Linux versus Win7

Chat about Linux in general

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby linuxviolin on Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:39 pm

Fred wrote:I would certainly encourage all those Windows users that seem to think Windows works so good out-of-the-box to purchase a copy of the linked Windows OS. Then install it on their hardware.

I would be interested in knowing how much fun you had tracking down and installing drivers and firmware. And then configuring it all. That's just to get a boot-able, functioning system. That's before you even think about any productivity software, security software, or massive and risky system updates that will need to take place.

What comes on a piece of hardware that has Windows pre-installed and what you will be buying in that box are similar in name only. :-)

Hi Fred! :D Like I said elsewhere, in my experience this is not quite exact, but maybe I have been lucky :wink: :

linuxviolin wrote:I have already used Windows, even with some recent (at the time) components, WITHOUT using the drivers by manufacturers, without using any driver disk, just with the "default" drivers in Windows. It was with XP but also, if I remember correctly, with 98. Never had problem. And here, we can not talk of supported or "not supported (...) by the maker" as there was nothing, except components, by the maker in the PC. Windows CAN do it, even with recent material, Linux, er, sometimes...

Again,
linuxviolin wrote:I always hated things like 3d desktop, effects, desktop widgets... so for my usage at the time everything worked correctly but yes of course you can not expect a great performance and you will not have all functions given by the manufacturer driver. But that works. In Linux, er, not always...

Of course, I have not always used Windows like that, I have also used the drivers by the manufacturers but the tests were conclusive... and it was at least on two different PCs.

And this is arrived with internal and external components... Again, maybe I have been lucky but it's arrived! :roll:

graeme wrote:its worth adding that people who want no-hassle installs can buy PCs with Linux pre-installed.

And what? Ditto for Windows...
K.I.S.S. ===> "Keep It Simple, Stupid"
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." (Leonardo da Vinci)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
linuxviolin
Level 8
Level 8
 
Posts: 2055
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: France

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby nukm on Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:43 pm

I installed Win 7 Home_64 ($89 each)on two boxes. No complication, no effort. Setting up the junk after install is no different that setting up a Linux install after install, except that in Windows I use an anti-virus from Avast.

I upgraded 2 boxes from XP to Vista Business- no problemo. I upgraded another box to Win 7 Pro from XP - no problemo.

Now, I hate to mention this but - the squalls of Linux users from update "breaks" especially from Xorg and kernel updates, from GRUB 1.97/1.98 snafus, from wireless issues (doesn't work basically) and so on are ignored. Yet, they are genuine issues.

Basically what one has here are the less than 1% of OS share justifiying their personal likes and dislikes.

I personally maintain that if one uses a wired line - ever - for phone calls, rather than 100% wireless phones - he is not a wireless phone user.

And, of course, the mantra - "Windows be evil". I have decided that such comments, having no basis in fact, are simply anti-Semitism in action. Jealousy.
"Books? Who needs books? They don't taste all that good." The American Connoisseur, circa 2010
"Radiation is good for you.Everyone should eat radiation to be fulfilled. (free translation)...Ann Coulter, circa 2011
nukm
Level 3
Level 3
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:14 pm

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby Fred on Fri Sep 17, 2010 12:44 pm

nukm,

Your knowledge of the later versions of Windows, especially, is far greater than mine I am sure. For me, working with Windows is a little like having a tooth pulled without pain killer! I don't seem to have problems getting Linux installs up and running however. Of course I pay some attention to the hardware choices and have been working with Linux for a day or two now.

I think maybe the issues here have more to do with learning curves and backgrounds than real issues. :-)

Fred
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and each time expecting a different result.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on the menu. Liberty is an armed lamb protesting the electoral outcome. A Republic negates the need for an armed protest.
User avatar
Fred
Level 10
Level 10
 
Posts: 3356
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:59 am
Location: NC USA

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby tdockery97 on Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:22 am

I like Windows 7 o.k. I just don't think it is as fun as Linux. The biggest drawback IMO with windows is that support is incredibly poor compared to say, Linux Mint.
Image

HP Pavilion 17 Notebook, 8GB DDR3, 2.5GHZ A10-APU, Radeon HD 8650G
User avatar
tdockery97
Level 13
Level 13
 
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:54 am
Location: Salem, Oregon

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby MrCoOl on Sat Sep 18, 2010 12:58 am

thenewguy wrote:
vtired wrote:I use linux 100% on my computers, no dual booting. Not because I am gainst windows but just feel more comfortable with linux. But in two occassions I have refused to install linux for people who requested it on their netbooks. The simple reason being that they might have to use USB 3g modems on those netbooks. With Linux you cannot tell when these modesm will work or which ones. In that case, for people who expect everything to work always out of the box, windows is better option and microsft did good to come up with windows 7.


I tend to agree with this. Win7 is a pretty good OS. there are some things I don't like about it, but then no OS is perfect. In the case of people using netbooks with 3g modem,s why not test drive Linux on their machines with a live CD? If the CD picks up the modem, then they are home free. I've found some modems which wouldn't work properly with Windows, but worked okay on my Linux machine (and modems which were the opposite).



i m using bsnl evdo 3g modem on linux mint 8 and it is giving 2x speed as that in win7 ultimate...
mint rockssss...
MrCoOl
Level 1
Level 1
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:01 am

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby deadguy on Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:49 am

I've never tried windows 7 and have no intention of trying it tbh
but I have enjoyed reading the various opinions here :)
I've always said "use what works for you" and well, Linux works just fine for me.

Cheers,

Deadguy
User avatar
deadguy
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 710
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:41 pm
Location: Illinois USA

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby colyn on Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:14 pm

All of the complaints I see here about install/updates/upgrades are coming from new Linux users who have no idea what they are doing and are prone to take advise from other noobs who are in the same boat. As a result they have problems, in part because they have been told "Linux is just like Windows".

I just did a clean install/update/upgrade of Mint 9 KDE with no issues on a new computer. If I had to pay for just the software I need to do the things I need to do it would cost me a couple thousand dollars + on Windows but instead I have what I need at $0.00. My only cost for this computer was the cost of the parts needed to build it.

Windows is a viable OS but I believe the over-inflated price the Gates empire charges for Windows is just that..........over-inflated. Then there's the overpriced software to be added to do the things you need to do. For a OS that requires many security updates to close holes that closes those holes but opens new holes it's not worth my time.

And then the anti-virus/anti-spyware software that eats system resources and still lets in virus/spyware..
User avatar
colyn
Level 6
Level 6
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: ¿ǝɯ ǝǝs ɐʎ ʇ,uɐƆ ˙ǝɹǝɥ ʇɥƃᴉɹ ɯ,I

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby colyn on Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:19 pm

randomizer wrote:The claim that Microsoft charges unreasonable prices for Windows (ignoring "ultimate" editions) is ridiculous. You use a copy of Windows for thousands of hours during its life cycle, and all for $150-200.


By the same token I can download Linux, burn to a CD/DVD and install/update/upgrade for a fraction of the cost and use it for thousands of hours too which also includes all of the free software.

randomizer wrote:You buy a game at $50-70 brand new and play it for 5-15 hours. Which is really an exorbitant price?


Thankfully I'm not a gamer...
User avatar
colyn
Level 6
Level 6
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: ¿ǝɯ ǝǝs ɐʎ ʇ,uɐƆ ˙ǝɹǝɥ ʇɥƃᴉɹ ɯ,I

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby colyn on Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:30 pm

JonM33 wrote:
colyn wrote:At two bills for a Windows 7 Home Premium DVD I'll stick with Linux.

If Microshaft would charge a reasonable price....maybe...


1 bill actually: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6832116754

$99 is nothing for an entire operating system. Console games are $59 each and can't even do remotely close to what a Windows OS can.


OEM lacks the better (??) support of the full install...
User avatar
colyn
Level 6
Level 6
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: ¿ǝɯ ǝǝs ɐʎ ʇ,uɐƆ ˙ǝɹǝɥ ʇɥƃᴉɹ ɯ,I

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby randomizer on Sat Sep 18, 2010 9:53 pm

colyn wrote:By the same token I can download Linux, burn to a CD/DVD and install/update/upgrade for a fraction of the cost and use it for thousands of hours too which also includes all of the free software.

So you saved yourself $150 (less if you consider OEM copies), congratulations. There's plenty of free software for Windows as well, but even if there wasn't it's beside the point since we're talking about OS prices. I've spent far more money on something I've used for only a short amount of time.

Personally I think there are much better reasons to advocate use of Linux than the cost of an OS. But in the end, whether most people use Linux or not really doesn't matter. If Linux does what you need it to better than Windows, then you'd be nuts to use Windows. The opposite is also true. Software is just a tool unless you are Richard Stallman, in which case it's part of a religion.
User avatar
randomizer
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:15 am

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby tdockery97 on Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:55 pm

randomizer wrote:Personally I think there are much better reasons to advocate use of Linux than the cost of an OS. But in the end, whether most people use Linux or not really doesn't matter. If Linux does what you need it to better than Windows, then you'd be nuts to use Windows. The opposite is also true. Software is just a tool unless you are Richard Stallman, in which case it's part of a religion.

I use Windows (rarely). I use Mint Debian 99.9% of the time. I don't think Mr. Gates or Microsoft are evil. I do think they have on occasion set things up that make people move in the direction they desire (IE9 not compatible at all with XP). But Microsoft is also in many ways responsible for the computer industry growing as it has. Personally, I subscribe, to some degree, with FOSS philosophies; but I will use proprietary when it suits my purposes. In the ideal future MS and GNU/Linux can happily live side by side. Yes, software is a tool. Why you use it can be a philosophy.
Image

HP Pavilion 17 Notebook, 8GB DDR3, 2.5GHZ A10-APU, Radeon HD 8650G
User avatar
tdockery97
Level 13
Level 13
 
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:54 am
Location: Salem, Oregon

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby colyn on Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:57 pm

randomizer wrote:So you saved yourself $150 (less if you consider OEM copies), congratulations. There's plenty of free software for Windows as well, but even if there wasn't it's beside the point since we're talking about OS prices. I've spent far more money on something I've used for only a short amount of time.


In today's bad economic situation we need to save as much as possible.

Most of the freeware MS based software I've used was just OK...however most of the software I use would cost a lot of money if I were using Windows. PhotoShop $699+ depending on which package deals. Gimp=free. Lightroom $300+. DigiKam=free. ACDSEE Pro3 $170. Gwenview=free. To name a few..

I've used all of the above software programs and have nothing bad to say about any except the high price..

But............since we are talking about OS's... Windows 7 Home Premium (full not OEM) $199.99. Linux Mint 9 KDE=free...

randomizer wrote:Personally I think there are much better reasons to advocate use of Linux than the cost of an OS. But in the end, whether most people use Linux or not really doesn't matter. If Linux does what you need it to better than Windows, then you'd be nuts to use Windows. The opposite is also true. Software is just a tool unless you are Richard Stallman, in which case it's part of a religion.


I agree...

Linux renders graphics including color and black & white far better than Windows.

Example:
26 shade image file from pure white to pure black, only 22 shades visible in Windows and all 26 on Linux without monitor adjustment. Never could get it to render true color or black & white with Windows but with Linux it was done without any adjustment. Based on two different computers of mine that originally came with Windows Vista but now have Linux.

My laptop even has better color and black & white since Linux was installed..

Since most of my work involves imaging I need a computer that is up to the task. Linux makes the cut Windows does not..

Software may be just a tool but you should always use the best tool suited to the task at hand..
User avatar
colyn
Level 6
Level 6
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: ¿ǝɯ ǝǝs ɐʎ ʇ,uɐƆ ˙ǝɹǝɥ ʇɥƃᴉɹ ɯ,I

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby randomizer on Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:47 pm

colyn wrote:Most of the freeware MS based software I've used was just OK...however most of the software I use would cost a lot of money if I were using Windows. PhotoShop $699+ depending on which package deals. Gimp=free. Lightroom $300+. DigiKam=free. ACDSEE Pro3 $170. Gwenview=free. To name a few..


Some of those programs are also available on Windows, and there are also Windows-only applications that you can use instead of the commercial counterparts. No sane person would buy the full Photoshop package unless they actually needed all the features (almost nobody does), and if it's for their job they can probably get it through their company. Photoshop Elements satisfies the needs of end users, or you can use GIMP instead which costs you nothing. There's also Paint.net and a few others but I'm not a fan. GIMP still doesn't have all the features of the full Photoshop, but for 95% of people it has more than enough.

colyn wrote:But............since we are talking about OS's... Windows 7 Home Premium (full not OEM) $199.99. Linux Mint 9 KDE=free...
You'd be crazy not to buy the OEM version given that there's no physical difference between it and the retail copy, only licencing and support differences. The latter isn't going to matter to anybody anyway because MS end user tech support is beyond pathetic.** Google is far better. Licencing isn't going to concern most people either because they don't read the licence agreements, and in some countries those EULAs hold little or no legal weight. But of course licence restrictions still need to be taken into account, and they are most certainly the only real difference between the retail and OEM copies, apart from the price.

I get all my software for free since I'm a student. MS is really nice to students so that they wean us off other software and indoctrinate us into the world of Windows 8)

colyn wrote:Software may be just a tool but you should always use the best tool suited to the task at hand..


That's the only truth. Every other X OS vs Y OS debate will end in a religious debate (ie. circular flame war that never converts anybody), whereas this is objective.

** I emailed them once and they told me to contact Customer support, who told me they don't deal with that area. All I wanted was to have a licence key invalidated and replaced.
User avatar
randomizer
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:15 am

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby colyn on Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:03 am

randomizer wrote:Some of those programs are also available on Windows,


Gimp with GTK+ = slow on Windows and is a resource hog. I know I've used it. Runs like it should on its native Linux though..

DigiKam and Gwenview can be used on Windows with KDE for Windows. Buggy and slow..

randomizer wrote:and there are also Windows-only applications that you can use instead of the commercial counterparts.


Tried them all and found them completely unsuitable.

randomizer wrote:No sane person would buy the full Photoshop package unless they actually needed all the features (almost nobody does), and if it's for their job they can probably get it through their company.


I agree... but you might be surprised by how many do buy the complete package..

randomizer wrote:Photoshop Elements satisfies the needs of end users, or you can use GIMP instead which costs you nothing.


PSE is slow and lacks what I need. While it does have raw support of sorts it is slow and PSE8 (current version) will only save raw files as .dng files. As stated above Gimp does not run good on Windows.

randomizer wrote:There's also Paint.net and a few others but I'm not a fan. GIMP still doesn't have all the features of the full Photoshop, but for 95% of people it has more than enough.


Paint.net is pure garbage. Worthless when trying to work with raw files.

randomizer wrote:You'd be crazy not to buy the OEM version given that there's no physical difference between it and the retail copy, only licencing and support differences.


Again I agree..

Point is Windows lacks what I need or the software that would give me what I need is beyond expensive. Therefore Linux is better suited..
User avatar
colyn
Level 6
Level 6
 
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: ¿ǝɯ ǝǝs ɐʎ ʇ,uɐƆ ˙ǝɹǝɥ ʇɥƃᴉɹ ɯ,I

Re: Linux versus Win7

Postby randomizer on Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:17 am

colyn wrote:Gimp with GTK+ = slow on Windows and is a resource hog. I know I've used it. Runs like it should on its native Linux though..


Sadly that will remain the case while there is basically nobody working on Windows ports. It pretty much just works and nothing more. The UI sometimes has issues as well. The biggest problem is when you have a few GB of additional brushes trying to load up (go and make a coffee), but I'm not sure how that is handled on Linux as I don't have any additional brushes myself (my brother does but uses Vista so that's how I've seen it).

colyn wrote:DigiKam and Gwenview can be used on Windows with KDE for Windows. Buggy and slow..


That's not a port. That's almost like running Wine :) I didn't know that either was available on Windows though.

colyn wrote:I agree... but you might be surprised by how many do buy the complete package..


Well they're not sane then are they? ;) Most likely they know of nothing else. How many people know about GIMP? I find alot of people use software that comes with consumer electronics as well. If you buy a camera it often comes with some useless garbage with a pretty UI. My father runs a fair amount of such software.

To be honest, given how much of a resource hog the last few versions of PS have been, I'm surprised many people can even run it.

colyn wrote:Point is Windows lacks what I need or the software that would give me what I need is beyond expensive. Therefore Linux is better suited..

Well I was never arguing what is and what isn't the right tool for you. Doing so would be pointless since I don't know exactly what you do and certainly don't have experience in that area anywhere near yours. You know what you need/want more than anyone else. Most of the time I'm referring to people who simply do basic photo retouching, word processing and the like. People who don't really know what they need because they haven't experienced anything apart from what they are already using, and who are unlikely to want to change from what they already use even if it saves them money. I know a number of such people. They're not filthy rich, but paying money is easier than learning.
User avatar
randomizer
Level 5
Level 5
 
Posts: 871
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 7:15 am

Linux Mint is funded by ads and donations.
 
Previous

Return to Chat about Linux

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests