEC DVD burner and a SoundBlaster Audigy2 with on board firewire ports.


I can understand about the wifi issue, some wifi chipsets are better supported than others.
I had a Dlink PCI adapter that worked flawlessly with the hostap driver + firmware since Ubu 7.10. As soon as I installed 8.10 the hostap driver refused to load the required firmware. I now use a Linksys USB adapter

Ubuntu 8.04.xxx is an excellent choice for people who want a stable release of Ubuntu. 8.04.xxx is the LTS (Long Term Support) release.
It's the one I currently use and I have been very happy with it.
it's my most stabe system so far.

I would say that in my personal opinion, that Ubuntu 8.04 LTS is a very viable alternative replacement for the Windows desktop.
I'm beginning to be convinced of this for typical computer users.


I used to be a very dedicated Windows user but I don't have Windows installed on any of my computers any longer.
I wish i could find the pro-level apps I need in Linux, so I could shed my Windows machine. I'll never use Vista or Windows 7 or whatever..

- zipperback
:popcorn:[/QUOTE]

abyssius
February 8th, 2009, 11:25 PM
When Windows breaks, there is no way to fix it other than a reinstall.
You probably know that this simply isn't true. However, I've reinstalled windows over an existing system without losing any data, settings or even having to reinstall applications or drivers. Can this be done with Ubuntu? I'm not being facetious, I need to do this right now.


For example, mircosoft and nvidia have decided to disable a key feature on my 7950gt video card. I found this out by installing the newest video drivers that windows update conveniently provided for me. This new driver didn't allow me to use my tv set to view videos in the same fashion as with the older driver. So simple solution would be to reinstall the old driver right? Wrong, this only lasted until reboot and than windows would install the new driver again. No matter what I did this would happen every 1-2 days. only fix was to reinstall windows.
Why would MS and NVIDIA collaborate in such a fashion? I don't doubt this happened, but I think there must be another explanation than the one you're offering.


Now how many times has ubuntu "chosen" what driver/programs that you should be using? None.
I had a wireless adapter that worked flawlessly from ver. 7.10 through 8.04.1 with a particular driver/firmware combination - but stopped working when I upgraded to 8.10. When I re-installed 8.04.1, the driver which worked before, still refused to work. Should I conclude that ubuntu and the Driver manufacturer decided to disable a key feature with my adapter?

I had a NVIDIA graphics card that worked flawlessly from 7.10 to 8.04.1, yet constantly froze the screen after going to 8.10. I'm not alone - search through the threads on this. I tried 3 different nvidia cards, and four different proprietary drivers from nvidia - no dice. Is this NVIDIA's fault? Ubuntu's fault? X.orgs's fault? By your logic, I should blame Ubuntu, but I won't. It's not that simple.

majabl
February 8th, 2009, 11:46 PM
@original poster

I agree - Ubuntu would be fine but for the fact that making it as usable as I like it to be (eg, having basics such as DVD playback and Flash) always seems to cause problems. Windows is far simpler for this.

Straight 'out of the box' I don't have a problem with either operating system.

abyssius
February 9th, 2009, 12:01 AM
I have used Windows XP Home, Mac OS X Panther and Tiger, and Ubuntu 8.04 and 8.10.

I quit using Windows because the underlying software design is awful, and it required me to spend a lot of time maintaining it. By comparison, Mac OS X and Ubuntu are much easier to use and maintain.

When I first used Ubuntu 8.04 last spring on an old Toshiba laptop, I had a lot of trouble getting it to work with the hardware -- mainly the nVidia graphics and Atheros wi-fi cards, as I recall. But I had never used any flavor of Linux before. Once I got used to Linux, I found it extremely stable.

Recently, my old Toshiba's hardware died; it wouldn't even load its splash screen. So I got a new laptop with Intel hardware. I had NO trouble putting Intrepid on this machine because all the hardware was automatically recognized and configured. I've been using it for a month now, and it is completely stable. Like the Mac, it JUST WORKS. Also, there is very little expense for software: most of it is free!

IdahoBackwoods

I beleieve that the IT JUST WORKS! fan-boy comment to try to differentiate from Windows does the Ubuntu community a disservice. The facts are that over 90% of all computer users in the world run Windows on a daily basis. This includes over 90% of all the banks, agencies, institutions, colleges, etc. Please don't try to infer that over 90% of the world's computers are having constant problems. If you're honest you'll admit that they just work also!

I've spent many years supporting hundreds of computers in corporate settings. These companies relied on computer uptime to do their daily business. I wasn't constantly fixing computers, and when I had to, I can personally testify that 99% of the time it was a user error NOT the OS that caused the problem. Any other honest, competent person in tech support will tell the same story. If an organization's IT department enforces cogent policies it is routine to achieve over 99% uptime in a Windows environment.

When I installed windows on my older machine which I'm now using for a Ubuntu test-bed, I had all the drivers required, and set-up was completely routine - although admittedly not as quick and easy as a typical Ubuntu install. Once finished, everything worked flawlessly.

However, I have to be honest and recognize that I've spent way more time troubleshooting/fixing Ubuntu than I would have using the same exact system under Windows. I'm not claiming to be a Linux authority. Lack of experience with Linux has got to be factored in - but I'm not a technical novice either.

The purpose of this thread is to try to find out some basic facts about the experiences other users are having. I chose Windows as a comparison, because I assumed that most of the Ubuntu users participating on this forum are either present or former Windows users. It's that simple.

AndyCooll
February 9th, 2009, 12:51 AM
I spend more time fixing Windows. That's because Ubuntu works fine for me, and these days I don't tend to play around with it very much.

And when I do fix a pc it is someone else's (which is usually Windows based).

:cool:

cariboo
February 9th, 2009, 12:52 AM
Your video problems are because you are trying to use old hardware. There is support for older harware, it just takes Nvidia longer to create divers to support the hardware. You can use the open source nv drivers for your older video cards.

You network adapter problems are because of newer drivers in Intrepid then previuos versions. the hostap driver was just a workaround like ndispwrapper, and has been replaced with newer drivers.

From the sounds of it most of your problems are more from a lack of experience, then bad proprietory drivers.

Jim

linuxisevolution
February 9th, 2009, 01:20 AM
Luckily, Hard drives with much larger capacities are very cheap nowadays. Aside from the small size, this drive is probably too slow to effectively work with XP or Ubuntu.

Well actually it's a 250gb drive with a 20gb partition for XP. The drive is very fast. Oh, and drives around 8gb preform very well with Xubuntu with Fluxbox, and with XP on a *fresh* install. I might buy a new 1tb and hook it up to my web server ( the one that serves the sites in my sig ) for extra files. . .

Frak
February 9th, 2009, 01:21 AM
I spend more time fixing Linux. I do remember that Windows and Mac are both professionally made, stable commercial OS's, so they do tend to be much easier to deal with. I also tinker more with Linux, so half of the blame goes on me.

IdahoBackwoods
February 9th, 2009, 01:22 AM
I beleieve that the IT JUST WORKS! fan-boy comment to try to differentiate from Windows does the Ubuntu community a disservice. The facts are that over 90% of all computer users in the world run Windows on a daily basis. This includes over 90% of all the banks, agencies, institutions, colleges, etc. Please don't try to infer that over 90% of the world's computers are having constant problems. If you're honest you'll admit that they just work also!

I'm not a fan-boy of anything. I truly felt (as a retired software engineer) that Windows XP was mediocre at best, and I truly felt that maintaining my wife's XP machine took way more time than I thought reasonable. I kept asking myself why the Registry kept needing maintenance, why the system couldn't automatically defrag the drives, why I had to manually clean out the temp files, why it was so hard to uninstall bad software like Norton, why Windows didn't provide adequate system tools, and so on. I got a Mac and showed my wife that she could do all her work on that and still be file-compatible with her co-workers. Since that time, we have both used Macs, and I have spent far less time maintaining our computers.

I've worried for the past couple of years that success might go to Apple's head, and they might become less responsive to their customers. Meanwhile, Ubuntu became much better, and I thought it was time to give it a try. Like I said before, I had some learning curve to deal with for the first few months, but after that, Ubuntu Hardy and now Intrepid have been totally stable for me, and the only maintenance I do is to download and install the updates.

If you LIKE Windows, then you should use it. However, I'd appreciate it if you'd not call me names when I don't agree with you.

One thing I did learn about Linux is that we run it (usually) on machines that were not specifically designed for it. Apple, of course, has the advantage that the hardware and software are designed for each other. Windows too has usually been delivered on machines designed to match it. (Except for the first year or so of Vista.) But Ubuntu is installed on whatever machines people happen to have. That caused me some grief when I put Ubuntu early-release Hardy on my 6-year-old Toshiba. I came to realize that it helps to pick a hardware platform that is known not to contain proprietary cards currently causing trouble for Linux. But what would you expect when you are using an open-source operating system for which few companies specifically build hardware?

IdahoBackwoods

airjaw
February 9th, 2009, 02:35 AM
Its hard to say which OS I spend more time "fixing" things in.
I think its fair to guess that for most users, they don't do much "fixing" or "tweaking" in Windows and do more of those things in Ubuntu. This is because Windows does simple things well (audio, video, browsing, games, etc). Ubuntu is more powerful but the support for doing simple things isn't as solid as it is in Windows (IME).

I've had so many friggin problems just watching videos, or listening to audio, or having firefox crashing, to the system freezing, etc in Ubuntu. These things simply don't crash as much in Windows. But then again, Windows is not able to handle some of the more advanced things I do (programming, command line, graphics tweaking)

SunnyRabbiera
February 9th, 2009, 02:43 AM
@original poster

I agree - Ubuntu would be fine but for the fact that making it as usable as I like it to be (eg, having basics such as DVD playback and Flash) always seems to cause problems. Windows is far simpler for this.

Straight 'out of the box' I don't have a problem with either operating system.

but windows doesnt come with codecs, people ignore that.
A basic XP install has no real support unless you tweak it, same as a ubuntu system in my experience.

Seaco
February 9th, 2009, 03:17 AM
Most of the time is my ubuntu that needs hellp, for a very good reason, I cant stop to think what new things i am going to do. In xp I always done the same things, its easy to use, but i really cant understand the problems when all hell breaks. In ubuntu the major problems are caused by me, but i really dont care, i like the way ubuntu makes me feel, like the user really knows what he wants...

abyssius
February 9th, 2009, 03:32 AM
I'm not a fan-boy of anything. I truly felt (as a retired software engineer) that Windows XP was mediocre at best, and I truly felt that maintaining my wife's XP machine took way more time than I thought reasonable. I kept asking myself why the Registry kept needing maintenance, why the system couldn't automatically defrag the drives, why I had to manually clean out the temp files, why it was so hard to uninstall bad software like Norton, why Windows didn't provide adequate system tools, and so on. I got a Mac and showed my wife that she could do all her work on that and still be file-compatible with her co-workers. Since that time, we have both used Macs, and I have spent far less time maintaining our computers.

I've worried for the past couple of years that success might go to Apple's head, and they might become less responsive to their customers. Meanwhile, Ubuntu became much better, and I thought it was time to give it a try. Like I said before, I had some learning curve to deal with for the first few months, but after that, Ubuntu Hardy and now Intrepid have been totally stable for me, and the only maintenance I do is to download and install the updates.

If you LIKE Windows, then you should use it. However, I'd appreciate it if you'd not call me names when I don't agree with you.

One thing I did learn about Linux is that we run it (usually) on machines that were not specifically designed for it. Apple, of course, has the advantage that the hardware and software are designed for each other. Windows too has usually been delivered on machines designed to match it. (Except for the first year or so of Vista.) But Ubuntu is installed on whatever machines people happen to have. That caused me some grief when I put Ubuntu early-release Hardy on my 6-year-old Toshiba. I came to realize that it helps to pick a hardware platform that is known not to contain proprietary cards currently causing trouble for Linux. But what would you expect when you are using an open-source operating system for which few companies specifically build hardware?

IdahoBackwoods

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to offend you or call you names. I was referring to the "It just works," statement you elected to use, which is a fan-boy staple that I encounter all the time. I'll re-emphasize I am not a Windows defender. As stated many times in this thread, my intention is to escape Windows entirely. I will never use Vista or Windows 7. I use XP right now because because I need to professionally. I won't argue the merits of MAC either. Certain people who can afford the costs associated with Apple products will always be satisfied with their premium products.

Unfortunately, I'm from the other side of the tracks as it were. And, my focus now that I am semi-retired is to try to disseminate technology to demographic areas where there is an urgent need (especially for children) to keep up with technology advances so that the vast digital divide they face today may be reduced or even eliminated. I am associated with local community organizations, churches, city school districts, where Microsoft technology is not easily budgeted and getting more expensive every day - and Apple is a distant dream they may see on television commercials along with the BMW or Mercedes they'll probably never own.

This is the arena where I envision an open-source platform costing no more than $400.00, making a huge impact on the lives of literally millions of young children - that right now do not receive the technology benefits taken for granted in more economically stable areas. I see Linux and specifically Ubuntu (although many other distros would be equivalent) as potentially making a huge impact on society.

You point out that Apple has the advantage of keeping the hardware and software proprietary. True, but this also serves to limit the market share of Apple computers, which is turning into a gadget company based on its current revenue streams.

You say that Windows is "awful" software. However, the ability of Windows to install successfully on a wide variety of hardware configurations designed by thousands of different engineering firms is a feat that Apple could not accomplish, and IMO it is the prime reason why MS currently dominates the OS market. Limiting the hardware compatibility of Ubuntu will suppress its growth - just as this philosophy did to Apple. Therefore, it is my desire to see Ubuntu become an operating system that can potentially match the ubiquitous characteristics of Windows - and accomplish this while keeping the hardware cost requirements to a minimum. This is the path I see for Ubuntu as it evolves from tinker toy to a universal platform for all people. Even more beautiful is the knowledge that it grows by community participation rather than corporate motivations.

racie
February 9th, 2009, 03:39 AM
I spend a LOT more time fixing Ubuntu than Windows. But I guess since there are a lot more things you can edit/customize/whatever in Ubuntu, there are a lot more things that can go wrong if you don't know what you're doing. (Like me)

abyssius
February 9th, 2009, 03:45 AM
Most of the time is my ubuntu that needs hellp, for a very good reason, I cant stop to think what new things i am going to do. In xp I always done the same things, its easy to use, but i really cant understand the problems when all hell breaks. In ubuntu the major problems are caused by me, but i really dont care, i like the way ubuntu makes me feel, like the user really knows what he wants...

Breaking Ubuntu through experimentation is a healthy practice that in the long run will only serve to improve the OS. However, when you accomplish a configuration that works only to have it broken by a kernel upgrade can become frustrating...

abyssius
February 9th, 2009, 03:50 AM
Well actually it's a 250gb drive with a 20gb partition for XP. The drive is very fast. Oh, and drives around 8gb preform very well with Xubuntu with Fluxbox, and with XP on a *fresh* install. I might buy a new 1tb and hook it up to my web server ( the one that serves the sites in my sig ) for extra files. . .

What software did you use to design your sites? Especially the flash components? One of the reasons I can't kick Windows to the curb is Dreamweaver/Flash.

Snufkin UK
February 9th, 2009, 03:52 AM
Hmm, most likely Windows to be fair, I have had lots of issues recently on there, and aside from my very frustrating soundcard problem, I have found Ubuntu to be very to set up and run, so far.

lukedupree
February 9th, 2009, 04:01 AM
I know this is a long thread and it seems to have all been said, so I will just add my thoughts. I am currently running Vista, Windows7 beta, Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy, Fedora 10, Windows XP and Mandriva KDE on one system.

Given my daily experience with each operating system I have to say Ubuntu is my favorite. I like the look and feel better than any of the others. I also have to say the Linux distros are far more time intensive to get up and running and tweaked to suit you, find drivers and generally make it work with your hardware configuration. That being said I didn't pay a couple of hundred bucks for any of the linux distros. In this case the phrase ( You get what you pay for!) proves false. I can afford to to spend more time to tweak linux without the frustration, that I'm out the money and still have to do a good deal of work to make the system stable.

So yes I spend more time working on linux but I spend more with the money time combination on windows.

I look forward to the day I can be rid of windows completely, That's why I'm here.

abyssius
February 9th, 2009, 04:12 AM
I know this is a long thread and it seems to have all been said, so I will just add my thoughts. I am currently running Vista, Windows7 beta, Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy, Fedora 10, Windows XP and Mandriva KDE on one system.

Given my daily experience with each operating system I have to say Ubuntu is my favorite. I like the look and feel better than any of the others. I also have to say the Linux distros are far more time intensive to get up and running and tweaked to suit you, find drivers and generally make it work with your hardware configuration. That being said I didn't pay a couple of hundred bucks for any of the linux distros. In this case the phrase ( You get what you pay for!) proves false. I can afford to to spend more time to tweak linux without the frustration, that I'm out the money and still have to do a good deal of work to make the system stable.

So yes I spend more time working on linux but I spend more with the money time combination on windows.

I look forward to the day I can be rid of windows completely, That's why I'm here.

I tried many different distros before I settled on Ubuntu. I didn't see any point in using different Linux distros and fighting each of them simultaneously. I also look forward to the day when I shun Windows completely. Right now, I'm 90% Ubuntu, 10% Windows. Unfortunately much of my Ubuntu time is spent "fixing" it rather than being productive. I only use Windows because of specific Windows applications currently not available for Linux. I now dread pressing the KVM switch to bring up the XP desktop.

kk0sse54
February 9th, 2009, 04:47 AM
I spend more time "tinkering" with linux because I enjoy to do so especially when it comes to window managers :p. Otherwise I definetely spend more time fixing Windows although that in it self isn't too much because I barely use it.

SunnyRabbiera
February 9th, 2009, 05:12 AM
I tried many different distros before I settled on Ubuntu. I didn't see any point in using different Linux distros and fighting each of them simultaneously. I also look forward to the day when I shun Windows completely. Right now, I'm 90% Ubuntu, 10% Windows. Unfortunately much of my Ubuntu time is spent "fixing" it rather than being productive. I only use Windows because of specific Windows applications currently not available for Linux. I now dread pressing the KVM switch to bring up the XP desktop.

well for some of us we like to experiment, I mainly toy around with ubuntu, mandriva, debian and a few others.

solitaire
February 9th, 2009, 05:25 AM
In the past 12 months I've been using Ubuntu 24/7 hardly touching a Windows install (i did have a virtual install of XP). I've had all the repositories and upgrade types in software update ticked and I install all updates every time a new one pop's up. So far the biggest hassle is with my Nvidia graphics card (it's an old GeForce4 440 Go Mobile). Apart from that my Ubuntu runs fine!

Now last week i finally got a new laptop.
It came with "Vista Home Basic" and i thought i should give it a go (last time i looked at Vista it was on a very underpowered machine!). So for the past 5 day's i've only used Vista.....
...
...
Result?

Higher blood preasure! honestly!! my BP goes up by 10 every time i use Vista!
In the past 2 days i've:

Had to manually run check disk 3 times (for some reason it won't run during boot!!).

Had to do a recovery from a backup when a program installed and decided to bork the system somehow!

Reinstalled cable drivers for my Nokia phone to connect it via USB.

Remove 300Mb of junk programs which came preinstalled and were deteremed to start up at boot time!

I nearly lost my rag when i tried to open a single email and Outlook decided to open my entire inbox. I had to do a hard reset since Vista decided to become unresponsive to everything even the 3 finger command!!. (That's the main reason i've had to run disk check so many time!)


The only reson i've still got Vista on here is that i wanted to give it a fair go on a laptop desinged for it before i wipe it and stick a *ubuntu version on it!!

(Which will be tomorrow morning at this rate!!!)

etnlIcarus
February 9th, 2009, 07:53 AM
I spend far more time, "fixing", *nix than I do Windows. This is primarily because I log into Windows maybe once a month and there's only a couple of usage scenarios when I am on Windows: install games, play games or do a security update.

JK3mp
February 9th, 2009, 08:22 AM
I think this question is a big dump for the most part. Of course your gonna spend more time fixing Ubuntu then Windows because Ubuntu allows you that. Sure..its not modded right out of the box for perfect compatability with your hardware but generally that can all be easily fixed with a few driver installs. But once you got it fully running. At least your not downloading gigs of updates every week through a windows update manager that uses 20 percent of your CPU just to RUN!!.... its not hold your hand and "JUST click NEXT". But in the end its a well secured, effecient, fast-paced system. As far as productivity thats all on what you decide to use each for. And im just speaking through bad experiences with Windows. I know some...very few some. That have had NO problems with there windows....even VISTA. So idk.. as far as me..sure i spend more time on Ubuntu (despite the fact i barely startup my windows partition)..but its time more well spent than trying to fix a bug in windows that won't be fixed till next patch arrives. ;)

Giant Speck
February 9th, 2009, 09:27 AM
I can't really say I spend that much time fixing Windows, because I haven't ever run into any major problems. I've run into more problems with Ubuntu, but that is probably because while I have been using Ubuntu for a little over a year now, I'm still new to it and don't fully understand it.

tsali
February 9th, 2009, 11:46 AM
...my BP goes up by 10 every time i use Vista!
In the past 2 days i've:

Had to manually run check disk 3 times (for some reason it won't run during boot!!).

Had to do a recovery from a backup when a program installed and decided to bork the system somehow!

Reinstalled cable drivers for my Nokia phone to connect it via USB.

Remove 300Mb of junk programs which came preinstalled and were deteremed to start up at boot time!



You're not installing Vista. You appear to be restoring from your manufacturer's restore disk.

Sort of like Toshiba or HP getting hold of Ubuntu and "customizing" in ways that make it infuriating. Would we blame Ubuntu for that?

Big manufacturers are notorious for borking up the install. A clean retail or OEM Vista install would likely present none of the issues you encountered.

tsali
February 9th, 2009, 11:52 AM
I think this question is a big dump for the most part. Of course your gonna spend more time fixing Ubuntu then Windows because Ubuntu allows you that. Sure..its not modded right out of the box for perfect compatability with your hardware but generally that can all be easily fixed with a few driver installs. But once you got it fully running. At least your not downloading gigs of updates every week through a windows update manager that uses 20 percent of your CPU just to RUN!!.... its not hold your hand and "JUST click NEXT". But in the end its a well secured, effecient, fast-paced system. As far as productivity thats all on what you decide to use each for. And im just speaking through bad experiences with Windows. I know some...very few some. That have had NO problems with there windows....even VISTA. So idk.. as far as me..sure i spend more time on Ubuntu (despite the fact i barely startup my windows partition)..but its time more well spent than trying to fix a bug in windows that won't be fixed till next patch arrives. ;)

It's not about modding. It's about making it work.

Ubuntu downloads more updates (and update volume) than Windows weekly.

Ubuntu is MORE "just click" than Windows when it come to managing updates.

For the vast majority of us, a bug in Ubuntu is just as unfixable as a bug in Windows. We're not coders and have no interest in becoming coders.

Ubuntu is maturing rapidly. Most day-to-day operations are easily on par with commercial OS and software.

Refinement will continue on niche software and other features (restore point?).
I am a fan of Ubuntu and Windows. I use both daily.

Delever
February 9th, 2009, 01:14 PM
Once you understand more about system, you no longer do things that break the system.

Once you become really familiar with programs and tools, you start treating any new program as potential cause of problems, and accept any breakage as necessary part of learning new things.

If you don't need to fix anything, it probably means that you are not trying anything new. That's not bad too - if you need stable working environment.

This thread seems to be created with intention to show that "hey! Ubuntu breaks all the time!". If so, then please do an experiment - how much it would break if you select few programs you need and do no installing or upgrading for anything.

I do exactly this with Windows - I run it in VM just for few programs I need. When used in such way (XP, Vista, 7) - nothing breaks, it is stable as rock. I use Ubuntu to experiment with new things - and it breaks. It is expected. Therefore I "fix" it more.

Interesting thing, let's look at those who have very deep understanding of linux system, admins who use command line interface to manage Ubuntu servers. Do they also say that "Ubuntu breaks"? "Um, I wrote this command and now nothing is working". Well no, they sometimes even accept that in some way it may be their own fault.

P.S. This post assumes that Ubuntu works ;)

Nunu
February 9th, 2009, 01:20 PM
Windows Vista... Keeps corrupting the user profile GRRRRRRRR

airjaw
February 9th, 2009, 02:49 PM
To be fair, the numerous problems I experience in Ubuntu might not be Ubuntu's fault, eg. Firefox, VLC, Sound issues.

These are things outside of Ubuntu's control I think

BigSilly
February 9th, 2009, 03:53 PM
Once you understand more about system, you no longer do things that break the system.

Once you become really familiar with programs and tools, you start treating any new program as potential cause of problems, and accept any breakage as necessary part of learning new things.

If you don't need to fix anything, it probably means that you are not trying anything new. That's not bad too - if you need stable working environment.

This thread seems to be created with intention to show that "hey! Ubuntu breaks all the time!". If so, then please do an experiment - how much it would break if you select few programs you need and do no installing or upgrading for anything.

I do exactly this with Windows - I run it in VM just for few programs I need. When used in such way (XP, Vista, 7) - nothing breaks, it is stable as rock. I use Ubuntu to experiment with new things - and it breaks. It is expected. Therefore I "fix" it more.

Interesting thing, let's look at those who have very deep understanding of linux system, admins who use command line interface to manage Ubuntu servers. Do they also say that "Ubuntu breaks"? "Um, I wrote this command and now nothing is working". Well no, they sometimes even accept that in some way it may be their own fault.

P.S. This post assumes that Ubuntu works ;)

Totally agree. With a little experience, Ubuntu and Linux is very easy to set up and configure. By comparison, I spent a lot of time when I used to use Windows making sure security was up to date, performing various scans, and defragging the HDD. And that's when I wasn't getting blue screens and freezing and all sorts of other issues. Since moving over to Ubuntu and Linux, yes I had to learn new skills, but once you know what to do it's no longer an issue. Not having to worry so much about security beyond setting up the firewall is a real blessing.

For me, Ubuntu surpassed XP for ease of use a while ago. I know many won't agree with that statement, but that's my genuine feeling. I set up three computers in my home with Ubuntu, and no one has reported any issues whatsoever. It was a breeze.

I feel sorry for people who dismiss Ubuntu and don't give it a real go.

JK3mp
February 10th, 2009, 12:58 AM
Exactly. You have to think of what ubuntu is. Its a version of Linux. Created open source. Its not built by a company thats being paid by hardware companies to make its software fit with there hardware perfectly in order to produce results that they can resale. Thus ubuntu is not to blame. The only reason people have problems with Linux is because of hardware compatability for the most part. And that is because Microsoft windows is the standardly and most widely used operating system. So naturally hardware and the software of microsoft work close in hand to provide maximum compatability. While ubuntu programmers do not have the advantage of that...they have still manage to narrow the feat down to just downloading and compiling a few drivers...quite a feat..eh?

SteveHillier
February 10th, 2009, 01:14 AM
Without doubt Windows.
It may be thats because that is the job I do - sorting out other peoples computers and just too few people out there have Linux and if they do they are probably capable of fixing it themselves.

cprofitt
February 10th, 2009, 01:35 AM
I spend more time fixing Windows. I spend more time 'learning' and 'setting up' Linux.

nkri
February 10th, 2009, 01:45 AM
I spend a lot more time fixing Ubuntu, but only because I like to break it in order to fix it and learn new things. In my limited experience, fixing Windows is harder, less gratifying, and not really worth the effort...if I get a virus on my Windows partition, I don't even bother to try to fix it...I just reinstall.

EdThaSlayer
February 10th, 2009, 01:58 AM
I used to spent more time fixing Linux. Now I don't touch my Windows anymore so it doesn't get spoiled through the horrendous degradation of the registry.On my Linux OS at the moment the only problem relates to my graphics driver but then again, that isn't that "big".

Polygon
February 10th, 2009, 06:36 AM
i spend more time fixing ubuntu then windows. But the difference here is, i can ACTUALLY fix ubuntu. Windows, your just stuck with what your have, bugs and all forever, unless you buy new hardware because hardware companies release 1, maybe 2 updates for drivers then never release anymore updates.

trot2millah
February 10th, 2009, 07:05 AM
For me I've hard to do more work with Ubuntu, but that's probably due to the fact that I'm running it on a rather old CPU....the XP I dual-boot with, while relatively error-free, is terribly slow and productivity goes way down compared to Ubuntu.

JK3mp
February 10th, 2009, 07:32 AM
I spend more time fixing Windows. I spend more time 'learning' and 'setting up' Linux.

There ya go... thats what i mean. lol. Good wording ;) lolflag:

majabl
February 10th, 2009, 12:04 PM
but windows doesnt come with codecs, people ignore that.
A basic XP install has no real support unless you tweak it, same as a ubuntu system in my experience.

Yeah, what I said. :) In my experience (and I expect that it's the common experience), it's far easier to get Windows playing DVDs than it is to get Ubuntu playing DVDs.

etali
February 10th, 2009, 12:21 PM
Back when I first started tinkering with other distros I had nothing but trouble with hardware - especially network cards. I thought I'd never get online!

I took a break for a while, and then I came back to find that things 'just worked' with linux.

I've just got an Ubuntu based VPS, and it's taking me an age to set up, but it's fast, stable (it only barfs when *I* do something wrong - unlike Windows :) ), and generally pretty nice.

I spend more time tinkering with Ubuntu because I'm trying to change how something works (I've spent more time trying to set up a good spam filter than it would have taken me to just delete the spam as it came in!), but I still spend more time than I'd like coping with crashes under Vista.

bigbearomaha
February 10th, 2009, 02:18 PM
I would say it depends on what I am doing with said machine. how it will be used.

to try to overgeneralize, Iwould say I spend more time configuring and tweaking buntu. It has more options to make it a more customized install.

once I have it set up and config the way it is meant to be, it's done. rarely do i have to go back to that machine again except for minor stuff.

In Win, setup is usually more automated and less than buntu actually allows so it takes less time to set up general win box. But you are forever going back running defrag, etc...

Win CAN be setup to be pretty stable by installing anti virus and other security apps right off the bat. I have had a win install of XP laying around for about 2 years now. no virus infections, no major knocks. of course, I do keep anti-virus, etc.. up to date and so on. it is possible to do though.


each OS has it's Pro's and cons. Personally, Ithink Linux in general has more pro's than the other.

Big Bear

SunnyRabbiera
February 10th, 2009, 02:32 PM
Yeah, what I said. :) In my experience (and I expect that it's the common experience), it's far easier to get Windows playing DVDs than it is to get Ubuntu playing DVDs.

no its not that different, adding medibuntu isnt brain surgery.
Plus try windows XP when a DVD player and its codecs are not pre installed sometime... VLC is a lifesaver in those cases.

marcgh
February 10th, 2009, 03:07 PM
Probably due to my far greather experience in Windows OS ( I am using it since Windows 3.1 ) I generally don't use much time to correct any problem.

On the other side, with Ubuntu 8.10, and also due to my lack of experience I am wastin hours, days, sometimes week-ends to solve a problem.

Currently I don't have my DVD writer working on Ubuntu for +24 hours (thread: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1065106)

But I am convinced that things will go better with time.

Roasted
February 10th, 2009, 04:23 PM
The only time I had any trouble with Ubuntu was when I tinkered with new stuff not realizing what the crap I was doing.

Now that I think about it, there was one time recently. I was running 177 Nvidia drivers and went to upgrade, following directions on Nvidia's web site, to Nvidia 180 drivers. My system FUBAR'd. I reinstalled, however, it pays having your home directory and root directory on separate partitions. Reinstalled Ubuntu in 10-12 minutes, copied over my sudo apt-get install (insert all programs I use here) and within 5 minutes I had all of my programs in... and my stuff was saved cause I didn't format my home directory when I reinstalled. :)

Ahh... I love Ubuntu.

EDIT - I'd have to say I spend more time fixing Windows, though. But I also work in IT support where I'm surrounded by MS machines, so that will inevitably be my answer.

At home, though, I have more random issues with Vista than I had with Ubuntu... but when I had issues with Ubuntu, they seemed to be unknowingly self inflicted. Haa?

aysiu
February 10th, 2009, 05:57 PM
I'd say I spend about an equal amount of time fixing Windows, Mac OS X, and Ubuntu if it's a computer I or my wife is using primarily (that is, almost no time at all). We don't do anything to screw up our computers.

If, however, I have co-workers or friends who have problems, they seem to happen almost daily and almost always with Windows. I don't know what they do, seriously. I use Windows every day at work, and I have almost no problems with it. But there are a lot of people who experience Windows problems all the time. Our tech support has its hands full, so I volunteered to do some first-line-of-defense troubleshooting for some people in my department, and it seems to be non-stop problems for Windows users.

Of course, if they were using Ubuntu or Mac, I don't think there'd be any difference. I think that main issue is that a lot of people are just afraid of computers and get really freaked out if they accidentally switched some setting... or they do something really stupid without realizing how stupid it is.

hessiess
February 10th, 2009, 06:40 PM
Linux, seang as I hardly eaver use windows any more.

pirate_tux
February 10th, 2009, 11:09 PM
I'd say I spend about an equal amount of time fixing Windows, Mac OS X, and Ubuntu if it's a computer I or my wife is using primarily (that is, almost no time at all). We don't do anything to screw up our computers.

If, however, I have co-workers or friends who have problems, they seem to happen almost daily and almost always with Windows. I don't know what they do, seriously. I use Windows every day at work, and I have almost no problems with it. But there are a lot of people who experience Windows problems all the time. Our tech support has its hands full, so I volunteered to do some first-line-of-defense troubleshooting for some people in my department, and it seems to be non-stop problems for Windows users.

Of course, if they were using Ubuntu or Mac, I don't think there'd be any difference. I think that main issue is that a lot of people are just afraid of computers and get really freaked out if they accidentally switched some setting... or they do something really stupid without realizing how stupid it is.

If they do stupid things all the time and they even don't realize how stupid those things are, it's because they are stupid persons, isn't it?

pirate_tux
February 10th, 2009, 11:15 PM
Windows Vista... Keeps corrupting the user profile GRRRRRRRR

Don'y say that. It's dangerous...

It seems we have around here some sort of Micro$oft lobby attacking and persecuting people who defend free software.

I have just received and infraction point just for saying the true...

aysiu
February 11th, 2009, 01:17 AM
If they do stupid things all the time and they even don't realize how stupid those things are, it's because they are stupid persons, isn't it?
I would call them ignorant or afraid, not stupid. These are otherwise intelligent human beings.

dox_drum
February 11th, 2009, 01:36 AM
Both.

But Ubunty is worthy

Last year I spent almost 1 month trying to configure windows (vista) and it was a nightmare. The Microsoft help website sucks. If you reinstall the OS, it is almost sure your sound card, internet connection, or what ever other drive is needed for your hardware to run properly, is not automatically configured.

In Ubuntu I'm continuously configuring my laptop, but is working quit well from the beginning... and with the help of the forum users, the process turns to be fun (at least for me).

Enjoy!

tsali
February 11th, 2009, 02:48 AM
I would call them ignorant or afraid, not stupid. These are otherwise intelligent human beings.

+1. Thank you.

boredman
February 11th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Definitely windoze. Have been with Ubuntu for over a year now and will never look back. I lost count how many times I had to reboot xp. Not a single crash with Ubuntu. Oh yeah, and the missus can use it easily too.

Speaks for itself.

binbash
February 11th, 2009, 07:24 PM
Of course Linux.Because if windows crashes, you have to re-install it not repair it : )

karellen
February 11th, 2009, 07:45 PM
If they do stupid things all the time and they even don't realize how stupid those things are, it's because they are stupid persons, isn't it?

no wonder you get infraction points...:)

shak3800
February 11th, 2009, 08:51 PM
Imho Ubuntu but it is totally worth it , everytime you use it you learn more and more about how an os works .

lukjad007
February 11th, 2009, 08:54 PM
I use Ubuntu almost exclusively. I use XP at school, but that is not fair to compair since people keep giving me viruses and trojans.

yse
February 11th, 2009, 08:57 PM
I use Ubuntu almost exclusively. I use XP at school, but that is not fair to compair since people keep giving me viruses and trojans.

Is funny how peoples still consider XP as a reference point.

Mr_B
February 11th, 2009, 09:04 PM
I spend more time fixing Windows. I spend more time 'setting up' Linux.

Sprut1
February 11th, 2009, 09:11 PM
Both works well for me, but I spend more time tinkering with Ubuntu, for obvious reasons.

I just reinstalled Ubuntu/WinXP and Ubuntu worked out of the box, took about 30min to install/fix. WinXP spent 3 hours formating, installing and THEN the setup began (install driver -> restart -> rinse repeat). First thing I had to do when booting XP was to install network drivers, then Windows kindly asked me if it could go online to look for the drivers:)

geoken
February 11th, 2009, 10:06 PM
For me it's definitely Ubuntu because Window's has some decent tools for fixing problems without really knowing the problem. System Restore has saved me many times in situations were, had the same problem occurred on Ubuntu, I would have had to spend countless hours researching and trying different fixes and on many occasions re-installing the whole system.

getaboat
February 12th, 2009, 09:45 PM
A secured basic home PC running XP (I know nothing of Vista) just works and really needs nothing doing with it. I like XP.

Ubuntu sometimes just has too many choices - both in software and advice on using that software.

Sound is a particular bugbear of mine. If it works (Hardy m/c 1) don't touch anything!, if it doesn't work (Hardy m/c 2) be prepared to spend (what feel like forever) trying to get it working.

That having been said I didn't pay for anything on my Linux boxes and I feel more secure using Linux and I like quite a lot of the software - so a little time isn't a bad price.

JK3mp
February 12th, 2009, 09:46 PM
And the debate rolls on.... ^_^

not a pipe
February 12th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Meh, xp was a pain for me. Had to slipstream a few drivers into it before I could get it to install, and it didn't play nice with vista or ubuntu. The volume control buttons on the laptop don't work with it and the lowest volume setting isn't very quiet. It's ok, but I doubt I'll use it for anything other than games that vista has given up on.

Vista? Infinite loops of blue screens when I first got it, but not much trouble since.

Ubuntu? I'm finished tweaking, and I haven't had much trouble with it in awhile.

pirate_tux
February 13th, 2009, 06:13 AM
no wonder you get infraction points...:)

Well, I was only using aysiu words... So your commentary means you think aysiu deserves some infraction points... ;)

Tamlynmac
February 13th, 2009, 09:19 AM
By using the word "fixing" (as in - to repair) I assume your implying both systems are installed and fully functional when a failure occurs which requires intervention.

Based on that definition Windows definitely demanded more of my time.

Once Ubuntu and Windows are installed and functional, if no changes are made and both PC's are side by side. I have spent significantly more time fixing (as in cleaning up) Windows due to viruses, spyware, adware, registry, etc, Ubuntu has proven to be a stable, reliable platform that rarely requires intervention (on our systems).

However, had you asked the question with respect to issues regarding personalization or tinkering then Ubuntu would top the list. Especially tinkering.;)

Bonsanto
February 13th, 2009, 01:44 PM
UBuntu, read my problems.

1.- My system crashes.
2.- I got many "initramfs" bugs in the start of ubuntu.
3.- I got many many times "fsk" bugs.
4.- I can't open many firefox becouse It makes my system crash.
5.- If I listen music and play freecell, It makes my system crash.
6.- I get many problems when I try to install something. Becouse If it crashes It makes Ubuntu delete a "lib" things, So I have to reinsall all the OS again (I have done 9 times).
7.- I have been looking for the "crash solution" for 1 week and nothing was found.
8.- In WIndows XP, my system dosen't crash, I can leave my pc turned on for weeks and no crash. But in Ubuntu 2 programs = crash.
9.- People said "try with no acpi" I don't know where to type that comand, is too much genereic isn't especific.

But in WIndows XP, the only problem is that is 50% slower than ubuntu, and it has virus.

ch0d3
February 13th, 2009, 01:50 PM
I have not had much trouble at all with my ubuntu machine, or my xp machine. However, I have spent a great deal of time fixing other peoples problems with xp and, now, vista.

It took a little bit of work to get ubuntu configured the way I wanted, but it was well worth the effort. I did not have to configure xp much, but it is also not as flexible or as versatile as my ubuntu setup.

Oh, and updating ubuntu and various software packages is much, much, much easier than on xp.

K.Mandla
February 13th, 2009, 03:01 PM
I spend more time fixing Linux.

I do not use Windows, therefore the time spent fixing it is 0.

However, I also do not use Macs, so the time spent fixing those is 0 too.

Time spent using them is 0, time spent fixing is 0, so the ratio of use to repair is 0 divided by 0 or ...

Uh-oh. ...

card_ace
February 13th, 2009, 03:50 PM
i spend more time fixing ubuntu, but that's probably just because i'm just starting to use it and i tend to play with things a bit too much . . . :)
my windows i play a lot too, but there's only so much you can do there, and i have more experience so i know more of what not to do.

MemoryDump
February 13th, 2009, 04:00 PM
i spend more time fixing ubuntu, but that's probably just because i'm just starting to use it and i tend to play with things a bit too much . . . :)
my windows i play a lot too, but there's only so much you can do there, and i have more experience so i know more of what not to do.
this is about the same case for me too. With Ubuntu I can experiment more with more different applications. Often I have to tweak/troubleshoot certain software to make it work under linux period. With Windows it's what you see is what you get and most of the time it works right away.

Bonsanto
February 13th, 2009, 09:43 PM
My system crashes many times, I think UBuntu hasn't solution. I can't open things or system crash.

HittingSmoke
February 17th, 2009, 08:54 PM
Fixing, or customizing?

If the latter is included, Ubuntu. That's mainly because I can't do with Windows what I can do with Ubuntu in terms of system tweaking and customization. Not for free anyway. I get Windows to where I like it visually and functionally, I have to use $100+ in StarDock apps, which in my experience have caused serious unrepairable instability usually leading to a reformat.

I never had to spend *too* much time fixing Windows other than the ridiculous amount of time it takes me to get a reformat done, which is necessary every 6 months or so in my experience. It can take me a good two or three days to get a Windows PC back to where I want it after a reformat. Ubuntu takes me no more than an hour using apt-get.

Every major problem I've had with Ubuntu has been solved rather quickly after a Google search and taking the time to learn what I'm doing. Major problems I've had with Windows, however, usually lead to a reformat as opposed to a few bash commands.

That's my experience. If you take into account the time it takes to reinstall after some patch or program causes problems with Windows, Ubuntu is miles ahead in tweaking time for me.

Cope57
February 17th, 2009, 09:03 PM
Windows problems? reboot
Linux problems? be root

Use Google (http://www.google.com)

Roasted
February 19th, 2009, 04:54 PM
UBuntu, read my problems.

1.- My system crashes.
2.- I got many "initramfs" bugs in the start of ubuntu.
3.- I got many many times "fsk" bugs.
4.- I can't open many firefox becouse It makes my system crash.
5.- If I listen music and play freecell, It makes my system crash.
6.- I get many problems when I try to install something. Becouse If it crashes It makes Ubuntu delete a "lib" things, So I have to reinsall all the OS again (I have done 9 times).
7.- I have been looking for the "crash solution" for 1 week and nothing was found.
8.- In WIndows XP, my system dosen't crash, I can leave my pc turned on for weeks and no crash. But in Ubuntu 2 programs = crash.
9.- People said "try with no acpi" I don't know where to type that comand, is too much genereic isn't especific.

But in WIndows XP, the only problem is that is 50% slower than ubuntu, and it has virus.

On every computer I have ran Ubuntu on, I haven't experienced a quarter of the problems you have. What for system are you running it on? What OS exactly? 32 or 64 bit?

Roasted
February 19th, 2009, 04:57 PM
I never had to spend *too* much time fixing Windows other than the ridiculous amount of time it takes me to get a reformat done, which is necessary every 6 months or so in my experience. It can take me a good two or three days to get a Windows PC back to where I want it after a reformat. Ubuntu takes me no more than an hour using apt-get.



apt-get is so nice, isn't it?

Using rsync, I back up my home directory to another drive... which includes all of my hidden folders too... which includes system settings, themes, background image, etc... If I do a fresh install, I just pull my stuff back from the other drive, and bam. It looks like I never did a fresh install to begin with.

To make things 100% better, I have a text file saved on my flash drive with a command to install all of my programs again. Sudo apt-get install *insert*my*40*programs*I*use*here and within 10 minutes, I suddenly have ALL of my applications back.

I love Ubuntu.

markbuntu
February 20th, 2009, 04:04 AM
I spend more time fixing ubuntu... maybe because my windows hard drive is sitting in a drawer.

I currently have Hardy 386, Hardy UbuntuStudio amd64, Intrepid UbuntuStudio amd64 (gnome and KDE4), Jaunty UbuntuStudio amd64 alpha4, and Mandriva One 2009 on my machine. I am thinking about adding Fedora but it takes a lot of my time just to keep them all up to date and Jaunty is definitely different so it is taking up some of my time just figuring it out, that and KDE4 in my Intrepid.

abyssius
February 20th, 2009, 04:25 AM
I spend more time fixing ubuntu... maybe because my windows hard drive is sitting in a drawer.

I currently have Hardy 386, Hardy UbuntuStudio amd64, Intrepid UbuntuStudio amd64 (gnome and KDE4), Jaunty UbuntuStudio amd64 alpha4, and Mandriva One 2009 on my machine. I am thinking about adding Fedora but it takes a lot of my time just to keep them all up to date and Jaunty is definitely different so it is taking up some of my time just figuring it out, that and KDE4 in my Intrepid.

Do you use any or all these versions for productive purposes, or are you strictly conducting research? I've found this thread extremely fascinating from a sociological standpoint. One of the common points I've observed is that many posters aren't particularly committed to Ubuntu, but like to experiment(?) with different Linux versions. This is different from the Windows world, where your choices are extremely limited. If the "diehard" Linux ethic is not to commit to a particular distro, then the growth of Linux as a mainstream OS could be limited by the "too many cooks spoil the broth" paradigm.

HermanAB
February 20th, 2009, 05:25 AM
I use Mandriva for work and Ubuntu for fun. However, the name of this thread is wrong. Fixing is not the same as tinkering. I spend lots of time fixing other people's Windows machines and I spend a lot of time tinkering with Linux - big difference there. Linux doesn't deteriorate and break for no good reason the way Windows does.

Cheers,

H.

MikeTheC
February 20th, 2009, 06:52 AM
I don't spend time fixing Windows systems any more. I haven't in nearly three years, and if I never have to again it will be entirely too soon. I had to fix my own Ubuntu box the other day (gxine screwed up the software install/software update mechanism somehow and I had an actual Linux guru friend of mine walk me through fixing it) but that was the first time I had to "fix" anything that I can recollect. Everything else I do on the system is of a "tweak" or modification nature.

I also used to fix Mac OS Classic and Mac OS X-based systems, but since I've gotten out of the IT world, I really haven't "worked" on anybody's system in that sense. I do advise friends and others about them from time to time, but that's not what I'd call "proper" fixing as such.

So, in thinking about it, I really don't fix anything. The stuff I use doesn't break, and the stuff that breaks I don't use.

markbuntu
February 20th, 2009, 09:40 PM
Do you use any or all these versions for productive purposes, or are you strictly conducting research? I've found this thread extremely fascinating from a sociological standpoint. One of the common points I've observed is that many posters aren't particularly committed to Ubuntu, but like to experiment(?) with different Linux versions. This is different from the Windows world, where your choices are extremely limited. If the "diehard" Linux ethic is not to commit to a particular distro, then the growth of Linux as a mainstream OS could be limited by the "too many cooks spoil the broth" paradigm.

I do everything I need to do without windows. I spend most of my time on The Ubuntu 386 distro where I do a lot of my work and I sort of need a central location but I do use UbuntuStudio for audio production so I am interested in the newer distros since they promise to add more functionality that I am looking for. Mandriva is not used much but is a little different in many ways that I have not put the time in to figure out yet. But I do run them all and do use them to actually do stuff.

It is not so much experimenting as searching for satisfaction, something we can do with linux and since it is free. The only cost is a small investment of time.

Ubuntu seems to be the new gateway linux distro, It attracts many new users with its ease of use and heavy support forum. Once people get comfortable with Ubuntu and learn how linux works they may want to try something else, newer, different, more satisfying, so they do. The distributions may differ wildly but they are all linux so they are also very similar. Switching from Ubuntu to Mandriva is no where near as hard as switching from Windows to a Mac or windows to linux.

abyssius
February 20th, 2009, 10:53 PM
Ubuntu seems to be the new gateway linux distro, It attracts many new users with its ease of use and heavy support forum. Once people get comfortable with Ubuntu and learn how linux works they may want to try something else, newer, different, more satisfying, so they do. The distributions may differ wildly but they are all linux so they are also very similar. Switching from Ubuntu to Mandriva is no where near as hard as switching from Windows to a Mac or windows to linux.

Excellent points! Okay, to discuss a specific example you mentioned, I tried Mandriva, and found it a little too commercially oriented (e.g. advertisements during the install, which reminded me of installing Windows). I'm not a Linux guru by any stretch, but I couldn't detect any obvious advantage that Mandriva has over Ubuntu. I also didn't like KDE, as I find the GUI very "Windows-like", whereas Gnome seems more MAC-like (which I prefer). This is simply a personal preference not a condemnation of KDE.

I intend to stick with Ubuntu, even though I've encountered my share of problems, because I support the concept of Linux becoming a mainstream OS that presents a viable alternative to the Microsoft/Apple dominance. And, I believe that Ubuntu is in the best position to achieve this goal.

You are right that switching from Ubuntu to Mandriva is probably easier than switching from Windows to Linux. However, I would propose that switching from Windows to Linux is a quantum leap, whereas switching from Ubuntu to Mandriva is such a tiny step that it is really irrelevant. So why not advocate Ubuntu as the Linux OS alternative to challenge the dominance of the proprietary OS world? Obviously, the Mandriva folks would want to be "the one", but Ubuntu is the leader right now, and IMHO, Ubuntu's vibe is way cooler...

bakedbeans4life
February 20th, 2009, 11:51 PM
Excellent points! Okay, to discuss a specific example you mentioned, I tried Mandriva, and found it a little too commercially oriented (e.g. advertisements during the install, which reminded me of installing Windows). I'm not a Linux guru by any stretch, but I couldn't detect any obvious advantage that Mandriva has over Ubuntu. I also didn't like KDE, as I find the GUI very "Windows-like", whereas Gnome seems more MAC-like (which I prefer). This is simply a personal preference not a condemnation of KDE.

I intend to stick with Ubuntu, even though I've encountered my share of problems, because I support the concept of Linux becoming a mainstream OS that presents a viable alternative to the Microsoft/Apple dominance. And, I believe that Ubuntu is in the best position to achieve this goal.

You are right that switching from Ubuntu to Mandriva is probably easier than switching from Windows to Linux. However, I would propose that switching from Windows to Linux is a quantum leap, whereas switching from Ubuntu to Mandriva is such a tiny step that it is really irrelevant. So why not advocate Ubuntu as the Linux OS alternative to challenge the dominance of the proprietary OS world? Obviously, the Mandriva folks would want to be "the one", but Ubuntu is the leader right now, and IMHO, Ubuntu's vibe is way cooler...

You seem to be advocating the one true Linux distribution, Ubuntu being your choice. This will never happen. Linux is a logical puzzle, garnered and assembled from many disparate sources.

If the future of Linux as a mainstream operating system was channeled through a single vendor then that vendor is at the mercy of Microsoft and their lawyers (Novell did, Red Had didn't).

Bogus patent agreements aside (Brother printers are now not part of my IT future), I would trust a multitude of potential Linux vendors ahead of any Microsoft solution.

Off topic I know, sorry...

abyssius
February 21st, 2009, 12:20 AM
You seem to be advocating the one true Linux distribution, Ubuntu being your choice. This will never happen. Linux is a logical puzzle, garnered and assembled from many disparate sources.

If the future of Linux as a mainstream operating system was channeled through a single vendor then that vendor is at the mercy of Microsoft and their lawyers (Novell did, Red Had didn't).

Bogus patent agreements aside (Brother printers are now not part of my IT future), I would trust a multitude of potential Linux vendors ahead of any Microsoft solution.

Off topic I know, sorry...

This is a good observation. However, I didn't mean to infer that Ubuntu should prevail and all other distributions fade away. Many posters in this thread suggest that Ubuntu is the 'gateway' distro. I take this to mean that users who are simply looking for a Windows alternative mostly gravitate toward Ubuntu.

The Linux users that have different motivations will always choose the distros of their choice. Personally, I would like to see major retail computer vendors like Dell or gateway, or even Walmart sell systems pre-configured with Ubuntu, like they do with Windows right now. In this regard, I personally choose Ubuntu over Mandriva or Fedora, etc. This can't affect those who choose to install the distro or distros aof their choice. The so-called 'mainstream' computer user is probably more interested in using their computer to produce things, surf the Internet, send e-mail, capture digital photos, etc. etc. than constantly changing the OS and applications. In other words, use Ubuntu like you would use a Windows or Apple computer. No-one in those arenas are constantly changing their OS.

ICU2
February 21st, 2009, 01:44 AM
I really spend more time fixing windows because it gets random erros wich i dont know were they come from. But i spend more time tweaking Ubuntu 'cause i like tweaking it.

dragos240
February 21st, 2009, 02:41 AM
I would spend more time fixing windows, IF i used it regularly. But i only use it if i absolutely need to or i will die sort of thing. Ubuntu, for me, is very stable, the reason that i've made so many posts here about fixing it, most of that stuff was when i was a begginer at ubuntu and i was using hardy. Hardy was really buggy on my computers and everything went wrong. But intrepid works great, no major problems so far. The only thing i'm trying to figure out currently is how to connect to the internet in KDE, it looks absolutely great, but i don't really have any idea how to connect to the internet using KDE. Do i need to use iwconfig and iwlist and stuff to connect?

Dr. C
February 21st, 2009, 03:07 AM
The questions as to whether Ubuntu or Windows is easier to maintain comes down to the type of software and hardware used.

Case (1) All the software is FLOSS and the drivers are in the Kernel. Ubuntu is far easier to install and maintain than Windows. A good example of this is a HP Laser Jet. Under Ubuntu this printer is trivial to install. Simply plug it in. Under Windows XP on the other hand the driver has to be installed from a CD and the printer connected at a precise point during the installation process; other wise the installation will not work.

Case (2) There are propriety applications and / or drivers. In this case Windows may be easier to install and maintain. A good example of this is having to reinstall VMware Server after a Kernel update in Ubuntu, or a wireless card where the drivers have to be recompiled after a Kernel update.in Ubuntu.

My most recent experience involved both the 64bit version Ubuntu 8.10 and Windows 7 beta having the same problem. The cause turned out to the DRM in the NVIDIA drivers. The setup is an NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT and a 24in LG L246WP monitor. The connection is DVI to HDMI using a DVI to HDMI cable. This setup worked flawlessly in Ubuntu 8.04 and earlier using both the FLOSS drivers and the Nvidia propriety drivers up to and including the version 196.12 in Ubuntu 8.04. It of course also works using a DVI to VGA adapter on the video card and the VGA input on the monitor with both the FLOSS and Nvidia drivers. After an upgrade to Ubuntu 8.10 the video works fine with the FLOSS drivers, and over VGA but using the NVIDIA drivers over the DVI to HDMI connection leads to a monitor over scan (the driver is sending some constricted 1080i signal) to the monitor with the top panel and the left 2 in of the Gnome desktop not visible.
Under Windows 7 the exact same problem occurs (the monitor over-scan 1080i signal and the left 2in of the the Windows desktop, including the Windows start button not visible) with the Windows 7 drivers and every NVIDIA 64bit Vista driver back to version 169.25.

The fix for Ubuntu 8.10 involves:

1)Connecting the Monitor over a VGA connection, starting the NVIDIA X Server Settings application and in the Monitor section, click on Aquire EDID and then save the edid.bin file.
2)Connect the system back using the DVI to HDMI connection and Edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf to add:

Option "CustomEDID" "DFP-0: <path to>/edid.bin" in the Device section of Xorg.conf http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=125030&highlight=l246wp The long term fix for Ubuntu is using the FLOSS Nouveau drivers once they support 3D

The fix Windows 7 involves editing the Windows registry for an EDID override. http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1033607135

This case is significant because the problems are caused by NVIDIA porting DRM required by Microsoft for Windows Vista and Windows 7 for HDCP compliance to GNU / Linux even though GNU / Linux is not and will never be HDCP compliant. It is a case of Windows DRM causing havoc in Ubuntu and the main reason why I have spent much more time over the last few weeks fixing Ubuntu. So if one has been spending a lot of time fixing NVIDIA video in Ubuntu it may turn out that the real cause of the problems may be Microsoft and its passion for DRM.

abyssius
February 21st, 2009, 03:43 AM
The questions as to whether Ubuntu or Windows is easier to maintain comes down to the type of software and hardware used.

Case (1) All the software is FLOSS and the drivers are in the Kernel. Ubuntu is far easier to install and maintain than Windows. A good example of this is a HP Laser Jet. Under Ubuntu this printer is trivial to install. Simply plug it in. Under Windows XP on the other hand the driver has to be installed from a CD and the printer connected at a precise point during the installation process; other wise the installation will not work.

Case (2) There are propriety applications and / or drivers. In this case Windows may be easier to install and maintain. A good example of this is having to reinstall VMware Server after a Kernel update in Ubuntu, or a wireless card where the drivers have to be recompiled after a Kernel update.in Ubuntu.

My most recent experience involved both the 64bit version Ubuntu 8.10 and Windows 7 beta having the same problem. The cause turned out to the DRM in the NVIDIA drivers. The setup is an NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT and a 24in LG L246WP monitor. The connection is DVI to HDMI using a DVI to HDMI cable. This setup worked flawlessly in Ubuntu 8.04 and earlier using both the FLOSS drivers and the Nvidia propriety drivers up to and including the version 196.12 in Ubuntu 8.04. It of course also works using a DVI to VGA adapter on the video card and the VGA input on the monitor with both the FLOSS and Nvidia drivers. After an upgrade to Ubuntu 8.10 the video works fine with the FLOSS drivers, and over VGA but using the NVIDIA drivers over the DVI to HDMI connection leads to a monitor over scan (the driver is sending some constricted 1080i signal) to the monitor with the top panel and the left 2 in of the Gnome desktop not visible.
Under Windows 7 the exact same problem occurs (the monitor over-scan 1080i signal and the left 2in of the the Windows desktop, including the Windows start button not visible) with the Windows 7 drivers and every NVIDIA 64bit Vista driver back to version 169.25.

The fix for Ubuntu 8.10 involves:

1)Connecting the Monitor over a VGA connection, starting the NVIDIA X Server Settings application and in the Monitor section, click on Aquire EDID and then save the edid.bin file.
2)Connect the system back using the DVI to HDMI connection and Edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf to add:

Option "CustomEDID" "DFP-0: <path to>/edid.bin" in the Device section of Xorg.conf http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=125030&highlight=l246wp The long term fix for Ubuntu is using the FLOSS Nouveau drivers once they support 3D

The fix Windows 7 involves editing the Windows registry for an EDID override. http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1033607135

This case is significant because the problems are caused by NVIDIA porting DRM required by Microsoft for Windows Vista and Windows 7 for HDCP compliance to GNU / Linux even though GNU / Linux is not and will never be HDCP compliant. It is a case of Windows DRM causing havoc in Ubuntu and the main reason why I have spent much more time over the last few weeks fixing Ubuntu. So if one has been spending a lot of time fixing NVIDIA video in Ubuntu it may turn out that the real cause of the problems may be Microsoft and its passion for DRM.

This is truly educational! A stupid question - maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Doesn't NVIDIA develop drivers specifically for
Linux? If so, why would they have to include any accommodation for MS DRM?

velja27
February 21st, 2009, 04:37 AM
I could say i spent more time tweaking the Ubuntu to exact point where it works just as i want it to.
But fixing,i rarely fix something on Ubuntu,but while i was using Windows i get a headache,i had spent whole day cleaning it with different Anti malware software every time i notice my computer works slower or has 100% CPU usage or slows down my internet etc.

Dr. C
February 21st, 2009, 07:11 AM
This is truly educational! A stupid question - maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Doesn't NVIDIA develop drivers specifically for
Linux? If so, why would they have to include any accommodation for MS DRM?

It is more like building a wrapper around the Windows driver so that it works with GNU / Linux. This also in theory has the advantage of avoiding infringing on the copyrights of the Linux kernel by violating the GPL. The theory is that propriety driver is not a derived work of the Linux kernel and as long as the driver is installed by the end user and the "tainted kernel" is not distributed there is no copyright infringement. This theory is controversial since there are those that feel that this dance around the GPL does infringe on the copyrights of the Linux kernel. Then there is the advantage of cost once one has the Windows Drivers then port the whole thing to GNU / Linux rather that re invent the wheel by developing a Linux driver from scratch.

darthlaidher
February 21st, 2009, 07:21 AM
i use to think kubuntu was trash with the kde desktop cause it was giving me problems but since i updated to 4.2 its been good to me.

i spend most of the time in windows right now because of the games i play only work in windows. but usually after im done gettin my game on i switch to kubuntu

Methuselah
February 21st, 2009, 08:04 AM
Comparatively, I spend way more time fixing Ubuntu considering I don't use windows anymore.

Dssnz
February 21st, 2009, 08:15 AM
Windows.
Computer came with Vista Prem, wiped it put on XP and Ubuntu.
XP had to manually install all drivers: Chipset graphics, network, sound etc
Ubuntu just worked!

cariboo
February 21st, 2009, 08:50 AM
FineE's post was very informative, the problem is that in order for Nvidia to sell devices capable of outputting a high definition signal they have to meet certain standards that have nothing to do with Microsoft. There isn't enough room here, nor do I want ot go into, but for more info on hdmi go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI).

Wikipedia can do a much better of explaining it then I can.

Jim

bubwitmaingay
February 21st, 2009, 04:40 PM
Sure did, I have the same experience. I spend more time fixing my Ubuntu OS now than when I was using MS. No offense, but I hope that Linux, at least UBUNTU could make this whole thing easier for users.

I know for sure that the main reason of problems is the "propriety" thing. Most popular codecs, plug-ins and others are restricted, while MS incorporated these because it is what you bought it for.

To make things good for me, I just think of this as a learning experience. Everyday, I learn something from using Linux than MS because I dug deeper into UBUNTU.

Northsider
February 21st, 2009, 05:52 PM
Hands absolutely down...I spend by far more time fixing linux than windows. Easily. That's one reason why I still have windows on my machine, when linux is acting up (as it usually does) I just boot to windows and deal with it later. Windows by and great for the most part "just works" for me. Most of my problems I get from windows are caused by my fiddling, whereas almost all of me problems in linux are caused by updates, or drivers, or something not caused by me...which makes it more annoying than windows sometimes.

Dr. C
February 21st, 2009, 06:13 PM
FineE's post was very informative, the problem is that in order for Nvidia to sell devices capable of outputting a high definition signal they have to meet certain standards that have nothing to do with Microsoft. There isn't enough room here, nor do I want ot go into, but for more info on hdmi go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI).

Wikipedia can do a much better of explaining it then I can.

Jim

A lot depends on which standards for high definition video signals you wish to support. DVI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface) for example does not require HDCP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Content_Protection), HDMI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI) does as cariboo907 has correctly pointed out, and there is nothing preventing Nvidia or any other vendor for that matter to sell a DVI compliant but not HDCP/HDMI compliant high definition video card except of course for Microsoft's market share (over 95% at the time now more like 90%) and logo requirements.

Microsoft's decision to embrace and require HDCP, spend billions of dollars on DRM schemes (some of which have already been abandoned), delay and cripple its own products with DRM (Windows Vista) lie at the heart of this problem. There is now way that HDCP would have gone anywhere without Microsoft's support. Who were the studios going to turn to if Microsoft turned their DRM schemes down? Richard Stallman and the FSF?

s.fox
February 21st, 2009, 06:19 PM
Easy one, I spend most time fixing Ubuntu simply because I don't run Windows at home. That said I do help friends and family with their computer problems which are nearly always on Windows machines. Most recently however, I spent a good 3 hours repairing my girlfriends Windows XP installation.

WatchingThePain
February 21st, 2009, 07:30 PM
As an unbiased ex-windows user I can categorically state that windows took more time in maintenance than any Linux distribution. Particularly in removing viruses and rootkits despite having bought a commercial antivirus application. Now on Linux I can just get on with my geek work. Maxin relaxin..it aint too taxin!.

abyssius
February 21st, 2009, 09:43 PM
As an unbiased ex-windows user I can categorically state that windows took more time in maintenance than any Linux distribution. Particularly in removing viruses and rootkits despite having bought a commercial antivirus application. Now on Linux I can just get on with my geek work. Maxin relaxin..it aint too taxin!.

I think the virus/root-kit kit argument against Windows OS is a popular but spurious one. It's not fair to blame the Windows OS for root-kits/viruses. These virtually always come from the risky computing habits of the user - a factor which the OS has no control over. I've never had a virus or root kit problem because I'm not going anywhere on the Internet, or downloading anything that could deliver such a problem to me. I take the proper A/V - Spyware - Firewall precautions and I'm extremely careful with e-mail. I've provided support for many people who get inundated with such pests. However, when I investigate their computing habits, needless to say high-risk surfin' habits are most often quickly identified. I continue to operate cautiously when using Ubuntu because I'm not yet convinced that Linux is as virus-free as some claim.

cariboo
February 21st, 2009, 11:33 PM
Windows has builtin design flaws, allowing every user to run as an administrator was a dumb decision on their part. If the user has limited permissions to install programs, viruses and malware wouldn't work or would be much harder to install.

Jim

WatchingThePain
February 21st, 2009, 11:36 PM
Linux was built from the ground up with security in mind, that must count for something. 'Risky surfing' could be any surfing.

abyssius
February 22nd, 2009, 12:08 AM
Linux was built from the ground up with security in mind, that must count for something. 'Risky surfing' could be any surfing.

True. But the 'risk' is reduced significantly if one stays away from sites / newsgroups that distribute porno, illegal programs, music, software cracks, etc. etc.

pt123
February 22nd, 2009, 12:16 AM
Windows you are constantly paranoid, you also hate letting anyone else use your computer running windows.

bakedbeans4life
February 22nd, 2009, 12:31 AM
True. But the 'risk' is reduced significantly if one stays away from sites / newsgroups that distribute porno, illegal programs, music, software cracks, etc. etc.

I recently installed Windows Vista on one of my systems, the computer in question is of 2005 vintage with a more modern graphics card (Nvidia Geforce 512mb 7300 GT AGP). I have never installed Vista before this, but have had some experience with many of the betas.

It detected my SATA hard drives and much of my hardware, once updated to service pack one and the latest updates all was well. That is where my problem started.

Both the Nvidia drivers (182.06), and the official drivers available via Microsoft Update sent Vista into a perpetual reboot cycle. I had to resort to the system restore function available with the Vista installation disk (this is something Microsoft got right, I wonder why?).

I'm not sure if this a rant against Microsoft or Nvidia, but I have never had these problems with Windows 2000 or XP.

Even though I may have to compile the Nvidia drivers in the first place under Linux, they at least work. I did get Vista to work correctly with an older obsolete driver (Geforce 178.24).

Of late I spend little time in Windows land. Linux is not without it's problems (Debian Lenny outright refuses to recognize the refresh rate of my Acer TFT), but at least with Linux I am left at the console as a means of which to remedy the situation.

This is my first experience with Microsoft's newest OS, I hope it is my last. As soon as my new neighbors find out I know something about that magical box they overpaid for, my time will not be my own.

I do have one point of contention, Linux (a server OS trying to be a desktop OS) is less stable than Windows (a desktop OS trying to be a server), did I miss something?

bakedbeans4life
February 22nd, 2009, 12:40 AM
True. But the 'risk' is reduced significantly if one stays away from sites / newsgroups that distribute porno, illegal programs, music, software cracks, etc. etc.

I recently installed Windows Vista on one of my systems, the computer in question is of 2005 vintage with a more modern graphics card (Nvidia Geforce 512mb 7300 GT AGP). I have never installed Vista before this, but have had some experience with many of the betas.

It detected my SATA hard drives and much of my hardware, once updated to service pack one and the latest updates all was well. That is where my problem started.

Both the Nvidia drivers (182.06), and the official drivers available via Microsoft Update sent Vista into a perpetual reboot cycle. I had to resort to the system restore function available with the Vista installation disk (this is something Microsoft got right, I wonder why?).

I'm not sure if this a rant against Microsoft or Nvidia, but I have never had these problems with Windows 2000 or XP.

Even though I may have to compile the Nvidia drivers in the first place under Linux, they at least work. I did get Vista to work correctly with an older obsolete driver (Geforce 178.24).

Of late I spend little time in Windows land. Linux is not without it's problems (Debian Lenny outright refuses to recognize the refresh rate of my Acer TFT), but at least with Linux I am left at the console as a means of which to remedy the situation.

This is my first experience with Microsoft's newest OS, I hope it is my last. As soon as my new neighbors find out I know something about that magical box they overpaid for, my time will not be my own.

I do have one point of contention, Linux (a server OS trying to be a desktop OS) is less stable than Windows (a desktop OS trying to be a server), did I miss something?

I think I may have double posted this and I would still like to be considered "On-Topic".

shatterblast
February 24th, 2009, 04:08 AM
As a computer technician, I have fixed several types of systems including servers and hundreds upon hundreds of personal computers. All that and I'm still below 30. YIKES!!! :popcorn:

Anyhow, I think both the various Windows and Linux distributions have been overall very solid. How ever, both depend VERY heavily on what hardware drivers go into the system you prefer. For a clean install, Ubuntu Linux clearly wins with little competition. Hardware drivers end up much easier to detect as long the item remains under the coverage of support.

I stick with the basics on hardware like Intel processors, Hewlett Packard accessories and nVidia graphics cards. As long as I provide these components, I can mostly guarantee that either Windows or Linux will work on a computer depending on what a customer desires. I also like how those hardware choices integrate their support over a long period of time.

I personally dual-boot with Windows XP and Ubuntu Intrepid. I rarely use Windows, but when I do, it goes okay. I prefer Avast anti-virus at a minimum and maybe the K9 Web Content Filter and CCleaner, but customer choices will of course very much vary. I also use open source solutions on Windows like OpenOffice and Firefox. I've suffered terrible experiences with GIMP in Windows, but it works wonderfully in Ubuntu.

When I error in Linux while in root, the whole system can crash horribly with only the option for reinstallation. The same could be mentioned for Windows, but that tends to occur the most when the O/S bellies up from the "blue screen of death." (Yes, it still happens, and also, I've caused it in Vista. :eek: ) In both cases if necessary, the data stays easily recoverable. I've learned to maintain a list of drivers for Windows should a system reinstall become important with no Internet connection.

Ubuntu Linux has been one of the nicer distributions I've worked with. It usually takes me a long time to become familiar with the workings of a distribution, and I LOVE Synaptic. The one iota that stands out for Linux in my perspective though is the hellish time it takes configuring those secondary applications. I tend to place a lot more demand on my system than customers in my humble opinion. I even play Windows games on it now through Wine! Through separate downloading, Ubuntu also allows the wonderful Eclipse IDE that permits my research into Java Web Start applications, XML and the fantastic Xith.org scene graph engine. Once done though, Ubuntu Linux keeps ticking on just fine as long as I personally keep away from root. :lolflag:

Both Windows and Linux are fine in my opinion. A motto of mine goes, "As long as your computer does what you want it to do, you should be happy. Of course, you should feel free to explore." Ubuntu has helped provide that for me.

itsjustarumour
February 25th, 2009, 02:29 PM
Which OS do you spend more time fixing? Windows or Ubuntu?

Ubuntu, by a factor of about 10 to one. But I love it for other reasons and therefore I stick with it.

Maybe I'm just some sort of masochist ;-)

hoboken
February 25th, 2009, 02:50 PM
Ubuntu. But it's entirely my fault - Every few months I tend to do something that destroys the system beyond repair and demands a reinstall.

But if I were to just get it how I like it and leave it, I'm sure it would tick along just fine.. constant tweaking is a big temptation.

S0VERE1GN
February 25th, 2009, 03:32 PM
Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

S0VERE1GN
February 25th, 2009, 03:34 PM
I fix ubuntu waaaay more than I would fix windows, but it doesn't make me angry when I have to fix it, because it didn't cost me 700 dollars

jomiolto
February 25th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Ubuntu, because I do not use Windows :P

When I did use Windows, I did spend more time fixing up Ubuntu (Windows was pre-installed and all set up, whereas I had to find out how to make some things, like the wireless, work on Ubuntu). When I actually want to use the computer it is a very different story, though. No matter how much tweaking I did, I never quite got Windows to work the way I wanted it -- Ubuntu, on the other hand, works very well even with the default set up and customizing it and installing software on it is so much easier and faster than in Windows.

MasterNetra
February 25th, 2009, 05:35 PM
As a computer technician, I have fixed several types of systems including servers and hundreds upon hundreds of personal computers. All that and I'm still below 30. YIKES!!! :popcorn:

Anyhow, I think both the various Windows and Linux distributions have been overall very solid. How ever, both depend VERY heavily on what hardware drivers go into the system you prefer. For a clean install, Ubuntu Linux clearly wins with little competition. Hardware drivers end up much easier to detect as long the item remains under the coverage of support.

I stick with the basics on hardware like Intel processors, Hewlett Packard accessories and nVidia graphics cards. As long as I provide these components, I can mostly guarantee that either Windows or Linux will work on a computer depending on what a customer desires. I also like how those hardware choices integrate their support over a long period of time.

I personally dual-boot with Windows XP and Ubuntu Intrepid. I rarely use Windows, but when I do, it goes okay. I prefer Avast anti-virus at a minimum and maybe the K9 Web Content Filter and CCleaner, but customer choices will of course very much vary. I also use open source solutions on Windows like OpenOffice and Firefox. I've suffered terrible experiences with GIMP in Windows, but it works wonderfully in Ubuntu.

When I error in Linux while in root, the whole system can crash horribly with only the option for reinstallation. The same could be mentioned for Windows, but that tends to occur the most when the O/S bellies up from the "blue screen of death." (Yes, it still happens, and also, I've caused it in Vista. :eek: ) In both cases if necessary, the data stays easily recoverable. I've learned to maintain a list of drivers for Windows should a system reinstall become important with no Internet connection.

Ubuntu Linux has been one of the nicer distributions I've worked with. It usually takes me a long time to become familiar with the workings of a distribution, and I LOVE Synaptic. The one iota that stands out for Linux in my perspective though is the hellish time it takes configuring those secondary applications. I tend to place a lot more demand on my system than customers in my humble opinion. I even play Windows games on it now through Wine! Through separate downloading, Ubuntu also allows the wonderful Eclipse IDE that permits my research into Java Web Start applications, XML and the fantastic Xith.org scene graph engine. Once done though, Ubuntu Linux keeps ticking on just fine as long as I personally keep away from root. :lolflag:

Both Windows and Linux are fine in my opinion. A motto of mine goes, "As long as your computer does what you want it to do, you should be happy. Of course, you should feel free to explore." Ubuntu has helped provide that for me.
+1

A new feature that i like about Vista is its attempt at recovering crashed drivers. I sometimes play games that my system borderline supports and after play for a little bit of time the game can (and ofen does) crash the video driver, in XP I would be screwed and would have to restart the system. Vista on the other hand actually attempts to recover the driver and continues. (Unless the driver is rapidly crashed then it forces Vista into the Blue screen of death thing.) but kudos to microsoft for this feature.

rasmus91
February 25th, 2009, 05:50 PM
Ubuntu (Don't have windows any more)

Even though I've spent way more time fixing windows.

I don't now if all the time I've spent tweaking my system and user interface counts as fixing the system. But I've just had so much fun twisting and tweaking the system, And trying Wine with a lot of different apps. Leaning how to compile and stuff... (i know i sound like a fanatic, but i just love to learn this) I think the main reason i stick with Ubuntu is that here I am the master of my system. I can erase everything I desire, I can do whatever i want. is there a problem, i can usually fix it by posting here, showing output and typing commands, that'll do the trick. I love Bash, its a genius invention.


"blue screen of death." (Yes, it still happens, and also, I've caused it in Vista. )

Lol, one of my best friends (who just refuses to install Linux because it sucks) Has been fighting the blue screen for a long time now, He has to start in debugging mode, and in "last known good configuration" (yes, this is Vista, remember? the best OS ever! LOL )
The point is he spends so much time starting his laptop that i could install Ubuntu on it in the same amount of time :P

(I prefer Ubuntu, its fun to customize cos you have the power called "bash" )

tjwoosta
February 25th, 2009, 05:53 PM
i spend way more time fixing windows then ubuntu


im using ubuntu 7.10 on my pc, and windows vista on my families pc

i literally have to fix the windows box at least twice a month because of stupid people (my sister, her boyfriend, my parents)


with ubuntu i set it all up about a year and a half ago, and i havn't had to fix anything yet


anyway, i think what it all comes down to in the end is the user and whatever he or she does with it

bashveank
February 25th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Ubuntu, hands down. Something always spontaneously breaks. I'm the only user with root access but somehow someone always manages to break something. Vista has a hiccup every once in a while, but usually works just the way I left it.

BrokenKingpin
February 25th, 2009, 06:24 PM
Ubuntu and XP are about the same for me as they both require very little maintenance once I have them setup. Vista on the other hand just keeps deteriorating for me, so I removed it completely. Hopefully Windows 7 doesn’t suck as bad as Vista does (the beta seems decent).

Grumpster
May 26th, 2009, 12:57 AM
It's a good bit more work to get Ubuntu set up. Mostly because of lack of vendor support for linux. Once ubuntu is setup though it's easier than windows.

Besides that my family has about a dozen computers. I can't afford to give bill gates the amount of money it would take for OS's on that many machines. I can think of way better things to spend my money on than microsloth, like new hardware.

lisati
May 26th, 2009, 01:02 AM
I've had more hassle with XP than Vista, possibly because I've used it more. All up, I'd gues it works out about the same which I work on, and mainly depends on what I've messed up - often from not properly thinking things through or being careless with something of the "this looks interesting" variety.

growled
May 26th, 2009, 01:04 AM
I spend way more time fixing Windows than I do with Ubuntu. Once Linux is set up, there's not much else to do.

don_quixote
May 26th, 2009, 01:11 AM
Never spent much time fixing my Win computers (Win 2000 onwards; 3/95/98 were frustrating!), although I've spent a ton of time fixing other people's Win computers. Ubuntu took a bit longer to get to a stable state, but it seems it's going to be a similarly low maintenance.

tom66
May 26th, 2009, 01:18 AM
On my laptop...

Ubuntu, rarely.

But then again, I don't use Windows. OK, I used it once to download Firefox so I could download Ubuntu.

Other computers I'm fixing Windows often.

Regenweald
May 26th, 2009, 01:41 AM
Neither, once i set up a machine, it's done. Then it's speed tweak time. Once properly set up in terms of security and preference. neither OS requires 'fixing'. Xp may annoy me a tidbit sometimes, but that is nothing new...

Wiebelhaus
May 26th, 2009, 01:42 AM
lol , Windows for sure , But I get paid to.

super.rad
May 26th, 2009, 01:46 AM
I spend way more time fixing ubuntu, could have something to do with not having windows installed though :-k

Warpnow
May 26th, 2009, 01:59 AM
In the last year my Ubuntu PC has been "broken" for less than 10 hours total.

Most of those were due to me screwing around with things I shouldn't be (ie am not smart enough to understand).

Jestersage
May 26th, 2009, 02:14 AM
I spend lots of time tinkering/modding Ubuntu... and even more time on fixing Windows.

And with Ubuntu, it seems like it's one of those old tube amp using a turret board and P2P wiring, while Windows feel like those new solid-state amps that is littered with too much chips and poured a thick layer of resin on top.

And guess which kind of amp sounds better. If you say the solid-state you definitely have not play guitar... much.

monsterstack
May 26th, 2009, 02:36 AM
Most of my friends use Windows, so absolutely I end up fixing Windows stuff more often. As for my own computers, none of them run Windows. They used to, though, years ago. I'd say I've spent much more time configuring Linux than I ever did with Windows, and more time fixing Windows. It comes down to a question of maintenance. Let me explain:

It is possible to get a vanilla installation of Linux and not have to configure anything out of the box, but I don't think that happens much outside the arena of pre-installed Linux computers. Windows, on the other hand, will usually install and leave you with a more or less decent set-up most of the time. It was a pain getting XP on to my SATA disk, and the drivers I was supplied for my graphics card caused BSODs (not the fault of Windows, but hey). Installations of Linux have always been a bit hit or miss for me (mostly due to lack of hardware support: not Linux' fault, but hey).

Once you're past the installation stage and everything is working, though, everything changes. For me, at least, Windows required more fixing. That may well be due to my lazy habits. I installed apps I never used and forget about them, I never cleaned the registry up, I couldn't be bothered defragging, I had a crummy virus checker that didn't work properly. The lack of regular maintenance meant that I was forced to do enormous MEGA FIX-UP SESSIONS every six months or so.

Linux maintenance is usually just a case of "sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get upgrade", by comparison. I don't have to worry about defragging for the most part, and forgotten apps and a filled hard-disk of cruft don't noticeably harm system resources. I've never yet managed to completely hose a Linux system, but I have come dangerously close to it a couple of times.

So yeah. If you have well-supported hardware, like me, and you're lazy with maintenance, you might find Linux is less of a hassle. If you keep on top of things, though, and actually give a damn about what goes on with your computer, then neither Windows nor Linux should pose much of a problem for you.

kevdog
May 26th, 2009, 02:44 AM
I find there is a difference between tweaking and fixing. I spend way more time tweaking Ubuntu -- switch window managers, compiling programs with compiler optimizations, tweaking conky, etc. I guess in the end I waste more time with Ubuntu than Windows, but its time I want to waste.

Windows on the other hand, I can do a complete install with downloading of all the updates, and installation of everything from disk and internet in about 3-4 hours. This would include a complete format. Once the system is installed, there really isn't too much tweaking, unless you count cygwin which basically takes you back to a Fedora-like situation.

Cumulatively however, there is a lot more routine maintainence I need to do with my Windows setup. Spyware sweeping, antivirus, etc. The system tends to slow down due to registry errors and the like, I find myself having to reinstall about every year or so. I guess I have to reinstall Ubuntu with the new upgrades, but at least its in expectation of getting something better. In the best case with Windows I just end up back where I was a year prior.

As far as "fixing" problems on others' computers, I hate doing the antivirus scanning, spybot scanning etc. Its really a pain. I hate popups and the like. Fixing these problems take time as well, and this is time I would prefer not to waste if it were my choice.

albinootje
May 26th, 2009, 02:51 AM
I've never been "forced" to change my Windows computer hardware.

Lucky you..
How old is your computer ? About 10 years old ?

In the last half year I had a colleague with a new laptop, and because he hated Vista (on it), he wanted Linux and XP. I would do the Linux install, and someone else the XP install.
And, guess what ? The XP cdrom didn't recognize the laptop hard disk..
And what will you do then ?
A recent laptop without a floppy drive.. how much time would you need to spend on figuring out how to produce a customized XP installation cdrom ?
The hardware vendor had only Vista drivers on the website, none for XP.

Another example, a friend of mine begged me to solve some problems on a laptop of his girlfriend.
Normally I say no, because I think fixing MS-Windows problems is a waste of time, and it is very often frustrating etc.

I decided to make an exception. Boy.. what a mistake!

I spend countless hours during 4 days on that laptop, the Ubuntu installation was easy and fast, fixing the Vista problems was terrible, but the -by far- worst was that installing XP was outrageous. After many hours the video driver was not found and not installed correctly, wifi card didn't work, network card didn't work... a disaster.

The stereotype myth that MS-Windows is so easy that even your granny can use it, is an over-hyped statement.
Sure, when your computer comes with the special customized MS-Windows recovery partition, or with the special customized MS-Windows installation cdrom... but if you don't have that cdrom, and you cannot find the right drivers after searching for hours on the internet, then you're really ... on your own.

Try searching for drivers for MS-Windows on the internet, you'll find long threads of comments like "need driver for... plz email me", which is from a total different category than the driver posts on a forum like this.

monsterstack
May 26th, 2009, 03:14 AM
Lucky you..
How old is your computer ? About 10 years old ?

In the last half year I had a colleague with a new laptop, and because he hated Vista (on it), he wanted Linux and XP. I would do the Linux install, and someone else the XP install.
And, guess what ? The XP cdrom didn't recognize the laptop hard disk..
And what will you do then ?
A recent laptop without a floppy drive.. how much time would you need to spend on figuring out how to produce a customized XP installation cdrom ?
The hardware vendor had only Vista drivers on the website, none for XP.


That happened to me when I installed XP. What I had to do was use a dodgy pirated copy of XP with all of the latest drivers for the first half of the install, then switch back to my genuine copy for the second half. Not the best solution, but it was by far the simplest, considering getting an up-to-date disc involves hassle.



The stereotype myth that MS-Windows is so easy that even your granny can use it, is an over-hyped statement.
Sure, when your computer comes with the special customized MS-Windows recovery partition, or with the special customized MS-Windows installation cdrom... but if you don't have that cdrom, and you cannot find the right drivers after searching for hours on the internet, then you're really ... on your own.

I know what you mean. I set up an Ubuntu installation for my mother which she uses just fine. To be fair, she doesn't do much: check email, Facebook, watch a few videos on Youtube, write documents, play cards. There is no reason to install Windows at all if these are your only requirements. To be brutally honest, even Ubuntu is massively overkill for this simple task. But it was by far the easiest one to set-up for her to use, so I stuck with it, and just stripped down some of the bloat afterwards. I showed her how to use the update feature and left her to it. No complaints so far. The idea that everybody needs an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink distro is the real menance, imho. Use the tools that are best for the job. In this particular case, Linux wins. It doesn't always.



Try searching for drivers for MS-Windows on the internet, you'll find long threads of comments like "need driver for... plz email me", which is from a total different category than the driver posts on a forum like this.

Yeah. But remember, not everybody is so unlucky. Still, you've identified the biggest pet-peeve of mine regarding Windows apps. Search for drivers and apps for Windows, and you'll be led through a maze of adfarms, crapware, spyware, warezware and wareware. Eventually, you'll end up on sites that have gimped free versions alongside money-requiring professional editions. I'm not against anybody selling their apps, but my God is it a breath of fresh air to find that Linux apps are almost universally free as in beer.

Keithhed
May 26th, 2009, 03:21 AM
I seem to have conflicts with the hardware or something, because I seem to spend more time trying to make Ubuntu work on my machine than I did with windows.

Bölvağur
May 26th, 2009, 03:26 AM
Linux.
My close family uses Ubuntu and other's that have windows cannot be helped very much as I dont know how to use it any more.

When I have problems with Windows my self I just leave it alone or try with minimal effort to fix it.

So basically I dont really fix windows as I dont really use it any way :P

albinootje
May 26th, 2009, 03:35 AM
Yeah. But remember, not everybody is so unlucky.

Yes.
But they might have been more lucky with the hardware they already have, or kind of lucky that the hardware vendor still has XP drivers for download.

In this case it was a HP Pavilion dv6700 which has a different model number on the back in small letters.
At least in Ubuntu I can use "lspci" and then do a proper search for a driver.
With XP I don't know any better than having to search the net for
1) finding out what video card or wifi card it has
2) and then find drivers, and try them


Still, you've identified the biggest pet-peeve of mine regarding Windows apps. Search for drivers and apps for Windows, and you'll be led through a maze of adfarms, crapware, spyware, warezware and wareware. Eventually, you'll end up on sites that have gimped free versions alongside money-requiring professional editions. I'm not against anybody selling their apps, but my God is it a breath of fresh air to find that Linux apps are almost universally free as in beer.

+1 Totally agree.

penguindrive
May 26th, 2009, 03:41 AM
I spend almost no time fixing arch linux, it is very stable once configured.

I did spend a lot of time fixing windows and ubuntu, I spent more time fixing windows than ubuntu however.

powerpleb
May 26th, 2009, 03:42 AM
I recently purged Windows from my system so I naturally spend more time 'fixing' Ubuntu now.

Having said that, I found that with Windows it took like a whole day to install the OS and all essential drivers, but once that is done the only fixing is the occasional registry clean or virus scan. Pretty superficial stuff.

Ubuntu on the other hand will install in like 20 mins, reboot and almost everything works. But then, down the track, I have to spend an afternoon getting my weird scanner working or setting up Pulse Audio which often involves dipping into config files in the /etc/ directory or running elaborate commands in the terminal. But overall, once Ubuntu is up and running, provided I don't tinker, it doesn't need the same kind of regular intervention that Windows does.

So to answer your question, for me I would spend more time installing Windows than Ubuntu. More time with the initial ironing out of problems in Ubuntu than windows but more time with routine maintenance in Windows than Ubuntu (provided I don't fiddle with it).

monsterstack
May 26th, 2009, 03:45 AM
In this case it was a HP Pavilion dv6700 which has a different model number on the back in small letters.
At least in Ubuntu I can use "lspci" and then do a proper search for a driver.

Hah. Yeah. I've used lspci to help out many a Windows-using friend. I'd love to know what the XP-equivalent of it is, so I can just tell them to do that from now on.

ctrlmd
May 26th, 2009, 03:58 AM
Which OS do you spend more time fixing?

ubuntu

but if i compare ubuntu to any other distributions is the less one causing problems

doas777
May 26th, 2009, 04:03 AM
I spend more time fixing windows to be honest. I spend a good amount of time figuring out how to get new things going in ubuntu, but once their set up, it's usually good. I have to replace parts periodically in all my boxes, both win and lin. It seems more like the same boxes keep having problems, regardless of OS. others go from cradle to grave with only minor upgrades.

dspari1
May 26th, 2009, 04:06 AM
I'm not going to even try and defend it. Linux isn't perfect and it does have its warts, but it has come a long way since its early days.

The only thing I can say is that if Ubuntu isn't working on your hardware, you should make an attempt at trying another distro to see if it works better.

I hear OpenSuSE does a great job at detecting hardware, so you should give it a shot before completely abandoning Linux.

Also, do yourself a favor and install VirtualBox. It is the only piece of software that has given me the power of fully going Linux without pulling my hair out.

lethalfang
May 26th, 2009, 04:16 AM
I spent lots of time fixing the Intel graphics for my desktop at work: fixed it by rolling back the intel xorg driver.
Spent some time attempting to fix the ATI video card for my laptop: has only partially worked.
Spent many hours fixing the Kile that came with Ubuntu 9.04, finally fixed it by rolling back to the previous version in Intrepid.

theDaveTheRave
May 26th, 2009, 12:30 PM
Fixing up Ubuntu is a much longer process.

with windows I just give up an re-install (provided I can locate installation media!).

So I'm nearly always fixing my ubuntu box.

But I use ubuntu for the "works servers".

It broke after I installed a "wake on lan" system (plays havoc with the HDD fstab settings for some unknown reason).

I don't know if this sort of setup would have ever been an issue with windows, and I guess I'll never find out. the solution for the linux box was "simple"...
Create a runtime shell script to test the location of predesignated files / folders on the drives... if they are "wrong" rerun the mount command and re-check the structure.
I'm not aware that this ability would even exist on Windows, and I'm not about to look into how to "manually mount" a hard drive in windows (other than mounting to a specified drive leter, as opposed to a location on the HDD via sym-links).

Also I think I may have found how to solve the problem on my girfriends works XP laptop and our printer.... I love the ubuntu forums, and that is why I stay with Ubuntu, everyone here seems so much more prepared to answer the "stupid" questions with relatively helpfull answers...

even


enter


lspci

and post the output


is vastly more helpfull that the responses I have had the few occasions when using the windows forums, which immediately assume that if you didn't know that something existed you are too stupid to be using a computer / too dumb to be trying to do what you want to do.

Power to the linux forums in general, more helpfull, more open, and less of the "well it's broken, but the new improved version for $300", or "you need to upgrade your hardware as that is no longer supported by the vendor".

At least with linux there seems to be a "make do and mend" attitude. Why throw out that ageing laptop, you can put openbox onto it and just use it as a web / email setup.

David

carml
May 26th, 2009, 12:40 PM
After having fixed the driver for my wireless card,-and apart a little problem caused by my scanner two days ago before dying-,I have to fix more Winblows (S)Vista: can't use my scanner because it's too old( before dying),update the antivirus,update the definitions for Winblows Defender,click twice to perform a task....
I still use Winblows because of any games and of my PC with XP at home in Sicily.


"Not using Windows doesn't have price,for all the remaining things there's Gnu/Linux"

(the slogan sounded so,if I'm not wrong :D;) )

whitefang5412
May 26th, 2009, 01:22 PM
Ubuntu is the only distro that actually works for me, but a long time ago I never really used my wireless card or graphics card on my laptop. I mostly just kept it simple, but I never really had to fix windows either. I may dual boot ubuntu again just to piddle around with my wireless but if I can't get everything working that I need working I AM going to erase the ubuntu partition. Ever since I found linux I'm always hopping anyways.

betrunkenaffe
May 26th, 2009, 02:40 PM
In the past, Windows.

Currently, neither. I need to reinstall Windows on my machine downstairs which will require about the same amount of time than all the configuration and playing around I've had to do with Ubuntu on it and this machine combined.

At this point, I just don't bother since it isn't worth it.

The Real Dave
May 26th, 2009, 02:53 PM
With me, its close between Windows XP and Ubuntu. That said, I had no hardware problems with Ubuntu, just a dew hicuups when setting up a dual boot. So the majority of my fixing of ubuntu comes from configuring and re-configuring GRUB. I have though, had serious issues in getting Hardy to work with my Windows workgroup. I've been through all the Samba stuff, it just simply wont do it.

With Windows, my installs have been fine, but take much longer than Ubuntu, having to re-install programs etc (luckily I now keep copies of all in setup files for my programs). I've also made tarballs of a perfect (as close as it comes ;))install of XP, making restoring quicker. In the long run though, XP gives me more problems in day to day usage, with driver errors, viruses and infrections, and just plain annoying quirks that seem untraceable. It crashes and freezes much more than Ubuntu, making me often want to scream at it. Ubuntu, for me at least, has for the most part just worked :D

maflynn
May 26th, 2009, 03:01 PM
I spend more time on Ubuntu, but that's a result of my ignorance, not knowing enough and messing things up, or in the beginning not properly setting it up that works for me. Now that I have a fairly stable configuration I'm not monkeying with Ubuntu.

I also think the open source and diverse nature of Linux requires more tweaking then a default windows setup and certainly a lot more work then OSX since that runs on one platform. I was surprised at how much work I had to do in the CLI. This is not a criticism but rather an observation.

pookiebear
May 26th, 2009, 05:14 PM
ubuntu works on an old p3 laptop. Just reinstalled it cause I was messing with slitaz on it for awhile.
I fix windows computers every day for a living (16 years now started as a novell engineer). I wish I had gone into motorcycle repair.

WE should start an initiative to bring back the old stuff. Check out a novell 3.11 server running on a new server hardware. File sharing services is super fast. None of the old viruses for it are around anymore. MAybe a retro revival. What about quartedeck q-windows. If we could get firefox 3 or higher to run in windows 3.1 that would be awesome fast.

billgoldberg
May 26th, 2009, 05:51 PM
Which Os do I spend more time fixing?

None.

sandy8925
June 8th, 2009, 02:40 PM
I don't really spend much time fixing stuff on either OS bcos i don't download crazy stuff (well actually i do but nothing ever happens).

However for Windows I have about 4 different apps for spyware/malware/viruses and cleaning.These are: Arovax Antispyware,Spybot S&D,CCleaner and some antivirus(avg or avast). I have to run all of these once every month and defragment the hard disk. Also keeping all the programs up-to-date is a real pain. Many programs have updating built in but it's still a real pain. Also it does too much unnecessary loading and paging from my point of view. When I load windows even after it has finished loading the desktop and I haven't there is still some hard disk activity going on(not a lot - small spurts of activity).

On Ubuntu on the other hand i don't bother about viruses/spyware/malware. I don't have any antivirus/antispyware installed. And since most of my programs are installed from the repos it's very easy to update them.After the desktop is loaded absolutely no hard disk activity when I don't do anything.

One more thing: one day i booted up windows to play need for speed. the desktop loaded. things looked fine. i did start->run services.msc to stop unnecessary services. it doesn't load. i put ctrl + alt + del. nothing happens. the mouse can be moved. there's no hard disk activity either. and nothing starts up. what the hell was it doing ? shutting down or restarting doesn't work either. i rebooted the machine and the same problem happens again. then i start ubuntu and it works fine.

It's not all anti-windows however. For my desktop the Ubuntu interface was always a bit sluggish(as in it looked slow) if I used compiz (however when I put down the time for the effects from 500 ms to 150 ms the interface suddenly looked a lot faster) . And of course some of my games just don't work properly under Ubuntu (the main problem is with speed not with the actual working). The games run sort of smoothly in windows (after turning off many useless and unnecessary services). In ubuntu they run too slowly to be played. This is even when using the fluxbox wm and setting the environment variable WINEDEBUG to -all.

roharme
June 8th, 2009, 02:46 PM
windows - Its made to solve problems but most of the time they are the problem.

I havent faced much problems in Ubuntu as aint much into ubuntu yet.

Leme start my research soon

mamamia88
June 8th, 2009, 03:31 PM
neither once i setup either os it tends to run smoothly. on my parents machine it's another story

sandy8925
June 8th, 2009, 04:00 PM
I still have more to say.

All that is on my desktop comp. It's specs are:

P4 1.8 Ghz 400 Mhz FSB
256 MB DDR RAM 266 Mhz
Nvidia Geforce 6600 GT
Two 40 GB hard disks

Needless to say Vista will not work on this while the latest versions of most distros will.

About windows 7......even if it sprints on netbooks my comp has only DDR RAM @ 266 Mhz while netbooks have 1 GB DDR2 RAM @ 667 Mhz. So windows 7 isn't necessarily all that good. And for those people who think that it won't work only bcos of not enough RAM think again. RAM speed makes a huge difference.

omar8
June 8th, 2009, 04:08 PM
Haven't had a problem with Windows since XP SP2 and haven't had a problem with Ubuntu since 7.10. So in my opinion both OSs have improved to the point where unless you are intentionally trying beta software or trying to modify the system in ways it was not designed (ie. patching windows files to allow pirated software to run) you don't really have any problems with either system. Same goes for OS X.

spamking2000
June 9th, 2009, 12:52 AM
Sadly, Windows. I converted all my PC's to Ubuntu a few years ago and generally things just work. My wife's Windows computer had to be reloaded about every 4-6 months even with AntiVirus, Firewall, and AntiSpyware/Malware software running. Now, my machines just happy run and keep working, but family running Windows still asks for help.

NFblaze
June 9th, 2009, 01:13 AM
Generally both Windows (OEM version) and Ubuntu (personally installed) on my laptop give me no major problems, that require fixing.

earthpigg
June 9th, 2009, 02:57 AM
Yeah, what I said. :) In my experience (and I expect that it's the common experience), it's far easier to get Windows playing DVDs than it is to get Ubuntu playing DVDs.

not if you are using vista and move frequently. i would consider bypassing built-in DRM to be 'fixing', whereas i would consider enabling dvd playback to be 'setting up'.

Ace1989
June 9th, 2009, 03:18 AM
Sadly, Windows. I converted all my PC's to Ubuntu a few years ago and generally things just work. My wife's Windows computer had to be reloaded about every 4-6 months even with AntiVirus, Firewall, and AntiSpyware/Malware software running. Now, my machines just happy run and keep working, but family running Windows still asks for help.

Wait...


My wife's Windows computer had to be reloaded about every 4-6 months even with AntiVirus, Firewall, and AntiSpyware/Malware software running.

I'm still...


every 4-6 months ....

[-X

You should teach her to computer.

dyingsun
June 9th, 2009, 03:49 AM
Ubuntu definitely. Simply because I use Windows at home maybe once a month. At my college we have no admin privileges so I can't fix anything there. At home, every time Windows breaks, I use a lot of very bad words and leave it. It isn't worth fixing.

To be honest though, nothing has really broken for me in Linux, only my own lack of knowledge stops some things from working.

I think I'd sooner use GeoDOS on the C64 than go back to Windoze full time.

Firestem4
June 9th, 2009, 03:52 AM
As a computer technician that services a predominantly windows-dominated company. I spend most of my time fixing windows :P (Theres a couple of mac's that we've had some problems with too lol).

As far as a REAL answer. I spend more time fixing windows.
I have had issues with Linux but they're not as often... Its a nice change of pace because I no longer have to deal with stupid minor issues as i do with windows..My linux errors are usually big ones =) (user-error lol...I did something that i shouldn't have...and I knew i shouldn't have..but I did it anyways.)