Linux doesn't run on older hardware?

[iago]

Does Windows run as good as Linux on legacy hardware?  Microsoft  says... yes?. 

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."

Of course, Linux responded with a list of distros that run well on legacy hardware

As usual, Microsoft is trying to pat themselves on the back and making ridiculous claims.  I run Linux on 233mhz and 300mhz boxes and it runs great (unless you try to run OpenOffice or Eclipse or other stupid stuff).  I also run Windows on a 500mhz box and it runs like shit.  So who's right?

[igimo1]

Depends on what sort of install you did... Windows has a lot of services that should be disabled if you don't need them.

[Sidoh]

Depends on what sort of install you did... Windows has a lot of services that should be disabled if you don't need them.

Linux will always run better on slower machines.

[iago]

Depends on what sort of install you did... Windows has a lot of services that should be disabled if you don't need them.

They specifically said an out-of-the-box install. 

[deadly7]

Haha.  Linux owns Windows on everything on my old PC.  400mhz/384mbRAM/2mbVideo.  Own3d.

[Newby]

Hah. My brother had WinXP installed out-of-the-box on a 233 MHz machine. The thing literally took 10 minutes to finish logging in.

[iago]

Hah. My brother had WinXP installed out-of-the-box on a 233 MHz machine. The thing literally took 10 minutes to finish logging in.

Was it your dad who made up this crap?  Or was is he not working in the Linux division anymore?

[Newby]

Hah. My brother had WinXP installed out-of-the-box on a 233 MHz machine. The thing literally took 10 minutes to finish logging in.

Was it your dad who made up this crap?  Or was is he not working in the Linux division anymore?

Probably. He reminds me of Warrior in his blind defense of Windows. Except my dad has "statistics" (from inside of M$ internally) that "prove" me wrong.

[iago]

Hah. My brother had WinXP installed out-of-the-box on a 233 MHz machine. The thing literally took 10 minutes to finish logging in.

Was it your dad who made up this crap?  Or was is he not working in the Linux division anymore?

Probably. He reminds me of Warrior in his blind defense of Windows. Except my dad has "statistics" (from inside of M$ internally) that "prove" me wrong.

Statistics can be used to prove anything.  73% of people know that. 

The way I see it, he (and you and me) are in a position to defend our OS because we have extensive experience with both (I think he does?).  I know that I used Windows for many many years, so I have a pretty good idea of how it works. 

[Newby]

My dad has used Unix since the early 1980's so he has experience in both hardcore Unix / Windows usage in the server/desktop environment, seeing as how my dad had jumped on the Microsoft bandwagon mid 1990s and was one of the beta testers for many early M$ products (including Visual Studio and Win95, both of the beta CDs I have seen) before M$ exploded and became massively famous and huge.

[Sidoh]

My dad has used Unix since the early 1980's so he has experience in both hardcore Unix / Windows usage in the server/desktop environment, seeing as how my dad had jumped on the Microsoft bandwagon mid 1990s and was one of the beta testers for many early M$ products (including Visual Studio and Win95, both of the beta CDs I have seen) before M$ exploded and became massively famous and huge.

Microsoft was massively famous and huge when Windows 95 was released!

[zorm]

Does Windows run as good as Linux on legacy hardware?  Microsoft  says... yes?. 

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."

Of course, Linux responded with a list of distros that run well on legacy hardware

As usual, Microsoft is trying to pat themselves on the back and making ridiculous claims.  I run Linux on 233mhz and 300mhz boxes and it runs great (unless you try to run OpenOffice or Eclipse or other stupid stuff).  I also run Windows on a 500mhz box and it runs like shit.  So who's right?

Funny how Microsoft is limited to being installed and run out-of-the-box yet Linux is allowed to use distros specifically designed for older hardware? Give me a break~

[Newby]

They're the ones that specified the setup. You can't blame anyone zorm.

[Sidoh]

Funny how Microsoft is limited to being installed and run out-of-the-box yet Linux is allowed to use distros specifically designed for older hardware? Give me a break~

It sepcifically stated out-of-the-box.

Also, "Linux" doesn't refer to a single operating system.  It refers to a collective group of distributions that use the same kernel.  That's the flaw in your analogy.

[zorm]

They're the ones that specified the setup. You can't blame anyone zorm.

Actually they tested against distros that are designed for current hardware, so responding that "hey we can beat your full OS with our stripped down OSes" isn't exactly encouraging.

It sepcifically stated out-of-the-box.

Also, "Linux" doesn't refer to a single operating system.  It refers to a collective group of distributions that use the same kernel.  That's the flaw in your analogy.

And windows isn't the same way? If you turn off services its still windows, etc. If they use Windows CE or such its still the same basic kernel.

[MyndFyre]

As usual, Microsoft is trying to pat themselves on the back and making ridiculous claims.  I run Linux on 233mhz and 300mhz boxes and it runs great (unless you try to run OpenOffice or Eclipse or other stupid stuff).  I also run Windows on a 500mhz box and it runs like shit.  So who's right?

I can toss NT 4.0 SPanything on a 233 or 300MHz box and it'll run great with only 16mb of RAM.  That was the kind of machine it was built for.

As it turns out, as long as there is enough RAM, evidently Windows 2003 will run on a 133MHz Pentium.

[Newby]

They're the ones that specified the setup. You can't blame anyone zorm.

Actually they tested against distros that are designed for current hardware, so responding that "hey we can beat your full OS with our stripped down OSes" isn't exactly encouraging.

You missed my point. Microsoft limited themselves to an out-of-the-box install for their OS.

Also, I love how one of the latest Slackware distros worked just fine on a PC from 1997. Windows XP can't run on a PC from 1997. I take that back. It can. Just fine, in fact, if you are fine with waiting 5-10 minutes to get past the login screen.

As usual, Microsoft is trying to pat themselves on the back and making ridiculous claims.  I run Linux on 233mhz and 300mhz boxes and it runs great (unless you try to run OpenOffice or Eclipse or other stupid stuff).  I also run Windows on a 500mhz box and it runs like shit.  So who's right?

I can toss NT 4.0 SPanything on a 233 or 300MHz box and it'll run great with only 16mb of RAM.  That was the kind of machine it was built for.

As it turns out, as long as there is enough RAM, evidently Windows 2003 will run on a 133MHz Pentium.

I can toss the original Slackware from 1993 on something slower than the machine from 1995 and it'll run just fine. I'd wager Win95 couldn't dream of running on something from 1993.

EDIT -- Now I'm confused @ zorm.

Funny how Microsoft is limited to being installed and run out-of-the-box yet Linux is allowed to use distros specifically designed for older hardware? Give me a break~

Actually they tested against distros that are designed for current hardware, so responding that "hey we can beat your full OS with our stripped down OSes" isn't exactly encouraging.

Which one is it?

[Sidoh]

And windows isn't the same way? If you turn off services its still windows, etc. If they use Windows CE or such its still the same basic kernel.

As Newby already pointed out, they limited themselves to an out-of-the-box install.

[zorm]

I understand Microsoft limited themselves but they also used full distros of Linux to test against! Then the Linux people respond back that they have other distros for old hardware.

My point is if you are going to compare a distro specifcally made for oldish hardware then Windows should be allowed to be modified in a similar fashion.

[Warrior]

Okay question: Who cares?
I mean if you're not willing to put enough money to get something more hightech than ISA ..or you're using a PC from 1997 ....
Cmon, get with the times.

Technically speaking a kernel can operate with just enough memory for itself and it's heap which is only a few megs. Memory can be swapped out so provided you have a reliable method of keeping a pagefile it should be possible, not saying it would be very efficient (or sane).

The way I see it you need a) Enough memory for the entire kernel (few megs) b) Enough memory for some pagetables/pagedirs
One 4KBPage maps 4MB of memory, not all memory has to be mapped at the same time. I think you may also need a small window of memory for a process to run in, parts of a process should be able to be paged to the disk/reread if you mark them as non resident then put them on the disk. On pagefault they can be paged back in from a file or swap. I'd estimate 16MB at the most for a fully working kernel. (Slow as hell and your disk would be active always

Now the term "old hardware" is also very vauge. I'd call hardware released in 1999-2000 old, and I'm pretty sure XP can run on that (Since most of the PCs who upgraded to XP on it's release used something around then) so it wouldn't be a far stretch to 1997.

[Newby]

Okay question: Who cares?
I mean if you're not willing to put enough money to get something more hightech than ISA ..or you're using a PC from 1997 ....
Cmon, get with the times.

Apparently, Microsoft did; they did the study.

My point is if you are going to compare a distro specifcally made for oldish hardware then Windows should be allowed to be modified in a similar fashion.

I thought it was for current hardware?

Actually they tested against distros that are designed for current hardware, so responding that "hey we can beat your full OS with our stripped down OSes" isn't exactly encouraging.

Hmm?

And they have every right to respond saying "we have older distros for older hardware" just like M$ could have said "we have older operating systems for older hardware."

Ooh, I get what you're saying. Who cares if it isn't encouraging? Let's see M$ strip down a Windows OS and compare it to an older distro in terms of usability in the desktop/server environment. I bet Linux comes up on top.

[MyndFyre]

I can toss the original Slackware from 1993 on something slower than the machine from 1995 and it'll run just fine. I'd wager Win95 couldn't dream of running on something from 1993.

I could run Windows 95 on my 386 with 4mb RAM from 1987.  It ran slow, but it was possible.

[Sidoh]

I understand Microsoft limited themselves but they also used full distros of Linux to test against! Then the Linux people respond back that they have other distros for old hardware.

My point is if you are going to compare a distro specifcally made for oldish hardware then Windows should be allowed to be modified in a similar fashion.

All of these Microsoft vs. Linux battles seem to be exactly this: Microsoft doesn't know how to use voccabulary.  They limited themselves to a set of conditions and Linux shows they can do that too.  There's no such thing as "out of hte box Linux."

Warrior: while I agree with you, I think you need to make your arguments sound more like an argument and less like an insult.  Who cares about this?  Old computers are growing more and more useless.

[Newby]

I can toss the original Slackware from 1993 on something slower than the machine from 1995 and it'll run just fine. I'd wager Win95 couldn't dream of running on something from 1993.

I could run Windows 95 on my 386 with 4mb RAM from 1987.  It ran slow, but it was possible.

I could build an LFS system that would run on that just fine.

I think.

[Warrior]

Warrior: while I agree with you, I think you need to make your arguments sound more like an argument and less like an insult.  Who cares about this?  Old computers are growing more and more useless.

Didn't mean for them to come off as hard, was merely trying to set the point that not many people actually use the old hardware on an everyday basis. Not saying what Microsoft claims is correct either, I'm just stating that literally every kernel which uses Flat Protected (or Flat Virtual, whatever) model which is overlapping segmentation (Base=0 Limit=0xFFFFFFFF) can probably run (very slowly and horribly) on old hardware. I think the only limitation is the actual support for the devices like older processor models and things like full preemptiveness in multitasking as opposed to cooperative which could lead to starvation. 

[Sidoh]

Didn't mean for them to come off as hard, was merely trying to set the point that not many people actually use the old hardware on an everyday basis. Not saying what Microsoft claims is correct either, I'm just stating that literally every kernel which uses Flat Protected (or Flat Virtual, whatever) model which is overlapping segmentation (Base=0 Limit=0xFFFFFFFF) can probably run (very slowly and horribly) on old hardware. I think the only limitation is the actual support for the devices like older processor models and things like full preemptiveness in multitasking as opposed to cooperative which could lead to starvation. 

Let me show you want I mean:

or you're using a PC from 1997 ....
Cmon, get with the times.

Completely unecessary.

[Warrior]

Wasn't directed at anyone here (Although I hope we all have PCs from this millenium).

[Newby]

Wasn't directed at anyone here (Although I hope we all have PCs from this millenium).

iago runs lots of computers that are barely fast enough to run Windows. Look at pie and darkside.

I run a laptop that is designed for win98. It runs Linux and used to host my CS server.

[Warrior]

I meant as a main PC, I'm pretty sure 16MB isn't what he uses regularly .

I'm also pretty sure since Window is a graphical enviroment at the least it would be fair
to do the comparison with Linux running a graphical enviroment as well.

[Sidoh]

I meant as a main PC, I'm pretty sure 16MB isn't what he uses regularly .

I'm also pretty sure since Window is a graphical enviroment at the least it would be fair
to do the comparison with Linux running a graphical enviroment as well.

That's the glory of it.  You don't have to use a graphical environment.

[Newby]

I meant as a main PC, I'm pretty sure 16MB isn't what he uses regularly .

I'm also pretty sure since Window is a graphical enviroment at the least it would be fair
to do the comparison with Linux running a graphical enviroment as well.

It was compared to a Linux distro with the graphical environment running. Hence why the only reason Knoppix failed at 1997 was there wasn't enough memory to start the X window server.

EDIT --

If Linux was installed on an older system, such as an average PC of 1997, then the desktop performance falls below what is typically acceptable for a common user, he said.

[Warrior]

So would Windows outperform Linux in that if what we were comparing were equal? Being Desktop to Desktop raw performance.
My guess is it would be a close match. Now if we're disabling graphical enviroments then we can just edit boot.ini, run from commandline and work on basically every PC.

[Sidoh]

So would Windows outperform Linux in that if what we were comparing were equal? Being Desktop to Desktop raw performance.
My guess is it would be a close match. Now if we're disabling graphical enviroments then we can just edit boot.ini, run from commandline and work on basically every PC.

I've not had experience trying to run windows without the GUI, but I'd wager it'd lose a lot of versatility if it was.

But you're right.  That would be an interesting benchmark.

[Ergot]

Windows without GUI != Windows?
Windows without GUI = DOS :S

Wasn't directed at anyone here (Although I hope we all have PCs from this millenium).

Put it this way... I still use an AT keyboard.

[Warrior]

Windows without GUI != Windows?
Windows without GUI = DOS :S

DOS had a lot of limitations, 16MB memory 64K segment limits..realmode (/me waits for Myndybot to mention Himem.sys)
DOS wouldn't be able to have ringlevel protection, segment protection, software switching, etc.. Windows provides a DOS subsystem but it's commandline is entirely it's own.

[iago]

I can take a completely modern Linux distro like Slackware 10.1.  I can do a full install and enable the default services.  I can do all that on a laptop that I paid $150 for and that came with Windows 95.  Its name is tank, and I use it every day (I bring it to school with me).  I do programming, word processing, and other day-to-day activities, and it runs perfectly fast. 

When I first got the laptop, it had Windows 95.  I tried using Windows 95 and it ran pretty poorly. 

Microsoft is, yet again, spinning off bullshit and calling it a "study".  You may notice that I've posted a lot of "Microsoft is full of shit" articles lately.  It's true.  I normally just ignore/laugh when Microsoft tries to pawn off bullshit on people, but lately I'm trying to demonstrate a point from another thread. 

How am I doing?

[Joe]

To tell you the truth, iago, I haven't noticed. ^_^

[Warrior]

I can take a completely modern Linux distro like Slackware 10.1.  I can do a full install and enable the default services.  I can do all that on a laptop that I paid $150 for and that came with Windows 95.  Its name is tank, and I use it every day (I bring it to school with me).  I do programming, word processing, and other day-to-day activities, and it runs perfectly fast. 

When I first got the laptop, it had Windows 95.  I tried using Windows 95 and it ran pretty poorly. 

Microsoft is, yet again, spinning off bullshit and calling it a "study".  You may notice that I've posted a lot of "Microsoft is full of shit" articles lately.  It's true.  I normally just ignore/laugh when Microsoft tries to pawn off bullshit on people, but lately I'm trying to demonstrate a point from another thread. 

How am I doing?

Sorta hard to say when the only issue you said is "it ran pretty poorly". Doesn't give me anything to work with..also let's note it's Windows95. 95 and (98 even) were still mostly DOS with 16Bit ProtectedMode, v86, and High Memory.
I'd guess Windows95 defaulted to VESA (I don't think they supported VBE Accelerants in Win95) and made bad usage of some memory but even then that's a stab in the dark.

[Sidoh]

Sorta hard to say when the only issue you said is "it ran pretty poorly". Doesn't give me anything to work with..also let's note it's Windows95. 95 and (98 even) were still mostly DOS with 16Bit ProtectedMode, v86, and High Memory.
I'd guess Windows95 defaulted to VESA (I don't think they supported VBE Accelerants in Win95) and made bad usage of some memory but even then that's a stab in the dark.

Haha, are you saying Windows XP would run better than 95 on an old laptop?

[deadly7]

Ok then, let's use Windows XP.  My other computer (digitalfortress) dualboots Windows XP SP1 as well as Slackware 10.2.  I do anything on Slackware and it is about 10x faster than on Windows.  Firefox loads much quicker, I have more free RAM, etc etc etc.  That box came with Windows 95.

[Warrior]

Sorta hard to say when the only issue you said is "it ran pretty poorly". Doesn't give me anything to work with..also let's note it's Windows95. 95 and (98 even) were still mostly DOS with 16Bit ProtectedMode, v86, and High Memory.
I'd guess Windows95 defaulted to VESA (I don't think they supported VBE Accelerants in Win95) and made bad usage of some memory but even then that's a stab in the dark.

Haha, are you saying Windows XP would run better than 95 on an old laptop?

Most likely. It won't run great but Win95 oughta run worse. WindowsXP uses modern day MM algorithms which make it manage memory more efficiently. I havn't done the testing myself, this is purely theory but I'll put my money on it.

[Warrior]

Ok then, let's use Windows XP.  My other computer (digitalfortress) dualboots Windows XP SP1 as well as Slackware 10.2.  I do anything on Slackware and it is about 10x faster than on Windows.  Firefox loads much quicker, I have more free RAM, etc etc etc.  That box came with Windows 95.

This ties into the issue of before, all of your ram is potentially "Free" on an x86 architecture. You can (if the kernel supports) in theory reuse memory from the same process by swapping out, marking as non resident, updating the page table, then invalidating the translation lookaside buffer. It seems possible to me but it isn't very probable.

Firefox isn't a very good judge of speed, it takes hella long to load on Windows XP period. As for everything else, I'd acredit it to Windows handling it's UI via the GDI pipeline. With the added stress of old hardware, it usually would stress the CPU more.
I'm not arguing Windows beats Linux on old hardware, I'm mainly giving reasons why it may fail and commenting on how it could possibly be made better.

[Sidoh]

Most likely. It won't run great but Win95 oughta run worse. WindowsXP uses modern day MM algorithms which make it manage memory more efficiently. I havn't done the testing myself, this is purely theory but I'll put my money on it.

That'd be a bet I would take.

[iago]

Most likely. It won't run great but Win95 oughta run worse. WindowsXP uses modern day MM algorithms which make it manage memory more efficiently. I havn't done the testing myself, this is purely theory but I'll put my money on it.

That's fantastic and all, but you're forgetting one issue: Windows 95 uses a TON less memory and CPU than XP.  I assure you that on my 500mhz family computer, Windows 95 ran a whole lot better than XP does.  It was faster to load and more responsive. 

I see absolutely no way that a modern graphical heavy-weight OS could possibly beat an ancient graphical heavy-weight OS.  Windows XP wasn't designed to run on old hardware, and Windows 95 was (well, it wasn't old at the time.. you know what I mean!)

Incidentally, I assure you that Slackware 10.2 runs much better than Windows 95.  I don't have any measures, it's just how it is.  I wouldn't mind installing Windows XP on it just to prove you wrong, but it's really not worth my time. 

[Warrior]

Most likely. It won't run great but Win95 oughta run worse. WindowsXP uses modern day MM algorithms which make it manage memory more efficiently. I havn't done the testing myself, this is purely theory but I'll put my money on it.

That's fantastic and all, but you're forgetting one issue: Windows 95 uses a TON less memory and CPU than XP.  I assure you that on my 500mhz family computer, Windows 95 ran a whole lot better than XP does.  It was faster to load and more responsive. 

I see absolutely no way that a modern graphical heavy-weight OS could possibly beat an ancient graphical heavy-weight OS.  Windows XP wasn't designed to run on old hardware, and Windows 95 was (well, it wasn't old at the time.. you know what I mean!)

Incidentally, I assure you that Slackware 10.2 runs much better than Windows 95.  I don't have any measures, it's just how it is.  I wouldn't mind installing Windows XP on it just to prove you wrong, but it's really not worth my time. 

You CAN turn the "Modern Day Graphics" off, when it boils down to it it uses the same space of memory. Consider this.
A window of memory for 0xhere to 0xthere weather it contains zero's or one's or actual information, it's going to take up the same amount. So unless you have all of the XP Eyecandy on (Cleartype, Menu Shadowing, Fancy menu scrolling, etc..) it should be the same (if not very close) to Win95 in terms of how lightweight the UI is. For added startup speeds you can also turn on the old style logins. XP has a considerable edge over Win9x in startup speeds simply because it's been reworked.

Only time I can see Win95 beating XP is in Kernel communication because it's local since everything runs at ring0 (I may be wrong, even so it would have been dumb of them to make Kernel Memory RW and be in ring3..defeats the purpose..except to stop people from issuing things like cli, sti, and hlt) Even with that, iirc XP uses callgates (Correct me if I'm wrong) which add some speed over the flat interrupt based communication model Linux uses so in intensive communication operations XP should win out.
I'm not denying Linux will undoubtedly win, it was written with old hardware in mind. For XP to be as modern as it is, and for windows as a whole however I think it's good that they can even compete.

[Blaze]

We're talking about unconfigured, Warrior.  I personally hate most "eyecandy".  Remember your OS you showed me?  It looked like crap, in your words.  It looked great, and simple to me.

[Warrior]

Okay so let's go off that and since they use the term "Linux" I'll assume it applies to every distro unconfigured.

I'd like to see Ubuntu Linux run on old 1997 PC Hardware and outperform XP. Linux distros like Slackware will win because they are nice and simple but elegant. Windows XP will shine over the more user friendly distros like Linspire and Ubuntu mainly because of superior 2D Acceleration.

@Blaze: My OS had a crappy font subsystem I hated and used VESA2 which was slow as hell.

[Sidoh]

Most likely. It won't run great but Win95 oughta run worse. WindowsXP uses modern day MM algorithms which make it manage memory more efficiently. I havn't done the testing myself, this is purely theory but I'll put my money on it.

That's fantastic and all, but you're forgetting one issue: Windows 95 uses a TON less memory and CPU than XP.  I assure you that on my 500mhz family computer, Windows 95 ran a whole lot better than XP does.  It was faster to load and more responsive. 

I see absolutely no way that a modern graphical heavy-weight OS could possibly beat an ancient graphical heavy-weight OS.  Windows XP wasn't designed to run on old hardware, and Windows 95 was (well, it wasn't old at the time.. you know what I mean!)

Incidentally, I assure you that Slackware 10.2 runs much better than Windows 95.  I don't have any measures, it's just how it is.  I wouldn't mind installing Windows XP on it just to prove you wrong, but it's really not worth my time. 

I didn't say that you crazy man!

[iago]

Well, first of all:

I'm not denying Linux will undoubtedly win

Great, the we agree that Microsoft is full of crap.

Next,

I'd like to see Ubuntu Linux run on old 1997 PC Hardware and outperform XP. Linux distros like Slackware will win because they are nice and simple but elegant. Windows XP will shine over the more user friendly distros like Linspire and Ubuntu mainly because of superior 2D Acceleration.

Any variation of Linux will run on hardware, as long as you are allowed to choose your window manager.  Everything else runs fine. 

[Warrior]

Well, first of all:

I'm not denying Linux will undoubtedly win

Great, the we agree that Microsoft is full of crap.

No, I'm saying it was built on crap hardware for crap hardware.

Next,

I'd like to see Ubuntu Linux run on old 1997 PC Hardware and outperform XP. Linux distros like Slackware will win because they are nice and simple but elegant. Windows XP will shine over the more user friendly distros like Linspire and Ubuntu mainly because of superior 2D Acceleration.

Any variation of Linux will run on hardware, as long as you are allowed to choose your window manager.  Everything else runs fine. 

Ubuntu comes with Gnome and only Gnome. Besides that is "changing configurations". So since we have so much fun taking everything Microsoft says in different ways I'm going to say since not every version of Linux is capable of running old hardware that their statement is false.

[iago]

No, I'm saying it was built on crap hardware for crap hardware.

Huh?

Ubuntu comes with Gnome and only Gnome. Besides that is "changing configurations". So since we have so much fun taking everything Microsoft says in different ways I'm going to say since not every version of Linux is capable of running old hardware that their statement is false.

Ubuntu isn't Linux.  It's not Linux that has trouble running on older hardware, it's a specific program that is designed for Linux. 

Microsoft says that their OS outperforms modern Linux distributions on older hardware.  From personal experience, that's wrong.  What else do I need to say to prove that Microsoft is bullshitting?

[Joe]

I'd like to see Ubuntu Linux run on old 1997 PC Hardware and outperform XP.

You know where I live. Come here, and supply the 1997 PC hardware. I'll do the rest.

[Warrior]

No, I'm saying it was built on crap hardware for crap hardware.

Huh?

Maybe if I replaced 'it' with Linux you'd understand?

Ubuntu comes with Gnome and only Gnome. Besides that is "changing configurations". So since we have so much fun taking everything Microsoft says in different ways I'm going to say since not every version of Linux is capable of running old hardware that their statement is false.

Ubuntu isn't Linux.  It's not Linux that has trouble running on older hardware, it's a specific program that is designed for Linux. 

Microsoft says that their OS outperforms modern Linux distributions on older hardware.  From personal experience, that's wrong.  What else do I need to say to prove that Microsoft is bullshitting?

What? Anyone can claim the kernel can run on 97 hardware, it's how well it runs with everything it brings. That isn't very fair saying you can take things out and disregard things from Linux when doing the test but Windows must be used with all the setting s maxed out. Something doesn't seem right.

[iago]

Maybe if I replaced 'it' with Linux you'd understand?

Linux was built on crap hardware?  How did you come up with that, exactly?

What? Anyone can claim the kernel can run on 97 hardware, it's how well it runs with everything it brings. That isn't very fair saying you can take things out and disregard things from Linux when doing the test but Windows must be used with all the setting s maxed out. Something doesn't seem right.

It's not about running, it's about being useful.  I'm not aware of anything Windows has done that would be useful on old hardware.  Linux, on the other hand, is completely useable (as a server or moreso as a desktop) on old hardware. 

And you're right, one of the big reasons is the interface.  By default on most Linuxes that I've used, X-Windows isn't automatically started and everything can be done from a console.  So let's just imagine we've done a full install and pressed the power button, and now we want to run a web server.  I boot up, edit Apache's config file, and start it (which is what I did on darkside, that we're using now).  It runs great.  How would you do that on a Windows system?

[Warrior]

Maybe if I replaced 'it' with Linux you'd understand?

Linux was built on crap hardware?  How did you come up with that, exactly?

It's obvious how they support it so easily, and since they didn't always have hardware support..

What? Anyone can claim the kernel can run on 97 hardware, it's how well it runs with everything it brings. That isn't very fair saying you can take things out and disregard things from Linux when doing the test but Windows must be used with all the setting s maxed out. Something doesn't seem right.

It's not about running, it's about being useful.  I'm not aware of anything Windows has done that would be useful on old hardware.  Linux, on the other hand, is completely useable (as a server or moreso as a desktop) on old hardware. 

And you're right, one of the big reasons is the interface.  By default on most Linuxes that I've used, X-Windows isn't automatically started and everything can be done from a console.  So let's just imagine we've done a full install and pressed the power button, and now we want to run a web server.  I boot up, edit Apache's config file, and start it (which is what I did on darkside, that we're using now).  It runs great.  How would you do that on a Windows system?

Boot windows withought the UI and start the apache service or have it autostart, problem solved.

[iago]

Boot windows withought the UI and start the apache service or have it autostart, problem solved.

Ok then, some questions:
- How do you boot it without the UI?  How many people have actually done that?
- How do you install Apache without a UI?
- How do you update Windows and configure services without a UI?
- Is this actually realistic?  I've worked with hundreds of Windows servers and I've never seen one without a UI, no matter how shit-slow it was running.

[Warrior]

You can modify boot.ini to run withought the UI. In fact I think I showed Newby how.

Apache is installable withought a UI and it's startable from command line.

I don't know why you bring Windows update into this but you can't withought a UI

Realistic or not, it's possible.

My point still stands, until every Linux distro out of the box using every configuration can run a server, their statement is false. Unless of course they want to allow the OSes to be configured and then do the test. In that case it'd be pretty close.

[Joe]

Maybe if I replaced 'it' with Linux you'd understand?

Linux was built on crap hardware?  How did you come up with that, exactly?

Linus himself admits to using a Macintosh as his main computer.

[Warrior]

and that's relevant how? ..then you ask why people laugh at you..

[Sidoh]

You can modify boot.ini to run withought the UI. In fact I think I showed Newby how.

Apache is installable withought a UI and it's startable from command line.

I don't know why you bring Windows update into this but you can't withought a UI

Realistic or not, it's possible.

My point still stands, until every Linux distro out of the box using every configuration can run a server, their statement is false. Unless of course they want to allow the OSes to be configured and then do the test. In that case it'd be pretty close.

He brings Windows update into it for a great reason.  If the server isn't updating itself, it'll likely soon be open to new threats that have been made possible on the internet.  It needs to run continuous updates.  If you have to manually boot into Windows every week or so and download/install updates, Windows loses points on the "server matainence" scale.

And Joe: I agree with Warrior.  Shutface, please.

[Warrior]

You can modify boot.ini to run withought the UI. In fact I think I showed Newby how.

Apache is installable withought a UI and it's startable from command line.

I don't know why you bring Windows update into this but you can't withought a UI

Realistic or not, it's possible.

My point still stands, until every Linux distro out of the box using every configuration can run a server, their statement is false. Unless of course they want to allow the OSes to be configured and then do the test. In that case it'd be pretty close.

He brings Windows update into it for a great reason.  If the server isn't updating itself, it'll likely soon be open to new threats that have been made possible on the internet.  It needs to run continuous updates.  If you have to manually boot into Windows every week or so and download/install updates, Windows loses points on the "server matainence" scale.

And Joe: I agree with Warrior.  Shutface, please.

Point taken, I thought this was simply to operate..I don't think it'd be logical to run any server with hardware from 97

[Sidoh]

Point taken, I thought this was simply to operate..I don't think it'd be logical to run any server with hardware from 97

  First off, Linux can run on better machines.  Secondly, the beauty in Linux servers is: they can do more, with less.  Look at these forums.  They're running on a 550 MHz Linux server.  The bottleneck is iago's connection, not the server.  I'd like to see a Windows server do that.

[Warrior]

Point taken, I thought this was simply to operate..I don't think it'd be logical to run any server with hardware from 97

  First off, Linux can run on better machines.  Secondly, the beauty in Linux servers is: they can do more, with less.  Look at these forums.  They're running on a 550 MHz Linux server.  The bottleneck is iago's connection, not the server.  I'd like to see a Windows server do that.

Well yes I know it can, however the comparison is done with old hardware, unless I misread. I'm not going to argue Linux has a good server product and I prefer it personaly over Windows since it's more commonly found. It's great and all that it can run on a 550MHz processor and even pretty damn impressive it holds a server with this much users so nicely. I don't know about Windows servers doing that since that isn't my area of expertise, it may or may not be possible but I'll accept that it isn't until someone proves it can't be done. I still however don't think it's practical, nor do I think most servers run on 97 hardware today. There are a few exceptions however and they are fine for sites like x86 which while recieving a bunch of users don't recieve nearly as much as the big websites.

[Sidoh]

Well yes I know it can, however the comparison is done with old hardware, unless I misread. I'm not going to argue Linux has a good server product and I prefer it personaly over Windows since it's more commonly found. It's great and all that it can run on a 550MHz processor and even pretty damn impressive it holds a server with this much users so nicely. I don't know about Windows servers doing that since that isn't my area of expertise, it may or may not be possible but I'll accept that it isn't until someone proves it can't be done. I still however don't think it's practical, nor do I think most servers run on 97 hardware today. There are a few exceptions however and they are fine for sites like x86 which while recieving a bunch of users don't recieve nearly as much as the big websites.

My server isn't exactly a power machine either.  It's a 1600 AMD with 512 MB RAM.  It runs Apache/PHP, DHCPD, Samba (File Server), MySQL, Sendmail, VNC, TeamSpeak, Ventrilo, SSHD and a few other things on the side.  It did the same with Windows, but the performance was much less.  I realize this is because Windows server operating systems are intended to be installed on more powerful machines, but it still proves my point.  Linux can do more with less.  There are some things I miss about running a Windows server, but overall, I enjoy running a Linux server by a large magnitude more.

Most servers don't run 97 hardware, but that doesn't mean that Linux can't perform well on more powerful machines too.  I realize there are some things that Windows servers simply do better than Linux servers (active directory, to name one), but especially for web servers, Linux takes the cake, I'd say.

[iago]

Incidentally, this was originally run on a 233mhz machine without a problem.  It is currently running on a 433mhz. 

The 233mhz machine (which is now Pie) cost me $60 in parts off of eBay (and $0 for software).  The new system I got for free for upgrading my friend's old computer and getting her old parts.  The computer I use for a router ("gate") was traded for a chair. 

Why use old hardware?  It's cheap. 

You can modify boot.ini to run withought the UI. In fact I think I showed Newby how.

Apache is installable withought a UI and it's startable from command line.

I don't know why you bring Windows update into this but you can't withought a UI

Realistic or not, it's possible.

Ah, modifying a configuration file.  How do you do that without a UI?  Or do you have to boot into a UI, fight with the slowness, and eventually modify boot.ini then restart?  That's a pain.  Linux does it by default. 

How do you download Apache without a UI?  I know on Linux you can use links and wget, but how do you do it on Windows?  I'm not aware of a way to download web content without a UI...

Sidoh explained why Windows Update is important. 

My point still stands, until every Linux distro out of the box using every configuration can run a server, their statement is false. Unless of course they want to allow the OSes to be configured and then do the test. In that case it'd be pretty close.

That wasn't Microsoft's challenge, and it wasn't their statement.  Sorry to break it to you, but Microsoft fails the challenge that THEY set up. 

[Warrior]

Incidentally, this was originally run on a 233mhz machine without a problem.  It is currently running on a 433mhz. 

The 233mhz machine (which is now Pie) cost me $60 in parts off of eBay (and $0 for software).  The new system I got for free for upgrading my friend's old computer and getting her old parts.  The computer I use for a router ("gate") was traded for a chair. 

Why use old hardware?  It's cheap. 

You can modify boot.ini to run withought the UI. In fact I think I showed Newby how.

Apache is installable withought a UI and it's startable from command line.

I don't know why you bring Windows update into this but you can't withought a UI

Realistic or not, it's possible.

Ah, modifying a configuration file.  How do you do that without a UI?  Or do you have to boot into a UI, fight with the slowness, and eventually modify boot.ini then restart?  That's a pain.  Linux does it by default. 

Well you need the UI to install the OS anyhow, on 97 software VESA isn't as slow as you let it on to be, it has some acceleration last I checked..you're going to usually want to do simple things like setup/configure drivers and download whatever programs you need.

How do you download Apache without a UI?  I know on Linux you can use links and wget, but how do you do it on Windows?  I'm not aware of a way to download web content without a UI...

There is a Windows form of wget, but it's usually smarter to download it WITH a UI while you're doing the initial configurations.

My point still stands, until every Linux distro out of the box using every configuration can run a server, their statement is false. Unless of course they want to allow the OSes to be configured and then do the test. In that case it'd be pretty close.

That wasn't Microsoft's challenge, and it wasn't their statement.  Sorry to break it to you, but Microsoft fails the challenge that THEY set up. 

But that's the statement your making, that Linux (Linux in general) runs on old hardware. I think Microsoft passes the test which is to simply perform, you're throwing additional obstacles in there as I jump over them. Surely you configure Linux before you just drop it in and startup apache. If you do then the comparison wouldn't be the same, so Windows indeed should be able to be configured. If this isn't the case then the comparison isn't a fair one like I've said before.

[Sidoh]

But that's the statement your making, that Linux (Linux in general) runs on old hardware. I think Microsoft passes the test which is to simply perform, you're throwing additional obstacles in there as I jump over them. Surely you configure Linux before you just drop it in and startup apache. If you do then the comparison wouldn't be the same, so Windows indeed should be able to be configured. If this isn't the case then the comparison isn't a fair one like I've said before.

But you're disregarding an important issue here: Linux can do the same things Microsoft can (to a certain extent, of course) with less powerful, less expensive hardware.  Microsoft server software performs great on big, powerful machines, while Linux server software performs equally well on machines that have half or less the power.  That's what's great about Linux.  I, personally, am not saying Microsoft server software sucks.  I'm just saying it sucks if money is an issue (plus, I think I like Linux server software more, regardless of cost).

[Warrior]

But that's the statement your making, that Linux (Linux in general) runs on old hardware. I think Microsoft passes the test which is to simply perform, you're throwing additional obstacles in there as I jump over them. Surely you configure Linux before you just drop it in and startup apache. If you do then the comparison wouldn't be the same, so Windows indeed should be able to be configured. If this isn't the case then the comparison isn't a fair one like I've said before.

But you're disregarding an important issue here: Linux can do the same things Microsoft can (to a certain extent, of course) with less powerful, less expensive hardware.  Microsoft server software performs great on big, powerful machines, while Linux server software performs equally well on machines that have half or less the power.  That's what's great about Linux.  I, personally, am not saying Microsoft server software sucks.  I'm just saying it sucks if money is an issue (plus, I think I like Linux server software more, regardless of cost).

I agree with that, I'm arguing that Windows shouldn't be completely disregarded on old hardware. The experience may not be too pleasant for desktop usage but if you can get an apache server running at least you can have something useful for the price. (Of course the OS would cost more than the hardware so whatever makes you happy)

[Sidoh]

I agree with that, I'm arguing that Windows shouldn't be completely disregarded on old hardware. The experience may not be too pleasant for desktop usage but if you can get an apache server running at least you can have something useful for the price. (Of course the OS would cost more than the hardware so whatever makes you happy)

I'd be much happier running a free OS that will be much less of a hasstle to get running/keep running!

[iago]

But you're disregarding an important issue here: Linux can do the same things Microsoft can (to a certain extent, of course) with less powerful, less expensive hardware.  Microsoft server software performs great on big, powerful machines, while Linux server software performs equally well on machines that have half or less the power.  That's what's great about Linux.  I, personally, am not saying Microsoft server software sucks.  I'm just saying it sucks if money is an issue (plus, I think I like Linux server software more, regardless of cost).

I agree with that

Great, then you agree that Microsoft's study was completely bogus. 

[Warrior]

No, I'm saying I agree with what Sidoh said..not very tied to the article.

[iago]

Sidoh was repeating what the article said in a different way.

[Warrior]

Bottom line: It can run on old software ,it is preferred to be run wiht more software. I still don't know what you're getting at. I'll take a stab in the dark and guess that you're taking it as Windows can only run on good hardware. I proved it can run and perform on old hardware and gave technical reasons why any OS should be able to, you countered with things like it needed upgrades which is fine, no where did it say that it had to be secure. If you want it to you're going to have to leave a little go. This is transforming a desktop OS into a server OS.

Now if you take a look at Longhorn Server, it features Windows Update in application form thus it wouldn't be too hard to write another app, only commandline based. Especially with the new features like Monad.