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 84556
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.
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-10-02
Actually it's not all that insane.
What happens when a system loses 75% of free avaialable ram? It starts trashing.. before the loss of my 2nd ram module Gnome never used swap. But now... oh boy. Use of harddisk can bog any system. Windows isn't better.
Windows 2000 can run with 256 MB ram fine on a 700 MHz cpu, but don't try that with a newer OS.
Try Win2K on a 200 MHz Pentium MMX and 80 MB ram... it's nowhere fast 
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-10-02
That could of course be true. I have absolutely no idea about hardware support issues for labtops and NT4.
None the less, I seriously doubt I could accept the performance. A 1.5 GHz Sempron 2200+ with 1024 MB RAM (well, 512 at the moment - one of the modules died - cheap crap) and a lot more stuff with Windows2003 (before that Win2K Pro) hardly performs adequately for me.