Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 7th Jan 2006 18:50 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y 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 82985
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Celver Writing!!
by smashIt on Sun 8th Jan 2006 00:56 UTC in reply to "Celver Writing!!"
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

used to have an XP system with 128Mb DDRRAM and a 1.6Ghz CPU. It would take WinXP a good 5 minutes to load with "out of the box" settings to a usable desktop, where Mandrake 7.2 would load and I would be logged in within 2mins...
you either don't know how to use a watch or you never had win xp runing on this system.
I use win xp on 500mhz with 192mb sd-ram and it doesn't even come close to 5 minutes.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Celver Writing!!
by jsight on Sun 8th Jan 2006 03:04 in reply to "RE: Celver Writing!!"
jsight Member since:
2005-07-06

you either don't know how to use a watch or you never had win xp runing on this system.
I use win xp on 500mhz with 192mb sd-ram and it doesn't even come close to 5 minutes.


Well, I've used XP on a box with 128 MB and a 2.4 Ghz Celeron (crappy chip... benchmarks closer to a P4 1.5 Ghz), and you're right, bootup was less than 5 minutes.

Unfortunately, the box was PAINFULLY slow. It was nearly unusable, and was quickly upgraded to 768 MB, which resolved the performance problems nicely.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Celver Writing!!
by helf on Sun 8th Jan 2006 06:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Celver Writing!!"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

as he said before... Something is terribly wrong. XP should not be 'painfully slow' on that original setup. Heck, my laptop is a toshiba 3110ct... 366mhz p2 with 128mb of ram. and its running xp decently. xp uses about 45megs on boot. I even use firefox on it ;)

I suppose it comes down to how much you know about your given OS. I can tweak the heck out of XP but I do not kno anywhere near as much for any given linux distro. Altho i do try ;)

This whole Linux distro A vs Windows version B is getting REALLY annoying.

Look, learn more about your OS of choice and stop bickering. It's retarded.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Celver Writing!!
by Jezza on Sun 8th Jan 2006 10:06 in reply to "RE: Celver Writing!!"
Jezza Member since:
2005-10-13

Are you timing up to the little jingle noise, or are you meaning until you get a usable desktop. True it will present you with the desktop pretty quick, but click on the start menu and try to connect to ADSL or dial-up networking and you get no option to do so. The start menu will close again before the entries are there. Windows will give you a desktop quite fast, but it's not usable. As soon as I get into my KDE desktop it's usable for whatever I want, even restoring old session data (which windows doesn't do) KD is up and running faster than WinXP

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Celver Writing!!
by helf on Sun 8th Jan 2006 14:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Celver Writing!!"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

I rarely shutdown my windows or linux boxes... So the whole boot time arguement is pretty much moot... Least with me ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1