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."
Thread beginning with comment 304118
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 3

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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 3