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.
E-mail Print r 2   · Read More · 66 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 329331
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This was the worst article ever written.


My my! How many seconds do I get to hold my acceptance speech?

Linux beats XP in every single feature, it's simply no contest.


For you, it might - for me, in this specific case? Nope, I'm sorry. XP is the winner for me. Can't help it. Didn't expect it either, as I clearly said in the previous articles that I didn't believe XP would stand a chance. But hey, I am a man of science, and I want to see something with my own eyes before passing judgement.

You're apparently rather unfamiliar with that. Your loss.

So all you know to do is slap Ubuntu on he netbook, not knowing first thing about Linux obviously.


And an insult, my my! Are we on a roll today!

Then when you realize you'd have to invest a bit of time to find hardware that works with Linux you take the lazy way out and slap XP on the netbook and in the end you proclaim that it was the right thing to do and that now you're finally happy.


...and where did I say I didn't already do that? Where did I say I did not invest time in looking at the various offers being made by mobile carriers here when it comes to 3G modems+contracts? Maybe I already looked over all the offerings, and concluded that none of the 3G modems included work flawlessly on Linux? I live in a small country, you see, so choice isn't exactly wealthy.

I know how to handle these things. I buy ALL my hardware with Linux and BeOS in mind.

With this article you've lost any little shred of credibility you may have had before.


Again?

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yup, I used ext2.


Ext2 is indeed not a journaling filesystem, but it is getting quite venerable now and it has the worst performance of filesystems that you could choose for Linux.

http://librenix.com/?inode=922
http://lists.mysql.com/benchmarks/133

Agreed that you wouldn't want to use a journalling filesystem for a SSD ...

... so why didn't you try a Linux filesystem that was actually designed for use with SSDs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFFS2
http://sourceware.org/jffs2/

http://logfs.org/logfs/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAFFS

There are at least these three. In fact, there is a quite a selection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems#Flash_memory_.2F_...

Note that FAT32 is not one of them. FAT or exFAT (FAT64) ... maybe. However, given the lack of attributes that any MS FAT filesystem can support, FAT filesystems are not recommended for Linux use.

Firefox/Linux is slower than Firefox/Windows


Utter rubbish. Twaddle. Bunk.

Why would you even say such a thing?

Edited 2008-09-05 09:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: FAT, it's all about FAT
by J. M. on Sat 6th Sep 2008 16:56 in reply to "RE[4]: FAT, it's all about FAT"
J. M. Member since:
2005-07-24

"Firefox/Linux is slower than Firefox/Windows


Utter rubbish. Twaddle. Bunk.

Why would you even say such a thing?
"
Because it's true? I've been using Linux for many years, I've seen thousands of comments from Linux users about Firefox, but not one of them, not even the most enthusiastic Linux fanboy would ever say Firefox on Linux is at least distantly comparable in speed to Firefox on Windows. The difference is so screamingly obvious - the Firefox user interface is supersluggish on Linux. But that's not specific to Firefox, this generally applies to any other program (those multiplatform GUI apps always run an order of magnitude faster on Windows, when it comes to GUI speed).

Reply Parent Score: 2

agrouf Member since:
2006-11-17

Did you use ext2 on SSD? That's a big mistake if you ask me. Maybe you are not aware, but on SSD, we use JFFS2. Of course, you must have had very slow performance with ext2! jffs2 is a journaled file system, you don't have to choose to disable that feature to obtain good performances. It has been around for quite some time now and jffs3 will soon replace it. Flash memory doesn't work like hard drive at all and the ext file system isn't designed to be used on flash drive. It's like using a ferrari in the jungle. It's fast when on the road, but it doesn't make any sense in the jungle.

Edited 2008-09-05 12:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

truckweb Member since:
2005-07-06

First, I installed WinXP simply because I wanted WinXP, nothing against Linux, but did not want to use it. Since Acer have all their drivers for WinXP, it's simple to do and I also have an external DVD drive so it's even easier to install.

Second, FireFox under WinXP is faster than FireFox under the Linpus distro on the Aspire One. I can also say that the wireless speed was better under WinXP. That probably helped Firefox to be faster.

I did disable everything I could to make NTFS work, but it was still very slow. That's why I reinstalled everything on FAT32 and thing got much better.

On another note, why all post talking about WinXP are modded down? Linux fans? Grow up.

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Did you use ext2 on SSD? That's a big mistake if you ask me. Maybe you are not aware, but on SSD, we use JFFS2. Of course, you must have had very slow performance with ext2! jffs2 is a journaled file system, you don't have to choose to disable that feature to obtain good performances.


Precisely so. The OP apparently knew enough to realise that NTFS gave unacceptable performance with XP using a SSD, and so used FAT instead, but did not realise that an entirely similar situation applied in Linux. Just as you cannot get decent performance with XP using NTFS on an SSD, so too you cannot get decent performance with Linux using ext2 on a SSD.

Ignorance of those facts by the OP has apparently led the OP to believe that Linux itself is slow and XP isn't.

It has been around for quite some time now and jffs3 will soon replace it.


Now that I didn't know. I had thought that Logfs was going to replace jffs2.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: FAT, it's all about FAT
by renox on Fri 5th Sep 2008 19:15 in reply to "RE[3]: FAT, it's all about FAT"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Yup, I used ext2. I tried just as hard to minimalise small writes to the SSD on Linux as I did on Windows ;) .
So did you mount the FS in Linux with noatime or relatime? A slow SSD is probably where this bring the biggest savings..

that Windows XP is actually a very mature, stable, and highly optimised piece of kit.
Agreed (except for the disk access but an SSD is different).

this netbook, in case we forget, has a hyperthreading processor running at 1.6Ghz.
Mmm, do not forget that an Atom is an in order design so it's not very efficient for a given frequency (about the same as a P4), but you're right that an Atom is no slouch.

The big problem with Ubuntu is not so much the OS itsellf, but the applications.
Yes: If you used BeOS you know that most (all?) of our current software (on Linux and Windows) suck big time compared to what they should be and this is mostly an application design issue not a kernel issue.

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.
Oh I believe it alright, OOo was an awfully slow application, it's just very slow now.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So did you mount the FS in Linux with noatime or relatime?


Noatime. Some here insinuate that I'm not experienced enough in Linux, but let me assure you - that is certainly not the case.

Reply Parent Score: 2