Linux usage share breaks 1% on the Client


Recommended Posts

Out of all the examples to pick you managed to pick two of Linux's strengths.

what? Linux is slow as hell on my hardware. I could bloat XP or vista, and it would never be as slow as linux... the graphics drivers on linux blow, scrolling in firefox is unbearable, just to mention an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what? Linux is slow as hell on my hardware. I could bloat XP or vista, and it would never be as slow as linux... the graphics drivers on linux blow, scrolling in firefox is unbearable, just to mention an example.

All of your configuration issues would best be suited for a support thread, like the one you started last year but ended up with you just bitching and complaining - no longer looking to solve the problem, just hurling insults.

I see you haven't changed. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of your configuration issues would best be suited for a support thread, like the one you started last year but ended up with you just bitching and complaining - no longer looking to solve the problem, just hurling insults.

I see you haven't changed. ;)

thats because the decryptor and other articles I read online said the ATI drivers sucked. Hence, my 1st reply to this thread, that if it gains market share, it will gain more attention from hardware vendors to support linux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's already done 100% better than I ever thought it would. It's hard competing against an established monopoly. Even if it does no better than it currently does, I consider it a winner.

BTW, typing this from Ubuntu 9.04.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

every new linux user means one less for microsoft that 1% would have otherwise probably been apart of microsofts market share

Link to comment
Share on other sites

every new linux user means one less for microsoft that 1% would have otherwise probably been apart of microsofts market share

that's not true, it could just as likely be apple users defecting. besides, linux isn't going after windows/mac users. they're going after people who are already established pc gurus who want more (faux-perceived) functionality and are supporters of open source crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

linux isn't going after windows/mac users. they're going after people who are already established pc gurus

And those "pc gurus" would have been previously running... ??

Your line of reasoning is way too elaborated for neowin, maybe you should give 4chan a try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what? Linux is slow as hell on my hardware. I could bloat XP or vista, and it would never be as slow as linux... the graphics drivers on linux blow, scrolling in firefox is unbearable, just to mention an example.

I'm not sure what kind of hardware you are running but for most part Linux OSes tend to be on par or faster then Windows. Scrolling in firefox is a poor example of the speed of the OS, it depends on too many external variables. We should be looking at computational examples, like compiling programs, running native applications, file transfer operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... they're going after people who are already established pc gurus who want more (faux-perceived) functionality and are supporters of open source crap.

:| I'm not even sure how to reply to that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what kind of hardware you are running but for most part Linux OSes tend to be on par or faster then Windows. Scrolling in firefox is a poor example of the speed of the OS, it depends on too many external variables. We should be looking at computational examples, like compiling programs, running native applications, file transfer operations.

It's hardware that can run Aero fine, but can't run Linux well compared to Windows. The OS is overall slower, launching applications, browsing the file system, you name it. The #1 activity anyone does on their PC is probably surfing the web, and it is painful to see an OS run so slow. File transfer operations in Windows are also faster, because I have NTFS drives, and ntfs-3g isn't that great. Yes, I'm attacking linux now, because it plain sucks, but with higher market share, hopefully the hardware manufacturers will support linux much better. You'd understand how slow linux is if you had my computer, I tried many distro's with different desktop environments, bottom line, none of them are speedy compared to XP or even Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

File transfer operations in Windows are also faster, because I have NTFS drives, and ntfs-3g isn't that great.

Bitching that Linux has slow file access when you are forcing it to use a non-native file system is just plain ignorant. How about you post the specs of this machine that is supposedly so horribly slow when running Linux but that runs Vista with ease? FWIW, I have run different distros of Linux on a 600Mhz Celeron with only 256MB of RAM and it wasn't even as slow as you describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm attacking linux now, because it plain sucks, but with higher market share, hopefully the hardware manufacturers will support linux much better. You'd understand how slow linux is if you had my computer

Well, I could spin that and say that you would understand how fast linux is if you had my computer :p any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*I* don't like it. It doesn't work well for *me*. Hence it sucks.

An argument as old as the vi vs. emacs wars.

And complaining about linux filetransfer on NTFS? Come on. Have you tried transferring from Ext3/4, jfs, or reiser on Windows? Let me know how it went.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An argument as old as the vi vs. emacs wars.

vi > emacs :p

It's hardware that can run Aero fine, but can't run Linux well compared to Windows. The OS is overall slower, launching applications, browsing the file system, you name it. The #1 activity anyone does on their PC is probably surfing the web, and it is painful to see an OS run so slow. File transfer operations in Windows are also faster, because I have NTFS drives, and ntfs-3g isn't that great. Yes, I'm attacking linux now, because it plain sucks, but with higher market share, hopefully the hardware manufacturers will support linux much better. You'd understand how slow linux is if you had my computer, I tried many distro's with different desktop environments, bottom line, none of them are speedy compared to XP or even Vista.

And this is why Linux won't be ready for prime time. Most people expect things to work great out of the box with relatively little tweaking. The strength of Linux makes it also a weakness: You can change and tweak whatever you want. Either you know how to use Linux and your system will run quick and be rock solid, or you're learning the thing and it will take some time before you'll really enjoy the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hardware that can run Aero fine, but can't run Linux well compared to Windows. The OS is overall slower, launching applications, browsing the file system, you name it. The #1 activity anyone does on their PC is probably surfing the web, and it is painful to see an OS run so slow. File transfer operations in Windows are also faster, because I have NTFS drives, and ntfs-3g isn't that great. Yes, I'm attacking linux now, because it plain sucks, but with higher market share, hopefully the hardware manufacturers will support linux much better. You'd understand how slow linux is if you had my computer, I tried many distro's with different desktop environments, bottom line, none of them are speedy compared to XP or even Vista.

It has to be your hardware. Almost every computer I throw Linux on is faster than when I use Windows. I use both OSes and like them both so I'm not just saying that to prove Linux is better. Linux has lots of shortcomings but speed is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to be your hardware. Almost every computer I throw Linux on is faster than when I use Windows. I use both OSes and like them both so I'm not just saying that to prove Linux is better. Linux has lots of shortcomings but speed is not one of them.

As I already pointed out in this topic, the thread that tsupersonic started as a request for help soon became him just bitching without wanting to fix anything.

He admits to just continuing his bitching in this thread.

I see no value to his comments at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Tsupersonic, at least insofar as his criticisms apply to my hardware (1.33GHz AMD, 768MB PC-2100, Nvidia GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, 8000RPM HDD). Linux is not as responsive as Windows. Applications tend to take longer to start, drawing things on the screen takes longer, flash often stutters while playing games, and so on. The performance difference between Linux and Windows is quite apparent on my computer. Mind you, I have been a Linux user for a bit over three months now and don't even have Windows on my system anymore. The better performance of Windows doesn't persuade me to abandon my cash or my newly discovered freedoms.

(Yes, I do use preload; I have prelinked; I have turned off services and start-up applications; I have tweaked nautilus to terminate rather than lingering in memory to handle the desktop icons; I have installed the latest nVidia graphics driver. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the performance of my system, I'm listening, unless you're going to tell me to not use Gnome or something along those lines.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One? word? "OpenGL" Ugh. Especially with the advancements we've seen elsewhere. It's slow, choppy, and chugs even with very high end video cards and system.

Customization isn't the answer to good design. It's a nice PART of it... but not when it hides behind a wall of confusion and a steep learning curve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Tsupersonic, at least insofar as his criticisms apply to my hardware (1.33GHz AMD, 768MB PC-2100, Nvidia GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, 8000RPM HDD). Linux is not as responsive as Windows. Applications tend to take longer to start, drawing things on the screen takes longer, flash often stutters while playing games, and so on. The performance difference between Linux and Windows is quite apparent on my computer. Mind you, I have been a Linux user for a bit over three months now and don't even have Windows on my system anymore. The better performance of Windows doesn't persuade me to abandon my cash or my newly discovered freedoms.

(Yes, I do use preload; I have prelinked; I have turned off services and start-up applications; I have tweaked nautilus to terminate rather than lingering in memory to handle the desktop icons; I have installed the latest nVidia graphics driver. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the performance of my system, I'm listening, unless you're going to tell me to not use Gnome or something along those lines.)

Flash doesn't work well for me either, and I'm running Duel 2.0 and 3gig Ram, but that is just flash in general on Linux, support is not great.

And I'm sorry I would advise not using gnome :)

One? word? "OpenGL" Ugh. Especially with the advancements we've seen elsewhere. It's slow, choppy, and chugs even with very high end video cards and system.

Customization isn't the answer to good design. It's a nice PART of it... but not when it hides behind a wall of confusion and a steep learning curve.

You really don't know much anything about OpenGl do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I already pointed out in this topic, the thread that tsupersonic started as a request for help soon became him just bitching without wanting to fix anything.

He admits to just continuing his bitching in this thread.

I see no value to his comments at this time.

post 54 go read, kthnxbye. It's not something I can fix myself. It's something ATI has to fix first, and as for the rest of my hardware, I don't know. If Vista and Aero ran fine on it, and Linux can't run as responsive on it, I don't see the point in running a slower OS for my day to day tasks.

Also, whenever I ask for help on something related to Linux, most people are helpless. I posted my problems in Ubuntu forums & another forum, and nothing... It all concludes to I'm doing it wrong, or they tell me to recompile my kernel. No one should ever have those two solutions said to them, it's not feasible to me, and I consider myself more advanced than the average joe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Yes, I do use preload; I have prelinked; I have turned off services and start-up applications; I have tweaked nautilus to terminate rather than lingering in memory to handle the desktop icons; I have installed the latest nVidia graphics driver. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the performance of my system, I'm listening, unless you're going to tell me to not use Gnome or something along those lines.)

Try another distro. Debian and Fedora are usually faster than Ubuntu (assuming that is what you use) by default. Or you could do a custom install and cut off a lot of fluff like compiz (shutting that off really speeds up my Ubuntu).

I've learned some distros work better on some hardware configurations that others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kick a man in the nuts and of course he'll bend over.

You can't possibly judge market share by the laptops which come with Ubuntu preloaded on them. I'm sure the majority of the people who buy said laptops just want a cheaper alternative to a netbook so that they can slap their own copy of XP or Vista on it. How can I say something like that? Well, the average computer user shopping for a PC (that is to say, a non Apple computer), they will check to make sure it says it has Windows on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try another distro. Debian and Fedora are usually faster than Ubuntu (assuming that is what you use) by default. Or you could do a custom install and cut off a lot of fluff like compiz (shutting that off really speeds up my Ubuntu).

I've learned some distros work better on some hardware configurations that others.

I'm currently running a fully updated installation of Fedora 11 Preview. After searching around a bit, I've heard some good things about the performance of Vector Linux. I'm downloading it right now. I'll install it either tonight or tomorrow and report back :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.