Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 09:40 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu As if we are watching an episode of The Scary Door, Canonical's Mark Shuttleworth has praised Windows 7, and welcomed Microsoft's latest operating system into the fight. Shuttleworth made his remarks in a short interview with The Register.
Thread beginning with comment 344896
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
IE > XP > Vista > 7
by zaine_ridling on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 10:01 UTC
zaine_ridling
Member since:
2007-05-13

Just as IE wasn't upgraded for years because Microsoft saw no need or competition, we wouldn't see its frantic efforts to get 7 to market in order to (1) kill off XP, which drains revenue from Vista, and (2) to desperately get as far away from the whole Vista disaster as soon as possible.

But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security (on any machine you choose), there won't be a single Linux user switching to Win7, I guarantee that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 10:06 in reply to "IE > XP > Vista > 7"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security.


I won't comment on the performance figures, but can you elaborate when it comes to security?

I can't really recall the last time Vista (and thus, 7) were massively infested. That last one that was all over the news doesn't count, as it only affected machines that weren't up-to-date.

Security is no longer a reason to switch to Linux or Mac OS X. Windows Vista and 7 are very secure operating systems.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by kragil on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 10:47 in reply to "RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Well .. it all depends on your definition of security.

Not regarding updates there are more infected Vista desktops with virii and malware than there are Mac or Linux desktops ( even in % ).

That is real world security. IMNSHO that is only one that counts.

Edited 2009-01-22 10:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by Vanders on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 12:01 in reply to "RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I can't really recall the last time Vista (and thus, 7) were massively infested.


Conficker seems to be doing a fair job. Estimated at 9m infections and counting.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by raver31 on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 14:09 in reply to "RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Google before you post Thom :p

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7842013.stm

If you read that article, it is clear that the worm changes daily, so updates are impossible currently.

At the bottom there is a link to a Microsoft update, but, like it says it will only mitigate it, not eradicate it.

Edited 2009-01-22 14:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by Ford Prefect on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 15:38 in reply to "RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

I can't really recall the last time Vista (and thus, 7) were massively infested. That last one that was all over the news doesn't count, as it only affected machines that weren't up-to-date.


Still, you have to stay up-to-date. Which obviously a big amount of users fail to do.

Windows is very good security wise only compared to its predecessors. In the current "real world" scenario, it is far from being on par with Linux. I would also like to point out that not everybody out there likes to run crappy or expensive antivirus and other software in the background just to feel save enough to browse the web.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by kensai on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 16:40 in reply to "RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7"
kensai Member since:
2005-12-27

Thom, HAH, you are funny man. Does anyone else thinks he is funny?

Is "very very secure"? can you try to not sound so n00bish?

Yeah, it is more secure than XP, but that doesn't make it "very very secure".

What people don't get here is the main point, Mark Shuttleworth doesn't feel the need to bash Windows 7 for him to gain any benefit, Ubuntu is doing well, with less than half the advertisement, Microsoft invest in every year. Linux is going strong in the servers, and will be expected that it continues to do so, as many IT people are dusting off old machines and turning them into Linux servers, given the economic recession we are in. I myself think Windows 7 is looking good, I will keep using Linux though.

Anyways, thanks for the laughs.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by Bending Unit on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 10:26 in reply to "IE > XP > Vista > 7"
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

A whole lot of bullshit there. I've been running Vista for a long time now. Of course it's not perfect but nevertheless the best operating system we have available at the moment. Why else would I use it daily?

Unfortunately for you I have also been using Linux for about ten years. I keep using it for a lot of reasons but desktop performance is certainly not one of them. "Stomps Win7" is quite a false claim. I'm no security expert but I'm sure that neither Win7 or Linux stomps on the other in that area.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by sb56637 on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 13:27 in reply to "IE > XP > Vista > 7"
sb56637 Member since:
2006-05-11

But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security

I use Linux on my desktop full time, after years with Windows. I switched for security reasons. I don't know if Windows 7 is measurably less secure than my Linux distro now, but for me Linux still has an aura of security and peace of mind that Windows does not provide.

As for performance, well, let's just say that I did not switch to Linux for performance reasons. Boot time is about twice as long with Linux. Login to the desktop takes longer on Linux. The Nautilus file manager, which is comfortable for me to use, is inexcusably slow on directories containing more than about 25 files. I could go on. I'm fairly content with my Linux distro at the moment, but if you're looking for a "snappy" but familiar desktop, keep on looking.

Edited 2009-01-22 13:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE[2]: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by rockwell on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 15:26 in reply to "RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7"
RE[2]: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by gan17 on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 16:34 in reply to "RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

My Linux install boots in less than half a minute on my desktop... not too bad, I think.

...and Vista cheats with the boot process.
I only consider it fully booted up after it finishes it's thrashing of the hard drive after the desktop appears.... it's unusable before that.

Edited 2009-01-22 16:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by atari05 on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 17:50 in reply to "RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7"
atari05 Member since:
2006-06-05

But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security

I use Linux on my desktop full time, after years with Windows. I switched for security reasons. I don't know if Windows 7 is measurably less secure than my Linux distro now, but for me Linux still has an aura of security and peace of mind that Windows does not provide.

As for performance, well, let's just say that I did not switch to Linux for performance reasons. Boot time is about twice as long with Linux. Login to the desktop takes longer on Linux. The Nautilus file manager, which is comfortable for me to use, is inexcusably slow on directories containing more than about 25 files. I could go on. I'm fairly content with my Linux distro at the moment, but if you're looking for a "snappy" but familiar desktop, keep on looking.


If your comfortable with it, I suggest looking at your what services are starting at boot up. I'm sure you can trim down your boot up time if you did a small audit ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by lemur2 on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 22:33 in reply to "RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Boot time is about twice as long with Linux.


I beg to differ. Vista booting takes aeons. On netbooks, Linux boots faster than XP.

Especially with Ubuntu Jaunty, due to come out in April, where the boot time is considerably reduced again, Windows 7 has a very difficult target to catch up with Linux.

http://www.techbreak.net/ubuntu-904-jaunty-jackalope-can-boot-in-21...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by stodge on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 16:32 in reply to "IE > XP > Vista > 7"
stodge Member since:
2005-09-08

Really? 32bit WinXP runs like lightning on my AMD64+2Gb+GeForce 6600GT while Ubuntu runs like a dog. huge difference in performance. Your claim is ridiculous.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by factotum218 on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 20:56 in reply to "RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7"
factotum218 Member since:
2007-03-20

And in my case 32bit WinXP runs like a dog on my AMD64X2+2Gb+GeForce 5700GT while Ubuntu runs like lightning with a huge difference in performance.
He may be rediculous, but evidently from my experiences you are wrong. Flat out. Just like I am to someone else with different experiences.

Weeeeee! Isn't software fun???!!

Edited 2009-01-22 20:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by polaris20 on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 21:46 in reply to "IE > XP > Vista > 7"
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Just as IE wasn't upgraded for years because Microsoft saw no need or competition, we wouldn't see its frantic efforts to get 7 to market in order to (1) kill off XP, which drains revenue from Vista, and (2) to desperately get as far away from the whole Vista disaster as soon as possible.

But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security (on any machine you choose), there won't be a single Linux user switching to Win7, I guarantee that.


Really? Because testing with an 8-core box with 64-bit versions of each OS shows Linux getting it's butt handed to it. What are you using to derive your results? I'm using CFD modeling, as well as Geekbench.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by lemur2 on Thu 22nd Jan 2009 23:07 in reply to "RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Just as IE wasn't upgraded for years because Microsoft saw no need or competition, we wouldn't see its frantic efforts to get 7 to market in order to (1) kill off XP, which drains revenue from Vista, and (2) to desperately get as far away from the whole Vista disaster as soon as possible.

But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security (on any machine you choose), there won't be a single Linux user switching to Win7, I guarantee that.


Really? Because testing with an 8-core box with 64-bit versions of each OS shows Linux getting it's butt handed to it. What are you using to derive your results? I'm using CFD modeling, as well as Geekbench.
"

http://www.top500.org/stats/list/32/os

Windows apologists have been publishing skewed studies purporting to show Windows as performing better for ages and ages.

This is an old trick. Try it again by comparing an optimal version of Linux, tuned for performance on a given system, just as the Windows version you are using is.

Edited 2009-01-22 23:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by Morgan on Fri 23rd Jan 2009 00:20 in reply to "IE > XP > Vista > 7"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

...there won't be a single Linux user switching to Win7, I guarantee that.



If I were you, I'd be careful about making absolute statements like that; they tend to make one look quite stupid down the road.

I've been playing with the Beta on my Mac mini for a few days now, and security concerns aside, I think it will pull away a lot of fringe Linux users. The GUI seems to have taken a whole bunch of cues from KDE and Enlightenment, and the overall system performance is pretty amazing compared to Vista on the same machine. As for security, it can't be any worse than Vista, which is miles ahead of XP.

Granted, I won't be switching from OS X myself as it still outperforms all versions of Windows as well as Linux, and it meets my needs better than either (though Linux only by a very small margin). Still, I think Microsoft is headed in the right direction for once; if they can muster the courage to drop legacy support as Apple did with the transition to OS X on Intel, they will start seeing growth once again.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: IE > XP > Vista > 7
by TLZ_ on Sat 24th Jan 2009 16:03 in reply to "IE > XP > Vista > 7"
TLZ_ Member since:
2007-02-05

"But since Linux already stomps Win7 on both performance and security (on any machine you choose), there won't be a single Linux user switching to Win7, I guarantee that."

When it comes to performance and security a lot of users are happy if it is "good enough", and often don't understand either.

They do however care *alot* about ease of use, and maybe even more importantly: familiarity. Linux is scary to a lot of people. I remember we had Linux at school. Everybody hated it, the only thing they hated more was OpenOffice.

But of course, people who have what they need on Linux *and* are familiar with it probably won't switch.

Reply Parent Score: 2