ProgrammingThis forum is for all programming questions.
The question does not have to be directly related to Linux and any language is fair game.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Need to install a Windows based 64-bit OS on a workstation. I'm familiar with XP and would rather opt for an XP 64-bit version. However, would like to put aside personal preferences (especially since familiarity only shouldn't be the only criteria), and check into whether Vista 64-bit is better. Ran a search on XP 64-bit and quite a few articles seem dated (couple of years or so), so am not clear as how it stands up against Vista (particularly performance-wise).
Would appreciate any comments on choice between 64-bit XP or Vista. Many thanks...
This is definitely a tricky question, for several reasons:
Microsoft just released its final service pack (SP3) for Windows XP, and I am fairly certain they have declared Windows XP is no longer supported.
Vista is a piece of junk; I have had the unfortunate experience of having to use it. It looks nice, but then again, so does Mac OS X.
Vista has a massive footprint on the drive when compared to Windows XP. More stuff means more fluff, which means more seek time, which means a slower response time on the system.
Windows XP has been around long enough that most of the anti-virus programs out there have managed to tack down any serious virus threats.
Vista is somewhat clunky in operation, even on powerful machines; I have been able to get Windows XP to run on a Pentium 2 @ 450MHz.
There are some points. What's more, since this post is in the "Programming" section of LQ, I am under the impression this question is being asked so as to pick a platform to target development towards. My suggestion would be to just use the .NET framework as it is then up to Microsoft to maintain it (the runtime) and not the actual program. The problem with native compilation is that there are *slightly* too many factors that can futz up a native compile process. Sticking to a runtime (with a bytecode compile process) greatly increases the number of valid platforms your program can run on (supplying the runtime provider has targeted those systems). If you're worried about decompiling of the bytecode, a quick Google search can lead to several tools that will take your .NET bytecode, and make it native.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.