Ubuntu vs Windows

The good is that: 1 It is a much more secure system 2 On many platforms it runs faster 3 There is no need for third party anti-virus bloat-ware.

 

I use Debian, Ubuntu is based on it. It has pretty much everything I need , it's heaven for developers. GUI is not that ugly , it can be fixed nicely for those who prefer nice GUI. But terminal is all that matters after all
EDIT: Don't want to mention windows, not worth to waste words

 

I would choose Microsoft although Ubuntu has better online security.

 

I'm using Windows7 now. I've tried Ubuntu, Kubuntu,...etc.

 

Windows 7 is what most will need, Ubuntu is for those who basically hate windows. It's kind of a buy a painted and furnished house vs buy an apartment. Sure if you design it yourself and fit it to your needs it will be the best but most don't have that kind of time and knowledge.

 

it is always be an endless debate over these two OS.
In my opinion, it totally depends on what's you need to experience.
If you are going to do gaming, Windows will be your best choice.
If you love to explore more about computer, Linux will fulfill it

 

I have to say this isnt quite what it seems..
1. Boot time to being useful is pretty different. Next time try open firefox on both systems and compare then. Windows might be able to get the interface up on that specific configuration but might not be usable until about 20 secs after that.
2. The representation of CPU load is subjective in many ways and is probably calculated in weird ways in comparison.
3. The system monitor on Ubuntu is pretty heavy in itself if you look its probably the heaviest process open at the moment.

 

I hate windows... But as yet i havent been brave enough to dump it and switch to ubuntu.

 

windows is better operating system than linux.because i think windows is easier and more easy to handle.

 

Of course Windows has more bugs, more security holes, fewer people upgrading it, fewer people fixing problems (not to mention the price). But keep using the inferior system if it makes you feel good.

@shanmarsh1:
There are plenty of Linux viruses, so while some of the Linux antivirus programs may not be bloatware, you shouldn't run without one.

 

I'm running Ubuntu since a year or so without antivirus, no problem!

 

I've been running Windows since version 3.0 (back in the late 80s), and DOS since 1.0 (and CP/M since version 1.4 - back around 1975 IIRC), never ran an anti-virus and never got a virus. (Of course there were none until the 80s, AFAIR.)

That's not a recommendation to not run an anti-virus, that's a statement that I (and you) know how to avoid viruses (or just haven't yet done anything stupid). I wouldn't recommend that the average user, Windows, Linux, Mac OS, iOS or Android run without anti-virus software. Good ones are free and they don't impact the computer much. It's like not driving over broken glass - just being careful at almost no cost.

 

these days you really need some sort of additional security in the form of anti-virus. I put up an external firewall at home, and on the first day i was suprised to see just how many 'attacks' were incoming on a continous basis, and its only reasonable to assume that all OS have vulnerabilities, and you should take steps to ensure that your system is safe.

Im not a big fan of ubuntu (though im using ubuntu for laptops on this machine)
my main machines are linux mint (which is more popular then ubuntu, reaslistically its just ubuntu made to look different)

someone mentioned that windows was easier? bah humbug. I am highly skilled in computers and i have found at times windows is completely ridiculous. Ive got a vista machine that will not connect using the wireless card, but out of the box linux does. Ive got windows machines that wont connect to the nas storage box, but all the linux machines do. when im trying to connect online using my phone, linux connects easily, windows is a pain in the butt to connect (if you can connect at all) speaking of connectivity, i remember the nightmare it was just to connect vista with an ethernet cable, again, with linux there was no trouble.

in actual fact, if a user install windows, they will have more trouble then if they installed linux mint. additionally if you install windows NOTHING WORKS! Its not a complete system at all. LINUX is a complete system, and the last time i installed, everything worked out of the box. what i mean by everything works, well when i install an os, this is what i need:
1. firefox
2. office suite
3. ability to watch dvds/movies

windows cant do any of these things.

i used to volunteer at a computer repair center and teach people how to repair machines, and installation, and im telling you that linux was easier for installation. for things like printers, windows is easier. And ive found that running xamp on windows is easier then linux.

Right now i have to use windows as i couldnt get dreamweaver to run under linux. But i really hate using windows. My vista laptop doesnt sleep or hibernate properly, (ive run every update possible) but the same hardware works perfectly under linux. considering the price difference between a faulty buggy os and using the free linux, you know which one i prefer.

 

it's been years since I last used UBUNTU. I was able to get free ubuntu cds, I'm not sure if they are still giving away 'til this day. but I only used it whenever my computer crashed, while waiting for my technician to install windows. never tried to run any softwares or applications though,.

 

That's no surprise.

A firewall's job is to block connections, not to block data types. You authorized it to allow your web browser to connect outgoing on port 80 (you have to if you want to use the web), so the browser tries to connect to a website and the firewall allows it. Whether what comes back from that site is a web page or a virus doesn't matter to the firewall, it's blocking apps and ports, not data types.

Go to sites with viruses and you'll get viruses.

If they're working, applications can run on them. Viruses are applications. It's just easier for kids who know nothing about programming to modify simple scripts to hit Windows, but even secure mainframe operating systems will run viruses if someone puts them on the computer.

A lot of hardware comes with Windows drivers, and the manufacturer doesn't write drivers for Linux. If the Linux community doesn't write a driver for that hardware, it won't work in Linux.

It's a complete operating system, it's not (nor is it supposed to be) a package of operating system and the applications you prefer.

Windows uses IE as its default browser. Mac OS uses Safari as its default browser. You don't choose an OS by the browser it includes.

Windows "comes with" Microsoft Office - if you pay for it (and take a few minutes to run the installer, or buy a computer that has it already installed).

Windows comes with a dvd/movie player.

But, again, you don't choose an OS by the apps it comes bundled with, any more than you choose a car by the scent of the air freshener that comes with it.

And you forgot gamers. Many games still don't come in Linux versions, so a gamer who wants to play that game has no choice - he has to have Windows available.

1) It's not written to.

2) Why are you running Dreamweaver? It's an overpriced text editor with a built in browser simulator that doesn't run the same way that any real browser does. (And when you're developing web pages, how they run in real browsers is all that matters - your users won't be viewing your pages in Dreamweaver.)

Write the site in a text editor (there are many good ones that run in Linux) and view/debug it in Firefox/Firebug/FirePHP (if you write it in PHP). Then check it in at least IE, Safari, Chrome and Opera.

You're running the Edsel of operating systems and complaining that it's not a BMW. Vista doesn't do anything right - not because it's Windows, but because it's Vista.

Only if that hardware has a Linux driver. Buy something that no one has written a Linux driver for and it won't work in Linux - at all. (Or, at very best, it'll work as its generic equivalent [like a video card that only runs as a standard VGA card].)

Price and bugginess have nothing to do with your above points, though. Not coming with an app you prefer isn't a bug. Not having a driver for a particular piece of hardware isn't a bug. Costing way more than it's worth isn't a bug.

Being Vista is a bug. And granted, a for-pay operating system isn't written to see h ow great an operating system the author can write, it's written to bring in a constant revenue stream. So the next version isn't written because some new feature is needed, or possible, it's written because sales on the old version have slowed down. It's not released because it's about as finished as it can be, it's released because marketing and accounting says it has to be released now. (For an example, see Vista.)

So is Linux a better OS than Windows or Mac OS? Probably. But not for many of the reasons you gave.

 

Ubuntu is good. what version are you using. i recently installed ubuntu 12.04. and it is really nice. but i should say windows 7 is better

 

I like more Windows but ubuntu is also good.

 

I will go with windows because though ubuntu is virus free but it not user friendly, so.

 

Actually, for the things you can do in Windows without knowing the command line pretty well, Linux (Ubuntu or any other distro) is as user friendly as Windows is. And Linux is NOT virus-free, it's just more difficult to write viruses for Linux, so kids who couldn't program an NOP with help can "program" a virus for Windows.

 

I think windows will be the best ever than any operating system and Ubuntu is the oldest and have very less users. windows is going to launch windows 8 and it will be the best by windows.