Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Sep 2008 21:33 UTC
Windows A few weeks ago, I reviewed the Acer Aspire One notebook, the variant which came with an Acer-modified version of Linpus Linux. This version was locked-down and difficult to modify, so not too long after I installed Ubuntu, and was reasonably pleased - despite the amount of tweaking it took to get it working. A few days ago, however, I realised Linux wouldn't be ideal for me on my netbook. Due to pragmatic reasons, I'm now running Windows XP.
Thread beginning with comment 329309
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: FAT, it's all about FAT
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 5th Sep 2008 01:16 UTC in reply to "FAT, it's all about FAT"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Definitely - go with fat32, crucial step. Added it to the article. Slipped my mind!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: FAT, it's all about FAT
by Nico57 on Fri 5th Sep 2008 03:24 in reply to "RE: FAT, it's all about FAT"
Nico57 Member since:
2006-12-18

Did you try NTFS with the DisableNTFSLastAccessUpdate switch on ?
This should relieve a lot of stress from the SSD.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: FAT, it's all about FAT
by pixel8r on Fri 5th Sep 2008 03:31 in reply to "RE: FAT, it's all about FAT"
pixel8r Member since:
2007-08-11

out of curiousity were you using linux with a non-journaling fs as well?

i find it hard to believe that XP was more snappy or more responsive than ubuntu on any pc.

In my experience with several xp boxes and several linux boxes, the linux ones generally feel more responsive. Not necessarily "faster" at everything but definitely if you had a few things running at once it generally does a better job of keeping things responsive, without locking the system up while reading from disks, network drives etc.

Dont get me wrong Windows XP is great, but I think it suffers when you have a few resource-intensive processes running at once. and particularly explorer really struggles a lot when accessing slow network drives etc. One bad connection pulls all explorer windows to a halt. Another example is when you put a cd into the cdrom drive - the whole system stops for a few seconds while it tries to read from the disk.

Linux just seems to deal with IO and overall system load so much better - probably its server roots coming into play i guess. And this is just in my experience so others mileage may vary.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

out of curiousity were you using linux with a non-journaling fs as well?


Yup, I used ext2. I tried just as hard to minimalise small writes to the SSD on Linux as I did on Windows ;) .

i find it hard to believe that XP was more snappy or more responsive than ubuntu on any pc.


Many people forget that Windows XP is actually a very mature, stable, and highly optimised piece of kit. It takes some work, but it can be made to run properly on a lot of old crap - and this netbook, in case we forget, has a hyperthreading processor running at 1.6Ghz.

The big problem with Ubuntu is not so much the OS itsellf, but the applications. Evolution is slower and heavier than Outlook 2003, Firefox/Linux is slower than Firefox/Windows, Gaim is a total dog compared to Miranda, and OOo doesn't hold a candle to this specialised version of Office 2003 (seriously, that's something you gotta see to believe) and so on.

Edited 2008-09-05 06:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

i find it hard to believe that XP was more snappy or more responsive than ubuntu on any pc.

Not hard to believe. I have done many comparisons between Windows 2000/XP and Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu, Xubuntu...) on old, slow computers at work and Linux can not compare. These have been computers <= 1,8 GHz, often less than 1 GHz.

The anything-but-Microsoft people may not like it but Windows is the most usable operating system for older computers. Yes, there are distributions like DSL but they are generally too different and too hard to use.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: FAT, it's all about FAT
by malxau on Fri 5th Sep 2008 03:52 in reply to "RE: FAT, it's all about FAT"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

Have you looked at what writes NTFS was generating that caused it to be slower than FAT? The worst case for an SSD is random writes; as another poster pointed out, NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate and NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation should take care of a bunch of those. I'm surprised that there would be a significant difference in random writes between NTFS & FAT.

Reply Parent Score: 1