To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The word liar never was written down. You inferred that.
One person saying Ubuntu's liveCD boots quicker than Windows Vista should mean little to most people unless it is backed up by more evidence.
Sorry, I really don't care this offends, I'm not a sheep that just follows people because they say so.
That seems reasonable, since 1GB *is* the "real" recommended minimum for Vista. With 512MB, you'd get a lot more swapping with Vista (you shouldn't get any more swapping with the LiveCD, since it's not mounting hard drives in the first place).
Here's the deal: turn your PC off, open it up and remove some RAM (assuming you don't just have a single 1GB chip) so that you bring your PC down to 512MB, then try it again. I wouldn't be surprised if the LiveCD took less time to boot because of the reduced memory (and the increased need for swapping with Vista).






Member since:
2005-07-02
Hey, I may be a Linux advocate, but I use Windows (XP) everyday. If you know my history, and you've read my posts, you'll also know that I don't have anything against Windows per se. I think there have been some really good Windows OSes (2K is still the best one in my mind). So yeah, Windows OSes are okay...not as good as Linux in my mind, but pretty good OSes all around. I *do* distrust Microsoft, but that has nothing to do with that particular experience. I was really disappointed with Vista performance on a 512MB machine. You're free not to believe me, but I know what I saw.
If you want to call me a liar, go right ahead. I'm curious, though, how long does it take for you when you boot Vista on a 512 MB machine?