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

[flimzy@xxxxxxxxxx]

> * Jonathan Hall <flimzy@xxxxxxxxxx> [2002 Dec 13 06:05 -0600]:
>> 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.
>
> I think this is an apples vs. oranges comparison.  Saying a 6 to 7 year
> old consumer "OS" works better on hardware a slight bit older than said
> "OS" compared to a Debian distribution released a few months ago on
> the same hardware seems inconsistent to me.  A better comparision is
> loading Win XP Pro or Win 2k Server on your laptop and testing that
> against Debian Woody.

I think a valid comparison is "An OS which runs modern applications."  And
Windows 95 will run 95% of modern Windows applications.  If you need to
use an application that won't run on Windows 95, then in that context,
Windows 95 is not valid, and W2k Server or XP Pro may be.
But for what most people do, Windows 95 *is* a valid comparison, so long
as the context is understood.
Also, the opensource nature of Linux makes it much more possible to
fine-tune Linux and only use the portions you need.  Even so, a very
MINIMAL installation of Debian 2.2 + X is far slower than a FULL
installation of Win95.  If you want to be "fair" I could install Debian
1.3, so that I'm using a 6-year old version of that, as well, but the
resource requirements of that will be practically identical (if not worse)
than in Debian 2.2 to perform the same tasks in X.
XF3 hasn't fundamentally chaged much since 1995--certianly not nearly as
much as Windows has.  The main changes in the Linux GUI have been in
window managers and desktop environments.
-- Jonathan


> I ran X 3.3.6 on a 486/100 with 20 MiB of RAM as my primary desktop
> machine up through March of 2001.  I haven't updated it beyond Debian
> 2.2.  Yes X was slower than Win95 had been, but(!) I was using a much
> richer environment overall.  Yes running OO or Mozilla was out of the
> question, yet I did run Star Office 5.2 on that machine even though it
> was a bit slow.
>
> OTOH, later versions of Debian are not intended for "limited" hardware
> at least in terms of disk space.
>
>> 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.
>
> Don't forget to compare the boot times of DOS 3.3 on the same hardware.
> ;-)
>
>> 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.
>
> Oh. my NT box at work is stable too.  In the same way concrete is
> stable.  Only problem is that on bootup so much background stuff is
> loaded by default (and no, I don't have admin rights to change it) that
>  opening Lotus Notes 5 causes a fair amount of swapping and if Acrobat
> 5  is opened with Notes, you just as well go get a cup of coffee or
> some such.
>
> This isn't the fault of NT per se, but is a glaring example of our IT
> Dept  trying to crowd too much on limited hardware.  I tried adding a
> 128 MiB SODIMM to the machine last week, but found that generic memory
> won't work in that Compaq.  So, I need to buy a specific version for
> the Compaq.  Arrgh!
>
> An interesting comparison of experience and opinion in this thread.
>
> - Nate >>
>
> --
> Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB          | "We have awakened a
> Internet | n0nb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx               | sleeping giant and
> Location | Bremen, Kansas USA EM19ov           | have instilled in him
>  Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | a terrible resolve".
>             http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/           | - Admiral Yamamoto
> -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi



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