-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Is Linux Ready For Prime Time?
- Thread starter Bad Maniac
- Start date
OP
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2001
- Thread Starter
- #83
I noticed the same with Ubuntu. My Dual P3-550 with 512 ram flies with Windows 2K, ubuntu takes almost four times longer to boot and runs noticably slower. Opening Word XP in Win2K takes seconds, opening the openofice wordprocessor in ubuntu takes much longer.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
Thats mostly due to OpenOffice itself which is not a native binary, rather it runs in a Java Runtime Environment, and like most Java based apps suffers for it.Bad Maniac said:
Also remember that Windows2k is a lot faster on older machines than XP, and certainly much faster than Vista.
OP
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2001
- Thread Starter
- #85
Not necessarily, XP boots much faster than 2K on a fresh install. But XP tends to hog up more over time. 2K stays pretty much the same regardless of how much junk you fill it with, XP seems to get exponentially slower to both boot and run when the registry grows.
But yeah, overall performance is better in 2K, expecially for older machines such as P3's. I wouldn't even try to install Vista on it. From what I've seen Vista has a few servicepacks to go before it's even close to XP, not to mention 2K in performance.
But, point still stands, Ubuntu boots much slower, and "feels" slower running than 2K on the exact same machine. Fair enough OpenOffice might be because of the Java runtime, and that can hopefully be improved. But the system itself just feel sluggish.
I personally blame driver support. If hardware vendors wrote their own drivers for linux the world would be a better place.
But yeah, overall performance is better in 2K, expecially for older machines such as P3's. I wouldn't even try to install Vista on it. From what I've seen Vista has a few servicepacks to go before it's even close to XP, not to mention 2K in performance.
But, point still stands, Ubuntu boots much slower, and "feels" slower running than 2K on the exact same machine. Fair enough OpenOffice might be because of the Java runtime, and that can hopefully be improved. But the system itself just feel sluggish.
I personally blame driver support. If hardware vendors wrote their own drivers for linux the world would be a better place.
I got rid of my last Windows computer a few months back, and have not missed it. I just got a new 20" iMac (with Merom) and really like it alot. OsX is like linux dumbed up so you don't have to tweak anything. I used Gentoo for about a year, and while it's a great os, the tweaking involved is just insane (allways something small left to do).
Now my computer usage is divided between OsX (notebook and home computer), Windows XP through parallels on the notebook (never really need it), Centos on my secondary work computer and a combination of Centos / RHEL and Solaris on servers I maintain.
These day's when I have to touch a Windows computer I really feel bad, but luckily that does'nt happen too often (and it's not a question about not knowing how Windows works).
Now my computer usage is divided between OsX (notebook and home computer), Windows XP through parallels on the notebook (never really need it), Centos on my secondary work computer and a combination of Centos / RHEL and Solaris on servers I maintain.
These day's when I have to touch a Windows computer I really feel bad, but luckily that does'nt happen too often (and it's not a question about not knowing how Windows works).
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
No and for a simple reason....
I have recently tried out Ubuntu. It was a success. But I am writing this on XP. Why? Lots of reasons...
1 Gaming... yes there are linux games, just not the ones I like to play.
2 ease of use Both software and Hardware. Yes XP has some issues, mostly driver related, but Linux has just as many if not more.
3 confusion factor. This should be number one. If I get software that is made for Windows it just works. With linux I have to worry if this Distro likes it.
The show stopper for me is the fact that there are so friggen many versions of Linux, and not all of them play nice with each other. With XP there are versions but all with the base code being the EXACT SAME. I don't have to convert from a .deb to an .rpm just to attempt to install a program. It's this fragmentation of the code base that prevents Linux from truly making a takeover.
If the Fanboys would all quit crowing over X distro over Y distro, and demand that all of them use a simple and unified structure(windows anyone?) for program distribution, then perhaps it would move to 60% ready. As it stands Linux will never be a competitor. It's faster and more secure. It's DRM free. And it's a PITA to WORK with. As much as people seem to hate Windows and M$, they are the leaders for a reason. Good(not great) support for almost all hardware, and a single way for programs to be utilized(I'm talking at runtime, not coding). This seems to be a missed point on the Nix side. That and any version of windows is set up in pretty much the same way. It's this uniformity that really makes Windows. Once the Nix community gets past the Tower of Babel that it's in now, I'll look into it again.
I have recently tried out Ubuntu. It was a success. But I am writing this on XP. Why? Lots of reasons...
1 Gaming... yes there are linux games, just not the ones I like to play.
2 ease of use Both software and Hardware. Yes XP has some issues, mostly driver related, but Linux has just as many if not more.
3 confusion factor. This should be number one. If I get software that is made for Windows it just works. With linux I have to worry if this Distro likes it.
The show stopper for me is the fact that there are so friggen many versions of Linux, and not all of them play nice with each other. With XP there are versions but all with the base code being the EXACT SAME. I don't have to convert from a .deb to an .rpm just to attempt to install a program. It's this fragmentation of the code base that prevents Linux from truly making a takeover.
If the Fanboys would all quit crowing over X distro over Y distro, and demand that all of them use a simple and unified structure(windows anyone?) for program distribution, then perhaps it would move to 60% ready. As it stands Linux will never be a competitor. It's faster and more secure. It's DRM free. And it's a PITA to WORK with. As much as people seem to hate Windows and M$, they are the leaders for a reason. Good(not great) support for almost all hardware, and a single way for programs to be utilized(I'm talking at runtime, not coding). This seems to be a missed point on the Nix side. That and any version of windows is set up in pretty much the same way. It's this uniformity that really makes Windows. Once the Nix community gets past the Tower of Babel that it's in now, I'll look into it again.
It's not really a question about being fanboy's...
The main differances between Linux distributions are how they handle applications. If that was unified there would not be alot of reasons for such a wide variety of distro's to exist.
So which one would be chosen as the standard? Most distributions would consider their own way to be the best... Personaly I don't think any of them are perfect.
The main differances between Linux distributions are how they handle applications. If that was unified there would not be alot of reasons for such a wide variety of distro's to exist.
So which one would be chosen as the standard? Most distributions would consider their own way to be the best... Personaly I don't think any of them are perfect.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
And that is exactly my point...which one IS best? The main reason I see that there is no unified structure in the Nix's is that everyone is to busy ballyhooing their favorite. Maybe less time needs to be spent on worrying about what is the absolute best way, and more on which is the best way overall. Windows sucks in it's ways, but at least it sucks in a uniform way.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
Alot of the Linux distros out there are based on Debian. Not unlike Windows. There is subtle changes in how it is done, which makes some programs not as portable as one would hope for.
Linux | Debian / Redhat (both have 64bit)
Windows | FAT (xx) up to 9x / NTFS x.x( all flavors are not seemingly compatible) / Then the 64 bit versions and such.
So each platform has imcomaptabilty within its own structure. Both the same question can be asked of both Microsoft and GNU/Hurd based OS's. If is what you want out of it. Is 98SE better or XP Home? Or XP Pro 32 bit or XP Pro 64 bit, even 2003?
Over in the linux camp each verison is subtle to its creators desires and outlook what should be in the OS.
Long as you want similar within Linux, then stick with Deb based Operating systems. For further ease, 32bit.
Linux | Debian / Redhat (both have 64bit)
Windows | FAT (xx) up to 9x / NTFS x.x( all flavors are not seemingly compatible) / Then the 64 bit versions and such.
So each platform has imcomaptabilty within its own structure. Both the same question can be asked of both Microsoft and GNU/Hurd based OS's. If is what you want out of it. Is 98SE better or XP Home? Or XP Pro 32 bit or XP Pro 64 bit, even 2003?
Over in the linux camp each verison is subtle to its creators desires and outlook what should be in the OS.
Long as you want similar within Linux, then stick with Deb based Operating systems. For further ease, 32bit.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
Well I tested out some boot times with fresh installs of Ubuntu 6.06LTS and Vista RC1 (both 64 bit) and here is what I got:
Time to login screen:
Ubuntu: 42 seconds
Vista: 70 seconds
Time to usable desktop from login:
Ubuntu: 9 seconds
Vista: 30 seconds
I also tested XP boot time but it isn't a fair comparison really, the drive that I have installed Ubuntu and Vista to is an ancient 30gb Deathstar, and the one with XP is a Seagate 7200.7 160gb drive. The Seagate absolutely thrashes the Deathstar in HDTach by like an extra 20mb/s sustained read speeds. But I will include the XP results for basic reference.
Time to login screen:
30 seconds
Time to usable desktop:
10+ seconds (desktop was at that stage where you can open stuff, but it won't open for another 5-10 seconds because XP isn't really done loading yet, very hard to measure when it is).
Time to login screen:
Ubuntu: 42 seconds
Vista: 70 seconds
Time to usable desktop from login:
Ubuntu: 9 seconds
Vista: 30 seconds
I also tested XP boot time but it isn't a fair comparison really, the drive that I have installed Ubuntu and Vista to is an ancient 30gb Deathstar, and the one with XP is a Seagate 7200.7 160gb drive. The Seagate absolutely thrashes the Deathstar in HDTach by like an extra 20mb/s sustained read speeds. But I will include the XP results for basic reference.
Time to login screen:
30 seconds
Time to usable desktop:
10+ seconds (desktop was at that stage where you can open stuff, but it won't open for another 5-10 seconds because XP isn't really done loading yet, very hard to measure when it is).
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Location
- Smoky Mountains, NC
I think it's obvious Ubuntu should load faster then Vista, Vista is the next gen OS that requires an 800MHZ cpu just to run, Ubuntu on the other hand has for the most part has no visual effects. IMO Ubuntu would be better compared to Windows 2k. Atleast based on visual themes, and what is going on in the background.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
Had you made an argument for Ubuntu being compared to Windows XP I would have agreed with you, both Gnome and KDE are more advanced eye-candy wise than XP, and millenia ahead of Win2k.tenchi86 said:
lee, I compared Ubuntu 6.06 to WinXP on my laptop (32bit Pentium M), and here were the results:
Time to login screen:
Ubuntu 6.06: 43 seconds
Windows XP: 40 seconds
Time from login to usable desktop:
Ubuntu 6.06: 15 seconds
Windows XP: 20 seconds
Now I imagine if this was a fresh install of XP the time from login screen to desktop would be a little faster, but my Ubuntu install is an upgrade from 5.10, so overall the installations have been installed for around the same time (a bit less than a year). They also load the same programs on startup essentially, being wireless management, battery management, volume applet, and media button manager (Ubuntu's is built into Gnome, but XP needs HP drivers to detect all the media controls).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Location
- Smoky Mountains, NC
I would hardly call it more advanced. http://www.dailyflashid.org/gallery/ubuntu.jpg Ubuntu
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/PPP/img/xp-desktop-before.jpg XP
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/desktop/empty/win2000pro.png 2k
Besides Icon colors they are from what I can see the same. Ubuntu and feel free to correct me does not even appear to use smooth minimizing or shadow effects. Ubuntu I do agree is a newer OS, but it is also designed to run on older PCs and as such does not slow the system much at all.
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/PPP/img/xp-desktop-before.jpg XP
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/desktop/empty/win2000pro.png 2k
Besides Icon colors they are from what I can see the same. Ubuntu and feel free to correct me does not even appear to use smooth minimizing or shadow effects. Ubuntu I do agree is a newer OS, but it is also designed to run on older PCs and as such does not slow the system much at all.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
One thing that makes Linux advanced stock over competing Ms proioducts is what has been built in.
I think leaving the plain look is very accpetable. Since most will be tweaking the look to suite thier tatse./ Windows you have to add third party applications or hack the core files. Sometimes it even costs to do some simple really cool stuff in Windows. That is not the point of how advanced one is over the other.It is the underlying technology. Linux you start grabbing files and making the simple changes. I have to admit. I am used to the MS feel of the desktop/. Linux is by far more advanced in how the operating system handles tweaking it up to suite each users tastes.
A light example is the 3D-Desktop that is not hard to get going. There have been many attempts on the Windows side of the coin and every one is lacking in a nice solid GUI. Linux has that over the top and running rather well. Windows your getting a whole new shell to even start to get some true 3D like interface. Plus most the MS 3D type interfaces lack many functions or are very buggy still.
So under all the skins and eye candy. Linux is more advanced. There is so many tiny things that put it in the more advanced category, not just the native multi-desk support. Windows has some sweet themes though and StyleXp and Winblinds do a fine job. Linux you add a widget(adesklet) script and thats about it get to start adding the widgets(adesklets). Windows your adding even more on top of the shell, to even start a widget, not just running a helper script( for semi automation oof the install).
Edt:
How to add toys in a Linux desktop:
http://adesklets.sourceforge.net/desklets.html
To add toys in MS:
Well if you want to read a very long list and then buy a product..
http://www.wincustomize.com/
The icons do not count, neither does the colors. Since that is so easy to come by and change. Windows is hard to modify the core icons too. You need special software to do this. So comparing the interface look as more advanced is not as a robust argument as one would think. I do nto use the shading or fancy drops that are in windwos. Yes Xp is supportive of this. Though it does not make the interface more advanced. It how it handles basic tasks to get the cool effects and keep it stable.
I think leaving the plain look is very accpetable. Since most will be tweaking the look to suite thier tatse./ Windows you have to add third party applications or hack the core files. Sometimes it even costs to do some simple really cool stuff in Windows. That is not the point of how advanced one is over the other.It is the underlying technology. Linux you start grabbing files and making the simple changes. I have to admit. I am used to the MS feel of the desktop/. Linux is by far more advanced in how the operating system handles tweaking it up to suite each users tastes.
A light example is the 3D-Desktop that is not hard to get going. There have been many attempts on the Windows side of the coin and every one is lacking in a nice solid GUI. Linux has that over the top and running rather well. Windows your getting a whole new shell to even start to get some true 3D like interface. Plus most the MS 3D type interfaces lack many functions or are very buggy still.
So under all the skins and eye candy. Linux is more advanced. There is so many tiny things that put it in the more advanced category, not just the native multi-desk support. Windows has some sweet themes though and StyleXp and Winblinds do a fine job. Linux you add a widget(adesklet) script and thats about it get to start adding the widgets(adesklets). Windows your adding even more on top of the shell, to even start a widget, not just running a helper script( for semi automation oof the install).
Edt:
How to add toys in a Linux desktop:
http://adesklets.sourceforge.net/desklets.html
To add toys in MS:
Well if you want to read a very long list and then buy a product..
http://www.wincustomize.com/
The icons do not count, neither does the colors. Since that is so easy to come by and change. Windows is hard to modify the core icons too. You need special software to do this. So comparing the interface look as more advanced is not as a robust argument as one would think. I do nto use the shading or fancy drops that are in windwos. Yes Xp is supportive of this. Though it does not make the interface more advanced. It how it handles basic tasks to get the cool effects and keep it stable.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2001
Enablingwolf said:
I would also point out that Gnome has a full theming system like XP and can change the look to practically hundreds of themes without a third part utility. Windows 2000 on the other hand requires WindowsBlinds (unless you consider changing the task bar color a theme), and XP requires either a hack, or WindowsBlind/StyleXP.
Also the newest version of Xorg inherently supports AIGLX OpenGL rendering, and will be shipped with Ubuntu 6.10 (due within a month or two). This will push its capabilities far past that of XP, and close to Vista's. Of course anyone who is willing to put in some effort can get XGL/AIGLX + compiz running right now with any Linux distro and enjoy advanced effects.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Location
- Smoky Mountains, NC
Though it's not stock, a simple file like Vista Transformation pack takes no more then a restart or two and a few clicks to install it. http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Vista-Transformation-Pack-Screenshot-32042.html Being the end result with some 30 themes. The default ones in Ubunutu from what I have seen all seem outdated, they are square and solid colors. I am glad Ubuntu left it open to mod, but it's still changing the default options which can be done in XP on a solid color theme very easy, same for 2k. As for 3D Desktop, IMO that's worthless, though I had a Windows box doing that over 5 years ago so it's very possible. Either way though my point was not who can make the best themes, it's who on default spends the most system power on managing those themes. As you probably know you can get a list of some of the theme features under System/Advanced/Settings.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2004
Its what is built in that makes it more avanced. I love my install of XP and what I have made it in to. I have to admit. This Windows power user thinks Linux native support for certain things via the stock panels blows XP out of the water. Not just the muitple desktops. There is so many small and tiny things most could care less about in Linux. I wish were part of my XP instal right out of the box. I have to download applications for the nice effects features compared to the stock Linux desk.
Both have some really sweet other then stock applications/addons that make it beyond what one could expect out of a stock product. The power lies what you can do out of the box and not have to download.
When in Linux, it drives me nuts I have one dead key.. Seems to function in Windows though.
Another and final point in stock Linux's favor. The abilty to fine tune just about evey part of the look versus, the XP, look is sweet. Though I have seen some themes in Windows that I really like over any Linux theme. That is taste not function though.
Both have some really sweet other then stock applications/addons that make it beyond what one could expect out of a stock product. The power lies what you can do out of the box and not have to download.
When in Linux, it drives me nuts I have one dead key.. Seems to function in Windows though.
Another and final point in stock Linux's favor. The abilty to fine tune just about evey part of the look versus, the XP, look is sweet. Though I have seen some themes in Windows that I really like over any Linux theme. That is taste not function though.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Location
- Smoky Mountains, NC
I will give Ubuntu credit in that multi desktops do come in handy and are integrated very well. It also is a more advanced customization, but don't forget you can change just about every color on XP or 2k using the advanced button under the themes tab.
Similar threads
