Which one is better between Windows and Ubuntu OS?

AMAXANG GAMES

New Member
Hello everyone,
I am curious to know which one is better. Windows or Ubuntu OS. I have used Windows and I am using it for a long time but I don't have an experience with Ubuntu OS. If you have used Ubuntu and Windows both, you can tell me which one is better and easy to use.

I wanted to ask this question for a long time and I have found out a right forum to ask such.
This is my first post so please don't take it seriously if it is a foolish question to ask.

Thank you,
 

Geoff

VIP Member
What's better, a car or a truck? It's a question everyone will have different opinions on, and it depends on your needs.

Do you want something that is just easy to use? Windows.
Do you want something that is the best OS to use for gaming? Windows.
Do you want something with excellent security? Ubuntu

It's free, so if you already have Windows just download Virtualbox and an Ubuntu ISO and run it on top of Windows to play around with it.
 

DMGrier

VIP Member
As wrxguy said it is opinion, example has already been proven as he listed easy to use is Windows.

Their is a difference between easy to use cause you already know how to use Windows and having to learn something new. Once you understand how Ubuntu works in my opinion it is far easier to use, everytime I hop on one of the Windows machines I get headaches. Not that Windows machines are hard but the logic in which I have to work feels a** backwards.

Using anything Linux is not hard and some prefer, just give it a try. The hardest part and you can just google is find you replacement software as we use much different software for our different task.
slowe
EDIT: I read your question again and maybe this better answers, these are facts as I know, so those of you who will start up a flame war lets not. You know who you are and you always do. :)

1. File system, Windows uses the NT File System which is the main reason why you have to defrag. Ubuntu uses I believe ext4 which does not fragment and therefore does not need to defrag and never slows. Even though this file system seems perfect there are other new ones being worked on that are even better and in the next few years will be implemented like btrfs.

2. No infections, This has to do with open source software development, we find security flaws and patch at a much higher rate then proprietary software. The rumor is that we do not have market share and that is why but reality is we actually do, 60% of servers run Linux paired with our 100 million user base (est by Linux Foundation) means we are a perfect target for infection but it is hard to get around "root" and as mentioned earlier the speed in which we patch.

3. True 64 Bit performance, Windows is a true 64 Bit OS as well but most Windows Applications are written relying on the 32 Bit operating system. Software for Linux are written for the 64 Bit OS, only exceptions I have found are Windows Applications who have been ported to Linux.

4. Less resources, Currently I am running Arch Linux 64 Bit with Cinnamon desktop. At idle I use roughly around 1% CPU and just over 600 MB of RAM. with the exception of XP 64 Bit (Which I am not sure on that one) there has never been a 64 Bit version of Windows that has been that lite. Some will argue in this day and age with tones of computer resources available this does not matter. However in my opinion there is something in the design that gives Linux users a far faster and more robust machine while using less resources it is worth mentioning.

5. Innovation, Not to say Windows is not innovating but in Linux we do a lot more then just under the hood. Ubuntu technically shipped a GUI app store before OS X and also shipped dedicated cloud service before anyone else did. Gnome 3 has been able to build a beautiful desktop on the idea of touch, whereas Microsoft is still trying to figure out how to mold Metro and the traditional desktop together. Gnome 3 has done so well in design that Apple will be using a form of the client side decoration which gnome developed for their next release of OS X Yosemite. Hell Safari is a direct copy of the Gnome web browser. On this side note no one is forced into designs they do not want. Example being you are not a fan of touch then you can run cinnamon desktop which is an elegant and modern traditional desktop.

These are just some of my favorite features of Linux and why I believe Linux to be better.
 
Last edited:

NVX_185

Member
1. File system, Windows uses the NT File System which is the main reason why you have to defrag. Ubuntu uses I believe ext4 which does not fragment and therefore does not need to defrag and never slows. Even though this file system seems perfect there are other new ones being worked on that are even better and in the next few years will be implemented like btrfs.

I believe the above point doesn't matter if you're using an SSD where fragmentation is not an issue? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree with everything that DMGrier has said. Although, the OP appears to be new to this sort of stuff, and you used jargon and terminology which might be a bit overwhelming for someone new to Linux.

Anyway, I've been a Linux user for two years now (Currently running Xubuntu, which is a lighter version of Ubuntu with a pretty desktop manager), and I do most of my daily computing on Linux now. DMGrier mentioned most of what had to be said but I can add to it.

First off, I think which is the most beautiful feature of Linux, is that you can choose your own "flavour" of it, known as a distribution (or 'distro'). Ubuntu is the most popular one, but there are dozens out there. For example, my netbook which only has an Atom processor and 2GB's of RAM runs horribly slow on Windows. It takes several minutes just to get to the Welcome screen. But after I installed Xubuntu on it, it totally breathed new life into it. It's a low-resource distro which doesn't tax your system. You can pick and choose whichever has features you like (for example, Kubuntu has a gorgeous user interface and high-quality desktop features).

Next, you don't need to manually install hardware drivers. Linux does that automatically for you! I was blown away too when my WiFi adapter worked straight away when I used Linux for the first time.

Next, if you're doing software development or programming, you're pretty much set to go with any Linux distro. Most of the language libraries are pre-installed (like Python, Perl, etc) and the biggest advantage over Windows is you have access to this thing called a Terminal. You can write and compile programs without having to download extra stuff. I know Windows has command prompt, but Linux's terminal totally shits all over it in terms of usability. For example, you can install programs straight from the terminal without having to go to the website and downloading it manually.

This is more of an aesthetic thing, but the font rendering on Linux is nicer than Windows (which uses ClearType I believe). It's quite similar to the gorgeous sub-pixel font rendering you see on Mac displays.

Having said all this, it has its drawbacks. If you're a gamer like me, you'd want to keep both Windows and Linux on your system, so you can dual-boot. Most popular games are released for Windows only (Battlefield, Far Cry, Crysis, you get it). Gaming on Linux is tough, you'll have to fiddle around to get drivers for your graphics card working, and extra features like VSync don't work on the desktop without some tweaking. Also, I keep Windows for photoshopping, since Adobe's creative suite isn't released on Linux.

I realised I began to get a bit technical towards the end lol, hope that was easy to understand.

You can check out a live preview of Ubuntu right here, you'll get a feel for the desktop environment :)
 

DMGrier

VIP Member
I believe your correct about fragmentation and SSD however go look at any OEM and 80-90% of the machines they are shipping are with HDD as SSD still need to come down in price in a market where desktops and laptops are not selling like they did 3-4 years ago.
 

DMGrier

VIP Member
Its an overly asked and answered question, and IMHO redundant - just dual boot.

Only if gaming is needed, otherwise I recommend just throw Windows into a Virtual Machine. Anyone who buys a PC has purchased Windows so you can use the product key from there to install Windows in the VM.

For one of my college class I built a website in Adobe CS6 inside a Windows VM on a notebook with an intel i3-380, 4 GB DDR3 RAM and a Intel HD 3000 graphics. So most computer built in the last 3-4 years can do this and get's rid of unnecessary dual booting.
 

Okedokey

Well-Known Member
The OP has asked about what is better. The answer is - neither, it depends on your needs and wants, and if you have the technical ability to implement those. So this is not about starting a flame war about OSs. I run Windows, Mint and a version of OSX on my machine.

However, I disagree with DM. His signature and avatar clearly point to a fanboi, it is also a fallacy that open software is a better standard. Simply incorrect. As proven by the poor performance of openGL or wait for it... OpenSSL which resulted in the HeartBleed bug. Major major security issue. So there is no relationship between opensource and quality - simply none.

Directly answering the subjective nature of the OP's question, there are still many issues with linux distros for the average user. Even Miguel de Icaza, the creator of Gnome and Mono, opined about Linux problems in a similar way, here's his opinion where he reiterates a lot of things mentioned below. He stopped using Linux in 2012, saying about his Mac the following, highlighting problematic areas in Linux.

"Computing-wise that three week vacation turned out to be very relaxing. Machine would suspend and resume without problem, Wi-Fi just worked, audio did not stop working, I spend three weeks without having to recompile the kernel to adjust this or that, nor fighting the video drivers, or deal with the bizarre and random speed degradation that my ThinkPad suffered"

Recently Linus Torvalds (the father of linux) expressed his utter disappointment with the state of Linux on the desktop.

Or you can just point to the 100's of things that are either are flaky or not working some outlined here:

  1. Adobe Flash does not allow to use video decoding and output acceleration in Linux, thus youtube clips will drain your laptop battery a lot faster than e.g. in Windows. Adobe says they are fed up with video decoding acceleration bugs under Linux and refuse to re-add support for this feature (it was available previously but then they removed it to stop the torrent of bug reports). No, Adobe is not guilty that video acceleration is a mess in Linux.
  2. NVIDIA Optimus technology and ATI dynamic GPU switching are still not supported on Linux out of the box in any existing distro. 95% of laptops out there contain either Optimus or AMD switchable graphics.
  3. Keyboard shortcuts handling for people using local keyboard layouts is broken (this bug is now 10 years old).
  4. Keyboard handling in X.org is broken by design - when you have a pop up or an open menu, global keyboard shortcuts/keybindings don't (GTK) work (QT).
  5. There's no easy way to use software which is not offered by your distro repositories, specially the software which is available only as sources. For the average Joe, who's not an IT special, there's no way at all.
  6. You don't play games, do you? Linux still has very few AAA games: for the past two years the only AAA title has been made available - Metro Last Light.
  7. Microsoft Office is not available for Linux. LibreOffice/OpenOffice still has major troubles properly opening and rendering documents created in Microsoft Office (alas, it's a standard in the business world).
  8. Several crucial Windows applications are not available under Linux: Quicken, Adobe authoring products, Corel authoring products, video authoring products.
  9. In 2014 there's still no alternative to Windows Network File Sharing (network file sharing that is easily configurable, discoverable, encrypted and password protected). NFS and SSHFS are two lousy totally user unfriendly alternatives.
  10. Linux doesn't have a reliably working hassle free fast native (directly mountable via the kernel; FUSE doesn't cut it) MTP implementation. In order to work with your MTP devices, like ... Linux based Android phones you'd better use ... Windows or MacOS X.
  11. Too many things in Linux require manual configuration using text files: NVIDIA Optimus and AMD switchable graphics, UHD displays, custom displays' refresh rates, multiseat setups, USB 3G/LTE modems, advanced audio setups to name a few.

So if as you already point out, that most users have Windows on their machines as default, I would recommend the opposite to you, that is VM Linux and test it out first, or partition the drive and dual boot to ensure it is all 'workable'. Not the other way around.
 
Last edited:

DMGrier

VIP Member
Their is a difference between fanboy and someone who loves their products. In the beginning and end of my original post I put it is my opinion and in the core of my post I put where Linux succeeds which does not point to in every area of an operating system. Where I differ from being a fanboy is lets assume the OP had actually told us what he does on a computer my answer would differ, lets say he did say he plays games or used anything from Adobe on a regular basis I am not the type to ever suggest WINE. Depending on usage VM is a good solution but not for daily needs though. You however are always screaming how great Windows is, my avatar and signature may hint one way but your action show real truth.

openSSL and heart bleed does suck, if that is our biggest failure in computer security in the last decade which was exploited then I am okay with that. The end result was more organizations building additional monitoring of the code of openSSL including from Microsoft which means it becomes a stronger product for tomorrow.

As for Linus, he has great points of we should work together more but when does Linus every say anything nice? He in many other videos has said horrible things about Linux, Windows and OS X. You would have to watch more to see he doesn't really care for the design of anything out.

I will give you flash, that does suck. I mean it is a serious problem, as for them no longer supporting Linux does not bother me as Adobe as a whole is trying to get away from generic flash for browsers and that is why as a Linux user if I want up to date flash then use Chrome or install pepper for Chromium.

Yes certain nvidia and radeon lack of features yet again do suck and I do agree. Though what is up with the "95% of laptops out there contain either Optimus or AMD switchable graphics.", you cannot honestly think that is true right? Show some facts as I would guess 80% of computers sold by the OEM's use Intel integrated graphics. If 95% of anything sold then 100% of those laptops would have nvidia or radeon. I am just going to guess you worded that wrong as there is no way you can believe that statement as written.

X being broken does suck as well, though there was an update to that bug and all my keys work with the exception to when the computer does a lock screen, though you are right it should be fixed by now but I guess it is more complicated on that as X is something like 35 years old, very excited for Wayland though which will resolve these problems.

The only other area I think I am going to question was your post in regards to package management. Did you think I recommended Arch? You mention building from source and last time I checked we are talking Ubuntu which offers a full software center with pretty picture, application descriptions, reviews and one install button.

Look man I am not sure why you feel a need to call me out left and right. I did not post any misleading information in my post to the OP. Those are areas where Linux succeeds, I never said Linux is a complete better solution in every way to Windows. You may feel I am a fanboy which is fine but if the user would have given us a more detailed list of what he does I would suggest what is best. If we are talking gaming or some other feature in which Linux cannot provide an easy solution then I would recommend Windows.

I think we both agree that the user gave no information in needs with the OS, we are both stabbing in the dark at what our favorite operating system does best which is fine but you don't need to be calling me out as I did no such thing with you. All I said is a Windows VM in Linux is a better solution then dual boot and it is as complications can arise later on down the road with dual booting. It is all based on the user needs which we where not given, so post your piece on why you thing Windows is better and leave members out who are not starting crap with you. Even if he does not return to post someone else may find this information useful and as I ask in the beginning of the thread "so those of you who will start up a flame war lets not. You know who you are and you always do. "
 

Geoff

VIP Member
Windows OS is better than Ubuntu OS. Ubuntu OS is used to assemble new system. If you have Windows OS then you can't convert it into the Ubuntu OS.
What the heck are you talking about? Of course you can install Ubuntu if you have Windows currently.
 

S.T.A.R.S.

banned
Windows OS is better than Ubuntu OS. Ubuntu OS is used to assemble new system. If you have Windows OS then you can't convert it into the Ubuntu OS.

LoL what??? :confused:
Of course you cannot convert Windows OS to Ubuntu OS.
But like WRXGuy1 said...you can have both installed on the same system.
 
Top