Because Shiny Things Are Fun - The New New Windows v Linux Thread

Any OS that runs in a VM is going to run slow as sh*t! unless you have a beefed-up computer.

oh welll... as you say. i'll make another video the next week with windows 7 vs ubuntu 10.10 with the same tasks

Seriously, what for???

Even if your test proves otherwise, WHO CARES!!! I will still use linux.

And the same goes for linux too. If someone did a video showing how linux did something better than windows. WHO CARES!!!

People have their favorite OS and will use it no matter what. The good, the bad and the ugly of it.

Originally Posted by blahblalblah Seriously, what for??? Even if your test proves otherwise, WHO CARES!!! I will still use linux. And the same goes for linux too. If someone did a video showing how linux did something better than windows. WHO CARES!!! People have their favorite OS and will use it no matter what. The good, the bad and the ugly of it.

That's right. Just because an OS boots slightly faster doesn't mean it's better or faster overall.

Originally Posted by silvyus_06 oh welll... as you say. i'll make another video the next week with windows 7 vs ubuntu 10.10 with the same tasks

As long as you don't run Ubuntu in a virtual machine...that should be very interesting. (I'm not a fan of 10.10 though- I'm sticking with 10.04LTS until I switch to Debian...or will dual boot with Debian)

Originally Posted by blahblalblah Any OS that runs in a VM is going to run slow as sh*t! unless you have a beefed-up computer.

Well, VTx/AMD-V extensions do help...

I wouldn't switch even if Linux took twice as long to boot. Want to know why? This is one reason why:

root@smoker / # uptime
 00:17:53 up 242 days, 16:53,  5 users,  load average: 0.85, 0.97, 0.99
root@smoker / #

That is on a desktop system not some dedicated server. That was on a Abit NF7 2.0 mobo with a AMD 2500+ CPU with I think it was 1Gb of ram at the time. If you don't have to reboot a lot, who cares about boot time?

I believe a real benchmark should involved two identical computers with identical specs and NOT a single computer in which one OS is a host and the other is a guest. It's not the same. IMO

Secondly, a benchmark against ubuntu doesn't mean all distros will act or perform like ubuntu.

Originally Posted by blahblalblah I believe a real benchmark should involved two identical computers with identical specs and NOT a single computer in which one OS is a host and the other is a guest. It's not the same. IMO Secondly, a benchmark against ubuntu doesn't mean all distros will act or perform like ubuntu.

You would also have to define what booted is too. I know on my Brothers XP system, the desktop is up but you can't do anything until all the background stuff is finished. How does one account for that?

According to dmesg, my kernel is up in about 8 seconds:

[    8.537095] REISERFS (device sdc1): checking transaction log (sdc1)
[    8.576340] REISERFS (device sdc1): Using r5 hash to sort names
[    8.797741] Adding 979960k swap on /dev/sda2.  Priority:-1 extents:1 across:979960k 
[    8.809226] Adding 1871536k swap on /dev/sdb5.  Priority:-2 extents:1 across:1871536k

Now that I have 16Gbs of ram, I think I can get rid of the extra swap.

Originally Posted by dalek root@smoker / # uptime 00:17:53 up 242 days, 16:53, 5 users, load average: 0.85, 0.97, 0.99 root@smoker / #

How much is your electric bill

In honesty, benchmarks are irrelevant to me. I know first hand the performance of my computer is going to be great or mega crap by the hardware specs I have.

i don't know his bills but i remember seeing somewhere that leaving a computer on all day for a month would be like 4-5$
or i don't know the other way around 4-5$ /day
im not so sure though.
depends on the price per Watt...

I figured it up once, it costs about $15.00 a month to run my old computer 24/7. It is not a big deal for me. Also, since I was running folding at the time, in both winter and summer, it had to be booted up for it to run. I only run folding in the winter now tho. It helps heat my room so it doesn't really cost anything extra. Either the computer heats the room or the heater does it by running more. Also, my old rig has a CRT monitor which pulls a good deal more than my new LCD.

My new rig, the one in my sig, actually pulls less than my old one even when folding is running and all cores are at 100%. It costs about $10.00 or a little less to run it 24/7. Considering I have a large fridge, two large deep freezers and several other things that pull a good bit or run a lot, the computer is basically a rounding error.

if no one managed to figure out (@blahblahblah "one os is a host and the other is a guest")
actually both windows xp and ubuntu were in a virtual machine.

Originally Posted by dalek ...Want to know why?... root@smoker / # uptime 00:17:53 up 242 days, 16:53, 5 users, load average: 0.85, 0.97, 0.99 root@smoker / #

Well, congrats, since you most likely missed a critical kernel patch released on august 20 of 2010 (according to article it is a fix for critical vulnerability that existed since 2003).

Originally Posted by Sumguy Comparing a 10 year old OS

By using same logic I could say ubuntu is a 7-year old.
Windows XP isn't 10 years old. Last update (WinXP SP3) was released in April of 2008, roughly 2.5 years ago. And YES it makes it different from initial release of WinXP.

Originally Posted by blahblalblah People have their favorite OS and will use it no matter what.

I guess this is the only correct opinion, so arguing will be meaningless. As it is with religion - people will belive in whatever they think is right, no matter what.

Originally Posted by SigTerm Well, congrats, since you most likely missed a critical kernel patch released on august 20 of 2010 (according to article it is a fix for critical vulnerability that existed since 2003).

Well, let me give you some more facts. That was on my old rig and was taken about 5 years ago. That was my longest personal uptime for that rig. So, actually, I didn't miss any update since the update wasn't even available yet. If you want to know the exact date, Hurricane Katrina should narrow it down. That is the reason I had to shutdown. Sort of lost power for a little bit. ;-) Also, I do regularly have uptimes of several months. As a general rule, power outages is the reason I have to do a shutdown. I have a UPS but it can't always last long enough.

Also, if the bug was known that long, going a little longer wouldn't have made much difference anyway. Plus, I was on dial-up back then. Who in there right mind would try to hack a dial-up system nowadays? I could also add, as long as my hardware works, I don't update every time some fix comes out. If that was the case and was expected of everyone else, we would have to reboot waaay to much to suit me.