4 ms·

> The economic advantages of Linux/BSD based operating systems include the ability to use older hardware for longer Totally untrue in my experience, unless you

by norswap 13y ago

> The economic advantages of Linux/BSD based operating systems include the ability to use older hardware for longer Totally untrue in my experience, unless you want to use something as minimal as gentoo/archlinux, and that's not for everyone (and even then, low-level stuff like sub-optimal drivers might byte you). Windows XP is still the champ here, and I believe in many cases 7 does as least as good a job as most popular distros (Ubuntu/Debian/Fedora/...).

adamors 13y ago
> unless you want to use something as minimal as gentoo/archlinux, and that's not for everyone I don't actually understand why wouldn't anyone use a minimal distro like Arch on any hardware. You would be surprised just how lightweight a full featured desktop environment like KDE can be on Arch/Gentoo.
- doktrin 13y ago
  I use Arch at work. It's great and all, but I haven't really seen too much ROI (in installation & configuration) vs. using something like Mint and simply swapping out the tiling window manager.
laumars 13y ago
If you compare XP to the latest Ubuntu, then yeah you'd have a point. But you're also comparing a decade old OS against one of the latest compositing desktop environments sat on top of one of the most bloated Linux distros; which is hardly a fair comparison. Plus as time moves on, fewer and fewer software will support XP. Where as distros like Puppy will support all the latest browsers, have the latest security fixes and still have a lower hardware footprint (disk space, RAM, CPU, etc).
- norswap 13y ago
  I'm not comparing XP to Ubuntu. A few years ago I experimented with a Pentium 3. XP beat "mid-level" Linux distributions handily. Mid-level distributions would be something like http://www.zenwalk.org/ http://www.zenwalk.org/, typically using user friendly but lightweight software (like XFCE). Note how they advertise for speed on the front page. I also owned a first-generation netbook, and there XP was better than Puppy, Slax, etc...
  - laumars 13y ago
    > "I'm not comparing XP to Ubuntu. A few years ago I experimented with a Pentium 3. XP beat "mid-level" Linux distributions handily. Mid-level distributions would be something like http://www.zenwalk.org/ http://www.zenwalk.org/, typically using user friendly but lightweight software (like XFCE). Note how they advertise for speed on the front page." The problem here is you're just quoting anecdotal evidence - which is pretty much worthless. There's nothing to say what the specs of the systems were, what your usage was, nor any post-install optimisations (eg since you're familiar with Windows I'd wager that you weren't running a vanilla install of XP - instead disabling themes and such like to streamline the OS. But you were probably still running a vanilla build of stripping XP down to it's minimal components while running a vanilla versions of those other Linux distros). To further prove how useless anecdotal evidence is, I wiped my wife's old laptop and installed Xubuntu and saw some marked speed improvements - despite Xubuntu having desktop compositing and such like enabled (which wasn't enabled in Windows). I've also replaced two offices full of Windows CE thin clients with Linux - same hardware, but instead of WinCE (which is as minimal as Windows gets), it's running ArchLinux with LXDE. So we can all quote the "upgrades" that we've done, but without offering any real details such stories are worthless (and the results would be mostly down to whichever OS your most familiar with anyway - as you'll know how to tweak it's performance). Which is why the majority of my point was about the age of XP (and the issues that gives in terms of security and support) vs running the latest version of Linux. At lest with that, we can evidence our arguments. > "typically using user friendly but lightweight software (like XFCE)" XFCE isn't actually that lightweight. I mean, it's often used as a lightweight alternative to KDE, GNOME and such like, but they're pretty beefy / bloated desktop environments. If you wanted something lightweight then you would have been better off with LXDE, E17 or any of the numerous window managers. But this goes back to my point about it being easier to for you to run a low footprint version of Windows because you're more familiar with that - and thus how worthless anecdotal evidence is because of that bias. > "I also owned a first-generation netbook, and there XP was better than Puppy, Slax, etc..." Well that's definitely not true because the 1st generation netbooks were ASUS EeePCs and they were all Linux (Xandros to be precise). XP wouldn't even run on the netbooks originally. Microsoft had to push through changes to XP's code and licences after the netbook market started to take off out of worry that Linux might grab a chunk of Windows's market. And I remember this vividly because not only does my wife have a 1st generation EeePC, but I remember the Linux fanboys proclaiming that netbooks marked the "year of the Linux desktop" (which sadly never happened due to Microsoft subsidising Windows so massively that Linux netbooks actually worked out more expensive in comparison).
qwerta 13y ago
Try Lubuntu or Debian. Windows XP can not even be installed on many systems today (no cd, no internet access, no time to search drivers..)
- norswap 13y ago
  I mentionned Debian in my comment as a poor example of performance. Drivers are more an issue on Linux than Windows (in my experience, your mileage may vary). As for install, I install Windows from USB key, there a lot of software out there that do this for you (similar to what UNetBootin does for Linux).
keithpeter 13y ago
By 'older hardware' I meant a couple of years old, maybe five. I take your point about (I'm guessing) an 800MHz P3 with 256Mb. I'd use AntiX for something in that range as I am a bit lazy. But I could still get use from it.

by norswap 13y ago

adamors 13y ago

> unless you want to use something as minimal as gentoo/archlinux, and that's not for everyone I don't actually understand why wouldn't anyone use a minimal distro like Arch on any hardware. You would be surprised just how lightweight a full featured desktop environment like KDE can be on Arch/Gentoo.

doktrin 13y ago
I use Arch at work. It's great and all, but I haven't really seen too much ROI (in installation & configuration) vs. using something like Mint and simply swapping out the tiling window manager.

laumars 13y ago

If you compare XP to the latest Ubuntu, then yeah you'd have a point. But you're also comparing a decade old OS against one of the latest compositing desktop environments sat on top of one of the most bloated Linux distros; which is hardly a fair comparison. Plus as time moves on, fewer and fewer software will support XP. Where as distros like Puppy will support all the latest browsers, have the latest security fixes and still have a lower hardware footprint (disk space, RAM, CPU, etc).

norswap 13y ago
I'm not comparing XP to Ubuntu. A few years ago I experimented with a Pentium 3. XP beat "mid-level" Linux distributions handily. Mid-level distributions would be something like http://www.zenwalk.org/ http://www.zenwalk.org/, typically using user friendly but lightweight software (like XFCE). Note how they advertise for speed on the front page. I also owned a first-generation netbook, and there XP was better than Puppy, Slax, etc...
- laumars 13y ago
  > "I'm not comparing XP to Ubuntu. A few years ago I experimented with a Pentium 3. XP beat "mid-level" Linux distributions handily. Mid-level distributions would be something like http://www.zenwalk.org/ http://www.zenwalk.org/, typically using user friendly but lightweight software (like XFCE). Note how they advertise for speed on the front page." The problem here is you're just quoting anecdotal evidence - which is pretty much worthless. There's nothing to say what the specs of the systems were, what your usage was, nor any post-install optimisations (eg since you're familiar with Windows I'd wager that you weren't running a vanilla install of XP - instead disabling themes and such like to streamline the OS. But you were probably still running a vanilla build of stripping XP down to it's minimal components while running a vanilla versions of those other Linux distros). To further prove how useless anecdotal evidence is, I wiped my wife's old laptop and installed Xubuntu and saw some marked speed improvements - despite Xubuntu having desktop compositing and such like enabled (which wasn't enabled in Windows). I've also replaced two offices full of Windows CE thin clients with Linux - same hardware, but instead of WinCE (which is as minimal as Windows gets), it's running ArchLinux with LXDE. So we can all quote the "upgrades" that we've done, but without offering any real details such stories are worthless (and the results would be mostly down to whichever OS your most familiar with anyway - as you'll know how to tweak it's performance). Which is why the majority of my point was about the age of XP (and the issues that gives in terms of security and support) vs running the latest version of Linux. At lest with that, we can evidence our arguments. > "typically using user friendly but lightweight software (like XFCE)" XFCE isn't actually that lightweight. I mean, it's often used as a lightweight alternative to KDE, GNOME and such like, but they're pretty beefy / bloated desktop environments. If you wanted something lightweight then you would have been better off with LXDE, E17 or any of the numerous window managers. But this goes back to my point about it being easier to for you to run a low footprint version of Windows because you're more familiar with that - and thus how worthless anecdotal evidence is because of that bias. > "I also owned a first-generation netbook, and there XP was better than Puppy, Slax, etc..." Well that's definitely not true because the 1st generation netbooks were ASUS EeePCs and they were all Linux (Xandros to be precise). XP wouldn't even run on the netbooks originally. Microsoft had to push through changes to XP's code and licences after the netbook market started to take off out of worry that Linux might grab a chunk of Windows's market. And I remember this vividly because not only does my wife have a 1st generation EeePC, but I remember the Linux fanboys proclaiming that netbooks marked the "year of the Linux desktop" (which sadly never happened due to Microsoft subsidising Windows so massively that Linux netbooks actually worked out more expensive in comparison).

qwerta 13y ago

Try Lubuntu or Debian. Windows XP can not even be installed on many systems today (no cd, no internet access, no time to search drivers..)

norswap 13y ago
I mentionned Debian in my comment as a poor example of performance. Drivers are more an issue on Linux than Windows (in my experience, your mileage may vary). As for install, I install Windows from USB key, there a lot of software out there that do this for you (similar to what UNetBootin does for Linux).

keithpeter 13y ago

By 'older hardware' I meant a couple of years old, maybe five. I take your point about (I'm guessing) an 800MHz P3 with 256Mb. I'd use AntiX for something in that range as I am a bit lazy. But I could still get use from it.