 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to openbox9
Re: Open Source Chrome OS I'll agree with that.
I suspect that I could have a computer 'newbie' (i.e. someone that never used a computer in their life) use a PC, Mac or Linux with a decent Window manager with ease.
I was brought up on Windows OS/2 (gack), and started hacking with Linux distros in College (Slackware 1.0) as they were cheap, fast, reliable and at the time blew Windows 3.x/95 out of the water for cost and performance. I was able to get things on Linux that were never available (or cost a lot) on Windows at the time (ftp/email/web/proxies/irc/printer/file servers).
At one time - in a lab I ran circles around NT for performance (both used same hardware).
Getting back on topic - Linux is good for specific things - VMWare, Servers (cheap Solaris replacement) and light weight OS. Windows OS has already become 'the Borg', assimilating all OS functions and application functions into its core, becoming VERY bloated, and memory dependent (i.e. don't get Vista with less than 3GB of RAM)
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by en102:(i.e. don't get Vista with less than 3GB of RAM) My 2 Vista systems runs very well on 2 GB of ram with no problems whatever. And I run a test Windows 7 bootable region on 2 GB of memory and it is even faster than Vista.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| Diggity! Aint it! Vista is totally tamable. I have no problems making SP1 livable, and even better with SP2.
Windows 7 is definitely coming along nicely. I think most people don't appreciate what an undertaking it is to create an OS of this magnitude!
-Akbar humor aside.... If there was a concentrated effort in the Open Source (Linux) community, I believe they could compete well. The obvious difference is all the paid developers Micro$oft has with mega overtime. I for one am interested in seeing what Google (Skynet Indeed!) produces over Linux. Perhaps a good starting (or jumping off) point for the community! |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | reply to Romney2012
I since I only have 1 Vista Home Premium and it originally came with 1 GB (horrific) on a Compaq AMD 64 3800+ and was horrific. I was able to get a deal on memory and upped it to 3GB.
On Fedora core, 1GB was more than enough.
The laptop came with 3GB
The main differences that I've noticed:
Linux by default = Kernel + a few daemons (sshd, syslogd, etc.) most are 'sleeping' and consuming very little RAM / cpu.
Windows by default has a significant amount of services running, and most 'builds' toss in a whole ton of junk, many consuming a lot of RAM while sleeping. I typically see many svchost.exe processes totalling up to ~200MB, IE consuming over 100MB, and cpu ~8-10%
On a server level, there's no comparison - I've had people wondering if monitoring was broken, as ntload would be all over the map (caching files, AV sweeps, reindexing, etc). The linux box sitting between 99% and 100% idle - of course an ftp server running on a quad Xeon 3.40GHz AS 3 box is WAY overkill
63 processes: 62 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: cpu user nice system irq softirq iowait idle
total 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.9%
cpu00 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.8%
cpu01 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
cpu02 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.8%
cpu03 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Mem: 4087688k av, 4066944k used, 20744k free, 0k shrd, 156344k buff
3082648k actv, 591032k in_d, 89060k in_c
Swap: 2048276k av, 0k used, 2048276k free 3639320k cached
Of course, for DB, I prefer a real box
prtdiag
System Configuration: Sun Microsystems sun4u Sun SPARC Enterprise M5000 Server
System clock frequency: 1012 MHz
Memory size: 32768 Megabytes
==================================== CPUs ====================================
CPU CPU Run L2$ CPU CPU
LSB Chip ID MHz MB Impl. Mask
--- ---- ---------------------------------------- ---- --- ----- ----
00 0 0, 1, 2, 3 2150 5.0 6 147
00 1 8, 9, 10, 11 2150 5.0 6 147
00 2 16, 17, 18, 19 2150 5.0 6 147
00 3 24, 25, 26, 27 2150 5.0 6 147
============================ Memory Configuration ============================
Memory Available Memory DIMM # of Mirror Interleave
LSB Group Size Status Size DIMMs Mode Factor
--- ------ ------------------ ------- ------ ----- ------- ----------
00 A 16384MB okay 2048MB 8 no 4-way
00 B 16384MB okay 2048MB 8 no 4-way
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | said by en102:Windows by default has a significant amount of services running, and most 'builds' toss in a whole ton of junk, many consuming a lot of RAM while sleeping. I agree that that is a problem. Especially all the extra junk put on a new computer by retail outfits.
And the 1st thing I do with a new system is uninstall all the junk; stop services that are not needed; and modify many default settings for performance reasons. Mostly I blame the retailer for this problem more than I do Microsoft. It is they who could deliver a system built & tuned for performance instead of trying to impress users with all the useless freebies they add on to the system. It is a shame really, because the average user could be sold a Windows system that can fly, instead of one clogged with junk.
Some tuning guides:
»www.microsoft.com/Downloads/deta···ylang=en
»www.pctipsbox.com/speed-up-windo···-tuning/
and there are lots of others.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| Most people I know uninstall the preloaded crap that comes on laptops...or desktops for that matter. But Vista still had too many processes running for my comfort. Even after I butchered vista, it was still running 60 some processes. Then the switch came real easy for me....I installed a windows update and it put my 4 week old Vista laptop into a shutdown/start up cycle that made it unrecoverable. I switched to 7 and have been running 7 on that laptop ever since. Fully loded with the apps I use, 7 is running with 28-30 processes. Getting rid of Vista was a blessing.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to Romney2012
A lot of the 'junk' that the retailers add/bundle in are 'paid' installs that 3rd party companies want your business and throw in a whole bunch of trial ware / Toolbars (plague of the modern PC), and tons of apps that want to 'dial home'  for updates frequently.
Many peripherals have become that way, IMO.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
| reply to Romney2012
Basically you fix the broken system that you bought, instead of just using a system that is not broken in the first place? |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to en102
Vista can run decently with less than 3 GB of RAM; it depends on what you do with it. The biggest problem with Windows has not been core-bloat (or even code-bloat), but an insistence by users on underpowering their systems for what they do, because they are thinking back two OS generations or more. For the past several iterations of Windows, system memory has been at historic lows (in fact, each current generation of RAM has seen it's price fall below the lowest price of the generation before it!). Generic DDR2-800 is now under $20/GB, and every operating system has grown to use more of that now-cheap system memory (I run a triple-boot system (all 64-bit) of Windows 7, Kubuntu, and OpenSolaris with a Celeron Dual Core and 3 GB of RAM; 3 GB is more RAM than I have ever had in a personal system, yet all three operating systems are quite willing to use every bit of that 3 GB, and I don't do system development). |
|
 El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·voip.ms
 ·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
| Other than games (MSOffice runs flawlessly under Wine)
I really don't see why anyone would chose any windows if you were starting from scratch.
When Hi-Def became more common and I wanted to upgrade from my iMac G4, I went PC for cost, but I certainly didn't go to windows... I took about three months to become proficient with Ubuntu and then I realized where true computing bliss lay...
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
 cdigioiaPremium
join:2005-06-08
korea, repub | reply to en102
said by en102: (i.e. don't get Vista with less than 3GB of RAM) I don't particularly like Vista, but that is complete bunk. I had a 2GB Vista machine and it ran well (memory-wise, Vista still being a bit prone to large problems otherwise). Recent one of the RAM chips went out and I'm down to 1GB - no difference in day to day tasks. Slightly slower transitioning out of Age of Empires 3 is the only time the lack of that extra GB seems to show, and even that's very minor. |
|
 ScottMoOnce in a LifetimePremium,MVM
join:2000-12-15
Stony Brook, NY | reply to El Quintron
said by El Quintron:Other than games (MSOffice runs flawlessly under Wine) I really don't see why anyone would chose any windows if you were starting from scratch. ... Two reasons:
1) Software - there is still a huge advantage Windows has in software both in categories & in the number of apps in each category both over Linux & the Mac OS. And a lot of them are free. That lead may be shrinking (its certainly not as big as it once was, especially with all the cross-platform apps coming out), but its still there.
2) Hardware - there's a better chance that I can run a given piece of hardware on XP than on Linux (wireless adapters spring instantly to mind) or on mac OSX. Almost all hardware comes with Windows drivers.
I've used Ubuntu and came close to replacing XP (on my main box) with it, but the lack of a good video editor (I'm using Sony Vegas Studio) held me back. Maybe I could get it to run using Wine, but really, with Windows 7 on pre-order for $50, its easier, more straightforward, and less hassle to shell out the Mr. Grant and not have to worry about ndis wrapping, or getting it to work under Wine. I'll still keep Ubuntu on a secondary box, and will keep trying it out the Live CD, but there are valid reasons for Windows. |
|
El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
| I can't help you with the video editing apps, because I haven't done video editing since about 2004, but the two most common ubuntu bugs (wireless drivers, audio drivers) were put to rest as of 8.04.
As of this writing on 9.04, we've seen major speed gains and (almost complete) hardware compatibility.
I think again it really boils down to OS comfort, which is the driving factor for windows...
Besides as of April 29, 2009 CNET declared 9.04 as polished as Win, and OS X
»news.cnet.com/ubuntu-9.04-as-sli···ac-os-x/
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household. |
|
