*Drops bombshell*
*Opens can o' worms*
Discuss!
Criminy. >.>
It's a tool. You choose which tool fits you best and gets the job done for you.
Anyone who has experience with Linux:
Do the newer versions of Linux (e.g. the Ubuntu ones) require much less processor power and memory than Windows XP?
I have an older laptop, with only 256 Mb RAM, and I'm considering scrapping XP on it and installing Linux since it's soooo slow nowadays.
So, is this one area where Linux is superiour to Windows - less hardware demanding?
Anyone who has experience with Linux:
Do the newer versions of Linux (e.g. the Ubuntu ones) require much less processor power and memory than Windows XP?
I have an older laptop, with only 256 Mb RAM, and I'm considering scrapping XP on it and installing Linux since it's soooo slow nowadays.
So, is this one area where Linux is superiour to Windows - less hardware demanding?
I would say that Ubuntu would be an excellent choice on older laptops. Linux isn't necessarily less hardware demanding, but the drivers (when you can find them all) are pretty optimized, in my experience.
|
I realize Mac has sold out and gone intel hardware like the rest...but I have a Mac plus sitting in my closet - Repaired by me. Just no discs to run the finder/system that I have zipped in storage and sitting on the PC laptop I am now using.
I even have a nice selection of stuff to overclock the Macplus to 1 Gigahertz with liquid nitrogen although I am loath to do so because of the damage that would occur to the machine.
Its a real pity that Mac plus didnt come with a button that would allow you to write your own system software...the way the SE did.
I would say that Ubuntu would be an excellent choice on older laptops. Linux isn't necessarily less hardware demanding, but the drivers (when you can find them all) are pretty optimized, in my experience.Anyone who has experience with Linux:
Do the newer versions of Linux (e.g. the Ubuntu ones) require much less processor power and memory than Windows XP?
I have an older laptop, with only 256 Mb RAM, and I'm considering scrapping XP on it and installing Linux since it's soooo slow nowadays.
So, is this one area where Linux is superiour to Windows - less hardware demanding?
Yeah, we recently got the Blue Screen of Death on my laptop. If Windows was trying to punish me for using Netscape, it has failed. We just stuck Ubuntu on it. XD
It's awesome. In games and screen savers alone, it trumps everything else.Not to mention that it doesn't contain enough Watts to heat an entire house, so big plus there!
Fun fact: Microsoft is one of the only companies that's having trouble with making teeny laptops, because their computers take up so much energy.
Fun fact: Microsoft is one of the only companies that's having trouble with making teeny laptops, because their computers take up so much energy.
Um. Kay. I'm not quite sure we're you're getting that OSes are the ones taking up energy. Hardware is hardware, and the fact that Acer's (and Dell's) netbooks are usually running Windows makes your statement somewhat of a fallacy.
Microsoft isn't making the hardware. They make the OS.
Edit: I'll concede the fact that in my experience that Microsoft has not been the best at the power management side of things, particularly for laptops. Others may have had differing experiences.
Fun fact: Microsoft is one of the only companies that's having trouble with making teeny laptops, because their computers take up so much energy.Um. Kay. I'm not quite sure we're you're getting that OSes are the ones taking up energy. Hardware is hardware, and the fact that Acer's (and Dell's) netbooks are usually running Windows makes your statement somewhat of a fallacy.
Microsoft isn't making the hardware. They make the OS.
I don't know, I'm not that computer-savvy. But I know I saw something that said that the Windows computers couldn't be small because Microsoft couldn't figure out a way to lower energy consumption, or something. *shrug*
Fun fact: Microsoft is one of the only companies that's having trouble with making teeny laptops, because their computers take up so much energy.
This is actually so untrue. All one has to do is look at: Dell, HP, Acer and Asus to see the truth.
Oh and just another fun and true fact....Microsoft is not...I repeat...not in the business of making the laptops. That is what HP, Dell, Asus and Acer among others do
I don't know, I'm not that computer-savvy. But I know I saw something that said that the Windows computers couldn't be small because Microsoft couldn't figure out a way to lower energy consumption, or something. *shrug*Fun fact: Microsoft is one of the only companies that's having trouble with making teeny laptops, because their computers take up so much energy.Um. Kay. I'm not quite sure we're you're getting that OSes are the ones taking up energy. Hardware is hardware, and the fact that Acer's (and Dell's) netbooks are usually running Windows makes your statement somewhat of a fallacy.
Microsoft isn't making the hardware. They make the OS.
Actually that is the job of intel and AMD both of which have done a pretty good job so far.
Actually that is the job of intel and AMD both of which have done a pretty good job so far.I don't know, I'm not that computer-savvy. But I know I saw something that said that the Windows computers couldn't be small because Microsoft couldn't figure out a way to lower energy consumption, or something. *shrug*Fun fact: Microsoft is one of the only companies that's having trouble with making teeny laptops, because their computers take up so much energy.Um. Kay. I'm not quite sure we're you're getting that OSes are the ones taking up energy. Hardware is hardware, and the fact that Acer's (and Dell's) netbooks are usually running Windows makes your statement somewhat of a fallacy.
Microsoft isn't making the hardware. They make the OS.
Look, they work in Microsoft, okay? Um...amnesia dust!
Ok so those who say Windows is too resource heavy check out Windows 7; yes you can still get it as an RC from microsoft.
I am running it on my Mac in Parallels and it is so sweet! I can't wait for the full release.
Now don't get me wrong I love Windows Vista and have not had a single issue with it but 7 appears on first blush to be so non-resource heavy that we may be able to resurrect older laptops. We shall see and I shall hope.
Any good references for figuring out Linux? Not in a GUI way, but more command line? I've installed it a few times and have reverted back to Windows each time. Last issue was the considerable task of setting up a LAMP w/ Wiki and PHPMyAdmin.
I know it's just me. I probably have to lock myself in a room and take out my HDDs for my Windows boxes.
Suggestions are appreciated!
Thanks!
Ok. Back on topic. IMHO it is not a matter of which is better; it is a matter of what people are accustomed to. Those who are diehard Mac users should stay there as should those who are used to Windows or Linux. I use all three and I like them all. Sure what I am currently running is a Mac but I also have Parallels installed with three windows OSes and three Linux OSes (non of which would be possible without the intel chip mind you) and I have no complaints so far.
There; you now have my two cents :D Use what you like. :D
Any good references for figuring out Linux? Not in a GUI way, but more command line? I've installed it a few times and have reverted back to Windows each time. Last issue was the considerable task of setting up a LAMP w/ Wiki and PHPMyAdmin.
I know it's just me. I probably have to lock myself in a room and take out my HDDs for my Windows boxes.
Suggestions are appreciated!
Thanks!
The Question may be slightly above me but are you attempting to use the Command Line varient within Linux??
Anyone who has experience with Linux:
Do the newer versions of Linux (e.g. the Ubuntu ones) require much less processor power and memory than Windows XP?
I have an older laptop, with only 256 Mb RAM, and I'm considering scrapping XP on it and installing Linux since it's soooo slow nowadays.
So, is this one area where Linux is superiour to Windows - less hardware demanding?
That is a tricky question GentleGiant...
You can find distributions of linux that are very "hardware lite" such as SliTaz. (Can run completely in memory, or is 103MB full install (not complete, but fully functioning).
Linux can also be run without a GUI which makes it extremely easy on the video hardware of a system.
But all of these things increase the knowledge required to use linux.
The beauty of linux is that in nearly all cases you can run a Live Version for free.
You can download an .iso image and burn it to a CD (only incurring the direct costs of the recordable CD, and you can even circumvent that cost if your planed system can boot from a flash drive. It requires a slightly different method, but UNetbootin can simplify that.) and then boot from that cd and run linux without ever installing it.
It will run slower this way, but you can get an idea if linux will even work well on your planned system without any real cost to you, in time or money.
Yes, I am a bit of a fan...
But for sheer ease of use, as well as wonderful community support, it is very difficult to beat Ubuntu.
That being said, you will need to use the alternate install cd for Ubuntu as the Live CD version requires at least 384 MB of ram.
I don't know, I'm not that computer-savvy. But I know I saw something that said that the Windows computers couldn't be small because Microsoft couldn't figure out a way to lower energy consumption, or something. *shrug*
I think the issue that you're referencing is the processor and memory requirements for Vista. XP didn't have as many issues with the small form factor's hardware requirements (smaller processor and memory, let alone hard drive space on the Solid State drives).
Ok so those who say Windows is too resource heavy check out Windows 7; yes you can still get it as an RC from microsoft.
I am running it on my Mac in Parallels and it is so sweet! I can't wait for the full release.
Now don't get me wrong I love Windows Vista and have not had a single issue with it but 7 appears on first blush to be so non-resource heavy that we may be able to resurrect older laptops. We shall see and I shall hope.
I am a Windows"hater," and I can even attest to this.
However I have had a bear of a time getting the RC to work on my older laptop, when the Beta ran just fine.
I have to wait and see how the final turns out.
Just to let you know, Win7 claims 1GB Ram and CPU as minimum requirements.
EDITed to remove a typo that could be confusing (see below).
Ok so those who say Windows is too resource heavy check out Windows 7; yes you can still get it as an RC from microsoft.
I am running it on my Mac in Parallels and it is so sweet! I can't wait for the full release.
Now don't get me wrong I love Windows Vista and have not had a single issue with it but 7 appears on first blush to be so non-resource heavy that we may be able to resurrect older laptops. We shall see and I shall hope.
I am a Windows"hater," and I can even attest to this.
However I have had a bear of a time getting the RC to work on my older laptop, when the Beta ran just fine.
I have to wait and see how the final turns out.
Just to let you know, Win7 claims 1MB Ram and CPU as minimum requirements.
Well that's too bad man. I would stil love to do a side by side comparison to see which os runs better on a lesser machine. I would be willing to bet it would be windows 7 but hey, who knows. All I know is in my tests 7 rc has run better.
The Question may be slightly above me but are you attempting to use the Command Line varient within Linux??Any good references for figuring out Linux? Not in a GUI way, but more command line? I've installed it a few times and have reverted back to Windows each time. Last issue was the considerable task of setting up a LAMP w/ Wiki and PHPMyAdmin.
I know it's just me. I probably have to lock myself in a room and take out my HDDs for my Windows boxes.
Suggestions are appreciated!
Thanks!
Not using a different flavor (DSL or Knoppix are the ones that lack a GUI if I remember correctly), more like learning the Command Line commands and what they can do. Also, installing and configuring programs.
I know there's "man" but it can be a touch dry.
Ok so those who say Windows is too resource heavy check out Windows 7; yes you can still get it as an RC from microsoft.
I am running it on my Mac in Parallels and it is so sweet! I can't wait for the full release.
Now don't get me wrong I love Windows Vista and have not had a single issue with it but 7 appears on first blush to be so non-resource heavy that we may be able to resurrect older laptops. We shall see and I shall hope.
I am a Windows"hater," and I can even attest to this.
However I have had a bear of a time getting the RC to work on my older laptop, when the Beta ran just fine.
I have to wait and see how the final turns out.
Just to let you know, Win7 claims 1MB Ram and CPU as minimum requirements.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2643
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/Windows-7/download.aspx
These are what I found and they both pretty much say 1 gig of ram
The Question may be slightly above me but are you attempting to use the Command Line varient within Linux??Any good references for figuring out Linux? Not in a GUI way, but more command line? I've installed it a few times and have reverted back to Windows each time. Last issue was the considerable task of setting up a LAMP w/ Wiki and PHPMyAdmin.
I know it's just me. I probably have to lock myself in a room and take out my HDDs for my Windows boxes.
Suggestions are appreciated!
Thanks!
Not using a different flavor (DSL or Knoppix are the ones that lack a GUI if I remember correctly), more like learning the Command Line commands and what they can do. Also, installing and configuring programs.
I know there's "man" but it can be a touch dry.
There are people here much more qualified then I when it comes to this thing so if I am wrong they will say so :D However there is also an 'info' command if I remember correctly...also there are forums out there which have helped me immensely including the one mentioned earlier for Ubuntu. Good Luck
Ok so those who say Windows is too resource heavy check out Windows 7; yes you can still get it as an RC from microsoft.
I am running it on my Mac in Parallels and it is so sweet! I can't wait for the full release.
Now don't get me wrong I love Windows Vista and have not had a single issue with it but 7 appears on first blush to be so non-resource heavy that we may be able to resurrect older laptops. We shall see and I shall hope.
I am a Windows"hater," and I can even attest to this.
However I have had a bear of a time getting the RC to work on my older laptop, when the Beta ran just fine.
I have to wait and see how the final turns out.
Just to let you know, Win7 claims 1MB Ram and CPU as minimum requirements.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2643
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/Windows-7/download.aspx
These are what I found and they both pretty much say 1 gig of ram
You are absolutely correct.
I typo'ed. I meant 1GB Ram, and Processor speed. I'll edit the original to prevent confusion.
You are absolutely correct.I typo'ed. I meant 1GB Ram, and Processor speed. I'll edit the original to prevent confusion.
No biggie man; btw what OS do you use?
I'm running Ubuntu 9.04 on all three of my computers.
Can't beat the price.
As I said, I was trying out Win7 and the RC hated the video hardware in my Satellite A105-2150. And I got tired of the diver install failing. So I went back to Ubuntu on it when 9.04 was released.
I'm running Ubuntu 9.04 on all three of my computers.
Can't beat the price.
As I said, I was trying out Win7 and the RC hated the video hardware in my Satellite A105-2150. And I got tired of the diver install failing. So I went back to Ubuntu on it when 9.04 was released.
I love Ubuntu myself although I am no expert I really like how user friendly it is.
The one arguement I have heard against Linux is how non-user friendly it has been and even though I do not agree 100% with this I see Ubuntu as one large step in silencing that arguemnet. Again though I am no Linux expert :D
I'm no expert either.
I've just been rebelling against Windows for over a decade. ;-)
Ubuntu has taken a large step towards removing the "too difficult" barrier.
The only thing I truly miss from Windows is the ability to slipstream installs. If I was willing to put more time and money into video gaming, I would miss it to.
I use all three OSes myself, usually like so:
Windows: Gaming and writing. Also, music, as this is where my iTunes library lives. Vista Ultimate.
Mac: Arty stuff. I got the thing solely for that reason, dammit, that's what I'm going to use it for. :P
Linux: Development and coding. I'm currently using Debian.
This particular trifecta has worked out quite well for me so far.
Lilith's post reminded me of something.
It should be pointed out that legally you can't play mp3s, or DVDs in free linux, and so these aren't supported in free distributions.
Lilith's post reminded me of something.
It should be pointed out that legally you can't play mp3s, or DVDs in free linux, and so these aren't supported in free distributions.
What? That's insane. Who came up with that rule?
What? That's insane. Who came up with that rule?Lilith's post reminded me of something.
It should be pointed out that legally you can't play mp3s, or DVDs in free linux, and so these aren't supported in free distributions.
That would be Sony.
They own the rights on the proprietary software to decode/decrypt the mp3 and DVD format, so they want money for every system that can play them.
If there is no charge for a linux distribution, there is no money to give to Sony.
One of these days, I have to take my 600mhz ibook to apple see how much it would take to fix it. I think it needs a new motherboard, keyboard and battery. All that just to run a single game.
I have Windows 7 on this laptop. I will go as long as possible without getting another one (maybe windows 9 won't look like that piece of crap windows 8)
I considered Ubuntu, but at the time when I did, I had just Dial-up on my desk top available and the version of Ubuntu did not have a driver for the modem. It was all set for cable and what not but I had to download the drivers for the modem. That didn't work.
|
Um, thanks Hama.
I'm not sure what point you are making, but I can assure you I understand the difference between the Mac, the Windows operating system and a PC - I've worked with both the Macintosh and Windows platforms extensively for many, many years
And to be accurate:
My iPhone runs iOS
My Mac runs OSX
You can use a multi-button mouse on a Mac - the trackball on my Mac has 4 buttons (although I have no problem whatsoever with the Mac's standard single-button mouse, which I used without issue for *many* years)
My PC runs Windows 7
|
Sorry, not really that familiar with Apple software, thanks for the clarification.
Now, my phone died as i was typing, so I'll be brief.
My beef is with the fact that most people equate PC with windows and a Mac with OSX. And then they say something like "I have a Mac but i have a Windows too." The sheer amount of easily correctable ignorance in that statement baffles me.
A Mac is a computer, Windows is an operating system. You can install Windows on a Mac now because Apple ditched their architecture and now used Intel components for their computers. It will be a little iffy to find drivers, but you can.
I have noticed, lately, that a lot of people believe that Microsoft is making PCs. That is ludicrous. Microsoft does not make hardware unless you count the Xbox and it's peripherals, and I'm sure that they still use other company's components and assemble them somewhere.
I'm sorry if i offended you.
Can you explain me the point of a single buttoned mouse (except the aesthetics of course)?
Mostly because the majority of people see that as nitpicking and unnecessary? If you're one of the few not running Apple software on a Mac then you can specify that but for the vast majority of people it's a safe assumption that saying "I have a Mac" means "I have a Macintosh-brand computer running Apple-brand software". Ditto for PC and Windows.
There's a difference between "sheer amount of easily correctable ignorance" and just casual speech. More often than not it's the latter.
Yeah, but who in common everyday language uses "PC" to mean anything but "computer that runs Windows"? No one I know.
Which is ridiculous because a mac is also a PC. It's a personal computer.
I assume that you weren't much into computers in eighties or early nineties when lots of personal computer terminology was created. While the PC is indeed shorthand of personal computer, it has referred to computers using architecture based on Intel-processors started by IBM and followed by their clones since (at least) middle of eighties and now refers to descendants of that particular line of computer evolution.
Anyone who has experience with Linux:
Do the newer versions of Linux (e.g. the Ubuntu ones) require much less processor power and memory than Windows XP?
I have an older laptop, with only 256 Mb RAM, and I'm considering scrapping XP on it and installing Linux since it's soooo slow nowadays.
So, is this one area where Linux is superiour to Windows - less hardware demanding?The major issue with Linux tends to be lack of hardware support as in lack of drivers.
The real question is... what are you trying to do with your system? Unless you're extremely technically oriented, the only benefit to Linux is bragging rights on Slashdot. To run windows programs you're still going to be loading Windows libraries through wine, and at best it's a dodgy process.
Linux is a gearhead OS, Not only does it have a good deal to go to get to the same level of user friendliness of Mac or Windows, there seems to be considerable hostility towards doing so.
My plan is to try and revive it for use as my "GM" computer.
So it would need to run OpenOffice, a pdf-reader, a browser (and be able to connect wirelessly through a USB network dongle) and maybe a virtual tabletop + connect to a projector as a second screen.I have a 1 Gb RAM stick I've salvaged from my dad's laptop when I upgraded it, which I might be able to put into my own (if it's compatible with the motherboard). I'd say going from 256 Mb to 1 Gb should do wonders.
I know it can obviously do the first things, more uncertain about the VTT + projector, but I also need it to do it without moving at a snail's pace.
Someone mentioned Windows 8 as being annoying. I agree, especially if it's the start menu and general navigation that's the annoying part.
I upgraded my dad's laptop to Windows 8, so it could recognize his new camera, and then, after a little research, I installed Classic Shell so he could actually recognize and use his computer again (he's not the most tech savvy person and had somewhat gotten used to Vista).