Coffeehouse Thread

52 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Comparison: Vista, Linux

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Raghavendra_​Mudugal

    Smiley

    The article...

    Linked by Thom Holwerda on 2007-01-28 02:12:22 UTC, submitted by flanque

    "So, which really is better for the desktop: Vista or Linux? I've been working with Vista since its beta days, and I started using Linux in the mid-90s. There may be other people who have worked with both more than I have, but there can't be many of them. Along the way, I've formed a strong opinion: Linux is the better of the two. But, now that Vista is on the brink of becoming widely available, I thought it was time to take a comprehensive look at how the two really compare. To do this, I decided to take one machine, install both of them on it, and then see what life was like with both operating systems on a completely even playing field."

  • User profile image
    wkempf

    I biased article on a Linux website.  Useful to everyone, I'm glad you shared.

    The guys an idiot, and proves the point in his first "attack" on Vista.  A 1Ghz machine with 1GB of ram and a $150 graphics card is more than enough to run Vista, even with the fancy Aero.  I couldn't read the article past this point, because, really, there'd be no point in doing so.

  • User profile image
    Dr Herbie

    It also seems to be an incomplete series, not getting further than the installation.


    Herbie

  • User profile image
    mstefan

    wkempf wrote:
    I biased article on a Linux website.  Useful to everyone, I'm glad you shared.

    The guys an idiot, and proves the point in his first "attack" on Vista.  A 1Ghz machine with 1GB of ram and a $150 graphics card is more than enough to run Vista, even with the fancy Aero.  I couldn't read the article past this point, because, really, there'd be no point in doing so.


    While I agree that there's certainly some bias there, I disagree that a 1 GHz system with 1 GB of memory is "more than enough" to run Vista Ultimate with the Aero Glass desktop.

    I would argue that the "real-world" minimum specs for a Vista system with all of the bells and whistles is a 3 GHz processor, 2 GB of memory and a DirectX 9 video card with 128 MB of memory (preferably at least 256 MB). Vista will install and run with less than that, but it will not be a pleasant experience. Then again, I don't tolerate systems that are less than snappy, so perhaps that's my own bias.

    After all, there's a huge gulf between "will run" and "enjoyable to run".

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    sirhomer wrote:
    And with Samba 4, there will be a complete Active Directory implementation for Linux...

    RSN!
    sirhomer wrote:
    ...Windows API implementation is growing faster then it ever did.

    What do you mean? Is Linux still playing catch up with Windows? But... I thought it was awesomely superior!

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    sirhomer wrote:
    

    Linux is easily at the point were can be used as a complete replacement to Vista.



    Ah yes, it's the year of the linux desktop. Again.

    Of course a complete replacement would do everything Windows does. Like run Windows software. Without a kludgey layer that only works for some things. Oops.

  • User profile image
    PerfectPhase

    mstefan wrote:
    
    I would argue that the "real-world" minimum specs for a Vista system with all of the bells and whistles is a 3 GHz processor, 2 GB of memory and a DirectX 9 video card with 128 MB of memory


    Can we not just fling pointless numbers arround, my 2.4Ghz machine is so much faster than my old 3Ghz, but then that's 'cause its a Core2Duo, not a P4.

    For two whole hours I thought people were going to ignore this thread for the troll bait it quite blantly is!

    Sad

  • User profile image
    mstefan

    PerfectPhase wrote:
    Can we not just fling pointless numbers arround, my 2.4Ghz machine is so much faster than my old 3Ghz, but then that's 'cause its a Core2Duo, not a P4.


    True enough, clock speed isn't the final arbiter, and I probably should have said at least 2 GHz (since you're not really going to find many modern CPUs below that anyway, with the exception of the lower-end 1.8 GHz Duos). Memory speed is also a factor, not just size. But I don't think the numbers are "pointless", they provide a useful guideline for folks who are considering upgrading.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    sirhomer wrote:
     And with Samba 4, there will be a complete Active Directory implementation for Linux, completely destroying any advantage Windows had over Linux from a "ease of administration" persepective.


    It that were true, there'd be countless Linux admins rolling out Windows AD servers to manage their Linux networks. Being able to replace a DC is one thing, but there are a significant number of client-side technologies that work with AD to facilitate easy management. That's not to say they couldn't be ported too, it's just that it's a longer road than you seem to imagine. Anything that makes Linux administration easier and enhances interoperability sounds good to me though.

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    A Steven J Vaughn Nichols article devoid of bias, fair and not full of bullsh%$t.  Is there any such thing?  I have a 1 ghz PC with 768 mb of RAM and a 256 mb video card, wow and Vista runs.  I better tell that PC its not supposed to run. 

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    sirhomer wrote:
    
    PaoloM wrote: 
    sirhomer wrote: And with Samba 4, there will be a complete Active Directory implementation for Linux...

    RSN!
    sirhomer wrote: ...Windows API implementation is growing faster then it ever did.

    What do you mean? Is Linux still playing catch up with Windows? But... I thought it was awesomely superior!


    So PaoloM, how great is the builtin Linux emulation layer for Windows? Are you going to tell me that Windows is playing catch up with Linux?

    Besides SFU, I didn't make the point of how my pet OS is good by trying to emulate another OS...

    We're being told again and again that Windows is crap and Linux is SO MUCH BETTER, and the point you use to drive your argument is... "a competing OS implementation is growing faster than it ever did"?

    Why do you have to constantly compare Linux to Windows? Why don't you just let Linux "win" on its own strenghts? Why is it necessary to downplay Windows if Linux is so much better?

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    sirhomer wrote:
    
    Samba is currently possible to administrate by console or GUI, whatever floats your boat.


    You missed the point. The reason AD is successful is because it makes managing the configuration of client machines simple. Replacing a DC with a Linux box doesn't suddenly give you an easy way to replace client desktops without losing that centralized manageability.

    There is a pretty good explanation of this here (notably written from a Linux-centric point of view). The comments section particularly highlights some of the weaker areas in the Linux space (Roaming profiles, Group Policy, software deployment etc)

  • User profile image
    Echostorm

    Humm.  The article is from desktoplinux.com.  So it will be totally fair, balanced and devoid of any sort of bias or fanboyism.

    Seriously people, I came to these forums to get away from the rabid linux nuts and macfans.

    (sampy) Let's watch our language

  • User profile image
    idividebyze​ro

    I really really hate Linux, I would rather use Windows 98, which is bad because I also really hate Windows 98 too. Its 110% useless for me. Its great if you run a server and dont actually have to use it but for regular use its just an unbelievably bad operating system. I probably wouldnt even use a computer if I had to use Linux, its just hell to use and so badly designed (if OS 7 ever got a badly made skin in Window Blinds then youd have the Linux GUI).

    OSX and Vista are the only operating systems I actually like. XP was just "alright" and 98 was "terrible" while OS 9 was "bad." Linux runs along the lines of "pathetic" and "useless"

  • User profile image
    corona_coder

    With Vista repeatedly getting beaten like a dead horse in the mainstream media this is not the first article of this type nature.  With every technology journalist saying switch to Mac or Linux its only a matter of time before it happens.  Vista is dead before it even comes out of the gate.  Our informational tomorrow is seeming like it will be useless but we still have to catch the ones that main stream media didnt get too.  Sorry Microsoft 4 billion in R & D was wasted.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    corona_coder wrote:
    With Vista repeatedly getting beaten like a dead horse in the mainstream media this is not the first article of this type nature.  With every technology journalist saying switch to Mac or Linux its only a matter of time before it happens.  Vista is dead before it even comes out of the gate.  Our informational tomorrow is seeming like it will be useless but we still have to catch the ones that main stream media didnt get too.  Sorry Microsoft 4 billion in R & D was wasted.

    Always good for a laugh, eh? Smiley

    What exactly are you afraid of?

  • User profile image
    corona_coder

    PaoloM wrote:
    
    corona_coder wrote: With Vista repeatedly getting beaten like a dead horse in the mainstream media this is not the first article of this type nature.  With every technology journalist saying switch to Mac or Linux its only a matter of time before it happens.  Vista is dead before it even comes out of the gate.  Our informational tomorrow is seeming like it will be useless but we still have to catch the ones that main stream media didnt get too.  Sorry Microsoft 4 billion in R & D was wasted.

    Always good for a laugh, eh?

    What exactly are you afraid of?


    Im not afraid of anything.  Vista will do nothing but drive Windows users over to us or Mac OS X.  Like I said 4 billion wasted.  Must be nice to have that kind of money.  Vista was Microsofts last chance.  Jan 30th 2007, the day Linux takes over the world. 

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    corona_coder,

    In your opinion, what should Microsoft have done to better during their oppurtunity to redeem their operating system from catastrophic failure?

    Would your opinion remain the same if Microsoft embraced their oppourtunity in the way you see fit? Would you accept Windows then? What would your opinion of Linux be then?

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.