Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Ubuntu Windows Linux

Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 702

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the race-is-on dept.
Barence writes "PC Pro has performed a comprehensive test of Windows 7 vs Ubuntu 10.04. They've tested and scored the two operating systems on a number of criteria, including usability, bundled apps, performance, compatibility and business. The final result is much closer than you might expect. 'Ubuntu is clearly an operating system on the rise,' PC Pro concludes. 'If we repeat this feature in a year's time, will it have closed the gap? We wouldn't bet against it.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:20AM (#33586618)

    Because when it comes to software for most home users, well, the games won't work on Unbuntu without trying to use Wine, etc, etc.

    And your typical home user won't want it.

    Nothing to see here.

  • by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:23AM (#33586670) Homepage

    I have Windows 7 on our gaming boxes just to keep things simple...but I run Ubuntu on our laptops, for size and speed considerations. We also run Ubuntu on our HTPC.

    They have their purposes...I couldn't imagine exclusively using only one or the other.

  • by tomhudson (43916) <`moc.nosduh-arab ... `nosduh.arabrab'> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:26AM (#33586692) Journal

    We wouldn't bet against it.

    Keep marketing linux as a "replacement" for windows and you guarantee to always fail. Market it for what it is - better for many types of situations, but definitely not a rsimple eplacement for windows any more than osx is.

    Otherwise you're fighting the battle on the other side's home turf - and they're bigger and more entrenched.

    And when people try ubuntu and realize that it is not necessarily a matter of it being a replacement os, they tar all linux distros with the same fail.

  • by tepples (727027) <{tepples} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:26AM (#33586700) Homepage Journal

    the games won't work on Unbuntu without trying to use Wine

    Since when do SWF games such as FarmVille and Tetris Friends not work on Ubuntu?

  • by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:29AM (#33586744) Homepage

    At this point, most devices have been updated to at least officially support Vista (and, by proxy, 7)...how old is your Cannon stuff?

    I wouldn't use your experience as a condemnation of Windows 7 so much as a reason why, in your case, ubuntu is a better choice. Still, how old is your Cannon hardware?

  • by Zapotek (1032314) <tasos,laskos&gmail,com> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:29AM (#33586750) Homepage

    Even among PC Pro’s technically literate readership, only 4% are running a Linux OS[...]

    [...]then venture into Ubuntu’s equivalent of the command line – dubbed Terminal – and enter a couple of lines of code to start the installation. Hardly a user-friendly experience, and an unwanted throwback to the days of Windows 3.1.

    Yeah...technical literacy at its finest...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:29AM (#33586764)

    You could not be more wrong.

    Typical users browse the web, read e-mail, IM/chat, and play Flash games. That's it. Typical users have consoles for games.

  • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:29AM (#33586768)

    Sad, but true.... I am not regular home user, i am actually a developer, but nevertheless, i also play a lot of games, and thus i am forced to have both OS........ In fact, i solved my problems by having a lots of VM's. Windows, Linux, you named it, i have it.

    I'm a developer too, but I just have either another computer, or a removable drive with Windows on it that I can pop in when I need to use Microsoft's stuff.

  • by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:31AM (#33586806)

    Eh, more technically literate than the general population for sure.

    Maybe that puts into perspective what you're up against.

  • by dskzero (960168) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:35AM (#33586862) Homepage
    Exactly. Ubuntu carries all the things that could make a typical home user make the switch, but the compatibilty and accesability is still an issue. I thought it was a very good article.
  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:39AM (#33586938)

    Then you have to start doing things like enterprise management and integration. Many Linux types like to hate on Active Directory but it turns out when you've actually worked with it in a big enterprise setup, and all MS's other enterprise tools, you see that it is really well done, in particular compared to many alternatives. We had a hell of a time designing a cross platform authentication system where I work because the senior UNIX guy would not accept any system that used Windows as the back end. He fought with Open LDAP for a long time before admitting defeat on that front. Sun's Directory Services and ID sync proved to work in the end, after many months of testing, customization, and fighting.

    I think Linux is pretty well on par when it comes to a basic, net terminal kind of system. If you have a stand along computer and just need e-mail, web, that kind of thing Linux is pretty easy to get installed and running in most cases, so long as you aren't talking brand new hardware. However when you start looking at larger markets problems quickly develop. True, not all of them are Linux's fault, things like lacking app compatibility isn't Linux's fault, but it doesn't matter because it is a very real issue. You can't just gloss over it.

    Even in that regard, there are some things that ARE the fault of Linux designs. One thing that is needed for better app support is a good installer and install system. On Windows you can download or buy an app and have a very high degree of confidence that all you need to do to install it is run setup. An installer, generally using Windows' own internal install service, then guides you through the rest handling everything such as installing libraries needed, adding the program to things like the start menu and so on. On Linux, that only happens if you use the distro's package system. Great if the software you want is free and happens to be in there, but not useful otherwise. For commercial software, it is a non-starter.

    So something like that really needs to be developed and standardized to help with apps on the platform. Telling someone "Oh just compile from source," and "When there's s dependency issue just apt-get what you need," and "Modify this configuration to add it to your programs list," is not legit for normal users. The answer needs to be "Click this program, it'll take care of the rest."

  • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:44AM (#33586976)

    We wouldn't bet against it.

    Keep marketing linux as a "replacement" for windows and you guarantee to always fail. Market it for what it is - better for many types of situations, but definitely not a rsimple eplacement for windows any more than osx is.

    Otherwise you're fighting the battle on the other side's home turf - and they're bigger and more entrenched.

    And when people try ubuntu and realize that it is not necessarily a matter of it being a replacement os, they tar all linux distros with the same fail.

    Well, as more and more applications that people typically use start moving off the computer and into the "cloud" (whatever the hell that means at any given time) the superiority of one desktop OS over another will be less of an issue. Take my girlfriend for instance: she basically uses a lot of online services of one kind or another, although she prefers Thunderbird for her email, doesn't really care for Chrome so I leave her on Firefox. So far she's been through Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows XP, Mepis, OpenSUSE and Ubuntu ... and barely even noticed it. "Dear, did you upgrade my computer again? It looks a little different." Granted, I made the effort to port all her bookmarks over and make her desktops look similar, but the point is that for a lot of people the operating system is starting to become transparent, or nearly so. If she can get to her browser and her email, she's a happy person. God help me if she can't.

    That is what has always terrified Microsoft: the true commoditization of the desktop operating system.

  • by Lord Lode (1290856) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:46AM (#33587008)

    That's only in recent versions of Windows. More than 50% of Windows users still has Windows XP, which does not have the feature you mentioned. Also, unlike Windows, Linux is much better at the other kind of search: searching for occurances of plain text inside any file, without caring about extension (Windows supports something they claim to be similar to that, but it only works for files which happen to have a certain extension in their filename that is copied somewhere in the registry). And finally, desktops like KDE have had the ability to get a launch application utility that pops up your application while you type part of the name for ages already.

  • by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:49AM (#33587048)

    At this point, most devices have been updated to at least officially support Vista (and, by proxy, 7)

    In general, yes that is true. However, printer and scanner manufacturers have been notorious with their lack of legacy support for Windows 7/Vista, let alone 64 bit versions. Sure, their new scanners and printers have full support and work fine, but if your printer is more than a few years old (released before Vista) you're very lucky if you 32 bit drivers which enable even half the functionality.

    I wonder if this is a conscious decision by the manufacturers, who think you'll blame the OS for your problems, and that you're more likely to buy a new printer than convert to an entirely new OS. After all, the printer worked fine until you got a new computer! Honestly, that doesn't seem so far fetched to me.

  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:52AM (#33587100)

    Oh sorry, does the population not meet up to your exacting standards of technical literacy? Do you think everyone should be able to build a computer form components, write a simple program, debug a make files and so on? If so, then you are dreaming.

    It wouldn't take me long in looking at your life to find something you are not literate at. Being a Linux geek type, I'd look at cooking first, my guess would be you can't even put together a simple meal, much less bake yourself a loaf of bread, something that would be required to be considered "literate" at food preparation. Now you shouldn't have to, unless you are a chef, however it is just to demonstrate that we aren't all good at everything. Even that would just be the basics, you are up to the "Run a make based installer," there. Far more knowledge and skill is required to truly be a culinary expert.

    Most people are good at the areas they need to be, and the areas that interest them. The rest, they leave up to someone else.

    Same shit with computers. Most people are not at all literate. They have never seen a command line and shouldn't have to. If you can use a command line to do installs, well guess what? You have a good deal more literacy than most of the population. You are no computer grand master but then that wasn't what was being talked about.

    The reason computers have grown in use is not just because they are useful, but because they are getting easier. The more someone has to know to operate them, the less people that can do so. Yes, using a commandline requires more knowledge, especially since things there aren't guided. In the GUI you can have plenty of hints and directions in a commandline you need to know what to do already. Is it hard? Well not sometimes (other times it is) but even then, it is still memorizing the commands that must be executed.

    You just have to accept that being technically literate means understanding the basics of something and being able to trouble shoot a bit on your own. It does not mean being able to do everything, it does not mean being an expert at things. Technically literate doesn't mean "Competent programmer," or "Expert technical support."

  • by 0123456 (636235) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:52AM (#33587114)

    Unfortunately Valve say there are no plans for a Linux version of Steam.

    But Steam runs in Wine and so do a surprising number of Steam games; I was playing Left 4 Dead and Fallout 3 at the weekend in Ubuntu, for example.

    And given the vast variation in Linux distros, you're probably better off releasing Windows games that are Wine-compatible than a Linux binary that won't run on Ubuntu 12.04 or Redhat 6.3.

  • by tomhudson (43916) <`moc.nosduh-arab ... `nosduh.arabrab'> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:55AM (#33587144) Journal
    And yet, there's always the "there's one application" crowd who you simply cannot convince - they're not the market right now, and we shouldn't apologize for it, but rather embrace that as a fact.

    It's like for me - I can't see myself switching to Windows because I have a lot of those "one applications" that work far better under a *nix environment. And even if Windows were to eventually offer "equal functionality", why should I change. If someone says you should switch restaurants because some other one is "just as good", that's not a reason, and you'd tell them as much - and it cuts both ways.

    Slowly, the areas where Windows is better are being whittled away, and the superiority of linux in other areas will make a difference, but for many people it has to be a significant advantage, or they won't do it because (1) they have better things to do with their time, and (2) the perceived benefits are less than the perceived risks. Inertia is more than a law of physics.

    Your gf wouldn't have switched on her own - you had to do it. That sort of proves my point, no?

  • by FinchWorld (845331) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:56AM (#33587162) Homepage
    Keep marketing linux as a "replacement" for windows and you guarantee to always fail.

    But windows does, for the most part, what 90% of the users out there need, even if it doesn't do it so well. If Linux doesn't replace this functionality, they won't want it.

    Graphic cards are a recurring problem, though largely not the fault of linux devs. But heavy reliance on the CLI keeps out most out. Even with ubuntu you'll likely need to do something that requires the CLI, my current ubuntu headache is changing the refresh rate using the open raedon drivers (9600xt AGP) which is causing a flicker on my monitor, and have found X has changed since 9.04.

    Whilst ubuntu would do most my parents needs, email (they use thunderbird on windows), youtube/browsing (Flash seems alot better and they use firefox on windows), word processing (They already use open office, once i made it default to saving to the .doc format etc.) but a flickering monitor? That just wouldn't do.

  • by StayFrosty (1521445) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @10:58AM (#33587194)
    Every commercial Linux app I've seen has a deb available for Ubuntu/debian these days or at the very least a loki-type installer. Installing is as simple as double clicking on the file and typing in your password. Less of a hassle than Windows IMHO.

    It's also nice that the package manager in Linux keeps everything up to date. Having 5 or 6 updaters always running in the background is a waste of resources and a massive security hole. That's a non-starter.
  • by tomhudson (43916) <`moc.nosduh-arab ... `nosduh.arabrab'> on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:02AM (#33587254) Journal
    Sun is dead because Sparc couldn't compete, and they wasted too much time on a side project to make an operating system for set-top boxes (Oak), then tried to extend it to be a web application environment, or a thin client environment, or whatever other idea came down the pike.

    It probably did more to kill Sun than anything else, because the revenue streams it brought in weren't big enough in relation to dev costs. It also diverted attention from the core business, and let other people make more money off what they developed than they did. It ultimately resulted in the company who makes the most money off that tech buying them out.

  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:03AM (#33587276) Homepage

    Yes they do.

    A huge percentage of PCs aren't sold to homes, but to businesses. While Ubuntu may not be attractive to businesses tied to Windows-specific software, it could be extremely attractive to businesses mostly run off of web applications. Corporate IT departments who are considering making the switch for some of their users would be able to make use of studies like this to help convince upper management that there's little downside and a significant cost savings.

  • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:10AM (#33587384)

    Under windows, downloading and installing software, even using the built-in installer, is a confusing nightmare.

    More to the point, when was the last time you had an application on a Linux/Unix box modify the operating system and break other applications? And that's not counting the number of times I've uninstalled a Windows app and had that break something. Yes, I know, Microsoft finally addressed their self-inflicted DLL hell by allowing side-loading and adding support for manifests as of XP SP2, but there are still a ton of applications out there that do things the old way.

  • Windows 7 user (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bobb Sledd (307434) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:14AM (#33587478) Homepage

    I have a small recording studio in which I run a 16-channel simultaneous recording firewire mixer. I use Adobe Audition 3 for my sessions. I can't really move to another platform because I already have so many recording sessions in this format (although, I don't really want to move, either -- I'm happy with Audition).

    I recently purchased an i7 with Windows 7 64-bit. I tell you, it does everything I've ever asked it to do, and it handles the incoming 16-channels flawlessly.

    I don't think I would trust this set up on Ubuntu. For one, my firewire mixer simply would not work with Ubuntu (natively). And if it could work in WINE, I don't see how it is better than what I have now. Isn't it just likely to introduce hiccups?

  • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:16AM (#33587522) Journal

    I also have to deal with a confusing variety of distros

    You really only have to deal with the distro you choose.

    poor documentation

    There's man pages, info pages, --help, and if you need your hand held just google it.

    asking how to do something in Linux that you could do in Windows

    Try asking on a Windows forum about something you can do trivially in Linux sometime.

    And downloading and installing software, even using the built-in installer, is a confusing nightmare.

    Ok, now you're just trolling. There's a pretty GUI app installer for every distro.

  • by hideouspenguinboy (1342659) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:19AM (#33587570) Homepage
    The vast majority of computer users would never notice. Most PC users don't need the games you are worried about, or want them. They want web, email, and pictures of kittens. They should be using Macs, linux is a good second best. In the meantime they use windows, and their children and neighbors stop over to remove malware and reboot the box every few months. But if assuming that your own perspective is the only one that's important works for you, then go with it I suppose.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:19AM (#33587576)

    "An Ubuntu test-drive by a Windows user" would have been a better title for the article.

    There is a complaint that it doesn't work like Windows does (he's actually wrong). And also that it doesn't support some features that Windows does (again, he's wrong about pinning apps to the taskbar/panel). But *this* was the best quote of all: "Ubuntu’s equivalent of the command line – dubbed Terminal". Aha ha!

    I stopped reading at "Usbility"...

  • by mandelbr0t (1015855) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:19AM (#33587578) Journal
    They are irrelevant and dead probably more because of Java than Solaris. And Linux isn't a replacement for Solaris, anyway. Linux has its best potential in the small business market, where paying the Windows tax is not really an option. However, there's just too much Windows market share for Linux to realistically compete for the home desktop. Add that to the annoyances with WINE, and I don't see a lot of movement in that direction any time soon. Linux is not a replacement for Windows. It's not useless, either, but it would be better for Linux organizations to focus on its strengths rather than annoying users by pretending it's just like Windows.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:26AM (#33587692)

    What am I supposed to expect?

  • I don't understand how this comment is in the least bit Insightful. It's incredibly poor and short-sighted.

    Sometimes it's useful to know what it's like understanding the Linux experience in fresh eyes. There are things that pop out that you wouldn't really consider if you're too used to Linux or too unfamiliar with Windows. Say, for example, what popped out at me was when they mentioned that they had a hard time because they couldn't maximize windows by dragging them to the top of the screen (which must be some new-fangled Win7 functionality and is completely foreign to me as I haven't touched Windows since XP SP2). They went so far as to take off major points for this at the end when they would easily have adapted away if they bothered using it for more than a month but is still important in the first impressions of a complete newbie. Or how they actually were impressed with Rhythmbox and the fuctionality which surprised me. Or how they said it was impressive how easy it was to install, which is definitely worth a few bonus points for Ubuntu. Or how Ubuntu provides some nice features (Ubuntu One, Software Center) which new users seem to like and don't have alternatives for on Windows. Or how they easily adapted to new software alternatives (like Evolution vs. Outlook or Rhythmbox vs. WMP).

    There's actually a ton of useful information for understanding what it's like for new users. In fact, they never even once lamented that they couldn't run games on it, which just goes to show that it's not the end-all-be-all for every user as you suggest. Try opening your mind a little.

  • by jedidiah (1196) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:37AM (#33587926) Homepage

    > I have to say that Adobe Flash is horrible on Linux, it uses far more CPU time and its not as smooth either.

    Flash is no worse on Linux than any other platform. This includes Windows despite all of the nonsense about how
    the new versions of Flash allegedly are better at supporting things like PureVideo. I was trying this out for
    myself just last night and was sorely disappointed by all of the hype that led me to believe that Windows would
    do better in this regard.

    It does not use far more CPU and it is not any less smooth.

    Linux is also far less likely to completely freeze as Flash is having it's usual problems.

    Yes, I decided to go back to playing Hulu in Linux because doing so in Windows 7 was becoming painful and annoying.

  • by SwedishPenguin (1035756) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @11:40AM (#33587974)

    That's because the HP LaserJet 4 was built during a time when the art of using standards such as PostScript and PCL had still not been forgotten. Anything from the past 20 years will work with that printer...

  • Re:Windows 7 user (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shas3n (1121469) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @12:01PM (#33588354)

    In my previous job I ran a 32 core SGI box to run fluid dynamic simulations. Of course, with Linux. Would not trust Windows for a moment on that setup.

    My point is your case is very specialised and so is mine. We are happy about our respective setups and none is disputing that fact.

    The point of this article is about comparing Windows and Ubuntu for a 'normal' user.

  • by jedidiah (1196) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @12:11PM (#33588510) Homepage

    N00b grandparents aren't going to tweak X anymore than they are going to re-install Windows.

    It doesn't matter how easy it is. They won't even be able to find the GUI in Windows.

    99% of Windows users probably never alter their video configuration regardless of how you might sneer at it.

    Whether or not they can safely surf the web is a far more meaningful question.

  • by Beelzebud (1361137) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @12:12PM (#33588546)
    Well for one, if a game is made with Direct X, it's going to run faster with Direct X, than something that translates it to OpenGL on the fly, which in the case of Left 4 Dead or TF2 is exactly what is going on. The Windows version of those games uses Direct X, not OpenGL.

    Second, even if a game has an OpenGL renderer (Like World of Warcraft), you still have issues like the hardware cursor to deal with.
  • by Smauler (915644) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @12:33PM (#33588918)

    DRM is here to stay... Intrusive DRM is not. The reason why Steam is successful is because it gives loads of advantages over previous delivery methods. I had windows go all blue screen on me, complete reinstall needed, a while back (it was my fault, I was running Europa Universalis, and the entire OS went kaput... I wondered what had happened, until I noticed I'd pulled out one of the SATA data cables of my striped primary drives with my toe - the case is open because cooling is not optimal for the graphics card... I even laughed at the time). I just reinstalled (wasn't laughing so much then), logged in, and my games were available again. It has a few disadvantages too, but most of them are small. The disadvantages are less bad than the old days with lost CD-Keys, etcs, IMO.

    Intrusive DRM, and DRM that requires permanent online prescence will never work.

  • Re:Poor usability. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Eil (82413) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @01:02PM (#33589320) Homepage Journal

    Ubuntu may be getting better. But it still looks amateurish in comparison to Windows or OSX. It just doesn't feature the polish of those other OSs. Windows has a lot of clutter, but it is still a cohesive and fairly consistent experience.

    The only way Windows could possibly be considered "cohesive" is when it's the only OS you know. In Ubuntu, you have one menu for your desktop preferences and one menu for system settings. In Windows, these things are scattered around the OS. Sure, the Control Panel groups a lot of things together but finding the exact setting you want is always a challenge when you don't already know where to look.

    It doesn't seem like they gave enough thought to usability in Ubuntu

    If you've been following Ubuntu at all, you'd know that pretty much the only thing they strive for is usability. Some ideas have been hit and miss (notifications behavior, window decorations, the hideous default orange-and-brown color schemes) but you have to give them credit for trying new ideas once in awhile. The basic Windows UI hasn't changed substantially (other than the window decorations) in 15 years and OS X hasn't really changed in around 10.

    they simply copied bits of and pieces of what Microsoft and Apple have already done.

    No, they took the parts that they liked best. And there's nothing at all wrong with that nor is it anything new. Microsoft copied many MacOS features and MacOS copied many Xerox-developed features.

    One great usability feature that all Linux distributions have that neither Windows or OS X never will is decent package management. If you need some software, all you have to do is open up the package manager, search for what you want, and install it right then and there. No licenses, no DRM, no downloading, no CDs.

  • No Ubuntu iTunes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @02:31PM (#33590758) Homepage Journal

    As long as Ubuntu can't use iTunes (and no, not some other content mall that doesn't have all that iTunes has), Ubuntu can't compete with Windows for the home user market, or probably the school market, or even for a lot of the business market.

    Yes, Apple's content monopoly is the key to protecting Windows' OS monopoly. The world is as strange as it is round.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @03:12PM (#33591408)

    Exactly. Ubuntu carries all the things that could make a typical home user make the switch, but the compatibilty and accesability is still an issue. I thought it was a very good article.

    Except any consistency in the UI or any standard that applications should be developed to (fosters consistency). The last I used linux, there wasn't even a consistent sound API. Linux is a mess compared to any commercial OS. And that is not surprising. Commercial efforts can do many more things that a loose-knit community can't do. Linux is a nice pet project, but is worthless beyond that. I can't imagine any real corporate environment basing all of their infrastructure on linux. There is a reason why they spend large sums of money on non-open software and hardware -- support. And that includes a leg to stand on in the event of failure.

    We never implement free or open solutions in our clients' businesses. The reason is not because of quality, etc. It's because the shit can still roll uphill in the event of failure, and their support is obligated (through pricey support contracts) to get the issues resolved. In these real life situation, no one has the patience or time to let someone hack at something that has no support contract available. It's not a matter of knowledge or expertise... It's a matter of business and accountability. No one is accountable for a linux setup except the guy that set it up. Have you ever been that guy and faced a lawsuit when your client comes after you for loss of revenue due to downtime?

    Now with a Windows server box with proper support contracts with Microsoft, you are suddenly not responsible for the failure and are expected to work with the software vendor to get it fixed. In short, you blame the software vendor and they are the target of the lawsuit (which the EULA protects them from). And because of the large install base of Windows Server, you typically don't have to worry about losing your job due to Microsoft's short comings.

    In short, large and successful business know they get what they pay for. And the price of linux is not very appealing to them. IT managers would rather spend millions in support contracts and licenses so long as they have someone to point the finger at in the event of failure. There is no one to point at but yourself if you implement a failed linux solution.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @05:27PM (#33593082)
    PEBKAC
  • by pugugly (152978) on Wednesday September 15, 2010 @05:34PM (#33593150)

    Depends. For a lot of non-gaming backward compatibility purposes Wine is darn spiffy and works great out of the box.

    Even in Gaming a lot depends on what you're running; again older retrogaming is good.

    All that said, it's a nice tool that drastically expands the software available in Linux, a particularly useful tool when there's a nice utility from Windows that you're used to and want to stick with till you see something better, not an all around solution. If bleeding edge gaming is your priority, assuming Wine will solve the problem is foolish. Dual Boot.

    Pug

Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. -- Bertrand Russell

Working...