Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Challenges Linux's Legacy Claims

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the now-take-a-look-at-performance-tuning dept.

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.'"

5 of 618 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Come back by oc-beta · · Score: 5, Informative

    Right, I am wondering about the subjective nature of this article. I have found that linux runs great with the scarcest resources. Tell me where you can run a full PBX and IVR using a P-II 300 mhz? My Gentoo + Asterisk did just fine. Just my $.02, I am afraid that this is going to turn into another *nix vs. windows argument. I think that every OS has a place on the network. Just the thought that Windows 2003 was installed on a PII-300 makes my shudder. However, Linux is quite happy. (As well as your favorite BSD's)

  2. I'm sorry... WHAT?! by thesnarky1 · · Score: 4, Informative
    "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.

    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:

    While Novell's Ungashick agreed that, as a comparison of "out of the box" functionality and resource requirements of modern operating systems, what Microsoft claimed may well be true, he noted that on the desktop, Linux is far more modular and customizable than Windows, allowing it to run on a broader spectrum of hardware.

    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
  3. Re:Come back by crimson30 · · Score: 5, Informative

    From wikipedia:

    "Windows NT 3.1 ran on Intel IA-32 x86, DEC Alpha, and MIPS R4000 processors. Windows NT 3.51 added support for PowerPC processors. Intergraph Corporation ported Windows NT to its Clipper architecture and later SPARC, but neither version was sold to the public. Windows NT 4.0 was the last major release to support Alpha, MIPS, or PowerPC, though development of Windows 2000 for Alpha continued until 1999, when Compaq stopped support for Windows NT on that architecture."

    NT 4.0 ran well on my alphastation :|

  4. Re:Come back by drivekiller · · Score: 5, Informative

    Eh. Comparing apples to apples requires PPC architecture. :-) But seriously, why is it Linux's responsibility to run a gui so you can compare it to an operating system that cannot be pared down to work efficiently in an environment with limited resources?

  5. Re:Come back by Kalecomm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ha Ha Ha HaHa HA! Man! That's funny! Yeah. Compare a modern day distro of Linux to ancient versions of Windows. Which, by the way, are no longer supported or being patched. Ha Ha Ha! And then, make a big fuss about how you got M$ DimWoes version Godknowswhat to work on ancient hardware, but the newer distro of Linux doesn't! Oh yeah, this is real NEWS! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Haw!

    The real funny part of this is that I have Debian Linux 3.1 (2.6 kernel) running right now upstairs on a 233MHz AMD box with 128MB of memory as a server (no gui) and it runs OK. Not the speediest thing in the world, but OK. Acceptable. Try running XP on something like that, and you'll grow old or end up pulling what's left of your hair out!

    Besides, older versions of Linux would probably run rings around whatever version of DimWoes that M$ claims to outperform Linux. Yeah. Let's see Windblows 95 outperform RedHat 6.0. Yeah. Good luck with that!

    Best Regards,

    Kalecomm