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

["Ironrose" <ironrose@xxxxxxx>]

Where do you work at Nate?  I had the same problems when I was at CCH.
Maybe they could streamline the startup and then you open apps from
desktop icons.  Atleast that would help NT not to choke and chug thru
the startup.  

I have been installing too many apps & libraries with the linux installs
and that is why my fast computers have been choked down.  I removed most
of the KDE apps and then Xwindows wouldn't start.  Time for another
install and I will try the text method this time.  ~Anne

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Nate Bargmann
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 6:43 AM
To: discussion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aclug-L] Re: Linux as an alternative to a Windows desktop


* 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 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