for those who claim linux is faster than windows on old machines...

  • Thread starter Thread starter kenny
  • Start date Start date
kenny said:
here we go again....and this was written in 2004....
Click to expand...

Yes. After dodging questions and bailing out of the other Linux
thread by calling me a "dork", I see you've harnessed the vast
powers of Google to find an article from over a year and a half ago. I
take it as a sign you recognize that using your own words to attempt
FUDding will only backfire.
http://www.groupsrv.com/linux/viewtopic.php?t=9351

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7324
Click to expand...

The author makes it clear that he's not interested in the ways to
get a particularly fast-running Linux desktop going. There are easy
options other than GNOME or KDE for people who want something faster
than those.

Also, since 2004, KDE has made great strides in speed, largely in
response articles like that one in the Linux community; the open
nature of development helps a lot. I find the latest KDE roughly
comparable in speed to Win98se on my system, with KDE providing more
and better desktop features. I don't use GNOME or follow it closely
enough to comment on how fast it is today.

I quit reading the claims about Windows speed when I got to "an 600
MHz 128MB RAM system ran Windows XP happily", since I wasn't able to
adjust my reality enough to accomodate that use of "happily".
 
I quit reading the claims about Windows speed when I got to "an 600
MHz 128MB RAM system ran Windows XP happily", since I wasn't able to
adjust my reality enough to accomodate that use of "happily".
Click to expand...

Really! Win2K is more forgiving than XP, and a 600 MHz 128 Meg system
may run 2K happily, but the person using it won't be too happy. If my
experience with 2K on such a limited system is any guide (and I'm
pretty sure it is), life's too short to run XP on that kind of
hardware.

Linux, otoh, can run on that kind of hardware nicely.
 
Really! Win2K is more forgiving than XP, and a 600 MHz 128 Meg system
may run 2K happily, but the person using it won't be too happy.
Click to expand...

Exactly the system I am running W2K on, and I'm very happy. I guess it
depends on what you try to do with the system.
 
kenny said:
I did not harness Google.. see that first link? I posted it back
in 2004, if you
look at it carefully you will see... thats why I included it along
with the original source.
Click to expand...

Why even post the link to your cut-and-paste job when the original is
still available?
I was not dodging questions, and I never bail out... I just find
that you are boring beyond belief.
Click to expand...

The questions you dodged were not mine.
Some windows can be faster than some linux.

However windows XP with SP2 that is the latest version of windows
compared to the latest version of a distro like suse or mandriva
with KDE is faster on the same machine and apparently has lower
specs.
Click to expand...

Please try to use English sentence structures. It's unclear which OS
you are claiming is faster on the same machine.

I don't use SUSE or Mandriva. WinXPSP2 is quite a bit slower than the
latest version of Gentoo with KDE on my box.
 
I don't use SUSE or Mandriva. WinXPSP2 is quite a bit slower than the
latest version of Gentoo with KDE on my box.
Click to expand...

"Fast" and "WinXP" shouldn't be used in the same post without a
warning at the top.
 
kenny said:
here we go again....and this was written in 2004....

http://www.groupsrv.com/linux/viewtopic.php?t=9351

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7324

Kenny
Click to expand...



Hi Kenny!


I think the strenghts going with Linux is that similarity to UNIX, and
UNIX is the oldest and most used InternetOS. Capable though!

The Strengths going with Windows NT are, Speed (NT is the fastest
BIG-OS - not to mention special OS´s w/o Multitasking, Memory
Protection etc), Versability (Unix-Compatible - I can read everything
on the Internet), Compatibilty (27 Years of software on one platform,
and combineable with MS-DOS [Dual Boot], for even better
compatibility), and so much more ....

Well, faster GfX Drivers, Better Sound (e.g. HDCD "MS"), faster GDI
(obviously, due to better drivers).


And Win95 or 98 can run fine on older machines, having the same
downwards compatibility as mentioned before, DOS etc.
Not to mention NT4 for Hardcore NT-Enhusiasts, even faster than 95 and
nice as well, but already NT. Runs nice with a High-End 486 MB and the
mighty i486/DX4-100. Though, you can also run XP with a 486, until now.

Linux looks good. KDE´s are nice. Mandrake is beautiful.
I wish Linus Torvald and any Linux User good luck and, next time
please: Don´t dunk Linus Torvald into the water :-) He has been blamed
for things he has not done. Bez I have never heard Linus speaking 'very
stupid' words against MS stuff and/or User of MS-Products.





Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic
 
Al Klein wrote:
Click to expand...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=140
Click to expand...

"Windows XP will run at acceptable levels with 128 MBs of RAM" That's
where I left - I don't consider having time to stir my coffee between
seeing "New Folder" and seeing the name I give it "acceptable", and it
would be nice if XP SP2 running in 128 megs were that fast - but it's
not. Even notepad exhibits sluggishness at the speed I type, and I'm
basically a fast 2-fingered typist.

Oh, you mean *Windows"! With nothing but the kernel and Explorer
running. Yes, that's what I buy a computer for - to stare at my
desktop.

No, I don't consider spending 90% of its time disk-swapping "fast".
(Nor do I consider KDE to be part of linux.)

Sorry, but linux - the OS itself - runs faster than Windows XP - the
OS itself, since Windows has so much inherent overhead that linux
doesn't.

(It's not fair comparing a stripped down kernel and a bloated GUI
manager? Then don't tell me that jets are faster than bicycles. I'm
not the one who claimed that Windows is faster than linux.)
 
The Strengths going with Windows NT are, Speed (NT is the fastest
BIG-OS - not to mention special OS´s w/o Multitasking, Memory
Protection etc), Versability (Unix-Compatible - I can read everything
on the Internet)
Click to expand...

Which has exactly what to do with being Unix-compatible? HTML isn't
Unix. I assume you meant the web when you said the internet. If you
meant the whole internet, it has even less to do with being
Unix-compatible. (That would make it less than nothing at all.)
Compatibilty (27 Years of software on one platform
Click to expand...

I have so many Windows (and DOS) programs that won't run on current
versions of Windows ...
and combineable with MS-DOS [Dual Boot], for even better
compatibility)
Click to expand...

Dual boot is a function of the computer, not of one of the operating
systems on the drive.
And Win95 or 98 can run fine on older machines
Click to expand...

I have a full linux implementation currently running on a 486 DX-50
with 5 megs of RAM. (It's a proprietary laptop, so increasing the RAM
isn't an option.) Win 3.1 crawls on that. 95? It won't even
install.
Though, you can also run XP with a 486
Click to expand...

Not run. Creep, maybe, if it's a blazingly fast 486 - with LOTS of
RAM. (486 machines usually didn't come with what would be considered
much RAM these days.)

But please - don't compare linux (a command-line OS) with Windows (a
graphical OS). Command line systems run faster for the same job on
the same machine.
 
On 16 Jan 2006, Al Klein wrote
"Windows XP will run at acceptable levels with 128 MBs of RAM"
That's where I left - I don't consider having time to stir my
coffee between seeing "New Folder" and seeing the name I give
it "acceptable", and it would be nice if XP SP2 running in 128
megs were that fast - but it's not. Even notepad exhibits
sluggishness at the speed I type, and I'm basically a fast
2-fingered typist.

Oh, you mean *Windows"! With nothing but the kernel and
Explorer running. Yes, that's what I buy a computer for - to
stare at my desktop.
Click to expand...

Real-life anecdote.

I still run 98SE, but a friend of mine (computer innocent) was
given an older desktop box from his office, loaded with XP (Pro, I
think), so he could work from home. The IT department had set it
to boot with a lot of network connectivity stuff -- remote access
to the office intranet and such-like.

He asked me to help him set it up, but it was the damndest thing to
get it to boot even to the desktop. After finally getting it to
load, I found that they'd clearly forgotten to increase the RAM
from when it was used with Win95 or whatever -- there was only 128
meg on it.

It took 17 minutes -- we timed it -- to boot. I don't think I've
*ever* heard a hard disk thrash so much, the poor wee thing.

So my guess is that even if you just want to stare at it without
running apps, WinXP will probably *still* take a couple ofo eons
even to reach the desktop.
 
Al said:
But please - don't compare linux (a command-line OS) with Windows (a
graphical OS). Command line systems run faster for the same job on
the same machine.
Click to expand...


Hi Al!



I agree with you in some cases.

But exactly at that point is NT faster. I would say the command line
system is slowing down the system, so far I saw (awe).
The GUI is a matter of choice... some of them are more beautiful on
Linux.

Although I think Linux got much faster today. The GUI is no thema
anymore.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic
 
So my guess is that even if you just want to stare at it without
running apps, WinXP will probably *still* take a couple ofo eons
even to reach the desktop.
Click to expand...

Yep.

We have 3 kinds of computers at work (not counting the big iron):

Dell 233 machines (128 meg) running 98SE
Dell 233 machines (128 meg) running (make that crawling with) Win2k
A modern Dell (I haven't look to see what's in them yet running XP Pro

All of them on the network, of course, and a few of them running a VNC
server so we can work from home.

The first kind is a little slow but useable.
The third kind is nice.

The second kind makes you wonder if life is long enough. 128 megs
hasn't been enough for a MS OS since 98. (I'm leaving WinME out of
this, because the only file you should run under ME is format.exe.)
 
Al said:
"Windows XP will run at acceptable levels with 128 MBs of RAM" That's
where I left
Click to expand...

There were two trials: trial B was with an additional 256 MB.
If trial A with 128 Mb does not interest you, just skip those results.
(It's not fair comparing a stripped down kernel and a bloated GUI
manager? Then don't tell me that jets are faster than bicycles. I'm
not the one who claimed that Windows is faster than linux.)
Click to expand...

Your one-liner, which I responded to, claimed: WinXP is slow.
Slow compared to what? You needed to specify, else it made no sense.
Without specification one would think that you were comparing apples with
apples, like the article I posted about did, while in fact you were thinking
of comparing apples with oranges.

What interests me more:
That Kenny guy (the OP) looks to be a nutcase that likes the attention he
gets by stirring things up.
To me the best response seems to be to not join the pissing contest.
Many of us really hate the Windows vs Linux thing in a freeware group.

Personally, I have no interest whatsoever in comparisons of e.g.
Ubuntu and Ubunto and Kubuntu and Kubunto, etc., but I don't complain
(although I wonder if there are no forums better suited for that, like
people with e.g. newsreader questions are referred to a newsreaders forums.)
I could however do very well without the Windows vs Linux thing.
 
There were two trials: trial B was with an additional 256 MB.
If trial A with 128 Mb does not interest you, just skip those results.
Click to expand...

It's not that a trial with 128 megs doesn't interest me, it's that I
don't trust the opinion of anyone who claims that XP runs acceptably
in 128 megs. I understand what advertising hype is - I don't accept
it as technical analysis. When one claims to be the other my
disbelief suspender ceases to function.
Your one-liner, which I responded to, claimed: WinXP is slow.
Slow compared to what?
Click to expand...

We're comparing it to linux, aren't we? Same computer, doing the same
job - 2 operating systems.
You needed to specify, else it made no sense.
Without specification one would think that you were comparing apples with
apples, like the article I posted about did, while in fact you were thinking
of comparing apples with oranges.
Click to expand...

The article compared a bloated GIU system to a slimmed-down
command-line system - that's apples and ducks. I'm merely pointing
out that anyone who calls XP's operation in 128 megs is redefining
"acceptable".
Many of us really hate the Windows vs Linux thing in a freeware group.
Click to expand...

Sorry about putting the "coerced-reading hex" on the post. I won't
force you to read any more of them.
I could however do very well without the Windows vs Linux thing.
Click to expand...

It would have been a shorter thread if you hadn't contributed to it,
wouldn't it have?
 
Al said:
The article compared a bloated GIU system to a slimmed-down
command-line system
Click to expand...

With as result: Windows XP and Office 2003 running in 96 MBs of RAM even
managed to beat OpenSUSE and OpenOffice.org 2 running in 352 MBs of RAM!
It would have been a shorter thread if you hadn't contributed to it,
wouldn't it have?
Click to expand...

Yes, every once in a blue moon you guys bring out the worst in me.
 
Back
Top