Review: Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon takes on Mac OS X Leopard for the OS of the Year

[praka123]

Thursday, December 13th, 2007
By Scott Granneman

Today we have a technological cage match involving two operating systems, both UNIX- based, both mature, both with passionate detractors and even more passionate defenders, and both released just a week apart. I'm talking, of course, about Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy Gibbon), with its final release on October 18, and Apple' s Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, which was available for purchase on October 26.
The stereotype for each OS is well known: Mac OS X is elegant, easy-to-use, and intuitive, while Ubuntu is stable, secure, and getting better all the time. Both have come a long way in a short time, and both make excellent desktops. So we have two great desktop operating systems out at roughly the same time. Let's see how they stack up against each other.


Hardware Support
Ubuntu will run on pretty much any computer with an Intel-compatible or PowerPC CPU. The distro claims that you need a bare minimum of 256MB of RAM, but expect glacial performance. In reality, you'll want at least 512MB of RAM, with 1GB even better. You're told to expect that the OS will take up about 4GB of space on your hard drive, which is nothing in terms of today's ginormous hard drives. My main Kubuntu box has 756MB of RAM, with a Pentium 4 CPU, and while certain tasks can be kind of poky, overall it's quite usable.
You can install Leopard on any computer made by Dell, HP, Lenovo, or... just kidding! You install Leopard on Apple's boxes, or you buy a new Mac, and it comes with Leopard pre-installed. That's it. According to Apple, you can install Leopard on any Intel-based Mac, as well as any PowerPC G5 or G4 box, as long as it has a 867 MHz or faster CPU. You'll need at least 512MB of RAM, a DVD drive for the installation disc, and 9GB for the OS. My main Mac is a first generation MacBook Pro, with a 2 GHz Core Duo CPU and 2GB of RAM. Leopard screams on it, with the dreaded colored beachballs almost entirely a thing of the past.
The bottom line: if you have an old PC sitting around, it's gonna run Ubuntu or Windows. No Leopard for you. If you have a Mac made within the last five or six years, you can probably run Leopard on it, as well as Ubuntu.
Installation
Most operating systems have improved their installation routines over the last few years, and this is certainly true for both Leopard and Ubuntu. In fact, both are incredibly easy to install. If you're dual-booting with Windows, the easiest line of attack in the case of Linux is to install Ubuntu after Windows, while the opposite is true for the Mac-- install Windows using Boot Camp after Leopard is completely set up.
Leopard bests Ubuntu in one area, though: multiple monitor support. It just works like it's supposed to in Leopard, and I shuttle my laptop back and forth between a huge variety of monitors and projectors. I've never had an issue. Contrast that to Ubuntu, which touts its better multiple monitor support. It may be getting better, but it's still not there yet, and I'm just glad I had my trusty xorg.conf file backed up and ready to fall back on. Both Leopard and Ubuntu are excellent when it comes to installation.
click here to continue

[Faun]

linux is pacing up

[praka123]

...though the author is a little kde centric

[x3060]

where is my mandriva 08 .

[Tech_Wiz]

Ubuntu has decent financial / commercial backing so I think it will go long way as a end user OS to Home customers. May be SOHO.

Now all we need is Games to Run on Linux which is I think only gray area for Linux where Windows have a HUGE advantage.

[x3060]

you are right . we need games , i need 3ds max and photoshop too . . straight out .deb or .rpm install not through wine .

[drgrudge]

Read what he says under Web browser (2nd page):

Ubuntu ships with Firefox as the default browser, Kubuntu uses Konqueror, and Leopard has Safari. Of course, you can download and install Firefox on both Kubuntu and Leopard, which is a good thing

WTH? Mac users don't use Safari because it comes with OS X. Myself and DARK LORD use FX, but goobi and Aayush use Safari. Many use IE (while they may be aware of other browsers). It's personal opinion.

GG comes with FX and OS X 10.5 comes with Safari. So GG is better!

Some other insane points that I noted:
1. Every Linux distro today comes with built-in support for BitTorrent, but not Leopard. <-- WTH? You d/l gigs of data but can't you spare less than a MB?
2. While Apple takes years to release an OS, Ubuntu happens every six months like clockwork. <--- Apple used to release OS X 10.X every year untill Tiger. The time for 10.5 and 10.51 is less than 45 days.
3. Many other thing for which it's stupid for me to waste mine and your time.



Here's a secret. Why I use FX:
- an OSS? <-- eh?
- secure? <-- IE 7 is better than it's previous editions, so...?
- alternative to some popular software? <-- why would I care? Usability is important than prestige/ego
- add ons? <-- yeah baby! You've hit the nail. it's because of the functionality that I need coming from these extension makes me use FX even with this flaw:- memory usage is insane.


Here's why for one reason or another, a lot of freelancers use Macs. It may be the raw power, the stability or they may just look rather - cool? Well, both of us know why that really is. It’s the apps! The software that makes the hardware bling. [FreelanceSwitch]

Whatever be the case, OS X rules when you want to for professional purpose, whether you are a writer, designer, coder, musician, movie editor, DJ, you work in TV/Radio stations. Mac wins hands down in multimedia.


P.S: I'm not saying Leopard is better than GG (which I don't care) but what that person wrote is 75% BS.

[aryayush]

Umm... I don't think so though. He might be a bit off on some of the points and being a contributer to a Linux centric website, he is a tab biased in its favour, but the write-up is still quite objective, fair and well written.

Just my personal opinion, of course.

[goobimama]

Yep. He obviously hasn't explored the Mac as much as he has Linux...

That bittorrent one was absolutely lame.

[praka123]

many a mac users are Linux users too

[gxsaurav]

The distro claims that you need a bare minimum of 256MB of RAM, but expect glacial performance. In reality, you'll want at least 512MB of RAM, with 1GB even better.

Hmm...that reminds me, Windows XP runs fine on computers with 256 MB RAM, while 512 is all u will ever need.

Ubuntu Linux needs heavier system requirment then Windows XP which dominates the dekstop market share right now, lolz...

1. Every Linux distro today comes with built-in support for BitTorrent, but not Leopard. <-- WTH? You d/l gigs of data but can't you spare less than a MB?

It's called better out of the box experience. If Torrent were not mostly associated with piracy then Windows would be having utorrent integrated by now.

[drgrudge]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

It's called better out of the box experience. If Torrent were not mostly associated with piracy then Windows would be having utorrent integrated by now.

Windows comes with IE, which IMHO is BS. Can you call that "out of the box experience". I'll install what I need. It's not a big deal considering the browser of my choice will be less than a 20 MB install .DMG.

[infra_red_dude]

As many haf expressed here, I feel the author is biased towards Linux (mebbe naturally). But he has put up the points in manner which puts us in a dilemma whether to call him biased!

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Hmm...that reminds me, Windows XP runs fine on computers with 256 MB RAM, while 512 is all u will ever need.

Ubuntu Linux needs heavier system requirment then Windows XP which dominates the dekstop market share right now, lolz...

If you haf nothing to post, then plz spare the forum database. How can you compare a 6 year old OS with a 2 month old OS???? What logic, pal!!! I bow down!

[x3060]

that , "i bow down" line was superb

[The_Devil_Himself]

so that means I am using the OS_OF_THE_YEAR and that too free of cost.wow!

On a second thought there isn't any competitor at the moment.Vista Sux,I hope sp1 makes it much better otherwise its gone.Leopard\tiger-not for us! can't pay for overpriced hardware just to run these 'elite' OSes.Apple should be forced to release their OS for normal non-mac PCs too.lol.

[aryayush]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

It's called better out of the box experience. If Torrent were not mostly associated with piracy then Windows would be having utorrent integrated by now.

A Windows fanatic like you should be absolutely the last person talking about the "out of the box" experience. You try to defend the honour of an operating system that does not even come with an instant messaging client for goodness sakes, and then you go blaming other operating systems for not giving you a good "out of the box" experience!

Get you head out of your you-know-where sometimes. It really looks funny in that position!

[Gigacore]

ok.. i'm not into the OS war anymore..

anyway.. gusty rocks.. mac $ucks!

[MetalheadGautham]

MacOSX can never suck, because its one of the OSes that is built for its box. The other OSes in this catogary are Mobile Phone OSes, EEE PC Xandros, XO-1 Fedora, etc.

While Windows needs to run on quite a few boxes, Ubuntu needs to run on anything(read PS3 and EEE PC along with a 6 year old PC) that can be called a decent computer.

Ubuntu does its job pretty well too, thanks to its highly stable and effitient structure along with its easy to use nature that made people concider it in the first place. Ubuntu is definitely a must install for Computer enthusiasts, programmers and students.

So you can't compare Mac to anything, unless you talk about Solaris on a Sun Workstation. But ofcource, Macs are never workstations, and Sun Computers are never Home Computers. Thats why these two UNIXes never compete against each other, with each catering different customers.

But when you compare Windows to Ubuntu, ubuntu wins hands down by a HUGE margin(I don't need to go over the reasons for the hundredth time, thankyou)

In the end, the winners are every OS mentioned here ecept Windows.(read Solaris, Mac, Ubuntu). But the sad part is, for the average fun loving guy running one of the winners, he is forced to install windows for Games.

Anyway, the only way you can compare Leopard to Ubuntu is if you buy a new box, customise ubuntu for it, add/remove apps, change the theme to look good and match the hardware, compile all programs from source and optimise them for the Hardware.(if you are lucky enough to sneak into a google lab, you might just come across one of these ubuntus. Too bad they are not for PCs though...)

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

So you can't compare Mac to anything, unless you talk about Solaris on a Sun Workstation. But ofcource, Macs are never workstations, and Sun Computers are never Home Computers. Thats why these two UNIXes never compete against each other, with each catering different customers.

No second thoughts about it

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

But when you compare Windows to Ubuntu, ubuntu wins hands down by a HUGE margin(I don't need to go over the reasons for the hundredth time, thankyou)

You can't say Ubuntu wins in every category. There are many instances where Windows is at advantage.

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

In the end, the winners are every OS mentioned here ecept Windows.

I don't agree at all. I use Windows where I absolutely cannot use any other OS. Both haf their pros and cons. Its just that you need to use the right OS at the right place!!

Originally Posted by MetalheadGautham

Anyway, the only way you can compare Leopard to Ubuntu is if you buy a new box, customise ubuntu for it, add/remove apps, change the theme to look good and match the hardware, compile all programs from source and optimise them for the Hardware.(if you are lucky enough to sneak into a google lab, you might just come across one of these ubuntus. Too bad they are not for PCs though...)

Fully agree to this point

[goobimama]

Ubuntu can run on anything

While I would love to agree with you, I have tried to install Ubuntu (7.04 as well as 7.10) on four PCs, all of whom failed to get through the installer (at least within 4 hours).

PC1: Intel P4, 2.4Ghz, Intel Mobo. failed to boot to installer.
PC2: Intel something something board+CPU (the CPU comes with the mobo). Two of these systems. Ubuntu had problems with the Sis Graphics card.
PC4: Intel P4. 3Ghz presscott. Intel mobo (915 I think). Failed to boot installer.

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by aryayush

You try to defend the honour of an operating system that does not even come with an instant messaging client for goodness sakes,

U R wrong, Windows XP & then Vista comes with Windows Messenger (MSN messenger lite)

[aryayush]

OK. So you want to play hard ball?

Well, can you make Vista read Word files? That's Microsoft's own format, in case you didn't know.

Or, run automated scripts? See the meaning of a word or synonyms for it? Have whatever you type on online forums spell checked for you? Manage your fonts? Have a four-way audio/video chat session with your friends while you share the screen of your cousin in the USA? Or even something as basic as tabbed chats? Can you read PDF documents or view any Adobe formats?

Ha! Ha! Look who's talking about the "out of the box" experience.

[goobimama]

That's one thing that has evaded me as well. No preview for Word or excel files (out of the box, not sure about plugins). Gx mentioned something about PDF being Adobe's thing so they were creating problems. Agreed. But Doc and xls?

[iMav]

Originally Posted by aryayush

OK. So you want to play hard ball?

Well, can you make Vista read Word files? That's Microsoft's own format, in case you didn't know.

Or, run automated scripts? See the meaning of a word or synonyms for it? Have whatever you type on online forums spell checked for you? Manage your fonts? Have a four-way audio/video chat session with your friends while you share the screen of your cousin in the USA? Or even something as basic as tabbed chats? Can you read PDF documents or view any Adobe formats?

Ha! Ha! Look who's talking about the "out of the box" experience.

most OEMs come with 30 day trial of office and if not an only reader is avaialable for dwnld to view words same for xls & ppt

[infra_red_dude]

Originally Posted by iMav

most OEMs come with 30 day trial of office and if not an only reader is avaialable for dwnld to view words same for xls & ppt

I've never seen any OEM machine with MS Office trial. Never! Yes, Adobe reader is bundled. Thats not a problem, tho

[MetalheadGautham]

@infra: I told about the stuff that is not propiatary to windows like DirectX. There ARE stuff you can only use windows for, but thats because you are forced to do so.

@goobi: Ubuntu may fail on some PCs, but reasons may be many. Ever saw this?

@saurav: wow, you will never stop defending windows... you are more ignorant than one of my friends Akash, who thinks that an OS is what it is because of eye-candy and that Vi$ta is the world's best OS. He also thinks Ubuntu is Ugly and can never look good. Accorging to him, linux can't even have a start button. He sounds terribly foolish when he says Linux sucks, but still, I do have quite a few laughs at his remarks.

@arya: Right on target. Vista can't even read its own formats by default.

Originally Posted by aryayush

Or, run automated scripts? See the meaning of a word or synonyms for it? Have whatever you type on online forums spell checked for you? Manage your fonts? Have a four-way audio/video chat session with your friends while you share the screen of your cousin in the USA? Or even something as basic as tabbed chats? Can you read PDF documents or view any Adobe formats?

I think saurav is upset that his darling vista is not in this comparison. He feels neglected and discarded, because in this battle of titans(*nixes), the rat(vista) thinks it can beat all of them effortlessly.

@goobi: Even Ubuntu supports PDFs.

PS: hell, in this war b/w ubuntu and macosx, both started to charge towards vista instead

[kalpik]

Originally Posted by iMav

most OEMs come with 30 day trial of office and if not an only reader is avaialable for dwnld to view words same for xls & ppt

Lol.. 30 day trial.. Yeah alright.. That can be surely compared to "unrestricted", "unlimited" out of the box support of these formats on almost EVERY other OS (even phones can read doc and xls nowdays out of the box)

[Hitboxx]

Exactly infra_red_dude. If Windows started to preview them, Microsoft will consider it a bad business practice and users will just use them rather than buying MS Office. My guess is its a deliberate pitfall.

[goobimama]

I'm sorry I can't load youtube videos (dialup connection). Vista in 2 minutes? What happens then?

Anyway, I hope one day Ubuntu will favour me and get installed on at least one of the PCs. I'm getting a new one, (Intel E23something + 945board). Hope I can get Ubuntu on that one.

[a_k_s_h_a_y]

Originally Posted by goobimama

While I would love to agree with you, I have tried to install Ubuntu (7.04 as well as 7.10) on four PCs, all of whom failed to get through the installer (at least within 4 hours).

PC1: Intel P4, 2.4Ghz, Intel Mobo. failed to boot to installer.
PC2: Intel something something board+CPU (the CPU comes with the mobo). Two of these systems. Ubuntu had problems with the Sis Graphics card.
PC4: Intel P4. 3Ghz presscott. Intel mobo (915 I think). Failed to boot installer.

what a newb you are .. can't help ...!!

i installed Ubuntu 7.10 on my PIII 1 Ghz 192 MB SD RAM successfully
since then rarely boot into Windows XP !

Firefox + terminal + Music Player + Pidgin all running fine , the system runs soo smothly .. anything more system goes slow .. remember SD RAM 192 !

@gx

it runs very fine on my friends 256 MB DDR RAM
also about 256 Being Minimum is for v.good experience !! coz its so nice already in 192 MB SD RAM

and its the latest version of Ubuntu !
latest version of windows need 1 GB minimum !! lol

and if i use XFCE instead of GNOME .. then its runs much better then what Windows XP does on my PC

So these are nothing but facts that i present for people in darkness !
so kindful of me .. next time i rather ignore !