Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 – Some Things Linux Just Can’t Do

(Note: this is Part 7 of an on-going series.)

There are a few tasks and applications I commonly use in Windows that I’ve found I just can’t live without. This gives Windows 7 a big advantage over Ubuntu by default, simply because there aren’t always viable Linux alternatives. A few examples:

• iTunes – Yes, there are plenty of music playback/library applications for Linux, but none of them can provide full integration for my iPod Touch and the Apple App store. There just isn’t a seamless way to use an iPod without Apple’s software, and Steve Jobs doesn’t seem interested in supporting Linux.

• FL Studio – In this case there probably are some plausible alternatives (LMMS certainly bills itself as such), but when you pay for commercial software and take the time to learn it well, there’s a huge switching cost involved in moving to free/open source software. Unless the alternatives are much better (which doesn’t seem to be the case, based on the reviews of Linux audio software that I’ve read), I’m better off sticking with what I know. Anyway, I’ve never had good luck getting things like MIDI keyboards to work with the various Linux audio subsystems; which, I might add, seem to be constantly changing and introducing needless complexity. There comes a point when you want to quit fiddling with operating system stuff and just make music.

• NetFlix Instant View – Requires Microsoft Silverlight. Netflix also has a very cool plug-in for Windows Media Center, which makes the instant movie viewing experience even more convenient and pleasurable. While there is a port of Silverlight for Linux called Moonlight, it currently lags far behind its Windows counterpart.

• Google Video and Voice Chat – Gmail has a handy feature that allows you to chat with your contacts via voice or video. Obviously, this could be done in Linux using other software, but most people I chat with are using Google and it “just works” without having to ask people to install extra software or sign up for another account somewhere.

• DScaler – This great little utility allows a TV tuner to display video to the computer monitor without delay. Since I don’t have a TV, this is the only way I can play my Playstation 2. Every other TV tuner software I’ve tried introduces a 1-2 second lag between the video signal output and the actual display, which is obviously a fatal problem for video games.

• My company’s VPN software – This is another case where Linux fails not because of what it is, but simply because it’s not Windows. Most enterprises are highly Microsoft oriented, and even when they do take the time to support another platform, it’s usually Mac, not Linux.

Linux has always suffered from this chicken-and-the-egg problem with software. Most software developers naturally want their software to be adopted widely, so they cater to the platform with the largest audience. This leads people to avoid Linux because it doesn’t have all the software they want. But as long as users don’t adopt Linux, developers remain justified in developing only for Windows. (You get the idea.)

Even with the rise of Ubuntu and other user-friendly distributions, Linux has never attained more than 1-2% of the desktop PC market share. I really thought it had a chance to break 5% or even 10% when Windows Vista was being hailed as a dud, but the growth spurt never happened. I can understand at least one reason why that’s the case when even a dedicated computer geek who wants to see Linux succeed has a tough time using it exclusively; it simply doesn’t equal or exceed the functionality and quality I get with certain key Windows applications. Some people won’t care at all about the applications I listed above, but there’s a good chance they have one or two Windows applications they wouldn’t want to part with. Others may find ways of doing everything they want to do on their computers using Linux alone, but as much as I might try, that’s never been the case for me.

Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 – Getting Started with Windows

(Note: this is Part 6 of an on-going series.)

The Windows Vista 7 User Interface

My first look at Windows 7 made me wonder what all the talk about the “fresh new interface” was about. In many ways, it looks and feels identical to Vista. Now as far as I’m concerned, that’s not a bad thing. It’s all the rage to bash Vista and its numerous failings, but I was actually pretty happy with it. At any rate, Vista is alive and well in Windows 7. For example, the format of the Start menu is unchanged, the Aero window decorators look identical, and the Control Panel is more of the same.  My system’s boot-up time is definitely faster, though that’s always the case with a fresh install of Windows. Right now it takes about 35 seconds to arrive from a powered-off computer to a desktop ready for action, which is definitely acceptable, if still not ideal. It will be interesting to see if it’s still under 40 seconds a few months down the road when the registry has been weighed down with applications coming and going. (Just when are they going to get rid of the registry, anyway? I understand that Microsoft seriously considered replacing it during the development of both Longhorn and Windows 7, but sadly, the registry abides.)

The New Taskbar

The first obvious departure from the Vista user interface is the taskbar, that lovely menu along the bottom of the screen that houses the Start button and displays the list of currently running programs. When I saw a few early screenshots of the Windows 7 beta, I was surprised to see that the taskbar was no longer using horizontal text, as had been the case in every version since Windows 95. Running programs are now shown simply with an icon with no accompanying text. Could this finally be the Windows taskbar that can dwell comfortably on the left or right side of the screen? The answer is… yes! Hallelujah!

An unfortunate convention of user interface design – both in applications and Windows itself – has been for menu bars to chew up lots of vertical space, which is the same space you really want to maximize when viewing multiple pages of text. (You know, during those rare times on a computer when you’re surfing the web or reading/writing a document.) This has become less of an issue now that 19″ and larger monitors are the norm, but thanks to the widescreen aspect ratio, there’s still far more space left-to-right than up-to-down. And if you’re using a smaller laptop or netbook with a 12″ or smaller screen, you want to save all the vertical space you can. All this is to say, of course, that I immediately moved the Windows 7 taskbar to the left side of the screen and breathed a sigh of relief. That alone pretty much convinced me that the upgrade was worth it.

But of course, there’s always a downside. Now that the taskbar relies on icons instead of text, it takes two steps rather than one to find a specific window when you have, for example, more than one Word document open. You must hover the mouse over the Word icon, which displays snapshots of all the Word documents currently open, and then you select the one you want. Also, I’m still not used to the fact that clicking on the icon of an already running program doesn’t open another instance of that program. To do that, you must hold Shift and click, or in some cases, right click on the icon and choose to open new. I’m sure this will eventually become second nature, and I’m willing to accept a few small sacrifices for the sake of a vertical taskbar.

Task Switching with ALT+TAB

The ALT+TAB feature is one way of getting around the limitations of the taskbar, and has long been a favorite shortcut. In Windows 7, pushing ALT+TAB and holding down ALT shows all of the currently open windows. Keep pushing TAB to cycle through until it highlights the window you want, or just click on it. Ubuntu does almost the same thing, with an added bonus: as you cycle through windows, the currently selected window is brought to the forefront, while other windows are shown as darkened outlines in the background.

Starting to Search (or Searching to Start?)

With Windows 7, I’ve finally gotten into the habit of using the search feature on the Start menu as opposed to digging around for programs through several layers of menus. Even in Vista, I was still keeping with the basic Windows 95 paradigm of re-arranging all my programs into a few main folders (e.g. Apps, Games, Internet, Utilities, etc.).  Now I don’t bother because it’s just a lot faster nowadays to hit the Windows key, type in what I want (e.g. iTunes) and push enter. This seems to work 9 times out of 10, and for that other time, at least you can filter the list and choose from a handful of options. I find myself missing this feature in Ubuntu, which is still using the older “you-want-a-program, find-it-yourself” paradigm.

Visual Effects

Windows 7 certainly looks good out of the box. Aero is enabled by default, so all the transparency and other goodies work right away. Microsoft has always had a an easier time of creating (and for the most part, adhering to) interface standards for its own programs and third-party applications. This allows Windows to present a unified and consistent user experience. While GNOME and Ubuntu have made enormous strides in improving uniformity and compatibility between applications (ugh, I just remembered the days when you couldn’t even copy and paste between separate programs in Linux because there was no universally standard clipboard), there are still instances in Ubuntu when various programs don’t adhere to design conventions and aren’t as predictable and homogeneous as they could be. Whether that’s a bad thing or not is certainly a matter of personal taste, but I tend to prefer the consistency and polish of a Windows desktop.

Audio/Video Playback

Playing audio CDs, MP3 files, and DVD movies in Windows 7 was hassle free. I’ve never been crazy about the interface of Windows Media Player, but it gets the job done. To be honest, I would have been flabbergasted had there been any problems. It’s a shame that the same can’t be said for Ubuntu, due to unfortunate and all-too-frequent audio/video driver and codec hassles. A lot of people try switching to Linux, but when something basic like audio doesn’t work, most people won’t spend large amounts of much time trying to fix problems before deciding to go back to something that just works. Apple probably has the biggest advantage in this area thanks to its overarching control over the hardware and software that comprise a Mac, but in the PC world, multimedia is still a Windows forte.

First Impressions

The user experience of Windows 7 is, in many ways, just an updated take on Vista. And that’s alright, because Vista was already pretty decent. I give Ubuntu props for its a superior ALT+TAB feature and virtual desktops, but the Windows taskbar and start menu are superior to Ubuntu’s, and that ends up being where I spend the majority of my time interacting with an operating system. Windows wins this round because it still has just a bit more polish and trouble-free interaction with basic audio and video playback. Ubuntu is rapidly catching up, and if this contest was between Windows and Linux Mint, there might have been a different outcome.

In the next installment, I run into a few things that Linux just can’t do as well as Windows.

Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 – Making Myself at Home in Ubuntu

(Note: this is Part 5 of an on-going series.)

Customizing the Ubuntu Desktop

After verifying that basic drivers are working and the latest system updates are installed, I like to customize the desktop user interface. The default wallpaper and themes of Ubuntu have never been anything to write home about, and 9.10 is no exception. It’s a shame that the default appearance is so (as the Black Eyed Peas say) 2000-late, because Linux has long been capable of displaying some really snazzy desktop environments, even on relatively low-end hardware.

In Ubuntu, the first step in making things look a bit more modern is to enable the “Visual Effects” provided by Compiz. In my case, this prompted the installation of the “restricted” NVIDIA graphics drivers. Strangely, by default it installed an older version, not the newer one marked as “recommended.” (Why? Who knows.) I went ahead and removed it and went ahead with the newer driver. After rebooting (one of the rare times you actually need to reboot in Linux), I enabled visual effects at the “Extra” level. What can I say, I’m a fan of eye candy. Things like transparency and fancy transitions between virtual desktops add visual interest to an otherwise pedestrian interface. I enjoy effects as long as they serve a functional purpose and don’t slow my system down unduly, but I have no idea who thinks “wobbly windows” are useful. (When you move a window, it wobbles around like it’s made of jello, which is cool for about 3 seconds. Seriously, what is the point?)

The standard menu and taskbar arrangement of Ubuntu feels a lot like Windows XP. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but then again, there’s nothing really right about it, either. Since computer displays provide more horizontal real estate than vertical — especially true now that widescreens are commonplace — I’ve often wished that operating system taskbars could reside on one side or the other rather than on the top and/or bottom of the screen. Alas, the GNOME panels (why do I need two, again?) don’t dwell comfortably on the side because they require at least 150 pixels to show enough text to make it worthwhile. 200 pixels would be better, but by then, you’ve lost any benefits of the move.

Instead, I decided to consolidate the two GNOME panels into one and moved it to the bottom of the screen. (Naturally, I also made it transparent.) This is something I’ve always enjoyed about Linux. It may start out looking a bit rough around the edges, but virtually limitless customization is possible. After making myself a bit more at home, I moved on to explore the standard menus.

Software in Ubuntu

As always, Ubuntu comes with a nice selection of pre-installed applications. They’ve done a good job of providing a single essential program for any given task. Some distributions of Linux seem to throw in everything but the kitchen sink; for example, providing four different text editors and three different movie players, which makes it difficult to decide which program to use or even what does what.

Now that I’m not in school and don’t need to worry about 100% compatibility with Microsoft Office anymore, I’m going to give OpenOffice.org another chance to become my sole productivity suite. I appreciate Ubuntu’s inclusion of several basic utilities that Windows doesn’t: a password manager, note-taker, quality image editor, and bit torrent client. Sure, you can download programs like these easily enough in either operating system, but it’s nice to have some solid tools to get you started right out of the box.

The System menu in Ubuntu houses Preferences and Administration, which are roughly equivalent to the Windows Control Panel, except that nowadays you can scarcely find anything in the haystack of Windows Control Panel without running a search (which, to be fair, does work pretty well). I prefer the simple approach of Ubuntu, and it shows once again how far Linux has come. In the past there were several control-panel-esque utilities strewn all over the place, and more often than not it was still easier to edit configuration files directly using a text editor. You can still do that in Ubuntu if you want to, but standard tasks like changing screen resolution or turning off sound effects are all where you would expect to find them in simple graphical tools.

An Ode to Apt-get

While Ubuntu has grown increasingly independent of its parent distribution, Debian, it still relies on the apt-get utility, which I absolutely love. Software package management is undoubtedly one of Linux’s killer features. True, there’s plenty of free software for Windows or Mac on the web, but there’s nothing as handy as dropping to a terminal and typing “sudo apt-get install ….” with a whole list of software that downloads and installs automagically. Ubuntu’s Software Center provides a nice graphical front-end to apt-get, and reminds me (in a good way) of Apple’s iTunes App store.

Basic Audio/Visual Applications

Next, I decided to test a few standard computing activities like listening to music, watching a movie, and surfing the web on Flash-based sites such as YouTube. These are areas where Ubuntu has traditionally suffered in ease-of-use as compared to Windows. This time around, listening to an audio CD was no problem. Playing an MP3 was nearly as easy — I was prompted to do a one-time installation of the necessary codec and then the song played. No big deal. Opening a Flash-based web site was no different than you would expect in Windows; just download and install the plugin, and away you go. If this all sounds like a no-brainer, you’re probably right; but believe me, it wasn’t always this easy.

Unfortunately, my hopes for a trouble-free audio/visual experience were crushed when I tried to watch a DVD movie. Tell me, if you dare, what this message communicates to the average computer user:

“Umm, yeah. Someone really ought to implement that darn URI handler. So, why isn’t my movie playing?” After fiddling around a little more, I got a more useful message:

At least this one gives you something useful to Google. However, wouldn’t it be nice if, instead of leaving the user high and dry, it would do like the MP3 player and just ask if you want to install the codec now? Having been in this situation before, I knew that the answer I was looking for was to open a terminal and type this handy little command: sudo apt-get install ubuntu-restricted-extras (see this page if you want more info).

Fortunately, there is a simpler solution for all this, and its name is Linux Mint. I highly recommend it if you’re interested in an Ubuntu-based distribution that looks better and comes with all this stuff enabled out of the box. Mint is usually released shortly after each new version of Ubuntu.

First Impressions

As I was wrapping this post up, I was pleased to discover that installing the NVIDIA drivers seems to have resolved the suspend/hibernate failure I was seeing earlier. I’m glad I didn’t have to dig any deeper on that issue, since I’ve been there and done that on my college laptop. I have to admit, though, that whenever something doesn’t work and I have to take the time to troubleshoot, that’s when I learn the most. Most users have absolutely no patience for problems like these, and rightly so, but Linux is a great way to learn more about what your computer is doing under the hood — sometimes whether you want to or not.

All in all, Ubuntu is not incredibly different than it was two or three versions ago. It definitely boots faster, has improved software management, and has been refined in numerous ways not immediately apparent to the eye. Feature changes from one version of Ubuntu to another are often subtle, but when taken in the aggregate, there is a greater sense of user-friendliness and professionalism than I have seen in any previous release.

The next post will cover my first impressions of Windows 7 and the results of similar desktop customization and basic audio/visual tasks.

Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 – Acid Test

(Note: this is Part 4 of an on-going series.)

When I install a new operating system, there are a few things that I expect to “just work” out of the box. This is what I call the acid test. First, assuming standard/non-bleeding-edge hardware is being used, basic drivers for video, sound, and wired ethernet should be installed. More specifically, the primary screen should be set up automatically with the appropriate resolution, and internet access should be available. Finally, I expect a speedy startup/shutdown and a no-hassle sleep mode (called suspend in Ubuntu).

Both Windows 7 and Ubuntu 9.10 passed the first part of the acid test without any issues. The basic drivers were installed, the display looked good, and internet access was up and running. Windows boot time was 50 seconds; Ubuntu was a bit faster at 37. Both shut down in about 15 seconds. Windows entered sleep mode in 10 seconds and woke in 4 — quite impressive. As someone who rarely turns off the computer completely, I need a reliable sleep/wake that works every time. Unfortunately, when I attempted to use the suspend feature in Ubuntu, I ran into one of Linux’s known Achilles’s heels.

Sleep/suspend is that handy feature that allows your computer to power-down almost completely without closing your open programs or losing your workspace. I typically put the computer to sleep when I plan to step away for a while, or I just let it happen automatically after 20 minutes of idle time. In Ubuntu, suspend saves the workspace to RAM and hibernate saves the workspace to hard disk. Windows 7 has basically combined both functions into what it calls “hybrid sleep.”

Entering sleep and hibernate modes wasn’t a problem in Ubuntu, taking just 4 and 13 seconds, respectively. However, neither mode was able to wake up afterward. As I attempted to resume from suspend, the hard drive sounded like it was doing what it should, but the monitor was left powered off. Nothing I pressed on the keyboard made any difference (including CTRL+ALT+BKSP, which should have closed the X session). Attempting to resume from hibernate was even more problematic. Although I was treated to an on-screen message promising that my desktop was being restored, after 20 minutes(!) of waiting with only the most sporadic of hard disk access, I was forced to give up and power off the machine. Ugh.

Now, there may be a lot of legitimate reasons why suspend/hibernate isn’t working in Ubuntu. I remember that I had a devil of a time getting it to work on my college laptop using a previous version of Ubuntu, and even when I did, it never was totally reliable. Nevertheless, suspend and hibernate modes are absolutely indispensable on a laptop, and although I’m using a desktop now, I still seem them as pretty darn crucial. I will look for ways to resolve this problem (issues with power saving features in BIOS, swap space, and video drivers are most often the culprit), but this is one of those things that has just gotta work without a lot of intervention.

Clearly, this round goes to Windows 7.

In the next chapter, I’ll be sharing my first impressions of Ubuntu.

Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 – Installation

(Note: this is Part 3 of an on-going series.)

Most operating system reviews spend a ton of time describing the installation process, complete with a few dozen screenshots. Now that OS setups have become far more simple and straightforward than they once were, I don’t see the need for long-winded documentation, but a brief description is still worthwhile.

To accommodate dual-booting both Windows and Linux, I had previously divided my 250 GB hard drive into three partitions: 60 GB for Windows, 30 GB for Ubuntu, and 160 GB for data. I never do “in-place” upgrades (e.g. from Windows Vista to Windows 7) — I’ve simply never seen it work well and it ends up taking more time resolving problems in the long run anyway. As usual, Windows must be installed first because it doesn’t play well with others. Having run through countless installations of Windows through the years, I didn’t expect any curve balls.

After booting from the Windows 7 Professional 32-bit DVD, I chose the “Custom” option in order to use the drive manager. I selected the 60 GB partition (which still contained my installation of Windows Vista) and clicked Format. The process seemed to complete in a matter of seconds and didn’t give any confirming cues about completion, which surprised me. (Did it actually do anything?) I clicked Next, expecting another next screen to prompt me about where I wanted to install Windows. I’ve become so accustomed to being second-guessed by my computer that I expected at least one more screen to the effect of, “Are you really sure you want to wipe out your previous installation and install onto partition 1?” Instead, the installation simply began, leaving me to wonder if it had correctly guessed that I wanted to use the first partition on the drive. At this point I was very glad that I did a full backup first, as one should always do before a major operation like this. Installation proceeded normally, and when it was finished, I was glad to see Windows had indeed installed to the proper partition. Total setup time: 20 minutes.

Next up: Ubuntu. I hadn’t originally planned to do this, but since the option was available, I chose to boot to the Live CD, which starts up Ubuntu without installing anything to your hard drive. This is a nice feature that allows you to verify support for your computer’s hardware and catch a glimpse of the operating system before committing to installation. The Live CD passed my acid test; i.e., a working desktop with internet access. I proceeded with installation using the icon helpfully provided on the Live CD desktop.

I give Ubuntu a lot of credit for actually detecting and making accommodations for existing operating systems on the hard drive. Windows (and I’m pretty sure this is intentional) will either 1) ignore, or 2) blow away anything previously installed on the hard drive. Ubuntu, as with most Linux distributions, helpfully detects Windows installations and sets up a handy boot-time menu so you can choose between the two. At one point during the installation, Ubuntu even allows you to import data from existing Windows user accounts.

As mentioned, I had 30 GB of space on the hard drive available for Ubuntu. I initially though the correct setup option would be “Install them side by side, choosing between them at startup” until I double-checked the “Before” and “After” graphs showing how my hard drive space would be allocated. The “After” showed the 60 GB Windows 7 partition being shrunk to 33.6 GB, alloting the remaining 24.6 GB to Ubuntu, and leaving the 30 GB partition of free space untouched, which didn’t make much sense. Fortunately, another option was available: “Use the largest continuous free space” — which would install Ubuntu as I intended. These options might be a bit confusing for newbies, but I don’t see any way around that. Ubuntu does a good job of making the process of hard drive partitions as simple as possible, while also providing an advanced tool that allows advanced users to specify partitions manually as needed. That would have been my next stop if none of the default methods had worked. One thing I found odd was that the monitor faded to black several times during the course of the setup — a power saving measure, presumably, but hardly necessary. Other than that, setup was as smooth as ever. The boot loader installed itself correctly, providing a boot-time menu for both Windows 7 and Ubuntu. Install time: 20 minutes.

And so, the winner of this round is… Ubuntu. Both installations were pretty trouble-free, but I appreciate the fact that Ubuntu provides a few more options and goes out of its way to accommodate dual-boot scenarios. They’re both dead simple, though, especially if you’re just installing to an empty hard drive.

The next round will be my quick acid test of the recently installed operating systems.

Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 – Setting the Stage

(Note: this is Part 2 of an on-going series.)

I have been observing the evolution of Windows since version 3.1 (1993) and Linux since Slackware 3.x (1996). I started using PCs in the days when DOS still ruled the earth and there was no graphical user interface — just an unfriendly, monochrome command line. And we liked it that way. I kid you not, I actually read the MS-DOS 5.0 manual from cover to cover and tried every single command, just to see what they all did. I spent numerous hours tweaking the config.sys and autoexec.bat files in order to maximize the amount of memory available for software (usually games). Getting a new piece of hardware to work was a minor miracle, but it certainly provided a nerdy sense of accomplishment. When Windows came along with its fancy “Plug ‘n’ Play” and pretty icons, it promised (or threatened?) to put an end to all that.

Ah, the glory days

I was first introduced to Linux by my high school’s network administrator. Until then, though I was an avid computer user, I had never realized there was an alternative to using Microsoft’s operating systems on a PC. As I started using Linux, I found myself learning more than ever about computers.  Windows was a far more brittle and limiting operating system in those days, right up through Windows 95/98/Me. It certainly improved with each version, but it was an operating system for the masses, not the computer nerd. It seemed to take a lot of the fun out of computing by introducing maddening instability (with blue screens of death, driver problems, random lock-ups, and the like) while simultaneously limiting what I could customize and tinker with.

Still, there were definite benefits to using Windows. Most major commercial software packages were (and still are) made for Windows only. Standard software like word processors and spreadsheets improved greatly as multitasking took a huge step forward from the one-program-at-a-time environment of DOS. Windows played a major role in the multimedia revolution and became the de facto environment for PC gaming. Monopoly concerns aside, the web would probably never have taken off as quickly as it did without the availability of Internet Explorer. The only problem was that it was still, so… Microsoft-y.

Nevertheless, as the years passed, despite having a real affinity for Linux, I found myself using Windows more often than not. I started using Windows XP in 2004 (after the first two service packs came out) and found it to be a marked improvement over the 95/98/Me generation. Since I was going to college at the time, Windows was the easiest way to go, if for no other reason than to maintain compatibility with other students. I dabbled with Linux just to see what was new, but only as an occasional hobby. I picked up Windows Vista along the way for free via MSDNAA, once again waiting to upgrade until after the first service pack had been released. Until last week I was still using Vista, and I’ve had very few complaints.

Now, with the release of Windows 7 and Ubuntu 9.10 happening within a week of each other, I figured it was high time to revisit both operating systems to see which is the better choice for me today. To make things fair, I will be using the same computer to dual-boot both operating systems. I have made no great effort to choose hardware compatible with Linux, and since I already had it all working in Vista, I don’t expect any trouble with drivers on the Windows side. Linux may also be at a slight speed disadvantage due to the way my hard drive is partitioned, but I expect the effect will be negligible.

With those caveats in mind, let’s see how the installation of both operating systems goes.

Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 9.10 – Introduction

In this series of posts, I will be sharing my experiences with the latest versions of two competing desktop operating systems: Microsoft Windows 7 (released Oct. 22) and the popular Linux distribution, Ubuntu 9.10 (released Oct. 29). I will compare and contrast them from the perspective of an advanced computer user who has always enjoyed using different operating systems. I will be using a fairly standard set of desktop hardware and common computing tasks with the goal of discovering which operating system works best for my workflow. By the end of the series, I will choose a winner. That’s right; in the end, there can be only one.

1 – Introduction (this page)
2 – Setting the Stage
3 – Installation
4 – Acid Test
5 – Making Myself at Home in Ubuntu
6 – Getting Started in Windows 7
7 – Some Things Linux Just Can’t Do
8 – Hardware Support

… Other stuff TBA …

Conclusions and Verdict