any one knows Which system is much better: windows 7 or ubuntu9.10 ?
any one knows Which system is much better: windows 7 or ubuntu9.10 ?
"Better" is highly subjective. It's a choice between an operating system that you have to pay for and that holds your hand through just about everything, and has a lot of commercial backing, and a more sophisticated operating system that you don't have to pay for and gives you a lot more control.
Yes that is highly subjective.
On the other hand, "more sophisticated" and "a lot more control" are two things that are totally objective.
Sarcasm doesn't translate too well on the internet, so I hope I'm interpreting this correctly: it sounds like this is sarcasm. But I'm going to tackle the "a lot more control" claim first. In Windows, you can't compile the kernel yourself to your exact specifications to get the most out of your hardware. You can't easily choose what desktop environment you use, or choose not to use one at all. The command line interface is very awkward to use, despite being a faster way of working than the graphical interface. The desktop has only a limited amount of customisation: you can choose your background, your colour scheme (from about 3 last time I counted, but don't quote me on that, and I have heard that you can add more with 3rd party modifications), whether it's using old-style windows or the flashier new "Aero" and how big and where your one taskbar is. You can mix this up a bit with, for example, GeoShell, but that's not a trivial modification as it requires literally replacing the Windows Explorer shell.
Now for "more sophisticated". That's much more difficult, because there are so many aspects to analyse. I could do this blow-by-blow. Or I could cite a world leading expert in some field of programming (who shall remain nameless to protect my own identity) who refers to Windows as "primitive". But the first option is never conclusive, and for the second the lack of a named source is hardly good enough. So I'm just going to change that to be more specific. "More stable overall" seems to do the job, as the saying "Linux users need to reboot as often as they get laid" didn't come from nothing. "More customisable" is also true, and may be of more interest to the average "layman" user.
But still. People will have differing opinions. People will love what they use, generally. A lot of people will try just one and say that it's better than the other. Bottom line is, both Windows 7 and Ubuntu 9.10 are solid computer operating platforms, there's absolutely no doubt about that. Both have upsides and downsides, and opinion on which is better will always be divided, especially among those passionate about the topic.
how about snow leopard? hehe.. i m using windows 7, ubuntu and snow leopard! i prefer snow leopard the best.
of course i will choose ubuntu9.10 if i can, but i can't make my internet connection on linux! i don't know how to use linux.
I'm dual booting with both. They really are for different things so I wouldnt say ones better than the other. I use windows 7 for entertainment, games, music, watching movies and online video.
Ubuntu is more for coding, development, photo editing (I like GIMP). Wouldnt want to watch flash video on Ubuntu since its not optimized for it. Also any serious gaming is out.
Since I use many operating systems at work, in my opinion, any Linux is better than any Windows and any BSD is better than any Linux. But my "better" has an immediate question "better for what?". In my case is about servers.
In your case you're comparing Ubuntu Desktop(Karmic) Version and Windows 7 as workstation operating systems. And I can tell Canonical has really improved user's experience in Linux. Not that long ago, the mere mention of installing Linux struck fear into the hearts of mortal men. Thanks to a campaign of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (commonly referred to as FUD), Linux garnered a reputation as something of an elitist operating system, only configurable by those in the know.
Now, it is a different story entirely, and Ubuntu is one of the easiest distros to install without mentioning Ubuntu Live CD to test your system.
I'd suggest to go for Linux and go for Ubuntu, it seems to be the future.
Better for what purpose? For the average non-geek non-developer person, it would be windows 7. Windows 7 is by far the easier and the nicer OS. It's also feels alot more powerful than previous window OSs, although I don't think it's upto the same speed as ubuntu. But I would recommend windows 7 to the average user, and dual-booting both to the advanced user. Although I would recommend ubuntu 9.10 over windows vista.
Just my two cents,
Going to have to disagree with you there. I've tried both, and for ease of use, they're both about the same (installing software is easier on Ubuntu, configuration is easier on Ubuntu, customising the desktop is easier on Ubuntu but everything else is about the same); niceness... if shiny is your thing then I guess Windows 7 provides, but Kubuntu 9.10 provides more shiny with the frankly incredible KDE 4.3 (Kubuntu is more powerful, a little slower and a little less user-friendly than Ubuntu, I personally prefer it). And yes, it feels more powerful than other Windows systems... that's partly a side-effect of all the shine, and partly because it is. But we're not comparing Windows systems, we're comparing one particular Windows operating system and one particular Linux distribution.
Like many people have noted; it all depends on what you need more so then how "good" you are at computers. For instance, I have many very computer literate friends who have opted to use Windows 7 over Linux as they enjoying many Windows specific PC Games.
In contrast, my mother who, to put nicely, isn't exactly a pro with computers but uses Linux for everything as she prominently just needs an Office Suite, Email, Web Browsing and some very basic photo editing software.
Oh no! ah well...
Only because on Ubuntu you have the software center which is a center for many applications, whereas on windows there is no such central platform. But when it comes to applications outside of the Ubuntu software center, then it's the same. You download applications from the internet and install them. Infact I prefer windows instead of the standard way of installing packages, because it's easier to change installation directory and other options.
Nah. The same. If you're familar with where everything is, then you can change it. Otherwise, you end up on google trying to find a command to change something using the terminal. And no average joe likes using the terminal. At least in windows, everything is GUI.
No way! Windows 7, you can change everything with a touch of a mouse click from theme, changing desktop background, and so on. Ubuntu takes more effort than that.
I don't know about kubuntu, but if it's anything like ubuntu, changing the themes doesn't make much difference. Windows 7 is without a doubt pretty than ubuntu.
Just my opinion
Is this supposed to be flame baiting?
I'll pretend it's not (since I needs some pointz) and post my opinion
I'm fairly experienced with windows and linux although all my experience is largely self-taught. I've installed many variations of linux distros countless times and the same for windows. I was running linux (arch) until about a month ago until I started having trouble with an upgraded kernel.
On a whim I installed windows 7 and am sticking with it now. Windows 7 is actually nicely polished but it needs new hardware for acceptable performance. Ubuntu has less strict requirements for hardware and will run on older computers.
You will have to learn new ways of doing things if you use ubuntu, but if you're up to exploring and learning then download the livecd from www.ubuntu.com and try it without installing it on your hard drive. The immediate advantage of ubuntu is that you don't have to worry about viruses and trojans, and obviously it's free. The downside is that it can be unstable (a la windows BSOD) and may not work with all of your hardware. For example, your network card might not work so you may not be able to access the internet.
Bottom line: try the live cd
Good points, to the first I'd just say that useful software not in the repositories is fairly sparse. To the second, software on polished Linux distributions tend to expect to be in a particular place, so changing the installation directory is fairly unintuitive. But then again, there's no real reason why Mr Average would want to that I can see. Software installs binary files to one of the bin directories, lib files to a lib directory and configuration, data files in /etc, /var or /home depending on whether it's system-wide or per-user configuration (normally the latter). On Windows, everything to do with the software typically appears in one directory, defaulting to \Program Files\(something). This makes it easy to find the software executable and run it or the uninstaller, but you might want to move it elsewhere if you're running short on space. Ubuntu's "uninstaller" is the package kit again, and running software is as simple as entering its name into a launcher (e.g. "firefox" launches Firefox), or more commonly using a menu shortcut. Different approach, different needs.
System->Preferences much? In modern Linux, hardly anything actually requires a terminal.
... no it doesn't. To change the desktop background on Ubuntu it's... one click from the theme dialog, just like Windows is. But that I class as configuration, I'm talking about things like panels, buttons, what appears where, and so on... basically, whatever you do to the Windows desktop it ultimately looks like a Windows desktop. There's a start menu, programs at the bottom with probably some quick launch programs ready to go, a clock and a taskbar. With Ubuntu, say you're sick of Gnome and want to give KDE a shot, just as a complete radical change. Just install the kde-core package and log out, then select the new desktop environment from the login options menu. Same goes for whatever else you might want to try... say, XFCE. Of course there's no need for that much change unless you want to, that was just an example.
But hey, we can agree to differ.
i installed ubuntu9.10, but i can't use PS,Maya,and Edius, and some small softs...
i didn't install server version, i installed desktop version because it looks easy and direct, but how can i install Mysql ,php and Apache on desktop version?
Using synaptic or package manager - however it's called. Search for it in menus (I don't remember where exactly it is).
There should also be something like 'add/remove applications', which is more user-friendly.
It depends on which platform you have grown up with.
If you have been follower of one, and to switch to another, or occasional user of another (dual or triple booting different OSes), then your primarily platform still counts.
Personally I have to support mainly Windows platforms and have no choice but to be familiar with it.
I have use other Unix OSes, and those that I find useful are mainly Server versions.
When it comes to desktop and you have to do some more serious configurations - often your primarily platform will influence your opinion of the user-friendliness of the others.
Hope this help.
I think ultimately it depends on how familar you are, with an operating system, and how willing you are to try another one. Most people are familar with windows are, and so most will be unwilling to switch to another operating system, because they won't be willing to spend the time and effort to learn something new.
On Windows, I often end up having to do this so that way my second hard drive gets some use and the first one doesn't fill up. On Linux, using LVM, both of my hard drives pool their space together so there's no need to meddle with installation directories anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows has some simple equivalent but I haven't heard of it yet.
Honestly, comparing Ubuntu with Win7 is kinda like comparing a hammer and a wrench. Sure , both are tools, but which one is more suited to your needs? (Might be a bad analogy but oh well )
If you're going to be gaming alot, or programming with .NET, I'd go with Windows 7 (Yes there's mono-develop, but imo it sucks.)
If you're gonna do other kinds of programming (i.e python, perl, ruby, C++/C , etc..)
then you should probably go with Ubuntu.
It doesn't hurt to have a dual-boot setup either so you can switch back and forth and get a taste of both.
Last, if you're going for a server... this is just my personal preference, but for servers I wouldn't go with Ubuntu at all. I'd pick something less bloated. Maybe Archlinux, or the debian net installer. That way you can pick what packages you want.
If it's really an issue, just dual boot. It's the simplest ways of getting the best of both worlds. Both are great Operating Systems and merely good for different things.
That is a good choice , I'm also for it
I have dualboot Windows 7 and Ubuntu 9.10. I like them both. I can't choose of them, because each has its own advantages and disadvantages. You can't compare something that is free with something that is payable. That is my opinion.
Without going with Mac hardware or dealing with a port of the OS to kinda work on non-Mac hardware, between Win7 and Ubuntu, I'm leaning more towards Ubuntu... in fact, though 7 is a great improvement over Vista, I just can't see myself paying money for it when I can get a using environment that is just as easy to use and more stable and usable in Ubuntu for free. Unless Microsoft comes out with a new, better operating system (not going to happen for several years at least), I won't be buying their product.
i think both machines can do the same job. the only area where windows 7 edge is the user interface as a whole. windows 7 makes things easier for everyone specially for non techie users. if you are techie and loves adventure, go for ubuntu 9.10.
I have both OS installed on my PC. Windows 7 is my host PC and Ubuntu 9.10 as the guest PC running in Virtualbox. you cannot really tell the difference when it is on full screen plus the fact that compiz is working on the virtual machine.
Unfortunately, that right there is simply not true. I find Windows a LOT harder to use than Linux. Especially for programming, and I'm convinced that Microsoft deliberately made DOS suck. But people who are finding Linux easier are not just limited to computer people...
My family got a new computer recently and I set it up as dual-boot: Windows 7 and Ubuntu 9.10. Windows took over 2 days to install and configure correctly (it kept messing up with a two HD setup), Ubuntu took 15 minutes. A completely non-techie person who uses that computer uses Ubuntu exclusively on it, since Windows 7 is very different from XP, and Ubuntu, while also very different, she finds is faster and works better.
Windows 7 is the best.
At least give a reason to justify your post
like some1 said win7 is an improvement on vista, which i totally agree but i would stick to ubuntu anyday
well maybe when i give win7 a try but with what am experiencing from vista. . . . ishhhhh...
Usually i will choose windows 7 because of its games.
An argumented answer to the question which operating system is better depends of the meaning of the question. This post is ment to discuss the option, that better can be seen like the option that provides the best solution to the needs of the user of the computer. If this is the point to start with the answer relies on the things the user wants of the operating system. This can vary from available from free likd Linux to wide spread like Windows. Likewise the advantages and the disadvantages of any operating system relies on the user too. The automatic way some things work in Windows 7 can be seen like an advantage by some people, while other people might prefer the way Linux works.