Linux vs Windows


Recommended Posts

Growled

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.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mindovermaster

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ZakO

...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. 

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyJobs

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 :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Atomic Wanderer Chicken

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sanctified

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
astropheed

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.

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites
Neu B

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Noir Angel

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Max Norris

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.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
sanctified

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
srbeen

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mindovermaster
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
medhunter

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Max Norris

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sanctified

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Max Norris

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Atomic Wanderer Chicken

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
cork1958

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
ToneKnee

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Max Norris

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.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
vcfan

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

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
sanctified

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andre S.

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.

  • Like 4
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Namerah S
      Metro Exodus announced for the PS5 and Xbox series X|S
      by Namerah Saud Fatmi

      Amidst celebrations of the tenth anniversary of its first-person shooter franchise, 4A Games has announced that Metro Exodus will be landing on the next-generation of consoles. In addition to the newly revealed console variants, the video game developer also stated that Linux and macOS versions of the game are also in the works.

      While no exact details were provided, the game's makers did confirm free next-gen upgrades as have become the industry norm. Faster frame rates, better resolution, quicker loading times, and other enhanced features such as ray tracing were also detailed for the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X|S variants of Metro Exodus.

      4A Games further revealed that the next game in the Metro series is already under development. The Ukrainian-Maltese video game developer commented:

      While the game dev did confirm its commitment to creating a 'story driven single player experience' for the next instalment in the franchise, it also mentioned the existence of a multiplayer mode. As the upcoming Metro title is still in the early phase of production, no concrete decisions about the two game modes have been made yet.

      For now, we'll have to sit tight and wait for further details to be shared by the creators of Metro Exodus on all fronts. No release date for the next-gen version of the third Metro game or its Linux and macOS variants has been disclosed yet.

    • By zikalify
      Fedora 31 will reach its end of life next Tuesday
      by Paul Hill



      The Fedora Project has announced that Fedora 31 will reach its end of life on 24 November 2020. The announcement comes just weeks after the launch of Fedora 33 which included GNOME 3.38 and BTRFS as the default file system.

      After next Tuesday, Fedora 31 will stop receiving vital security updates leaving your system open to exploitation as new vulnerabilities are discovered. To make sure that your system stays protected, you should upgrade to a later version; to do this, simply open Software and go to the Updates tab, there you should see a bigger banner offering you a Fedora upgrade.

      Once you begin the upgrade with this method, the required files will be downloaded and then your system will ask to reboot to install the files in a similar fashion to how normal updates work. When the upgrade is complete, the system will automatically reboot into the new release.

      In the Fedora documentation, it says:

      If you do not want to upgrade your system, you also have the option of downloading a fresh copy of Fedora 33 which was released last month. Whether you upgrade your system or do a clean install, ensure that you’ve backed up all of your important files.

    • By Ather Fawaz
      The new Intel Open FPGA Stack is geared towards easing development of custom platforms
      by Ather Fawaz



      Today at the Intel FPGA Technology Day, Intel showed off its newest offering in the eASIC lineup, the eASIC N5X. Alongside it, the tech giant also debuted its Open FPGA Stack (Intel OFS), a scalable, source-accessible hardware and software infrastructure meant to power customized, high-performance workloads.

      Distributed via git repositories, the Intel OFS will be geared towards easing the process of development and deployment on FPGAs by enabling greater code reusability and modularity. Vendors will be able to provide native support to third parties and proprietary Intel-OFS platforms, this would lead to greater portability across Intel FPGA platforms and enable native support across major OS vendor distributions. All of this would lead to a smaller barrier to entry, enabling increased adoption of FPGAs in the industry.

      "With the proven success from our early-access customers, we are excited to launch the Intel Open FPGA Stack, with its demonstrated ability to dramatically both reduce the development time and also increase code and hardware design reuse for customers and partners looking to accelerate their workloads,” said Dave Moore, Intel corporate vice president and general manager of the Programmable Solutions Group.

      If you are interested in trying out Intel OFS, it is currently in early access. For details on that, as a starting point, you should contact an Intel sales representative. The firm aims to provide assistance regarding the same over the next year. For more details, you may refer to this blog post.

    • By PNWDweller
      About 3 months ago I switched my  Operating system to Arch after being a distro hopper playing around with the Ubuntu Variants and never feeling quite satisfied.  Where I work, we use Ubuntu based systems and I have grown quite comfortable in the command line experience and I felt like it was time to switch to a different OS.  Until then, I had used and have experience in Centos, Ubuntu, Solus linux and Fedora Linux.  What drove me to switch and make the choice to switch over, I  was getting tired of reading about kernel updates being pushed out fixing security bugs and also adding different functions.  While I can honestly say that my day to day activities don't require the latest and greatest kernel and software, it made sense to me especially when I would read about new software being released and then days or weeks before Canonical would certify it and release it to the general community.  I understand why they do this and I chose to move on. 
       
      Arch itself tends to hold the notion that you have to compile all the software you want to use and it's a harder system to use.  I can honestly say that this is partially true, but what people fail to tell you is that the compiling is done automatically by the package manager (Pacman in this case).  If you are comfortable with the command line, and even if not, you can certainly install Arch or use an installer to do it for you.  I used Anarchy installer which basically formats your drive for you, and you select whatever software you want and then it installs it.  It does the heavy lifting.  When finished, you are booted into your Shiny new Arch system with the Desktop Environment you chose.  In my case, it is always KDE.
       
      When I moved to Arch, I quickly found that not only do I have access to the latest and greatest builds, but also a lot of the alpha/beta versions of software.  For instance, I am running the "Bleeding Edge" version of Thunderbird mail which is in the alpha channels for testing.  You can't always do this with other systems.  i also have been able to experiment with different kernel versions.  Usually when I get updates, I have the most recent stable kernel release. 
       
      For things I have done with Arch - aside from my Desktop, I have a PXE boot server installed on my NAS which is also using Arch and other server software on it.  My PXE server allows me to boot into clonezilla or fresh install Arch if I need to (really don't need to), without having any external installation media handy (Thumb drives usually).
       
      Anyway, I have found my final Operating System and couldn't be any happier!
    • By zikalify
      Debian Project selects “Homeworld” theme for Debian 11
      by Paul Hill



      Debian 11 “Bullseye” is due sometime in 2021 and in preparation it has selected a theme called Homeworld that will be prevalent throughout the operating system. The Homeworld theme was created by Juliette Taka and is inspired by the German Bauhaus art movement which has its beginnings in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

      Users will come into contact with the Homeworld theme in several places when they use Debian 11. One of the first times will be in the Debian installer where the banner carries the Homeworld artwork. Debian 11 also includes a Homeworld background and a Homeworld-theme login screen.

      Following a call for proposing themes, a total of eighteen choices were submitted. A desktop artwork poll was opened up to the public and it received 5,613 responses which ranked the different choices. The Homeworld theme came out on top and will be used in Debian 11.

      If you’ve ever run Debian 8 or Debian 9 on your system, you’ll have come across Juliette Taka’s artwork already, she was the author behind the Lines and softWaves themes which were used in those two releases.