PDA

View Full Version : windows 7 , Snow Leopard and Ubuntu upgrades compared



bhishan
October 28th, 2009, 05:30 PM
http://blogs.computerworld.com/14990/upgrade_wars_snow_leopard_ubuntu_windows_7

ukripper
October 28th, 2009, 05:32 PM
Steven does post some good stuff but many times I have noticed very biased comparisons on his part.

jeffus_il
October 28th, 2009, 05:33 PM
http://blogs.computerworld.com/14990/upgrade_wars_snow_leopard_ubuntu_windows_7
Wow, It succeeded! Well done MS!

mamamia88
October 28th, 2009, 05:36 PM
mine took half hour

pwnst*r
October 28th, 2009, 05:38 PM
http://blogs.computerworld.com/14990/upgrade_wars_snow_leopard_ubuntu_windows_7

how about linking to directly what you're referring to and also changing your title since it CAN take up to that, but as little as 1 hr 20mins. you people crack me up with the rubbish you post.


http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137958/Microsoft_In_place_Windows_7_upgrades_can_take_up_ to_20_hours

RazVayne
October 28th, 2009, 05:38 PM
Misleading title is misleading.
But still...1 more brownie point for teh Linuxz.

SunnyRabbiera
October 28th, 2009, 05:46 PM
Not surprised, sometimes even a fresh install of windows can take over 3 hours and that doesnt count the hours you spend installing extra software and codecs.
Ubuntu on a fresh install takes me about 2 hours at worst, like when I install it on a drive without linux on it.
Normally Ubuntu finishes its install in about a half hour, but the speed of the CD/DVD drive is factored as is memory and overall performance of the machine.
Also net connection is also a factor too

MasterNetra
October 28th, 2009, 05:48 PM
http://blogs.computerworld.com/14990/upgrade_wars_snow_leopard_ubuntu_windows_7

A fresh install is much faster. It was installed in less then a hour for me and I only have 1GB of ram. (I'm Duel Booting Win7 with Karmic RC atm) Installing apps and updating well for me thats another hour or two...well with Adobe CS3 add a additional hour and half to that >.<

t0p
October 28th, 2009, 06:00 PM
how about linking to directly what you're referring to and also changing your title since it CAN take up to that, but as little as 1 hr 20mins. you people crack me up with the rubbish you post.


http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137958/Microsoft_In_place_Windows_7_upgrades_can_take_up_ to_20_hours

What is your problem? A Windows 7 update took 20 hours, which is what the title says.

Tell you something else pwnst*r: you people really crack me up with your prejudice. Some people have negative experiences with Microsoft OSes. Fact. Quit being so defensive.

Tipped OuT
October 28th, 2009, 06:02 PM
how about linking to directly what you're referring to and also changing your title since it CAN take up to that, but as little as 1 hr 20mins. you people crack me up with the rubbish you post.


http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137958/Microsoft_In_place_Windows_7_upgrades_can_take_up_ to_20_hours

+1 Well said pwnst*r.


What is your problem? A Windows 7 update took 20 hours, which is what the title says.

Tell you something else pwnst*r: you people really crack me up with your prejudice. Some people have negative experiences with Microsoft OSes. Fact. Quit being so defensive.

Defensive? Defensive of what? The OP posted a ridiculous thread about Windows 7 taking 20 hrs to upgrade, when in fact it CAN take up to 20 hrs, not that it DOES.

It's just a thread to start bashing Windows.

zekopeko
October 28th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Not surprised, sometimes even a fresh install of windows can take over 3 hours and that doesnt count the hours you spend installing extra software and codecs.
Ubuntu on a fresh install takes me about 2 hours at worst, like when I install it on a drive without linux on it.
Normally Ubuntu finishes its install in about a half hour, but the speed of the CD/DVD drive is factored as is memory and overall performance of the machine.
Also net connection is also a factor too

Windows 7 was very fast to install for me. And that's on a Athlon 2600+ 1GB ram and nvidia 6200.

This thread is pointless since it states that a Windows 7 upgrade always takes 20h. Not true so that would make the OP a liar.

orlox
October 28th, 2009, 06:14 PM
+1 Well said pwnst*r.



Defensive? Defensive of what? The OP posted a ridiculous thread about Windows 7 taking 20 hrs to upgrade, when in fact it CAN take up to 20 hrs, not that it DOES.

It's just a thread to start bashing Windows.

Wow, seems we certainly need to be careful with what we say around here...People can exploit your words against you even harder than lawyers in a trial...

There's nothing insanely evil against the title of the thread, and he just posted a link without clearly expressing an opinion. There's no need to immediately assume the guy did it on purpose just to bash windows...

Tipped OuT
October 28th, 2009, 06:15 PM
Wow, seems we certainly need to be careful with what we say around here...People can exploit your words against you even harder than lawyers in a trial...

There's nothing insanely evil against the title of the thread, and he just posted a link without clearly expressing an opinion. There's no need to immediately assume the guy did it on purpose just to bash windows...

I never said he did, but the Linux zealots will be all over it now.

CharlesA
October 28th, 2009, 06:20 PM
I never said he did, but the Linux zealots will be all over it now.

Meh. Every thread with the "W" word, turns into a Windows vs Linux bash fest.

*grabs popcorn* :popcorn:

I saw an article a while ago where an upgrade from Vista to W7 on low-end hardware took about 20 hours. I don't doubt it.

pwnst*r
October 28th, 2009, 06:20 PM
What is your problem? A Windows 7 update took 20 hours, which is what the title says.

Tell you something else pwnst*r: you people really crack me up with your prejudice. Some people have negative experiences with Microsoft OSes. Fact. Quit being so defensive.

it should say A windows 7 upgrade COULD take UP TO 20 hrs. his title makes it sound like that's how long it takes for all upgrades.

rofl, bent a little?

KiwiNZ
October 28th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Thread title changed to reflect the the quoted blog

Tipped OuT
October 28th, 2009, 06:36 PM
Thread title changed to reflect the the quoted blog

Thanks Kiwi.

schauerlich
October 28th, 2009, 06:46 PM
He's comparing an upgrade of Windows and OS X to fresh installs of Linux. Try going from Fedora to openSuSE without doing a fresh install.

bhishan
October 28th, 2009, 07:36 PM
how about linking to directly what you're referring to and also changing your title since it CAN take up to that, but as little as 1 hr 20mins. you people crack me up with the rubbish you post.


http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137958/Microsoft_In_place_Windows_7_upgrades_can_take_up_ to_20_hours

First of all I have nothing against windows (i just don't wanna pay for it). I posted this thread from Windows XP (came with my laptop). You comment is pathetic. If you read a newspaper and see a title "Car crash kills 5 people", do you assume that evey car crash will kill 5 people. Thats dumb.

pwnst*r
October 28th, 2009, 07:43 PM
pathetic was the way you titled it. note that it was changed.

ukripper
October 28th, 2009, 07:49 PM
C'mon guys give OP a rest!

KiwiNZ
October 28th, 2009, 07:50 PM
Play nice or lock up will follow:mad:

Странник
October 28th, 2009, 07:54 PM
For me Windows 7 takes at least a hour to install drivers and other necessary stuff after the intitial install. ( minus download time)
Wth Ubuntu I only install the nvidia driver and ubuntu-restricted-extras ,that's like a minute of clicking and typing minus download time

Tipped OuT
October 28th, 2009, 08:03 PM
For me Windows 7 takes at least a hour to install drivers and other necessary stuff after the intitial install. ( minus download time)
Wth Ubuntu I only install the nvidia driver and ubuntu-restricted-extras ,that's like a minute of clicking and typing minus download time

True, very true, but for some people, Windows 7 has all of their latest drivers pre-installed, like for me.

renkinjutsu
October 28th, 2009, 08:05 PM
I believe the reasons MAC and Linux upgrades seem to have fewer problems than Windows is that those upgrades are more incremental; they generally have fewer 3rd party apps and drivers installed; and those systems are not yet targeted anywhere near as heavily by malware as Windows.

The entire linux distribution itself is made of third party apps... :confused:

Tipped OuT
October 28th, 2009, 08:06 PM
The entire linux distribution itself is made of third party apps... :confused:

I think he meant bloat.