![]() ![]() Vista has improved this process enormously: You can read drivers needed for installation from any attached mass-storage device, like a USB drive. If you wanted to install Windows XP on a computer that used a mass-storage controller with no drivers available for it on the installation CD, you had to place the drivers on a floppy and go through a bit of rigmarole to get them working. Both OSes let you manually choose disk partitioning schemes for an existing disk, or have the computer wipe everything down and sort things out. Pop in the installation disc, boot the computer, and run the setup process (which can take an hour or more). Vista and Ubuntu have roughly the same installation procedure. A Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 session running on the desktop system, with 512MB RAM and a 16GB HD. A dual Opteron desktop computer with 2GB RAM, a 320GB HD, and an ATI Radeon 9550 graphics controller. A Sony VAIO VGN-TX770P notebook computer, with 1GB RAM, an 80GB HD, and an Intel 915GM shared-memory integrated graphics controller.Ģ. To that end, I installed both Ubuntu and Vista on three different test machines:ġ. The few times you have to install it yourself, though, the whole thing needs to be as painless as possible. Most people never have to deal with installing Windows on a new PC, since Windows typically comes as a preload. Everyone needs something different, and not everyone needs (or wants) Vista - or Ubuntu - so I've done my best to keep my mind, and my eyes, wide open. ![]() I should also note that, despite being a big fan of Vista, I've tried to keep my enthusiasm for it from overriding my judgment. In each case, I've tried to look at practical benefits rather than theoretical ones - what works, what doesn't, and what you have to do to get certain things done. In addition, Beryl isn't installed by default in Ubuntu, and Aero isn't available on all PCs. I tried to stick whenever possible with preinstalled software, although this rule sometimes had to be bent a little - for instance, to see what backup solutions were available for Ubuntu through its own software catalog.Īlso, while I was tempted to compare Vista's Aero interface to the Beryl window manager (which has a similar palette of visual effects), I decided that pretty graphics, while nice, had more to do with personal preference than efficiency. Sometimes the differences between the two OSes are profound, but sometimes the playing field levels itself -, for instance, is installed by default in Ubuntu, but adding it to Vista isn't terribly difficult. ![]() To keep the playing field as level as possible, I'm looking wherever I can at applications - not just in the sense of "programs," but in the sense of what the average user is going to do with the OS in a workday. In this feature, I'm going to compare the newly-released Ubuntu 7.04 (codenamed "Feisty Fawn") with Microsoft Windows Vista in a number of categories. As a result, Ubuntu is one of the Linux distributions that has been most directly touted as an alternative to Windows. They've attempted to build a Linux distribution that's easy to install, use, configure, and maintain - one that's at least as easy as Windows, and whenever possible, even easier. For some time, the folks at Ubuntu have been trying their best to make Granny - and most everyone else - happy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |