PDA

View Full Version : PCMAG ARTICLE: OS Wars: The Battle for Your Desktop (Mac vs Win vs Ubuntu)



madjr
March 14th, 2008, 05:19 PM
Now that the major OSs all run on Intel chips, the playing field is pretty leveled out. We compared the heavy hitters in an eight-point test to find who wins the OS battle.

The field may have leveled, but it's not flat. The OSs still differ in many ways, not all of which are on the surface. We help average users—people with enough tech savvy to install and an own OS and serve as tech support to friends and family, even if they don't consider themselves tech gurus. How do they choose between Mac "Leopard" (Mac OS 10.5.1 after the first automatic update), Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista (pre-Service Pack 1), and Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon (Linux)? Easy. Let us pick for you


scores:

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/18/0,1425,sz=1&i=181126,00.gif


what areas Ubuntu lags behind (lowest score):

-Installation (many issues)
-Interface (duh..)
-Drivers/Hardware (duh..)
-Networking (wifi, etc.)

for a proposed solution to drivers/hardware see:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=718573

ubuntu got the lowest overall score... :(

to see why they received these scores read the article here:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2273486,00.asp

Mr. Picklesworth
March 14th, 2008, 05:52 PM
I still fail to see how Vista's installation process can be considered superior to Ubuntu's.
Ubuntu's installer is fully usable as a bootable tool for all tasks (including repairing an installation), is usable as a full OS session while installing, is really quick, and supports all the same accessiblity features as the real thing.

For Vista, I think it is fair to be rating the OEM setup since that is most often what people use. Vista's installer may be quick at first, but there is still the horrendous multi-step process after installing, which is one's first boot. The first time, Windows says it is "getting ready to start for the first time" and gets stuck in the boot screen for what seems a good five minutes, then inexplicably restarts the computer without warning. Then it gets to the account setup, license agreement and other configuration step and restarts again. Finally, the user must log in, and wait another five minutes for that logging in process since Windows has to "set up the account". One hour has passed since that slideshow saying how great Windows is.

On the other hand, the first log in with Ubuntu takes no longer than a normal one.
Granted, it would be nice if Ubuntu's installer did a seperate home partition to deal with that problem about not being able to easily maintain settings between full installs...

Apple's installer can not be compared here, since it is an upgrade disk. Ubuntu's is, again, arguably superior since the alternative install CD can be used for the same thing with the added bonus of not needing to spend money and that same disk working to do a full install from scratch. Furthermore, Ubuntu can get that same easy full system upgrade functionality as a download via the Internet on the day of release.

Bundled software: MacOS's bundled software is actually pretty limited. The author may be mixing that up with the iLife suite, which is bundled with most Macs but is by no means accompanying MacOS X. If you pull that out, I don't think there is much argument; Ubuntu has a photo manager, a powerful word processor (though it would be nice to have something like TextEdit) an email program, and all manner of other goodies right out of the box with the operating system itself.
(Although in terms of quality and user experience, there is no argument from me: Evolution needs to leave the default install because it is heavy, ugly, and unnecessarily complicated given the use cases filled with other default software. The programs Tasks, Dates and Contacts all work pretty well, and connect to EDS).

madjr
March 14th, 2008, 06:14 PM
I still fail to see how Vista's installation process can be considered superior to Ubuntu's.
Ubuntu's installer is fully usable as a bootable tool for all tasks (including repairing an installation), is usable as a full OS session while installing, is really quick, and supports all the same accessiblity features as the real thing.


windows installer will work on all hardware without issues or even without drivers. It does it's job (install)

the ubuntu disk is way better, but lets admit it fails a lot... (you then need to download an alternate install disk and even then it may fail to install too)

hardy will help a bit with this problem... but still has a way to go.




Apple's installer can not be compared here, since it is an upgrade disk. Ubuntu's is, again, arguably superior since the alternative install CD can be used for the same thing with the added bonus of not needing to spend money and that same disk working to do a full install from scratch. Furthermore, Ubuntu can get that same easy full system upgrade functionality as a download via the Internet on the day of release.



Ubuntu 7.10 is considered an "upgrade" to ubuntu 7.04, so why does it fail so much to upgrade ?

Fedora upgrades mostly without problems...

so, yes ubuntu is a lot more buggy.

Mac OS versions are considered upgrades, but they work. Thats what the author means...

EvilMarshmallow
March 14th, 2008, 06:54 PM
The only ones I strongly disagree with are Interface and Networking.

When I boot XP, I get a start bar. Without searching high and low for obscure theme files (which I've never had much luck finding anything more than icon & cursor sets)... I still have the start bar. Maybe a different color (3 included with fresh installs) but the same basic thing.

When I boot my Ubuntu box, I have my panels where I want them. As many as I need, or none at all... and customized exactly the way I want. Colored? Transparent? Narrow or wide? Themed with an easy-to-install package from gnome-look? It's all at my fingertips. I have to assume that Ubuntu's getting dinged here because everyone's used to what Windows calls certain things. I still struggle with finding out what object does what sometimes, just because it's got a different name... but that doesn't make one better than another, just more familiar.

And then there's their excuse that you have to know a little command line to install stuff. Um... Synaptic. It's in the freakin' menu. And sure, if you install more obscure packages you might have to compile them yourself... but at least my software doesn't have to run a 6-screen wizard every time I try to install. And anyone who's ever done any Windows admin stuff knows that you still need command-line stuff to come out every now and then.

Then on the networking side, they blame the "lack of drivers" (another category) for hurting ubuntu here. So they double-charged Ubuntu on that one. Networking is GREAT. Even a complete noob like me can get full, simple instructions on joining Ubuntu to a Windows domain, and get it to work.

50words
March 14th, 2008, 06:55 PM
I'm not sure I agree with everything in there, but overall, a fair review. Largely due to hardware incompatibilities (not Ubuntu's fault, etc.), Ubuntu is still an OS for geeks. Or at least an OS for geeks to set up.

I would like to see a showdown between the four operating systems once all are set up properly. I think Ubuntu would fare better.

the_darkside_986
March 14th, 2008, 07:05 PM
Wait a minute... how does Ubuntu get only a 4.5/5 (in price category) for being free? Do they expect an OS boot CD to magically appear instantly without any download effort in order to earn that perfect 5?

Also, did they use the exact same PC for each OS? I wonder how well Mac OS X would fare against Windows XP SP 2 and Ubuntu 7.10 on my cheap Compaq Presario.

bobbybobington
March 14th, 2008, 07:06 PM
I think it's amazing that an OS made by volunteers in only half a point behind the defacto OS made by the worlds largest software company. What Ubuntu has done, is no small feat. Looking at the speed of our progress, it's only a matter of time until we surpass them. Now we know the areas where ubuntu has to be improved.

BDNiner
March 14th, 2008, 08:21 PM
This was a fair comparison, i can't argue with the results. Ubuntu is great but linux as a whole is not quite at the finish line when is comes to regular users. Power users should have very little trouble setting it up.

madjr
March 14th, 2008, 08:53 PM
Then on the networking side, they blame the "lack of drivers" (another category) for hurting ubuntu here. So they double-charged Ubuntu on that one. Networking is GREAT. Even a complete noob like me can get full, simple instructions on joining Ubuntu to a Windows domain, and get it to work.

i think they are referring to wifi problems and stuff

madjr
March 14th, 2008, 08:56 PM
Wait a minute... how does Ubuntu get only a 4.5/5 (in price category) for being free? Do they expect an OS boot CD to magically appear instantly without any download effort in order to earn that perfect 5?

Also, did they use the exact same PC for each OS? I wonder how well Mac OS X would fare against Windows XP SP 2 and Ubuntu 7.10 on my cheap Compaq Presario.

macs work on macs and they do a great job at that.

ubuntu should do something similar and not try to work on all the hardware in the world (which is virtually impossible and makes us lag behind macOS)
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=718573

intense.ego
March 14th, 2008, 09:02 PM
The article claims stupidly that "you still have to download an ISO and burn it" or whatever, and this is completely wrong. If that is too hard, you can just order ubuntu or kubuntu from ShipIt. Sure, you'll have to wait, but that is the price (no pun intended) you have to pay for such a (free) service.

Yarikh
March 14th, 2008, 10:21 PM
I just looked at the March 2008 edition of PC Magazine; viz., the article entitled OS Wars on p. 92.

I am currently working on building my first computer and have requested Ubuntu 7.10(Gutsy Gibbon) in both 32 and 64 bit editions.

I am wondering whether anyone would care to comment on the article; specifically the various conclusions that the editors/testers have reached regarding Linux.

Thanks.

Yarikh

NightwishFan
March 14th, 2008, 10:23 PM
There was another thread about this I believe. They gave ubuntu a 4 for price, when it should be a 5 as in it is free to download and they ship it for free even. What more do they want. The article was really Mac Os X biased.

aysiu
March 14th, 2008, 10:31 PM
There was another thread about this I believe. Still is. I've merged the two.

days_of_ruin
March 14th, 2008, 10:45 PM
Whoever wrote that is obviously an idiot since
ubuntu didn't get five stars for price.
THEY WILL SEND YOU A FREE CD IF YOU ASK!
You can't get cheaper then that!

mlentink
March 14th, 2008, 11:39 PM
With all due respect to all previous commenters in this thread: I think you're missing the point.
The question is not whether Ubuntu should have come in fourth or third. The point is that it's even being considered for a "OS War" in a magazine like this, in the first place, next to commercial, corporate powerhouses out of Redmond and Cupertino.
Just stop to think about it. It's not just Steve's anymore. In just a few years, a system that is not built and maintained by big, commercial companies but by communities, by you and me essentially, is way up there, pitted against billion-dollar-products, as if it's normal.
Let's not fail to see the significance of this.

Is Ubuntu perfect? Heck, no! For my work, I unfortunately have to do quite a bit of work in Windows and OSX. People, let's face it, they work! But what do you expect? With products from companies that can (and do!) invest billions in them?

The point is that Ubuntu is in the same league. Not perfect, but prettty damn good.
And free.
And by you and me, for you and me.

NightwishFan
March 14th, 2008, 11:45 PM
Linux may be a minority, but it is a proud minority and its voice is growing louder. It not even because it is better (which it is for me) but because it is free to change and free to share. I can boot into it and not worry about paying or trials and I can tweak it how I please, without 100 spyware services in the background. Some even openly named as such.

kevdog
March 14th, 2008, 11:46 PM
Hate to keep rehashing the same issue, but what would qualify 5/5 in terms of price if Ubuntu doesn't receive a 5? I guess Canonical could start paying you to start using their OS so that might qualify as a 5?

aysiu
March 14th, 2008, 11:47 PM
Hate to keep rehashing the same issue, but what would qualify 5/5 in terms of price if Ubuntu doesn't receive a 5? I guess Canonical could start paying you to start using their OS so that might qualify as a 5?
Maybe if ShipIt were faster? I don't know. That one boggles my mind, too.

NightwishFan
March 14th, 2008, 11:48 PM
No a five is they toss it out of planes by the thousands along with 50usd bills. :)

madjr
March 14th, 2008, 11:57 PM
The article claims stupidly that "you still have to download an ISO and burn it" or whatever, and this is completely wrong. If that is too hard, you can just order ubuntu or kubuntu from ShipIt. Sure, you'll have to wait, but that is the price (no pun intended) you have to pay for such a (free) service.

yes, that claim is stupid, but wubi will help with that now :)

the author doesn't know about wubi...

it should be advertised on the ubuntu.com download section.

it's being included on the hardy CD, why not make it visible also on the site?

gfg
March 15th, 2008, 12:03 AM
As usual with these reviews they fail to get their facts straight. The point about you have to use the CLI to install apps, and configure things is false. There is very few things you can't configure with a gui these days. and the things you have to configure with CLI is probably things a regular user will never need. As for installing apps it really couldn't be simpler. Open the package manager search or browse for what you want, click and install. And it is important to get these facts straight because this article basicly says you have to be a computer geek to use Ubuntu which is not true at all.

Chame_Wizard
March 15th, 2008, 12:54 AM
Now that the major OSs all run on Intel chips, the playing field is pretty leveled out. We compared the heavy hitters in an eight-point test to find who wins the OS battle.

The field may have leveled, but it's not flat. The OSs still differ in many ways, not all of which are on the surface. We help average users—people with enough tech savvy to install and an own OS and serve as tech support to friends and family, even if they don't consider themselves tech gurus. How do they choose between Mac "Leopard" (Mac OS 10.5.1 after the first automatic update), Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista (pre-Service Pack 1), and Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon (Linux)? Easy. Let us pick for you


scores:

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/18/0,1425,sz=1&i=181126,00.gif


what areas Ubuntu lags behind (lowest score):

-Installation (many issues)
-Interface (duh..)
-Drivers/Hardware (duh..)
-Networking (wifi, etc.)

for a proposed solution to drivers/hardware see:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=718573

ubuntu got the lowest overall score... :(

to see why they received these scores read the article here:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2273486,00.asp
Ubuntu the lowest?stupid assholes

klange
March 15th, 2008, 01:00 AM
I call shenanigans.

Chame_Wizard
March 15th, 2008, 01:06 AM
They seems to forgetting that the 1st OS began with CLI and still is.It's the basics for all current OS.
And Ubuntu steals Macos and Windows GUI?they really need to investigate more properly.

madjr
March 15th, 2008, 02:44 AM
They seems to forgetting that the 1st OS began with CLI and still is.It's the basics for all current OS.
And Ubuntu steals Macos and Windows GUI?they really need to investigate more properly.

you know they do stuff like that just to start flame wars and get more publicity or because they are insanely dumb at reviewing OSs..

but even if its mac bias i prefer it to being windows bias....

anyway the score for Ubuntu is about fair, ubuntu has many bugs they didn't had time to touch

also notice in third party software we did much better than mac =D

i guess linux has more 3rd party soft than mac yay (take that mac fan boys for saying linux lacks software) :lolflag:

FuturePilot
March 15th, 2008, 03:17 AM
These people must be friends of the people over at Fox (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=722643) :roll:

zmjjmz
March 15th, 2008, 04:42 AM
These people must be friends of the people over at Fox (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=722643) :roll:

PCMag has some real original articles :roll:

Anyways, as I pointed out on the Fox news thread, the guy says that Ubuntu gets .5 off because "you have to contend with the labor of downloading the ISO and burning it to a CD" (somethng like that).
This is absolutely ridiculous, and so is the claim that you need to use CLI to install stuff, and then he goes on to say that you can use the package manager as an alternative to the CLI to install applications...

madjr
March 15th, 2008, 05:13 AM
PCMag has some real original articles :roll:

Anyways, as I pointed out on the Fox news thread, the guy says that Ubuntu gets .5 off because "you have to contend with the labor of downloading the ISO and burning it to a CD" (somethng like that).
This is absolutely ridiculous, and so is the claim that you need to use CLI to install stuff, and then he goes on to say that you can use the package manager as an alternative to the CLI to install applications...

he must have multiple personalities lol

damn they didn't try wubi those bastards (guess they didn't find it in the ubuntu.com download section) :mad:

i'll be adding this to brainstorm.ubuntu.com

EdThaSlayer
March 15th, 2008, 08:26 AM
-Installation (many issues)
I found it quite user-friendly, no command line at all involved


-Interface (duh..)
So why do you use GNOME? Choose KDE or XFCE


-Drivers/Hardware (duh..)
Well, most hardware that has been out for a year or 2 works out of the box.
This is the fault of the hardware developers who won't tell the Linux users some of the specs.


-Networking (wifi, etc.)
WiFi is a bit crazy at time. I have to agree with this though. Although now I never have any problems with this.

Vadi
March 15th, 2008, 08:39 AM
I don't understand.

When installing Windows, the computer is completely unusable. When installing Ubuntu, it pretty much is. Eh?

madjr
March 15th, 2008, 10:25 AM
I found it quite user-friendly, no command line at all involved


So why do you use GNOME? Choose KDE or XFCE


Well, most hardware that has been out for a year or 2 works out of the box.
This is the fault of the hardware developers who won't tell the Linux users some of the specs.


WiFi is a bit crazy at time. I have to agree with this though. Although now I never have any problems with this.


this not my review, is that of pcmag