Anyone tried PC-BSD or DesktopBSD?


Recommended Posts

Tried PC-BSD... it is easy to install and easy to run. To me, the GUI looked a little washed-out, but that was me....... it ran without any issues at all.

Barney

stupid question: why use BSD insted of Linux if they're both easy to use?

586410701[/snapback]

Well, they use a different kernel (for what it is worth). Linux uses GNU for its OS (commands), and BSD uses their own command implementation (decended from Unix, rather than a non-Unix clone of unix).

But, slap KDE on there, and there really isn't much difference to the end user (at least, to my understanding).

yeah...as far as i understand it the end user won't notice much of a difference (in theory at least) ...it's just BSD is supposed to be well known for it's slightly greater stability which has generally suffered from a lack of broad hardware support (which i hear is changing though, at least for wireless hardware) ...i could be wrong, no? :unsure:

<-- gonna install DesktopBSD on a VM and play a bit ;)

No flame war on BSD vs Linux pls. i jus wanna hv my hands-on experience with BSD..

btw, seems *bsd can't let me install (detect) on my linux partition (currently playing with Slackware, dual boot with Windows XP). seems if i really hv to install *bsd, i hv to re-partition my only (working) harddisk

my 40GB harddisk is currently divided into:

- 2 fat32 partitions, one for Windows xp, another one for storing my own stuffs, music, some cached copies of some bsd/linux iso's e.g. kubuntu, slackware, mepis, linspire, xandros etc

- 1 resier3 linux parition for Slackware Linux 10.x (which is scheduled to be removed to install SUSE 10 beta 3 next week, if i dun install *bsd)

- 1 linux swap

Edited by crossbonez

I havnt tried Desktop-BSD yet, i hear its ok... right now im using PCBSD.. i really like it alot, the .pbi's are really a treat to use, very and i mean VERY easy, works just like a windows.exe... only downside is that there arent very many packages available in that format, in which case I use FreeBSD's ports system which is also very easy to use, and has all the pakcages you could ever need

I haven't tried PCBSD or DesktopBSD, however, I have been using OpenBSD since day 1. No offense, but on some machines, Linux distro (even SlackWare) fails to boot, and OpenBSD comes to rescue and save my day.

I trust OpenBSD more than I do for Linux. In terms of performance, I actually gain more server performance out of OpenBSD than from Linux. With OpenBSD, I have the user friendliness of installing programs, and no more dependencies horror. Sure you can do that with Gentoo/Debian, but neither of these distros really run too well on older machines now a day.

I have a really old laptop (Pentium 200 Mhz, 32 Mb, Trident grahics, 5 gig HD ), and sadly, no Linux distros would boot or detct the hard drive (except Damm Small Linux). OpenBSD (FreeBSD didn't boot at all), on the other hand, boots up like charm. After minimal installatioin, I was on wireless network downloading packages (Damn Small Linux could not even get wireless card running).. and within a few hours, X Windows running flushbox was in good order..

I am glad that PCBSD and DesktopBSD are making progress in user friendliness; however, if they in fact use their proprietary installation format, I think that's truly a huge step back from Ports system.

Edited by ThunderRiver
No offense, but on some machines, Linux distro (even SlackWare) fails to boot, and OpenBSD comes to rescue and save my day.

586410877[/snapback]

No offense, but I haven't seen a single machine yet that BSD worked on and Linux didn't, the problem has for the most part been between the chair and the desk.

I tried Desktop BSD and it didn't detect my keyboard :blink:

Another differance between linux and *BSD is the way they organise their file system. The thing that originally attracted me to Desktop BSD was the way it had a seperate folder for each program and it it's dependancies / libraries, having been more used to Windows, that setup seemed more familiar to me.. I'm getting used to the file system now tho..

I've tried PC-BSD: it's impressive. Easy to install, easy to maintain, and quick. You can use the .pbi to install more apps, or get FreeBSD ports. For BSD, it's a big step forward.

Now, is it really any different from linux? KDE is KDE, so the end user experience is no different. I guess you wouldn't really notice the difference until you start getting into the guts of the OS.

  • 2 weeks later...
No offense, but I haven't seen a single machine yet that BSD worked on and Linux didn't, the problem has for the most part been between the chair and the desk.

586411237[/snapback]

Yeah and I have never seen a machine that ran Linux but not BSD :p Now more seriously I DID see one machine that did not ran Linux, but where FreeBSD worked much better. It was an HP workstation SATA hard-disks, PCI express, pretty recent network card, at that time it was hard (in fact impossible) to find a distro that worked easily with the system. FreeBSD ran perfectly in safe mode.

Yeah and I have never seen a machine that ran Linux but not BSD :p Now more seriously I DID see one machine that did not ran Linux, but where FreeBSD worked much better. It was an HP workstation SATA hard-disks, PCI express, pretty recent network card, at that time it was hard (in fact impossible) to find a distro that worked easily with the system. FreeBSD ran perfectly in safe mode.

586482265[/snapback]

I've also come accross various situations where some hardware would be painlessly available to BSD whereas it required more mucking around with linux. I've also come accross the opposite. Who really cares anyway. They are both great oses to play with.

As for the ePenis, I'm pretty sure that setting up Damn Small Linux would be harder than say FreeBSD, so I'm not sure where the BSD = ePenis Enhancement comes from :p

I've also come accross various situations where some hardware would be painlessly available to BSD whereas it required more mucking around with linux. I've also come accross the opposite. Who really cares anyway. They are both great oses to play with.

As for the ePenis, I'm pretty sure that setting up Damn Small Linux would be harder than say FreeBSD, so I'm not sure where the BSD = ePenis Enhancement comes from :p

586483704[/snapback]

Difficulty isn't much of a factor compared to the elitism of the task. The best way to describe it would be considered borderline flamebait, so I won't go there.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My issue is I can't access the forum on mobile if the site is set to Desktop mode on Vivaldi because it can't complete the Cloud flare am I a bot check! I know this is a Vivaldi issues as it has started happening on all cloud flare check sites, it's so annoying, I've reported it but no fix yet.
    • Are you going to do performance benchmarks comparing all states? I'd be interested in seeing that in the next "part".
    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      rolfus earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      78
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!