Windows 7 vs Ubuntu 10.04

by Barry Collins | Wednesday 29 December 2010

Is Linux finally ready for prime time? Barry Collins pits Ubuntu 10.04 against Windows 7 in a series of real-world tests to find out

Linux's fight to dislodge Windows as the people's desktop operating system of choice has been a long, sometimes bitter and ultimately unsuccessful one. Despite the bombastic predictions of open-source advocates, and a short-lived spell as the default netbook operating system, Linux remains at the very margins of mainstream computing.

However, something rather extraordinary is happening in the Linux world. Amid all the distros that have come and gone over the years, one finally has the potential, the momentum and the commercial backing to at least challenge the Windows hegemony.

Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is the most mature, user-friendly and feature-packed Linux desktop OS to date. From the Wubi installer - which installs the operating system with the ease of a regular Windows app - to the built-in music store, online backup service and comprehensive driver support, Ubuntu 10.04 has the unmistakable demeanour of a mainstream OS. It even looks nice.

But is it good enough to outflank Microsoft's magnificent return to form, Windows 7? We're going to pit the two operating systems against one another in a series of tests, examining their usability, features, performance, mobility, business aptitude and more. We'll score both operating systems on each of our tests, and we'll add up the scores and deliver our conclusion on the merits of each. Let the battle commence.

Browse this article: Next

This Feature appeared in the November, 2010 issue of PC & Tech Authority Magazine

See more about: linus | ubuntu | lts | 1004 | windows | os | comparison

Readers of this article also read...

grail 29 December 2010	It always intrigues me to see articles comparing some version of nix to Windows. Why is it the reviewers invariably have a good to advanced knowledge of the Windows version in question but when it comes to the nix it is beginner or less?? (such as 'enter the obligatory password' which is not required if you choose the optin during install to login automatically) I agree with many of the points in the article that Ubuntu has a way to go, but why is it necessary to compare a hand crafted installer of particular software (Adobe AIR being the first case) and when the community based version isn't as good it gets a bagging?? Maybe the real question here should be, if Adobe (or others) were to in fact cater for the likes of Ubuntu, how would this now compare? Lastly I would have a dig at just how well Windows provides for things not installed natively ie. like codecs. Media Player / Centre is touted here as being superior and yet if I load an avi or such with an unknown codec, both of the deliver the super helpful message of - unknown codec, closing player - or some such. Maybe future comparisons would be done by someone who is at the same level on both OSes? Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article: Windows 7 vs Ubuntu 10.04? Is Linux finally ready for prime time? Barry Collins pits Ubuntu 10.04 against Windows 7 in a series of real-world tests to find out What do you think? Join the discussion.
Madaz 29 December 2010	hahahah i tried Ubuntu 10.** not sure of number my first thoughts we very nice indeed but nothing runs like windows you dont double click downloaded files to make them run and i couldn't get my games to run only what came with the install and it was all a bit much, sound didnt work which would of required more looking for what sound chip was on my motherboard and then looking for a linux version really i think most people are comfortable with the devil they know
Slatts 29 December 2010	The link is tenuous at best but I don't care. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc[/youtube] I cast Madaz as the hermit.:twisted:
Madaz 29 December 2010	lol :cool:
dak 30 December 2010	As a long time home user of Ubuntu, I have been happy to avoid the ongoing train-wreck that was Vista (yes, I do have dual booted Windows XP on a PC, and a NetBook). Windows 7 has worked for those friends I have installed it for. At work, I use the Windows XP that the Government office I work for supplies, along with inhouse developed specialist software. But I feel there are a couple of things worthy of comment, in the article: "All the preinstalled apps have the Close, Maximise and Minimise buttons in the top left-hand corner of the window." This can be changed by simply changing "Themes" on the desktop. Right Click on the desktop, Left Click on "Change Desktop Background" and then click on the TAB labelled "Themes". Pick anything but the default theme and those pesky buttons will be on the right. "Ubuntu takes full advantage of the iPhone-led thirst for "apps" with its own Software Centre, which is easily accessible from the Applications tab." Ubuntu has had a downloadable software library under one name or another long before Apple had the iPhone and it's app store. Downloadable Free & Open Source Software (FOSS) has been available from the beginning in 2004 (Ubuntu 4.10 Warty Warthog). "Ubuntu failed to recognise any of the three USB mobile broadband dongles we inserted in our laptop, and our search for drivers ended in a long-winded workaround." My Optus Wireless Broadband USB dongle worked first time with Ubuntu Netbook Remix 9.10 with one simple change in the settings (APN changed from CONNECT to PRECONNECT). Finally, while I appreciate that lead time for any publication means writing about something a month or two before it actually hits the streets, no mention has been made of the ongoing development and improvements inherent in FOSS, and the 6 monthly release cycle that Ubuntu enjoys : the latest version out is 10.10 (2010 October issue/version). If a security or feature issue surfaces, you might have a resolution the same day.
petergaskin 30 December 2010	oh do we forget that windows has really been around for only 20 years. most of us have migrated from a dos only world to windows. so yes pc users will change - but it needs to be fairly easy to make the change. if linux can not be set up and used fairly easily, then pc users will go back to what they know. thus we have all those users who refuse to even try vista and stick with xp. we also have all those businesses that refuse to move on. eventually, pc users will change. if a version of linux that doesnt require too many changes for new users, then linux has a good chance of suceeding!
Dale61 30 December 2010	As always with these types of comparisons, it's new vs. old. There is no excuse for this writer to not compare Ubuntu 10.10 with Win7, not his choice of 10.04. Afterall, 10.10 has been out since October, and is the newest release .......
palmje 30 December 2010	"We took the advice of forum users and installed VLC Player..." --PC & Tech Authority I'd be taking down the names of all those people, and then ignoring any advice they give in the future... I know that vlc is vastly better under linux than it is under windows, but there are plenty of much, much better options. A front-end to a properly set-up gstreamer (e.g. Totem), a xine front-end (e.g. Totem), mplayer (my favourite) with smplayer as a gui if required. "Ubuntu has nothing to match the swish appeal of Windows Media Center." --PC & Tech Authority Anyone using Windows Media Center should have their head checked... Seriously, there are dozens of much better options to pick from. And if you want a media center on Ubuntu, all you have to do is install one... MythTV, XBMC, Elisa just to name a few... "...when we attempted to install Adobe AIR ... we hit a barrier ... we discovered that we had to download the BIN installation file, then venture into Ubuntu's equivalent of the command line - dubbed Terminal - and enter a couple of lines of code to start the installation." Or you could have used your brains and downloaded the debian package for adobe air that Adobe offers, double clicked on it and clicked install. Even assuming that failed, you can't blame an OS for the way a single company decides to offer a generic installer, but the fact is that a bin file is far more compatible then any graphical installer since it makes no assumption about the installed gui toolkits (qt, gtk, etc.). "Hardly a user-friendly experience..." Sorry, but my definition of user friendly doesn't include "must be graphical" in it - there are many cases where a console tool is far easier and faster then the graphical alternative and console tools typically make it much easier to automate tasks/installs as well, which I consider essential for it to be user friendly. "nothing runs like windows you dont double click downloaded files to make them run" -- Madaz If it's a media file or similar, works the same, if it's a windows program... well, keyword there is "windows", as in designed to run on windows only... You can try installing wine, which should work for most things (esp. small applications), but there is no guarantee. "i couldn't get my games to run only what came with the install" -- Madaz Yeah, they are WINDOWS games... you don't see them magically working when you throw the disk in an xbox do you? Same goes here, though at least you can try using wine, but as I said before, there are no guarantees.
rubaiyat 31 December 2010	grail wrote: It always intrigues me to see articles comparing some version of nix to Windows. Why is it the reviewers invariably have a good to advanced knowledge of the Windows version in question but when it comes to the nix it is beginner or less?? (such as 'enter the obligatory password' which is not required if you choose the optin during install to login automatically) I agree with many of the points in the article that Ubuntu has a way to go, but why is it necessary to compare a hand crafted installer of particular software (Adobe AIR being the first case) and when the community based version isn't as good it gets a bagging?? Maybe the real question here should be, if Adobe (or others) were to in fact cater for the likes of Ubuntu, how would this now compare? Lastly I would have a dig at just how well Windows provides for things not installed natively ie. like codecs. Media Player / Centre is touted here as being superior and yet if I load an avi or such with an unknown codec, both of the deliver the super helpful message of - unknown codec, closing player - or some such. Maybe future comparisons would be done by someone who is at the same level on both OSes? Comment made about the PC & Tech Authority article: Windows 7 vs Ubuntu 10.04? Is Linux finally ready for prime time? Barry Collins pits Ubuntu 10.04 against Windows 7 in a series of real-world tests to find out What do you think? Join the discussion. Love those Linux line feeds! Class!
petergaskin 31 December 2010	Run windows 7 on a pc with 1 gb of ram? okay if you dont want to run anything else on that pc! !gb of ram is the asbsolute minimum to run xp - not windows 7! Lets be real.
.:Cyb3rGlitch:. 31 December 2010	petergaskin wrote: Run windows 7 on a pc with 1 gb of ram? okay if you dont want to run anything else on that pc! !gb of ram is the asbsolute minimum to run xp - not windows 7! Lets be real. O_o You can't be serious? You can run XP comfortably on 256MB of RAM, preferably 512MB. 1GB is by no means the absolute minimum. 1GB was very much extravagant back when XP was released. Windows 7 and 1GB is perfectly fine for a basic web/word processing machine.
petergaskin 1 January 2011	When xp was released, the minimum requirem,ent was 128mb of ram. I like many others chose the default config of the time - which was 256mb of ram and 40gb hard drive. Within 3 years and various xp updates, the computer was continually running out of memory. Given that we are still using at least 10 xp machines at work, I know what happens when you try to format a cell in excell with only 512mb of ram! yes 1gb is really the minimum to comfortably run xp. Although it is pretty hard finding replacement ram for our pcs, due to their age. We have 1 win 7 pc with 1.5gb ram - a veryu interesting machine indeed. Not really enough ram at all.
Aj619 4 January 2011	Personally i think that linux mint would have been a better comparison. Also i have had the same bsoi (Black Screen Of Itunes) as you have and i find that the new idevices mount as camera devices now anyway so using it in music programs is a bit harder.
Stomfi 7 January 2011	Been using Linux since '92 but use Windows at work. I have similar troubles trying to get my favourite Linux apps running on Windows, even having to use the dreaded Windows command line or Bill forbid, a compiler. If the author really needs Windows specific applications and hardware but wants the added security and performance that comes with Linux, I suggest installing the VirtualBox package from Oracle and loading Windows as an application in a secure Linux window. (I'd do this at work the other way round, except the Windows performance slows down too much.) I'm surprised you call Ubuntu an OS that takes up 5GB. My 10.04 Linux OS including the windowing part and limiting the install of free applications to the bundle that come with Windows, only takes up 1.2GB. Ubuntu is a distribution of Open Source applications, not an OS. Maybe next time you could get a Linux lover to do a comparison for a balanced viewpoint or would your advertisers be upset.
rubaiyat 19 January 2011	If you don't want to pay, expect to get what it cost. The fact that it is all free or cheap (if you don't count huge amounts of wasted time) anything you do get, no matter how miserable or half baked, means you are ahead.
photohounds 23 June 2011	You can get an excellent OS and many applications for free. They work well and v.1.0+ apps are no more buggy than WinApple code is by all accounts and also IME. I still use Win for some apps (my speaker design stuff is Win only, but works fine in a VM). All the 'usual' apps, win-games excluded can be quite easily found for Linux platforms. The fact that something is free does not mean it is inferior, unless you have needs and expectations beyond what the software is intended to deliver. Naysayers should be forced to try a version per year to keep their pooh-poohing comments at least somewhat relevant. I hear and read many comments that in reality say little more than "I used xyz 5 years ago and therefore it must still be [insert real or imagined deficiency here].". Such "expert" opinion is utterly useless for helping anyone select what to run on THEIR hardware ...
rubaiyat 24 June 2011	Just remember there are no free applications for Mac or Windows. Oh, wait a minute, there are! I love the cheapskates whinging that Adobe and such don't develop for an OS developed for people who think the most important feature of any product is that it is free!
Madaz 24 June 2011	palmje wrote: "nothing runs like windows you dont double click downloaded files to make them run" -- Madaz If it's a media file or similar, works the same, if it's a windows program... well, keyword there is "windows", as in designed to run on windows only... You can try installing wine, which should work for most things (esp. small applications), but there is no guarantee. "i couldn't get my games to run only what came with the install" -- Madaz Yeah, they are WINDOWS games... you don't see them magically working when you throw the disk in an xbox do you? Same goes here, though at least you can try using wine, but as I said before, there are no guarantees. OH im sorry you thought i was a noob trying to install windows apps in linux will my IOS apps work on droid as well give me a little credit i downloaded linux files unlike windows when you download a installer your double click it and it installs i never found that for linux maybe there are installers i just didn't find them