What does Ubuntu do better then Vista?

Hi I'm considering dual booting vista and ubuntu and I'm wondering what ubuntu does better then vista?

I know ubuntu is a good and cost-free replacement for windows, but if I already have windows, what are some good reasons why you think it would be a good idea to dual boot?

Thank you for your time!

Right now, one thing that I really like about Ubuntu is it's user interface and it's customization. So, pretty! So, you don't have to sell me ubuntu on that aspect.

 

Well the first question I would ask myself would be is what do you do most on Windows? But, wireless management is better, and it boots up faster. I also like the Ubuntu forums support, they have active and helpful people. Plus, updates are distributed in different ways from Windows.

 

Security (Unix and obscurity). The big one is price (Free).

The boot time thing is debatable. Vista and Ubuntu literally take the exact same amount of time to boot on my system.

 

The main reason I like it is for being free (as in free beer), cos I'm poor. I have it on an old desktop of mine for watching videos on my TV. Runs as well as XP, but because no one else in the house is familiar with it, they don't play with it (which means it doesn't get killed).

I would use it more if my Aspire 4315's WiFi worked with linux, and if anyone has one and knows how to get it to work, PM me

 

The first question is: why Vista and not XP?

 

I've been given to understand that Ubuntu's boot time can be dramatically lowered upon streamlining the OS, but with a default installation, I find the same to be true as you.

Also, Vista gets just slightly better battery time for me, but that's with several tweaks, and using Monitoroff.

 

This website, which is dedicated to Linux on the 4315, mentions that you just need to install the madwifi driver for your WiFi to work. See their Ubuntu 8.04 Ubuntu install notes here, and note from this bug report, that if you're running Ubuntu 8.10, you may need to only install the Ubuntu backport modules to install the proper madwifi support for your WiFi hardware, instead of the compiling from source method.

Good Luck..

 

Well I'm not going to toss you a sales pitch. First off, Linux is not Windows.

What you can expect from Linux:

- choice - there are often 10 ways to do the same task.
- flexibility - you can hack at anything on a Linux system; anything.
- cost - there are more than 20,000 programs offered in Ubuntu's Debian repository; all of it is free.
- security - you will run into little if any problems keeping a Linux system free of viruses (assuming you have common sense).

One more thing: sooner or later you will have to work with the command line; expect to get your hands dirty working with Linux, even if it is a user-friendly distro like Ubuntu.

 

This is one of the reasons I don't use Ubuntu

 

In my experience, Vista performance is much worse than Ubuntu. A year ago, I bought a Sony TX130 (subnotebook), and found that with 2gigs of RAM, Vista just crawled. Even turning off the eye candy, performance was exasperating. When I moved to Gutsy and later Hardy, performance was very fast. Right now, I'm running Hardy on a Sony TR1 (subnotebook from 2001) with 1 gig of RAM and it is so fast I forget that I'm using an old computer.

I like that Ubuntu gives you access to thousands of software titles through the repository system, and that apt-get or synaptic handle the dependencies to make installation and deinstallation easy.

Another big selling point to me is having access to the Linux command line. This is especially helpful when slicing and dicing data. I feel like I have very granular control of my system and can set it up just the way I want.

Lastly, I like that there are occasional rough edges in dealing with Linux that require me to learn something (although for some, this is a detriment).

-John

 

I've never gotten even close to the same battery life in linux (Xubuntu) as Windows XP. My laptop gets 7:30 of battery life in XP (stock install), 4:00 in Xubuntu stock install and 4:15-4:30 after tweaking settings. That's unacceptable to me.

Everything else about Xubuntu I loved, I would MUCH rather be using Xunbutu, but I couldn't take that much hit on battery life. When I asked for help on a linux forum, the suggestion to fix it was to get a second battery. No thanks.

 

The only thing it does better - unless you're running applications specific to Linux - is the level of nerding-out it gives you. As an Application Platform - which is my interpretation of an OS - it's hugely inferior to Windows, unless you're broke.

I opted for partially running Ubuntu at work due to developing specific applications under Linux, in order to leverage OSS, the developers and the low cost to rollout. But these machines will not be leading a 'normal' life - I don't consider any Linux distro to be a worthwhile desktop environment for me or for work yet.

 

Really? I'm pretty sure I get better battery life. I have a cpu throttling ap that sets it to on demand, but that's about it.

 

Yeah... it's pretty well known and accepted that linux has much worse power management than windows..

 

What version of Xubuntu? What hardware, your M1330? I get the same battery life (or better) from Kubuntu on this T61 as I did in XP. Did you check out Powertop, see what was waking the machine up? Was the bluetooth powered on in Xubuntu but you weren't using it? Linux doesn't automatically power off unused radio devices, that's a known power management problem. What if you turned it off manually, unloaded the bluetooth module?

Linux has worse power management than Windows in some cases, but half the battery life means that something is seriously misconfigured. Did you install XP from a retail CD, or is it the Dell image? Because a Dell image is NOT the same thing as a stock install. It has all the Dell drivers and management tweaks done to it, quite likely to improve battery performance in many cases. If Linux isn't given the same treatment, it's not unreasonable to see Windows "winning" there.

 

Chiming in on this, I installed the CPU throttling app too, but I get about 2 hours of battery life on Ubuntu compared to 3 hours on Windows running a whole lot more applications. Not sure what exactly I'm doing wrong. :\

Anyway, for me personally, I use Ubuntu whenever I want to do any sort of coding. I just always found it more convenient to code to in Linux than in any version of Windows.

 

It's on my Inspiron 4100, I no longer have my M1330's
It's a fresh install of Windows XP from a retail CD - no special drivers installed, just the touchpad and wireless drivers - the rest installs fine with XP because the hardware is so old. Right now with 83% remaining I have 6:35 remaining.

Xubuntu was configured following several guides, one included using powertop and letting it fix things as it saw fit. That did improve my battery life, but not monumentally (15-30 minutes at most).

There is no BT on this laptop, it's too old. The wireless uses the B43 wireless drivers in linux. I am always on wireless so that powering down is irrelevant.

This laptop has dual batteries, so that may be something to keep in mind.

I'd love to get this to work, but I asked around on the Ubuntu forums and was basically told "HEY, STOP THINKING LINUX WILL BE WINDOWS. THEY'RE NOT THE SAME, DON'T EXPECT THEM TO BE." I tried some stuff on my own but was dissatisfied with the results. Much love if you can actually help me.

 

^ Yeah, Linux power management isn't the greatest; although, with enough tweaking you can get it to match or sometimes exceed the efficiency of XP. I can get up to 6.5 hours of battery life on my T42 running Ubuntu (with a 9-cell battery).

 

Yeah, you don't specifically state how exactly linux is inferior here, it certainly is not hugely inferior to Windows, certainly there are more programs written for windows, however that is not necessarily a good thing. Specifically, what exactly is your definition of 'application platform' Because if it's speed, linux beats windows, if it's efficiency, same thing. Shared libraries anyone? So, please elaborate further to enlighten us all.

 

It's interesting you should ask that. Because it's the people who aren't capable of immediately abstracting 'application platform' who're perfectly happy using Linux.

The end result for me in having a computer isn't what I'm doing to the computer. It's what I do using the computer.

 

Yes, I got that part, what is it you do with windows that you can't do on linux. I'll admit there are some people that shouldn't use linux. Artists, gamers generally.

So, either you're among a relatively small group of people that literally don't have the right tools they need for what they do, or you're ignorant. Which one?

 

Wow. That's all I can say about your post. It's unfortunate that you have to belittle someone if you disagree with their position on Linux.

 

It's not quite belittling, though I probably didn't phrase that quite right.

Regardless, I meant that he didn't know of what options were available for things in linux, or he might've and didn't care.

Ignorant: –adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3. uninformed; unaware.
4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

Ignorant on it's own doesn't have to be an insult.

 

I don't think I need to "stick up" for Vogelbung, but I think you don't understand what the term application platform means. Think large scale, as in a business environment. A customer doesn't care about the application, or even the platform; the customer cares about the solution to a specific problem. If a company cannot leverage Linux to develop a solution for the customer, then Linux does not meet the needs of the customer. If a business can't develop or use existing tools on a particular platform, then that platform is useless.

So, I highly doubt that Vogelbung is ignorant in any way, shape, or form. I think that, in your zeal to promote Linux, you failed to take into account what a large business needs to be successful and satisfy their customers, and instead made an ignorant post.

 

At the moment I'm burning my 7th "Product Recovery" CD on my new T500. I can install Ubuntu from a single CD. Additional S/W can be installed from their repositories and then there are other sources.

I'm not sure what Vista (Home Basic) provides that requires that many more CDs. Well... I guess I can expect 100% H/W support. (Still looking for an application that uses the web cam. )

Yes, I bought the system w/out a DVD burner. I have three other systems with DVD burners so I didn't spend the extra $$$.

I like Linux because I feel it gives me more control. I feel it is more responsive too. Mostly, I have disliked Microsoft since I was saddled with a lame command processor back in the pre-windows days.

That said, I wouldn't encourage anyone else to use Linux. If they choose to give it a try and I was able to help them along the way, I would do so, but if they were happy with Windows I would not try to sway them.

best,
hank

 

Linux let's me do exactly what I want on my computer. I have the UI set up in the easiest to use way, I have the system tweaked for performance and battery life. I get the same time out of this machine with Arch as I do OS X, which is substantially more than XP.It just does things better.

 

You don't use it because the boot time is the same, but it's more secure? You can tweak what loads on boot to speed things up. Previous versions were waaay faster. Ubuntu would boot up in a matter of seconds. Now it's a bit different, but it's still more secure.

 

Would you rather play compatible games (through WINE, Cedega, or CrossOver) on Linux or use the native Windows?

 

Why does Linux drain so much more power than Windows anyways?

 

I'm not even a large business - but I do believe that a large business with a very fixed, limited mode of use for each machine would get the most out of Linux. And indeed, this is the case for many large corporates who deploy custom applications - it is increasingly done under Linux for the time/cost compression advantages more than anything else.

I'm very aware of the options available for Linux - and that is the reason why I think it's currently worthless as a desktop environment for truly general-purpose use, and is really still for those for whom the primary aim is to use the OS.

Being blunt, even for the many categories which do have viable OSS solutions, many Linux enthusiasts have no knowledge of the non-OSS equivalent of whatever they're promoting as great and free since they've never been able to afford the alternatives.

For the likes of people like that, it will be 'better' since you will have a capability you've never been able to afford without resorting to piracy. However when the purchase cost of software is as relatively irrelevant to me as it is for many businesses when considering the total lifecycle/cost involved in the use of the software, you don't look at how much the software costs: you look at how and what what you can do with it, and how effective it is while in use. And currently for the advanced SME, the OSS movement has exactly zero compelling applications which make it worthwhile to move when you compare things from that perspective. The same goes for personal use when once again you don't have the limitations of a severely restricted budget and are more interested in the end results.

As I said, for large-scale businesses who have very fixed niches for their staff + limited general office automation facilities or for extensively custom-developed applications, the application of OSS tools may well be more cost-effective / effective. For the broke or those who have some odd ideological thing about not paying for software, I have no doubt that it will give you capabilities you will never have otherwise had. But for the empowered individual computer user and the flexible SME with a reasonable (or beyond) budget who uses tech to produce something of value, it is IMHO a retrograde step to move to using an open-source application platform as their primary OS given the limitations of the tools available.

It's a 'wood for the trees' thing. I'm looking at the forest. It seems like you're still peeling the bark off the first lot of trees.

I have no objections to the philosophy of OSS. I do use a fair number of OSS applications (although invariably in largely inconsequential roles) and I make a point of donating to the developers if I use it often, and in the very rare cases of tools I find invaluable I offer development hardware to the core authors. It's just that the hype among the more involved elements of the tech community that surrounds it vs the real world is akin to people hugging the Down's Syndrome kid and calling him a genius* when he says something, anything.




*Apologies to anyone with Down's Syndrome relations - it was merely the most expedient method of illustrating the point.

 

What Ubuntu does better than Vista:
-No BSOD
-No need for anti-virus/spyware for average user
-6-month release cycle: No need for hundreds of updates after clean install
-Free of charge
-Uses less resources
-Better wireless connectivity after 8.10
-Multiple desktop (It really helps when writing a report based on tons of different sources)
- Compizzzzzzzzzzzzz

.. and not very important one:
-There are more than 10 different versions! (Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Ubuntu Studio, etc.)

 

I'm also thinking about dual-booting Ubuntu but the big problem with my laptop is battery life and if Ubuntu gives me any less battery life than with Vista then its a big no-no.

Can people confirm that Ubuntu will use up battery slower than Vista (with aero usually)

 

I don't use it cause it's one of the more bloated linux distros. I use linux 90% of the time I'm on my computer though