Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th Mar 2008 17:57 UTC, submitted by CIozzio
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y PCMag compared Ubuntu, Windows, and Mac OS X to one another. "Now that the major OSs all run on Intel chips, the playing field is pretty leveled out. We compared the heavy hitters in an eight-point test to find who wins the OS battle."
Order by: Score:
Print Link:
by Kroc on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:05 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Damn, they've disabled the print link for external/blank referrers. :|

I love the page design,
It's like I'm in 2000 again!

Edited 2008-03-10 18:07 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE: Print Link:
by Earl Colby pottinger on Mon 10th Mar 2008 20:19 UTC in reply to "Print Link:"
Earl Colby pottinger Member since:
2005-07-06

I am running BeOS 5.0.3 with FireFox 2.0.0.4 just in case others get diffirent numbers than me.

I saved the first page of the article to my hard drive, total data 433,345 bytes in 63 files.

I then clipped the text of the article on the first page, total characters 1048!

Am I going crazy! Only 0.24% of this page is useful info! And that is with some untrustworthy ad sites blocked!

Reply Score: 22

RE: Print Link: - try this
by jabbotts on Tue 11th Mar 2008 16:24 UTC in reply to "Print Link:"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I just got a clean PDF out of it (kept the author and link back to the article to attribute the original source).

Hit the print button (right click didn't work for me but regular click did).

copy text from below the copywrite line to the start of the title.

Past into Word or your prefered processor.

Remove the "click to see score card" links along the right side

Print to PDF and stuff it in your library for later referal

Sadly, I'm limited to Windows at work so this is based on Adobe and Word.

Reply Score: 2

Once again...
by nathbeadle on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:20 UTC
nathbeadle
Member since:
2006-08-08

...it's always great to read a review from someone else who feels that going from 10.4 to 10.5 for Mac OS X is the same as downloading patches and security fixes in an XP/Vista Service Pack. Wonderful :|

Reply Score: 6

RE: Once again...
by SlackerJack on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:26 UTC in reply to "Once again..."
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Yer, it's not like leopard took 5 years to do, fix whats not broken now fix whats broken and then break it again.

I disagree with the Windows has more apps so it must be better, whatever happen to less means more?

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Once again...
by systyrant on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Once again..."
systyrant Member since:
2007-01-18

Less is more, but people don't know what they want until they try it. Most people could uninstall 90% of what comes with an OS and still have more software than they need.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Once again...
by jabbotts on Tue 11th Mar 2008 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Once again..."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Windows definately has a good selection of popular applications and retains a deathgrip on the gaming markets.

osX has a smaller selection of applications though the average quality is probably higher than windows simply due to Apples tight control over the "user experience".

Foss, hands down, has the largest software library available too it. Even discounting various versions still developed and accounting for the many applications developed as truly cross platforms.

Based on a title count, you just can't compare either closed system with the numbers available within the Bazzar. In the Linux based OS relm, the kernel may be the only program that has less than three options to choose from. In the BSD based OS relm, the kernel is the difference between distributions and the applications available include everything from the Linux based OS world and any extras only available too BSD.

I mentioned in another post that I'm probably not understanding the judging criteria for that one but I also suspect the author limited the selection pool by choice or lack of understanding.

Reply Score: 2

Good laugh...
by sonic2000gr on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:27 UTC
sonic2000gr
Member since:
2007-05-20

From the article:

Networking:

Vista: 4 stars
Ubuntu: 2 1/2 stars

I am laughing my guts out...

Reply Score: 23

RE: Good laugh...
by Kroc on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:32 UTC in reply to "Good laugh..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"Only in Vista is DHCP a three hour job."

Reply Score: 14

RE: Good laugh...
by apoclypse on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:56 UTC in reply to "Good laugh..."
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

They based that on hardware support and little to nothing on the actual networking stack being used. It was a stupid comparison to begin with.

Even in hardware support they fail because OSX shouldn't even be counted in the same room as Ubuntu. OSX doesn't support half the hardware that Ubuntu does. The printer comparison was plain stupid since they use almost the exact same drivers as OSX does. I sense a bit of bias here.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Good laugh...
by sonic2000gr on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Good laugh..."
sonic2000gr Member since:
2007-05-20

The printer comparison was plain stupid since they use almost the exact same drivers as OSX does. I sense a bit of bias here.


Yes, the article sounded like they had decided OSX was the winner from the start.
I have only toyed with OSX and it really looks like a nice, easy, solid os to me. But then it is tied to specific hardware, making the whole purpose of the comparison irrelevant. I need to spend big cash to run this.
On the other hand Vista is definitely a dead end and MS should take a completely new route for a new system. Yes, wireless works nicely in Vista, but copying files over the network is a nightmare. On the other hand networking is bread and butter for Linux. And if you are committed to it, you RESEARCH before you buy any hardware.
The other thing that these articles can't really grasp: "Ubuntu is a text based OS" it says. And yes, it is. It is a UNIX-based os, for god's sake. The GUI is just a program, like any other. That's what gives people choice and power. While I agree that we should have more GUI tools for common tasks, there will always be a time for the command line. This is not new, either. Windows power users and admins often resort to registry keys, obscure policy settings and command line. This is not really much different.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Good laugh...
by rockwell on Tue 11th Mar 2008 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good laugh..."
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//Yes, wireless works nicely in Vista, but copying files over the network is a nightmare//

SP 1 fixes that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good laugh...
by daedalus8 on Mon 10th Mar 2008 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Good laugh..."
daedalus8 Member since:
2008-03-10

no kidding... Hardware support... Ubuntu got the least?? How about all the different platforms that the operating system can run on? Would take put it even? heh

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Good laugh...
by ChrisG on Tue 11th Mar 2008 09:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good laugh..."
ChrisG Member since:
2005-07-09

True, linux covers more architectures, but it doesnt cover them with as much depth of hardware support as windows. I felt their assessment of the current situation was fairly spot on.

If you get an OS for a machine, you want it to work with that machine. You dont care that you could also install the same OS on an architecture you are never going to use. Therefore, hardware support still needs to improve on Linux for the "average PC user". The rate of improvement is fantastic though!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good laugh...
by Laurence on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:31 UTC in reply to "Good laugh..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I was going to post the same.

While they had a point about wifi hardware, that was a point which was made in the previous topic (drivers/hardware) therefore irrelevant under the networking heading.

Given that Windows TCP/IP stack is shocking (particularly Vistas) compared to Linux's, I really do think that either this article is biased or the author really doesn't have a clue what he's reviewing.

I was also disappointed with the value for money point. Surely only having to pay for the blank CD/DVD is 5* value for money compared to the $100+ price tag for other other products.

And finally I thought it was a little misleading calling Microsoft Office on Windows as 3rd party given that it's a Microsoft product running on a Microsoft product.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Good laugh...
by chemical_scum on Mon 10th Mar 2008 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Good laugh..."
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

I was also disappointed with the value for money point. Surely only having to pay for the blank CD/DVD is 5* value for money compared to the $100+ price tag for other other products.


And they forgot to mention that Canonical will send you an Ubuntu CD for free via Shipit.

All round a pretty biased and ignorant review.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Good laugh...
by Quag7 on Tue 11th Mar 2008 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Good laugh..."
Quag7 Member since:
2005-07-28

I think the issue here is that this document was not written, at all, for the kind of crowd that frequents osnews.com.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'd agree that it was not meant for the crowd that frequents OSnews; knowledgable, inquisitive, not blindly accepting of poor journalism...

I'd add that it was also of no use to the crowd that doesn't read OSnews with the kind of unbalanced comparison and completely uninformed comparison it presented.

Now, I'm not going to start talkign kernels and intimate details with the non-OSnews, non-techie type but I'd at least provide a balanced review of all three platforms running on the same hardware. I'd probably include BSD in there too if I was focusing on the more technical but not techie reader.. say.. the type who would read computer magazines.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good laugh...
by Nossie on Mon 10th Mar 2008 22:14 UTC in reply to "Good laugh..."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

thats what I thought...

copying 20 10k files...
estimated time remaining ... 12 days 13 hours and 6 minutes remaining ..

Vista? WTF!

And as far as drivers go... Linux might not compare to XP but in my own opinion they are more abundant and better quality than Vista (think creative labs for a start)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good laugh...
by sigzero on Mon 10th Mar 2008 23:07 UTC in reply to "Good laugh..."
sigzero Member since:
2006-01-03

Why? I would say they are right.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good laugh...
by kajaman on Tue 11th Mar 2008 07:58 UTC in reply to "Good laugh..."
kajaman Member since:
2006-01-06

I am laughing too. Funnier one is that MacOS X is winning on the field of bundled software over everyone else. Let's make it clear: you get hardly anything more than raw operating system with MacOS X, and you get full software stack from Ubuntu (or almost any other distribution).

The case of drivers... it was said many times before - but you can't really compare driver's support for MacOS X and Linux, because one is designed to run on only one vendor's hardware - the other one has about 20 architectures supported.

Networking... ugh. No comments.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Good laugh...
by Moochman on Tue 11th Mar 2008 09:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Good laugh..."
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Let's make it clear: you get hardly anything more than raw operating system with MacOS X, and you get full software stack from Ubuntu (or almost any other distribution).

It's not clear at all. Mac includes iLife, which includes music-production, movie-editing and DVD-playing software -- all things you *WON'T* find in most default distro installs.

Of course you can get them afterwards, but then exactly what was your point? Mac also has a free office suite (NeoOffice) and plenty of other free and open-source software available that you can install after the fact.

Edited 2008-03-11 09:46 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Good laugh...
by arokh on Tue 11th Mar 2008 17:52 UTC in reply to "Good laugh..."
arokh Member since:
2008-01-29

You sound like you never used Linux, the wifi implementation is a mess.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good laugh...
by atsureki on Wed 12th Mar 2008 14:18 UTC in reply to "Good laugh..."
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

From the article:

Networking:

Vista: 4 stars
Ubuntu: 2 1/2 stars

I am laughing my guts out...


Ubuntu's low score is no surprise to me because they're not talking about performance or underlying design, but Vista's high score and tie with OS X are nonsense.

Finding and accessing network shares was a factor. Setup interface should have been. Both count strongly against Ubuntu because they opted for the simplest, flimsiest, default GNOME way of handling those things even though much better, more powerful, and more intuitive applets exist. When GNOME accesses SMB shares directly, a few programs can't touch the files because they're not actually mounted in the VFS. There's almost an NIH thing going on with Ubuntu, but instead of creating their own way, they take the "purest" option native to the DE. Unfortunately, the distros that create their own redundant tools (real NIH) have the best ones (drak, YaST), and often fail to give them back to the community.

The latter issue (setup interface) would have beaten Vista's score to death and kept going. Trying to help my neighbor with her new computer, it's like Vista's network control panel consists of one button labeled "Internetz. Plz find them kthx." I'm not a fan of networking voodoo when it takes over and doesn't work.

When I was playing with Vista on my laptop, the main reason for which was to experiment with media sharing to my PS3, it wouldn't let me share media. The reason? It blacklisted my wireless network as "public" because -- ready for this? -- it uses WPA2 with TKIP. It's secure, so it's public. Brilliant.

I don't know what they were smoking when they found networking problems in Leopard that didn't exist in Tiger. WiFi reconnect after sleep has been a minor issue for me, but clicking on the menu bar and selecting a network is something you have to be able to do if you're going to own any wireless networking equipment to begin with.

It's all very silly, but not as bad as when they said IE7 is slick and Safari is bad. They must really like shiny objects.

Reply Score: 3

What a review
by WereCatf on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:29 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

They did come to the exact same conclusion as I predicted they would, like f.ex. I assumed they'd just fall in love with the OSX looks. I don't actually think it's all that cool and neat, I just like the integration they've done.

But well, maybe I should just out of curiosity write a review about how those OSes fair on my now little aging hardware.

Reply Score: 2

RE: What a review
by theTSF on Mon 10th Mar 2008 20:47 UTC in reply to "What a review"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

Why would you want to do that? Just so you can make Ubuntu win? How about lets see how well each fare on PowerPC Platform. Or lets put it on Some very closed Laptop format where there are no Open Source Drivers?

To be fair judging each OS they needed to be running on a common platform that they all run smooth on.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What a review
by Athlander on Tue 11th Mar 2008 03:36 UTC in reply to "RE: What a review"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10



To be fair judging each OS they needed to be running on a common platform that they all run smooth on.


That would be an Apple, wouldn't it?

Reply Score: 3

Every year (or so)
by godawful on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:32 UTC
godawful
Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm sure the article had enough errors for any enthusiast to point out.

my big beef was the meme that you have to buy apple updates every year.
we all know the mac equivalents of service packs (10.5.x) are free, but saying a. that you have to buy, when plenty are still running tiger, and b. that its every year, when tiger and leopard both had 2ish years before their predecessor, just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Every year (or so)
by NeoX on Tue 11th Mar 2008 04:19 UTC in reply to "Every year (or so)"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Exactly. What the author obviously missed is that the numbering system for os X is not the same as most OSs. 10.4 to 10.5 is a major upgrade similar to XP vs. Vista. 10.5.1 is a service release and now 10.5.2 is a major service pack akin to Vista SP1 or XP SP2. Apple does not charge for these types of updates. Also they are much more frequent. Look how long it took MS to finish SP1 for Vista, more then a year. And they stated when Vista was originally released they were going to speed updates and upgrades up. Pfft. Yeah that is speedy.

Reply Score: 1

dell
by Mellin on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:36 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

"Dell's sales of PCs with Ubuntu, for example. It sold only 40,000 in six months—that's a mere 220 computers per day. Compare that with Dell's usual six million PCs sold every six months, most with Windows"

well the link to the dell with ubuntu is hidden and no ads for it on the main page

Reply Score: 8

RE: dell
by sbergman27 on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:56 UTC in reply to "dell"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Yes. Even if you know what you are looking for, Ubuntu is hard to find. I usually end up having to read the spiel about their Open Source PC's featuring the incredible FreeDOS operating system before I am able to find the Ubuntu offerings. And the Dell website usually "Recommends Microsoft Vista Professional" about 5 times before I *do* find anything offered with Linux.

They improved their PR techniques with the Linux community a bit this time around. But it's really the same old game of "Find the token FOSS PC" when you actually go to their site and look.

Dell, I have one thing to say, and it's a Yoda quote: "Do! Or do not! There is no try.".

Reply Score: 9

RE: dell
by pandronic on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:51 UTC in reply to "dell"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

It's an economic decision ... they don't want to spend a fortune supporting their Linux computers just because some clueless grandma thinks her computer is broken because the Start button is not in the bottom-left corner.

They chose to sell it only to people that know what it's about.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: dell - they never did provide support
by jabbotts on Tue 11th Mar 2008 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE: dell"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

From the initial anouncement of the latest Linux based OS offerings, Dell has provided the hardware and installed image while all software related support calls where forwarded on to Cononical's call centre. I believe that was the big reason Dell chose Ubuntu over other OS.

Reply Score: 3

RE: dell
by tomcat on Mon 10th Mar 2008 22:17 UTC in reply to "dell"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

well the link to the dell with ubuntu is hidden and no ads for it on the main page


I don't think that Dell is trying to intentionally sabotage its Ubuntu sales; rather, it's probably trying to avoid the situation of a user accidentally buying Ubuntu, finding that it doesn't run his game and accounting software, calling customer support, and then returning it. Let's face it: Ubuntu sales are a niche market, no matter how you slice it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: dell
by Mellin on Tue 11th Mar 2008 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE: dell"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

from http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&cs=19&...

"Not sure Open Source is for You?

The main thing to note is that when you choose open source you don’t get a Windows® operating system. If you’re here by mistake and you are looking for a Dell PC with Windows, please use the following link.

Shop Dell PCs with Windows"


you can't accidentally order one

Reply Score: 5

Dell printers on Mac OS X?
by bousozoku on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:48 UTC
bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

I'm not sure anyone cares that Dell/Lexmark printers aren't well supported on Mac OS X since their most expensive ink jets are akin to throw away printers.

I was surprised to see that photographers should use Windows. The only photographers I know who use Windows are those who can't afford or don't want a Mac.

Oh, and as far as networking on Ubuntu, I've not had much luck with the Broadcom chipset-based wireless card. I can load the firmware but then, that makes other things not work. Ethernet is slick and fast, though.

It's too bad that Ubuntu and the other distributions haven't come up with a way to make things more consumer-oriented because the world could really use lithe, capable machines for less money. If there were a few pieces of commercial consumer software, I'd think a lot of people would choose Linux.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Dell printers on Mac OS X?
by sbergman27 on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:00 UTC in reply to "Dell printers on Mac OS X?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Oh, and as far as networking on Ubuntu, I've not had much luck with the Broadcom chipset-based wireless card. I can load the firmware but then, that makes other things not work.

Loading the Broadcom firmware makes other things not work? Exactly *what* would those other things be that the Broadcom firmware breaks? Please be specific.

Edited 2008-03-10 19:03 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Dell printers on Mac OS X?
by bousozoku on Tue 11th Mar 2008 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Dell printers on Mac OS X?"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

"Oh, and as far as networking on Ubuntu, I've not had much luck with the Broadcom chipset-based wireless card. I can load the firmware but then, that makes other things not work.

Loading the Broadcom firmware makes other things not work? Exactly *what* would those other things be that the Broadcom firmware breaks? Please be specific.
"

The Synaptic Package Manager/Software Update broke from that point forward. It would not complete any installation. It resumed working after I removed the firmware.

It doesn't matter whether they're logically related or not. That was the only thing that changed either time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Dell printers on Mac OS X?
by Darkelve on Tue 11th Mar 2008 07:28 UTC in reply to "Dell printers on Mac OS X?"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

I was just thinking the same... I don't know any photographers who use Windows... I've only seen them using a Mac though.

And certain 'techy' types also like to use Macs for their laptops.

Pretty good article all in all, but sometimes they jump too conclusions too quickly...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Dell printers on Mac OS X?
by sergiusens on Tue 11th Mar 2008 11:41 UTC in reply to "Dell printers on Mac OS X?"
sergiusens Member since:
2007-09-01

Broadcom's wireless chipset works neither well on a Linux distro nor on Solaris (SXDE, Indiana, Solaris).

I've read, without any quoting from my side, that broadcom support on Linux is reversed engineered and only partially works.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I have the same grief with my pcmcia linksys 54gs based on broadcom chip. On that particular old machine I take the extra five minutes to copy the right .ini (driver) file too my Mandriva partition and use ndiswrapper. It works like a charm unless you need the one or two advanced features you'll miss.

On an thinkpad T60; seamless. It just works. (crap, now I owe old stevey royalties for his catch-phrase)

Reply Score: 2

As viewed by Joe Average User
by bb_matt on Mon 10th Mar 2008 18:56 UTC
bb_matt
Member since:
2006-01-04

This is an article aimed squarely at your average, reasonably adept computer user. It's not aimed at the type who read OSnews.

Reading it from that point of view, it makes sense, in the same way you would compare the fluffiness of pillows.

The article is essentially a fluff piece - a "filler" article.

There's absolutely nothing new here and I admit I skimmed through the article in about 2 minutes.

Reply Score: 4

RE: As viewed by Joe Average User
by Soulbender on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:09 UTC in reply to "As viewed by Joe Average User"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Fluffy is ok as long as it's not filled with errors and glaring misunderstandins. Unfortunately, this article is just that.

The Ubuntu core, however, is a text-based OS—something
Windows spent years getting away from. And unfortunately, you still have to use terminal input to install software or configure settings far too often, even more often than you had to use DOS command lines in Windows 3.1.


Really? The only time I ever had to use the terminal to install something in Ubuntu was with vmware.
And more times than Windows 3.1? Way to show off that you never used 3.1, mate.

Reply Score: 11

ephracis Member since:
2007-09-23

Hehe, and I installed vmware without using the command line. My mom uses Ubuntu and she is damn scared of the command line (it's considered magic).

Btw, my 10 year old sister also uses my mother's computer to surf and play games. Who wanna bet she has never even seen the command line? Or even know what it's for. ;)

Reply Score: 3

aitvo Member since:
2006-09-03

You don't even need to do that for server or player, just enable the partner repos in the GUI and update synaptic.

Reply Score: 1

autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

Fluffy is ok as long as it's not filled with errors and glaring misunderstandins. Unfortunately, this article is just that.

"The Ubuntu core, however, is a text-based OS—something
Windows spent years getting away from. And unfortunately, you still have to use terminal input to install software or configure settings far too often, even more often than you had to use DOS command lines in Windows 3.1.


Really? The only time I ever had to use the terminal to install something in Ubuntu was with vmware.
And more times than Windows 3.1? Way to show off that you never used 3.1, mate.
"

I used Windows 3.1 (even 3.0!) and I remember it very well.

Why people like you spread lies (that's it! LIES!) about Ubuntu and its magical friendliness and "one-click-does-all" myths. Its not true. Linux (Ubuntu included) IS text-based system. It is much more capable that way than DOS was, but it is still text-based. Why just not admit that if someone wants to learn and master Linux must learn Bash in the first place ? It would be much easier and spare most of the flamewars. There is nothing wrong with Linux. But it is console-based OS.

What is the best way to troubleshoot application behaviour in Linux ? Isn't it to start it from command line and see error messages in terminal output, which do not display at all when started by mouse ? Azureus is fine example of this. Windows applications display all their messages in graphical mode. Linux application do not.

And what to do when GUI application make mess with some critical system configuration files like xorg.conf ? Isn't that you will edit those files by hand in text editor like nano ?

Can you honestly say that you NEVER - I repeat: NEVER - do such thing during your whole Linux experience ?

Telling people truth about Linux-based OS from the very beginning is much simpler way to introduce them to that world.

Reply Score: 3

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

*claps*

Transparency, flexibility, and power are what I love linux for. While it is *possible* to use linux with the commandline, taking that essential bit out of the equation makes it a hell of alot less attractive. You end up with an interface and applications that are anywhere from a year to five years behind everyone else.

Linux has a hell of alot going for it, and its a shame it is being pushed onto people as something that is "good enough, and free". I would still use it if it cost 150$, but not for the UI, for the commandline, config files, and editable source code.

Edited 2008-03-11 01:54 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I used Windows 3.1 (even 3.0!) and I remember it very well.


Then you'd also remember that it was a lot worse than Linux today, in every way.

Why people like you spread lies (that's it! LIES!) about Ubuntu and its magical friendliness and "one-click-does-all" myths.


They're not lies. I've never had to use the commandline to install a single application in Ubuntu with the exception of running vmware-player's vmware-config.pl after installing the RPM. I didn't have to use the CLI to install the RPM by the way, it works just fine clicking on RPM"s in Nautilus.


Linux (Ubuntu included) IS text-based system.


Can you read? I never said it's not.

Windows applications display all their messages in graphical mode. Linux application do not.


This is just not true. Many windows applications logs their errors to the event log, not to the GUI, and many Linux apps shows errors in the GUI.

Can you honestly say that you NEVER - I repeat: NEVER - do such thing during your whole Linux experience ?


Don't be silly. Of course not but we're not talking about my entire Linux experience. We're talking about the current Ubuntu version.

Edited 2008-03-11 02:56 UTC

Reply Score: 8

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Why just not admit that if someone wants to learn and master Linux must learn Bash in the first place ?


Who's talking about mastering Linux? It's not necessary to be a chief mechanic to drive a car and neither is it necessary to be a master at Linux to run Ubuntu.
Most people have no interest in mastering it, they just want to to perform tasks for them.

Reply Score: 9

autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

"Why just not admit that if someone wants to learn and master Linux must learn Bash in the first place ?


Who's talking about mastering Linux? It's not necessary to be a chief mechanic to drive a car and neither is it necessary to be a master at Linux to run Ubuntu.
Most people have no interest in mastering it, they just want to to perform tasks for them.
"

Right. Joe Average has to stay Joe Average, and you will gladly "provide support services" for him and his "free operating system" - for a small fee.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Joe Average has to stay Joe Average, and you will gladly "provide support services" for him and his "free operating system" - for a small fee.


Yes and there's nothing wrong with that. Are you an expert mechanic? A tv repairman? A master chef? A surgeon? Most likely not which is why you pay people do perform those tasks for you.
Welcome to planet earth.

Reply Score: 4

Quag7 Member since:
2005-07-28

I would sort of agree. It's a historically text-based system that is slowly moving toward, but has not yet reached, GUIness.

Once it's running, it tends to run quite well without command line intervention, however. That is, if my experience is typical.

I've long since lost interest, however, in how simple Linux installs are for people who know little-to-nothing about computers. It's a "nice to have," but not essential for me.

Reply Score: 1

sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

I agree that there are *many* flaws by design in Linux(Not the kernel but the user land) as a Desktop OS, derived from its Unix ancestry. I agree that most of them have been worked around in a way similar to how Windows worked around DOS limitations and that the Linux people will try to hide it from public view.
However, I disagree that the CLI is one of those problems.
The lack of a "cross-platform" clipboard is blatant. The substandard Unicode text support(just so we can fit the for loop in a line) isn't very nice either. The lack of a unified GUI, 2D, 3D, IO, Sound and Input API makes developing anything a PITA and forces the user to have many redundant software around.
The fact that the command line can actually help you to hack your system into working when your hardware and software combination would make it otherwise impossible is not a problem, it is a feature.

Reply Score: 1

Treza Member since:
2006-01-11

Maybe the first is to explain to Windows users that the command line is a feature, not a bug.

There are many things that are so much easier to do through the command line...

Reply Score: 2

sergiusens Member since:
2007-09-01

My friend at MS who masters the OS uses the CLI to do stuff that can't be done with a GUI.

Make your own conclusions out of that...

Reply Score: 3

RE: As viewed by Joe Average User
by theTSF on Mon 10th Mar 2008 20:52 UTC in reply to "As viewed by Joe Average User"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

Well what do you expect for the advanced users?

Frames per seconds for Gamers?

Hardware Features it uses? For the Computer Engineers

Power Usage? For the environmentalist?

Load handling? for Computer Scientist

The problem for judging an OS is the fact that people use computers for different things... I would actually agree with most of the comments by PC Mag... And would give a similar rating. I tried Ubenu and I wasn't Impressed. Vista is actually on the whole a bit better then Ubentu but still it is kinda funky. XP is kinda bland but gets the job done. And I prefer OS X, it seems like the best design I have found.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Someone else already mentioned that any comparison would have to be done on the same hardware or it's nothing more than guessing and grabbing at page views.

They reviewed osX so they had an Apple platform right there. The could simply have gotten four of the same Apple notebooks from the lab and put Ubuntu on one, XP on another, Vista on a third and left the fourth with native osX. Run the update for patches, confirm that the hardware all works and put a little more effort into apearing objective as a journalist. It's PC Mag so they must have a stack of review units sitting on the workbench already.

It's not like it would have been rocket science but it seems the article has been torn limb from limb already.

Reply Score: 3

Installing software
by OMRebel on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:04 UTC
OMRebel
Member since:
2005-11-14

From the article:

"And unfortunately, you still have to use terminal input to install software or configure settings far too often, even more often than you had to use DOS command lines in Windows 3.1. Until Ubuntu can do away with the terminal for all but the most geeky uses (as the Unix-based Mac OS does), it will never become an OS for the masses."

Guess he overlooked that little thing called Syanptic huh?

It's MUCH easier to install software in Ubuntu than Windows, by far. No searching online, downloading, praying it doesn't have any malware, then next, next, next, registration, next, next, next, next, finish, reboot.

Reply Score: 18

RE: Installing software
by aitvo on Mon 10th Mar 2008 21:39 UTC in reply to "Installing software"
aitvo Member since:
2006-09-03

Actually he commented about an article pointing to synaptic, but it didn't fit his agenda to go back and correct his glaring error a few pages prior.

;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Installing software
by sakeniwefu on Tue 11th Mar 2008 02:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Installing software"
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

Well, it's not like synaptic is that good. Aptitude is far easier to use. However, it surely beats the crap out of windows' find-some-novel-to-read-while-i-populate-the-list package manager even for commercial closed-source applications as long as they provide deb packages(Windows isn't helpful with custom installers either).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Installing software - eeePC too
by jabbotts on Tue 11th Mar 2008 17:11 UTC in reply to "Installing software"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Seems he overlook the eeePC too unless I've missed all the comments about average users having to do more than use the Asus provided GUI when working with it.

Reply Score: 2

The funny one
by fretinator on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:08 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought the funny category was the availability of software at install. Windows has almost nothing. Just an OS and a few programs. Mac has a few more (maybe). Now comes ANY modern Linux distro. Thousands of applications - word processors, games, media players, web servers, database servers, etc, etc, etc. Any yet the reviewer gave the nod to Mac. That'w when I kinda of mentally checked out.

Reply Score: 14

RE: The funny one
by OMRebel on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:15 UTC in reply to "The funny one"
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

I think it was already decided who the "winner" would be before this article was even written.

Ubuntu got hammered very unfairly on two items - interface and networking. And as far as the "bundled software" category - it couldn't have been any more obvious that Ubuntu was leaps and bounds ahead of Windows and Mac. Yet, Mac, somehow, "won" that category.

Reviews like these are fun, but I'd rather see a more knowledgeable/honest comparison between the three.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: The funny one
by jadeshade on Tue 11th Mar 2008 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE: The funny one"
jadeshade Member since:
2007-07-10

Even as a gnu linux / bsd user, I'm gonna have to agree with the 'bundled applications' nod to mac. I mean, Ubuntu includes everything you need, but as to what the reviewer seemed to be going for - slickness, integration - Ubuntu is definitely beat (not just by mac: a well done, minimalist KDE setup would easily best both in slickness, although the only place I've seen this is Arch's kdemod, which is far from 'bundled software').

One thing that really surprised me, though, was the total absence of Compiz. One-click activation of it was a touted feature of Gutsy (not to mention Compiz's massive hype among workstation distros), and the fact that it was totally ignored really would most definitely impact the interface scores (but then again, including it would worsen the driver situation).

Oh well; the march towards a perfect distro continues.

Reply Score: 1

My annoyances with OSX
by chiwaw on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:12 UTC
chiwaw
Member since:
2006-02-05

My two main OS are Windows XP and Mac OSX 10.5, with the occasional foray in Ubuntu.

XP and Leopard are definitely the two best Desktop OS around, but I don't get why OSX is always considered the best interface, and here's my reasons. Those are the little things that annoys the hell out of me while not being "fatal". But enough to make me feels like XP is the most polished desktop experience.

My annoyances with OSX:

1) Inconsistent window focus with the mouse. Sometime I click on a button in a windows out of focus, and instead of the button being pressed, the window containing it become in focus. So nothing happen, I need to click a second time to activate the button. Under Window, if you see a button and you click on it, it doesn't matter if the window is in focus or not. The button is going to be pressed.

2) The common menu bar at the top of the screen. I like to have many application running at the same time on my desktop, and they are all arranged to cover the screen. When an application window is located at the bottom-right of the screen, for instance, and I need to access its menu, I have to move the cursor down to the bottom-right to put the focus on the window, then move the cursor all the way up to access the menu, and if needs be to interact more with the application's window, I need to move the cursor all the way back again to the bottom. In Windows, if I need to interact with an application, I just move my cursor to its window and everything is nearby.

3) Only way to resize a window with the mouse is by dragging the bottom-right corner. In Windows, you can resize using all four sides of the windows.

That's it. You guys knows tricks to reduce the annoyance on those three points?

Edited 2008-03-10 19:12 UTC

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

After growing up on dos/win3.1 too winXP platforms and long ago forgetting the last time I build a rig that didn't have a dual boot to some Linux based distribution, I go the other way.

I click on a Windows icon then return to what I was doing since I know how long the new app will take to load; suddenly it's hijacked my mouse cursor and screen focus. WTF! I know the blood program is loading and I'll go back to it for the task I need to complete when I, the user, am ready.. not at the OS whim. - I can't tell you the number of times I've looked away for a second and found half my typing in the new program window.

For consistency.. look no further than ms Office.. the [X] behaves differently across the suit of applications; but I digress.

How about my multiple desktops.. oh.. wait.. let me go get a third party app to support a function that is native to every other window manager I've ever seen outside of a few obscure ones (PVWM is it?).

When something crashes in Windows, it rarely only takes out it's own thread. - the number of times I've lost all open websites because Flash or some bug in IE baked the collection of windows is beyond counting. This extends to crashing Excel worksheets due to bad memory management in the Excel or the IT framework it uses.

I need to learn osX keyboard commands better before I can comment there. I don't like touchpads on there own let alone for a primarily mouse driven OS but with a mouse plugged in, osX is a happy place. Ye 'Ole crtl+F9 for a distant view of your desktop is fantastic though. I don’t use it enough to really know it’s personality traits intimately though unlike the above and below.

For me, getting home too my preferred OS (neither of the above) is like sitting down into custom shaped bucket seats in a personal car after spending all day sitting no a bench seat in a deliver truck. Everything just seems to behave the right way. No new window mouse/focus hijackings (dis UI is going to Nicaragua!). No new mouse only or miserable touchpad only controls. No crashes that take down more than the single offending program thread. Any new function I may need on a whim is but a single command or GUI click package install away.

But that's just me and I'll make whatever OS is put infront of me run like a tuned F1 race car; as best it can anyhow.

Reply Score: 3

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

For your windows rat you forgot to mention the one thing that pisses me off about windows since the win95 days. When I want my machine restarted, I want to restart it NOW, not 10 minutes from now. Vista and Xp take forever to restart if you have anything running or if there is an errant process (which is way to common) and with 2K and up the CTRL-ALT-DEL won't just shutdown the machine the way it used to. Whenever Ubuntu starts to act funny (because I love to tinker way too much for my own good) and I need to restart, using the kernel magic restarts the machine immediately. If I still have control of the gui then going to the exit button in gnome will *gasp* restart the computer exactly when I tell it to.

Reply Score: 3

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Very true.. I've been running Mandriva as my host OS for so long now that I'd almost forgot about reboots all together except when switching over for gaming. Even with VMs, I tell it to boot then do something else while Windows figures itself out. Then login and do something else while Windows figures itself out. Eventually all the third party requirements like AV get started up and update there dat file and I can finally do something with it.

At least with winXP it will eventually shut down 90% of the time. If winXP hangs indefinitely at shutdown, you know there's something gone very wrong.

My *nix boots are not instant either (solid state, some day.. solid state) but at least the time from power button too login prompt is far shorter and I can then choose too load the overhead of GUI if I, that damn pesky user again, choose too.

Ah well.. I couldn't live with only one OS on my machine anyhow. Exploring different OS is most of the fun in seeing what the hardware can really due beyond manufacturer's intended use. ;)

Reply Score: 3

Another myth
by fretinator on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:16 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Another myth from the article has to do with installs. As a person who has performed an untold number of installs going back to the Dos 3.3 days, Linux is now one of the easiest installs you will ever do. With most Windows installs (not counting restore disks), the install itself is just step 1. After that the search is on for drivers. Motherboard chipsets with integrated network cards, video and sound can be one of the most difficult. Normally on any modern Linux, the install involves answering a couple questions, clicking next a couple times, and that's it. In my opinion, MacOS doesn't really have an install. They sell an OS with a very carefully selected set of hardware. Not many people do a Mac install (I have), but I don't think it is a fair comparison.

Myths die slowly.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Another myth
by WereCatf on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:36 UTC in reply to "Another myth"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

MacOS doesn't really have an install. They sell an OS with a very carefully selected set of hardware

Comparing OSX installation to either Windows or Linux is just plain wrong. OSX installation doesn't need to do pretty much anything cos the hardware is carefully selected so that they will all work with no issues under OSX. So, it would be more fair to compare a Linux installation on a computer with parts that are known to work under Linux 100%, and, that the Linux installer is also specifically created to run on such a setup. So, comparing them like this is totally unfair. Why not also try OSX installer on a non-Apple hardware and see how it fairs there, eh?

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Another myth
by Athlander on Mon 10th Mar 2008 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Another myth"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

They should have added the cost of the hardware to the OS X price.

Edited 2008-03-10 20:04 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Another myth
by aesiamun on Mon 10th Mar 2008 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Another myth"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

right because you don't need a computer to run linux or windows...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Another myth
by Athlander on Mon 10th Mar 2008 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Another myth"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

The article compares OS X (Leopard) costing $129 direct, Windows Vista Home Basic retail at $199 for the full version, with Ubuntu costing nothing, and so on...

So what you're saying is that for "only" $129, I can buy OS X and install it on my Asus laptop? Coolio.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Another myth
by aesiamun on Mon 10th Mar 2008 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Another myth"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

no but it assumes you already have a mac, as in i bought, the only way to buy it is to pay $129. If you bought a new mac, you'd have leopard. Seeing as you're buying leopard, you already have a mac or you're buying something that doesn't work...

Or do you normally buy xbox360 games to play on your playstation 3?

It says you paid $200 for Vista, which assumes you already have a pc. Upgrade or not, you bought something off the shelf, so you probably already have a computer. Can I install vista on my PS3?

No, i have to have a computer.

Sorry, the cost of leopard is the cost of leopard, just like the cost of windows is the cost of windows...you wouldn't be buying unless you already had the hardware.

Edited 2008-03-10 23:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Another myth
by Athlander on Tue 11th Mar 2008 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Another myth"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

no but it assumes you already have a mac, as in i bought, the only way to buy it is to pay $129. If you bought a new mac, you'd have leopard. Seeing as you're buying leopard, you already have a mac or you're buying something that doesn't work...

Or do you normally buy xbox360 games to play on your playstation 3?

It says you paid $200 for Vista, which assumes you already have a pc. Upgrade or not, you bought something off the shelf, so you probably already have a computer. Can I install vista on my PS3?

No, i have to have a computer.

Sorry, the cost of leopard is the cost of leopard, just like the cost of windows is the cost of windows...you wouldn't be buying unless you already had the hardware.


You can run Windows and Linux on an Apple Intel computer, but you can't, without applying hacks, run OS X on a i386 computer, so if you wanted to run OS X you'd need to buy an Apple. If you already have an Apple Intel, then presumably it was bought for the hardware/OS X combination. If I wanted to play PS3 games but had an xbox, then I'd have to factor in the cost of a PS3. So, similarly, if I had a PC and wanted to run OS X properly, then I'd have to factor in the cost of the hardware. If I had an Apple Intel, then the cost of buying Windows is the cost of the OS only.

Thus, the comparison does not work. It doesn't work with comparing hardware compatibility either, because as your slightly bizarre introduction of PS3 and xbox games suggests, you can't really compare different platforms, and the lock-in of OS X to Apple hardware effectively makes it a different platform from an open-ended i386 PC viewpoint.

Incidentally, you can't run Windows or OS X on a PS3, but you can run Linux on it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Another myth
by aesiamun on Tue 11th Mar 2008 02:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Another myth"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Mac OSX costs $129 and you can successfully get it running on non Apple Branded whiteboxes. Where's the hardware lock in? Yeah, it's not in the license that you can do that, but from what people say, it runs fine.

I don't know, I bought Leopard because I owned a macintosh. Otherwise I wouldn't have bought it. I would have bought something else, like Vista...but if I did buy it, I would have to have a computer that is capable of running it.

If you cannot understand that, then there's nothing else to say.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Another myth
by Hozz on Mon 10th Mar 2008 21:59 UTC in reply to "Another myth"
Hozz Member since:
2007-03-19

My thoughts exactly. He praised XP for having the best hardware support, and while that _is_ true, he didn't mention that just about no modern hardware works out of the box, without spending hours downloading huge driver packages (with built-in control panels that you seemingly cannot live without, oh how that grinds my gears)

My year-and-a-half-ish old PC only just boots XP, but after that, nothing works, not even the network (= no internet = no downloading drivers), which means I have to install the ancient drivers that came with the motherboard, reboot, download the new drivers, remove the old ones, reboot, install the new drivers, reboot, rinse, repeat. On Ubuntu, all but the graphics drivers work OOTB. That wins over support for cheap, crappy wireless devices any day in my book. After a typical XP install, I'll need at least 2-3 reboots to install drivers etc., with Ubuntu, it's 1, to install the proprietary GFX drivers, and that's it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Another myth
by Gunderwo on Mon 10th Mar 2008 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Another myth"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03

After a typical XP install, I'll need at least 2-3 reboots to install drivers etc., with Ubuntu, it's 1, to install the proprietary GFX drivers, and that's it.


Or you can Ctrl-Alt-Backspace and login again in a few seconds on Linux. (or anything running X) ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Another myth
by Hozz on Tue 11th Mar 2008 00:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Another myth"
Hozz Member since:
2007-03-19

Heh, you know what, even though I am aware of that fact, I still like to do a reboot to make sure it works properly, a leftover of my windows days. Old habits die hard :p

Still, gotta love the old ctrl-alt-bksp when toying around with xorg.conf to get TV-out working. I'm still hoping for the day when ATI/Nvidia make their apps work as they should, giving me a proper TV-out with just a few simple clicks, as they do in XP. I won't go into detail about it, but their ways of altering xorg.conf do _not_ make for a happy computing experience.

And this is very off topic. Sorry.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Another myth - TV in for me
by jabbotts on Tue 11th Mar 2008 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Another myth"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I've lost count of the howto's and different ATI and community drivers I've tried to get my Radion9600's tv tuner chip working with. My old ATI Radeon AIW took all the hastle of uncompressing the community module for X and rerunning startx to have awtv working as well as it can. No amount of hoops and circus ring leaders seems to get the 9600 AIW working for me.

I eventually found the correct solution though; hauppauge. ATI can bight my titanium @ until they release driver specs for the tuner chip and I see a module that actually works seamlessly as it should. With the development of an evolving GPU module, I may consider them for video out when it comes time to buy.

Reply Score: 2

mythical users abound
by siraf72 on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:29 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

I think none of the people here are average users so invariably everyone here already knows why they chose the OS they are using. But like the article said, for me, if someone asks me what computer they should get and price isn't the number one concern I would tell them to go OSX.

Its also strange to walk into regular electronics shops and hypermarkets and find apple macs for sale - and I'm talking about the arabian gulf countries!

I think its nice to see that os X is no longer treated as a niche system for artists and mac zealots.

Reply Score: 1

Hardware support in Ubuntu & Windows
by irbis on Mon 10th Mar 2008 19:33 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

People still keep claiming that hardware support in Ubuntu, or Linux in general, would be much poorer than in Windows. However, lots of hardware is auto-configured in Ubuntu while in Windows you may need to install drivers and software for the hardware first, restart the OS etc.

It is, of course, just a plain fact that hardware manufacturers support Windows more, and there's lots of hardware that is not supported in any other OS but Windows. However, if you first check and guarantee that the hardware you are going to buy is Linux-compatible, I can see no reason why hardware support would be so poor in Ubuntu.

An example, I have a nice Logitech Quickcam Fusion webcam connected to a PC that has both Windows and Ubuntu installed but I've not managed to get it to work in Windows although I've read documentation online, tweaked BIOS settings etc. and tried many times. It should be officially supported in Windows, with an installer CD and all. The webcam does work in Ubuntu, however (although not every feature that should be available in Windows, and I've to admit that making it work took some effort from me). There seems to be some hardware compatibility problem with my motherboard USB chipset that may prevent the Windows installer of the webcam software from working? But, despite that, and after some searching with Google, I could get the webcam to work quite well in Ubuntu (Skype, photos etc.). I've given up trying to make the webcam work in Windows, but that is no biggie as I rarely use Windows anyway.

Reply Score: 6

irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

...oh yeah, and now I remember that actually my Logitech microphone didn't work in Windows either (the microphone separate from the webcam, the integrated webcam mic doesn't work in Windows either).

That was actually very odd as microphones are not supposed to be that difficult hardware to support (sound in and that's it?). The mic should just work without the typical Windows hardware installation routine: put in the installer CD, install software and drivers, reboot, cross your fingers and hope that everything works when Windows comes back alive. There was no installing of drivers either in Windows or Ubuntu. Yet, the microphone does work in Ubuntu, but still not in Windows. (Granted, I've not even put very much effort into studying the problem in Windows - as Windows is not the OS I use daily.)

After all these hardware problems in Windows, I cannot understand why I should believe that Windows has much better hardware support than Linux/Ubuntu??

Reply Score: 3

Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Contemplating a change? First consider what kind of user you are. Here are our suggestions:

WEB SURFER
Any OS. You don't need anything fancy to browse the Web and send e-mail.

...except 3rd party virus scanners, spyware detectors and firewalls if you run Windows


OFFICE DRONE
Windows. Get things done with minimal fuss.

I spend my whole working day wrestling with crashing Office applications, sluggish network interfaces and proprietary document formats.
Windows is necessary evil at times but most definitely not a "minimal fuss" office desktop.


GAMER
Windows. Millions of gamers can't all be wrong. (Or buy a Nintendo Wii.)

Windows XP specifically - but agreed that Linux and OS X are not an ideal gamers platform.


PHOTOGRAPHER
Windows. All cameras work with it, and the imaging tools are plentiful.

I was pretty sure OS X is the industry standard photographer platform.
pros in -Hollywood prefer.


ARTIST/MUSICIAN
Mac OS. The other artsy people will laugh at you if you use anything else.

Anything else like Cubase on XP?
I certainly wasn't getting laughed at last month when I performed my set off of a laptop* running XP.
* plus a few bits of hardware - midi controllers and the lark.

Reply Score: 4

Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

Windows XP specifically - but agreed that Linux and OS X are not an ideal gamers platform.

Actually, Linux is an ideal gamer's platform. Except there aren't any games.

Stuff goes wrong with games under Windows all the time, for me. When it does, I have little-to-no idea what's gone wrong or why. It could be hardware, OS or application so there's no-one I can reasonably submit a bug to.

Linux is just that bit more communicative. Probably not in a way that would benefit non-techies though. Then again, nonsense like crapware and DVD copy protection just don't work under Linux. It's too open. And as far as I can tell, they're the main cause of problems.

Reply Score: 3

miscz Member since:
2005-07-17


ARTIST/MUSICIAN
Mac OS. The other artsy people will laugh at you if you use anything else.

Anything else like Cubase on XP?
I certainly wasn't getting laughed at last month when I performed my set off of a laptop* running XP.

Haha, article states that the main reason for using operating systems in audio production is peer pressure - totally professional. This article is bad but this piece is pure comedy ;)

And BTW it's possible to run lots of Windows audio tools on Linux with low latency and connect them to stuff like Ardour because JackD and Wine (with wine-asio) are just so awesome.

Reply Score: 4

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Haha, article states that the main reason for using operating systems in audio production is peer pressure - totally professional. This article is bad but this piece is pure comedy ;)

I missed that. Where was it (had another skim through and still couldn't find it)?


And BTW it's possible to run lots of Windows audio tools on Linux with low latency and connect them to stuff like Ardour because JackD and Wine (with wine-asio) are just so awesome.

Someone else mentioned that to me as well.

The main reasons I stick with Windows for music is because:
* USB soundcard doesn't come with Linux drivers - though I might be able to hack Linux to get it working, I'd rather stick with the known stability and performance of the Windows drivers
* Piece of mind that the audio software will run smoothly and stable in Windows. Wine is good, but I don't have piece of mind with it.

Given that I'm using the same hardware and software for my live performances, I just can't take the gamble (regardless of how minor it maybe) that Wine might hiccup mid-set.

Reply Score: 2

miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

article states that the main reason for using operating systems in audio production is peer pressure

I missed that. Where was it (had another skim through and still couldn't find it)?

ARTIST/MUSICIAN
Mac OS. The other artsy people will laugh at you if you use anything else.

Nothing else is mentioned in a summary you've posted.

I think you should play with Linux audio if you're using it on a desktop. I can't be bothered to reboot if I don't have to so having Guitar Rig 3 (in my case) running on Linux is nice.

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Nothing else is mentioned in a summary you've posted.

I think you should play with Linux audio if you're using it on a desktop. I can't be bothered to reboot if I don't have to so having Guitar Rig 3 (in my case) running on Linux is nice.


Ah yes - sorry. I'm having a 'blonde' day.

I tend to keep my music PCs completely separate from my desktops. I don't even grant my music PCs with internet access unless I absolutely have to.

My laptop is the only system I dual boot these days and even then I only use Windows on it when performing live. So rebooting has never really been an issue.

Thanks for your advice though

Edited 2008-03-10 22:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

If...
by giraffe on Mon 10th Mar 2008 20:14 UTC
giraffe
Member since:
2006-10-13

you consider configuring Ubuntu as "taming a wild beast", what on earth would they think of Fedora?

Reply Score: 2

RE: If...
by miles on Mon 10th Mar 2008 20:48 UTC in reply to "If..."
miles Member since:
2006-06-15

The question is more, what would you consider having to configure Windows (drivers/apps/antivirus/firewall/adaware)?

I know from experience only techies know how to configure their Windows boxes. The others have to stop using their computers a few month each year because of the virus (i.e. their computer don't work anymore, whatever the reason) and see their data erased by the support technician when he reinstalls the OS. That's getting a pain, because most of the people I work with have downtimes like that now and then, and of course they didn't save the data they're supposed to send you.

Reply Score: 1

RE: If...
by eelco on Mon 10th Mar 2008 21:06 UTC in reply to "If..."
eelco Member since:
2005-07-06

you consider configuring Ubuntu as "taming a wild beast", what on earth would they think of Fedora?


Why would you ask that? Fedora is just as easy to configure as Ubuntu, i don't see much difference.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: If...
by giraffe on Mon 10th Mar 2008 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE: If..."
giraffe Member since:
2006-10-13

"you consider configuring Ubuntu as "taming a wild beast", what on earth would they think of Fedora?


Why would you ask that? Fedora is just as easy to configure as Ubuntu, i don't see much difference.
"
"you consider configuring Ubuntu as "taming a wild beast", what on earth would they think of Fedora?


Why would you ask that? Fedora is just as easy to configure as Ubuntu, i don't see much difference.
"

"Taming a wild beast" was a quote from the article. I was being sarcastic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: If...
by sbergman27 on Mon 10th Mar 2008 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Why would you ask that? Fedora is just as easy to configure as Ubuntu, i don't see much difference.


I do. I'm an admin. I set my clients up with Fedora or CentOS thin clients running against Fedora or CentOS servers. But when I set up a full installation of Linux for use by a single user... I do not hesitate to choose Ubuntu.

Fedora is great. But a distro has to decide, in the beginning, what they are about. And Fedora is not about making things work for the average user. They are about cool, cutting edge technology, and about refusing to lift a finger to help users who want to do things of which they do not approve.

The difference between Fedora and Ubuntu becomes apparent when it is your job and responsibility to pick a distro that is really best for the user in question.

Fedora is great for me. Fedora is great for my users on Xterminals. Fedora is *not* great for my standalone users at remote offices.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: If...
by hughesjr on Tue 11th Mar 2008 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: If..."
hughesjr Member since:
2006-10-29

well ... it is my JOB too.

And Fedora and CentOS are just as easy to use as Ubuntu.

Now, if you want them to break US law, they don't, so if you want to play DVDs or MP3's then you will need to add 3rd party repositories.

If you have ever heard of livna.org, RPMFusion, or RPMForge then you should be able to get whatever you want.

I grow tired of all the Fedora / Ubuntu wars.

The bottom line is this ... both are equally usable.

If you like RPM management, use Fedora. If you like deb management, use Ubuntu/Debian. Both apt-get and yum resolve dependencies and allow adding 3rd party repositories. Both synaptic and yumex allow graphical installs. There is just no REAL difference in using these products as the underlying packages are almost identical.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: If...
by sbergman27 on Tue 11th Mar 2008 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: If..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Johhny,

I love CentOS dearly. And the bulk of my desktop users were on CentOS until our recent F8 upgrade. But I respectfully disagree. Fedora, CentOS and Ubuntu all have their strengths and weaknesses. I far prefer CentOS and Fedora in a situation in which I know I am going to have a strong administrative presence, and I have everyone running via XDMCP or NX.[1]

But when I have someone who insists that they have to use the CDRom, and scan images directly into emails, at a remote office, meaning a standalone machine, I find they have less difficulty with Ubuntu. Its in the little details that you and I would not consider to be a big deal, but are to normal users. I consider the CentOS/Fedora/Ubuntu combo as being my 1-2-3 punch. I need all three, but between them, they cover pretty much everything I need. Well, I do use OpenWRT, as well. But the users never see that. ;-)

[1] Thanks for the cool, up to date freenx/NX3.0 packages in centosplus, btw. Fedora is still using NX2.1 and resuming sessions doesn't work nearly as well. I use the CentOS srpm for my F8 servers. :-)

Reply Score: 2

PC Magazine is a Windows magazine?
by irbis on Mon 10th Mar 2008 20:51 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

Like most current PC/IT magazines that deal with computer software, I've got a feeling that PC Magazine is still quite Windows-centric. They get their living by covering subjects that especially Windows users are interested in. Even if they would not favor Windows intentionally in a comparative OS review like this, the current editors of most current computer magazines still seem to know Windows a LOT better than they know Linux. Like previous commentators have already pointed out above, not everything they say in the review can be considered an objective truth and much has to do with what people are just used to.

Edited 2008-03-10 20:59 UTC

Reply Score: 3

fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

To me, PC Magazine is the Vogue magazine of computing. It is mostly filled with glossy, sexy advertisements. Even most of the "articles" are just thinly veiled advertisements for the latest cameras, monitors, etc. The actual content mostly boils down to "10 Ways To Keep Your [Man|Computer] Happy!"

Oh Byte magazine, how we miss thee!

Reply Score: 10

Ignore Ziff Davis Media
by shapeshifter on Mon 10th Mar 2008 21:32 UTC
shapeshifter
Member since:
2006-09-19

Thanks OSnews for reminding us to ignore and never read any Ziff Davis Media sites.
It's good to be reminded once in a while just in case some of us stumble onto one of their sites by an accident.
The article reads like a satire and provides a lot of good laughs.
To their credit, at least they include Linux nowadays.
A little bit of exposure in mass-media is better than nothing.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Ignore Ziff Davis Media
by dwave on Mon 10th Mar 2008 22:16 UTC in reply to "Ignore Ziff Davis Media"
dwave Member since:
2006-09-19

I am sorry to tell you that the target audience seems to have taken the step of ignoring quite some while ago and that, hereby, (http://www.ziffdavis.com/press/releases/080305.0.html) ZD was filing for Chap 11 already on march 5th. Sad.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Ignore Ziff Davis Media
by steverez1 on Tue 11th Mar 2008 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Ignore Ziff Davis Media"
steverez1 Member since:
2006-12-06

They are just trying to get some of the ad revenue that PC World gets from Apple. (where you switch the logo to Mac World and couldn't tell the differance)

Reply Score: 1

Yep
by aitvo on Mon 10th Mar 2008 21:36 UTC
aitvo
Member since:
2006-09-03

It's a no-brainer, the folks rating the OSs are not the experts.

While I don't dispute the MacOS victory, I think they scored Ubuntu low either out of ignorance or because they just wanted to.

It doesn't have hardware problems, in fact it supports hundreds if not thousands of devices out of the box that neither MacOS nor Windows support natively (or in many cases at all like a few of my old sound cards that still work in 2.6). IE: My blackberry, or my PDA, or even my webcam.

Also, they score it because you have to use the command line? That's very rare, nearly everything done on the command line is exposed via a menu option: IE: Configuring the GUI, your network card, or even installing / removing software.

Spend more than 2 minutes with a live cd next time.

Reply Score: 3

Where I disagree
by Anonymous Penguin on Mon 10th Mar 2008 21:44 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

1)You should never compare OS X to Windows or, worse, Linux, because OS X runs only on Mac hardware (I know you can install it on many PCs, but that is for geeks only and it is illegal).
2)Who told them that Linux=Ubuntu?

From my point of view openSUSE scores better than Ubuntu in most comparisons with OS X or Windows that they did.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Where I disagree
by Hozz on Mon 10th Mar 2008 23:08 UTC in reply to "Where I disagree"
Hozz Member since:
2007-03-19

I wholeheartedly agree. While *I* choose to use Ubuntu on a day-to-day basis, as many others do, making it a very popular distro, OpenSuse would be much better for a comparison like this in a lot of areas. Then again, as it's been said already, it seems the author wasn't really out to give Linux a fair review, but just needed *some* distro to make it seem "fair".

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Where I disagree
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 11th Mar 2008 00:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Where I disagree"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"Then again, as it's been said already, it seems the author wasn't really out to give Linux a fair review, but just needed *some* distro to make it seem "fair".

Absolutely.

Reply Score: 3

Just a few points of contention...
by Morgan on Mon 10th Mar 2008 22:07 UTC
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

From the article's "Pick the best OS" page:

Contemplating a change? First consider what kind of user you are. Here are our suggestions:

WEB SURFER
Any OS. You don't need anything fancy to browse the Web and send e-mail.


While technically true, why didn't he at least favor Mac or Linux for security reasons?

OFFICE DRONE
Windows. Get things done with minimal fuss.


No real argument here, though with Office:Mac '08 and powerful native PDF support, a Mac would do quite well.

GAMER
Windows. Millions of gamers can't all be wrong. (Or buy a Nintendo Wii.)


It depends on your definition of gamer, and the author seems a bit confused. A hardcore FPS/action gamer will probably choose Windows without a doubt. But, that kind of person would also snub the Wii for a PS3 or Xbox since they both shine in that arena. A more generalized gamer, someone who prefers strategy and RPG gaming, or puzzles and platformers, would be right at home on a Mac, along with a Wii.

PHOTOGRAPHER
Windows. All cameras work with it, and the imaging tools are plentiful.


What is this guy smoking? Not all cameras work well with Windows, and I'd venture to say that there is equal support for camera hardware on the Mac side. As for application support, Mac has Aperture, Photoshop, Lightroom, and several lesser products available. Windows has Photoshop, PaintShop Pro, and....Paint.NET? At best they are equal, though I can't think of many photographers who don't use Macs.

VIDEOGRAPHER
Mac OS. It's what the pros in -Hollywood prefer.


Agreed, though Sony Vegas is a popular solution on Windows.

ARTIST/MUSICIAN
Mac OS. The other artsy people will laugh at you if you use anything else.


Ok so maybe they'll laugh...but is that really a reason to choose one over the other? As a musician myself, yes I much prefer Macs, but risk of ridicule is not even on the list of reasons why. But for the record, there are excellent pro-audio tools available for Windows.

TECH DO-IT-YOURSELFER
Ubuntu. You'll get the most satisfaction from taming this somewhat wild beast.


That is purely a matter of personal taste. Linux is the most free (in every sense) of the tested OSes, and therefore is the most customizable by a wide margin. With its BSD underpinnings, though, Mac OS can be a lot of fun in that arena too. As for programming, again Linux wins my vote by far due to the very mature and complete toolchains. Mac isn't far behind with Xcode though; they make developing Mac apps (and now, iPhone apps) easy as pie and quite fun as well.

OPEN-SOURCE SUPPORTER
Ubuntu. Not lining the pockets at Apple and Microsoft just feels good.


Again I agree, though Apple is very OSS-friendly; they've given a whole lot back to the community especially when compared to Microsoft.

......

You know...articles like this will always pop up every few months, and they will invariably be slanted towards the author's preferences. The bottom line is and always has been, use what works best for YOU.

Reply Score: 3

Various observations
by lemur2 on Mon 10th Mar 2008 22:21 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

1. Some vendors of some types of hardware (wireless cards is a fair example) refuse to support Linux. To do a fair comparison with OSX and Windows, the hardware should therefore be chosen on the same basis. Since OSX is supported only on hardware that has specific support for OSX ... that criteria should therefore apply to all of the OSes under consideration. If you chose hardware (in particular wireless and video card hardware) for which there exists a known-working Linux driver (just as you would for an OSX machine) ... then Linux has no hardware driver issues, and it should not be marked down 9just as OSX or XP or Windows is not marked down) because there exists hardware on which it does not fully work. There is no markdown of any Windows version because it does not work on PowerPC machines, for example.

2. Why was Linux marked down three times because of the failure of some hardware vendors to supply specs for their wireless hardware (even under NDA) to Linux developers?

3. Linux wins hands-down on bundled applications ... why was that fact not recognised?

4. Linux wins hands down on ease of installation of additional applications ... why was that fact not recognised?

5. Linux wins on performance ... you can run a functional and responsive Linux desktop on far less capable hardware than is required for Vista ... why was that fact not recognised?

6. Cross-platform capability ... Linux supports a number of desktop applications out of the box which have versions of the same application that will run on OSX, XP and Vista ... and Linux alone has an emulator that will also run near-natively the applications designed for XP. Linux is easily the most cross-platform and cross-architecture capable OS of the three ... why was that fact not recognised?

There seems to have been a decision made before the article was written as to which of the OSes was to win. The categories considered are designed to support that pre-decision. If you look at the whhole picture ... the answer you get is vastly different.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Various observations
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 11th Mar 2008 00:28 UTC in reply to "Various observations"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Because I can't mod you up, I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with most of your points.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Various observations
by apoclypse on Tue 11th Mar 2008 03:04 UTC in reply to "Various observations"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

To be fair on the software part. I guess its more about the type of software included rather than the quantity. They specifically mentioned iLife and the equivalent applications in Vista. They did mention that Ubuntu has nn office suite by default but neglected to mention that it also has a PIM app (Evolution).

I do agree that there doesn't seem to be an iLife equivalent in Ubuntu. I would love to see more focus on a more consumer-friendly apps. Evolution is nice but its a little bloated, and I think an approach similar to Apple's or even Vista's with seperate apps for each task. Its the unix way, imo. Cheese is a great Photobooth like app. The iLife like apps are there but they aren't installed by default and they need huge amounts of polish. If the linux community can get these up to snuff then the next comparison should be better in-terms of software. I doubt it will be unbiased regardless though.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Various observations
by Athlander on Tue 11th Mar 2008 03:25 UTC in reply to "Various observations"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

Agree entirely. It's as if the writer thought "how can I pitch OS X while seeming to be objective?" - mention a couple of negative points about OS X and some positive ones about Windows, and include a high profile Linux distribution for a bit of extra credibility...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Various observations
by Bobthearch on Tue 11th Mar 2008 17:01 UTC in reply to "Various observations"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

To do a fair comparison with OSX and Windows, the hardware should therefore be chosen on the same basis.

No, the most fair method to conduct a hardware comparison would be to randomly select common components (motherboard, graphic card, sound card, printer, etc.) and see which OSes are the most compatible. The software included with the hardware supports which OS(es)? Which OS, if any, supports the hardware natively? Are there 3rd party drivers available, and are they fully functional?

I suspect the results would be: Windows #1, using the drivers included with the hardware. Linux #2, with the aid of 3rd party drivers and applications. OSX a far distant third, only running on hardware specifically selected for it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Various observations
by lemur2 on Tue 11th Mar 2008 17:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Various observations"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

To do a fair comparison with OSX and Windows, the hardware should therefore be chosen on the same basis.

No, the most fair method to conduct a hardware comparison would be to randomly select common components (motherboard, graphic card, sound card, printer, etc.) and see which OSes are the most compatible. The software included with the hardware supports which OS(es)? Which OS, if any, supports the hardware natively? Are there 3rd party drivers available, and are they fully functional?

I suspect the results would be: Windows #1, using the drivers included with the hardware. Linux #2, with the aid of 3rd party drivers and applications. OSX a far distant third, only running on hardware specifically selected for it.


This is not correct.

Linux works on more hardware than either Windows Vista or Mac OSX.

Linux also works (out of the box) on more hardware than even Windows XP (out of the box).

If you choose random desktop hardware and an install disk for a recent Linux, Windows XP or Mac OSX ... most of the time the most hardware would work for the Linux install.

Finally ... if you are trying to fix or re-install a system and you ask many owners ... "where is the CD that came with your printer/scanner/CD burner/motherboard"? or whatever hardware doesn't have drivers on the OS install disk ... they will look at you blankly and say "what CD"?

Since Linux OS install disks come with by far the most drivers for the most varied hardware ... you are by far more likely to be able to get the Linux system up and running of the three (random hardware, remember ... Mac OSX is most likely not to be able to install or run at all).

No, the most fair method to conduct a hardware comparison would be to randomly select common components (motherboard, graphic card, sound card, printer, etc.) and see which OSes are the most compatible.


If you really think that ... then the answer is Linux. By a street.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Various observations
by Bobthearch on Tue 11th Mar 2008 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Various observations"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

This is not correct.
Linux works on more hardware than either Windows Vista or Mac OSX.
Linux also works (out of the box) on more hardware than even Windows XP (out of the box).


You've made a very good argument, and it would be an interesting experiment for sure.

It could be that my suspicions are completely wrong, or it could be a difference in the definition of "works." Sure, with Linux and other alternative OSes you can get basic function from most common hardware. But the bundled applications and demos are generally Windows-only, and many times the hardwares' features and capabilities are not fully functional. That's my past experiences anyway.

Take sound cards for instance, even the most common mainstream models like the Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi and variations. Does the 5.1 and 7.1 surround sound work correctly in Linux? Digital sound? 24-bit capable? Desktop controls available? All plugs and jacks functional? Drivers are stable? No tweaking necessary?

Now apply the same questions to less-common sound card manufacturers' products - Turtle Beach, M-Audio, Diamond, etc.

You'll have to excuse me if I remain a bit skeptical.

Finally ... if you are trying to fix or re-install a system and you ask many owners ... "where is the CD that came with your printer/scanner/CD burner/motherboard"? or whatever hardware doesn't have drivers on the OS install disk ... they will look at you blankly and say "what CD"?
Tell me about it!

Edited 2008-03-11 19:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Various observations
by Old IT Guy on Tue 11th Mar 2008 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Various observations"
Old IT Guy Member since:
2007-05-01

I would say OS X is the most polished and nicest from a end user perspective. They made *nix simple and approachable to the average Joe while linux was still off in super-nerd land to get up and running.

Ubuntu is the best project for Linux so far that I have seen for an end user perspective. The package management and update system rocks and feels solid. If you can remain a typical end user and do not go deep underneath you are pretty set on having a rather stable system. Pull a couple low level maneuvers, even if following some online howto's to the letter and you can potentially get yourself into some serious trouble that will take the super-nerd side of you to bring back to a working state. The end user would be dead in the water and not be liking the ride very much.

As mentioned previously the wifi and networking in Linux is absolutely horrendous, especially the wifi. And even with Ubuntu its a hit and miss affair. If you have a Dell laptop like myself you have a good chance of everything being supported out of the box and having a very Mac like end user experience. If you have other laptop makes and models you can easily end up with half of the critical components of your computer not working out of the box. A real problem for a typical end user when say its your networking that isn't working. You won't expect an end user to figure out how to do super-nerd linux kung-foo to work around and patch the system up from such a state, let alone even mentally build a solution or possible solution to such a problem in his or her mind.

And to the user: "In conclusion i would say that in terms of usage, i use Mac OS X Tiger 80%, linux 15%, and Windows XP 5% (Dvd Decrypter and Dvd Shrink)." -- You can easily take your Windows XP use down to 0% like I have. I run DVD Shrink in Ubuntu 7.10 so I no longer have to drop down to Windows XP. I've wiped XP off the laptop HD and used the space for linux only now for about three months and never looking back.

When it comes down to software linux is pretty much the same, all the distros package the same basic apps again and again, with either the KDE flavour or Gnome. All the FOSS software, you have to admit, has a large percentage of crap from your typical end user perspective. It doesn't matter if you can list 300 games, if only a small handful are of any quality that a typical end user migrating from Windows of Mac might expect. They will take a look and see mid 1980's era game style and balk instantly.

Sound is disgustingly horrendous for the typical end user, especially with games in mind. How many times are you going to try and teach a end user to hack around his system to get rid of scratchy popping sound due in part to issues with the underlying major sound systems and hardware. In the rare occasion where a game will include linux ports and Mac OS X ports, I'll always turn to the OS X port for most of the game play. Why, gorgeous cinematic sound with no pops or scratches and even the bloody animations seem to run smoother and colours look better. Its just a better "feel" for a typical end user. End users don't all work as coders, network admins, or techical support technicians. So if you are one of the later you will do well with linux. But have a semblance of a brain to admit that you can put linux in front of grandma all you want but so long as she doesn't stray from the most basic tasks and demands of the system, she will keep the impression of an ok end user experience.

So while Dell laptop + Ubuntu is my current best machine, it probably won't come as a surprise that a Macbook Pro is my next, and already on order from the store.

Reply Score: 1

Needs to be split into 2 categories...
by rklrkl on Mon 10th Mar 2008 22:46 UTC
rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think most of the categories in this comparison should have split into two further sub-cateogories: "out of the box" and "third party additions". In most "out of the box" categories, Ubuntu would actually win! Out of the box, it has more games, more hardware support, more productivity apps, far more programming tools, more wi-fi support (remember that often Windows has virtually no standard wi-fi support - it's often done with third party drivers - and Mac OS X tends to only support its own Airport stuff), easiest to install from scratch, far superior software updater compared to Mac OS X/Windows (who only do Apple/MS updates respectively) and the only OS with official live CDs to "try before you install".

Surprising there was no mention of Compiz (or Compiz Fusion) - which surely would push the Ubuntu interface rating up - instead we got some whinge about needing the console which, ironically, isn't actually a standard icon and has to be dug down a few menus to find anyway!

I got the feeling this article was written by someone who isn't that familiar with Linux and simply didn't like it. Maybe they need someone who's au fait with Linux distros to do their next tri-OS comparison?

Reply Score: 4

Everyone seem to understand, except....
by ecruz on Mon 10th Mar 2008 22:54 UTC
ecruz
Member since:
2007-06-16

Everyone, Macs/Windows, seem to understand the article. It is what it is, someone subjective opinion. I am a Windows person. Works fine for me at all level, specifically with stock trading software and accounting programs. Vista has not giving me any problem even when using XP specific programs.
But, the Linux crazies, they always have to come up with an excuse. People, go to church for religion! OS's are not part of the western philosophical thought. You guys invest too much time and effort defending something that people will use if they like it or if works for their benefit.
I do not care how many programs Linux distros come with, if more than 80% are garbage I cannot use. All you do is trick someone wihtout knowledge of Linux into, either buying a PC with Linux loaded, and then, this person finds out that what he wants to do with his PC he cannot do.
Like someone said before, this article is not for the reader of OS News. Common users buy a PC and want to buy programs at the store that will run in their PC. They cannot do that with Linux.
Oh yes, I have tried Linux for many years. First one was Suse 9.0 until about a year ago when I tired of reformatting drives, etc, because of Linux. Ready for prime time? Not yet boys!

Reply Score: 2

aitvo Member since:
2006-09-03

No one is making any excuses, except you in your comment.

Reply Score: 2

ba1l Member since:
2007-09-08

Here's the thing - 75% of the article was complaining about Ubuntu. Most of the complaints were without merit - the "you have to use the command line" bit, for example, which caused Ubuntu to lose the GUI section despite the fact that they actually loved the GUI. Or the repeated mentioning of drivers. It seems to be purely based on second-hand information from two or three years ago, and no on actually trying the thing out.

The reviewers were willing to overlook all kinds of problems with both Mac OS X and Windows, particularly Windows XP which they had absolutely no complaints about. Every minor complaint about Vista or Mac OS X was some variant of "it's not the same as Windows XP", basically.

Reply Score: 4

jadeshade Member since:
2007-07-10

it was not a 'gui' section, it was an 'i' section - that's why they bashed the terminal.

(... no pun intended)

Reply Score: 1

Let's focus on the positives
by tristan on Tue 11th Mar 2008 01:25 UTC
tristan
Member since:
2006-02-01

A lot of people seem to be picking holes in their treatment of Ubuntu (and there are quite a few -- what would an OS need to do to get 5 stars for price? Let you download it for free, then put $50 in your Paypal account?)

But doing this risks losing sight of the big picture. For possibly the first time, Ubuntu is being considered on equal terms with Windows and Mac OS in a "mainstream" (in tech circles) review. This would have been unthinkable just a couple of years ago.

What's more, it's earning praise: Gnome is seen as "clean and well-organised" and as incorporating the best bits of the Windows and Mac interfaces. And package management is (rightly) seen as a big plus.

So yes, it got some criticism, some of it deserved, some of it misguided. But let's not lose sight of the fact that right here, we're seeing beginnings of the much-longed-for "Linux as a mainstream OS". These are exciting times.

Reply Score: 4

a fanboi who hates Ubuntu
by unclefester on Tue 11th Mar 2008 05:49 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

I have been using Linux for about 7 years and exclusively for three. Only one major distribution has always disappointed and that is Ubuntu. From it's bastardised Debian roots to its sh*t brown wallpaper it annoying. Lots of hype and not much else IMHO.

Reply Score: 1

RE: a fanboi who hates Ubuntu
by apoclypse on Tue 11th Mar 2008 12:31 UTC in reply to "a fanboi who hates Ubuntu"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Oh, STFU with these Ubuntu bashers already. if you don't like it, don't use it. Every jealous bastard in the world comes out to bash it, the main reason being the wallpaper. Come the f--k on is that all you want to complain about?

Every time Ubuntu is mentioned anywhere you get these f--king trolls. I'm tired of that shit already.

Reply Score: 2

capricorn_tm
Member since:
2005-12-31

But each time they come to a pit fight I already know it will be a Linux bashing time.

Okay just a few points.

Author states that if Linux does not come out from the shell it will never be ready for the masses.

I'm a tech and spend all of my day fixing your Goddamn Outlook and you do know how? WITH LINE COMMANDS!

Run-> outlook.exe /cleanfrebusy or /sniff or /resetfolders, you name it I have it, I have TWO PAGES of those.

"Hey, you're tech, it is normal!" No, it is bloody not, if the ONLY solution is line based and the user is not aware it is beyond bad usability, it is Elitism!

Graphism? Do not dream of it "Yes Ubuntu it is cute, but OsX is cool, so it wins, point" No details about the fact that you can tweak Ubuntu (or any distro) to a point that it eats on OsX's head and that I mean OUT OF THE BOX! (activate trasparencies in XFCE and then come back to me explaining me AERO)

The Office part is the one that killed me it clearly states "Yes Ubuntu has openoffice for free, but Vista and OsX can have office paying so they are better"

It means that it does not matter what software is given for free with the distro, commercial ones are still better because you can PAY to get the programs that do the same things?

So finally we procede through this delirium to the conclusion: "Mac is better for artists, Windows for spreadsheets and Linux for nerds that loves to experiment" Lovely, we are in what? 2008? Nice to see people evolving with time.

I want just to point out that websurfing and web related activity are good on the three which actually brings me to a simple question: since we live in the time of WEB based application, is it such ininfluent point?

Author thinks so since he placed this info as a detail not getting that this will be THE battlefield of the next years.

*Goes burn a Linux CD" Be right back, iI have to show the poor guy what he REFUSED to see.

Reply Score: 4

Collaborative editing
by Ben Jao Ming on Tue 11th Mar 2008 10:19 UTC
Ben Jao Ming
Member since:
2005-07-26

I wish PC Mag had some sort of edit function... or maybe just a "Delete this article" button. They should, 'cause their readers can't be THAT stupid!

Reply Score: 1

I'm not wasting my time with that site
by stodge on Tue 11th Mar 2008 12:21 UTC
stodge
Member since:
2005-09-08

I followed the link and promptly closed the browser tab. There's no way I'm reading site where each page contains 6 vertical feet of ads and 3 tiny paragraphs of text. I'm not wasting my time with that site.

Reply Score: 2

Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

what there's ads on that page ? i didn't see any

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Vista and OSX both apparently support DVD playing out of the box, among other things, but is there any bigger Linux distro which does offer such? It seems all the Linux distros are catering to the US population by not shipping with such abilities or proprietary codecs..but the fact is, not everyone lives in the US. There's lots of countries here in Europe where it is legal to ship with all the necessary stuff to play DVDs, play MP3 and so on and so forth.

Oh, and by the way..I personally know of only one open-source DVD player for Linux which supports menus too, and that's Ogle. Ogle just isn't really too pretty, and it's buggy. :/

Reply Score: 2

chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

I personally know of only one open-source DVD player for Linux which supports menus too, and that's Ogle. Ogle just isn't really too pretty, and it's buggy. :/


Xine supports DVD menus too:

http://xinehq.de/index.php/about

I had it running when I was using Ubuntu Feisty. As i remember it was a bit buggy, but I can't remember exactly how good or bad it was. It was functional however. On Gutsy I have installed Ogle but I haven't tried it yet, I don't watch a lot of Hollywood movie crap. However I will have to install Xine again and try a comparison with Ogle on some of my punk DVD's.

Reply Score: 3

apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Xine has supported menus for ages. If you want menus just in totem just install totem-xine instead of totem-gstreamer. Better yet use VLC which supports everything. Is it really so hard for people to do a google search?

Dvd playback in Ubuntu is no on by default but it's so easy to turn on that its just another excuse people use The included Ubuntu help documentation even walk you through the steps.

Reply Score: 3

my comparison
by LightRider on Tue 11th Mar 2008 15:02 UTC
LightRider
Member since:
2007-08-05

Since i have linux,Mac Os X, and Windows XP installed on my pc, let me make some observations.
Unless you are some teenage dork who plays high powered games
all the time or you need to use Photoshop in connection with your job,
it is ludicrous to use Windows as your main operating system.
Mac Os X is the coolest looking and easiest to use of the three
operating systems. But all the best applications cost a fair amount of
money. Now that Mac Os X can be run on a pc, it's a whole new ballgame.
Linux , and i am referring to only the top 10 or so distros listed on
Distrowatch's hit list, Is easy to use, very easy to install,comes with more
programs than most people would ever need, and is very secure. I
would say that if i could only have one of the three os'es, it would be
linux.
In conclusion i would say that in terms of usage, i use Mac OS X Tiger
80%, linux 15%, and Windows XP 5% (Dvd Decrypter and Dvd Shrink).

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

Price
Ubuntu or most other intimately FOSS based OS has to have the advantage there. Even if you drop 70$ for Mandriva Poweruser, your getting a huge library of software to choose from.

Installation
You can't beat prepackaged and even when you have to upgrade, the Apple puts a lot f attention into the end user. Yeah, osX has it there definately.

Interface
This is more subjective. The osX makeup layerd over BSD is darn pretty though. I've yet to have a "oh, wtf now" moment when working on my wife's osX machine.

Bundled Software
We may have to clarify "bundled". In terms of "directly available too through easy GUI selection" then you can't beat network repositories for Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva and many others not to mention what BSDs have available. In terms of "included in the base install" then osX definately retains the more usable selection over Windows while Ubuntu has a very rich default selection.

Third Party Software
Maybe I missed the part where 3000 or so third party packages available to Debian outweighs the much smaller, though more popular, win32 library. "Popular" does not equal "more" but I may not understand the scoring criteria on that one.

Drivers and Hardware
In terms of hardware, it's all OS neutral regardless of what the manufacturer tries to tell you. It's hardware guiding pulses of power through it's chips and connectors; it doesn't care what brand of logic it's pushing except in Apples DRM'd OS case. In terms of drivers, Windows still get's first pick from the manufacturer's budgets for new hardware. In terms of overall hardware including almost new to archaic, you can't come close to what the Linux kernel supports unless you happen to have run your WinXP kernel on R/C radios, embedded systems or hardware older than seven years.

As always, the limitation of new hardware bias against nonWindows remains a synthetic market force not a natural market force. If hardware vendors used generic interface chips to hider there BS IP claims they could release driver specs and save there own development budget for making better hardware.

Security
Windows is pretty and convenient at the expense of security. osX is pretty and benefits from BSD's inherent focus on security. Ubuntu comes from a lineage where, like BSD, security is the main focus though it's been dropping the ball in favour of convenience.

Victor
For consumers from the highest intelectual to the lowest common denominator, yeah, osX is the stronger recommendation still. I'm all for Linux/BSD based OS but I have friends I wouldn't put it infront of yet since they tend to take first apearances as gospel and would discount it for not being Windows; sadly. The gamers will remain shackled too Windows due to DX09/DX10 and the game developer's choice to ignore anything but the fanboy market; booo.. boooo game houses.. booooo.

The game houses and consumers should all be asking ATI/nVidia where the open driver specs are for there video cards and giving development time to openGL or another trully cross-platform framework rather than just the cross-Microsoft framework. In truth, I'm open to the idea that ATI will have something usable by the time it's time to by my last new system part, GPU, but I do so love the hardware that is 8800.

Reply Score: 2

upnp
by netpython on Tue 11th Mar 2008 17:05 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

I stopped reading after seeying this The use of Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) in particular brings a no-fuss, no-muss approach to getting products to see one another.

The article writer must have missed the upnp series and routers on GNUCITIZEN alltogether imho.

http://www.gnucitizen.org/blog/hacking-the-interwebs/

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Old IT Guy
by Old IT Guy on Tue 11th Mar 2008 23:59 UTC
Old IT Guy
Member since:
2007-05-01

Wal-Mart shoves Linux PCs off store shelves, not web site
By John Timmer | Published: March 11, 2008 - 01:05PM CT

Wal-Mart's experiment with selling cheap Linux-based PCs in its stores has apparently come to a close. Starting last October, the retail giant stocked desktops from the Green PC line manufactured by Everex. That stock ultimately sold out, but Wal-Mart has apparently decided not to refresh it. The Associated Press quotes a company spokesperson, referring to the machines, as saying, "This really wasn't what our customers were looking for."

--nuff said

Reply Score: 1

Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

This is such a rant over Microsoft again.
The article is so biaised that it is ridiculous.
Of course, Mac OS is so "bargain" that it is as cheap as free, so no advantage to Linux. On the other end, Windows cost a few dollars more, but how horrible ! this is absolutely unbearable.

Not worth even reading. The article author can be flagged "receives gifts from Apple", you get the the full summary in this title.

Reply Score: 1

wtf!
by SK8T on Thu 13th Mar 2008 18:38 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

"With Apple, users pay every year (or so) to get a major upgrade. Microsoft provides its major Windows upgrades, called Service Packs, free of charge. Paying more for Mac OS upgrades is a bit galling when you've already paid a premium for the hardware."

erm, wrong! I bet the difference between Mac OS 10.4 and 10.5 is bigger than between Windows 98 and Windows ME. Did the author know that Apple delivers free "Service Packs" as well? 10.4.1, 10.4.2 and so on …
You just can't compare an upgrade with a service pack! damned!

Reply Score: 2