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.