SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

I recently switched from using only Ubuntu to dual booting Vista and Ubuntu. The reason? Vista was slowing up while playing some games. Thinking back now it was proberbly network lag, but at the time I wanted to try Ubuntu so I used that as an excuse to reason with myself that the hours downloading/installing/updating were all worth it.

Installing Ubuntu was pretty painless (I had done it once before a couple of months ago, but I managed to muck that up) and quick. I booted it up and went through some pretty easy questions, and bang it was all set up.

I logged into Ubuntu and the first thing I noticed about it was how clean it was. The interface was uncluttered and simple, and I can see that inexperienced users would have no trouble navigating through the menus.

Connecting to my wireless network was pretty simple, more so than Vista. I found that in Vista when I entered a wrong passcode for my network it just said 'limited connection', and I would have to go through several stages to change it.

My previous OS experience came only from Windows XP and Vista, so I reasoned that I would need to spend a couple of hours finding all the software on the net. Not so. With Ubuntu the add/remove programs setting does what it says on the tin - you can add and remove programs (Unlike vista where you can only seem to remove them). The programs are downloaded from a repository, and you can browse by software type and popularity. It downloads it and sets it up for you, and it is instantly available (No restart needed!).

However Ubuntu is not perfect. Firstly the music players for it suck in comparison to iTunes. The default one, SoundBox (Or something like that) is quite simple, which I guess is good. However I would like to mirror all my music on my computer to my phone's SD card. This normally would be fine and I would simply drag and drop all the files onto the removable drive, but my phone often has music other people have sent me via bluetooth that are not on my computer, and there is no easy way to sync the files both ways. Also it seems to like creating duplicates of my music files (Infact there is no option to view duplicate music files ANYWHERE I could find!), but that was proberbly my fault somewhere along the line. Infact I miss iTunes so much I am using Vista to manage all my music (iTunes will not work on Wine). Sometimes you have to go through several programs in the repository before you find a suitable one that meets your needs, which is annoying.

So in conclusion:
Vista:
-Games
-Music management (iTunes)
Ubuntu:
-Playing movies
-Word processing
-Everything else


What do all of you think? Do you use Vista or Ubuntu (Or another distro?)? Have you tried it, did you like it?

Vista works fine for my needs.

As for your +'s on ubuntu…..word processing? are you serious? How much better can it be on ubuntu?
And I have never ever had a problem playing movies, I don't know where that one comes from either really….

From: Brain
Vista works fine for my needs.

As for your +'s on ubuntu…..word processing? are you serious? How much better can it be on ubuntu?
And I have never ever had a problem playing movies, I don't know where that one comes from either really….

If you look at the default install, vista comes with WordPad and Notepad. Ubuntu comes with a complete suit of OpenOffice applications which are basically clones of Microsoft Office. But free.

As for movies the default player is much better. It downloads codecs automatically and has a nice little side-bar where you can play movies from BBC iPlayer and search YouTube.

vlc player on vista (works, ubuntu may be better however)
and open office is also free for vista

But neither of them come as the default install, and seeing as that is what I am comparing…

vista isn't that bad as long as you know how to use it :)

didn't know we were comparing the stock os (since you never said you can't install anything (very silly talking about computers))….then I am sure ubuntu would win, since I can't do anything without drivers…

edit:
you said games for vista, you can't install anything since we are comparing stock OS here, so that should be thrown out.
And you gotta throw out iTunes, since you have to install it.

I think you have yet to try out Rythmbox - it is much better than iTunes, and is Ubuntu's default player if I recall correctly. I use it all the time to manage my iPod's music.
It is better than iTunes, and does not make me create stupid backups, nor create a copy of my own music library, and does not bother me with updates all the time.

As for games - I can pretty much play every game I want on Ubuntu. (CS:S && HL2, BF1942, Oblivion.)
But I reckon Vista wins this for Windows games, WINE is a bit slower.

If you really don't like Rythmbox, check this list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_iPod_Managers#Linux

For media - Mplayer all the way. VLC is a nice alternative.

For everything else - Ubuntu runs smoother and better than Vista.
Ubuntu's package manager is also a lot better that Vista's install/remove system.
The only thing that bothers me is de-installing stuff I did not install using the package manager - but that generally isn't too hard, since I never really had to use a program that was not in the package manager.

EDIT: I would also like to add that most default applications in Ubuntu 9.04 are integrated in GNOME in a very professional way.
EDIT2: I would also like to add that Ubuntu's default notepad comes with code highlighting for just about every file type I know. VIm has highlighting for even more filetypes - but I don't see everyone use that just yet.

Shame, Ubuntu seemed to work without any need to download any extra drivers. apart from the graphics card ones, but that was optional.

And dont be silly, we are comparing the OS's in general using their specific programs. I.E Windows media player < Default Ubuntu player, OpenOffice > NotePad.

From: Wizzup?
I think you have yet to try out Rythmbox - it is much better than iTunes, and is Ubuntu's default player if I recall correctly. I use it all the time to manage my iPod's music.
It is better than iTunes, and does not make me create stupid backups, it's own music library, and bother me with updates all the time.
As for games - I can pretty much play every game I want on Ubuntu. (CS:S && HL2, BF1942, Oblivion.)

If you really don't like Rythmbox, check this list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_iPod_Managers#Linux

For media - Mplayer all the way. VLC is a nice alternative.

For everything else - Ubuntu runs smoother and better than Vista.
Ubuntu's package manager is also a lot better that Vista's install/remove system.
The only thing that bothers me is de-installing stuff I did not install using the package manager - but that generally isn't too hard, since I never really had to use a program that was not in the package manager.

I tried RythmBox, I didn't like it. I just spent the last 5 mins in iTunes removing the duplicates it somehow formed. And I am sure its iPod functionality is fine, but I don't own an iPod so meh. I mean, Rhythmbox is fine, and I will continue to use it to play music direct from my iTunes music folder on my Vista partition.

If you want a good music player (not phone-managing-stuff), try Amarok. It's by far my favorite non-windows music player.

I dual boot Vista and Ubuntu.

I, honestly, think Vista is much cleaner, crisper. Ubuntu has cheap interfaces, clumsy taskbars, and unattractive menus. However, compiz-fusion at least makes it fun.

This being said, I have to say I enjoy Ubuntu. It's pretty easy to use, programs can be easily installed/uninstalled via the package manager, and the terminal fits what I like to do– take control :P

The drivers with Ubuntu are a little confusing, and it has a bug with my laptop. I can plug my headphones into the jack, yet the sound still plays out of the built-in laptop speaker. Kind of makes me angry, but I can manage.

I think dual booting Ubuntu, or any other Linux OS, makes everything very simple. I want to game? Restart and boot into Vista via the VERY simple to use Grub bootloader. I want to do pretty much anything else? I boot directly into Ubuntu using the same bootloader.

Overall,
Ubuntu: 7/10
Vista: 6/10
Ubuntu + Vista: 9/10

From: TViYH

Overall,
Ubuntu: 7/10
Vista: 6/10
Ubuntu + Vista: 9/10

Ubuntu = 7
Vista = 6

7+6 = 13

13/10 ;D

From: TViYH
I dual boot Vista and Ubuntu.

I, honestly, think Vista is much cleaner, crisper. Ubuntu has cheap interfaces, clumsy taskbars, and unattractive menus. However, compiz-fusion at least makes it fun.

May I perhaps point you at emerald? A fancy Linux window decorator. You can make it look exactly like Vista, or Mac OS X, or matrix style, whatever you want.

Dual booting makes your pc slower? right?

Hmmm, don't really think so, though if you do it on a small hard drive, then I think that it's possible that both would run slower(but that would be because of lack of space)

Nah, hermpie, I notice no difference at all.

From: Hermpie
Dual booting makes your pc slower? right?

How should it make your PC slower?
If you run Linux, no windows is running, if you run windows, no linux is running.
It could only make your PC run faster in the long run, if you installed linux that is. (Since it is much faster, and eventually you'll stick to using linux. :p )

From: Wizzup?
How should it make your PC slower?
If you run Linux, no windows is running, if you run windows, no linux is running.
It could only make your PC run faster in the long run, if you installed linux that is. (Since it is much faster, and eventually you'll stick to using linux. :p )

If I could get this sound problem fixed, I would :(

I am going to format coming week I think, but I first want to finish a program in C# since I am not 100% sure MONO works with my program 100%.

From: Hermpie
I am going to format coming week I think, but I first want to finish a program in C# since I am not 100% sure MONO works with my program 100%.

Why not dual boot? Like Wizzup said, it won't make your computer any slower.

I just want one OS, okay next format I will dual boot, what is easier Windows XP MCE 2005 first or ubuntu-8.10-desktop-i386(.iso)?

I suggest using a dual boot until you're comfortable.

From: Hermpie
I just want one OS, okay next format I will dual boot, what is easier Windows XP MCE 2005 first or ubuntu-8.10-desktop-i386(.iso)?

Windows first.

Lol vista for the win, linux will never beat windows, everything is better on windows, i've had them both and i prefeer windows.

From: Shady?
Lol vista for the win, linux will never beat windows, everything is better on windows, i've had them both and i prefeer windows.

I wonder if you actually read the thread. If you didn't, read it now. Next, please answer to the arguments raised. Just screaming out 'Windows is so much better' doesn't really add anything to the discussion. I also really wonder if you have checked out any recent Linux, and if you have read tutorials on it etc. :)

EDIT: I think I am might actually take a bet about the "Windows will always be better than GNU/Linux or BSD"

Comparing linux and windows is useless.
They are made for very different purposes: Windows is made to be easy to use, linux is made to be stable. Windows is made to support games, linux is made to be a good server host n' shit.

If you play games and use windows applications: Windows is the choice.
If you want to put up a server: Linux is your choice.

I've experience of Ubuntu and it was OK in daily usage. However, if i wanted to use applications made for windows i had to use some emulator, which caused problems sometimes. Also downloading stuff is not as simple as it is in windows (apt-get you know)

OH, AND A WARNING FOR LINUX USERS:
If you install linux and then notice it isn't what you expected, be very careful how you uninstall it! When removing linux, you might accidentally remove some files from motherboard (i guess) and make your computer useless.
It's not an easy task to get these files back, said the engineer who fixed my computer after i removed ubuntu :-\

From: marpis
OH, AND A WARNING FOR LINUX USERS:
If you install linux and then notice it isn't what you expected, be very careful how you uninstall it! When removing linux, you might accidentally remove some files from motherboard (i guess) and make your computer useless.
It's not an easy task to get these files back, said the engineer who fixed my computer after i removed ubuntu :-\

It's not in your motherboard, and that can be fixed my running that Automated Repair Thingy (at least in XP, and you'll need your Windows Install disk for it). It's because GRUB keeps the information to point to Windows' bootloader in the /boot/ folder in the Linux partition that you apparently deleted. WUBI (a new feature from Ubuntu 8.04 and onwards) can install directly to an NTFS partition to be able to uninstall cleanly if you're dual-booting.

Anyway, you're a bit off
- Mac is meant to be easy to use
- All Linuxes is meant to be stable
- Most newer Linux distros are meant to be easy to use ([K]Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Linux Mint, etc)
- DOS/Windows didn't really have a goal in mind and was meant to be cheap and make money (compare very early DOS to very early Mac, Mac used to cost a ton [still does for the most part] but it had a GUI from the get-go)
- Recently, Windows just gets bigger so Microsoft can blab about it without actually improving much (Vista anyone?)

The great thing about package managers like APT is that you're guaranteed to have the newest software, and you can also configure it to give you betas instead if you like being a bit ahead of everyone else.

Plus, in terms of GUIs, Linux > Mac > Windows. If you really enjoy the Mac theme so much, you can use Emerald (if your distro has Compiz which I think most do) to get a perfect skin. I might just be alone in thinking that Vista's Aero theme is ugly though.


One of the major obstacles for application compatability on Linux/Mac is that Microsoft has poured tons of money into the .NET languages and certification programs (although they really make more back out of it from all the certification crap). Employers that aren't as educated on the subject as the programmers will probably want to take a Microsoft-certified VB.NET programmar than one who's exceptional at C++.

Edit: Here's some links if you want to try out Linux for yourself:
In Linux there's two main window managers, which is how the windows get organized (like in MS Windows it would be the taskbar at the bottom with the Start Menu, etc). KDE is similar to Windows in most regards with the taskbar placement and the menu thing, and GNOME is more of a hybrid between Mac's Finder bar (the thing at the top) and Windows' explorer bar (Windows are managed at the bottom, time, tray icons, and applications/places/system menus are on the top). Personally, I prefer GNOME, but it's up to you.
For GNOME:
- Ubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.com/ (Wubi information)
- Linux Mint (more or less a simplified Ubuntu): http://www.linuxmint.com/
For KDE:
- Kubuntu: http://www.kubuntu.org/ (Wubi works with this as well)
- PCLinuxOS: http://www.pclinuxos.com/

(Sorry, I know this topic is mainly Ubuntu vs. Vista but I felt I may as well get all this out)
Also, I do use Windows more than Linux, but that's mainly because of my music software.

From: Widget
It's not in your motherboard, and that can be fixed my running that Automated Repair Thingy (at least in XP, and you'll need your Windows Install disk for it). It's because GRUB keeps the information to point to Windows' bootloader in the /boot/ folder in the Linux partition that you apparently deleted. WUBI (a new feature from Ubuntu 8.04 and onwards) can install directly to an NTFS partition to be able to uninstall cleanly if you're dual-booting.

Well, my computer did not even recognize XP install disk

From: marpis
Well, my computer did not even recognize XP install disk

That is because Ubuntu release < 8.10 did not have support for the latest SATA drivers. It has been added in 8.10 and onwards (I believe kernel .27). You can also change some emulation settings in your BIOS to allow use for < 8.10.

And I agree with Widget at most points.

From: marpis
Comparing linux and windows is useless.
They are made for very different purposes: Windows is made to be easy to use, linux is made to be stable. Windows is made to support games, linux is made to be a good server host n' shit.

If you play games and use windows applications: Windows is the choice.
If you want to put up a server: Linux is your choice.

I've experience of Ubuntu and it was OK in daily usage. However, if i wanted to use applications made for windows i had to use some emulator, which caused problems sometimes. Also downloading stuff is not as simple as it is in windows (apt-get you know)

OH, AND A WARNING FOR LINUX USERS:
If you install linux and then notice it isn't what you expected, be very careful how you uninstall it! When removing linux, you might accidentally remove some files from motherboard (i guess) and make your computer useless.
It's not an easy task to get these files back, said the engineer who fixed my computer after i removed ubuntu :-\

… What?
Linux doesn't touch Motherboard files. I'll give a quick lecture on this, even though Widget already did as well.
Linux does not mess with your motherboard, it installs GRUB. (GNU Boot Loader)
This allows you to choose the operating system of your choice on start up. If you remove GRUB, your windows Master Boot Record will no longer be there, obviously. All you have to do is insert a Windows CD, and pick the 'Fix MBR' option from 'Repair'. It is actually an easy task to get it all back. I could do it in less than 5 minutes, and so can you.

Oh and, about Windows for Games - mostly. Although I play all my Windows games on Linux. (Oblivion, Half Life 2, CS:S, Et Cetera)
Personally I think Linux beats windows in an any non-game application.
Nevertheless, the reason I use Linux is very simple: All the software is FREE. (With VERY few exceptions)
When I got back on my Windows a few days ago, I was terrified about all the stuff I had to do, search for serials, No-CD cracks, download applications that aren't free… In fact, I couldn't bear being on it for longer than 30 minutes and then rebooted. I really dislike searching for CD-burning software, media converting Software, or even software for very simple tasks - they are all shareware on windows. What annoyed me most of all is their totally crappy "cmd.exe".

Linux Package Managers are awesome. Windows has none, since it has a totally different community than Linux. Without Linux, there would be no Firefox, and you might still all be using IE. (Same for OpenOffice, etc)
Once you get to know Linux - you're finally in control of your Computer.

Widget, what "music" software do you need/use?