[aclug-L] Re: Linux as an alternative to a Windows desktop

["Jonathan Hall" <flimzy@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> > I still hold to my earlier statements that Windows is better on limited
> > hardware, though. :)
>
> Well...That's an interesting assessment.  I would like to load Debian on
> a spare HD and try it on the company Compaq Armada 1750 (P III, 366 MHz,
> 64 MiB RAM) and see if it runs faster than WinNT 4.0 SP 6 currently
> does (slower than molasses in January).  Perhaps with <= Win95 I could
> agree with your statement.  I've never tried Win98 or WinME, so I can't
> offer MO there.

My laptop (486DX2/50, 24mb RAM, 10gb HD) is living proof that Win95 is
better than Linux for GUI operation on limited hardware.  I have both 95
OSR2 and Linux (Debian woody) installed.  I don't even bother using X any
more.  For a while, when my main PC was down, I used that laptop as my main
home computer, and used it in 95 the whole time (nearly 6 months), b/c it
was so much faster than X with the most basic configuration was in Linux.

If/when I have spare time, I may do some benchmarks to estimate the
threshhold where a Linux GUI becomes faster than Windows. I suspect it's
somewhere between 64 and 128mb of RAM for Win95/98NT.  Versus W2k/XP, Linux
will probably always win.  CPU is probably mostly irrelevant.

My K6-3/400 w/ 196mb RAM, 3gb HD is running NT4 "happily".  It's not
breaking any performance records, but it's stable and I don't have any
specific complaints about response time.

-- Jonathan

-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi