Jump to content



Photo

Linux vs Windows

linux

  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

#1 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 23 July 2013 - 22:44

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.

 

 




#2 Mindovermaster

Mindovermaster

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Location: /USA/Wisconsin/
  • OS: Mint Debian LMDE
  • Phone: HTC ONE V

Posted 23 July 2013 - 22:52

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.



#3 ZakO

ZakO

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-September 07
  • Location: Finland

Posted 23 July 2013 - 22:53

...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. 



#4 Vester

Vester

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 06-March 12
  • Location: UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1, Kali Linux
  • Phone: I9000 Custom Rom 4.2.2

Posted 23 July 2013 - 23:00

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 :)



#5 Atomic Wanderer Chicken

Atomic Wanderer Chicken

    Assistant Special Agent Chicken in charge

  • Tech Issues Solved: 5
  • Joined: 20-August 12
  • Location: Black Mesa Research Facility, USA
  • OS: Windows 95 with Microsoft Plus
  • Phone: Motorola MicroTAC Elite

Posted 23 July 2013 - 23:06

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.



#6 vetsanctified

sanctified

    Your order is meaningless. My chaos is significant.

  • Joined: 29-November 01
  • Location: ø
  • OS: OS X 10.9 and Xubuntu 14.04
  • Phone: iPhone 5 (very cheap second hand)

Posted 23 July 2013 - 23:09

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.



#7 astropheed

astropheed

    astropheed

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 08-December 11
  • Location: Sydney, AU

Posted 23 July 2013 - 23:20

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.



#8 Neu B

Neu B

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 16-April 11

Posted 23 July 2013 - 23:21

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

#9 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 23 July 2013 - 23:29

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.



#10 Max Norris

Max Norris

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 15
  • Joined: 20-February 11
  • OS: Windows, BSD & Arch, Occasionally OSX
  • Phone: HTC One (Home) Lumia 1020 (Work)

Posted 23 July 2013 - 23:33

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.)



#11 vetsanctified

sanctified

    Your order is meaningless. My chaos is significant.

  • Joined: 29-November 01
  • Location: ø
  • OS: OS X 10.9 and Xubuntu 14.04
  • Phone: iPhone 5 (very cheap second hand)

Posted 23 July 2013 - 23:43

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.



#12 OP Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 23 July 2013 - 23:48

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.



#13 srbeen

srbeen

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 30-November 11

Posted 23 July 2013 - 23:52

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.



#14 Mindovermaster

Mindovermaster

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 9
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Location: /USA/Wisconsin/
  • OS: Mint Debian LMDE
  • Phone: HTC ONE V

Posted 24 July 2013 - 00:11

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.



#15 medhunter

medhunter

    Muslim Emergency physician

  • Joined: 19-June 11
  • Location: Egypt
  • OS: Win 7 SP1 Home Premium , Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, Xubuntu 13.04
  • Phone: Sony Sola

Posted 24 July 2013 - 00:11

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