Linux doesn't run on older hardware?

[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.