Yes, you're right. It's VERY weird that people don't choose Ubuntu - since nowadays all computer users have good technical knowledge and everyone uses the terminal to control their computers.

Face it, 90% of the world wouldn't understand squat about Ubuntu.

Second, these requirements are nothing. Even the cheapest laptops live up to the W7 requirements nowadays - why choose something just because it could “theoretically” run faster on a computer from ten years ago?

Above that, I assure you that Windows 7 runs alot better than Ubuntu on my netbook. I have nothing against Ubuntu, I use it all the time at work, but sorry… This isn't a comparison of two OS'es; this is just some other MS-hater that hasn't even tried W7.

And on top of that, have you considered that W7 requires more because it contains more? For example, W7 ships with about 4gb of printer drivers. I wanna see the printer that “just works” when you plug it into an Ubuntu-machine.

Conclusion: The W7 requirements are simply worth it for those that can't or doesn't want to do any setup for their computer. Whatever Ubuntu-freaks claim - Ubuntu DOES require more than average computer-knowledge to offer a satisfying experience.

Even daily users of Linux don't use Terminal…. do you drop down to
DOS every day in Windows 7 / Vista / XP / ME ? Because that's the rough
equal of what you just stated. Since when in the world has anyone
equated bloatware to “ships with more” ? Congrats on your Netbook
running… it sounds like you got your Windows CD to install.

I sure don't drop down to DOS every day in Windows. In fact, if I needed to use the shell, Windows actually (believe it or not) HAS a shell and it's capable of the same things the Linux shells do.

But I think you misunderstood my point - The reason I never “drop down to DOS” is because I don't need to in Windows! Windows is designed for people that would run away screaming if they saw a shell-window. That's what Windows is all about - hiding all the techy engine stuff from the end user. But in Linux, you have to use the shell to get the most out of it… You can't really argue against that.

But Joel I can argue against it… for nearly 2 years now I haven't had
the need to see the shell…. I haven't had a need to use a shell since
circa 2006 or so.. everything is point and click…

Update from “Add and Remove” or now it's called “ubuntu software
center”

Look just test Ubuntu 9.10 … worst case it sucks for you.. best case
you'll never touch windows again… I haven't paid a penny to microsoft
in 10 years… and I never will.

Hey … I see how much you work every day with Ubuntu…. So far Ubuntu has one of the best driver support on “PRINTERS” … even printers that windows don't… and guess what..drivers are free.. and they update automatically… It's been almost 4 years since I use Ubuntu… And I got tell you it is as easy as any Windows version…if I go to the shell..sometimes…is because I want to ..if not there are many “graphic” ways to do any thing in Ubuntu… plus I dont have to restart every two seconds to install an update….it does it on the run… I love Ubuntu and Linux …4 ever

Joel.. All my HP printers just work after install on ubuntu. Same for my 2 cannons that I tried.

Also, 90% of the world does not understand squat about windows… they simply used it because that's what their local support knows (or pretends to know).

And no, ubuntu does not require more computer knowledge than windows. It is as simple to use as windows.

It seems that you just are afraid of terminal. On ubuntu you only use terminal if you want. All the tasks can be accomplished by the GUI. In fact, most of the good windows admins I know will jump to Windows CLI as well to get work done, as it is more efficient than loading lots of GUI based tools.

On the other hand, I agree that the article was biased. But so is any marketing tool. Have you seen the reports coming out of Microsoft comparing Linux to windows?

I will say I used linux and ubuntu allot but you do need to use the terminal a fair amount if you want to be able to do stuff efficiently (mainly to install new software not in the repository's etc.)

Have you seen the repositories recently? There's more software there
than I can download in a lifetime.

Look I'll I am saying is try it again…

For basic users, it does not matter what OS do you use, these days. Browser matter the most. Recently, I have installed may Ubuntu-based older PCs for customers who did not realize that they do not run Windows at all. When you maximize browser (=Firefox) there is no much difference for these people. For Ubuntu - it is a great chance to take some users out of Microsoft market share.

Yes, it's free. Great for any business that requires no special software outside of a web browser, office suite, and email client. Microsoft is an American company that feeds the American economy. Canonical is a South African company that DOES sell it's OS to those that need support. Unless you're from outside of the US, maybe you should start standing behind the American companies that fuel out economy. Microsoft, General Motors, Dell, HP etc etc etc

Ubuntu is not sold, they do offer a personal support package and company
wide support package if a company needs it, but they do not sell the OS.

Upwards of 40% of the code in Windows 7 was created in India from my
understanding… are you sure you want to follow that route that
Microsoft is pumping jobs into the US only?

whew… this just reminded me why i haven't run or PAID for any microsoft software in like 7 years. long live linux!

“Applications: None |||VS|||||| Firefox, Openoffice, Gimp, etc”

Your comparison is faulty. Internet Explorer, Firefox, OpenOffice, Gimp, etc are all either installed or available for free on Windows as well as for Linux.

Combined with the ease of use of Windows 7. Windows 7 installs easily. Drivers for most popular Graphics Controllers, Wireless Cards, etc are either installed by default or will automatically install themselves as soon as a network connection is available. Linux, even Ubuntu, has a problem (although inherent in the system) that the drivers are not readily available. In order to get a new Nvidia Graphics card to work you have to fight with the OS to get it to work properly.

Combine that with taking a look at the availablibity of purchased software. Sure you can use Wine (or even Cedega) to try to make programs work in Linux, but all you are really doing is making Linux emulate Windows… for improved performance you may as well use Windows in the first place.

Sure you can run Ubuntu on weaker hardware and if you are using weak hardware, go ahead and use Ubuntu which will run better on older hardware (and will be better supported).

So basically, if you have new good hardware you should use a new good Operating System. If you have crappy hardware, use the crappy (i.e. less user friendly) Operating System.

Shuttleworth is south african but canonical is based in England.

# CD-ROM drive or network card

Or thumbdrive :)

The only thing easier about Windows is people already know how to use it. Once you learn a distro like Ubuntu it is easier than Windows. I have been using Linux for 10 years. Six of those years I used 50/50 Windows/Linux. Over the past four years 100% Linux, now that most programs just need a browser and flash. The only program I miss is Itunes which isn't even a Micro$oft product. The only issues I have with Linux is sometimes the wifi can be a pain if the driver isn't good(a lot of my Atheros cards switched from madwifi to ath5k/ath9k and I had issues. IMO madwifi is still better than ath5k, but it is slowly getting harder to backport) and suspend/resume is not always up to par.

the only reason is ease of use, many people are uncomfortable using linux based systems

I think it's a pretty silly reason to use software because it's created by an American company. For example Microsoft hasn't paid any corporate taxes for about 10 years I read recently. You should use the software that meets your needs the best - if that's Windows then fair enough.

But anyway, just to clarify. Canonical UK is based in the UK and we have a management office in London. There's also a USA company (Canonical USA), with offices in Boston. And a massive chunk of the developers live in North America. We also have offices in Taipei and Montreal. All in all it's a pretty international company

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by thefounder: Windows 7 vs Ubuntu 9.10 http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=6024...

No it's not faulty… not at all… All these programs come with the initial Ubuntu CD… it's part of the roughly 600 mb ISO… whereas with Windows and it's massive OS … it still doesn't come included.. like Microsoft is gonna ship a free version of Office with every OS install…. LOL!!

Most people ASSUME they are uncomfortable. Trust me. I've seen it MANY times.
Even my girlfriend tells skeptics we encounter from time to time: “it's pretty much exactly like Windows.”

For the record, I'm using Fedora 11 now.

Windows 7 can run on a PENTIUM II 300MHz and it runs smoothly. Obviously without Windows Aero.
And it wants only 384MB of RAM for the installation.

I don't know why you're making this WAR.

P.S.: I'm not a Windows fanboy. I use Linux and Windows on my workstations daily.

Quote: Windows actually (believe it or not) HAS a shell and it's capable of the same things the Linux shells do…. I never “drop down to DOS” is because I don't need to in Windows!

DOS as you call it has only about 60 or so commands. Linux has thousands, not to mention features like autocompletion, aliases, and directory highlighting.

If windows users never use 'DOS' then why are there 137,000 google search results for start run cmd ipconfig, 21 million search results for start run cmd ping, and 500 MILLION for start run command prompt?

Quote: Even the cheapest laptops live up to the W7 requirements nowadays.

Sure, but see if you can get all the drivers (and how long it will take you) you will need to make it run.

Quote: Ubuntu DOES require more than average computer-knowledge to offer a satisfying experience.

Insert Disk. Wait 30 seconds, and enjoy.

Quote: Even the cheapest laptops live up to the W7 requirements nowadays.

Sure, but see if you can get all the drivers (and how long it will take you) you will need to make it run.

Quote: Ubuntu DOES require more than average computer-knowledge to offer a satisfying experience.

Insert Disk. Wait 30 seconds, and enjoy.

Ubuntu sys req: 300 MHz, 256 MB, 4 GB, GPU with 32 MB = tons of useful software + efects (have u seen all of compiz?) = free.
Enough said.

But, all this to aside: why the hell should we bother to convince anybody to use Linux? Most of people are dumb, thats a fact, so let them be dumb and pay for something they can have for free and legal.

Because Windows 7 cant be any worse than vista.
Remember windows ME? Fail fail fail.

Microsoft does this consistantly. Lets see with windows 9x
windows 95 a and b = fail
windows 95 c = good
windows 98 = meh
windows 98 se = good
windows ME = fail

ok now with NT
NT 3.51 -
NT 4 - excellent
NT 5 (win2000) fail but had plug n play
NT 6 (win xp) awsome
vista = terrible

there is a clear patter of solid OS followed by crappy test OS before the next amazing thing comes out

I'd file Vista along with the Microsoft office paper clip and the all knowing Microsoft Bob ..

Well if you want to use windows great!! But here is my theory: Ubuntu is a great OS for the average user. The majority of the people I know use computers for very few things (internet, email, and document editing), so why would these people pay hundreds of dollars for Windows when all that stuff works out of the box on Ubuntu? I can see a benefit for gamers and video editors and such, but for the average basic user there is no reason other than “that's what I'm used to” to use Windows and pay the extra. A basic user these days can use Ubuntu without ever even seeing the terminal, and as for printers I have never had one that I couldn't plug in and print from right away without installing a thing. Linux has come a long way in the past few years, and is now a valid competitor to Windows.

- actually (believe it or not) HAS a shell and it's capable of the same things the Linux shells do -

You cant be serious ! either you know nothing about linux command prompt or you have never used the windows command prompt for a fair amount of time, just for sake of a simple comparison try using 'ctr-w' on a command prompt while using a multi worded command, on linux and windows and see for yourself the results and then there is 'ctrl-z' and 'ctrl + right arrow' , 'ctrl + left arrow' combinations, which probably you donot know about, infact a linux terminal can be customized to use all of 'vim' editor commands on it. did you know that or did you ever try that

Thanks

Brilliant synopsis!

I find this article to be biased and misleading. I have been using both w7RC and uLinux for many months. I have been enjoying the functionality of both. I'm running w7 on my PC but I am putting uL on most of the PC's that I donate to charity. I think that say's something.

uL… good for older PC's but not ready for mainstream PC's for the most part. If I tried to put linux machines into the common office… they would not be able to run half of their software. Yes, yes, they could do it via vBox or Wine… but that is just too much of a hassle. I'll stick with Linux as a server OS for now.

w7… it runs fine on a new PC and has some great features. I particularly like the virtual XP compatibility mode. Kudos to microsoft on that one. It is compatible with all of my software and games. Microsoft is here to stay.

I look forward to the day that Linux is a serious enough contender to Microsoft that granny will have a hard time deciding.

I'm new to Ubuntu, trained as engineer, basically adept with computer. This stuff is hard. Ubuntu is cool, but as soon as you need to do anything beyond what comes in the software repository or what's pre-installed, you're stuck copying some complex code into a terminal window. Which is great, because you never know what the codes do, what they will end up doing to the computer, where the program that you installed went, etc.

Also, Ubuntu simply lacks many seemingly valuable features, like RAW support for Canon digital cameras. Sure, there's some guy who wrote something, and I have to jump through dozens of command line terminals to make it work, but are you serious? “Download Canon RAW Image Support.” It IS that easy in Windows. (Oh, sure, its easy. Just rune WINE. What we tested: Install. How does it work: Great. What we didn't test: opening, running, viewing, printing, entering text, closing the window, making coffee.)

Seriously, I don't love MS, and I'm using Ubuntu. BUT, they are different animals. Ubuntu may be more rewarding, if you're into “doing it yourself.” But I promise you, Windows does it easier if you just want it to get done at a minimum of hassle.

Pistol,

It seems to me that you are probably enjoying that journey given your background. If you're not and you just want to get things done can I suggest you buy support from Canonical:
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/services

The medium tier support would be less than the cost of Windows 7 and would cover many of the things you're talking about. And will generally give you the easiest way to get them done.

I agree that Ubuntu does require more than average technical knowledge than Windows. It does not surprise me at all that people pay for Windows because it is easier to use/more familiar to most people. I like both operating systems, but I think people who say they don't understand why anyone would use Windows over Linux overestimate an average user's knowledge and skills.

Steve -

You got me. I'm having a great time! It's a fun journey - and one I'm not going to give up on yet! :)

PistolPLC

You act as if you know what will install when you download stuff to your
windows machine… like every malware on earth you get to check out
before it's setup.

Also here's a prime example, the windows screenshot tool is just so easy
to use :) oh.. wait.. it doesn't have one… I gotta use some arcane
command ctrl+printscreen … then open paint or whatever and paste it…
then save it on the desktop…

As compared to the Ubuntu tool where it's App/screenshot tool… and it
handles the rest..

If I wanted things to work simple, Ubuntu is far easier…

I'm a network engineer and I work for a fortune 500 company as well as an independent IT consultant in the Phoenix area.
Since we have MSDN subscriptions I'm entitled to most MS products so I decided to download and use Windows 7, The install was very simple, the first impression after booting up was very positive, easy on the eyes, but I really didn't feel the difference from any other Vista install, I really don't like the way you map network drives on Vista and Windows 7, and the way the hard drive keeps spinning without me doing anything on the system, after a week of use I just didn't find it productive and re-imaged the machine with XP pro, as this is what I call my MS box, my other Workstation is a Linux box, extremely productive and also very easy on the eye.

I personally believe that Microsoft has made an outstanding job Marketing what they should call Vista Service pack X instead of Windows 7, the key word here is Marketing, sell you the same thing with a new package, and actually get people excited about it.

Guys, I'd love to love ubuntu. I use it every day on my netbook. I love not worrying about viruses and that's my primary reason for sticking with it. As far as things “just working”, give me a break. I ran the automatic update an hour after I opened up my netbook and it wouldn't reboot. I had to format and install from scratch. I've also copied every command I could find into the terminal to try to fix firefox. I've also ran every “fix firefox” trick I could find. I'd love to be able to uninstall and reinstall firefox, but I can't figure out how to do it without removing netbook remix. Ubuntu tells me I have to remove both if I want to remove one, WTFudge??? I've asked questions all over all kinds of forums, and the replies are usually from techy guys who are sick of answering questions from noobs. I'm sick of using the terminal. For now I use Opera unless a certain website (roadrunner) won't work with it. HA, FF just hiccupped on me again.
Anyway, I put linux mint on my parents' pc because they were worried about viruses. They only use their pc to get their yahoo email accounts and web surf. Both of my parents use windows at work. Linux mint lasted 1 day on their pc.

I'll continue to struggle with ubuntu mostly for fear of viruses and the price, but I just wish I wouldn't have to format to uninstall my now “totally tweaked” or screwed up version of firefox. BTW, updating from a previous version actually installed another copy of FF. I've only got a 4gb drive on this thing!

Yes, Yes, It comes with all of these free (and IMHO, for the most part, lesser) versions of programs. Programs that are all available for Windows 7 as (gasp) also free downloads. I use Open Office on occasion and it is okay, but Office is just a cleaner looking more user freindly program. And the Gimp just takes its queues from where Adobe goes… again use the the leader, not the follower…

Um… you said your self you tested it out for a WEEK! And all your complaining is just network map and the similarity between the Vista setup and the Windows 7 setup? My god! Next time try out the other features before you complain over stupid excuses. And by the only reason Vista and Windows 7 are similar because they used the same “foundation” or “core”.

Microsoft IS charging too much for Windows 7 but still that’s the reason why people should do their research BEFORE you buy Windows 7.