Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

I don't want linux on my daily use system, just not feasible. its free for a reason, and thats because most stuff doesn't work on it without jumping through hoops, and if that's the case, I'll stay with Windows. Linux has its uses, and thats servers....hell this site is ran from a FC server. This isn't going to turn into another linux debate either. Thx.

Linux is free for a reason but that's not it.
Linux became in 1991, the year before Win 3.1 [which was DOS] was released.
.

[washu]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

Linux is free for a reason but that's not it.
Linux became in 1991, the year before Win 3.1 [which was DOS] was released.
.

Based on DOS or not, Win 3.1 was a usable system in 1991. Linux in 1991 was barely functional above "it boots".

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

I was comparing the DESKTOP RAM recommendations from FC/Redhat. They were meant for desktops as well as servers. It's not like even Ubuntu fixes the stupid Linux cache policy on their desktop versions, it's the same as the server releases. MS at least fixes that between desktop and server.

Find a distro from 2001 which a) Recommends 64 MB or less for the desktop version b) actually runs properly in 64 MB and c) isn't a stripped down minimal version with a crappy GUI, full KDE or GNOME only. Such a thing doesn't exist.



If this is true you've done something very very wrong on your XP machine. There is no way full Ubuntu (xubuntu mabye) can run as well as XP on the same hardware, let alone such a disparity. Ubuntu recommends three times (384 MB) the RAM XP does and that number is just as much BS as MS's recommendations. I always thought the shouts of "switch to Ubuntu" were funny back when Vista came out. Vista was slower than XP but then again, so is Ubuntu so you would gain nothing switching. XP is lean and fast compared to any modern Linux distro.

ratdude: 7 Runs fine on that config too, what's your point?

Back at you:
If this is true you've done something very very wrong on your Ubuntu machine.

The only time Linux is slower is on initial program starts. This is because Windows pre-loads a bit of -all- the programs [whether in use or not] into RAM for faster program starts at the cost of wasting otherwise available RAM.
This is that huge chunk of RAM that's 'not available for programs' and it's a much bigger 'hit' than the Linux cache policy.
Linux doesn't load anything you don't tell it to load either manually or through settings. Windows loads it up whether you want it to or not.

It sounds to me like you set everything up to start when the OS does on you Ubuntu box too. When you do that you've configured Linux to work internally like Windows because you think that's how it 'should be'. Forcing Linux to operate like Windows [because that is what you are used to] erases all it's advantages.

Sorry, but FC and RH are -intended- for Servers.
RH is now called 'Enterprise' to reflect that intent.
FC is just the testbed for RH Enterprise.
Centos is a redistrobution of RHE.
You can strip down Windows Server 2008 and run it on a desktop too but that doesn't make it -intended for- or -designed for- desktops.

~
For those that say Linux is -hard-.
Other than learning new terms Ubuntu isn't any harder to get going than Win98 was.

MS was easier to find drivers for up until XP but with Vista and forward MS's insistance on using only Certified drives has taken that advantage and flushed it down the toilet. [Way to go MS!]

.

[washu]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

Back at you:
If this is true you've done something very very wrong on your Ubuntu machine.

The only time Linux is slower is on initial program starts. This is because Windows pre-loads a bit of -all- the programs [whether in use or not] into RAM for faster program starts at the cost of wasting otherwise available RAM.
This is that huge chunk of RAM that's 'not available for programs' and it's a much bigger 'hit' than the Linux cache policy.
Linux doesn't load anything you don't tell it to load either manually or through settings. Windows loads it up whether you want it to or not.

You obviously have no idea how Windows works do you? Only Vista and 7 pre-load applications using superfetch, but it does it intelligently based on past use and does not load them -all- like you claim. You can turn superfetch off and even Vista still loads apps way faster than Linux. XP does not preload apps to RAM at all, it makes prefech files -on disk- (again, not in RAM) to help the OS figure out which parts the app needs in what order so they load faster. If the app isn't loaded then no RAM is in use. Any other app pre-loading is done by a helper app like Acrobat does and has nothing to do with the OS at all.

In other words a machine with XP and 256 MB and a lot of installed (but not running) apps would run out of RAM immediately upon boot if what you claim is true. Obviously that does not happen.

Neither XP or above have any chunk of RAM 'not available for programs', like you describe. XP only has a disk cache and Vista and 7 have disk cache and the superfetch cache. Linux has a disk cache as well, but in the default config (even on desktops like Ubuntu) the Linux kernel gives priority to cache over app memory. This is server behavior, Windows server does it too. Desktop windows will sacrifice both caches for apps if needed much sooner than Linux will. There are Linux kernel developers who are on record as stating they don't care about desktop performance and will not change the cache policy. Linux has worse desktop RAM management on purpose and by design.

The last nail in your theory's coffin: Get a copy of NT4 or Win98 and compare it to a contemporary Linux distro. Neither had any form of app loading assistance and both will still kick the snot out of Linux at load times.

Linux is by design slower than Windows on the desktop. Anything that uses X for a GUI simply cannot be as fast. The lag is noticeable on even high end machines. Look at the most popular desktop UNIX in the world: OSX. A big thing Apple dumped was X and for good reason. One of the fastest growing "end user" Linuxes is Android for mobile phones. It too does not run X.

Add on all the stupid things like sound servers that Windows simply doesn't need and desktop Linux is getting bloated. Simply look at the number of background processes required on Linux to make a functional desktop. It's not Vista level bloat, but XP runs circles around Ubuntu.

It sounds to me like you set everything up to start when the OS does on you Ubuntu box too. When you do that you've configured Linux to work internally like Windows because you think that's how it 'should be'. Forcing Linux to operate like Windows [because that is what you are used to] erases all it's advantages.

No, stock install vs stock install. Only thing extra installed would be updates and drivers. XP is still much faster.

Sorry, but FC and RH are -intended- for Servers.
RH is now called 'Enterprise' to reflect that intent.
FC is just the testbed for RH Enterprise.
Centos is a redistrobution of RHE.
You can strip down Windows Server 2008 and run it on a desktop too but that doesn't make it -intended for- or -designed for- desktops.

I repeat what I said before: Point out a desktop distro from 2001 that can run a non-minimal config on significantly less hardware than XP. Can't be done, such a thing does not exist.

For those that say Linux is -hard-.
Other than learning new terms Ubuntu isn't any harder to get going than Win98 was.

This is crap an you know it. There are still tonnes of things that simply do not work on desktop Linux. Ubuntu is the only OS that has blatently lied about it's config to me. Sure lots of OSes give their version of "sorry I can't do that Dave" for many stupid reasons, but Ubuntu actually told me my monitors were confiured correctly when they were not. I had to manualy edit the X config. Simple for someone with my knowledge, but hardly counts as "easy".

MS was easier to find drivers for up until XP but with Vista and forward MS's insistance on using only Certified drives has taken that advantage and flushed it down the toilet. [Way to go MS!]

.

Again this is crap and you know it. Sure Linux has more drivers on disk (but I wouldn't bet on that compared to 7), but if they are not on disk and not the few that auto download the average user is screwed. It's not the same as when Vista was released, there are proper Vista/7 drivers for pretty much any modern hardware. Go back a bit and XP will absolutely destroy Linux in driver availability.

Drivers go like this:
Windows install disk: 30% hardware working
Windows + easy to install drivers: 98% hardware working
Windows + easy to install drivers + hard to install drivers: 99.9% hardware working.
Remaining 0.1 % = user is screwed

Ubuntu install disk: 60 % hardware working on disk
Ubuntu + easy to install drivers: 65% hardware working
Ubuntu + easy to install drivers + hard to install drivers: 70% hardware working
Remaining 30% = user is screwed.

Also, working Linux driver != working Windows driver. A Linux video driver with piss poor or non-existant accleration or a printer driver that only prints text in B&W is not the equivalent of Windows versions which give full functionality. Linux can claim "we support X hardware" but in reality it only supports the absolute minimum required to get it work.

[toastygoodness]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

The absolute best thing about Win7 for me is:

Media Center.

Nothing can beat it, not mythtv or anything else.

[toastygoodness]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

linux drivers are piss poor like washu says and will always be until windows is not popular or companies actually keep track of the everbreaking everchanging kernel.

ubuntu sucks as a distribution and both kde and gnome are slow.

a better desktop comparison would be something like SLED or opensuse.

GNU/linux itself revolves around too many different groups and developers that they can't get along and end up churning out millions of piles of junk, and then you have package manintaners trying to sift through that junk.

linux really is only good for servers, as a desktop most distros suck.

the only one i've honestly found to be as responsive and practical (key word practical) as win7 on my compy:

Opteron 1210, Gigabyte 770 chipset, 2GB corsair, 160GB WD CB

is Arch Linux.

Ubuntu is slow and sucks and I hate GNOME, Gentoo is for ricers, and SUSE is too RPMy to me.

And my Win7 install must be effed up, because it is only using 256mb with Aero on... with AVG paid, virtual clonedrive, and hotsync.

[Topcat]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

fwiw, win7 is running lickety split on this SX280, I have to give it credit. I also tricked it into installing office2k, its working fine as well. The more I tinker with it, the better it gets.

[370forlife]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

Just dual booted win7 64bit on my gaming computer with Vista Business 64bit,

5000+ dual core
4gb ddr2-800
320gb WDC sata
9800gt

and it flies.

Vista business 64bit uses 980mb ram idling, win7 only uses about 400. whew. Didn't have to install any drivers either, had them all for my realcrap sound card and lan card, integrated raid, both the integrated 8200 and 9800gt drivers. Nice.

[washu]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

If anyone is doubting speed difference look up some Firefox or OpenOffice benchmarks. These are two big open source applications. They both run significantly faster on Windows than on Linux. As I said anything with X simply cannot have GUI performance that compares with GDI or Quartz. X is by design slower. GCC being a slow compiler doesn't help much either.

I'm sure someone will come back with how the latest Ubuntu has awesome boot times (which it does), but that hardly matters if your apps all run slower. I reboot about once a month if that, I don't care about boot times.

Also, I am not saying that Linux is slow, I'm saying that Linux desktops are slow. Linux makes and awesome and very fast server. It's just not so fast as a desktop. Until more distros bite the bullet and do what Google had the balls to do and dump X desktop Linux will always be in third place.

[ratdude747]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

then explain why xp had to be sliced and diced to run on an eee pc, but most linux's would run with only a few tweaks. back when my eee pc had winshit xp, it was WAY slower than ubuntu. add antivirus (i used comodo free) and the mircoshit half was slow as hell. ubuntu works great on it. but vista wouldnt run on one.

therefore, xp is slower. its only fast when you have no av, and other stuff. but who REALLY runs windows without av? if you do, then you're a dumbass. even mirosoft admits that you need to have additional antivirus to make it usable.

btw, with linux, you dont have to mod it but you can if you want. with windows, you have to mod it but it is sometimes illegal to do so.

linux. it keeps you legal for less. less money and effort!

[weirdlookinguy]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

less money and effort!

Less effort? WTF?

[washu]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

then explain why xp had to be sliced and diced to run on an eee pc, but most linux's would run with only a few tweaks.

Care to explain how XP was "sliced and diced" to run on the eee? Oh wait, it wasn't. Yet another falsehood from the Linux crowd. There is nothing unusual about the XP shipped on the eee and lots of people put the stock retail version on it just fine. Some even put the stock 7 on it and it still works fine. Again I say this: Promote Linux by it's merits, don't make crap up about Windows, it just makes your side look bad.

back when my eee pc had winshit xp, it was WAY slower than ubuntu. add antivirus (i used comodo free) and the mircoshit half was slow as hell. ubuntu works great on it. but vista wouldnt run on one.

Making up bad words doesn't help your point. Also, Vista runs on the eee. It's not as pleasant as XP or 7, but it does run.

therefore, xp is slower. its only fast when you have no av, and other stuff. but who REALLY runs windows without av? if you do, then you're a dumbass. even mirosoft admits that you need to have additional antivirus to make it usable.

I guess I'm a dumbass then. I run no AV, haven't for years. Never had a virus I didn't install on purpose. I've proven that to many "techs" over the years who never believed my PCs could be clean. Full offline (drive removed) scans, multiple programs, always clean. Made at least $200 in bets over the years on that alone. Having a faster PC is well worth it.

Windows isn't nearly as insecure as before. If you know what you are doing you don't need AV anymore. At work we have over 500 PCs, the only viruses not caused by user stupidity are from Sun Java holes that we can't upgrade. Haven't had an MS caused virus in years.

If Linux ever gets popular then you will get viruses. You are hiding behind security by no one cares. The old MacOS had no security at all, it makes Windows look like fort knox. Should have been a virus playground. No one cared, even the "secure" Linux has more viruses than MacOS did.

Also, about 90% of the current viruses are "user stupidity" viruses. There is nothing in the security of standard Linux distros that will stop this kind of virus.

[Topcat]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

where's the dead horse image?

[acstech]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

Here's a little challenge...

Take two computers, one running Windows XP, one running the latest Fedora release.

The XP needs to be a fresh install, as does the Linux.

Install all hardware drivers, do all updates.

Turn on the integrated firewall on both.

Now plug 'em both straight into the internet, without a router or hardware firewall. Leave 'em on. Wait and see what happens.

If nothing happens, have a novice user go look at a bunch of Facebook pages.

I think we all know what the natural conclusion of this experiment will be. XP = virus, Linux = no.

[washu]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

Here's a little challenge...

I think we all know what the natural conclusion of this experiment will be. XP = virus, Linux = no.

Actually they will both be fine. You said all patches, which means IE8. There has yet to be an automated script-kiddy hack for IE8 in the wild.

Now, if it was a targeted attack, they would both be in trouble. Both IE8 and Firefox got hacked at the last pwn2own. But no one is going to run a targeted attack against some random user on Facebook.

[BeRReGoN]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

I dont hate/love windows/linux but most of windows security questions just need to click yes or no on a windows popup who most novices never read.

I don't know anything about windows 7 or even vista, maybe it changes. On linux they ask the system/user password and not just a yes click, the novice user may think a lillte more. (Just a little)

But i don't really care about novice users anyway....

I use linux because, i don't have to pay to use windows but it's not perfect either. On my vaio laptop ubuntu is sure faster than the XP who came with it and with archlinux running only what i want there's no doubt about it.

I'm not much of a gamer and i don't need to use a specific program which only runs on windows. But i may use it again if Koei keep doing windows english version of Romance of the Three Kingdom. I bough a PS2 just for that, and i bought the ROTK VII, VIII, IX, X and XI.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

where's the dead horse image?

[370forlife]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

random...is there supposed to be text to go with that?

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

I don't love or hate either one. - I use both.
I just recognize their differences.
Windows sacrifices efficiency, reliability, and security in favor of "Easy Buttons".
Linux sacrifices easy in the name of security and reliability.
.
What I don't like is unfair comparisons and 'legacy gripes'.
.

[PCBONEZ]

Re: Apple-spend thousands instead of upgrading

random...is there supposed to be text to go with that?

Read the quote it is in reply to.