Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Split from Spammer topic

Page 1 of 1

13 Replies - 1352 Views - Last Post: 02 September 2010 - 08:02 PM

#1 Splatocaster   User is offline

  • D.I.C Head
  • member icon

Reputation: 51
  • View blog
  • Posts: 182
  • Joined: 22-December 09

Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 10:00 AM

Based on my personal experience and an article I read (I couldn't find the article sorry), Windows 7 won speed wise. Vista is the precursor to 7, and 7 supersede Vista. In my opinion, 7 is the best OS on the market right now (however, I only have real experience in Ubuntu, Windows 98, XP, Vista, and 7 - I can't tell you about Mac or Linux other than Ubuntu). I would recommend Windows 7.

Here is an article I found on the subject
http://www.techradar...ta-vs-xp-615167

This post has been edited by Splatocaster: 02 September 2010 - 10:03 AM


Is This A Good Question/Topic? 0
  • +

Replies To: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

#2 Atli   User is offline

  • Enhance Your Calm
  • member icon

Reputation: 4240
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,216
  • Joined: 08-June 10

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 10:51 AM

My take on this.
  • Windows XP is great, but it is getting a bit old. Microsoft will be going out of it's way to not add support for new technologies on it. (They want you to have to "upgrade".)
  • Windows Vista is a joke. Stay away from it like the plague. (I look at it as an early, and very expensive, public Alpha for Win7)
  • Windows 7 actually makes it into the same league as Linux. Hell, it may even surpass most current Linux distros in some ways. Definitely my recommendation in the Windows category.
  • Linux is awesome. If you can manage to not use Microsoft products (there are ALWAYS Linux alternatives, even though they are not always 100% compatible) and can live without Direct3D (WINE can run many games, but not always and usually at a slightly reduced performance). Also, neither Nvidia or ATI seem to be able to fork out decent drivers for Linux, so expect to have to put more effort into getting them working than on Windows. (Ubuntu offers simple driver installation, although they are usually a bit outdated. Not a problem for most users though.)


For most people I would recommend Windows 7, then Windows XP, then... nope that's it. I would never recommend Vista. Ever.
If you aren't afraid of Linux, then I would recommend Ubuntu above all those.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#3 Splatocaster   User is offline

  • D.I.C Head
  • member icon

Reputation: 51
  • View blog
  • Posts: 182
  • Joined: 22-December 09

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 10:56 AM

Quote

If you aren't afraid of Linux, then I would recommend Ubuntu above all those.


An unbiased, mature description of pros and cons would be greatly appreciated (and +repped). I used Ubuntu for less than a year, and that was back in 9.04 days. I am interested in what the pros and cons are. Thank you.

This post has been edited by Splatocaster: 02 September 2010 - 10:57 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#4 no2pencil   User is offline

  • Professor Snuggly Pants
  • member icon

Reputation: 6643
  • View blog
  • Posts: 30,932
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 12:00 PM

If you are going to use Ubutnu, you may as well just stick with XP.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#5 Atli   User is offline

  • Enhance Your Calm
  • member icon

Reputation: 4240
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,216
  • Joined: 08-June 10

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 12:27 PM

View PostSplatocaster, on 02 September 2010 - 04:56 PM, said:

Quote

If you aren't afraid of Linux, then I would recommend Ubuntu above all those.


An unbiased, mature description of pros and cons would be greatly appreciated (and +repped). I used Ubuntu for less than a year, and that was back in 9.04 days. I am interested in what the pros and cons are. Thank you.

Ok. Off the top of my head:

Ubuntu Cons
  • Driver support is worse than with Windows. You often have to jump through hoops to get them working properly, and there are often features missing you see on Windows. (E.g. advanced sound controls for sound cards -- equalizers and such -- are missing from my Ubuntu drivers, but exist on Win7 driers). -- The sad thing is that this is not Ubuntu's fault, but rather the device manufacturers. Ubuntu does it's best to soften this though by providing known stable drivers for easy install. (Last know stable Nvidia and ATI drivers, for example, are offered automatically when login in.)
  • Lack of several much used, proprietary software that may be "required" for some people. For example, the latest versions of MS Office usually alter the format of the new Word and Excel file types, and it always takes the Open-Source communities responsible for the alternative Office products a little while to decrypt and replicate them. Meaning that if you use the latest Office products on other computers, you may not be able to view them on your Ubuntu machine, or only partially.
  • In my opinion, the default Gnome Ubuntu 9.10 and 10.04 appearance leaves a lot to be wanted. However, this is easily remedied as the look is HIGHLY configurable, and you have several alternative Window Managers to choose from. (KDE is my favorite)


Ubuntu Pros
  • It's Open-Source, and thus free. And not only in the monetary meaning of the word, but it practically all meanings. Programmers can, for example, alter any part of the OS to fit them better. This also means the source is freely available, and thousands of developers all around the world have examined and improved the core of Linux and the Ubuntu core, thus making it extremely polished.
  • It has (arguably) a far better security schema than Windows. This is due both to the fact that Linux has such a small market share that it is practically pointless for virus creators to target it (same thing Apple uses to sell their Macs), and due to the fact that the security schema of Unix (which is what Linux is based on) is FAR stronger than that of Windows. Windows 7 is the only Windows that comes close to matching it. This means that you do not have to use Anti-Virus products with Linux. (You can if you are paranoid though, and there are free Anti-Virus products available from the Ubuntu Software Center)
  • There is virtually endless amounts of free software available to Ubuntu users, only a search and a click away. The Ubuntu Software Center offers thousands of applications, all of which are as free as the OS. Many of them come with the OS, like OpenOffice and GIMP. (MS Office and Photoshop alternatives.)
  • Everything about Ubuntu is configurable down to the source code. If you don't like something about the look or functionality of something, you can bet on being able to change it. Usually through altering a configuration file somewhere. And, as stated before, Ubuntu is Open-Source so you can even go as far as editing the source code to fit your preference. (Not for everybody though. Need programming experience, obviously.)
  • Ubuntu can be very light, and can run on computers with very poor hardware.


Windows 7 Cons:
  • Expensive, proprietary, questionable quality of the software. (That is, nobody knows how polished the code really is, except a handful of people at Microsoft.)
  • Demands much more resources than Ubuntu. A definite improvement from Vista, but still. (Again, raises the question about the code quality.)
  • The target of every virus developer out there. The security of Win7 is thankfully far better than XP's though.
  • Being the target of so many viruses, it requires additional security measures, like an Anti-Virus. This eats up even more resources and may add additional complexity to common tasks.
  • Administrative tasks are more wizard oriented on Windows, whereas Linux has historically been administered via editing of text config files. You might thing the wizards are better, but in reality they just get in the way. (I've experienced this first hand. Administering Linux machines is less time consuming.)


Windows 7 pros:
  • The UI is very well designed, and thanks to proper driver support from graphics device manufacturers, is very slick and responsive by default. (If only Linux got this kind of support from them...)
  • Most software is made to be compatible with Windows and now that Windows 7 is the "flagship" product, it is the target.
  • Direct3D. Say what you will about Microsoft or Windows, but Direct3D *is* great. Windows also supports OpenGL, so you can usually bet on any game or graphics heavy app to have a Windows version.


There is probably a lot more that I'm not remembering. (Dinner just finished cooking, so I'm off :P)

View Postno2pencil, on 02 September 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

If you are going to use Ubutnu, you may as well just stick with XP.

They are two VERY different systems, and aside from not being able to use some Windows-only software and Direct3D, I would rate Ubuntu as a much better system. (From a security and feature standpoint.)

That is, if you are open to Linux. Most people, sadly, are not. :(

I'm obviously a little biased towards Ubuntu, but still. I would rather install Ubuntu on the PC of a non-technical person than XP. I'd prefer Windows 7 in that situation, but if that is not an option, Ubuntu it would be.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#6 Core   User is offline

  • using System.Linq;
  • member icon

Reputation: 783
  • View blog
  • Posts: 5,101
  • Joined: 08-December 08

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 12:34 PM

View PostAtli, on 02 September 2010 - 08:27 PM, said:

Administrative tasks are more wizard oriented on Windows, whereas Linux has historically been administered via editing of text config files. You might thing the wizards are better, but in reality they just get in the way. (I've experienced this first hand. Administering Linux machines is less time consuming.)


Windows administration is far from being wizard-oriented if you go beyond changing the user password. That being said, it doesn't matter what way you use to administer a system, but rather what you can administer by using the selected method.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#7 Atli   User is offline

  • Enhance Your Calm
  • member icon

Reputation: 4240
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,216
  • Joined: 08-June 10

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 12:45 PM

View PostCore, on 02 September 2010 - 06:34 PM, said:

View PostAtli, on 02 September 2010 - 08:27 PM, said:

Administrative tasks are more wizard oriented on Windows, whereas Linux has historically been administered via editing of text config files. You might thing the wizards are better, but in reality they just get in the way. (I've experienced this first hand. Administering Linux machines is less time consuming.)


Windows administration is far from being wizard-oriented if you go beyond changing the user password. That being said, it doesn't matter what way you use to administer a system, but rather what you can administer by using the selected method.

Good point. I yield on that one. My thinking was perhaps a bit shallow.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#8 AhmerjavedC++   User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular

Reputation: 0
  • View blog
  • Posts: 253
  • Joined: 02-October 09

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 12:56 PM

GET A MACCC!!!!.. Basically Linux but more better. How do mac's get no viruses and windows users always get hit with some sort of viruses?.. Windows 7 is very different and far more enhanced than windows XP. you are still able to run all the applications you are able to run on Windows xp. windows 7 is far more better than xp because the xp operating system is really old now because it was released in 2002?. and windows vista came out in 2008??.. so yea then comes windows 7(basically improved vista with more features).
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#9 Atli   User is offline

  • Enhance Your Calm
  • member icon

Reputation: 4240
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,216
  • Joined: 08-June 10

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 01:21 PM

View PostAhmerjavedC++, on 02 September 2010 - 06:56 PM, said:

GET A MACCC!!!!.. Basically Linux but more better.

No, not at all actually. Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD (Unix), but a part from the basic operating system, the OS is very different and very proprietary. Granted, Linux is also Unix based but this is like saying a Formula 1 car is like a Volkswagen Beeatle, but more better, just because their design is based on the same basic principles. You are comparing apples and penguins. :)

View PostAhmerjavedC++, on 02 September 2010 - 06:56 PM, said:

How do mac's get no viruses and windows users always get hit with some sort of viruses?

"Always" is a gross overestimate. But the reason for this is that Mac (and Linux, as I explained above) hold such a small market share that it is practically pointless to target them. Granted, the Unix based systems are (reportedly) far ahead of Windows when it comes to basic security, but it doesn't make them invulnerable. Windows is a good target because it holds a vast majority of the market share.

Microsoft is far more experienced in matters of security than Apple, and void of the community support Linux distros have, it could be argued that Mac OS X is in fact the most likely system to be vulnerable to a virus. Microsoft have been promoting 3'rd party Anti-Virus protection very aggressively for a long time so Windows users are very aware of the virus problem. A great many Mac users (such as yourself) seem to think Mac OS X is invulnerable to viruses, which is of course pure nonsense, but that impression alone makes you a very easy target.

In fact, when I think about it, given how secure Mac OS X users seem to think they are, a well designed virus may well infect more Mac users than Windows users. (I'm probably wrong here, but you get my meaning. If Mac OS X ever gains significant market share, you are all in big trouble :))
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#10 moopet   User is offline

  • binary decision maker
  • member icon

Reputation: 343
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,189
  • Joined: 02-April 09

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 03:19 PM

View Postno2pencil, on 02 September 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

If you are going to use Ubutnu, you may as well just stick with XP.

Wow, what a strange thing to say. I cannot for the life of me think of a legitimate reason to put those words into that order. Unless you're carting out the old no-true-scotsman fallacy about ubuntu not being "real" linux because it's popular, or something.

Atli said:

Driver support is worse than with Windows.

Sometimes this is true. Sometimes the opposite is true. Example: my TV is currently a laptop which does not run Windows 7 because Windows 7 does not - and can not, for various reasons - work with its hardware. It's a big brand (a Toshiba) so there's no real excuse that gnewsense drives it perfectly out the box.

Atli said:

Lack of several much used, proprietary software that may be "required" for some people.

This scenario is actually very rare. If you work for a company, then they provide you with the software you need. If you are using software for personal purposes, then your requirements can be organised however you want. Nobody is forcing you to use product X. However, if you work for yourself and have to interoperate with companies who use proprietary formats, then there might be the problem you're talking about. Just some perspective.

Atli said:

It's Open-Source, and thus free.

Open source != free. The rest of the stuff you said is fine, but there is no one-to-one correlation between OSS and free software.

View PostAhmerjavedC++, on 02 September 2010 - 06:56 PM, said:

GET A MACCC!!!!.. Basically Linux but more better.

Not really.

View PostAtli, on 02 September 2010 - 07:21 PM, said:

No, not at all actually. Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD (Unix)

OSXs pedigree is a lot more complicated than that. It's misleading to say that it's "based" on FreeBSD, and if you go from using one to the other you'll notice more than just superficial differences.
http://en.wikipedia....tory-simple.png
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#11 Atli   User is offline

  • Enhance Your Calm
  • member icon

Reputation: 4240
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,216
  • Joined: 08-June 10

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 04:11 PM

View Postmoopet, on 02 September 2010 - 09:19 PM, said:

Atli said:

It's Open-Source, and thus free.

Open source != free. The rest of the stuff you said is fine, but there is no one-to-one correlation between OSS and free software.

True. Poorly phrased on my part. Should have been more like "It's Open-Source and free". Ubuntu makes a point that all software should be free.

View Postmoopet, on 02 September 2010 - 09:19 PM, said:

View PostAtli, on 02 September 2010 - 07:21 PM, said:

No, not at all actually. Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD (Unix)

OSXs pedigree is a lot more complicated than that. It's misleading to say that it's "based" on FreeBSD, and if you go from using one to the other you'll notice more than just superficial differences.
http://en.wikipedia....tory-simple.png

Ok, I see your point. I was basing what I said on things I learned a few years back, and a quick glance at the OS X Wikipedia page. (Seems I suffer from memory leaks :))
If I am reading that chart correctly the current versions of Mac OS X incorporate parts of FreeBSD and Net BSD. Would it be more accurate to say: "partially based on FreeBSD and Net BSD"? (For future reference. This topic is sure to come up again.)

moopet said:

This scenario is actually very rare. If you work for a company, then they provide you with the software you need. If you are using software for personal purposes, then your requirements can be organised however you want. [...]

I'm more concerned about things like receiving Word documents in email from friends/co-workers, and institutions that require the use of MS Office. I just ran into this problem myself this week, because I use Ubuntu at home but some of the reading material I need is in Word 2007 format, and my database course uses SQL Server. OpenOffice failed to read the Word documents correctly and I ended up setting up a Windows box for the SQL Server.

moopet said:

Sometimes this is true. Sometimes the opposite is true. Example: my TV is currently a laptop which does not run Windows 7 because Windows 7 does not - and can not, for various reasons - work with its hardware. It's a big brand (a Toshiba) so there's no real excuse that gnewsense drives it perfectly out the box.

Sure but in my experience, on the whole you are more likely to have driver problems on Ubuntu than Windows 7. The biggest problem I've faced, however, is the quality of some of the Linux drivers.

Take the current nVidia drivers for my 260 GTX card, for example. Even though they install fine, I can't seem to do vertical sync on two monitors at the same time, and can do no vertical sync on Compiz at all. The Windows version doesn't even list this as an option. It just does it automatically. (Not Compiz, obviously, but the Windows window manager.)
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#12 no2pencil   User is offline

  • Professor Snuggly Pants
  • member icon

Reputation: 6643
  • View blog
  • Posts: 30,932
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 06:37 PM

View Postmoopet, on 02 September 2010 - 04:19 PM, said:

View Postno2pencil, on 02 September 2010 - 06:00 PM, said:

If you are going to use Ubutnu, you may as well just stick with XP.

Wow, what a strange thing to say. I cannot for the life of me think of a legitimate reason to put those words into that order. Unless you're carting out the old no-true-scotsman fallacy about ubuntu not being "real" linux because it's popular, or something.

When someone asks which Windows OS releases are better than other Windows OS releases, & someone shouts out Use Ubuntu! with no reasoning, yeah, then just use Windows & shut up already.

I've always been a Linux advocate, & have certainly warn my fanboy hat & done the "it's better than Windows" dance. But due to the posters lack of any detail, such a statement is completely out of context & uncalled for.

View PostAtli, on 02 September 2010 - 05:11 PM, said:

Would it be more accurate to say: "partially based on FreeBSD and Net BSD"? (For future reference. This topic is sure to come up again.)

It's accurate to simply say "OSX is Unix because it uses a proprietary kernel" & be done with it. Unless you understand the differences between NetBSD & FreeBSD, along with what OSX uses from each, then all you are doing is recycling spoon fed information & using keywords that you read on Wiki.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#13 Atli   User is offline

  • Enhance Your Calm
  • member icon

Reputation: 4240
  • View blog
  • Posts: 7,216
  • Joined: 08-June 10

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 07:56 PM

Ok, thanks. No need to get overly technical. It'll just confuse the poor fanbois :)

Quote

When someone asks which Windows OS releases are better than other Windows OS releases, & someone shouts out Use Ubuntu! with no reasoning, yeah, then just use Windows & shut up already.

Nobody shouted that. In fact, both of us recommended Windows 7. I just added that bit about Ubuntu in case the OP was adventurous and wanted to explore outside the Microsoft bubble. (I always do that. I'm an optimistic person :))
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#14 no2pencil   User is offline

  • Professor Snuggly Pants
  • member icon

Reputation: 6643
  • View blog
  • Posts: 30,932
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Re: Windows 7/XP/Vista - Which is Better

Posted 02 September 2010 - 08:02 PM

Maybe it's time I invest in some bifocals.

Get off my lawn!
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

Page 1 of 1