Can someone do a Linux vs windows comparison for me?

Whoop · 21 Apr 2007 at 07:48

Hi all,
I have dual booted win2000 and Kubunbtu 6.1 on an old laptop and being a linux noob it looks nice.. but what I'm looking for is a reason to run it.

I'm open to new stuff but what can it offer me?

Could someone do me a none fanboy comparison that lists things I may want to try or do?

Thanks,

Whoop

growse · 21 Apr 2007 at 09:47

Um, that's a bit of a broad question. You could probably write thousands of words on the differences between windows and linux (practically, idologically etc). Anyway, here's my choices:

1) Linux is free

2) Linux (for me) has more stable drivers

3) I prefer the philosophy around open-source software

4) IMO, Linux is more secure

5) I believe Linux to have more functionality

6) I find it easier to use

So there you go - people could probably add a million reasons on top. I can't really think of anything that either can 'do' that the other can't 'do', but I think it's about how fast you can achieve what you want to in each OS. Mostly, it's not about which you should use, it's about which you prefer to use. If you use Kubuntu (or whatever) and windows side-by-side, and you prefer to use Windows, don't be brow-beaten by anyone who'll try to convince you that Linux is "better". Use what you prefer to use.

That said, a lot of people will run around saying things like "Use Openoffice, it's way better than MS office and doesn't tie you into proprietry file formats" and "Hey, there's no insecure browsing (think IE) for Linux!". In a way, they've got a point. On the whole, everyone needs to browse the web, check email, write documents. But try them out and if you don't like them (I can't stand OO for example) you don't have to use them. You'll probably find more decent alternatives for Linux than you will for Windows however....

Whoop · 21 Apr 2007 at 09:57

No one will convince me either is better, thats why I have both to decide for myself.

The only thing I have found so far though is windows is faster.. although I have installed to the hdd it does lag and freeze the mouse when opening applications or menus. Quite strange for something so light (allegedly).

Oh and also I can't get wireless to work yet even though it detects a wifi card it refuses to enable and keeps changing the wep key type to ascii.

Whoop

growse · 21 Apr 2007 at 10:04

Whoop said:
No one will convince me either is better, thats why I have both to decide for myself.

The only thing I have found so far though is windows is faster.. although I have installed to the hdd it does lag and freeze the mouse when opening applications or menus. Quite strange for something so light (allegedly).

Oh and also I can't get wireless to work yet even though it detects a wifi card it refuses to enable and keeps changing the wep key type to ascii.

Whoop

To my knowledge, wireless is still an issue in linux. If you've got a supported chipset, it works amazingly well (my ipw2200 is fabulous) - but if you're not supported, you're mainly stuffed. This can be enough for a lot of people to not put it on their laptops, and rightly so.

From memory, KDE can be quite heavy, and you mentioned it's an old laptop. I'd suggest giving one of the lighter window managers a try, my favourite is openbox. I don't use KDE myself though, so could be wrong about how resource-heavy it is.

Una · 21 Apr 2007 at 10:25

Wireless support is probably the worst area of linux at the moment. Unless you know what you are doing and can set it up manually and diagnose what the problem is.

Network-Manager in Ubuntu 7.04 has solved most of my wireless problems. Setting a WPA key via the console was just not working for some reason and it wouldn't authenticate previously for me.

Speed wise linux seems much faster than windows for me, it helps if you don't use a bloated WM like KDE for a start.

Whoop · 21 Apr 2007 at 10:48

Una said:
Wireless support is probably the worst area of linux at the moment. Unless you know what you are doing and can set it up manually and diagnose what the problem is.

Network-Manager in Ubuntu 7.04 has solved most of my wireless problems. Setting a WPA key via the console was just not working for some reason and it wouldn't authenticate previously for me.

Speed wise linux seems much faster than windows for me, it helps if you don't use a bloated WM like KDE for a start.

Given my relative newness and the fact I am using Kubuntu, is it wise for me to attempt a desktop change/install or am I better off doing a reinstall using ubuntu or Xubuntu. Although I am open to other versions and really disliked puppy

Whoop

Una · 21 Apr 2007 at 11:10

You have packages xubuntu-desktop (XFCE) and ubuntu-desktop (Gnome) which you can just install to get all the stuff that would have come on the installcd for those seporate disks. I guess it depends on if you have a lot of free disk space or not.

There is also Fluxbox which is very light weight, but its not exactly intuitive to use if you have been a windows person forever.

Shane5578 · 21 Apr 2007 at 11:12

windows is the way to go if you want a slick and easy system.

the only reason i use linux is because many commercial companies use it. also you dont need to worry about going to jail lol

.walls · 22 Apr 2007 at 00:15

Linux is not Windows

Fillado · 22 Apr 2007 at 00:43

Whoop said:
Given my relative newness and the fact I am using Kubuntu, is it wise for me to attempt a desktop change/install or am I better off doing a reinstall using ubuntu or Xubuntu. Although I am open to other versions and really disliked puppy

Whoop

I too use Kubuntu since I find Gnome sluggish, not as fuctional and, really, a reminder of 1995 - plus KDE has a great amount of apps I use surrounding it too.

Anyway to get network manager just click on the K Menu > Add/Remove Programs > search for network manager and install it like that

daven1986 · 22 Apr 2007 at 01:06

ok i have been running fedora core 6 since the beginning of the year and i have come to the following conclusion.

linux is very very nice, BUT it has quite a way to go with many things. so the best solution is to have a lowish power linux PC and a high power windows PC (for games) then use a KVM.

the reason for this is because dual booting is annoying and one of your OSes gets neglected, for me windows has nothing on except some games.

but linux is very nice to use, it just takes a bit more effort, but helps you learn more about how OSes work. they need to dumb it down a bit while microsoft need to "undumb" it.

Fillado · 22 Apr 2007 at 01:30

daven1986 said:
they need to dumb it down a bit while microsoft need to "undumb" it.

Clicky!

GarethDW · 22 Apr 2007 at 01:57

Fillado said:
Clicky!

Ooooh, that looks interesting, but how do I legally install it on my current hardware - I don't really want to replace my fully functioning PC for some Apple hardware that I don't need.

Also, I tried to find some mirrors to download it, but I couldn't find it listed at distrowatch.org - do you know why that is? If there are no mirrors, I don't mind downloading from torrents, like I do with Debian, Sabayon, Kanotix, Kubuntu, etc...

janesssssy · 22 Apr 2007 at 17:40

wow, sarcasm. the reason is because its not open source.

daven1986 · 22 Apr 2007 at 19:56

Fillado said:
Clicky!

tbh, it isn't the best OS. yes it is nice but the best OS would be a combination of linux, windows and OSX.

take the prettiness and graphics of OSX, the games of windows, and the price of linux and then choice apps from each. but of course this won't ever happen. but at the moment i'd say the best bet is to use:
OSX: if you like pretty things
Linux: if you are hardcore and want to learn
Windows: if you like games

and of course any of the above

Una · 22 Apr 2007 at 20:19

I have OSX, Windows and Linux on my mini mac and I don't see how OSX is any more "pretty" than gnome for instance (and if you want more eye candy beryl). Not to mention its seriously sluggy when it comes to response times.

I agree with the linux/windows games issue but in my opinion linux has surpassed OSX for general usage. (Though will be interesting to see what Leopard is like, I don't expect anything special) I still want a macbook heheh.

Mac make some serious nice/sexy hardware but on software imo they are lagging behind.

GSDog · 22 Apr 2007 at 20:36

I installed Ubuntu 6.10 about 2-3 weeks ago and found it very hard and complicated. But once I learnt more about the commands, etc. It did become more easy.
I did have loads of problems with GFX drivers and Beryl though, so when Ubuntu 7.04 was released a few days ago, I did a reformat and installed 7.04.
I found 7.04 much, much better. It immediately recognized my wireless card and connected straight away without any problems, the signal strength also seems to be very good and I was using my laptop about 100meters away earlier.
GFX drivers were also much easier to install, all thanks to the "Restricted drivers manager" which basically installed it all for me.
I did notice Beryl was still very sluggish, even on my high powered PC, so I uninstalled it and I am now using Compiz which is much smoother, but I do miss the looks of Beryl.
Beryl is very unstable and crashed all the time, so I will wait a while until it is more stable.
I now dualboot XP and Ubuntu, I have been using XP for years, but since installing Ubuntu I have barely used XP at all.
Ubuntu feels and looks so much nicer and it feels much more secure than XP and has amazing support on IRC, forums, etc, etc.

richardbirks · 27 Apr 2007 at 21:41

I've got 7.04 (plus beryl with all the fancy bits turning) running on a three year old shuttle (754 3200+ and 6800GT) with similar age gfx card and it runs like lightning.

Sluggish is definitely not the word for this OS; it's breathed new life into this PC

Rich43 · 27 Apr 2007 at 22:36

growse said:
To my knowledge, wireless is still an issue in linux. If you've got a supported chipset, it works amazingly well (my ipw2200 is fabulous) - but if you're not supported, you're mainly stuffed. This can be enough for a lot of people to not put it on their laptops, and rightly so.

From memory, KDE can be quite heavy, and you mentioned it's an old laptop. I'd suggest giving one of the lighter window managers a try, my favourite is openbox. I don't use KDE myself though, so could be wrong about how resource-heavy it is.

Actually... I have a desktop with a ralink based card and a laptop with a atheoros based card.. you will find that pretty much any wireless card you buy is highly likely to be supported by latest version of ubuntu.. if you find one that aint tell me which chipset it is

saffyre · 27 Apr 2007 at 23:05

Try out XFCE as a window manager. Ive tried, gnome, kde, fluxbox , enlightenment and i have found XFCE to be the best compromise between performance and features.