Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Octobor Showdown Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

Poll: will Ubuntu 9.10 be able to compete with Microsofts new flagship? (40 member(s) have cast votes)

will Ubuntu 9.10 be able to compete with Microsofts new flagship?

  1. I'm sure it will! (15 votes [39.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.47%

  2. Voted No, Never (23 votes [60.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.53%

Vote Please sign in to vote.

#21 zool

zool

    Kohzoku Oni

  • Member
  • 1,064 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 01:06 PM

Maybe your machine sucks.

;)

You cannot tell me what I am wrong about when I have actually tried it on my machine. I can close the lid to my laptop and it will be off before I get it into my bag. Quick enough for me.

As for rebooting---I only reboot to install updates. Thats what...once a week?

Big deal.


Duhh.. that is a laptop.. the screen went off but the machine didn't yet.. if you think that hardware can be just turn off split second.. think again pal... Now you accusing my machine sucks.. very simple minded..

edit:
okay.. this is becoming just like a flame war.. never mind.. i respect anything.. OS depends on the machine and how the user use it.. it will varied accordingly.. If you are a good user with good machine, you know how it performed.. I think every benchmark in the world is stupid because not all machine can react the same way as the other even though the specs and and brand are the same... It depends a lot on how the user use it.. if you are careless, you know what would happened in the future..

Lastly, every OSes have good and bad sides.. Just take the good side and live with it and be happy, that is how i work with my Windows and Ubuntu.. ;)

Edited by zool, 21 October 2009 - 01:26 PM.


#22 adrynalyne

adrynalyne

    Active WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 903 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 02:27 PM

Smilie implied, damnit. Stop wearing your feelings on your sleeve. This is the internet, not your momma's house. It was tongue in cheek and if you cannot see that, then you have issues.

No--the screen was not off. All lights are off, the screen is off, the fans are off, the hard drive has spun down. I know the difference. Sleep mode is quicker than shutdown in Ubuntu. Sorry if you cannot see that. I could care less...nay, couldn't care less if you do not believe me.

#23 Borix

Borix

    Active WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 823 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 02:30 PM

Silly question...

If you have no money left and not a parrot on your back, you have no choice :)

#24 theapu

theapu

    BigB

  • Member
  • 575 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 06:19 PM

I think Windows and Mac OS X is trying to be like Linux right now --fast and resource efficient.


This made me LOL.

A lot.

why mate?
Ubuntu with compiz fusion is much better than windows aero.
Compiz uses much less resoures than aero.

#25 adrynalyne

adrynalyne

    Active WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 903 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 08:03 PM

Eh, no. Compiz may use as much, but not less.

As well, Compiz came after Aero, not before.

I challenge you to show me figures otherwise.

Edited by adrynalyne, 21 October 2009 - 08:04 PM.


#26 kr09u7

kr09u7

    New WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 25 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 07:49 AM

yap.ubuntu 9.10 is fast considering how bloated it was starting to become.
[mode=sarcastic]hmph.I bet I can beat you boot time with ms-dos :P .

But gentoo and yoper are the fastest linux distro's that I've ever seen.I always stick with gentoo :yes: (bad software compatibility :cry: )

#27 Guest_Jeff_*

Guest_Jeff_*
  • Guest

Posted 12 November 2009 - 08:41 AM

yes mate. from 9.04 onwards ubuntu booting has been quiuk. sure it will be much faster in 9.10

But it will never reach any where near windows 7 boot speed.



Well on my machine windows 7 boot time is over 30 seconds, and on the same machine my Ubuntu 9.10 boot time is 26 seconds. I actually strongly prefer my Ubuntu install for speed AND eye candy. Windows 7 is a let down.

I dont get my hopes up for anything from Microsoft anymore, they just rush to get everything out and it still is prone to viruses and crashes too... At $199.99 Windows 7 cost $199.99 more than Ubuntu. Sad.

#28 adrynalyne

adrynalyne

    Active WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 903 posts

Posted 14 November 2009 - 05:40 PM

Are you seriously saying that Windows is not of the same quality as Ubuntu?

How are you even able to type that with a straight face? <_<

If you are stupid enough to get infected with viruses, then you aren't smart enough to be running Linux either, unless you just play with your UI to make it look pretty and talk about how it owns Windows.

Everyone talks about how virus prone Windows is, and thats why they use Linux. I am sorry, but thats just masking how inept you are because you aren't intelligent enough to learn safe computing, so you use an OS that doesn't require common sense to keep you safe.

That is, until Ubuntu keeps gaining its bits and pieces of market share and virus writers start to take interest.

This is akin to toweling yourself clean each day because you can't figure out how to stop slipping in the bathtub.

I totally respect those who use Linux to its full potential and prefer it over Windows. But for the reasoning of viruses? What is your address? I will send you a box of moist wipes so you don't slip anymore.

Edited by adrynalyne, 14 November 2009 - 05:55 PM.


#29 PurplePeopleEater

PurplePeopleEater

    I'm an Android fanboy sue me

  • Member
  • 4,090 posts

Posted 14 November 2009 - 06:04 PM

@Adrynalyne & hab: Guys!! You need to shutdown for reboot.. Thats mean ubuntu is much more faster than Windows 7.. The whole cycle in OSes =( boot time + startup time + shutdown time )x loop = i think Ubuntu won this part because all the parts are pretty fast compared to Windows.

Do you ever have to reboot Ubuntu? :lol:

That is, until Ubuntu keeps gaining its bits and pieces of market share and virus writers start to take interest.

I dont think they'll ever write viruses for linux because then they would be hurting themselves

okay.. this is becoming just like a flame war.. never mind.. i respect anything.. OS depends on the machine and how the user use it.. it will varied accordingly.. If you are a good user with good machine, you know how it performed.. I think every benchmark in the world is stupid
Lastly, every OSes have good and bad sides.. Just take the good side and live with it and be happy, that is how i work with my Windows and Ubuntu.. ;)

Looking at the title of the topic I think it was intended to be a flame war. I agree benchmarks do get a little rediculous, I never read them all.
I like both OS's but I can never stick with Ubuntu so I use windows and accept that.

Edited by PurplePeopleEater, 14 November 2009 - 06:10 PM.


#30 adrynalyne

adrynalyne

    Active WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 903 posts

Posted 14 November 2009 - 06:27 PM

I dont think they'll ever write viruses for linux because then they would be hurting themselves



How so? Malware authors do it for the money, or to extend the length of their epeen. Mostly money.

There is more money in exploiting Windows right now. A LOT MORE.

As for hurting themselves, they don't fall into the "wet nap" category. See above for what that means.

Or here.

http://adrynalyne.bl...tu-because.html

#31 uch_haiden

uch_haiden

    WinMatrixian

  • Member
  • 224 posts

Posted 14 November 2009 - 08:11 PM

Ubuntu does boot and turn off faster on slower machines. Ahem on machines that Windows Seven won't run acceptably.

And as I see it, Microsoft is totally getting into the Unix direction finally and yes catching up with Linux in terms of user privileges to add security (root/administrator). Normal users with administrator account were most of the time were the ones getting their systems infected. Vista made the greatest improvement but was totally irritating (UAC) and Seven just made the irritability smaller.

I just prefer Linux over Seven and all future Microsoft releases since
1. It's free
2. It's already loaded with the things I need ( OpenOffice/Gimp/Evoution/Firefox). Sure they are downloadable but having them built in is a real time-saver especially when deploying in a large number of PCs.
3. No need to reboot after every update.
4. Totally faster with all eye-candy enabled.
5. Support is just a web away. Microsoft is good at the little inconveniences but when it comes to other problems, their support personnel is most of the time clueless. They will soon direct you to someone then to some other then to...
6. Simpler, things are just command/console away. No need to reach for the mouse on plainly simple tasks.
7. No need to read the EULA.
and so on.

Edited by uch_haiden, 14 November 2009 - 08:16 PM.


#32 PurplePeopleEater

PurplePeopleEater

    I'm an Android fanboy sue me

  • Member
  • 4,090 posts

Posted 15 November 2009 - 01:26 AM

^
Windows doesnt have to reboot after every update anymore (it does for the large majority of them though) :lol:

I dont think they'll ever write viruses for linux because then they would be hurting themselves



How so? Malware authors do it for the money, or to extend the length of their epeen. Mostly money.

There is more money in exploiting Windows right now. A LOT MORE.

As for hurting themselves, they don't fall into the "wet nap" category. See above for what that means.

Or here.

http://adrynalyne.bl...tu-because.html


Yea I read the blog post, and yes as the virus writers definitely wont be computer idiots like the people complaining about virus theres still the fact that the companies paying might be using linux (or windows) to develop. It's just another guess, it's not intended to be completely true or anything.

I do know the money is in windows right now and its growing into the Mac market, since alot of people are moving to macs.

Edited by PurplePeopleEater, 15 November 2009 - 01:32 AM.


#33 Guest_synchro_*

Guest_synchro_*
  • Guest

Posted 19 November 2009 - 01:46 AM

Eh, no. Compiz may use as much, but not less.

As well, Compiz came after Aero, not before.

I challenge you to show me figures otherwise.



Launch date beryl/compiz.... November 2006...link http://www.linux.com.../feature/114191 If you read the article, it was actually out before then, but was being tested for community based consumption. As we all know, Vista launched in January 2007...

As for Compiz "using as much", not a prayer. I have Ubuntu 9.1 installed on a Dell D600 laptop with all compiz features working except for raindrops. The laptop has a Pentium M w/ 512 ram.... It would catch on fire if I even tried to install Windows Vista or 7.

Want to comment?

Register or Sign In to go completely ad-free!