Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Challenges Linux's Legacy Claims
Michael writes "Microsoft Corp.'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.'"
Come back when Windows can run on non-x86-hardware and toasters.
how about those knicks?
So Windows can run on telephone exchanges, PBXs, Sun workstations, IBM mainframes, Cisco routers... w00t!
Oh well, what the hell...
It's really no secret that newer distros have become pretty "full featured". I really don't know why anyone should get defensive about this, but I guess there is no stopping it. Go ahead, mention your favorite slim distro, I hope the self satisfaction makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
i have a copy of win95 on a p1 with 8mb ram and it actually is usable, explorer works well and so does IE, good to have a usable gui with such a weak PC
linux on the other hand will make the PC look like a 1980's throwback with no gui and green text on a black screen, imhe windows runs on more legacy hardware than linux does and looks good, try getting kde or knome usable and looking good on a 8mb p1 75mhz pc
Already people are commenting about how Linux can run on different processors than Windows. Not what they were testing.
From TFA:
""Quite simply, I wanted to examine this factually, using real customer scenarios to test this hypothesis: can Linux run on older hardware than Windows? In many developing countries and public institutions, such as a local library, they typically don't have deep technical staff, so they need to use software without lots of modification and customization."
So yes, Windows95 will INSTALL on a 486SX-25 with 16 MB of RAM, but can you do anything? I think WinXP probably WONT even install on that. Is a P2-350 with 64MB of RAM a decent Win2003 box? Not on your life. Welcome to swapville.
This is the dumbest, most shill-like "benchmark" I've read about in a while. Come back when they do webserver benchmarks on the legacy HW. How many of the tests will read "No results for Windows because the OS won't install on this platform" ?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Yeah, Linux can run on a toaster or an old 486DX. Big fucking deal. I don't think too many companies are planning on running business apps on either of those platforms.
another objective microsoft sponsored study ... with unexpected results ? ;)
Question Authority before IT questions You
While I can run the "client software" on legacy hardware (whatever they define that as), I still can't run, with any decent performance, a fresh install of Windows XP Pro SP2 on my 386, whereas I can pop in my FreeSCO CD and use the machine as a router (or Slackware and use it as a terminal/IRC/MUD/Bugzilla/CVS/Whatever server).
It's not what I can display on a monitor with my old hardware, it's what I can get that damn machine to do.
The study merely proved that Microsoft's current operatings systems can run on the smae hardware. It didn't prove a single thing about the ability of linux to "run on anything." It was entirely limited in scope - they just installed straight out of the box linux distros and Microsoft's OS on old hardware. The myth they were actually trying to disprove is that Windows doesn't run on old hardware.
Thalasar
Well... obviously if you have an old 486 lying around and pick up the latest FC it'll have a lot of junk installed by default that'll kill performance. The issue is that you can prune down most distros and still get a very usable OS on old hardware. A recent version of windows just can't do it.
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.
In other words: None of these devices were actually connected to the Internet.
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
...don't run well on older hardware. I have an old Pentium II 400MHz that ran Windows XP fine enough to be usable. It wasn't always "snappy" but it wasn't slow enough to be distracting. I tried to install Ubuntu on the same machine and it was more sluggish than Windows XP. Simple operations took just long enough that they were noticeably slower than they were meant to be.
While my experience may not prove Microsoft irrefutably right, it's enough for me to agree with their point: that Linux is not always going to run well on older hardware.
How many stories have there been in the vein of "someone says DVDs are dead even though they are selling like the world is ending tomorrow" or "Someone says you can mine Amazon data even though its useless information" or "Microsoft says Windows XP can run on 64MB even though that is fucking ridiculous."
Jeez...
I believe Microsoft's article is reasonable, to a certain extent. They haven't been comparing apples with oranges, but instead are showing that computers running similar application suites behave similarly, whether running on Linux or NT.
The problem with the article isn't that they aren't comparing apples with apples, but that they're ignoring the fact that the oranges exist. If you aren't running desktop apps Linux will run well on small amounts of RAM - even less than the 64MB they quote as the minimum limit - and that similar apps aren't as readily available under the Windows OS.
They're also neglecting to mention that you'd need to spend hundreds to obtain a licensed copy of XP for your legacy hardware, as opposed to downloading a Linux CD image.
Well, sure some linux distros won't run well on old machines, particularly if you try to run gnome, kde, etc. But they can run fine with a good ol' command line. Does windows even have a command line interface that even comes close to the funtionality linux has?
goosee.com/puppy
DamnSmallLinux.org
Sure, you can run Windows 95 (or even 3.1) on old hardware, but you can also run Linux.
Microsoft thus decided to test this premise by installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Pro 9.2, Mandrake 10, Linspire 4.5, Xandros Desktop 3.0, Fedora Core 3, Slackware 10.1, Knoppix 3.7; Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 out-of-the-box on older hardware to see what happened.
The real story here is how revealing this "Comparison" is about attitudes at Microsoft. They weren't interested in doing a valid test which might have been of some use in improving their product. All they were interested in doing was showing a competitor in a bad light, even if it meant blatantly rigging the test. This is an ostrich "head in the sand" trick.
It's because they refuse to accept fair comparison and competition, and to improve as a result of that competition that they continue to expose users to constant security risks.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
What about NetBSD? I'd like to see them install Windows CE on a mechanical pencil! Hah!
Be relentless!
He claims that you have to be a linux developer to install linux which is crap. In fact, it's a lot easier to get linux running than say windows 2000 or 98 (since we're talking legacy here). I will agree that modern operating systems will run slowly on outdated hardware. But to say that a computer runs windows (version??) fast and "linux" slowly is saying nothing. Most modern distros I've tried do run slowly on older hardware (amd k6-2 500 with ample ram) However, windows xp would crawl on such a machine, so it's unfair to say that windows runs faster because I can load windows 98 on it and have it perform okay.
This entire article was BS and had nothing truthful or insightful to say.
From TFA: "The fact of the matter is that if you look at popular desktop Linux distributions from Red Hat or Novell's SUSE, they match or exceed the system requirements of Windows XP. For example, Novell Linux Desktop 9 requires a minimum of 128MB physical RAM, which is identical to the requirements of Windows XP. If you compare OpenOffice 2.0 to the system requirements of Microsoft Office and again they are identical," he said.
..
I winced at the bolded section. 128 megs? Windows XP? Are they bloody serious? We don't want a computer that just boots up - we want productivity. And for productivity, XP needs more than 128 megs, unless by "productivity" you mean "wordpad"
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
It took a long time for Windows to be able to run well on low cost hardware. Nowadays, everyone has 256 or 512MB even on budget systems, and so the requirements aren't much different because EVERYONE will run X.
Basically, the test was stupid and missed the point of being able to run Linux on older hardware - by lowering the requirements through a choice of what you want to install (namely the GUI).
IF you RTFA, they mention that while Linux may install on older hw, running it on a desktop will yield unacceptable levels of performance, and you can forget about running things like Open Office. They're not trying to say Windows is better on legacy hw, they're saying that, out of the box, Linux is just as bad as Windows.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
no digg
When I read the blurb, I figured out what I would find in TFA. They're comparing XP to, say, SUSE 9.0 or RH 4.0 EL. Both optimized for current systems. Here's the difference; there are many distributions of linux targeted at older, slower machines, going all the way back to 286's. I would like to see performance comparisons between Windows and a linux distro targeted at smaller machines. See distrowatch; they list a couple that are *meant* for this application, so you don't have to be a kernel hacker or techincal expert to modify your linux distro for your hardware.
*yawn*. Same old MS crap.
Thinking outside my Head
The salient points are in the statment above. The claim that "most" linuix distros had limitations preventing them from accessing a 32mb system with "aceptable performance" is entirely unsurprising. I note that neither RedHat (to pick one) nor Windows XP would like such a system very much, especially for modern "desktop application performance" (read OpenOffice and MS Office). In that case it is really the apps that are the limiting factors.
They never state what distros were tested (I assume Novell and RedHat when in doubt) nor how installation was done. Rather they pull a nice switching strategy. They test some unnamed distros and then state that windows CE is better than them on legacy hardware.
That is much like saying Windows CE is better than Windows XP on legacy hardware or that MuLinux is better than RedHat on older hardware. In both cases the former was designed for such a task while the latter was not. In both cases the former have limitations that prevent them from running "Modern Desktop Apps", that is in fact the point.
This is a simple "bait and switch" comparison, and if this is all the CTO uses when comparing all distros of linux to windows for some use; fire them.
I'm all for everyone having their say with regard to their opinions. But I have a hard time with this when reading about claims that can't hold water or anything else for that matter. The fact is you can run current kernals on older hardware with slimmed down services and apps running on top of the Linux kernal. Don't see any product from Microsoft that can do or claim this today for x86 PC hardware. This is the claim from the Linux community and it is been substantiated over and over again by the broader computing community for quite some time now. We guarantee Microsoft Free as in speech, but when are they going to guarantee what they say is actually true and factual?
There's nothing substantative in the article. I didn't see benchmarks, I didn't see screenshots of the system in action. I saw he said/she said between some MS people and some guy from Novell.
It's below a non-story.
Astroturf!
Well not by the strict definition, but you get the point; Microsoft has this lab, you see. And in it they test systems from all over the gal^h^h^hworld. And in one of these test Microsoft products outpreformed their competitor's.
Wow! That's news. We better get it on Slashdot right away. Oh, and be sure to include an URL encoded identifer so that the submitter can get his boobie prize.
Just my opinion, but you better modify that URL before you click it. Especially if you aren't running in paranoid mode.
I really want to get a lot of publicity for being able to misunderstand something, then hire some folks, buy some hardware, install some software, spend months generating data all based on my initially incorrect assumption of what I think I heard someone once say about something that I know if I really tried to unblock it, I would know right away that I was full of shit and just pandering to the marketing department, since they have all the money, and my weak ass strawman argument wouldn't hold up to even a casual look, but who cares - it makes a great bullet point.
No seriously. I want it. And a end to run on sentences....
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
Last I checked, Microsoft doesn't allow you to install Windows on multiple machines unless you have a site or multinode license. Not to worry, because the software is widely available at substantial discounts:
0 22PTI4/qid=1136695728/sr=8-3/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-3452 583-1992700?v=glance&s=software
0 0AZJVC/qid=1136695778/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-3452 583-1992700?v=glance&s=software
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00
Now add this to the $500 replacement cost of a new machine (which would likely be better in every respect than the one you're installing on).
I think when most people say Linux runs on anything, they don't mean Fedora Core, or any particular distro. Microsoft's tests are flawed because they assume we mean that Fedora Core 4, or Ubuntu with a nice full GUI desktop setup will run on anything. When I think about Linux running on anything I think about Linux running on my Linksys WRT54GS router, or Linux running on cell phones. We're talking the full linux kernel, with a stripped down environment. I doubt Windows XP (even without the GUI) would run on a cell phone. The XP-embedded kernel might, but not the normal kernel. Linux's strengths lie in it's modularity; the kernel can be stripped down and run in minimal environments, all using the exact same code base, with the same kernel APIs used everywhere.
So it seems that Microsoft is deliberately confusing the issues here. A modern Gnome or KDE desktop on Linux no better or worse than Windows XP on 10 year old hardware with a full GUI desktop. But can Windows XP run on a 20-year-old 386 at all? Linux can. And while a Gnome desktop might now, X11 with a GUI of some kind certainly can. That's what we mean when we say linux can run on older hardware. Furthermore, much about Linux that enables compatibility stretching back 30 years doesn't really have anything to do with Linux itself either. For example, I can connect a Gnome desktop remotely to a 30-year old Unix mainframe and run X11 programs completely seamlessly. I could even fire up a 20-year old unix workstation running X11 and connect to a brand-new gnome desktop running on FC4 somewhere and expect it to work at least.
Further, Linux seems to be able to adapt much quicker to new platforms than Microsoft. The 32-bit to 64-bit jump was made years ago with Linux, with no major kernel API changes. Compare this to Windows which has Win16, Win32, and now Win64, with major changes in between, requiring some interesting hacks to preserve backwards compatibility. Linux, thanks to its Unix heritage, has always thought about things like making x-bit clean (where x is 32, 64, or whatever) and dealing with things like endianness. Linux isn't perfect; if there are issues with moving between 32 and 64 bits, or moving between little and big endian, they are bugs that need to be fixed. Microsoft has never expended much effort to think about such issues, as near as I can tell, since they thrive on the Wintel monopoly. Getting Windows endian-clean, for example, just isn't a priority.
so microsoft is saying that now windows can also run on a dead badger???
Get your torrents...
I've not used Linux significantly, but there are a number of "Window Managers" with low resource needs such as IceWM which can even be skinned to look like your favorite commerial OS.
Personally I prefer the "Windows Classic" theme in XP, as it takes up less resources. Microsoft also released the Media Center Theme for XP users, but it takes up about the same resources as the "Luna Theme."
If you want to get better performance out of a 2K/XP/+ system:
Disable unneeded services: Remote Registry Service and Messenger (there are more possible)
Disable System File Protection
Disable Visual Effects and Active Desktop
Disable "last access" timestamp on files.
Microsoft has dropped support for the gameport in XP64 and in Vista. So, what do I do with my "legacy" rudder pedals and flight yoke that use the gameport?
Miucrosoft IS a dead badger
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
There is a huge content-free lead-in to the article. Here is the meat.
But first, my comment:
Judge for yourself whether or not the minimal configuration is really the minimal one. I personally am inclined to think 2GB is way too big of a disk. If you just want a webserver, DNS box, firewall, etc. you don't need a bigger disk than 32MB, if you are using a BSD. I would guess it is the same or better with Linux. But Windows includes so much unnecessary stuff in the basic install, you need 2GB. This actually does matter -- if you need 32MB, that is a cheap flash disk. If you need 2GB, that's a lot.
"In the tests run in its lab, Microsoft found that most modern commercial Linux distributions could be installed successfully on systems with a Pentium processor, with 64MB of RAM and a minimum of 2GB of hard disk space.
"Memory prevented the successful installation on a typical 1997 system, as 32MB of memory is not enough to install most Linux distributions or to run desktop applications with acceptable performance. A memory upgrade could prolong the life of such hardware, but the cost and effort of locating old memory and installing it onto all corporate clients significantly reduces the potential savings," Hilf said.
Minimum requirements for office productivity performance on a Linux system were any Pentium II (PII) system with at least 64MB of RAM, he said, adding that playback of sound and video would typically require a PII 400 or better.
"This corresponds to an average PC issued between 1998 and 1999," Hilf said.
If Linux was installed on an older system, such as an average PC of 1997, then the desktop performance falls below what is typically acceptable for a common user, he said."
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
But...what did you expect? I'm sure MS actually does do fair tests in which Linux comes out on top, but of course they do them at midnight during the dark of the Moon in a secret underground lab, and they ritually slaughter the engineers afterward so they don't talk.
Seriously, any sensible corporation tests their competitors' products, and keeps the results strictly to themselves. Why give the competition any help? On the other hand, when some random test or other has results that look good for you, however accidental or meaningless that is, then of course the marketing department is sent a memo to slip this into some advertising or other.
Microsoft software may still run on legacy hardware, but
Microsoft only supports consumer operating systems (including
security updates) for only five years after the OS release
date. Because of that, even XP Home will be unusable in less
than a year (support ends 12/31/06).
So, unless you want your legacy hardware to be a spam zombie,
there may be valid reasons for prefering Linux.
First and foremost I love studies that compare the system requirements on the label. This seems like an obvious ploy to convince developing countries to use Windows on hand-me-down hardware. This article is not going to convice anyone that even if XP can run on a Pentium 1 it is worth paying more in software licensing fees than they paid for the hardware.
The only way Windows will convince people that Windows is good for legacy hardware will be if they either restart support for Windows 95 and Windows 98 or write a service pack that will remove or downgrade many system components. This of course presents a major problem for them since they also have to please the OEM's desire for software that forces you to upgrade.
This much aside I beleive all this article shows is that Microsoft recognizes they might lose market share in developing countries and that is a huge compliment and inspiration to open source companies.
They picked a distribution for older PCs right?
Running kernel 2.0, and a fairly minimal X11, instead of KDE/Gnome? Right?
Or perhaps they even picked a recent distribution and pared it down to get it to run well?
Didn't think so.
Out of box Windows vs out of box Linux both chew a fair bit of RAM these days. Difference is, with Linux you have options.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Windows will never run on non-x86 hardware.
There was this pervasive belief that Linux could run on older PCs and that Windows could not, he said, adding that Microsoft thus decided to test this premise by installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Pro 9.2, Mandrake 10, Linspire 4.5, Xandros Desktop 3.0, Fedora Core 3, Slackware 10.1, Knoppix 3.7; Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 out-of-the-box on older hardware to see what happened.
Suse 9.2 runs on my Dell P150 96Meg Ram just fine. Microsoft Windows doesn't even pick up on the NeoMagic video chipset.
"But the average customer is not a technical expert or a Linux developer, so they do not have the skill, or more importantly, the business need, to modify the operating system this way. You could argue that this is why Red Hat and Novell SUSE exist--to provide pre-configured and tested stacks of open-source software so their customers don't need to modify their systems at that level. That's the value proposition of these companies," he said.
The average consumer would save shitloads of money if they understand that Microsoft isn't in charge of their computer.
Whatever. I converted one Microsoft user to Ubuntu this week and they are Happy.
Enjoy.
It's just the normal noises in here.
I think the other question is: how long will the system work? My experience with Windows is that, even if everything works fine when you boot up, the system starts to drag and behave weirdly if you keep it running long enough, open and close applications, have multiple users log in and out, et cetera. I'm guessing the memory management isn't so hot.
On the other hand, I've routinely run my Linux machines for 3-6 months without reboot, 'cause the memory management is sound.
There are school systems in less affluent areas that are still using Pentium-I machines @ 200 MHz or less. Putting these in network using Linux makes them usable as workstations for students. Can't do that with any MS product beyond Windows 98, for which NO security patches of any kind are being produced, since it's a "retired" product. (And, for a public bulletin board, your language is really inappropriate.)
One problem with Linux vs. Windows comparisons is that Linux is just a kernel, whereas Windows is a kernel + desktop environment + userland + web browser + more. Linux can run on legacy hardware; even the latest Linux kernel will run decently even on an old 386 with 8MB RAM, along with the latest versions of the GNU userland, X, a text editor like vim or emacs, and maybe even lynx. (Just don't think about doing anything more complex, such as use a graphical web browser, Java, GTK or QT application, fancy desktops, etc.) On the flipside, can Windows XP even install on an 386? You'll have to revert to DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 if you want a decently-performing Windows config with those specs. And who'd use that in 2006? (You'd have to pay me to use DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11, and give me copies of WordPerfect 5.1 and Lotus 1-2-3 2.4, as well ;).) Windows 95 can technically run on that machine, but you'll be in swap city....
If you are a hardcore Unix user, you can be very comfortable with a 386 or 486 with 8-16MB RAM, as long as you love the command line (and are not even considering any intensive GUI applications). Heck, 386 and 486 users got it much better than Thompson and Ritchie did ;). However, once you start adding GUI toolkits, multimedia applications, quality web browsers like Firefox and Konqueror, full-blown desktops, office suites, VMs for all of these languages supported by the developers (like Java, Python, Ruby, Perl, ...), libraries for oodles of functions, transparent graphics, and all of those other features, Linux, just like any other OS, needs much more processor speed and much more memory. You'll need at least a 233MHz processor with a minimum of 256MB RAM in order to avoid much of Swap City, and you'll need 500MHz and at least 384MB RAM to completely avoid all of it (unless your work is truly computer-intensive). Windows XP works the same way.
All that I'm saying with these comparisons is that many people quickly forget that all Linux is is a kernel. Linux, along with the GNU tools, can be ran from specifications as little as a 386SX with 4MB RAM to 96-node Beowulf clusters each featuring the fastest chips on the market, along with tens of gigabytes of RAM. Just don't come crying when your OpenOffice takes a year to compile on your 386, and a day to open ;).
People don't choose Linux over Windows because they want to run it on an old 486. Hell, you can buy a 600Mhz Pentium III that'll run any Linux distro on Earth for about 150 bucks on Ebay. Who cares about old hardware?
People buy Linux because:
1. It's much cheaper than Windows, with a much more liberal license which lets you do whatever you want without a huge, complex, draconian EULA;
2. It comes with a full set of development tools out of the box, and for most people offers all the software they will EVER need, so you don't have to blow hundreds of bucks on additional software packages;
3. Most of the additional tools people want can be had for free or very little money (like Java's SDK, which can be downloaded for nothing, or Oracle Express, which is also free).
4. It has better default driver support than Windows, without having to go out to a vendor site and hope they still offer downloads; In fact, most hardware is detected right off the bat nowadays.
5. YES, Linux is more secure than Windows, and offers better and more diverse tools for locking down your system. Also it tends to be more stable, and has much more gentle memory and disk requirements.
6. This one's esoteric, but what the hell: I can use Reiser FS on Linux; Windows didn't offer a journaling ANYTHING up until their latest greatest (does that even offer journals???). Under Windows, if you lose power suddenly, the next time you power up you could have a garbled registry (reinstall time!). Under Linux with Reiser, when you reboot, the system politely tells you it's going to check the journal, and it fixes itself. This alone is a good reason to prefer Linux.
Overall, Linux is better than Windows in almost every conceivable way. The only other operating systems that come close are Mac OS/X and the *BSDs.
But I guess, if I was Bill Gates, I'd want to divert everyone's attention away from the "Linux is better" problem, too. Hey, kids! Look over here! Windows installed on a 486! Don't pay any attention to that nasty Novell guy over there, with his nasty Kontact information manager, and all his talk of "security" and "stability" -- you don't want those, they're not good for you! Come have some Outlook and IE!
Feh.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
I don't know what they were installing, but not the distros I use. See... lesser known fact about *nix is that it comes in many flavors. If, say, you had an older, piece of junk, you can get just as new a version of Damn Small Linux as you could Fedora Core 4. One is 50 MB, on a cd, the other 6 GB on 4. The thing they're assuming here is that you have to have a GUI to be productive. I call shenanagins.
I've done this same test with a box I 'liberated' from another source. (Was given to me, as it was too old to donate, believe it or not). 'Tis a first gen Pentium, with a whopping 32 MB RAM. I've got Fedora Core 4 on there just fine! It works as a web server, a file server, as well as a programming workstation, and email. I even browse the web on it fine! Oh, one small thing, it won't run X, de to size. (Ok, it will, ya just don't wanna... trust me). Guess what OS was on there previously? a very, VERY sluggish version of 2000. I don't know how they kept it running, but they did.
I ask you, which is better on legacy hardware? The ability to choose what you need, so as to maximize what you have? Or the ability to run everything in the world, and see what breaks?
To the people out there about to mod me flamebait: Yes, I read TFA, and no, I don't buy it. To judge to world of Linux on a few distros is foolish. Just as they test a bunch of versions of Windows, they need to do a range of Linux. Jump to the end of the article:
Good, they acknolwdge what I just said. But again, how do you define out of the box? Is it whatever boots from the CD? Or a 'full install'? I really think this is one of the worst benchmarks I've seen (even the other "independant" studies Microsoft did over the summer) due to the vagueness of the problem (my 'legacy' is your 'dream machine') to the differences inherant in different operating systems.
As an aside, my 'check' word here is "unguided". How fitting I think.
Want to find other gamers to play board and role playing game
Instead of comparing a present-day Linux distro on that hardware to Win95, compare a 1995 distro and see how it looks. I'll bet you not only have a GUI, it'll be faster than the GatesWare.
Couldn't have said it better. Compare apples to apples [pardon the pun.]
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Linux was less bloated in 1995! Netscape 2.0 Forever! Go Linux 95!
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
I think we're overlooking the real news here: They got Windows to run!
I bet M$ ignores use cases like this, they assume you have to spend money, or you're out of luck. Well, I value my time too highly to let M$ tell me how to spend my money.
Software freedom...I love it!
That's what I need... a toaster that needs fixing every few days, constantly pops up toast containing viruses and Spam, and keeps telling me how great it'll be when it starts working correctly, probably sometime in 2007.
My main machines are a pda, a smartphone, a laptop, and three linux machines. One of the linux machines is my home machine which is basically a workstation and whatever I feel like fooling with (typing this right now in firefox and fluxbox in Slackware 10.2). The other two linux machines are basically colocated servers.
... well run the task manager and kill some of the 20 things you never stop from running all at once.
The first three machines are Windows based. The laptop being an XP pro machine. It outperforms my workstation at home, but it's the hardware, stupid. An installation of Slack 10.2 would run very nice on the work laptop. Hell, I might even install it in VMware.
Then, the small windows embedded devices... are abysmal on memory. Anyone who's ever used a pda or smartphone, you know you have to run task manager and kill all those running processes. There's a ton of people who say "I hate my windows smartphone it crashes all the time"
And back to the topic at hand... Kudos to the guy who had the "apples to apples" statement. Put similar hardware (PII, 64 megs of ram) with Linux running apache and the same machine with NT4 or 2000 running IIS... then we'll see what happens.
The honest truth is, MS can run all the lab tests they want. Us folks out there using this stuff know the real story. Don't even get me started on the scads of Linux and Windows servers at work...
FLR
windows xp on this old box i have its a 233mhz 64meg 16meg video.
im goona install winxp and startup intenet explorer and browse back here and reply when its done.
see you in a few days.
find some old ass archaic hardware that neither windows nor linux runs on it.
if the need is there for an OS on that thing, MS will never issue a driver for it, unless some fat load of dough or most probably corporate pressure comes into play.
For Linux to run on it tho, you'll just need to start a sourceforge project and get some people into it.
What makes Linux run on anything is the developement model of OSS.
They say they're putting to rest the myth that Linux can run on anything... One would think that this would require proving that Linux CANNOT run on anything, and not that Windows can run on anything, which is what they actually did. They have done nothing to disprove this "myth".
But is it just me, or is Win2k running piss-poorly on P3's at my school proof that Windows cannot run on anything? Linux on P3 provides quite acceptable performance under heavier WM's such as KDE and the like, and absolutely screams under fluxbox etc.
And in terms of server performance, you'd be insane to run an IIS webserver on P2 and older harware, but my P1, 133MHz w/32 MB of RAM chugs away quite nicely as a webserver running RH8.
This story comes on the heels of "Windows wont play with old DVD drives". Windows has a habbit of breaking driver compatibility with hardware as it relates to their business relationships with other companies. Another example of doublespeak propaganda from Microsoft. They're only releasing this bit of nonsense to attempt to show that they are not guilty of the above mentioned article.
Sho nuff. They ran windows on a British naval destroyer and gave it operational control of the ship. Bad idea. Windows crashed and so did the ship's systems. British admiralty learned a good hard lesson that day.
...just not very well.
Linux distributions built and configured for modern hardware run with difficulty or not at all on archaic hardware!
Also: it's really hard to turn a screw with a hammer!
The Linux world is (somewhat obsessively) focused on choice, so choose an appropriate distro. Damn Small Linux and ttylinux come to mind. Has anybody ported Windows XP to the wrt54g yet? Has anybody ported Windows XP to the X-box?
Just pick the right tool, is all.
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"? Major: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action
They said in their test that the minimum requirements for a desktop system with sound and video was 64mb on a PII 400. Well, that's pretty true... I'm running Muse with X, encoding in real time both ogg and mp3 streams at the same time for an icecast server on a such machine. That's not an easy job for any computer. I'm impressed and I just keep thinking that Linux is the best solution most of the time.
Until they can successfully port their toy OS to a 64 bit platform. They've tried a couple of times now and it's miserably failed to catch on either time. Maybe after 3 or 4 more tries they'll be able to put something out that the market will accept. I suspect OSX will be running on 128 bit machines by the time we see a successful Win64 hit the market.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I used to have Windows 95 installed on a 266 Mhz 586 with 32 MB RAM. Do you honestly think I could run Windows XP SP2 on that? True I couldn't even run SUSE's installer, but Slackware could run just fine on 32 MB. Gaim, XMMS, xchat, and several xterms would run fine. No such luck with Windows.
I'm just going to say up front that this is not a comment with a conclusion.
I've been in this silly business for damn near 40 years (augh); my first computer had 8K of memory (yes, 8K, not megs) but we successfully ran a whole small business accounting system on it. 100 lines per minute chain printer. TI doesn't make a calculator that small.
I went to grad school in Computer Science in 1983; we ran a whole graduate department on a PDP 11/70. Less than a megabyte of RAM, maybe 250 MB of disk total. Less than one MIP. We got a VAX in 1985; suddenly we had a WHOLE MIP, and a shared terminal in each grad student office.
I'm writing this on a G5 MAC. God alone knows how many MIPS --- thousands, certainly. I use it alone.
Frankly, I'm not sure where all the cycles go.
A fresh install of Windows, on almost any hardware that supports it, is a beautiful thing. Everything (and by everything I mean 'notepad') runs fast, the system is very responsive.
By the time you're done installing all of your favorite software, however, that performance is lost. The registry bloats, all kinds of unnecessary services run, prefetching turns boot time into naptime. Tweaking (a *lot* of tweaking) can return some of the functionality, but not all of it.
I'm running a webserver on a 750C think pad with a P90. 13 megs of ram with 79 megs of swap. The harddrive has 600 meg available, 10 meg boot and the rest for system. I have 66M free to feed files from.
It's been running fine for 50 days now.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
For desktop usage, Windows will perform better an older machine.
For server usage, they are F.U.D ing again...
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
Let me know when they can get WinXP to install and run on one of these. That's truly legacy hardware.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Exactly, and that's what makes the whole thing stupid.
Microsoft doesn't know how to attack Linux, since it comes in so many shapes and sizes. So, they pick a specific point where they know the results will be favorable - or at least not negative in their direction.
It's a dumb argument. The point of Linux is that you can do whatever you want with it, anyone can. And I can get a distribution (or make my own!) that will run happily on a 486 with limited memory, complete with a GUI and some software such as a web browser, less full-featured word processors/etc (over OpenOffice), great mail clients, etc. If you have a new PC, you'll want a prettier desktop with lots of bling, and apps that take advantage of your hardware. I tend to remember doing just this with Linux, with my 486, when I still used one as my primary PC. It wasn't as long ago as it seems.
If they say CE will run on old hardware, well, good for them. But it doesn't mean anything (we can't get it) and it proves as much as this 'test'. Nothing.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
What educational software would a school district run on a Linux Pentium? Hunt the Wumpus? vi?
I forgot to mention an important point here - you can get a NEW linux installation on old hardware, with NEW applications. Complete with security patches and features. None of this "Well, Windows 95 runs great on a 486" nonsense. I tend to remember that Windows 95 is end of life, with no support, no security updates, and practically no new software will run on it. The hardware that Microsoft has long since put behind them is still viable in some environments running Linux.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Some crazy fin writes an OS and I get a cheap desktop that doesn't blue screen and actually performs a lot better then certain commercial OS'es and does not costs me a sackfull of money to get the latest bugfixes.
The Internet has made a huge impact on the way the world works. No not because of internet shopping but in that communities can be build with a far larger catching area. It doesn't matter how obscure your interest are, with the global internet their are bound to be other weirdos out there who are intrested in the same things as you.
As someone who actually had an interest in anime/manga before the internet (yeah I am old so what?) I am still at times amazed by the huge change the internet has made. Previously you had to really seek out a club that probably had only 1-2 members per province and would have real trouble getting their message out. With the internet I can google and find hundreds of sites specializing in every type of manga/anime.
It would probably be quit hard to find enough people in your own town to build an OS. In fact linux shows this. Not that many other fins involved but because of the internet it doesn't matter. Weirdos allover can easily find each other.
So a knoppix live cd made by persons from all over the globe can be easily found by anyone else on the planet. Same with firewall on a floppy distro's. Just check distrowatch to see how many tiny little 1 man distro's there are that nevertheless manage to reach a global audience.
MS must really be getting desperate if now they are even trying to spread fud about the capacity for Linux to run on cheap hardware.
Linux is made by people for people. It does not have to be succesfull, it does not have to be worth it. There are countless people out there who are happy to spend all their free time producing special versions of Linux and give away their work for free.
This allows for Linux distro's to be easily available in the most obscure languages possible since all it requires is one(1) person with a passion and there is no need for a cost benefit study.
Linux runs on X because. Not because anything just because. Windows CE only runs on X when someone decides it is worth their time and effort and money.
Yes some companies have decided that they want to try making money from Linux. Good luck to them and they add valuable extra's to the effort but they are not Linux. They are a small subset of the global effort. Not a coordinated effort. Just hundreds of thousands of people who want software to do what they want and screw it being complex. That is part of the enjoyment. You don't think someone modding a GBA to run as a webserver has anyother motive then "Because"?
Linux is people who grow their own food, Linux is people that take 20 years to build their own plane, Linux is people who climb up a mountain nobody cares about, Linux is all these efforts being able to benefit all the others. Or not. because it don't matter. If all the effort to put Linux on PPC never ever generates a single bit of usefull code it don't matter because Linux does not ever have to make a profit to survive.
Even if Linux died, so what? Linux ain't Linux, Linux is an idea and BSD or god forbid Hurd could easily take over. because Linux is not new. It is in fact ancient. Linux is civilisation. Each generation building on the achievements of their elders and sharing their knowledge with the next generation.
The idea that you keep new ideas locked up is not how mankind has progressed.
I do not have to figure out how to pump water or filter it or store it or even figure out that I need it to survive. Others have done it before me and shared it with the world at large. I do not have to figure out h
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Having done the test and some how the results proving productive, now M$ has to decide to sue because they have the best lawyers in the country for this statement "Linux can run on anything." M$ can only compete and never can outperform.
APPLES AND ORANGES!
Most of the arguments here toss around conceptions of what "runs on anything" means. The truth of the matter is that this argument seems more like a matter of scalability. Windows scales very well on up to date hardware, but scales down poorly. Linux scales up well, but not to the degree that Windows does on new hardware. However, Linux scales downward very well and more continuously. By continuously I mean through a greater range of any given hardware component, while Windows scales in intervals. Linux always trails behind Windows in Enterprize class configurations because businesses that can afford large configurations for Enterprize servers are used to consistent service that the open source world doesn't present as readily.
Linux is great for the little guy. Albeit the little guy with technical prowess. Some distributions are blurring this distinction (Ubuntu).
Neither Linux nor Windows runs on anything, but Linux runs on MORE hardware.
Even if they can prove that windows can run anywhere does nothing to dispel the "myth that linux can run anywhere" If they want to do that they need to find a platform that won't run linux. of course that's a lsot cause because as soon as you do that someone will make it run there
Once and for all.
When will the linux community
decide to run propaganda tests like this?
Even a 'non-biased' third party can run
these tests.
How many toasters can linux run on vs. windows?
How many pda's can linux run on vs. windows?
How many calculators can linux run on vs. windows?
etc..........
What is the absolute minimum requirements to run
linux?
Then with ten thousand pages of relevant and irrelevant
statics we can march up to bill gates and SHOVE it up
his ass.
Mr. Microsoft convenitently ignored the fact that with Linux you can run a lot of useful things like webservers, mail servers, and DNS servers completely without any memory GUI. This allows Linux to run on older hardware than Windows. The problem is such a comparison simply isn't possible because if you want to use Windows for server applications you're forced to use the GUI and you can't do anything useful in Windows without it. This is a frequent use of old machines that no longer have the horsepower to work as a desktop machine: stick Linux on it without the GUI running and use it for a server of some type.
Looks like they forgot to adjust their USE flags.
Somehow I don't think you've actually tried this.
What they must have said at the meeting:
"If we can't beat Linux in the present or the future, let's try to beat it in the past."
You probably never try running the kernel with 386...
But then again, since we don't have access to NT kernel code, we don't know how far down we can push it.
I got a new laptop, so I decided to give my old one to my brother. The old laptop is a Dell 5100, with a Pentium 4, 2.53 GHz, video card is Mobile Radeon 7500, bought in March of 2003. It was set to dual-boot Windows XP-SP1, and Mandrake/Mandriva Linux. Before I handed it down to my brother, I wanted to update it with the latest versions/patches. First, I updated the BIOS, available from Dell. Putting Mandriva 2006 on it was a breeze, it even runs better than on my new laptop. Then I installed SP2 for Windows-XP. Guess what - Windows refused to run after that. The problem seemed to be the Radeon video card, and after a couple of days trying to reinstall the Windows partition, the whole hard disk got re-partitioned only for Linux.
So much for Windows running on old hardware...
..so how many ataris or macs does window run on?
Why do people install Linux on older hardware?
.. when I can get old, wiped, non Windows licensed computers donated, and then throw a FREE os on it?
.. given that Linux can be tweaked to take up VERY little RAM .. ever try to run WinXP in 32mb ram? Now start a browser. Cant? Duuh. Linux? 32mb? Sure. It'll be slow, too but not as slow as Windows).
Simple. Windows licensing.
WTF would I purchase a $199 Windows XP license for an old clunker running for seniors or kids or a non-profit
Even *IF* Windows and Linux performed the same (which I doubt
= Grow a brain...
from TFA:
"There was this pervasive belief that Linux could run on older PCs and that Windows could not, he said, adding that Microsoft thus decided to test this premise by installing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Pro 9.2, Mandrake 10, Linspire 4.5, Xandros Desktop 3.0, Fedora Core 3, Slackware 10.1, Knoppix 3.7; Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 out-of-the-box on older hardware to see what happened."
I see you were right, Slackware 10.1 is listed. Seventh. Perhaps the concept was difficult, but I was merely pointing out that they were using current distributions optimized for current processors, not systems intended for recycling old hardware ( of which type several exist ). All better now?
Thinking outside my Head
One paragraph of the story says,"It also shows us what applications can run on those machines and software, helping us better identify the needs and challenges of the public sector in those counties," Hilf said.
It should be countries, not counties.
I get what you (and many other replies) are saying about how some windows (NT4 and earlier i believe) could be run on other platforms. But that's the past, and this is now. No current version of windows will run on anything other than x86 or x86_64.
Not that I care, personally. I haven't had a non-x86 box in a long time.
I have ~150 +/- a few dozen. I have some of the fonkiest clunkers you've ever seen in your life.
I challenge Bill Gates to run Windows on an 8088 IBM PC XT.
I guarantee you that Linux WILL run on an 8088 IBM PC XT. Windows will NOT..
Case closed. See ya Billy boy.
What's the point of this article? From TFA:
It goes on to say that for multimedia on Linux, a Pentium II and 64MB of RAM is needed. A couple of lines below that, it says that Windows XP requires a minimum of 128MB. So Linux has less system requirements... what's the big deal?
I heard the phrase Out-of-the-box thrown around alot by the Microsoft executives in the articles.
did anyone else notice that?
bang suddenly crammed in between the regular ocurrence of the phrase
Out-Of-The-Box
theres mention of Microsoft superior hardware support
Yes there are more drivers FOR windows
ironic since they dont work Out-Of-The-Box
they are 3rd party additions
Batteries Not Included
My legacy Athlon board, onboard sound, My bt878 TV tuner, dont install out of the box My ATI and Nvidia video Cards (256 or less colours) and IDE is barely functional.
And even my new hardware needs 3rd partyy drivers,
Audigy 2 ZS and bt878 TV tuner onboard sound and Network
dont even work in even the latest Windows 2005 MCE
What kind of media centre doesnt support media devices well?
All of the above hardware worked in Mandrake 10 out-of-box with full performance without the need for extra drivers or fiddling
However my HDTV tuner didnt work in Mandriva out of the box,
but didnt work in Windows out of the box either
The director of the Microsoft linux lab comes right out and says the intention of the testing was to "put to rest the myth that Linux can run on anything.", so you already know that the test has no credibility since its objective was not to find out IF linux can run on anything as is generally assumed. The conclusion to the test came before the test or the results, sounds like standard Microsoft tactics.
Anyhow, reading Hilf's responses in the interview it appears that the tests showed that linux does run on anything based on their test results. He admited that "The tests, which found that Windows performed as well as Linux on legacy hardware" and therefore linux did run on the legacy hardware as installed "out-of-the-box". So the title to the article is wrong as Microsoft's own tests proved that linux would run on the legacy hardware.
Now I suspect that what Hilf wanted to say was that BOTH the Windows and linux installations did not run adequately on the legacy hardware with "out-of-the-box" installs. But he doesn't want to admit it because he actually does realize why there is a wide spread assumption that linux runs well on legacy hardware, because it does.
Note the response to the journalist's question about why there was a "linux runs on anything" assumption, "Hilf said the technical capability to modify Linux, to strip it down to run with a minimal set of services and software so that it could run on all sorts of hardware devices, had generated that larger assumption that any type of Linux distribution could run on all sorts of hardware devices".
And here Hilf is at first correct and then only half correct. It is true that you can strip down linux to make it more efficient and capable on legacy hardware, and it is also true that the latest desktop distros take advantage of the latest hardware and therefore have similar requirements to Windows. But he fails to acknowlege two facts that I suspect he is aware of, 1) even the latest distros can be pared down so they can be efficeintly used on legacy hardware for applications which have reduced resource requirements, and 2) there are light weight linux distros out there which are capable of effectively running on legacy hardware.
Case in point. I can, and have, taken a 533MHz system with a Via Eden processor, 128MB of RAM, dual ethernet cards, and one wireless network card and install the latest Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Fedora Core and have the latest kernel, selinux ACL, iptables, apache, bind, dhcpd, openvpn, and nfs and then proceed to efficiently use the box as a small business web server, file server, firewalled router, wireless access point, caching nameserver, and LAN dhcp server. And the first step is to simply click on only the software packages you need on the box when going through the graphical install.
And the second case in point, as has been pointed out in several other posts I've read, a usable desktop can be made out of legacy hardware using something like knoppix, damn small linux, or any other distro that was designed to use limited resources.
They are really grabbing at straws in their linux lab at Microsoft to try and prove their misconceptions about linux.
burnin
Did I miss it or was the slackware result not mentioned?
From my experience slack is the easiest to put on an old box. Most current versions of Linux cann't seem to handle low res video during the install. I don't know about version 10.1 but 10 installs nicely on 200mhz pentium for use as a firewall.
Who runs a 64bit OS on legacy hardware? Here's an apple and an orange, you can stick both up your ass.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I was amazed this week when a friend asked me to look at his system. He couldn't get his wireless card to work. When he booted the system it turned out to be an AMD K6-400 with only 80MB RAM. And he had XP Pro SP2 on it! It was sluggish, but we did get the wireless card to work and were able to browse the internet to some point. No, it probably won't run MS Office 12, but still I was shocked to see it work as well as it did.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I'm running WinXP on a Pentium II 400 mhz box.I had to do a lot of tweaking to make it work. That implies stoping lots of services that usually run by default and taking out all the eye-candy. Yes, it runs. I can run yahoo messenger, msn messenger, google talk, thunderbird, firefox, and winamp at the same time. It doesn't crash as win98 does, but I still see a blue screen once a week. I can't run iTunes, everything gets soooo slow. Videos play as powerpoint presentations (you hear the audio and the image changes every 3 seconds).
This machine running windows 98 feels faster than a brand-new box on XP. Of course windows 98 is useless now-a-days. Ubuntu Linux works as installed by default as fast as win98. I wouldn't really recommend Windows on legacy sytems.
-- When did Ignorance Become a Point of View?
We've all seen these skewed comparisons before. The technical bits tick me off, because everybody knows that with a half hour at distrowatch and an hour or two of googling you could find a version of Linux that would make for a valid comparison.
The thing I find interesting is the PR side (I guess I would, that's my field). In PR you learn that one key to winning public opinion is to appear to be reasonable. The American public (can't speak to any others, even though I live in Germany at the moment) will give you the benefit of the doubt if you appear reasonable.
MS did that. They loaded up the most popular versions of Linux, they used the default installations (hey, it's what the Linux guys recommend!), they let the chips fall where they may. A couple of things helped them, of course. They have Linux guys (or former Linux guys) working in the lab that did it. People will assume those guys would, if not put up a fuss about an unfair comparison, at least make sure Linux was installed as well as Windows was. Second, they traded on the computer user psychology they themselves have mostly set up -- use what comes on your machine, or what comes in the shrinkwrap. Go with the default on everything, because it's too damn complicated to figure out all this tech stuff. We know what's best for you (and it ain't choice).
And, as somebody noted, they alluded to the "we've got to help our little brown brothers" school of thought by talking about the poor devils just trying to get by with older hardware and limited knowledge, completly ignoring ingenuity, necessity being the mother of invention, etc.
All very slick, all very reasonable sounding to those who don't know the details and aren't inclined, or don't have the time, to find out more or think it through.
Unfortunately, people fall for this stuff all the time. How often should you change the oil in your car? Every 3,000 miles or three months. Who says so? Why, the guys who sell oil changes, of course. You see it again and again. MS is just playing the game. Open source is a different game. The question is, can is stay on the court with the big boys playing the usual game. Looks promising now, but (as we used to say in the Army) every day's an adventure.
The other option is just to load the distro you like and turn everything off that you don't need and avoid gnome, kde etc and then tweak some settings. Even window managers like enlightenment run very well on very low end machines so long as you have a simple theme and one single desktop background on half a dozen virtual screen instead of sixty-four desktops with seperate backgrounds and a show-off-every-feature-available theme. Rxvt uses less resources than xterm, which uses less than kterm, which uses less than gnone-terminal. Eterm with an rxvt theme uses even less, but of course uses more with a lot of options turned on. Adobe acrobat reader can be tweaked to not load stuff to deal with encrypted PDFs on start - or you could just use version 5. Firefox is not the answer, but there are a lot of browsers out there - and if you like tabbed browsing you can use fluxbox as a window manager and let it give you tabs.
Back to the article - comparing a base install of a distribution put together for recent hardware but running on old low spec hardware pitted against a tweaked version of Windows CE which is a software distribution designed for this task? We need better science education - a test designed carefully to produce a desired outcome should be recognised by all as being a pointless waste of time.
Next up in the pointless test department - do tungsten carbide hacksaw blades cut through tool steel better than spoons used for the same task?
Uhm... That was the USS Yorktown - A US Navy ship.
And since a divide by zero will not crash Windows - merely the application that executed the instruction, it's probable that this would have happened whatever the underlying OS.
Other innovations specific to PowerPack Low resources setup: this means that Mandriva automatically assesses available hardware resources and will install software that meets your hardware configuration. For instance, IceWM may be installed instead of KDE if you don't have enough memory.
Yet they chose Mandrake 10 instead, not only are they selecting the distros to compare, they're selecting the releases too, man it's such a crockOur diversity is our strength
As I say in my title, these people are lying scum. Slackware 10.1, for instance, boots out-of-the-box into a lightening fast pure console login, with nothing but maybe dhcpcd running. I can see how they fixed the others like Fedora which "out of the box" boot into absolutely state-of-the-art graphical environments which they could use to create a typical Microsoft Whitewash, since XP is about 5 years old in comparison. Slackware, on the other hand, catches them in their lying. It's even compiled mostly for i386/i486, for fuck's sake.
The reason I consider this point so important, is because of this that Hilf says: Asked why he believed there was such a pervasive belief that Linux could run on older hardware, Hilf said the technical capability to modify Linux, to strip it down to run with a minimal set of services and software so that it could run on all sorts of hardware devices, had generated that larger assumption that any type of Linux distribution could run on all sorts of hardware devices. This utter liar neglected to mention that some mainstream distros such as Slackware actually ship "stripped-down".
I've also got this to say to OSS as a whole - you'd all better make damn sure none of you hire this lying shill Hilf when Microsoft decides to replace him.
The lying even goes as far as ignoring obvious logic:If Linux was installed on an older system, such as an average PC of 1997, then the desktop performance falls below what is typically acceptable for a common user, he said. Apparently, XP, with its 128MB RAM requirement (according to Hilf), can run on older computers that only have 64MB of RAM (which according to Hilf is the minimum requirement for office productivity in Linux, with 32MB as the minimum for acceptable performance, ignoring the fact that XP needs 128MB, OMG YOU NEED A MEMORY UPGRADE IF YOU HAVE LESS THAN 32MB!!!!1). LYING FUCKING SHILL
To wrap this up, here's his last major lie: As such, Hilf said he was not surprised that the minimum requirement for installing and using Windows XP out of the box was much the same for any other out-of-the-box modern commercial Linux distribution. Can anyone here say 'spurious'? Windows XP was released in September 2002. Fedora Core fucking 1 only came out more than a year later. So how can Fedora Core 3 be anything like comparable to XP?
In closing, I was frankly disgusted to see none of these points already made and sitting at +5 Insightful when I first saw this story at 9:30 GMT.
Whole test seem to ignore one of the key aspects of computing. Different architectures! Is this only a coincidence, I don't think so!
I'll make the argument here the legacy machines don't matter. Cheapest new computers are now so cheap yet so powerful that the space and power requirements needed to run an old machine are just not worth it. Get a new machine, send yours to recycling. That said, last thing you need when you have an old clunker that's not worth keeping is to pay for a windows license for it. Microsoft must be on crack to make such irrelevant comparison, unless they intend to give free licenses. And even so, it requires an immense degree of cluelessness to prefer an old version of windows over a new version of a minimalist linux distro.
Is this really most interesting thing that happend in "Linux World" in last few hours? I doubt that and although I now that this kind of story causes a lot of comments on /. and probably is very good for your marketing purposes this article is not worth it.
Everyone on slashdot knows on what type of hw you can run linux and can not windoze, we don't need this kind of article to irritate us!
Shame on you slashdot.
Old M$ OSes may run on old hardware, but new M$ OSes don't. Conversely, newer Linux components are better able to run on legacy hardware. Furthermore the componentization of Linux enables specific installation profiles that are able to yield better ROI from old hardware than M$. Besides, who the hell wants to run old M$?
I run linux on my Zipit Wireless Messenger, on a cluster of twenty old ibm thin clients, my laptop, and two servers -- and of course my old dead pet badger.
Windows CANNOT claim the same flexibility. WindowsCE may [may] come close, but for a truly minimal footprint, you're forced back to DOS.
Regarding aging equpiment, the situation is simply put: linux makes old hardware useful again.
I'll take them seriously when I see them installing MS Windows Server 2003 onto an 80386SX-33 with 4M RAM and a 256M hardrive. Linux (and most of the other open source Unix-alikes; Free/Net/Open-BSD, etc) blows Microsoft out of the water as far as effectiveness on legacy hardware goes. No contest. I can't even imagine MS Windows Server 2003 surviving too well on a Pentium 2, let alone something really crusty.
So, what would be the difference exactly?
I will tell you what. With Linux you become owner of your infrastructure. Once you have the dosh to move to commercially supported versions the migration is far less painful, not to mention that you always know that your data is accessible and protected agianst the whims of a coporate concern.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What is the credibility of MS's Linux Lab when benchmarking Linux vs Windows?
In a scale of 1 to 10 I would say -1.
Honestly guys, keep the results to yourselves, and all the best for you. To publish them is a no win situation. If you say Windows is better in any measure it will be pointed out, rightly, that you are an interested party. If you find that Linux is better, well, I would like to see the day you plublish that. Most likely that will be quietly ignored.
So what is the frigging point exactly?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I used to run Linux on a 486 as just a file server. Sure Gnome and KDE would bring it to it's knees, but as I was running a file server, I didn't run a GUI at all.
:-)
Their argument is based around Office Application. (Which no one, to my knowledge, has claimed that Linux's office apps would run on older software) Further their argument is disingenious - as someone else pointed out, WinXP will NOT run on that 486, regardless of configuration.
Shrug...it's Microsoft's FUD of the Week, is anyone surprised anymore? (Although I'm surprised this got by eWeek's Editors....must be a slow news day)
Of course, in re-reading this, we would be thanking Microsoft.
Usually they argue that Linux has no Office Applications. Now, they're admitting it does.
the slowest thing i did up to this point:
install win2k sp4 on a pentium 1 with 100 Mhz and 64 MB of EDO-DRAM and an ancient 4 GB SCSI-hdd. that's right. my little sister used it for surfing(firefox), icq (miranda), word processing (OOo 1.1.x) and music (winamp 2.79 or something)
ok, you gotta wait for about 2 minutes for this abominality to boot, but after that, it works just fine. no speed records, for shure, but it was quite solid.
Really all depends on what 'they' consider running ?
) directly connected to the internet, surfing or serving ?
How many FUD's would you like with your coffee.
I just upgraded my PII/300/256MB laptop to Suse10.0
Its my home music sever, running the slimserver stack, its the public postfix and http daemon for the domain. Its the SSH/CVS server for code I do. Now, KDE does crawl, but its rare that I use that; more often I just ssh in and run apps on the remote machine, that being the miracle of X11. By having a single OS image across all my linux boxes, home and work, I can shovel binaries around more easily.
To conclude: new Linux distros do run on old boxes, you just cant expect to have the same experience running the OS on a two cpu Xeon core with 1GB of memory. Yet, with linux, you can do interesting things with old boxes. With an old windows box, all you have is a security hold.
I recently delivered a used machine to a client. He wanted XP on it because that was what his kids used at school and they were used to it. It was a PII-433 with 128M RAM and Office 2000; It ran quite acceptably. Not fast, but you could do "real" work on it. By that I mean the kind of word pocessing, spreadsheets and Powerpoint presentations that kids have to do for high school nowadays.
But let's be real fair here: most people don't do a clean install of Windows; they take whatever was installed on the machine by their favorite OEM that they ordered the machine from.
I recently worked on a Dell machine for another client: a P4 2.8 GHz Celeron with 256M RAM (upgraded to 512 M RAM after complaints to tech support about performance). The thing was a dog! It ran slower than the PII-433 system mentioned above. There were two big culprits:
1. all the "crapware" that Dell installs as a matter of course on every machine they ship (I classify a lot of it as spyware - it constantly uses the Internet when connected to report back to Dell, pop-up ads about latest offerings from Dell, etc, etc).
2. Norton Internet Security package that Dell now seems to install on any machine they shup. This stuff is an absolute pig that seems able to bring the fastest system to its knees. It includes a built-in software firewall that was so stringent that my client could not even connect to AOL thru their 800 number to establish what local numbers were available without disabling the firewall. It even managed to slow down his Internet connection which was only a 28.8 dialup (he could only manage 28.8 because of noisy phone lines). How can you possibly slow down a 28.8 dialup connection?
I managed to get the system to run effectively by doing a complete clean reinstall of XP from a standard Windows XP install disk and then installing only Norton AV 2002 and using XP's builtin firewall. The system was easily 10X faster at the screen and mouse. A coupla weeks later I got a call from the same client complaining about slow performance again. When I got to his location, all of the offending software was back in place! It seems that the very first thing Dell tech support does is force the customer to use the included restore CD to reinstall the factory configuration. They won't even answer questions about the system if it has any configuration except theirs!
Maybe Microsoft is not the (only) one forcing the need for ridiculous amounts of computing power on the desktop. I see much more drive for this from OEM manufacturers who see their systems not as a tool for their customers to use, but as an opportunity to continuously sell more crap to their customers.
Most people don't care about an old alpha workstation, they care about the discount computer they bought or the latest laptop.
In my opionion, the study seems to be fair. Once linux supports a piece of hardware, it does so very well for the most part.
However, for the newer laptops and computers, things do not look so good.
In fact I'm typing this message on a Acer TravelMate 8100 laptop, bought about a year ago. Despite trying several different distribution Linux does NOT run on it in a orderly fashion. (SuSE 10, 10.1a, Mandrake last 2 versions, Fedora Core 3, 4 and a couple I forgot)
There's always something that doesn't work: top 1 problem when asking around is most of the time X Windows, followed closely by wireless LAN, power management a sound cards.
When I think about this, it's been like this with the last 4 laptops I had. If I would install linux on the first laptop I had, it would probably run perfectly. But then again, I wouldn't want to do any serious work on that old piece of junk, would I?
These question then come to mind:
- How many people will install Linux if they already have Windows XP on their new machine?
- Of the few that *do* try linux on their bright and shiny new machine, how many will fail because of the new hardware and leave disapointed.
Just a couple of thought, this message will probably be moderated troll, but the fact remains that a LOT of the newest hardware is out of reach for Linux users like myself.
Peace,
Matt
News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
...put to rest the myth that Linux can run on anything.
Oh yeah? So you can run XP on HP 9000? On a VAX? That's amazing.
Note to self: Read posts out loud before hitting submit - especially when there is no edit button.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
In all the discussion, I don't see anyone mentioning the key point: what are you going to be doing with the machine in question? Isn't that what the low-level object of the excersize is? Fundamentally, I think the problem breaks into two major requirements:
a) running an OS on old equipment which will allow a thin client to run on a server
b) using aps which will create files (such as Word/OpenOffice)
I've used some 21 operating systems over the last 15 years and they all have their pros and cons. The issue today is bloat-ware. All mainstream operating systmems and distros are getting larger and larger and require vast amounts of RAM to run properly. The problem is not the software that's included, the problem is that hardware detection lacks one specific capability: to configure the distro/OS to suit the hardware available. The only exception is Gentoo, but it does not even do the job I'm talking about. It compiles to suit the processor, but that's it.
I'm talking about a distro/OS that automatically slims itself down if it detects a PII on install. To date, I have not seen anyone attempt this (and it's quite a challenge). Furthermore, it would have to let the user know what they were going to sacrifice to make the system run at a reasonable speed.
Here's an example: say I install into a PIII, 600 Mhz machine with 64 Meg of RAM. There is no way on God's green earth that OpenOffice will run. KDE will require at least 128 Meg for basic performance. This means that the install has to tell the user: You're going to be running WVM or some other 'light' window manager and you'll be using a far simpler text editor. Also, a bunch of services may be stripped out and limits put on the number of, say, fonts that load.
Having an OS that tailors itself to the hardware is something that I have felt is long overdue and will help crush Microsoft's bogus tests and arguments in the Windows/Linux debate.
Recently, I note that there are changes coming to the Linux kernel which will allow for processor detection. The question is: who's up to doing it? Mr. Shuttleworth, are you listening?
*** Don't be dull.***
Too Bad Feather Linux is dieing. Second post on this forum thread.
Granted I have not looked around much for possibilities of people picking this up to keep it going, but from the looks up it, it is not going to be updated again on an official level. I guess you can still remaster the cd.
It's not a bad distro; I tend to use DSL myself.
Does Windows work as well on older hardware as Linux?
To quote an old SCotUS Justice, "Common sense revolts at the idea."
I am running several domains on an old Toshiba laptop with a 233 PII and 96MB RAM. Specifically, I am running the most recent version of Ubuntu Linux (Ubuntu Server Edition 5.10). It handles 4 web domains, 5 mailing lists, dns, and a horde of other responsibilties.
My challenge to Microsoft? Do the same thing on the same hardware with their latest OS. I'm waiting.
For anyone curious about what is set up and how, you can see my how-to page on the topic of installing these services in Ubuntu on the laptop..
-Tom
I feel a bit sad when you consider that Daniel Robbins, founder and ex-chief architect of Gentoo Linux is one of the members of that Microsoft lab naysayer of truths.
And Gentoo is known to support almost all the major architectures the Linux kernel supports, and the distro did support as many hardwares back in April 26th 2004, the date of Daniel's resign as chief, as it does today.
Oh well, you can't really choose what your marketing department tells the world.
At least I hope he overcome his personal problems of 2 years ago.
Yes, it's sad, but modern Linux desktops and applications (Gnome, KDE, OpenOffice, Mozilla, etc.) have become as bloated and inefficient as Windows desktops. On the other hand, modern Linux desktops have also equalized in terms of usability and familiarity: Windows has no advantage anymore over Linux in terms of mainstream usability or functionality.
There are many reasons for that. One is that the generation of programmers working on Linux desktop apps these days often come from a Windows world and bring their bad habits with them. Another is that a lot of those applications are written on cross-platform toolkits that are most optimized for Windows.
However, given that both Linux and Windows are now, on the one hand, equally bloated, and on the other hand, equally usable, the free and open source solution is obviously the better choice.
I also held onto an old PII running win 98 and then linux ( red hat, then suse, then knoppix ).
My conclusion, yes, you get both windows and linux to run on older systems, but the user should be careful about assumptions s/he might have in regards to the word "run".
I hate to say it, but windows seemed a little ( only a little ) bit more spry on older systems than the KDE or GNOME.
If you get out of the GUI both run better, but of course, linux can offer a complete system in shell mode.
However, very few people patient enough to use a PC like that who aren't dirt poor would be interested in doing that.
Best of all: Windows 95/NT is no longer supported by Microsoft, and new hardware will simply not work due to forever lack of drivers.
While with Linux you can strip everything down to your tastes from supercomputer clusters to match-box sized embedded devices. All they're accomplishing is to reveal their ignorance about the matters.
This is an example of how to advertise for your competitor by spreading uninformative FUD.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
When you produce crud you have also to produce FUD as the easy way to try to defray the perception that your products are singularly bad. The sole job and raison-d'etre for their Linux lab is to produce factitious/fictitious data showing that Linux is more insecure, vulnerable and unstable, more costly and limited in terms of every metric known to man than Windows. You have to give them 5/10 for their efforts at FUD and 10/10 for their advertising of Linux as I'm sure here are many who hadn't heard of Linux or paid it any attention before Microsoft alerted them to it.
Exactly.
The laptop I have is an old Dell Latitude CP M233XT, circa 1997. It runs Debian Sarge... you know the one... released 5 years after Microsoft WindowsXP. I wasn't willing to shell out 200 bucks to buy XP just to find out that it would be awful, but you, me, Bill Gates, the mailman, and his dog knows that it would most likely be unusable. The machine's by no means fast, but it works fairly well and I get close to 5 hours out the 2 batteries I have for it. I use this laptop everyday for my business and I have zero complaints about usability.
More specific info here.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
You don't have to give a computer an Internet connection to make it usable.
This may have been before your time, but I remember in the early '90s when my high school had computer labs full of Macs running System 7.1 and PCs with Windows 3.1. No Internet connection, no firewall. They did have antivirus. They also had period apps like MS Works 2.0 on the PCs and ClarisWorks 2.0 on the Macs, and we were perfectly productive (though the Macs were slow -- 16-33 MHz 68030s with maybe 4MB of RAM).
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Linux runs on iPod. Linux runs on PPC, x86, 64-bit, arm, SPARC and more. Windows runs on... x86. Minimum requirements for XP > minimum requirements for Linux. The end.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
As for KDE, I recently used a P166MMX with 64MB of RAM and KDE3 to play mp3s (this was Slackware 10.1). It worked without any problems. Windows 2000 works great on that same machine, I don't know about Windows XP though.
We do. We run Digital Unix on two '95-vintage Alphas. We have retired the Linux-running Alphas from that generation, but we are still running Linux on Alphas we bought in '97, '98, '99.
Come back and talk to me when you load windows on a linksys router and it can still do it's job.
Got Code?
I've always been unhappy with linux legacy claims. It seems like they are rooted in the days when linux was primarily a server and a person could run a custom install command-line. Sure it ran more efficiently than NT.
But OpenOffice.org on KDE with mplayer displaying a movie in the corner of the screen? Come on! You don't get something for nothing. The opposite side of the coin is that, sure, you can run Damn Small Linux with less than 64 meg but you seriously have to ask whether the available applications present the user with a better experience than a Win9X install with Office 97 for example. No one should be running a Win9X anymore you might say and DSL provides a more secure experience, but, fortunately, the whole question is moot.
Don't you have to make a point of finding a piece of junk with less than 256 meg these days? Seems to me I can get 256 meg and a Sempron 2000-something for $299.95 + monitor and, excepting gaming, that will make the office app/web browsing user happy whether it is Windows or linux.
Basically, I see hardware efficiency as a silly issue to debate and if this is where Microsoft wants to fight linux, "Bring it on!" They are saying "Windows is not worse than linux!" And that is a good position to see them in.
They are worried about legacy support? There piece of crap Windows XP 64bit edition isnt even stable after a fresh install. It is the biggest scam on the market. I feel sorry for the dumb bastards who are buying it. They dont know any better, they are sheep lining Bill Gates pockets with there laziness.
I think they were trying to define legacy hardware as a 400MHz PII with 64MB RAM and 2 GB hard disk, typical of computers built between 1998 and 1999. They claim this is the minimum needed to run an office suit and play audio and video under Linux "out of the box". It's also typical of third hand hardware on the way to the third world because Windows XP refuses to install on it.
So their comparison is Microsoft at it's finest. No one else will be able to verify it, it's silly and it's bullshit. Who else besides M$ and a handful of insane hackers could possibly make XP install and find find drivers for all the hardware you would find in 1999? Why would you want to go through all of that effort when it's much easier to run Linux "out of the box"? They mentioned that more memory helps and that's more true for Linux than it is for M$. I've happily used Debian on a PII laptop for more than a year now and I've had better performance and a greater choice of programs than my friends running XP on P4s given the same amount of memory. Linux performance with slightly newer hardware, 1 GHz Athlon with 512MB of RAM, blows them out of the water in every way. I imagine Vista will refuse to install on my Athlon.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It must be that MS adverstising accounts have become the lifeblood of too many publishers. Otherwise, I'd be surprised the press even buys into MS anymore since it is clearly trying to saturate the media with stories, diffuse the real information amongst lots of noise, and confuse both the media and the public as to what the real issues are.
One of the worst things possible right now for MS would be for the media to give a lot of coverage about large scale abandonment of MS. Notice that Ballmer responds with statements like "I'm not hearing about it" rather than "that's not happening" The only thing keeping MS on top is the monopoly of office suites (via the format) and the desktop (via OEMs with help from file formats like WMV/WMA). Once the monopoly weakens, the monopoly rents go away and MS can no longer pull an 80% profit on Office or Windows, once that happens, the company's profits go to join Elvis.
Yeah, the Novel guy quoted in the article mentioned thin clients, which drove hardware requirements down further than the "out of the" box distros that M$ tried. This ignores the fact that other distros are just as easy to obtain and only marginally more difficult to configure. The software Knoppix, Mepis and others use to configure installs is free and will soon be everywhere.
Another gaping logical flaw, of course, is how OLD the M$ software actually is. Windows XP Pro was released in 2001. It's five years old. Had they tried a copy of Knoppix from five years ago, they would have found it works just fine on a Pentium I with 32MB of RAM. Knoppix from that time would drop down to Window Maker without user intervention if it thought KDE would be difficult to run. Most people would consider Window Maker's Next based GUI superior to M$'s, so not much is lost there. Knoppix would drop further down to TWM or command line on further hardware restrictions, which is technically running, though the average user might not be pleased. Microsoft is poised to release Vista, which might make "Legacy" all of your hardware the way XP did: By refusing to instal on some hardware and the obvious lack of third party hardware drivers.
How this is a typical M$ claim: No one else can duplicate the results, no one else wants to because there are easier ways to do what they do and the conclusions are stupid.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That would be a good argument except just try it in REAL LIFE. ...and you're argument presupposes that reports from Microsofts own groups are unbiassed.
Windows IS (far) worse than linux, especially on older hardware.
For me, it's a totally different story. I use Windows, and have sole control and use of my box. I never reboot as the first thing. (What, and lose the layout of my active apps?) I get Windows for the most part, and rarely end up feeling stupid. Of course, most people (Windows or Linux) don't spend nearly every waking hour in front of their computer like I do. I use the latest daily build of Firefox, except when I don't want to close Firefox out.
Actually, anyone understanding the above statement would realize that M$ compared their 5 year old pig with brand new Linux pigs. I know that Knoppix in 2001 booted and ran a full GUI on a Pentium I with 24MB of RAM, much lower than anything M$ even thought of trying with anything but WinCE. Most users would still consider Red Hat 6.0 a full desktop with more features than XP, and similar things can be said about every other Linux distro from 2001. Notice that Vista is absent from the above and the comparison is nothing more than the usual bullshit from Redmond.
Of course, there's no reason to use five year old software on Linux. Distributions like Damn Small and Feather use lower resource applications to deliver full GUI, office and multimedia functionality, "out of the box" to the average user. Debian, with a little effort can be configured the same way, which is how the developers made DSL and feather, but more can be added with ease until the user decides that performance has actually suffered.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The Linux claims stem from the fact that people take old hardware that is lying around, lying around because it has been abandoned and CAN'T run the latest Microsoft OS with office productivity suite, and see if they can get Linux to run on it.
/ sysreqs.mspx / standreq.mspx l uate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx
h tml )
I have a whole IT dept closet full of abandoned PC's, 486's, Pentiums, PII's that I WILL NOT TRY to run Windows XP SP2 and MS Office 2003 on, because it WILL NOT be usable after I spend what would probably be 6 hours getting everything installed.
I WILL NOT TRY it ALSO BECAUSE that hardware is WAY BELOW MICROSOFT's OWN DOCUMENTED HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS for WinXP. Now if I wanted to run Windows 3.1, or Windows 9.x, then yes it would be fine, but Microsoft doesn't SUPPORT those OS's anymore. They were abandoned, just like Windows XP will be abandoned when Windows Vista comes out. Not to mention there's NO WAY WinVista will run on that stuff, since it needs 512 MB JUST FOR THE OS!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation
http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/prodinfo
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/eva
Now take a PII Laptop with 96 MB of memory...
Remember per Microsoft's specs and experience, that's not enough for XP with Office 2003. But try loading the latest Suse Linux 10.0 with OpenOffice, and guess what... it didn't take 6 hours to install... only 1.5 hours, and it works and it is usable.
(Although it is below what Novell recommends, now that I just looked... http://www.novell.com/products/suselinux/sysreqs.
The fact is I can take some current Linux distro, and a current OpenOfice distro and make a legacy computer productively usable. This is because Linux and OpenOffice are open and people can do this and make their results available for others to use. And the OpenOffice installation can be included and done at the same time as the OS installation.
The fact also is that Windows is NOT open. I can not prepare simplified installations and share them. Each license owner has to do that themselves. No one can tweak and recompile the OS or the Office product to make it usable on older hardware. Its closed and up to the marketing whims of Microsoft to decide what Windows can and can not do...
Like Windows Vista... which will require 512 MB of memory, JUST FOR THE OS...
So, I found (literally, on the street) and old laptop, Pentium 133, 1440mb drive, cdrom, usb, all nice except that it's only got 16mb of ram, and uses non-standard memory so upgrading it would not be economical. I'd like to replace the windows 95 that's on it. But what Linux is out there that is currently being maintained that will run on this? I need some sort of GUI, and be able to run a somewhat modern web browser. But all of the Linux I have looked at so far are not currently maintained. Who is going to come out with security fixes for Slackware 3.2? and so on.
What Linux (or BSD) is maintained for desktops that are quite old legacy systems? None, that I can see. So I think it's going to stay Windows 95 for now. Sad.
I rent a lot of cars, 'cause I go on the road, and when I drive a rental car, I don't know what's going on with them, right. So a lot of times I'll drive for like ten miles with the emergency brake on. That doesn't say a lot for me, but it really doesn't say a lot for the emergency brake. It's really not an emergency brake, it's an emergency 'make the car smell funny' lever.
---
What subliminal message?
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
The BSDs and Linux can run on anything given these freedoms. The reason I cannot run Windows XP on my older hardware is that MS won't even allow me to make it work by stripping away unneccesary code from the kernel and surrounding OS.
I cannnot get XP to run on a 512MB flash card without violating the license. There is nothing stopping me from making a useful device with Linux or a BSD in 128MB flash with 32 MB RAM, and then distributing the software to everyone. This is the reason that there are no Cisco products at my company, and yet we are more secure and our networks perform as well as Cisco could do, with more features and lower cost.
MS seems to want us all to return to the old days, when computers were so mysterious to everyone. We don't need everyone to be able to modify Linux, but we've got enough people who can do that now.
What a load of nonsense. Business doesn't care about recycling, - it's more about the hassle of upgrading that you're forced into every 2 years. So here's a simple, much more realistic test. Anyone who's ever had to create system builds will be familiar with the situation, and any self respecting geek has gone throught his as well.
;-). Windows is simply not capable of this in a sustainable fashion without a serious amount of extra resources.
;-).
(1) Set up a box with, say, Win XP. Doesn't really matter, ANY version of Windows will do;
(2) Set up same box with Linux;
(3) Replace motherboard. Note that in a production/business environment this amounts to changing the machine underneath a build.
(4) Start up machine again.
Windows: comes usually to a grinding halt due to missing drivers etc. You're having to create Yet Another Build for the new machine, so diversity of hardware is not terribly helpful for you (which is a nice corporate risk: what if supplier runs out, what about your Disaster Recovery capability?).
Linux: will boot up, may complain a bit about loading kernel modules but will at worst get you to a command line from which you can reconfigure. That one image will run on virtually every machine (see Knoppix as a prime example) so whatever happens - you will end up with an operable system. Oh, and it won't get nuked by the occasional powercut either: I've seen boxes being powercycled in seriously ugly ways (some emergency generators should never drive anything but lights IMHO) and let me tell you: journalling file systems rock. Now scale this idea up to 2000 systems and see how much time you're wasting and how much risk you're exposed to.
The rest is corporate nonsense. Give me some techs that know Linux and I can keep an infrastructure up (and safe) under the most adverse circumstances possible (been there, done that, got the scars - forget about T-shirts
For those that missed the hint: resources mean costs. QED - your TCO argument for Windows just acquired a hole below the waterline. The rest is make believe, marketing and ignorance. You do -NOT- need Windows for corporate IT, regardless of using old kit or shiny new stuff. Focus on the essentials: keeping it online. I've seen desktops used as servers with over a year uptime - never replaced because they just kept on going. Just can't see that possible with Windows, but maybe I didn't spend enough time with it. I didn't need to - Linux did the job already.
Windows: because other lemmings use it.
(ps: yes, I know this is not my usual posting style but I'm just getting fed up with this nonsense. Give me facts that are relevant, not Yet Another Load of BS. Grmbl
Insert
Yes, that problem was completely within the application. It didn't perform data validation and when invalid data was entered the resulting unhandled exception caused the program to crash. The various programs on the ship communicated with one another and when one failed the others connected to it didn't handle that event gracefully and they also failed, causing the propulsion system to fail and leaving the ship effectively dead in the water.
One of the engineers of the software blamed Microsoft because his calculator didn't "crash" when he tried to divide by zero so no program should. Last I checked attempting to divide by zero on any calculator resulted in an error state that can only be resolved by hitting the clear button.
No data validation and no error handling led the ship to fail. Whatever group was contracted to write the software should have been hung, but the engineer claimed that the OS sucked and that must've been the reason. As a result a whole generation of clueless fuckwits quotes this as a reason that NT is garbage. These fuckwits are still likely not using any data validation code or handling exceptions gracefully leading to the next generation of completely shitty software, but will it be Linux's fault when it fails this time?
please.
---
If nobody notices, it's not illegal.
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
... linux is open source, allowing it to be modified to run on anything. If there is some computer system that linux will not run on then its either because nobody has the motivation to do, or it has far far less resources then what windows would need to run.
Its amazing the faulty rational of this article...perhaps its so obvious that its hard for some to believe that MS would stoop so low.Certainly nobody would stoop so low as to sit in their own shit.???
That's just a line in the sand they drew. I've set up loads of PII-350's and above that work WELL, so long as they have at least 128-256 Mb of RAM and at least 4 or more Gb of HD. I typically run Fedora Core 3/4 or Mandriva 2005/2006 on these boxes and they just simply work with little in the way of "slowness".
And, Windows can't do a firewall comfortably (or securely for that matter) with something like a 486 and 64Mb of ram and a floppy disc- Linux can...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I think there are several issues concerning Windows vs Linux on different hardware.
1) Linux runs on a lot of different architectures - Windows does not (anymore). This is normally what people think about when they say Linux runs on anything. I don't think I would get as good a result trying to stuff Windows (any version including CE) on my Linksys WRT54GS router.
2) Linux is extremely configurable in terms of what services you want to run, and how advanced a deamon you choose. For lesser hardware, you might want to consider a smaller application to provide some service. Perhaps it dosn't have the same functionality as the grand solution, but if it gets the job done with less resources, it has fullfilled its job.
3) If we a just concerned with legacy hardware, I assume we are talking x86. In this case, it is mostly an issue of the overhead of running Windows vs some Linux distribution. About 7-8 years ago I helped manage the network in the dorm where I lived, and we had a P133 Linux-box with 96MB RAM taking care of DNS, DHCP, Mail and being gateway/router (with a 100MBPS connection through the university) for the entire dorm. Although this was before the day of P2P so the outbound traffic was lower on that account, we did have a great deal of traffic, since we were also connected to 5-7 other dorms with 100MBPS. Yust for reference, the dorm had about 300 rooms, and about 200 users on the network. I really wouldn't want to try this with windows.
4) Hardware compatibility. The point where Linux is still lagging behind (due to some hardware vendors not supporting anything but Windows). I think this is getting a little off-topic now, since this is basically only an issue with new hardware, while the article is concerned with legacy hardware. Otherwise I would agree that this is in fact an issue when comparing Windows to Linux, but you should just buy hardware that is known to work with the operating system you want to run, since this is basically only relevant when buying the newest hardware.
I have some more examples of things I have done with Linux, which I don't think would be possible with Windows:
* A file-server about 7 years ago with 120GB disk, being able to sustain 5-5.5 MB/s with Samba. The processor was a P133 without MMX. 6 IDE harddrives in software stripe.
* Taking a standard distribution (RedHat 6.2 i think it was) and stripping it down to 20MB to run off a flash-drive for a mobile robot.
To sum it up, the versatility of Linux is simply amazing. It allows the system to be scaled to run optimally on anything from embedded systems and PDAs to an S390 mainframe. And the ability to strip out the unneeded stuff (such as the GUI on a server) takes this much further. If we try to focus on legacy hardware, I think a comparison between Windows XP and a full-blown Linux desktop distro will probably prove that they are equally slow. But if you choose a Linux distribution specifically created to run on a 486 or early pentium, there is no f***ing way Windows will be able to do anything useful.
Just my opinion. If you don't like it, you shouldn't have read it.
-Spiff
...I will offer the following observation:
:-)
It DID have a GUI, and in many cases it ran as well as Windows 95. There were loads of rough edges on the distros,
but that was due less to Linux and more to no substantive commercial support or any of the "advanced"
apps we've ended up with over the years. In a couple of years' time, you'd have KDE in it's infancy, which DID run
on a 486 machine with 64Mb of RAM and you would see ApplixWare arrive for Linux. Was it what we have today? No.
Was it easy to use? Not unless you were familiar with Unix machines and how they all worked. Was it faster and more
capable than Windows 95? Yes. And, before you should comment that I'm biased, you should note that I am an accomplished Windows developer who was a Developer Beta Tester for the Chicago version of Windows which eventually became Windows 95 and that I've written numerous complex software systems for ActiveX frameworks (Like OCX components to drive 60 page per minute 600dpi scanners to their full speed with VB applications on a
Pentium 166...) and wrote sophisticated cross-platform distributed systems that collected upwards of a $75k per day in parking revenues at DFW International Airport- code that compiled against *BSD, Solaris, Linux and Windows NT and ran
better than anything before it.
Windows typically requires 2-4 times the resources over a comparable Linux installation to accomplish usable tasks. And, in the end, that's the key- usability. Sure, you can wedge Windows 95 onto a 386sx-25 laptop with only 4Mb of RAM and a 120Mb HD, but can you DO anything with it? Only with a LOT of patience as it swap-thrashes all to hell. Slackware, on the other hand...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Seems like now that they've got a Linux lab, they think they can trick everyone into thinking they know everything about Linux and they really care about Linux but it's just not good enough.
In all reality, if Linux didn't matter, then MS wouldn't be making a big deal about it.
www.linuxpenguin.net
W2K is commercially supported and will be until 2011. Unless that WMF patch is a figment of my imagination.
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Since Knoppix is Debian based, it could be representing Debian in the tests. Frankly I've had better luck with Knoppix than Debian when it comes to hardware support, but mostly that's on newer hardware. At any rate, we all know it's no myth.
I find it difficult to believe that any relatively new software of Microsoft's will run on older hardware. It has always been that newer software of theirs will require newer hardware. Then again, what load did Microsoft put on the hardware /software? If it's stripped down, then maybe it will work. I have two identical machines. One runs Windows XP and another SuSE Linux 10. The SuSE Linux machine ALWAYS boots faster than the machine running Windows XP. More software is being loaded on Linux and the Linux machine runs a lot better with a load on it than Windows.
Are they saying linux won't run on the hardware, or the GNU OS won't run... I only read a few of the replies, and none of the article, but I bet they meant, the OS.
One question that I find is being missed is that of broaching Microsofts need to challenge 'Linux History' with some study or other.
If I were a military analyst I'd have to argue that
those who need to make pointless attacks tend to do
so out of desperation. One could be led to assume that
Microsoft's battle is already lost if they need to
expend resources on things like this rather than just
making a better product.
And, where the hell is the improved product?
How long do we have to wait for Microsoft's
*improved* operating systems to actually reach
the market. Have we seen one yet that we haven't
had to patch ad-nauseum to make or data safe?
The ultimate winner in the operating system race
will quietly continue to improve and promote
good technology rather than tearing down the
competition.
Propaganda is always a double edged sword. A small
part of the population will always fall for it. The
rest will maintain various degrees of scepticism.
Ultimately, if the story is incorrect or shown to
be biased, the propagandists tend to get cut by thier
own barbs.
One really has to wonder what the heck is going on
at Redmond when they pull circus acts like this.
Management from 'stupidville' I guess. I think I'll
sell my stock while it's still high.
Stick a CD/floppy in the thing, switch it on and boot from the network, assuming it doesn't support network booting already. tada. X terminal. Who gives a toss about support as long as X works and it can reach a network.
Stick half (less in fact... 1/5 to 1/10th usually) the number of the $300 Dell machines in racks in the machine room, run grid engine and tada... utility computing. want more power? buy more $300 boxes. (actually less than that cost you don't need monitors, mice or keyboards)
You want seriously cheap but highly scalable computing? This is the way to do it...
http://www.ltsp.org/
Deleted
ok, ok, you can put XP on a PII-233 with 64 Meg o ram.. sure,
how about making it reliable enough to be an integral part of your network?
let me know when xp can run on an intel strongarm
Yes, in know, Windows CE, it dosent count, I cannot nativly compile code on ce that compiles on XP, you f$cked up the API.
and yes, most linux PDAs run OPIE and its not the same API that most linux desktops use, the point is that they can run X if they want to.
Anyone else smell FUD?
If you resist reading what you disagree with, how will you ever acquire deeper insights into your own beliefs?
If you use it at work, you musn't do much administration?
- BackupExec console won't install
- Exchange System Manager won't install
- Wyse Rapport won't install
- SolarWinds tools have issues
- GPMC has issues
- VMWare Virtual Center client won't install
- Extreme Epicenter won't run correctly
- SQL Enterprise Manager has issues
- SMS Console wouldn't install
- Many games don't like running properly in x64
I gave up after that.
I didn't say security issues were worse, I said it had the same. And while I've not been personally attacked by a virus/whatever in quite some time, that still doesn't mean I can leave machines unpatched.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
What's really interesting is that a lot of these ideas had actually been considered before the internet came into being, and have existed as part of the scientific community for centuries. Karl Popper's name seems to come up a lot, I really must read his book "Open Society".
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
I own a 386 SX laptop with 4 Meg of ram and a 60 MB hard drive. When I purchased it second hand, it was possible to install and run Linux and X on it (I used slackware). No Linux distribution I can find today will run on that platform any more, so now it runs DOS.
I run floppyfw on a P-200 with 16 MB RAM, no hard disk. It's a great firewall and cost $0. I'm first in line with my money -- about $2, I guess -- for the Windows version that can do the same thing.
Give it up, Bill. And what's up, usually you use Ballmer for the reality-distortion work.
When I search for it, all that comes up is "X-Windows on a Floppy", which is Linux. The latest release was November 2005.
Now, I can't remember ever installing Windows and finding it already had all the necessary drivers, with the exception of 3.11, and some OEM provided restore CD's. I've had pretty good luck with Linux distros including all the right drivers. It seems like any Windows version won't have drivers for anything released less than one year before or more than three years before that version of Windows was released. So XP won't support anything released after 2000 out of the box. If for some reason you have something that old, it won't have accelerated OpenGL support, so you'll still have to go to the manufacturer's website and get the correct drivers. In fact, there is not a piece of hardware in existence for which a vanilla install of Windows XP fresh out of the box will have accelerated OpenGL support, so any claims Microsoft tries to make about having better legacy support is made bullshit by their failed attempts to kill a "not invented here" graphics standard.
From TFA Summary:
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.'
So what if Windows can run on legacy hardware?? That doesn't put to rest the myth that Linux can "run on anything." Last time I checked, Windows doesn't run on PowerPC machines.
My Sysadmin Blog
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image /12/0,1425,i=123899,00.jpg
;)
;) (yeah yeah. I know. It's already old joke, dear reader)
So, what is Windows XT? eXperienced Toaster?
And why doesn't other Gnu/Linuxes perform as well as Knoppix? What are they doing? I think that having Windows XT installed on a computer tells something about the testers and their paragraphs.
Why Fedora Core 3 was used in tests thought we all know that newest release is Fedora Core 4? There are lots of things from the toaster test I'd like to know why? But well, they are micro$oft after all. They'll do anything to make their product sell. Even release false information.
Besides here is the "Ha Haa" of the test results. Take a closer look to that paragrap, isn't it cleary telling that Linux out performs Windows eXtra Toaster and it's slave a like server brother. In many ways. RHEL is same class operating system than what is Server 2003(what version of server 2003, web,enterprise or some other?). Besides Mandrake is comparatible to WindowsXT
And even we think about that all of those Gnu/Linuxes are running under top of the SAME SOFTWARE! I think people often forgot that small but very important point of the Gnu/Linux benchmarks.
-Seeing the problem is ½ of solution-
Let's face it, RPMs and tarballs are hard for people to grasp the concept of. The only Debian based distros Microsoft tested were one step from being as proprietary as Windows. Why doesn't Microsoft test Debian, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Mepis?
They also probably didn't test Xfce4.
If you're takling about embedded versions of the OS, they don't count for the purpose of my argument. If you're talking about win CE versions that run on x86 hardware, then that's kinda irrelevant as well.
Will current versions of CE run natively on a g3 or g4 mac for instance? and if so, where can i get this? its news to me.
It's the software on the OS. Sure, Linux Windows can run fine on legacy hardware (be it older versions or whatever) with what the article probably said. Let's see you fully load all needed software onto the Windows system. Track down old copies of the software from that day. Sounds like it could be somewhat difficult. It's much easier to just download a set of Redhat 7/8/9 discs and install everything you need from that one set of CDs that are pretty easy to find online.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
There's a huge logical fallacy here. One OSs success on a particular platform does not nullify another's. I can't disprove that you had bacon for breakfast by proving that I had sausage. I can't even do that if we eat breakfast at the same table!
1. Think. 2. Talk.
That's the proper order of operations and the above mythbuster should stick to it.