I don't currently use Linux, but am looking for a work-around solution to Vista using all my RAM and to possibly be a solution to the high cost of continuous upgrades for my self-employed situation. I work with SPSS, ATlas.ti, perhaps Nvivo, and all Microsoft office software such as Word, Excel, Outlook, and Powerpoint. Because I need to work with others with these programs, I am unable to change because I need to use files that are compatible for others.

A solution is needed for my 1/2 broken Sony Viao (a former high end laptop that is not upgradeable.) It uses a dual core 2.0ghz processor with 2gb ram and currently has Vista on it, which sucks the RAM like crazy. At this point the hard-drive and processor work fine, but the fan has died (it sits on a chillpad, the internal mic is broken (I get audio, but can't talk back to someone without external headphones and can only listen on the loudspeaker, and the battery is pretty much useless.) I'm using it as a desktop, with an older, slower processor, but functioning Viao for traveling purposes until I can find a reasonably priced laptop with the specs I need that doesn't get hot and has a decent battery life.

1. So, I'm wondering if putting Linux on the laptop I'm using as a desktop will free up some RAM so it works better than VISTA will help me out. I'm trying not to pay so much for a new OS.

2. If so, what will my learning curve feel like?

3. Where would I even start the change process?

4. What kinds of things will I need to watch out for? (For instance, can I use the same anti-virus/malware software; will my current software programs easily reinstall on Linux; Can I use my current Microsoft Office 2007 on Linux? Etc.


Thank you for any help you can provide.

Are you familiar with the phrase: Unused RAM is wasted RAM? A better question to ask would be "Is Vista actively using the page file?" because if you're hitting the disk, then yes, you need more RAM. But if not, then the rest of your question might be moot.

Linux will use all of your RAM, which is a good thing. Anything your applications don't use will eventually be used for file buffers and cache, to make reading the files much faster.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hi, Thank you for reading and responding so quickly. I guess, I'm not much help here. I've been a computer user for years, but don't understand this kind of information about how it works. I got the idea because I recently had some online help to clean a virus from my computer and he suggested that I upgrade to Windows 7, noting that it would run better with the amount of RAM that I had, since I can't upgrade my RAM.

Does that information tell you anything? Or, how would I check if Vista is actively using the page file or hitting the disk?

Thank you!

I have a system that once ran with 1 GiB of RAM under Vista. As you have two, you should be fine in terms of RAM.

You should be able to get some information by using Task Manager -- but I don't have a Windows Vista-based computer handy, so I can't tell you where to find it. As a warning: most modern OSs (including Vista, if I remember correctly) will consume almost all of the RAM by default -- keeping a copy of files in use in memory. This helps to speed the system up, but does not limit the RAM available to programs (if you were to open up a large file in Microsoft Word and it demands 1 GiB of memory, the OS would instantly free 1 GiB of RAM for it, if there was that much in the disk cache).

My Linux system, right now, has about 90% RAM usage -- but only 20% is used by programs. The rest is cache.

If possible, can you post the memory information from Task Manager (preferably with nothing running)? This might be spread out over several pages. Hopefully, we'll be able to determine what is needed by programs and Windows and what is simply being used for the filesystem cache.

On the subject of Linux:

In general, Linux will use fewer system resources (like memory) than Windows, although large distributions with lots of features may use as much (but they'll still usually run better).

There is a definite learning curve to any new OS. There are plenty of threads recommending distributions for newbies. I personally started with Ubuntu, but I've heard good things about other distros, as well.

If you choose to install Ubuntu, I'd recommend grabbing Wubi (google it) to install it for you. This can run the installation from within Windows.

You will not need antivirus (there is some antivirus software for Linux, but they scan for Windows viruses).

Programs need to be written for Linux to install on it. Therefore, Microsoft Office won't run on Linux (instead, there is OpenOffice, which is similar (and supports Microsoft file formats well)). Most other commercial software won't run on Linux, either.

If you choose the Wubi install I mentioned, it will "dual-boot" Linux and Windows, which means that Windows will still be installed. You will still be able to use your Windows software in Windows, in case you need it.

Reminder: Make sure you have a backup of all your data when you do an OS install. Wubi is unlikely to destroy your data, but it's "better safe than sorry."

In short:
Vista probably runs fine on your laptop.
Linux would probably run better, but it won't run some of the applications you listed (there are replacements for Office, but maybe not SPSS, ATlas.ti, and Nvivo, which I haven't heard of).
Linux and Windows can co-exist on one system.

I hope this helps.

1 members found this post helpful.

If you ask Microsoft about their Linux support, you won't get a very positive response. You could:

• use Open office, which can write files in MS formats, but I'd be lying if I said you will never, ever, have problems with this approach. OTOH, you'll even have problems with different versions/paper sizes/font sets within MS application (partly because MS file formats are a load of the stuff that you'd normally flush away)
• Use WINE, a sort-of emulator, that more-or-less emulates MS Windows and allows you to run MS programs, but I'd be lying if...well, you know

2G is enough to do serious work. Can't really say if its enough to do your serious work, which is a slightly different matter.

It seems like it is in a rather sad condition. Linux doesn't cure broken hardware, although if the problem is that Windows no longer supports the hardware that you have, that may be a better proposition.

The basic concept is to use less of the RAM (for the OS, the programs, the libraries), so that the 'excess' memory usage doesn't force the use of swap (hard disk), which is slow. If the disk light is flashing during normal usage (not explicitly opening/closing/saving files) then lack of memory is causing swap usage, and that will slow your computer down from its optimum speed.

(Roughly speaking) if there is still memory left over, Linux can use that to speed various operations up, so it ends up looking as if you have zero memory completely unused. But, if the hard disk light does a lot of flashing, that's a bad sign.

Hard one to answer. In general, people who are computer enthusiasts/computer scientist, or, who are inexperienced/undemanding have the easiest time. In the middle, people who only know one computer system (probably Windows) but who already have a well-established set of 'tricks' for how they use Windows have a harder time; their Windows 'tricks' don't work for them, or even make things worse, when they try to make another system work in the way that Windows works for them, and they have a collection of semi-concious expectations that may not be met.

...at the beginning? You'd plan to do something and see what problems you run into, cure them, and repeat.

Basically, all wrong.

• You'd probably want anti-virus because you wouldn't want to relay on a virus to a client, as that can be embarrassing. A Linux box basically won't have a problem with viruses (technically, they do exist, but, at this stage of the game, its a non-problem, and while it can't be guaranteed that it will stay that way, you are worrying about the wrong problem) but the malware environment is a whole lot more complicated than just viruses.
• Nothing that you currently have will easily/directly reinstall on Linux. Probably equivalent programs will and, given internet, access the install process on Linux is easier/better organised/just plain different, but this won't help you if you must use a Windows-only program.

As a general statement, expecting Linux to be an exact Windows replacement (running the same versions of programs that run on Windows) isn't a helpful approach; for programs that available for several platforms (browsers, excepting that one produced by MS, OpenOffice, etc, etc) are easy, as, up to a point, are programs that use a well-defined common file format. Support for your Linux system will have to come from somewhere; if that support is you, then you'll have to know a bit about the system, in the same way that you would about a Windows system (although support time for general SNAFUs should go down when you have a linux-mindset).

1 members found this post helpful.

Thank you Salasi and Crosstalk,

The information you have provided is helpful and I'll use it to consider what my options are.

FYI, my disk light does flash a bit and I do usually have 3 or more programs and the internet open at one time. So, it may be that my type of usage is just more demanding than my system can easily support. I'll have to make sure that my next computer gives me a step up. It doesn't function too badly, but it could be better. Also, I'm tired of every Vista update screwing up my settings for other programs all the time and the price I have to pay to keep up with the mainstream OS changes. I also don't want to pay so much to update the OS, especially when the computer itself is going to need to be replaced in the near future.

I don't mind learning about new systems, but have to be careful that I can maintain my workload with the learning curve.

Thank you for all your help!

Happy New Year!

If it flashes "a bit" then that is normal.

If, when you open a large document, it grinds to a halt and it flashes a lot (read: is steadily on), then it is "thrashing", which means you have too little RAM.

Of course, the best way to tell is with Task Manager, but I forgot which parts are important, so I can't guide you through calculating your memory usage (I could probably tell by looking, though...)

Glad we could help.

1 members found this post helpful.

it really depends, linux gives you more options the more you know.

1. Ubuntu has no steeper a learning curve then windows. In fact, I think even less so. I was installing windows on an old machine after using Ubuntu as my one and only desktop for the last 4 months, I was supprised what a royal pain in the ass it was, and how useless it is stock, drives you need to install, and it comes with no software, all which must be installed manually, oh and your codec install is probably a trojan.

Ubuntu has better plug and play than windows does, and better set of ready to download drivers, with much much much easier installation. THIRD PARTY DRIVERS, however are a little more hit or miss, some companies provide linux support, some don't. Less linux's fault, and more hardware developers.

But yes, there is a learning curve as linux works diffrently.

Will it run quicker?? Ubuntu, probably not. I run an OC'd 3.9 Ghz AMD Phenom 2 with 4 GB of DDR3-1600, also over clocked, dual screen it and with a terabyte HD, I could care less about disk space. GNOME is a heavy interface, albiet oh-so-pretty, extremely customizable, with the ability ofmind blowing effects (compiz is straight up sci-fi).

Now, there is Lubuntu, a lightwieght, abliet slightly less pretty interface. There are litterally dozens of distros out there, for every time of purpose. I just got done putting arch linux on an old p3 box with a little under a gig of ram. Latest version of firefox and it runs like a champ. Not bad for a machine that ran windows 98 in its day. That said, don't try running arch linux as a newbie. It will make you cry.

Give lubuntu a whirl. Its most of the easy to use, easy to install of ubuntu, with a lighter lxde interface. Best part is, you can TRY IT on a live cd before you install and see if you like it.
http://lubuntu.net/

I do say though, TRY IT, and figure out how to use it on the live CD BEFORE installing though.

edit: linux viruses are rare, but I wouldn't wanna be caught with my pants down. When the first big one strikes, I'd rather have the anti-virus software on my computer than not. also more important than a virus scanner, get a root kit scanner. rkhunter works admirably

1 members found this post helpful.

Thank you so much Jack. The information is helpful here as I learn more about Linux. I had no idea that I could try it on live cd before installing it. That is very useful! Thank you for sharing your experience.