Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 7th Jan 2006 18:50 UTC
The study described in the following article was done by Mirosoft, so run to the kitchen and get some grains of salt. "Microsoft's Linux and open-source lab on the Redmond campus has been running some interesting tests of late, one of which was looking at how well the latest Windows client software runs on legacy hardware in comparison to its Linux competitors. The tests, which found that Windows performed as well as Linux on legacy hardware when installed and run out-of-the-box, were done in part to give Microsoft the data it needed to effectively "put to rest the myth that Linux can run on anything." Do with the results as you please, but the topic is interesting nonetheless. What are your experiences?
Thread beginning with comment 82917
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-06-29
"You bring up a valid point, but then again, Microsoft could say that Windows 3.1 ran brilliantly on a Pentium Pro 180MHz. "
An excellent comparisson as far as the basic idea is concerned; however, DSL and Puppy Linux still get current security updates and are still supported, plus they support a lot more hardware than Windows 3.1.
"DSL and the like are stripped. That's not necesserally bad, but it points them at a market that isn't exactly mainstream. Ubuntu is so popular because it can be subbed in for Mac OS X or Windows without feeling like there's a ton missing. It has the features which means that it uses the resources. "
True, but anyone running hardware old enough to require DSL or Puppy just to run wouldn't have been using a very current or featureful version of Windows or Mac OS either.
"But Microsoft could have done that with Win 3.1"
Or they could scale down are more current Windows. I don't doubt Microsoft could support old hardware if they wanted to, what I do doubt is that they'd make a monitary return on it big enough to justify the expense.
"Linux doesn't run on older machines unless you strip out the features which make it competitive with commercial operating systems."
I'll agree with that point, but then to me old boxes themselves aren't useful. There comes a time when people just can't complain that the new software won't run on their old boxes any more, capable software requires capable hardware.