Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Growled

Linux vs Windows

224 posts in this topic

I'm probably going to regret this but recently I got to do a fresh install of both Windows 7 and Linux Mint 15. I decided to do them side by side to compare them. I did the fresh install of Windows on a Toshiba Satellite laptop for a friend and I installed Linux Mint on my older HP desktop. The only things I was going to add to Windows was Office 2010 and Adobe CS5. 

 

Install times were very similar. The rub came when I started doing updates. In 30 minutes I had not only updated mint but added PPAs to update Libreoffice, Gimp, and VLC to the newest versions. It took me nearly 4 hours to install the updates in Windows. 

 

While Windows was chugging away, I spend another hour in Mint getting some more PPAs added, for themes and for Handbrake and FormatJunkie and the Sunflower File Manager. That took another hour, mainly because I was just taking my time and trying out new themes.

 

So to summarize, Windows took me me nearly 5 hours to install and update and Linux Mint 15 took me 2 hours. 

 

On the Windows box, I then installed Office and the Creative Suit. To install them and then do the updates took me over 2 hours. I charged my friend for 8 hours of work. I had done been finished with Linux and had posted on many sites and had even ripped a movie and converted it with Handbrake. 

 

So on round 1 (installation) Linux wins easily.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yeah, because Windows has to do upgrade 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, wherein Linux, can skip from nothing to 5. There is less to update, too. As Linux doesn't have all these security holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Linux Mint 15 has been out for 3 days, Windows 7 has been out for 3 years (nearly 4 years), it's obviously going to have significantly more updates to install. It's also going to depend on your connection and computer speed, a fresh Windows 7 install + updates hasn't ever taken anywhere near 4 hours for me (90 minutes max).

 

Windows 8 would be a slightly fairer comparison, around 20 minutes to install + 10 minutes to install a few updates. 

14 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is in a few days linux will screw up and something will become corrupt and take you ages to sort. Windows however will keep on chugging away :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had Ubuntu on a laptop once upon a time, its a good OS with lots of features but lacked many things that I loved in Windows!  I grew up using Windows and is why I use and love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is in a few days linux will screw up and something will become corrupt and take you ages to sort. Windows however will keep on chugging away :)

 

Yeah, because that is the experience of us all linux users, right?

 

Honestly this question should not be asked. They are two different systems with exclusive strengths. Windows is the standard for many applications and excels at gaming options, it's very stable and fast too. Linux is stable and fast if the user is stable too, algo it's software library it's not too shaby and the customization is amazing, gaming is its weakness, however since version 1.5 Wine does wonders and we all know about this thing called Steam.

 

I consider GNU/Linux as a working/experimenting/Scientific research environment while Windows 7 is perfect for day-to-day normal users.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread will definitely be filled with intelligent rebuttals and scholarly gentlemen communicating in a rational and just way. I can see no reason this thread would turn into a flaming ball of flaming flames.

15 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah...neither one is better than the other. Each one offers different user experience.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always found Linux updates to take ages to install, especially when you have to update and resolve dependencies at the same time. However the beauty of Windows 7 is that you can inject updates into the image, and it's really easy. I keep fully updated images mastered with wintoolkit and it takes me about an hour to fully stage a good PC (with Office) and about 2 hours to stage an older PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four hours for updating Windows?  Old machine?  I just installed Win7 onto one of my test systems a couple days ago, nothing fancy, 2GHz C2D, 2GB RAM and a couple of SATA drives, install and updates took maybe an hour, maybe as I wasn't sitting there watching it the whole time, and that's including a couple versions of dotNET.  That doesn't include adding third party software of course though.

 

There is less to update, too. As Linux doesn't have all these security holes.

The CVE lists say otherwise.  It's had a crapton of security holes.  (And I'm not implying Windows doesn't.  No such thing as a 100% secure OS.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a very possible futile attempt to rail the train again: Both systems have security holes, there is no such thing as a 100% armored desktop system (maybe fedora 64bits come close), so it's pointless to debate this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had Ubuntu on a laptop once upon a time, its a good OS with lots of features but lacked many things that I loved in Windows!  I grew up using Windows and is why I use and love it.

Can you list some of the things that Ubuntu lacks?

The thing is in a few days linux will screw up and something will become corrupt and take you ages to sort. Windows however will keep on chugging away :)

I've been running Linux for months on my server and it has never screwed up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had Ubuntu on a laptop once upon a time, its a good OS with lots of features but lacked many things that I loved in Windows!  I grew up using Windows and is why I use and love it.

 

 

Ubuntu is closer to a windows xp experience now IMO. Its a very well developed OS for completely free. Windows only leads due to the commercial application development really. WINE works well for free apps like winrar, imgburn and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The CVE lists say otherwise.  It's had a crapton of security holes.  (And I'm not implying Windows doesn't.  No such thing as a 100% secure OS.)

 

Let's say at best, Linux has way less than Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I 'd say we stick to the topic which is the installation time of the OS and main software in order to be productive

Any more wondering should have another topic.

My opinion. I love this aspect of linux distros with almost every thing ready out of the box (apart fro some codecs,....).

Even install time from recovery DVDs for my HP laptop is way too much for an OS

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say at best, Linux has way less than Windows.

Actually, not even close.  Statistically speaking, the Linux kernel itself has had more reported vulnerabilities than the entire Windows operating system, and that's not including holes in the various Linux applications, servers, etc.  You can easily find this online, here's one to save a bit of time, the "top vulnerabilitiy" list.

 

All time -- Linux kernel #1, Windows XP #5 with almost half the number, Windows 7 #23 with about a quarter.

http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php

2012 -- Linux kernel #5, Windows 7 #44.

http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2012

2013 (so far) -- Linux kernel #1, Windows 7 #11, Windows 8 #31.

http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2013

 

Since this thread was talking about Mint, which is (last I checked anyway, I'm using Arch) based on Ubuntu, here's some more vulnerabilities to look at.

http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/

 

If you're messing with servers, that gap gets much bigger when you throw Apache, PHP, etc into the mix. That #1 is just the kernel itself, doesn't take into account all that other stuff that goes along with it, including the other services, desktop environment, applications, etc. Of course Windows having a bajillion people using it does make the holes that much more prominent, doesn't mean it doesn't exist for Linux. Even malware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, not even close.  Statistically speaking, the Linux kernel itself has had more reported vulnerabilities than the entire Windows operating system, and that's not including holes in the various Linux applications, servers, etc.  You can easily find this online, here's one to save a bit of time, the "top vulnerabilitiy" list.

 

All time -- Linux kernel #1, Windows XP #5 with almost half the number, Windows 7 #23 with about a quarter.

http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php

2012 -- Linux kernel #5, Windows 7 #44.

http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2012

2013 (so far) -- Linux kernel #1, Windows 7 #11, Windows 8 #31.

http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php?year=2013

 

Since this thread was talking about Mint, which is (last I checked anyway, I'm using Arch) based on Ubuntu, here's some more vulnerabilities to look at.

http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/

 

If you're messing with servers, that gap gets much bigger when you throw Apache, PHP, etc into the mix. That #1 is just the kernel itself, doesn't take into account all that other stuff that goes along with it, including the other services, desktop environment, applications, etc. Of course Windows having a bajillion people using it does make the holes that much more prominent, doesn't mean it doesn't exist for Linux. Even malware.

 

Are you aware that these are historical reports? Also, please, be aware that the Kernel versioning it's quite different, with edge, backported and stable variations. All these bugs get staked on the same entry. It's totally unfair and illogical to compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you aware that these are historical reports? Also, please, be aware that the Kernel versioning it's quite different, with edge, backported and stable variations. All these bugs get staked on the same entry. It's totally unfair and illogical to compare.

Well yes it's historical, it's showing vulnerabilities over the years, not sure what you're trying to say with that. As far as versioning goes, you can break that down on that list, and you can filter by version. But since there's a ton of distros all running different versions of the thing, it's hardly fair to cherry-pick one version of the kernel out of one distro and compare that to another operating system. Also, you're comparing a more "fluid" operating system with something that stays static for years. You can't just kick up a build number and pretend all the previous vulnerabilities never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ubuntu/Linux is not a bad OS by any means, but I grew up using Windows and a lot of programs that went with. I have used Ubuntu on several pcs, and it does have good driver support and its also very flexible (installing on any PC). Ubuntu is a solid OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah...neither one is better than the other. Each one offers different user experience.

 

Exactly right!

 

Linux and it's updates have always installed faster than Windows, for me also, but as stated already, usually when I'm doing an install of Linux, it's a brand new version with next to no updates. When ever I'm installing Windows, it's usually a restore of some one's broke d**k stuff and needs years worth of updates!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you list some of the things that Ubuntu lacks?

I've been running Linux for months on my server and it has never screwed up.

 

 

Linux, great as a server, but falls way short as a Desktop based system.  I've ran into so many issues with different distros (a lot have been driver related sure, but still).  Linux has never felt as smooth as Windows, at least for me that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linux and it's updates have always installed faster than Windows, for me also, but as stated already, usually when I'm doing an install of Linux, it's a brand new version with next to no updates.

That's a good point too depending on the distro; a couple of my machines run Debian stable as a server (installed before Wheezy), a decent number of updates but not a rediculious number, but my primary Linux play machine runs Arch.. everything's downloaded fresh during the install, zero updates to begin with. Something like the 'Buntu's get a new release every 6 months so the updates are pretty minor. Conversely, pick an older version of Windows that's been around for a while and it adds up.. I'd guess if I were in a retro/masochistic mood XP probably has at least 150-200 spanning a few restarts after all is said and done, and that's not including spending a pantload of time to customize it into something more usable.

 

Linux has never felt as smooth as Windows, at least for me that is.

For me it's about productivity. I've been working with *Nix even before Linux was born, I still have yet to get the environment that does everything I need without compromise, for the desktop end that is.. absolutely love it as a server, and I don't have a particular bias, it just has to work. I don't care to fuss around just getting things going or dealing with the little things that pop up with Linux desktops, compatibility issues, the occasional breakage, missing the small details. I'm a big fan of click-click-done.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love mint. it is my favorite hands down.....chocolate flavor

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes it's historical, it's showing vulnerabilities over the years, not sure what you're trying to say with that. As far as versioning goes, you can break that down on that list, and you can filter by version. But since there's a ton of distros all running different versions of the thing, it's hardly fair to cherry-pick one version of the kernel out of one distro and compare that to another operating system. Also, you're comparing a more "fluid" operating system with something that stays static for years. You can't just kick up a build number and pretend all the previous vulnerabilities never happened.

 

Linux is generally the same, no matter the GNU/Linux distro, so no cherry picking is necessary. What I meant by historical is that bug reports for Kernel 1.x, 2.x and 3.x are grouped together. This make it look like the Kernel is very buggy, but it's actually not different to the NT kernel, bug wise, however the NT Kernel is never grouped together because, in that list, is separated by Windows versions: XP, Vista, 7, 8.

 

A more accurate way to compare them is to separate the kernel versions by milestones: 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, 3.0, etc. just like Windows does: NT 4.x, NT 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2 etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As ZakO said, it's not surprising Linux Mint 15 doesn't have many updates considering it was released 3 days ago - if anything, it's surprising it has any updates at all! There's no general conclusion to draw about "Linux vs Windows" based on that triviality. As such I don't think this thread is likely to go anywhere, there's simply nothing much to say about such a poor comparison.

 

Since this is a silly thread let's post some silliness.

 

From the data we have, 3 days of availability of Linux Mint led to a 2 hour install; 3 years of availability of Windows 7 led to a 5 hour install. We can therefore establish with mathematical certainty that at this rate, in one year it will take 243 hours to install Linux Mint 15, or a bit more than 10 days. At this time, Windows 7 will install in 6 hours and 40 minutes.

 

We could also draw completely unrelated conclusions from this comparison, such as saying one system is certainly more secure or faster than the other, or - why not - that Hitler was in fact a tapeworm.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.