Linux doesn't run on older hardware?

[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.