Windows 7 vs Ubuntu
I’ve downloaded the Windows 7 build 7000 beta with the intention to install it in VirtualBox 2.1. I wonder if it can match Ubuntu’s Performance, usability and feature set.
First the download itself: it took a long time since Microsoft didn’t expect so many people to download the beta… Is that naive or just plain stupid? But after a full night downloading the iso is in.
1. Installation
I’ve created a VB machine with the Vista settings, I assume that Windows 7 should run on a machine with at least Vista’s settings: I have created a VM with 16Gb disk, 1Gb memory and 128Mb video memory, 3D enabled. Microsoft promised that Windows 7 would be more resource friendly.
It takes ages before Windows 7 has figured out what hardware the machine contains, but the installation itself runs smoothly. It requires 2 restarts, but that normal with Windows. After about 50 minutes I’m on a working desktop. Aero doesn’t work, that was to be expected. The install takes about 7Gb (!)
Installing the VirtualBox Guest Additions also doesn’t work, that’s a bit disappointing. So I ended up manually updating the drivers for the system and the video. Another restart required.
Ubuntu clearly wins here. The Ubuntu installation is easier, more logical and much faster.
2. General performance
It’s slow. I know that will have to do with the VM, but that’s not the only reason. The performance indicators showed that even in the VM my machine should be able to run Windows 7. When I click anything it opens slow, very slow. The Card Deck application took about 50 seconds to open.
I have the feeling that Windows 7, as Vista, depends to much on Aero for the frontend that not being able to run Aero breaks the whole system. Also Windows 7 still starts a lot of services after it has already shown the desktop which causes it to be less responsive in the first minutes. After this is done the system response improves a lot. It’s not as fast as Windows XP in the VM, but it’s much better then Vista.
Memory usage after startup is 300Mb, that’s impressive!
Ubuntu is faster. That’s no surprise.
After playing with the monitor settings I managed to kill the resolution of the monitor, it now displays 800×600. So if you want to play with Windows 7: don’t fool around with the screen resolution!
3. Ease of use and visual niceness
I’m a Gnome and Mac addict, I never liked the Windows and KDE interface approach. The new taskbar which an act like a dock is pretty nice. It takes a lot of screen space though, which is a general problem with the Windows 7 visual design. The icon tray is still there, include the bizarre ‘hide icon when not active’ function.
Explorer (the file manager, not the browser) is very much the same as in Vista. The only difference I could find was that the ‘open folder’ triangles fade out when the pane is inactive. What’s strange is that the Folder Settings dialog is still the same as in windows XP, that dialog is 10 years old…
If I look at the default installation only, so no personalisation then Windows 7 is doing quite good. The Ubuntu default config with the awful orange/brown colors and the Gnome default layout is horrible. Windows 7 looks more clean and the start menu is fast and easy to use.
While configuring Windows 7 more to my liking I was reminded of why I prefer Ubuntu: Windows can’t be configured. You can can choose a predefined setup that matches your needs best, but you can’t tweak it completely. Windows is and stays what it is.
When you play around with Ubuntu it enables you to make it exactly as you want it. This takes time and effort, so not everybody will do that. If you stay with the default config I’d say Windows 7 is actually better then Ubuntu, but if you’re ready to think and do some tweaking Ubuntu is so much better than Windows 7.
On the ease of use I would say Ubuntu and Windows 7 are equal. Ubuntu is more configurable, but most people won’t use that, Windows is familiar and that’s working ok. On the visual level I like Ubuntu better (especially with the Shiki Colors scheme!), but that’s mainly taste. Windows 7 looks good, so I’d call this a draw.
4. Preinstalled features
There is a huge difference in the approach that Windows 7 and Ubuntu take here. Windows 7 is an operating system, with everything that an OS needs: kernel, GUI, utilities, even some end user applications like Notepad and Paint.It’s not a fully operation system after installation; you need to install your productivity tools yourself: mail, word processor, spreadsheet, etc. This makes sense: not everybody wants to use what your supplier offers you.
Ubuntu installs a lot more end user applications, it actually comes fully loaded. After installation you can start working. This is easier, but it also forces you to use the preinstalled tools or to deinstall them and install your own preferences.
When it comes to the preinstalled features Ubuntu is a clear winner. Windows delivers near to nothing when it comes to end user applications.
What Windows does deliver a complete stack of OS features. In that section it is a good competitor of Ubuntu. Please mind that I’m looking at this from the standpoint of the end user, and not a system administrator. Windows 7 even includes a decent command line tool, which supports some more Unix oriented commands like ‘ls’ and ‘cat’. A peculiar decision of Microsoft.
Windows 7 has a complete and understandable set of tools to manage the system. Ubuntu tends to get a bit hard to understand for newbies at some points, although this is improving fast.
Windows 7 has sufficient features to call it a good OS, but Ubuntu delivers a much more complete set of features. Ubuntu is the winner here.
Conclusion
Windows 7 is far better then Vista. It’s faster, looks a little better and takes yet another small step towards the future. But. I’ve downloaded 2.44Gb to be able to install a system that contains only an OS. Nothing more, just a kernel, a GUI and some utilities. It takes 7Gb on your harddisk after installation and it can’t run 3D graphics in a slower machine.
I have mixed feelings here. On the one side Windows 7 is really going somewhere, it’s good. But on the other side Ubuntu is so much better when you tweak it a bit. When Canonical would invest some more time in delivering a more tasty off the shelf install then it would easily defeat windows. But they don’t.
There is no winner in this competition. Windows 7 will be the next most used OS, there is no question about that. Ubuntu is trying to compete, but it will never be able to. In the end Ubuntu is a better OS, which a better GUI, but it should show that much better then it does now.
Трогательно)
liked your review…hits the nail in the head….Almost makes me think that Ubuntu and many other linux devs are a bunch of wackos developing software for their own use…But then again…there isn’t much of a common goal to make linux efficient for the Average user…if many of the efforts would be towards an easy (I am not saying windowze like) interface, including default eye candy other than the horrible ubuntu default color scheme, for example, then chances would be better to have a bigger market share…..you could take the points you just mentioned; space on the hd, more default features, etc; and have better marketing opportunities….Vista fiasco is kind gone already with the windows 7 release and the big opportunity just went by as well…
Thanks. It’s so frustrating seeing that Microsoft delivers a mediocre OS, and the FOSS delivers so much better, but is not able to make it look and feel good right after the install. That would make people really switch (see Mac OS X).
Ah well, we’ll see. Ubuntu is also going somewhere, but it takes time.
Well, the criticism here on Ubuntu isn’t all that pertinent…why not actually criticize Ubuntu for where it is NOT easy to use (where windeuce has been out-doing Ubuntu here)? Such as renaming USB memory, supporting proprietary devices, being limited to the command line for apps like ffmpeg and imagemagick, etc. Also hate to say it but wine just doesn’t always compensate…I haven’t heard a single n00b complain about the default Ubuntu+Gnome color scheme…if it were for the color scheme, they’d all wanna use Fedeura Whore or MormonSUSE.
windeuce has never included much functionality, hence soooo many 3rd party apps have been created to compensate (mind you n00bs never know where to find these apps, at least when it comes to the free ones). Ah well, hopefully we’ll hacks for windeuce 7 to make it more usable
One of the worst and unfair reviews ever.
Dont get me wrong, I prefeer Ubuntu to Windows 7 anyday, but it is no where near as slow as you say, infact, its quite close to ubuntu.
The install takes 12 minutes in a normal non vb install.
Ubuntu takes 35-40 minutes for me.
It is FAR from slow.
I can run Windows 7 on a 512MB RAM, Intel Centrino, Intel 945 64MB machine. It works fine, WITH AERO ACTIVE.
On my main mainchine, Windows 7 boots faster than Ubuntu, it is also very stable for a Beta 1 OS.
At the end of the day, I use Windows 7 as my main OS simply because Ubuntu is faster, safer etc but has not evolved enough yet for a normal non terminal user, and I hate terminal, oh and until Wubi 9.04 is released, I wont be trying Ubuntu 9.04.
I to was disapointed with windows 7 in a virtual box. However once I chose to try a full install I was more pleasantly surprised. My computer installs as easily as it did with ubuntu, just slightly slower. A vast improvement over previous versions. The new dock and several new 3d effects you missed out on put windows on par with ubuntu and Gnome for me.
Your review appears to pit a virtual box with minimum specs and crippled features against full featured, better equipped ubuntu running as a traditional install. keep in mind windows 7 is in Beta. So a test version of an OS that directly competes with a fully stable, updated OS?
Windows 7 wins or equals most true comparisons.
I would like to see a real benchmark comparison where both operating systems (windows 7, ubuntu 8.10) are installed onto the hard drive.
Has anyone seen one?
Unfair treatment of Windows 7. So what, it runs badly in a virtual box. You can’t compare that to a native install. I actually prefer Ubuntu, but Win 7 runs very fast on my HP Compaq nx9420 laptop. It did so with 1gb, and the performance gain now that I have 4gb is not noticeable when I’m just surfing or typing, using a spreadsheet etc (a little disappointing since I spent my last cash on extra RAM).
I experience Windows 7 as running faster and smoother than Ubuntu 8.10 and Kubuntu 8.10. Kubuntu with KDE 4.2 runs annoyingly slow here.
I hate to admit it, but Win 7 impressed me. If it had been free, it would have been a serious threat to my Ubuntu partition.
First of all, nice article. Perfectly honest, no fanboism. Kudos.
@titaniumtux: Proprietary devices are up to the proprietors to allow support.
I honestly believe that it is a horrible review. It is etremly biast to Linux distros.
The reviewer forgot 1 thing called DEPENDABILITY!!!!
As someone who has Xubuntu 64 JJ, Ubuntu 64, Kubuntu 64, Fedora 10 64 RC, Vista 32 and W7 64 i have a different take.
Xubuntu is the fastest, barely over W7 which is still an RC, but after making it presentable (compiz and AWN) the xServer kills the resources of a GeForce 9600M GT. Also, running progs more than a few days will hogg the heck out of the CPU. Almost everyone using Linux has to tweek the startup every 25-30 starts because it crashes.
Linux distros look slightly better than M$ os’s but in the end of the day they are nothing more than a bunch of programs forced together but never molded. They are far less stable when placed together than M$ os’s.
To conclude I would say that if you want to show off to your friends about the desktop cube or are willing and able to controll your desktop from a command line than go for Linux but if you need to write that set of yearly reports while having a pleasent interaction with your mouse and not worring much if th report will be there once the computer is restarted go for M$ os’s, preferably W7
Re: JonnyN post
What a bunch of nonsense. Every 25-30 starts the computer crashes. You have to be yanking your power cord instead of clean shutdown. Don’t make me laugh.
All that comparison between speed of install, eye candy etc is mostly superficial. If anyone really cared that much about it, he would be using Mac OSX.
Linux is perfect for the power user, Mac is perfect for graphic/video designer AND any average user. Windows is stuck between the two, mostly driven by marketing.
The power of Linux is mostly hidden from the average user. Linux community has been building a very powerful foundation to computing, mostly invisible to the average user. The days of Windows are basically over and Microsoft knows it. The reason is that the user interface as a part of a specific operating system is quickly becoming irrelevant. Everything is switching to Internet, huge chunk of which is powered by Linux. It doesn’t really matter what operating system you use to access the Internet. And the average user doesn’t really care what is the name of his operation system is. My kids don’t. They use both Linux and Windows equally well and don’t really see much difference. Of course, most of their time is being spent on Internet.
@vicm
That’s still a bad thing, isn’t it? The fact that you still have to search for quite complicated solutions to use the power of linux means that there is still a long way to go.
I’m sure hoping that will happen soon. I’m really looking forward to be able to do everything online. However, this is not the reality today so we’ll have to keep struggling with our local OS for a while.
The major reason I even thought of going Linux was to escape viruses and spyware. It was after the switch that I fell in love with using Linux. Even if Windows were to hands down double the performance of Linux, the addition of anti virus, spyware killers and other maintenance / support utilities would suck the life right outta your rig. If windows could be as secure, it could compete.
Just curious, I’m not too much of a computer person but which OS would be better for programs like AUTO CAD Civil 3d 2k series. I know the hardware has to be suffice for running it but I’ve never really used any Linux OS so it is still quite foreign to me in that aspect. So I’m wondering which system would it running more smoothly on. Thanks
One thing which is disappointing me: my legacy vanta graphics card (on a cryptic, disgustingly-old computer) is not recognized by Ubuntu. There is a driver for it which I have downloaded, but I have to disable the x server, which makes it nearly impossible for a command prompt-loser like me to figure it out, especially when the whole computer is freaking out.
@Luke
Forgot to mention: My problem is running the .run file with the x server disabled.
Big problem, though. Most users will want to easily be able to install a driver. Windows gives you the info. Jaunty has not done that for me.
RE: Luke
Press Ctrl-Alt-F1
>>/etc/init.d/gdm stop
>>cd
>> sudo chmod +x “.run file”
>> sudo ./”.run file”
where “.run file” should be replaced by the name of the file.run (without quotes)
Please ask if anything is unclear.
Damnit! Part of my response got cut off. The real thing is as follows:
Press Ctrl-Alt-F1
>>/etc/init.d/gdm stop
>>cd /path/to/run/file
>> sudo chmod +x “.run file”
>> sudo ./”.run file”
where “.run file” should be replaced by the name of the file.run (without quotes)
Please ask if anything is unclear.
@JohnyN
wtf?
“Almost everyone using Linux has to tweek the startup every 25-30 starts because it crashes.”
I’ve been running various linux distros for 4 years (way less than many hardcore linux folk) and i’ve once “tweaked the startup”. have you ever run a linux distro, within the last 7 years, for more than a few hours? Certainly not.
@colin
a bit more I forgot to mention -
I am not a “power user”. I am a computer enthusiast that doesn’t like to pay for software (or anything really
) . I also like freedom to do whatever it might be that I want to do with a computer. Windows and Mac don’t totally offer that. Linux does. And please don’t give me the tired old argument about linux needing heavy terminal knowledge or computer science degrees. Most popular linux distros pass “the grandma test” nowadays – anyone can sit down and do 90% of whatever a grandma would need to use a computer for on a linux box. So please download an .iso and stop the false claims. This is coming from a “joe six-pack”, not a computer scientist.
I am an average user who is not much into playing games but more into plain average use like word processing, spreadsheets, internet surfing, movies and music. I moved on to Ubuntu after i became disappointed with the mandatory necessity of using antivirus and antispyware solutions. They really suck up resources and yet do not secure the computer from malware. One has still to be very careful using the net. Best thing about Ubuntu is it’s stability and after using it for the past year i can say that it does not crash after 25-30 bootups. I love it because its stable, usable and secure and plus that its free. It runs amazingly well on my 3 year old Lenovo Y500 laptop. Software updates are prompt and pretty hassle free. I love the loads of free applications available online for almost everything one wants to do.
you spent time writing a higly biased article….there is a course called university writing take that course.
This review is very very subjective. I don’t think it is very meaningful.
In my opinion all Linux-Distros are more difficault to use than Windows. When you install Ubuntu you always have to configure your drivers for example manualy. After installation of Windows 7 everything was downloaded successfully. (And when nothing found, the Action-Center tells you what to do).
I think for a normal user this is a very important fact.
What makes Windows better system is, that the installation of new programs via an “exe”-file, which i have to click on is more flexible. If i want to have new programs, which are not in the repositories, i have to compile it myself. (and often some dependences are missing [uses a lot of time to find missing libraries]).
And the argument that Windows 7 cant run on older machines:
In my environment everyones computer can run Windows 7/Vista without any problems.
Most people have performant computers.
And it doesnt matter if my OS uses 10% of my RAM or 100%…..Most computers have their RAM to use it
And Windows can free space if you need it.
Ubuntu has a lot of advantages too, i know, but i think, Linux will not be able to displace Windows. Linux(especially Ubuntu) isnt as user-friendly as itself says. It became better over the years, but never reached Windows.
I use Ubuntu – 64bit and 32bit – have used since 8.10,
Karmic – 9.10 64 bit on my Dell E6500 is very nice – fast and so easy to use. Everything is where I want it and I can customise to any extent I like.
Karmic 32bit is really nice – have 3 installs of it at home and they really are nice to use.
I received Win 7 Ultimate on my replacement E6500 and it was nice – actually it does a lot of the things we take for granted with Ubuntu. Found my wireless Hp printer, wireless network etc.
GUI is nice and the speed was fine.
However remember its been created by the same organisation that created:
WIN95
WIN98
WINME
XP -
Vista
and it still uses a registry and it will get full of junk.
And you have to buy nearly everything – although Office is nearly a give away item these days for Home/Student use.
The web is where we are going – I believe MS had to fix Vista – but it cannot stop here – this is just a fix up for a stuff up.
I agree that Linux will always be superior to windows, but I’d just like to note, the retail edition of windows 7 starts in about 17 seconds on my mid-end PC. It also has none of the performance problems you described, Crysis (extremely high-end pc game) starts in about 19 seconds (I mean to the UI, not to a map), apps included in windows 7 start in virtually 2-3 seconds, hard-disk performance is good too, copying files takes less time then vista. RAM usage at startup is approx. 215MB, and minimal services are active.
In conclusion, I would say Ubuntu has the usual performance advantage, but it is not so pronounced as it was with vista, when it comes to base performance, its pretty close. And finally an inbound/outbound firewall included in windows.
I run both Windows 7 and Linux Mint (for those that don’t know, a ubunty derivative).
Specs:
Phenom 2 X3 OCed 3.00GHZ
3GB DDR2 CAS 4 RAM
WesternDigital SATA2 HDD 8MB cache
Radeon 4850 1GB
Regarding preinstalled s/w – remember Microsoft was in soup for just having a browser bundled with windows? Heavens might fall if it came with things like Office, even if they were crippled!
(PS: I use Mac at home and dabbling with Ubuntu at the moment)
“Ubuntu has a lot of advantages too, i know, but i think, Linux will not be able to displace Windows. Linux(especially Ubuntu) isnt as user-friendly as itself says. It became better over the years, but never reached Windows.”
What’s interesting to think about is that it already is. Though Linux isn’t ready for the average desktop user, it is right for nearly everybody else. Servers? Use Red Hat. Development? Use Slackware (or a derivative. I prefer Vector). Tech-enthusiast? Run Ubuntu (or, again, a derivative).
Here’s my thing with Windows: look how restricted you are. You can’t use an alternate window manager. You can’t customize your install. You can barely do any custom fixes (even then, those are mostly small hacks). Most people don’t care. Power users do. That’s why we use Linux.
Could all the people who are dissing Ubuntu (you know, saying that it is heavily terminal based etc) please download an iso, and install it and spend at least an hour using it.
99% of the things you want to do with an OS can be done out of the box, and the other 1% can be done after a quick google search on how to make it work. The terminal is there, and can be used IF YOU WANT TO. If you dont want to use the terminal then dont. Most linux users will use the terminal quite a lot once they know how though, as it is easier than a gui. Take installing a new software package under ubuntu. There is a gui application that allows you to search for the app you want, and install it. However if accustomed to the command line, the user can search for a software package and install it in 2 commands.
As for whoever said that every 30 boots (or so) the linux user needs to tweak their boot settings as it stops working, please if you have no idea please dont comment. If you had ever run ubuntu, or any linux distro for that matter, you would realise how stupid this comment it. Ive been running ubuntu for the last several years, and to be honest i bet i can count on my fingers the ammount of times ive had to reboot… Try running windows (ANY version) without rebooting at least once a week..
My pennies worth…
Millions of people now use Ubuntu and the number is growing rapidly every single day and will continue to do so.
Its irrelevant what I think or claim to know, what is important is _choice_ in the areas where once it seemed like there was none.
An easy to use, flexible, capable, robust and efficient system is now availible, for free to anyone who wants it, and plenty do.
Choose whatevers best for you.
ps. I prefer linux from scratch
I’ll always keep using Ubuntu, but it is challenging. I’m using it on my laptop for work and I’m required to have WinXP on the laptop to be able to use Office and Outlook with Exchange. The alternatives that Ubuntu offers are just not good enough (OpenOffice) or not working at all (Evolution Exchange).
I really like Ubuntu because it’s fast and configurable, but using it in a real life environment requires some determination. Apple has done it’s best to integrate with the Microsoft world and they’re doing quite a good job. Linux is still running behind in that sense and probably always will.
Using Ubuntu without the rest of the world is just great. But as soon as you start receiving MS Word documents, Powerpoints, Visios, Enterprise Architect documents, or own an iPhone or Apple TV then life becomes complicated.
All your points basically prove that ubuntu is better. ubuntu rocks. cant wait for lucid lynx.
In windows “there is an app for everything”. All the games come out for windows. Ubuntu and other linux/unix based systems don’t have a lot of apps and absolutely no games. So i think for ubuntu or fedora to compete with the heavy weight champion it has to talk to the big companies (eidos,ea,activision, even MS) so that they can develop some nice apps and games for it.
Ubuntu looks beautiful but microsoft windows rocks. It has been, still is and will be the best OS.
Sorry Ubuntu fans, I switched: http://martinnotes.com/2010/03/14/windows-7-vs-ubuntu-the-sequal/
Your article is absolutely spot on. Sadly, no matter how superior an OS is, and Ubuntu really is better than Win7, until it gets a big enough following you will always have issues regarding app and driver support or games for it and so forth. But if you feel happy to work around this there are ways to cope and it is up to you to decide if you feel the time wasted on work arounds is justified by the time gained by using a much faster and more stable system.
I see Valve has releasing Steam for Mac. Let’s put some pressure on them to have a look at some big Distros like Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and Suse. If games start coming to Linux, I think there will be a lot of user movement which in turn will bring hardware vendors and application writers to the party.
Thanks for the interesting read.
David
My brother suggested I would possibly like this blog. He used to be entirely right. This submit truly made my day. You cann’t consider just how much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!