Jump to content



Photo

My Impression on Linux


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#31 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:18

I think Hawk is just sour that not everyone is using Windows and falling head over heels to get Windows 8. I run Windows 7 at home, however I have Arch installed on an older PC, and in VM's both at home and at work. I use cinnamon as the DE on all of them, as Clasic start menu / bar is where it's at.

I am not going to go to Windows 8, and if what people say is true about the direction of Windows I won't be going to 9 either. If by the time 9 comes out, and the move to linux by some big names really starts (as a tech push) then I don't see any reason for me not to start using Linux as a primary.

I've ordered a Raspberry PI Model B (512mb) which I plan to run Arch on and use it as a media center.


Except I run Linux as well, I have nothign against linux, I was just countering some untruths. Linux is good, but it ain't no magic pill and it's not magically faster than windows.

Does Arch have a Raspberry Pi compatible version yet ? also be aware if you want to run it as a media center, you are NOT guaranteed to be able to handle 1080 movies stutter free. If they are stereo movies at medium to low bit rate yes. But high quality, high bit rate movies in surround you may run into performance problems. and should consider one of the slightly more expensive but still cheap micro computers with the same hardware as the SGSIII, don't remember the name of the top of my head.

I'm not trying to kick anything up, but Linux runs a lot better on lower end or older computers. Take it from me: http://www.neowin.ne...n-old-computer/


Of course a stripped linux distro runs better on older computers, I already said as much. but it's also not comparable to windows in that state and has limited uses in what you can use it for. a stripped windows version will also be faster on older hardware. heck someone on this forum once made a thread abotu how he ran a special XP version that's still for sale that's a stripped version designed for terminals and POS terminals.

If you're comparing direct consumer grade OS to Consumer grade OS with Linux set to the same quality settings as windows, there's no performance boost to linux. There are many reasons to run or want to run linux, boosting performance on a modern computer is not one of them.


#32 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:23

Triple booting Archbang with Windows 8 and lion on my main rig, Its snappy and fast, feels really light. It was pain in arse to get arch run properly at first, But now loving it. Cant make switch to linux though as applications i depend on like Autodesk suit, Adobe creative Suite and other CG applications are windows and OSX only. Plus i love my games, and cant take the headache of wine when you can simply play them on Windows.


This is why I don't much see the point of dual/triple booting.

with modern computers and the hardware virtualizations, it doesn't make sense anymore. back int he day I liked to dual boot, but then I realized I just ended ups pending all my time in the OS that worked the best and I used the most. which meant my linux installs went virtually unused, since I never bothered to boot into them, to cumbersome having to boot in and out, took to long and I could use the OS where I had all my "use" apps, like MAX and Photoshop and such.

with a VM you can have your work OS up all the time running and doing your thing while still beign able to play around in linux at the same time. the only reason I'm dual booting on this laptop is because once I get back my new laptop from service, this one will be running linux full time more or less and then VM doesn't make much sense.

#33 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:30

Of course a stripped linux distro runs better on older computers, I already said as much. but it's also not comparable to windows in that state and has limited uses in what you can use it for. a stripped windows version will also be faster on older hardware. heck someone on this forum once made a thread abotu how he ran a special XP version that's still for sale that's a stripped version designed for terminals and POS terminals.


Here's an even better argument: The versions of Windows that are capable of running on that hardware are having (or already have had) their support discontinued, which means it won't take long before they start becoming insecure. With light versions of Linux, you'll be guaranteed security fixes and updates, which you won't get if you install XP on the same machines. I've tested versions of XP, 7, and Vista that I have completely stripped down with nLite and vLite and found that doing so both offers no performance benefits, and almost invariably causes stability issues.

#34 simrat

simrat

    pooonjabi!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 05-April 10
  • Location: Chandigarh, North India
  • OS: Windows 8 x64, Arch Linux (Gnome)
  • Phone: Nokia 603 Symbian belle fp2, Xperia SL 4.1.2

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:35

Here's an even better argument: The versions of Windows that are capable of running on that hardware are having (or already have had) their support discontinued, which means it won't take long before they start becoming insecure. With light versions of Linux, you'll be guaranteed security fixes and updates, which you won't get if you install XP on the same machines. I've tested versions of XP, 7, and Vista that I have completely stripped down with nLite and vLite and found that doing so both offers no performance benefits, and almost invariably causes stability issues.


I disagree, i have ran XP lite version ( dont remember the name, but it was around 200mb disc ) on very old hardware and it ran fine, faster than normal xp installation. Of course many features were removed, themes were gone but it was functional and was running really fluid on that laptop. And i have yet to hear any stability issues from the laptop owner. I know it wont get any more security fixes and updates, but more than 10 years of support for an OS is a good thing in my mind. There are lots of Stripped down 7 distros out there, and im sure i can easily install them on that laptop, plus it will get updates.

#35 guitmz

guitmz

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-June 11
  • Location: Brazil
  • OS: Windows 8, Arch Linux, OSX 10.9
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:37

the thing is... nlite and vlite can improve the performance but they need to be used carefully to dont cause instability... i did noticed less ram consumption on vista with it and also on xp for example (of course, removed the bloatware).. but here's a fact..

windows will boot fast and everything for a couple of weeks after installation then after installing some stuff it wont anymore (wont boot sloooooooow but wont boot that fast).. linux does not gave me that problem even when adding some stuff to startup (the boot time may decrease but not as in windows)

this is not a WOW but is just an example.. i'm on windows since 95, still using it for gaming and C# programming.. really, i dont have anything installed on windows besides steam games, nvidia drivers and a customized VS2010 install (removed everything useless from boot) and also turned off several services and startup programs and the boot stills goes slower after some time

#36 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:46

Here's an even better argument: The versions of Windows that are capable of running on that hardware are having (or already have had) their support discontinued, which means it won't take long before they start becoming insecure. With light versions of Linux, you'll be guaranteed security fixes and updates, which you won't get if you install XP on the same machines. I've tested versions of XP, 7, and Vista that I have completely stripped down with nLite and vLite and found that doing so both offers no performance benefits, and almost invariably causes stability issues.


Granted Stripped down linux distros often have more in common with CE. but of course you can't buy or install CE on regular hardware :)

The POS version of XP is however still on sale and supported beyond the regular dead version. Running it as a regular consumer OS is still a dumb idea though ;)

#37 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:52

windows will boot fast and everything for a couple of weeks after installation then after installing some stuff it wont anymore (wont boot sloooooooow but wont boot that fast).. linux does not gave me that problem even when adding some stuff to startup (the boot time may decrease but not as in windows)


OK, lets get the facts straight, WinRot is ancient, it's a 9X thing, it doesn't really exist on NT, back before Vista, I tested my several year old XP install, that had been decently maintained but also abused, with lots of installs or random stuff and not always, cleanly uninstalled, but I did remove badware and malware of course and crap that popped up in autorun for no good reason.
No difference between that and a fresh install

HOWEVER, while WinRot doesn't exist, dumb users do. the kind that installs everything on the net from Incredimail to WinFreeJackpot20MillionGuaranteedGame. Installing programs by itself doesn't make windows boot slow or run slow. installing programs that come with added badware, adware and malware that runs in the background, starts up at boot, scans your system and all that. THAT makes your windows slow. Just as they would make any other OS slow.

Once a linux distro starts racking up the startup services, it doesn't exactly start up like a formula 1 car anymore. Never mind the fact that most consumer grade linux OS' come with a lot of startup garbage that by default make them slower to start than 7 and definitely 8.

#38 +Majesticmerc

Majesticmerc

    Resident Idealist

  • Tech Issues Solved: 8
  • Joined: 24-August 05
  • Location: United Kingdom
  • OS: Arch Linux / Win 7
  • Phone: HTC One X

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:55

I've been running Arch Linux exclusively on my laptop for about a year now, and I've never really looked back. Linux isn't a magic pill, but then neither is any other operating system, and people that tell you otherwise are Zealots, but it is a very capable operating system. I love using XFCE, and centralized package management is the best (something that I expect Windows 8 users will grow to love very quickly).

As a personal thing, I also love that Arch in particular allows me to create the operating system exactly as I want it. No crapware, no bloat, just an OS for me to run my applications.

There are downsides though. Lack of certain applications (notably games and professional suites) are noticable some times, and some of the half-arsed ports (looking at you, Adobe) can be hard to swallow, but it's never really been an issue for me.

Welcome aboard, glad you're enjoying the ride :)

#39 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:56

I disagree, i have ran XP lite version ( dont remember the name, but it was around 200mb disc ) on very old hardware and it ran fine, faster than normal xp installation. Of course many features were removed, themes were gone but it was functional and was running really fluid on that laptop. And i have yet to hear any stability issues from the laptop owner. I know it wont get any more security fixes and updates, but more than 10 years of support for an OS is a good thing in my mind. There are lots of Stripped down 7 distros out there, and im sure i can easily install them on that laptop, plus it will get updates.


Not relevant. If you're looking for an OS in the here and now that will run on an old computer, all versions of Windows capable of it will soon become deprecated. All versions of Linux capable probably won't.

OK, lets get the facts straight, WinRot is ancient, it's a 9X thing, it doesn't really exist on NT, back before Vista, I tested my several year old XP install, that had been decently maintained but also abused, with lots of installs or random stuff and not always, cleanly uninstalled, but I did remove badware and malware of course and crap that popped up in autorun for no good reason.
No difference between that and a fresh install

HOWEVER, while WinRot doesn't exist, dumb users do. the kind that installs everything on the net from Incredimail to WinFreeJackpot20MillionGuaranteedGame. Installing programs by itself doesn't make windows boot slow or run slow. installing programs that come with added badware, adware and malware that runs in the background, starts up at boot, scans your system and all that. THAT makes your windows slow. Just as they would make any other OS slow.


Not in my experience. Granted it doesn't really happen with 7 and Vista, but I found it affected XP quite badly. The improvements made to the servicing stack from Vista onwards have however made a massive difference to the reliability of Windows.

#40 guitmz

guitmz

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-June 11
  • Location: Brazil
  • OS: Windows 8, Arch Linux, OSX 10.9
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:56

well i'm not a dumb user and i cant explain why the hell my windows 7 boot time increases even if I dont use it and dont install anything on it :s

#41 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 07 November 2012 - 19:59

well i'm not a dumb user and i cant explain why the hell my windows 7 boot time increases even if I dont use it and dont install anything on it :s


Install Soluto and see what's hindering your startup. unless you removes steam from startup, I would point my finger at that though, Steam really messes with startup times.

#42 guitmz

guitmz

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 10-June 11
  • Location: Brazil
  • OS: Windows 8, Arch Linux, OSX 10.9
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 07 November 2012 - 20:11

it isnt at startup hehe i know that, i wont let steam or origin on startup :) i'll give soluto a try, didnt used it since last reinstall so i might get an idea on whats wrong

#43 OP Mindovermaster

Mindovermaster

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 25-January 07
  • Location: /USA/Wisconsin/
  • OS: Mint Debian LMDE
  • Phone: HTC ONE V

Posted 07 November 2012 - 20:11

Install Soluto and see what's hindering your startup. unless you removes steam from startup, I would point my finger at that though, Steam really messes with startup times.


IMO, any software can slow down your boot time, even Windows updates.

#44 firey

firey

    F͎̗͉͎͈͑͡ȉ͎̣̐́ṙ͖̺͕͙̓̌è̤̞͉̟̲͇̍̍̾̓ͥͅy͓̍̎̌̏̒

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 30-October 05
  • Location: Alberta, Canada
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Android (4.4.2)

Posted 07 November 2012 - 20:15

Does Arch have a Raspberry Pi compatible version yet ? also be aware if you want to run it as a media center, you are NOT guaranteed to be able to handle 1080 movies stutter free. If they are stereo movies at medium to low bit rate yes. But high quality, high bit rate movies in surround you may run into performance problems. and should consider one of the slightly more expensive but still cheap micro computers with the same hardware as the SGSIII, don't remember the name of the top of my head.



There is Arch for Arm, which is compatible. I don't expect to be playing bluray rips. I normally play sd x264 encoded video or standard 720p video. Nothing crazy.. but I know it can handle that. Plus if I wanted to go all out video then I could just install XBMC for Raspberry Pi.

#45 vcfan

vcfan

    Doing the Humpty Dance

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 07 November 2012 - 20:20

why would you punish yourselves like that and install Linux and remove windows. It makes no sense, unless you use some special software that only runs on Linux.

windows

looks better
is faster
has better software
has a big software library
has the best driver support
has better APIs
doesn't break as often as Linux does
doesn't require you to compile all this stuff all the time
doesn't require you to sit in the command prompt all the time to do a bunch of stuff


oh I get it, Linux has a bunch of commands that make you look like a badass computer wizard.