Poll: Windows 7 RC or Ubuntu 9.04

[Mikey]

Ok guys...so it's that time and I'm about to reformat. I'm experienced with both operating systems, but I'm only installing one OS in my laptop. I don't game. Anyway, either OS is fine for me, but it's up to you guys to choose.

So...which is it going to be?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Absolutely no question, Windows 7. Despite the annoying high-pitched squeal you can hear if you get too close to the *nix forum, Ubuntu is (staggeringly) still not ready for prime time.

 

[Scotteq]

Well.. Sticking with Ubuntu has the side benefit of preventing other *ux fans from coming to your house and dismembering small animals on your lawn as an expression of their displeasure with your choice of OS.

 

[Nothinman]

If your hardware is supported and all of the apps that you want to run work fine in Ubuntu why would you even consider paying for Windows?

 

[lxskllr]

My vote's for Ubuntu. It won't expire after some arbitrary time, and it's my second favorite O/S next to Vista.

 

[aceO07]

I've also been tempted to install Windows 7 onto my laptop, which came with default Vista. It's a tablet, so Linux isn't a good enough alternative yet. I do know that if I install Windows 7, it may get uninstalled again in March 2010 as I might not be impressed enough to pay for Windows 7.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Absolutely no question, Ubuntu. Despite the annoying high-pitched squeal you can hear if you get too close to the OS forum, Windows 7 is (staggeringly) still not ready for prime time.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
Absolutely no question, Ubuntu. Despite the annoying high-pitched squeal you can hear if you get too close to the OS forum, Windows 7 is (staggeringly) still not ready for prime time.

Thanks again for your Ubuntu help :^)

I rolled back to 8.04, and it's much more usable. Compiz is still very buggy on that machine, but with the basic desktop it works pretty well. My daughter seems to be happy with her "new" computer :^)

 

[evident]

windows for me, i dont have time to figure out all the linux alternatives for windows apps. ubuntu is really good, but i couldnt ever use it full time.

 

[KeypoX]

if you changed poll too ubuntu 8.10 then i may vote for it, but 9.04 is a buggy pos.

It sucks to say but linux is just not ready... its more like mac, in a sense, it needs very specific hardware.

I say install windows7 first then ubuntu and see which one is better for you.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: KeypoX
if you changed poll too ubuntu 8.10 then i may vote for it, but 9.04 is a buggy pos.

It sucks to say but linux is just not ready... its more like mac, in a sense, it needs very specific hardware.

I say install windows7 first then ubuntu and see which one is better for you.

I'm fairly positive the Linux kernel supports more hardware by default then a new Windows OS install and it most certainly doesn't need 'very specific' hardware. Sure there might be some incompatibilities, but those are few and they are present in all operating systems(nobody can support everything and anything).

Remember when Vista came out and the Nvidia drivers were extremely buggy? Neither OS is perfect and honestly at this point the choice should come down to software support, not hardware support. If you can do everything you need to in Linux, use that.... if you can't... use Windows.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Absolutely no question, Windows 7. Despite the annoying high-pitched squeal you can hear if you get too close to the *nix forum, Ubuntu is (staggeringly) still not ready for prime time.

8.10 was better than 9.04

i have a newer ati card, so i expect a couple of video related problems now and again. but I get lots of lockups and freezes that I never used to get, and Ill probably go back to 8.10 soon....when I stop being lazy

ive been using windows 7 some (new card, a little gaming) and its ok, except that its a bitch with my external drive (wont let me access it most of the time, wtf?) and i dont care for the UI. Im hooked on virtual desktops, compiz with Scale and Expo plugins, and cairo-dock

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
Absolutely no question, Ubuntu. Despite the annoying high-pitched squeal you can hear if you get too close to the OS forum, Windows 7 is (staggeringly) still not ready for prime time.

Thanks again for your Ubuntu help :^)

I rolled back to 8.04, and it's much more usable. Compiz is still very buggy on that machine, but with the basic desktop it works pretty well. My daughter seems to be happy with her "new" computer :^)

You're welcome.

Despite the fact I still recommend Ubuntu, I'm moving away from it due to the one specific audio issue (not working since 8.04) I mentioned in the Ubuntu 9.04 thread. Thankfully I didn't have any money tied up in it, and it didn't cost me anything to find a replacement OS (currently using Mandriva 2009.1) which works just fine.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
Absolutely no question, Ubuntu. Despite the annoying high-pitched squeal you can hear if you get too close to the OS forum, Windows 7 is (staggeringly) still not ready for prime time.

Thanks again for your Ubuntu help :^)

I rolled back to 8.04, and it's much more usable. Compiz is still very buggy on that machine, but with the basic desktop it works pretty well. My daughter seems to be happy with her "new" computer :^)

You're welcome.

Despite the fact I still recommend Ubuntu, I'm moving away from it due to the one specific audio issue (not working since 8.04) I mentioned in the Ubuntu 9.04 thread. Thankfully I didn't have any money tied up in it, and it didn't cost me anything to find a replacement OS (currently using Mandriva 2009.1) which works just fine.

You stated that you're currently using mandriva 2009.1..............Have to say, I ended up opting for Mandriva instead of ubuntu and I'm VERY happy! Installed Ubuntu and immeadiately ran into problems, nuked it and installed Mandriva and I'm glad I did! it just works!

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: EndGame

You stated that you're currently using mandriva 2009.1..............Have to say, I ended up opting for Mandriva instead of ubuntu and I'm VERY happy! Installed Ubuntu and immeadiately ran into problems, nuked it and installed Mandriva and I'm glad I did! it just works!

A couple of my clan mates really like Mandriva, but I never took to it. I prefer Gnome to KDE, and I'm familiar with the layout, and packaging system of Gnome/Debian based systems. Maybe I'll give it a try in a VM and see if my opinion's changed any.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: KeypoX
if you changed poll too ubuntu 8.10 then i may vote for it, but 9.04 is a buggy pos.

It sucks to say but linux is just not ready... its more like mac, in a sense, it needs very specific hardware.

I say install windows7 first then ubuntu and see which one is better for you.

I'm fairly positive the Linux kernel supports more hardware by default then a new Windows OS install and it most certainly doesn't need 'very specific' hardware. Sure there might be some incompatibilities, but those are few and they are present in all operating systems(nobody can support everything and anything).

Remember when Vista came out and the Nvidia drivers were extremely buggy? Neither OS is perfect and honestly at this point the choice should come down to software support, not hardware support. If you can do everything you need to in Linux, use that.... if you can't... use Windows.

While it might be true that ubuntu "supports" more hardware, the problem is that supported hardware doesnt work correctly.
IE: Intel graphics run really poorly on 9.04, 4800 series ati graphics run bad and sleep doesnt work, 8800gt gives a strange glow around windows (may have been fixed).

So when i say specific hardware i mean that you need specific hardware for everything to work, correctly. Maybe more hardware is supported but good luck watching a movie with intel or ati graphics, unless you can stand tearing and xorg fuck ups.

Yes i remember when VISTA came out, i remember using the RC's of vista too. They sucked and sleep didnt work on my machine. So whats your point? Who is talking about vista? Win7 is an upgrade to vista.

I hope ubuntu can get it together one day cause i like using it. The natural progression of an OS should be constant improvements it seems that ubuntu cannot get this right, it seems to go up and down.

 

[EndGame]

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: EndGame

You stated that you're currently using mandriva 2009.1..............Have to say, I ended up opting for Mandriva instead of ubuntu and I'm VERY happy! Installed Ubuntu and immeadiately ran into problems, nuked it and installed Mandriva and I'm glad I did! it just works!

A couple of my clan mates really like Mandriva, but I never took to it. I prefer Gnome to KDE, and I'm familiar with the layout, and packaging system of Gnome/Debian based systems. Maybe I'll give it a try in a VM and see if my opinion's changed any.

Everyone has their "favorite" OS be it MS Based or Linux Based or so on. I ran Mandrake years back and liked it but then moved to Debian/Debian based Linux OS's and really never looked back until the problems with Jaunty 9.04. Didn't feel like "back pedaling" on this system and ran across an article about Mandriva 2009.1. Downloaded it before my attempt at Jaunty and the rest is history. Very happy with it! I installed the Gnome desktop and as I said, everything just works.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: KeypoX

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: KeypoX
if you changed poll too ubuntu 8.10 then i may vote for it, but 9.04 is a buggy pos.

It sucks to say but linux is just not ready... its more like mac, in a sense, it needs very specific hardware.

I say install windows7 first then ubuntu and see which one is better for you.

I'm fairly positive the Linux kernel supports more hardware by default then a new Windows OS install and it most certainly doesn't need 'very specific' hardware. Sure there might be some incompatibilities, but those are few and they are present in all operating systems(nobody can support everything and anything).

Remember when Vista came out and the Nvidia drivers were extremely buggy? Neither OS is perfect and honestly at this point the choice should come down to software support, not hardware support. If you can do everything you need to in Linux, use that.... if you can't... use Windows.

While it might be true that ubuntu "supports" more hardware, the problem is that supported hardware doesnt work correctly.
IE: Intel graphics run really poorly on 9.04, 4800 series ati graphics run bad and sleep doesnt work, 8800gt gives a strange glow around windows (may have been fixed).

So when i say specific hardware i mean that you need specific hardware for everything to work, correctly. Maybe more hardware is supported but good luck watching a movie with intel or ati graphics, unless you can stand tearing and xorg fuck ups.

Yes i remember when VISTA came out, i remember using the RC's of vista too. They sucked and sleep didnt work on my machine. So whats your point? Who is talking about vista? Win7 is an upgrade to vista.

I hope ubuntu can get it together one day cause i like using it. The natural progression of an OS should be constant improvements it seems that ubuntu cannot get this right, it seems to go up and down.

My point is that you can't put the fault of drivers in the hands of the OS. All Operating Systems will always have incompatibilities with certain pieces of hardware, there's nothing that can be done about that with the state of the industry. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux all have their share of problems but all of them are good enough where having to pick and choose specific pieces of hardware yourself to run them is not really needed.

To say that Linux requires 'very specific hardware' is just flat out wrong, just as saying that about any modern OS.

 

[Tarrant64]

That's awesome, more votes for Windows 7 but more personal posts from those suggesting Ubuntu. Sorry, just funny to me.

I'd say pick one, since they're both free right now, and see which one you like better. I was bouncing between ubuntu 9.04 and Windows 7. Went with Windows 7 and will run Ubuntu 9.04 in a VM and go from there. It was just easier for me and I play some games that I wanted to just install and go so it was the best choice. I've been striving for something different and that's where ubuntu will come in. If it works out well I'll switch places. ubuntu 9.04 with Windows 7 in a VM.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Crusty

My point is that you can't put the fault of drivers in the hands of the OS. All Operating Systems will always have incompatibilities with certain pieces of hardware, there's nothing that can be done about that with the state of the industry. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux all have their share of problems but all of them are good enough where having to pick and choose specific pieces of hardware yourself to run them is not really needed.

To say that Linux requires 'very specific hardware' is just flat out wrong, just as saying that about any modern OS.

In fairness to Keypox, Windows hardware issues are generally easier to rectify. It's a Windows world, and odds are great that there's working drivers somewhere for you. If something doesn't work out of the box in Linux, many times you're in for a world of pain, sometimes without payoff.

 

[mc866]

Dual boot and pick the one you like best????????

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: EndGame

Originally posted by: lxskllr

Originally posted by: EndGame

You stated that you're currently using mandriva 2009.1..............Have to say, I ended up opting for Mandriva instead of ubuntu and I'm VERY happy! Installed Ubuntu and immeadiately ran into problems, nuked it and installed Mandriva and I'm glad I did! it just works!

A couple of my clan mates really like Mandriva, but I never took to it. I prefer Gnome to KDE, and I'm familiar with the layout, and packaging system of Gnome/Debian based systems. Maybe I'll give it a try in a VM and see if my opinion's changed any.

Everyone has their "favorite" OS be it MS Based or Linux Based or so on. I ran Mandrake years back and liked it but then moved to Debian/Debian based Linux OS's and really never looked back until the problems with Jaunty 9.04. Didn't feel like "back pedaling" on this system and ran across an article about Mandriva 2009.1. Downloaded it before my attempt at Jaunty and the rest is history. Very happy with it! I installed the Gnome desktop and as I said, everything just works.

I lost my linux virginity to Mandrake 7 and used it for years, trying a different distro occasionally but always sticking with Mandrake (Mandriva). It wasn't until 8.04 that I finally tried Ubuntu, and I do (did) like it, but I don't regret checking out Mandriva again. I still may try other distros, though.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: KeypoX

Originally posted by: Crusty

Originally posted by: KeypoX
if you changed poll too ubuntu 8.10 then i may vote for it, but 9.04 is a buggy pos.

It sucks to say but linux is just not ready... its more like mac, in a sense, it needs very specific hardware.

I say install windows7 first then ubuntu and see which one is better for you.

I'm fairly positive the Linux kernel supports more hardware by default then a new Windows OS install and it most certainly doesn't need 'very specific' hardware. Sure there might be some incompatibilities, but those are few and they are present in all operating systems(nobody can support everything and anything).

Remember when Vista came out and the Nvidia drivers were extremely buggy? Neither OS is perfect and honestly at this point the choice should come down to software support, not hardware support. If you can do everything you need to in Linux, use that.... if you can't... use Windows.

While it might be true that ubuntu "supports" more hardware, the problem is that supported hardware doesnt work correctly.
IE: Intel graphics run really poorly on 9.04, 4800 series ati graphics run bad and sleep doesnt work, 8800gt gives a strange glow around windows (may have been fixed).

So when i say specific hardware i mean that you need specific hardware for everything to work, correctly. Maybe more hardware is supported but good luck watching a movie with intel or ati graphics, unless you can stand tearing and xorg fuck ups.

Yes i remember when VISTA came out, i remember using the RC's of vista too. They sucked and sleep didnt work on my machine. So whats your point? Who is talking about vista? Win7 is an upgrade to vista.

I hope ubuntu can get it together one day cause i like using it. The natural progression of an OS should be constant improvements it seems that ubuntu cannot get this right, it seems to go up and down.

My point is that you can't put the fault of drivers in the hands of the OS. All Operating Systems will always have incompatibilities with certain pieces of hardware, there's nothing that can be done about that with the state of the industry. Windows, Mac OS, and Linux all have their share of problems but all of them are good enough where having to pick and choose specific pieces of hardware yourself to run them is not really needed.

To say that Linux requires 'very specific hardware' is just flat out wrong, just as saying that about any modern OS.

With windows your right you dont have to hand pick parts. With linux you do. If not your screwed, examples are the most popular intel GMA right now and the newer atis all blow on linux. Doesnt matter whos fault it is, linux is the only one to suffer from it.

Its not flat out wrong, it s flat out right, if you want a good linux experience you better check your parts before you buy them, for windows you can negate this step.

I hope venders will take more time on linux drivers, but they dont care right now because linux has very small market share. And for vendors to care, linux will need more market, for linux to gain more market vendors will have to care. Damn circles

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: KeypoX
With windows your right you dont have to hand pick parts. With linux you do. If not your screwed, examples are the most popular intel GMA right now and the newer atis all blow on linux. Doesnt matter whos fault it is, linux is the only one to suffer from it.

Its not flat out wrong, it s flat out right, if you want a good linux experience you better check your parts before you buy them, for windows you can negate this step.

I hope venders will take more time on linux drivers, but they dont care right now because linux has very small market share. And for vendors to care, linux will need more market, for linux to gain more market vendors will have to care. Damn circles

Sigh... do you think Windows has never had these same issues with drivers!? What about XP x64? You can't criticize Linux if you won't acknowledge the faults of Windows as well. Sure things are good now with Windows hardware support, but just like Windows in it's past, Linux has it bumps in the road too.

I've got an GMA X3100 in this laptop that works just fine in Ubuntu 64-bit, Windows XP and Vista 64-bit so I'm not sure what you are referring to with state of these chipsets. As far as ATI goes, their drivers are 10000% better then they were just a couple of years ago. They support cards from the 8500 series and onwards with their drivers, and there's the open source DRI drivers for the older cards that works quite well.

I will admit that the wireless side of Linux has been slow to develop when compared to Windows, but most recent distributions can install drivers automatically for you or with very minimal fuss like a click of a button and a password.

You keep on missing my point though, it doesn't matter what OS you use there will always be problems with hardware.. past, present, or future. To say you simply do not have to worry about hardware with a Windows PC(or ANY OS) is just silly, you can't go out and buy a Sparc chip or a PPC chip and expect to run Windows on it.

 

[Nothinman]

In fairness to Keypox, Windows hardware issues are generally easier to rectify. It's a Windows world, and odds are great that there's working drivers somewhere for you. If something doesn't work out of the box in Linux, many times you're in for a world of pain, sometimes without payoff.

I have the exact opposite opinion. Every time I run into a driver issue with Windows it's a huge PITA to diagnose and fix and I usually end up booting a Linux LiveCD to see if the hardware actually works or not.

With windows your right you dont have to hand pick parts. With linux you do. If not your screwed,

It's hardly that black and white. I haven't hand picked hardware in years and everything I have works fine. The machine I'm typing this on right now was built by a Windows gamer with no consideration for Linux and I use it just fine. Granted it's fairly old now but it wasn't when I bought it off of him and I had no problems then either.

Sure you can go buy whatever piece of crap you want and be 99% sure that the disc on the box will have a Windows driver on it. But if you pay for crap the chances that the hardware and the driver will suck and cause you tons of problems are pretty high with Windows as well.

Its not flat out wrong, it s flat out right, if you want a good linux experience you better check your parts before you buy them, for windows you can negate this step.

No, you can't skip that step regardless of the OS you're planning on running. Doing so is just plain negligent.