Comments on: Vista Ultimate vs. Ubuntu 7.04 - Which Install Is Easier? http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/ Science, Technology and Politics - Oh My! Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:55:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Can http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-383 Can Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:50:14 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-383 Windows Vista make people feel "secure" when asked about everything, even if the question is rather stupid and the firewall lacks out-of-the-box outgoing detection. Anyway.. Ubuntu is ugly since it uses Gnome, I dropped Gnome in favor of KDE. Here is a tip: sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop (Or looking up in the synaptic package manager) With that, you can get both Gnome and KDE installed simultaneously, being able to choose your favorite GUI on the login screen. That's something you can't do in Vista, or do you? Also try Compiz-fusion and Emerald, for extra pimping. Windows Vista make people feel “secure” when asked about everything, even if the question is rather stupid and the firewall lacks out-of-the-box outgoing detection.

Anyway.. Ubuntu is ugly since it uses Gnome, I dropped Gnome in favor of KDE. Here is a tip:

sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop
(Or looking up in the synaptic package manager)

With that, you can get both Gnome and KDE installed simultaneously, being able to choose your favorite GUI on the login screen. That’s something you can’t do in Vista, or do you?

Also try Compiz-fusion and Emerald, for extra pimping.

]]>
By: Tod http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-386 Tod Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:16:09 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-386 Next time, go visit a nearby Apple store and see for yourself how these machines are made for people who hate to waste time. Last year I installed OS X10.4 - Tiger - onto two Macs at home. Total time: 20 minutes each. That's time from inserting the install DVD to reboot and begin surfing the Internet. I recently bought a new Mac Mini and it took less than an hour using Apple's Firewire "target mode" to transfer 90GB from my old Mac to the Mini. I will never understand how otherwise really intelligent people continue to flog themselves by buying half-rate hardware and installing the worst OS on them. Oh, I forgot: You can't go wrong buying M$. It's certainly cheaper over the long run than an eye candy niche OS like Tiger. Not! Next time, go visit a nearby Apple store and see for yourself how these machines are made for people who hate to waste time.

Last year I installed OS X10.4 - Tiger - onto two Macs at home. Total time: 20 minutes each. That’s time from inserting the install DVD to reboot and begin surfing the Internet.

I recently bought a new Mac Mini and it took less than an hour using Apple’s Firewire “target mode” to transfer 90GB from my old Mac to the Mini.

I will never understand how otherwise really intelligent people continue to flog themselves by buying half-rate hardware and installing the worst OS on them. Oh, I forgot: You can’t go wrong buying M$. It’s certainly cheaper over the long run than an eye candy niche OS like Tiger. Not!

]]>
By: Mobster http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-387 Mobster Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:29:40 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-387 thats an interesting read. tod, not all of us want to restrict ourselves to zero upgradeability and overpriced hardware. thats an interesting read.

tod, not all of us want to restrict ourselves to zero upgradeability and overpriced hardware.

]]>
By: admin http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-388 admin Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:08:37 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-388 Hey Apple is fine if your into it. NO problems with Apple other than lack of software and the cost to upgrade. The machines are pretty. Can, I have Kubuntu installed on my laptop now and am trying to learn the ins and outs of it as well. Funny how the same OS can be so vastly different depending on the GUI Hey Apple is fine if your into it. NO problems with Apple other than lack of software and the cost to upgrade. The machines are pretty.

Can, I have Kubuntu installed on my laptop now and am trying to learn the ins and outs of it as well. Funny how the same OS can be so vastly different depending on the GUI

]]>
By: Linux Operating System http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-389 Linux Operating System Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:43:53 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-389 Hi, I have posted also yesterday a comparison side by side, about which is easier to install, both Windows XP and Vista or Ubuntu Feisty, you can read it <a href="http://www.go2linux.org/why-linux-is-easier-than-windows" rel="nofollow"> here </a> Hi, I have posted also yesterday a comparison side by side, about which is easier to install, both Windows XP and Vista or Ubuntu Feisty, you can read it here

]]>
By: Hebi-kai http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-390 Hebi-kai Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:20:36 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-390 Ubuntu is easier to install, yes. Easier to configure? Hell no! It's great that the writer got his video card to work on the first try. I've only had that happen to me on one Ubuntu install. Every other install has required some serious tweaking to get to work. WIndows has problems with this, too. But if you install the setup.exe for the driver it only takes 5 minutes to get it to work. Not the same case for Ubuntu I'm afraid. And wireless on Linux is a nightmare. Windows won't install with wireless natively of course, but the drivers are a snap to install. You're running in less than 10 minutes. I have two laptops and one can't use its wireless card at all and the other drops the connection every 10-15 minutes (not so with the Windows partition on the same laptop). So is Ubuntu easier to install? Undoubtedly. Is is easier to configure? No way. Ubuntu is easier to install, yes. Easier to configure? Hell no! It’s great that the writer got his video card to work on the first try. I’ve only had that happen to me on one Ubuntu install. Every other install has required some serious tweaking to get to work. WIndows has problems with this, too. But if you install the setup.exe for the driver it only takes 5 minutes to get it to work. Not the same case for Ubuntu I’m afraid.

And wireless on Linux is a nightmare. Windows won’t install with wireless natively of course, but the drivers are a snap to install. You’re running in less than 10 minutes. I have two laptops and one can’t use its wireless card at all and the other drops the connection every 10-15 minutes (not so with the Windows partition on the same laptop).

So is Ubuntu easier to install? Undoubtedly. Is is easier to configure? No way.

]]>
By: daryl http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-391 daryl Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:31:17 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-391 "The security features are more robust (or at least more obvious) out of the box with Vista." Just more obvious, Linux has iptables for firewall in the kernel and antivirus, spyware etc software is unnessessary. All those icons by the clock are just providing a false sense of security. “The security features are more robust (or at least more obvious) out of the box with Vista.”

Just more obvious, Linux has iptables for firewall in the kernel and antivirus, spyware etc software is unnessessary. All those icons by the clock are just providing a false sense of security.

]]>
By: admin http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-392 admin Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:54:16 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-392 Hey Hebi, As a Windows admin and long time supporter of MS, I wasn't taking shot at Vista (though I still prefer XP). I was disappointed that the setup routine wasn't able to detect my video card because there is no reason it shouldn't have. It is older than the OS, and it's a standard ATI card. The printer I can live with I guess because of the scanner etc, but still it was a pretty sad statement that the shiny new OS from MS couldn't detect what the free OS could. I agree with you about wireless and windows up to a point. I too have had trouble in the past with Ubuntu and wireless. I tried to use it back in the Ubuntu 6x days and through my leyboard down in disgust. I argured with a dear friend of mine that if a network admin has to spend 36 hours getting a common wireless card to work (spottily) then it's broke and there is no point. I can say though that my Dell laptop had no problems with Ubuntu and wireless. Foudn the card, foudn the network and I was on as soon as I put in the ASCII key. I have tried another card and it worked too. You're mileage will vary of course, but it is much better than it used to be. All of that said, I agree that adding hardware is generally easier under windows and that the driver support is far superior for new products (unless it's my damn video card) It;s also easier to click on setup.exe and have it run than the various methods I've used trying to setup my machines under Ubuntu. Hell I still can't get the NVIDIA driver to work on my laptop (the one from NVIDIA that is). Hey Hebi,

As a Windows admin and long time supporter of MS, I wasn’t taking shot at Vista (though I still prefer XP). I was disappointed that the setup routine wasn’t able to detect my video card because there is no reason it shouldn’t have. It is older than the OS, and it’s a standard ATI card. The printer I can live with I guess because of the scanner etc, but still it was a pretty sad statement that the shiny new OS from MS couldn’t detect what the free OS could.

I agree with you about wireless and windows up to a point. I too have had trouble in the past with Ubuntu and wireless. I tried to use it back in the Ubuntu 6x days and through my leyboard down in disgust. I argured with a dear friend of mine that if a network admin has to spend 36 hours getting a common wireless card to work (spottily) then it’s broke and there is no point. I can say though that my Dell laptop had no problems with Ubuntu and wireless. Foudn the card, foudn the network and I was on as soon as I put in the ASCII key. I have tried another card and it worked too. You’re mileage will vary of course, but it is much better than it used to be.

All of that said, I agree that adding hardware is generally easier under windows and that the driver support is far superior for new products (unless it’s my damn video card) It;s also easier to click on setup.exe and have it run than the various methods I’ve used trying to setup my machines under Ubuntu. Hell I still can’t get the NVIDIA driver to work on my laptop (the one from NVIDIA that is).

]]>
By: admin http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-393 admin Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:57:20 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-393 Daryl, are IP tables turned on by default? Just a question. And anti-virus and spyware software will become necessary on Linux as it is adopted in greater numbers. I read the bug reports and there are just as many bugs on linux as there are on Vista if you are honest. Someone somewhere will exploit the system the same way. We have had issues in the past and we will in the future. We could argue the merits of closed source\open source in responding to bugs till we are blue in the face but in the end all software is written by people, therefore it is all flawed. An flaw can be exploited with enough effort. Daryl, are IP tables turned on by default? Just a question.

And anti-virus and spyware software will become necessary on Linux as it is adopted in greater numbers. I read the bug reports and there are just as many bugs on linux as there are on Vista if you are honest. Someone somewhere will exploit the system the same way. We have had issues in the past and we will in the future. We could argue the merits of closed source\open source in responding to bugs till we are blue in the face but in the end all software is written by people, therefore it is all flawed. An flaw can be exploited with enough effort.

]]>
By: Linux Operating System http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-394 Linux Operating System Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:34:55 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-394 IPtables comes on in some distros, Fedora and CentOS ask you, Ubuntu has it off by default, I think on Mandriva are on. IPtables comes on in some distros, Fedora and CentOS ask you, Ubuntu has it off by default, I think on Mandriva are on.

]]>
By: reeloberon http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-396 reeloberon Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:57:20 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-396 hi admin, I prefer Sidux, a Debian-SID-derivate. when I installed last week on my athlon 2000 with 1Gig main memory, my maschine told me after booting the live-CD in less than 3 minutes and installing the whole bunch that it took 5:26 minutes klaus hi admin,
I prefer Sidux, a Debian-SID-derivate. when I installed last week on my athlon 2000 with 1Gig main memory, my maschine told me after booting the live-CD in less than 3 minutes and installing the whole bunch that it took 5:26 minutes
klaus

]]>
By: jl http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-397 jl Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:50:27 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-397 I had to install wireless drivers on XP some four to five months ago and it took me 10 hours and I still didn't manage to get them working. Both of the drivers (there were two different of drivers for this laptops two possible cards) claimed to have found the card but when I tried to activate it they both bailed out. It didn't matter if I installed/uninstalled them in _any_ order, they just didn't work. GNU/Linux on the other hand, on the very same computer, worked without problems. Everything "just worked". I had to install wireless drivers on XP some four to five months ago and it took me 10 hours and I still didn’t manage to get them working. Both of the drivers (there were two different of drivers for this laptops two possible cards) claimed to have found the card but when I tried to activate it they both bailed out. It didn’t matter if I installed/uninstalled them in _any_ order, they just didn’t work.

GNU/Linux on the other hand, on the very same computer, worked without problems. Everything “just worked”.

]]>
By: Henaway http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-398 Henaway Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:22:23 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-398 True, one day linux MAY need an AV app. BUT because it is designed to be a multi-user environment - TRUE multi-user environment that is - it has inherit security advantages over Windows where every user (no matter what label they tag on it) is essentially ROOT. If a non-admin user gets a virus, it's still going to tank your whole system. On linux, all the user is going to do at worst is tank their account. Anything they don't have rights to will be safe. True, one day linux MAY need an AV app. BUT because it is designed to be a multi-user environment - TRUE multi-user environment that is - it has inherit security advantages over Windows where every user (no matter what label they tag on it) is essentially ROOT.

If a non-admin user gets a virus, it’s still going to tank your whole system. On linux, all the user is going to do at worst is tank their account. Anything they don’t have rights to will be safe.

]]>
By: admin http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-399 admin Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:26:05 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-399 Henaway, I would agree with you up to Vista, but if you turn on UAC and don;t do someting stupid, Vista strips you of the "root" ability pretty nicely. Sure it's annoying to us users who constantly get prompted if we really want to do something, or to give a password, but it is pretty effective. The biggest challenge is poor software that is written to force a user to need admin rights. Blame microsoft for lots of stuff, but that's mainly a 3rd party issue. Henaway, I would agree with you up to Vista, but if you turn on UAC and don;t do someting stupid, Vista strips you of the “root” ability pretty nicely. Sure it’s annoying to us users who constantly get prompted if we really want to do something, or to give a password, but it is pretty effective. The biggest challenge is poor software that is written to force a user to need admin rights. Blame microsoft for lots of stuff, but that’s mainly a 3rd party issue.

]]>
By: Tod http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-400 Tod Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:39:37 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-400 @ mobster and admin: WRt "upgradeability" and the supposed lack thereof on Macs, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by upgrading? What are you upgrading anyway - software or hardware or the OS? When you state that the mac is not upgradable, what is your goal in upgrading? I know of many Mac users who are using six year old machines and have upgraded the OS to the current tiger system. Their applications have gone through several upgrades and they have kept them current. Is it just to brag about the crotch rocket of speed or is it about usability? And please don't slap the "lack of software" monkey; it sounds too much like Bush invoking al-Qaida when he talks about Iraq. There is plenty of software doing all sorts of great things on the Mac. What kinds of applications are lacking? Specifically what Windows or Linux applications don't have Mac analogs? That argument is so lame and beneath your level of reasoning. @ mobster and admin:

WRt “upgradeability” and the supposed lack thereof on Macs, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by upgrading? What are you upgrading anyway - software or hardware or the OS? When you state that the mac is not upgradable, what is your goal in upgrading? I know of many Mac users who are using six year old machines and have upgraded the OS to the current tiger system. Their applications have gone through several upgrades and they have kept them current.

Is it just to brag about the crotch rocket of speed or is it about usability?

And please don’t slap the “lack of software” monkey; it sounds too much like Bush invoking al-Qaida when he talks about Iraq. There is plenty of software doing all sorts of great things on the Mac. What kinds of applications are lacking? Specifically what Windows or Linux applications don’t have Mac analogs? That argument is so lame and beneath your level of reasoning.

]]>
By: Casper Gielen http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-403 Casper Gielen Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:04:31 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-403 In my experience Linux has a much better chance of supporting hardware out of the box. Many times new hardware will work immediatly after pluging it into the machine, even without a configuration dialog. On the other hand, most hardware manufactures make drivers for Windows. It may take a bit of work, but you're almost guaranteed to get it to work eventually, as long as the hardware is fairly new. With hardware older than the Windows version, the problem often is that manufacturers don't care about writing new drivers for their old hardware. They would prefer people to buy new hardware. As long as you pay a little attention when buying hardware Linux works just fine. In my experience Linux has a much better chance of supporting hardware out of the box. Many times new hardware will work immediatly after pluging it into the machine, even without a configuration dialog. On the other hand, most hardware manufactures make drivers for Windows. It may take a bit of work, but you’re almost guaranteed to get it to work eventually, as long as the hardware is fairly new.

With hardware older than the Windows version, the problem often is that manufacturers don’t care about writing new drivers for their old hardware. They would prefer people to buy new hardware.

As long as you pay a little attention when buying hardware Linux works just fine.

]]>
By: Branden http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-411 Branden Sun, 19 Aug 2007 02:14:20 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-411 hi nice post, i enjoyed it hi nice post, i enjoyed it

]]>
By: David Gerard http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-432 David Gerard Mon, 20 Aug 2007 10:56:32 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-432 With hardware, if Linux supports it then it supports it brilliantly ... if it doesn't, then getting it to work is an exercise in pain. Basically, if you want a supported hardware setup, you have to choose your hardware carefully. If you take a bit of care, you can have Mac-like levels of "it just works." Thankfully there are the twin effects of (a) more and more hardware being supported (b) common hardware becoming more generic and thus a big target for becoming well-supported. This applies even to laptops - most of the brand names are now actually built by Quanta in Taiwan. With wifi in particular on Linux, you often have the choice of (a) messing around with compiling your driver and finding firmware or (b) just spending ten quid on a card with a well-supported chip. (The systems I use every day at home are a Mac G4 running MacOS X 10.4.10, a Compaq N410c running Ubuntu 6.10 and a Dell D600 running Ubuntu 7.10 alpha. The Compaq is running the old version to support the horrible old Orinoco USB wifi because it's built into the lid, meaning I don't need a PC card sticking out the side. It's so bad I'm considering gutting it and putting a known supported chip in ...) With hardware, if Linux supports it then it supports it brilliantly … if it doesn’t, then getting it to work is an exercise in pain. Basically, if you want a supported hardware setup, you have to choose your hardware carefully. If you take a bit of care, you can have Mac-like levels of “it just works.”

Thankfully there are the twin effects of (a) more and more hardware being supported (b) common hardware becoming more generic and thus a big target for becoming well-supported. This applies even to laptops - most of the brand names are now actually built by Quanta in Taiwan.

With wifi in particular on Linux, you often have the choice of (a) messing around with compiling your driver and finding firmware or (b) just spending ten quid on a card with a well-supported chip.

(The systems I use every day at home are a Mac G4 running MacOS X 10.4.10, a Compaq N410c running Ubuntu 6.10 and a Dell D600 running Ubuntu 7.10 alpha. The Compaq is running the old version to support the horrible old Orinoco USB wifi because it’s built into the lid, meaning I don’t need a PC card sticking out the side. It’s so bad I’m considering gutting it and putting a known supported chip in …)

]]>
By: Devon Buchanan http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-513 Devon Buchanan Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:33:41 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-513 Vista support will get better over time, but the opacity of a setup.exe driver means that if it decides not to work, you can't do anything about it. Linux support is always getting better. In feisty I can just choose to enable desktop effects, and it will automatically download and install the drivers and I get the effects, no fuss. Or I can install my nVidia drivers from apt, run one command and have direct rendering without even needing a restart. If neither of these work I can wade in and edit my xorg.conf with help from the interweb. All of these have worked for me, I have manged to get a better-than-vista GUI on a live cd by downloading beryl and the drivers (wirelessly) on a machine that doesn't have a chance in hell of running aero. These give me more options if I am reasonably intelligent (and open to the idea of using the terminal) than the windows "click and pray" approach. In Ubuntu 7.10 there will be a graphical method of editing your xorg.conf, making it event easier for users ot set up their computer. Plus a proper version of compiz-fusion will be installed by default (not the cut-down version of 7.04), so nobody need feel inferior to vista. (P.S. ATI has awful linux support, go for nVidia) Vista support will get better over time, but the opacity of a setup.exe driver means that if it decides not to work, you can’t do anything about it.

Linux support is always getting better. In feisty I can just choose to enable desktop effects, and it will automatically download and install the drivers and I get the effects, no fuss. Or I can install my nVidia drivers from apt, run one command and have direct rendering without even needing a restart. If neither of these work I can wade in and edit my xorg.conf with help from the interweb. All of these have worked for me, I have manged to get a better-than-vista GUI on a live cd by downloading beryl and the drivers (wirelessly) on a machine that doesn’t have a chance in hell of running aero.

These give me more options if I am reasonably intelligent (and open to the idea of using the terminal) than the windows “click and pray” approach.

In Ubuntu 7.10 there will be a graphical method of editing your xorg.conf, making it event easier for users ot set up their computer. Plus a proper version of compiz-fusion will be installed by default (not the cut-down version of 7.04), so nobody need feel inferior to vista.

(P.S. ATI has awful linux support, go for nVidia)

]]>
By: Chris mankey http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-580 Chris mankey Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:00:26 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-580 "So is Ubuntu easier to install? Undoubtedly. Is is easier to configure? No way." All I had to do is install envy and click on "install nvidia drivers" to set up my video card. “So is Ubuntu easier to install? Undoubtedly. Is is easier to configure? No way.”

All I had to do is install envy and click on “install nvidia drivers” to set up my video card.

]]>
By: Top Unix News » Vista Ultimate vs. Ubuntu 7.04 - Which Install Is Easier? http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-943 Top Unix News » Vista Ultimate vs. Ubuntu 7.04 - Which Install Is Easier? Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:27:30 +0000 http://scitech.teambio.org/2007/08/14/vista-ultimate-vs-ubuntu-704-which-install-is-easier/#comment-943 [...] read more | digg story [...] […] read more | digg story […]

]]>