Real World IT

George Ou

Could Desktop Linux really be so slow?

By George Ou | December 16, 2005, 10:10am PST

Summary: Desktop Linux with Linspire is excruciatingly slow compared to Windows. If this is true of all other Linux Desktop distributions, how can anyone take Desktop Linux seriously?

I recently helped pick up a second computer for a friend on the morning of Black Friday because it was the $100 PC with no rebates attached and no expensive Internet subscriptions to buy. The only catch was that you had to be up really early the morning after Thanksgiving and no monitor was included. What was notable was the fact that this really was a fairly powerful PC that was probably much faster than a 3 year old corporate PC but with a true price tag of $100, there was absolutely no way that a $60 OEM copy of Windows home edition could have been included. What came with the computer was Linspire (renamed from Lindows after Microsoft lawsuit) which is a fully featured version of Linux with the KDE desktop along with the Microsoft Office alternative OpenOffice.org.

Since I had to help my friend set up this new $100 PC, I decided to give Linspire 5 a spin in the process. What I got was shock and disbelief when the computer spent more than 2 minutes booting up and an additional minute to start the OpenOffice.org Word Processing application. When I wrote my series of blogs about OpenOffice.org being extremely bloated, I had a flood of responses either complaining that my data was flawed or that it wasn’t fair to look at OpenOffice.org on the Windows platform and that it would have done much better on Linux. Now that I’ve seen OpenOffice.org on the Linux platform, I’m nearly convinced OO.o is even worse on the Linux platform but I’ll need to run more detailed tests to confirm.

Since this wasn’t done on my standardized test bed shown here and I only have 128 MBs of RAM for this $100 PC, I can’t run direct comparisons to the OpenOffice.org results. What I can do is run some basic boot and application launch time tests because I know that this type of hardware is capable of 30-40 second boot times when running Windows XP and Microsoft Office. By running Linspire and OpenOffice.org, the performance degradation was significant and here are the results.

Boot times:

Task	Time
System post	9 seconds
Boot to logon	93 seconds
Type password	2 seconds to type "123" and hit "Enter"
Initialization phase	41 seconds
Total boot time	145 seconds or 2:25 second just to boot

OpenOffice.org application load times:

Task	First load	Second cached load
Load OO.o Writer	56	39 sec
Load OO.o Calc	41	35 seconds
Load OO.o Impress	30	28 sec
Load OO.o Draw	44	36

Note that which ever OO.o application that gets loaded first always takes the longest amount of time. Other applications seem to benefit a little in load times because some of the OpenOffice.org code is already loaded from the first application.
I also shut off each individual application before loading the next application in fear of running in to a memory shortage.
Just to make sure no other junk on the system was slowing the computer down; I reloaded Linspire from scratch using the default options to take over the entire hard drive.

I still need to load Windows and Office on this system to get some exact performance numbers with Microsoft software. I know it will probably run just fine because my friend has a nearly identical system running Windows XP and Office 2003. I’m also curious if there are less bloated full featured desktop Linux distributions out there that will perform better some I’m open to suggestions for testing. I will probably test Red Hat or SUSE Desktop Linux configurations.

Update: Results for Linux versus Windows posted.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Real World IT”

The tortoise or the hare for Wi-Fi?

Desktop Linux versus Windows XP shootout

Vendor HotSpot

The 360° Conversation around Cloud Computing

TECH VISUALIZER brings the social conversation to life... powered by Brocade

Learn More »

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

Ask a Question Start a Discussion

628

Comments

Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

Just In

Linux slow?

laredoflash@... 30th Jul 2006

Hmmm, I have an AMD Athlon 1600+(1.2ghz) with 256m of memory. It runs well if not very darn good. It may not be as fast as say uh Windows but it sure is stable, solid and actually, it does run pretty fast. I built another PC for my son. This time I used a 2000+ AMD processor and 256m of ram. Damn nice! I can say that my boxes at home run faster than the crappy Dells with 3.2 ghz processors, 512 m ram, and 160 gb hard drives! All I did was add an Nvidia MX 4000 accelerated video card from WalMart for $50. Whine all you want MS Slaves, but not me. Long Live Torvalds! and GNU! and SuSE Linux! Nuff said.

Rod

View in thread

Please Select
Please Select

0 Votes

+ -

As I said before....

ju1ce 16th Dec 2005

Linux is no where near ready for desktop. :P

What I do find funny is you will get a flood of people in here saying it's because of Linspire. (Although I probably would agree).

It is interesting indeed, but again.. Apples and Oranges as I said before.

Linux is like Windows 95 back in he day.. Slow because it was a front-end to DOS. One of the reason I don't think Linux will make the mainstream desktop.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Prophecy and Prediction

bigpicture 16th Dec 2005

Obviously you don't remember anything from the past, because that might help your accuracy in predicting the future. Do you remember "Made in Hong-Kong" do you remember "Made in Japan" and now "Made in China". Originally did this not mentally conjure up inferior product. Then first the USA lost the TV manufacture market, then other electronic goods manufacture moved to Asia. Then the protectionism against the Computer goods market moving outside the US, as a strategic defense technology. But now most motherboards and PC hardware are made in Taiwan.

Did GM, Ford and Chrysler not once have at least 90% of the world automobile market, and were there not monopoly issues with this in the past? Do they have 90% of the market now? Do they have 50%? With Linux as with everything else, it's only a matter of time.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Maybe in the future it will stand a chance...

ju1ce 19th Dec 2005

But as of right now, Linux isn't ready for it at all... OS-X to me would be the better alternative if you are looking for a Desktop alternative.

0 Votes

+ -

Strictly from a usability stand-point (NT)

ju1ce 19th Dec 2005

(NT)

0 Votes

+ -

Linux is no where near ready for desktop.

douglasids 16th Dec 2005

Only if you listen to the MS Zealots.

Don't tell the programmers in a certain Canadian Gov't Agency that their desktops don't work OK? We'll just let them keep working in ignorance. As long as no one tells them their desktops don't work, they won't realise that the applications that 12 million people use also can't work as the OS they run just isn't ready...

For $100.00, what would you expect to get for speed? And George, the PC no longer costs $100.00 if you add Windows (you are also violating your EULA with MS if you didn't purchase that copy of Windows your going to put on your pal's PC).

If we want to level the "financial" playing field, make sure that the Linux PC you buy gets upgraded with hardware for the cost of adding Windows and MS Office. The purchase price of the two computers will never be the same price, unless you are buying from a MS channel partner. Then chances are, they will charge more for an empty PC vs then a Windows preloaded (like Dell do).

But for less than the cost of a Dell PC, I can go to any of the clone makers, Global Mart or OEM Express in Ottawa as examples, and get way more hardware for far less money. They're service is fantastic (any problems and you are fixed up, on site, same day while you wait, at no extra charge). As an example, I paid ~$500,00 CA for an AMD64 3000 with 1GB of RAM (traded out Windows for an additional 500MB stick) a 120GB drive, NVidia FX5500, DVD RW and 19inch Monitor.

I wonder if, when George re-installed the OS, he chose a "minimum" install and then added the packages he needed afterwards. If not, there are probably loads of daemons running that are not needed, along with a load of Software that is not needed...

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

douglasids debunks the "Linux is free" argurment

ejsawyer@... 21st Dec 2005

> ...the PC no longer costs $100.00 if
> you add Windows (you are also violating your
> EULA with MS if you didn't purchase that copy
> of Windows your going to put on your pal's PC).

That's true, but one of the biggest arguments put forward by Linux evangelists is that "you don't have to pay for the OS...it's free, so you save money".

> If we want to level the "financial" playing
> field, make sure that the Linux PC you buy
> gets upgraded with hardware for the cost of
> adding Windows and MS Office.

Ah, so you're admitting that Linux/OO is a dog when run on comparable hardware. You argue that he should take the money he would have spent on Windows, and spend it on more hardware just to make Linux run at the same speed. You argue that this is "leveling the playing field", when in fact you're asking him to give Linux a favorable handicap. Thus, the "cheap" argument can be seen for the farce it truly is.

> The purchase price of the two computers will
> never be the same

Absolutely. But neither will the total cost of ownership. The Linux zealots conveniently ignore the "hidden costs", like the complexity of configuration, compatibility, etc.

Doesn't matter anyway. Linux will make minimal inroads as long as there's no single overseer. The number of incompatible and semicompatible factions (e.g. KDE/Gnome/Xfce/etc, or OSS/ALSA/etc) is growing every day, particularly in areas that modern GUI apps are expected to "just work". "Runs on Linux" is often completely meaningless, and the typical home user/newbie doesn't have the patience or knowledge to deal with making that new app he just bought run on his new PC just because it depends on a set of libs he doesn't have. Oh, and don't try that "I could care less about the newbie user, as long as *I* can make it work" argument. Linux has to appeal to the casual user or it's doomed as a mainstream desktop. End of story.

I'm no Microsoft zealot. I've played with several Linux distros, as well as FreeBSD, OSX, and other MS-alternatives. Linux has a lot of excellent technology. I'll grant it that. But to put it simply, one reason Linux hasn't taken off on the desktop is that the very openness that makes it appealing to the geek audience causes issues (and factions) that keep the masses away.

0 Votes

+ -

Mac OS X is really Darwin BSD Unix and predictions for the future

brodie.hodges 28th Dec 2005

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

I would say that a lot of people think that the Mac desktop is much more usable than Windows. Now that Mac is based on BSD, Apple is able to move to the Intel x86 architecture. Here's a link to a ZDNet article that compares OS X to Win XP performance on x86:

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/os/0,39024180,39235916-3,00.htm

Mac OS X appears to be faster. So if you want to pay for a fancy GUI shell on top of a *nix kernel, you'll get better performance and stability than Windows XP.

Now for my comments on Linux:

Some people in this thread are complaining that Linux is too hard to use. Its really not all that difficult to install new software, even from source code. You just need to be comfortable with the command line. How long did it take you to learn Windows? If you spend a day or two to learn some basic Linux command line commands and stick with it through your learning curve, you'll have no problem with this.

$ ./configure
$ make
$ make install

How hard is that to type?

I'd say that the main reason Linux has taken off in the Desktop arena is that people don't want to spend a couple of days learning something new or go through the hassle of installing a new OS. Windows comes preinstalled on almost all computers from the major retailers, without the option and the subsequent cost savings to have Linux preinstalled on purchase. Most people don't want to reinstall Windows, but it seems inevitably they do because system performance on Windows seems to degrade significantly over time. My Fedora boxes have yet to crash.

I think there will eventually be a Linux distro with a super slick GUI that is free. This is pure conjecture, but I think Google might be doing just that. I think Google has enough financial clout to get the Linux distro pre-installed by the major retailers. Google could probably suck up the cost of including Xine and XMMS for media, too, just to have the default home page be Google Personalized Home page and Google Talk instead of MSN and Messenger.

I agree that MS Office is currently more feature rich and faster than OOo, but OOo 2.0 is pretty usable now, especially for home use. I think most people will put up with some slightly poorer performance for home use, if its free. Even more conjecture: Google is probably working on an office suite to compete directly with MS Office, too. Perhaps they will build off of the OOo source code since it has an OSD license.

In fact, now that I?ve Googled for it, I appear to be correct: http://news.com.com/Google+throws+bodies+at+OpenOffice/2100-7344_3-5920762.html .
I don?t agree with that article that Google will use Red Hat eventually, however. Google has enough capital to make Linux a core competency. They already seem to be luring all the top talent away from MS and other major companies. Rolling your own Linux distribution isn?t all that difficult, either. Just check out http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ .

My prediction for the future is that the OS will become a loss leader as the traditional software distribution business model goes away, much like IM and Internet browsers are already today. This is because broadband Internet connections are becoming more and more prevalent. Bit Torrent makes software distribution cost next to nothing. Consumers buying boxed software will become a thing of the past. It already has for me. Try downloading the Knoppix DVD with a Bit Torrent client. You?ll get a super fast download speed.

Because of these technologies, MS will have to change its business model or face extinction. Microsoft has already begun restructuring itself for the "Web 2.0" business model with Windows and Office Live. Read about ?Web 2.0? here:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Personally, I'm looking forward to a Google Linux. MS will eventually have to respond by giving away Windows and Office for free, but by that time Google Linux will have gained a lot of market share. Then it will be just be a matter of quality, usability, and speed to market, and I contend that the business that leverages and contributes the most open source software will be quicker to market and have smaller operating expenses. Apple has shown that *nix can be very user friendly. Google has already proven itself at making intuitive and clean UIs on the web and that same core competency will be transferable to their Google Linux distribution. Will MS and Apple be flexible enough to respond to Google? Time will tell. In the meantime, you can get ahead of the learning curve by trying out any of the Debian Live DVD/CD distros such as Ubuntu or Knoppix if you want a Windows Desktop alternative. If you are a developer, I recommend Fedora.

0 Votes

+ -

checkout www.iplayer.co.uk

hipparchus2001 18th Dec 2005

This is a internet/dvb set top box. As it happens, apparently this runs on embedded linux. There are many things like Tivo that run on embedded linux.
In my work we manufacture equipment that has embedded linux in it. You turn it on, and use it, you don't need to know about Linux to use the equipment.
I don't know what you mean by "Linux is no-where near ready for the desktop". I guess you mean it won't supplant Windows XP any time soon. I think you're on safe ground saying that, but who can tell.
Certainly the MIT laptop will increase the use of linux a lot.
It won't require a lot of linux knowledge to use (see above about embedded linux systems).
How much knowledge does it take to use Knoppix by the way? Put the CD in, boot, and surf the web etc. You don't need any knowledge to use it.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

You've missed part of the point!!!!

johnmckay 22nd Dec 2005

Nobody is talking about embedded anything as that implies it's button operated. The problem is 'dynamic' configuration such as a PC... mine is different than yours, is different than the message originators. I've worked on CPM, DOS, MSDOS, UNIX and still bear the mental scars.

Linux will need to get more user friendly to the masses (nobody is talking about the technically able) OR MS will need to start killing the illegal copies that everybody is using, before there's any sea of change.

Incidentally I don't immediately see anything at iplayer to suggest embedded Linux, machine code, etc... maybe you've more info, or more patience at trawling the site. Either way there are new MS products (and many others too) appearing which will achieve the same thing (I believe), in terms of convergence between PCs, PCs, and general home entertainment. Looks like the next big thing, and I just hope I can manage to grab a piece of it and get away from general IT support.

The future seems to be working back to a degree of fixed apps... at least that'll get rid of a lot of the worm/virus concerns. Off/On and you're safe again!

0 Votes

+ -

As I said before....

Protagonistic 20th Dec 2005

it might help if you read the article carefully. Just how fast do you
think Windows XP would run on a system with 128 MB of memory? I
bet his XP system has more than that. I would not suggest less
than 256 MB for XP despite what they say on the box. Same goes
for Linux.

And while I have a system with windows and Linux installed my
main OS is OS X.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: As I said before....

richdave 28th Dec 2005

>>>...Linux is no where near ready for desktop. :P...

I run a three year old AMD XP2400 on an MSI MB w/1gig DDR2600 ram. Probably a little more muscle than the author's $100.00 pc but probably not a whole lot more. Slowest time to open was Open Office Writer at 5 seconds. I just have to question the authors data!!!

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: As I said before....

clockmendergb@... 28th Dec 2005

I use open office with XP and a 3200 AMD Athlon
And 1 gig.
This is much more than the machine in Question but
it does load in 15 seconds or less after I open it for the first time and no more than 5 seconds on later start ups if the machine is left running.
I can see both sides of this arguement as I am trying linux with Suse(Duel Boot) and that asks for 250 megs of ram so I believe the 100 dollor machine to be lacking in ram.
But! open office is taking double the time to start under linux compared to xp on my machine.
My results are not clinical and only reflect my machine but even with the slow startup I am more than happy with Open Office for my personnel use.
as it is Free and therefore a bargain.
The same can be said for a 100 dollor machine .
If it does all that a person needs,all be it a little slower, then it is a bargain and should not be dismissed by a journalist who thinks his SUV is the type of car your average Joe drives.
We should be praising this machine Linspire and Open Office for their obvious good points especially the computer access it will give to the poorer segments of our society.
This machine is designed to fill a need.
Open office and is free Microsoft office is not.
The people who buy this machine will be able to do what they were unable to afford to do before.

As an aside
I was looking around at prices for dell computers
and in France they are selling a P4 2800, 40gig HD,256meg ram.Monitor included for around 250 US.
This price includes all Taxes and free delivery.
try and get a P4 and a monitor for that price in North America.
if you compare the cost of living in Europe.
That would be comparable to buying the same machine in the States for 125 dollars US.
now that is a bargain is it not.

0 Votes

+ -

Facts are facts

maldain 28th Dec 2005

As a long time user of Linux and Windows (from 3.0 to XP pro and everything in between). Windows XP does boot faster than Linux init 5 boots. There are a few reasons for that but one of which is that every time you boot you do the equivalent of a scan disk on every partition. In a professional setting where uptime matters waiting a few more seconds or even a few more minutes isn't a big deal. The nice thing about Linux is that it is stable and once it's up it just keeps on running. I have systems up that have been running without a shut down for over a year. Windows just isn't designed for that kind of thing. Windows is nice for routine end user type tasks like Office (though we're switching to Open Office primarily because of MicroSofts new licensing policies makes MS Office no longer cost effective).

As for Linux not making the jump to the mainstream that depends on the distro you're using. Quite frankly Linspire was intended to be a Windows transition distro. Making one OS imitate another makes it bog down due to all the extra junk running.

We use Mandriva at work and it's great for what we use it for which is our application infrastructure. The majority of our user base uses thin clients to access the main linux box which is a P4 of varying degrees of speed with 512 mb of memory and 40gb disk. No fancy graphics cards and no sound cards. It runs great we support up to about 30 high usage users on a box. In some places we've boosted the memory up to a gig and are supporting as many as 80 users, though most are hitting the system from text mode RF terminals so the foot print required isn't nearly as large.

We do have a few Linux desktops for selected users who want to keep the systems up and running for months at a time.

The advantages to Windows is it's a common interface and has device drivers for most hardware (not all there's an old zebra printer that's giving us fits atm).

The advantages to Linux is that it's stable and runs very well and truely supports multiple users. It does run a lot of similar software to what's available to Windows. Also, the initial buy in is much lower and once your people know what they are doing the operational costs are low as well.

The disadvantages to Windows is that it runs everything as administrator and you have to go out of your way to lock a system down to a limited user and an admin user this makes the system inheritantly vunerable to malicious attack and non-malicious stupidity.

The disadvantage to Linux are that it's a server that can do double duty as a desktop system but it's not nearly as good at desktop stuff as it is as a server. Also, your people have to get a feel for the OS which most people have used Windows so you don't have to train them on how to use the interface. There are significant differences between Windows and Linux and their window interfaces it's easy to forget that the x to close a window in Windows also terminates the program but on Linux that x doesn't mean terminate the program only close the window. The difference there is that Linux is truly multitasking and doesn't require a connection to a terminal to run it's applications.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Facts are facts

maldain 28th Dec 2005

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Question about the Thin Client setup you mentioned

RFaircloth 28th Dec 2005

Hi...

I was reading the Talkback replies and saw your post concerning the use of Linux and thin clients.

I've been thinking about trying something like this, as I think Thin Clients will gain popularity in corporate and educational settings, but have no experience with Linux.

What distro of Linux do you use as the server?
What are the server's other software (server) and what hardware do you use for the thin clients?

Thanks for the info...

Rick

0 Votes

+ -

nxserver

brodie.hodges 28th Dec 2005

This link is a good guide for NX: http://www.linux-tip.net/cms/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=158&Itemid=

0 Votes

+ -

Earth to "expert"

wkulecz 16th Dec 2005

Hello? Have you ever tried to run Windows XP with 128MB of RAM?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Yes, and it's fine

george_ou 16th Dec 2005

I'll follow up with the Windows/Office numbers on this identical hardware. I've done it before and it's fast so long as you don't open any really large files in Office that exceed the free physical memory.

Boot times for this type of hardware is between 30-40 seconds with Windows XP SP2. I did mention this in the blog.

Reply
Flag

I'm not giving opinions, I'm just giving you my prediction based on experience. I'm going to run the actual numbers and post them.

0 Votes

+ -

some_spare_id 17th Dec 2005

"I've done Windows in 64 MBs of RAM and it isn't that bad."

But have you used Windows *XP* on a box with 64 MB RAM? It's pretty much unbearable.

0 Votes

+ -

NonZealot 16th Dec 2005

128 megs is the bare minimum listed requirement for Windows XP

Wrong: 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx

Without any sort of fine tuning, XP boots up to around 100MB. Turn off a couple services and turn down the graphics and you can get it down to 80MB (maybe lower, never tried too hard). Either way, there is enough physical RAM to run Office. Granted, I wouldn't want to run XP on only 128MB but it can be done without a performance penalty.

KDE is more like Windows XP Pro than like Windows XP home.

What? Do you know what KDE is? Do you know the difference between XP Pro and XP Home? I can't for the life of me imagine why you would say that KDE is like XP Pro but unlike XP Home. Care to share your logic?

There are other GUI front ends for Linux that don't load the kitchen sink like KDE or Gnome do.

True, but none of them offer anything close to the ease of use demanded by home/office desktop users.

At the end of the day, the thing I like most about Linux is its flexibility. If I had to run an OS on a 64MB machine, at least I have the option of Gentoo and twm and I would be left with a zippy system. There is nothing I could do to XP to get it to run well on a 64MB machine. I don't think Linux in general is any faster (or slower) then XP when run on adequate hardware though. Linspire may be unusually slow but I seem to remember that SuSE was about as fast as XP on my machine.

0 Votes

+ -

KDE

balsover 16th Dec 2005

So I guess that you are correct about the memory, I also noticed on your link that the minimum clock speed listed is 233 MHz. Even at the 300 MHz clock speed listed you can't really take those figures seriously, can you? Only a moron would run Windows XP on a 300 MHz CPU with 128 megs of RAM.

Yes, I know what KDE is.

My logic? All graphic environments have baggage, some of them have more baggage than others. XP Pro has more than XP Home and both have more than Windows 3.1. KDE and Gnome has more baggage than TWM.

0 Votes

+ -

Baggage

NonZealot 16th Dec 2005

Only a moron would run Windows XP on a 300 MHz CPU with 128 megs of RAM.

Dunno, never tried. I haven't even seen a 300MHz CPU in so many years!

All graphic environments have baggage, some of them have more baggage than others. XP Pro has more than XP Home and both have more than Windows 3.1. KDE and Gnome has more baggage than TWM.

Ah, I thought you were saying that KDE's feature set was better than twm's in the same way that XP Pro's feature set was better than Home's. I still think the comparison is pointless though since XP Pro and Home are both acceptable home/work desktop OSs whereas Linux with twm is not.

Besides, I'm not sure that Pro has more baggage than Home. It has a few more enterprise type options but I'm not sure that the ability to run classic mode security or the ability to connect to a domain adds any extra baggage to the OS, especially if you don't use those features. I would hazard a guess that my XP Pro machine at home (not connected to a domain) is running the exact same code that my wife's XP Home machine is running.

0 Votes

+ -

correct....

waylander 21st Dec 2005

yep they run almost identical code and use almost exactly the same amount of ram(i have machines with both home and pro) the graphical interface is identical. dont know what the hell he meant by that statement

0 Votes

+ -

re: home and pro

linuxoverwindows 29th Dec 2005

the way i understood it is that home is a trimmed down version of pro... or pro is a feature enhanced version of home. basically, pro has some tools that home dont. but theyre basically the same system.

0 Votes

+ -

Baggage KDE and GNOME can lose

mahlukai 10th Jan 2006

I strongly believe that if much of the errors/warnings that go on under the hood (which can be seen if applications are run from a terminal) were avoided and if the mounds of scripts and config files were trimmed down, both of these desktop environments will see a noticeable increase in speed.

Personally I have better comfort with Gnome as a desktop.

0 Votes

+ -

This is kind of contradiction

voska 16th Dec 2005

You state that it's runs fine then turn around and say you wouldn't want to run it like that. Why not if as you claim it works fine?

From my experience 128 MBs is not fine. Yes it will run but it's slow and sluggish. I personally feel 512 is more a recommended minimum for me.

Still I run Open Office and fine it run the same speed as Office 2000 on Windows. I've not tried Open Office on Linux as I use Linux for server that don't need Office applications.

0 Votes

+ -

No contradiction

NonZealot 16th Dec 2005

If you are only running one application at a time, 128 is okay. If you don't run any apps that need more than 20MB, 128 is okay. Since I do like running more than 1 app at a time and I do run some apps that take WAY more than 20MB, I would not like to run my desktop on 128MB. Make sense?

Why do I know so much about running on 128MB? Because I've used Virtual PC on a machine that has 512MB where I couldn't give the virtual machine much more than 128MB. I could only run 1 program at a time but that one program ran just fine.

0 Votes

+ -

i have tried...

linuxoverwindows 29th Dec 2005

when my dad bought a computer that had winxp home and 128M ram, just booting into windows was slow. just windows. he hadnt even set up any apps for him yet. just windows.

he went and bought 2 256m stix and then he was able to boot up and start installing his software. i also turned up his desktop enhancements to make his windows look purdier

0 Votes

+ -

Diff between XP Home and Pro

ubergeekster 16th Dec 2005

Amounts to something like 5 files, its mostly
network and protocol related. Major diff is Xp
can join a Domain, Home can not. Home is also not
supported my Microsoft in work related
Environments.

0 Votes

+ -

XP Home & XP Pro Differences

mustang_z 28th Dec 2005

Also, XP Pro recognizes dual and dual core processors - multiple processors. Don't know if XP Home will see dual core or not but know it will only pick up one cpu in a dual processor environment.

0 Votes

+ -

Balsover, you don't know what you're talking about

arny27@... 18th Dec 2005

"It's going to hit the swap file George. 128 megs is the bare minimum listed requirement for Windows XP and that does not include Office, only Windows."

Have you done any actual measurements? Do so before opening your mouth. On a 128 MB machine, Windows XP loads and leaves about 30 MB of physical memory available for applications.

"If you are going to cut down on what gets loaded on Windows XP at startup then you are also going to need to consider cutting down on what you load on Linux and that means that perhaps KDE is not the way to go."

Bull. You don't need to cut down on anything on the XP side to get it working on a 128 MB machine.

0 Votes

+ -

I think...

PeregrineFalcon 28th Dec 2005

You're the one who needs to do some learning: Windows will *always* hit the swap file to some degree, because Windows uses a working set VMM.

And yes, I am a Windows expert, and your figure is nearly correct--Windows will boot and end up only using about 80-90 MB RAM, but attempting to do *anything* will hit the swap file quite hard. I believe this is because starting a program causes the kernel to leave currently available code localities, triggering loading of additional code from disk.

0 Votes

+ -

Get it right yourself.

cbiltcliffe@... 28th Dec 2005

"Have you done any actual measurements? Do so before opening your mouth. On a 128 MB machine, Windows XP loads and leaves about 30 MB of physical memory available for applications."

That's after it's already hit the swapfile. Take a look at your swapfile usage after a fresh boot. Some of it's already used. Now you go start adding anti-virus and stuff you need to run on Windows, and you'll rapidly get even less memory available.

0 Votes

+ -

Windows XP + Office on 128 megs

richdave 28th Dec 2005

>>>...There are other GUI front ends for Linux that don't load the kitchen sink like KDE or Gnome do...

Yeah, like ICEWM, for instance, or XFCE.

0 Votes

+ -

YOU MUST BE JOKING

hipparchus2001 17th Dec 2005

It's barely usable on 256 meg of RAM. 512Meg is the minimum I'd recommend for Windows XP.
Oh let me guess, you didn't factor in any real world apps like AntiVirus, AntiSpyware etc etc.
Why do you always focus on one thing.

You might notice that Linux, although it takes longer to load, is faster to do things like "copy" and so on.
One day maybe George Ou will be scientific.

If you have light hardware, use a different window manager like XFCE (it's a drop down login list on most Linuxes).
One of the great things about linux/bsd is the amount of choice out there.

You can run all the same software on FreeBSD, NetBSD. Everything from the kernel up.
How do they perform. What should we be buying?

But all we get is some worthless report comparing one lousy usage time on one level of hardware.
Why don't you WORK at a review. Jeez it must have taken you ten minutes to do this "research", certainly longer than writing the article.

By comparison you *COULD* have tried 500MHZ, 1GHz, 2GHz processors, 64meg RAM, 128meg RAM, 256Meg ram, and a variety of versions of linux, and other related operating systems like OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris X86 etc.

You could then compare the time to do various tasks. One thing that annoys me is the thing that happens sometimes with windows where it just freezes for no reason for a few seconds. Why? what on earth is it doing? Task Manager reports no CPU usage, light memory usage etc etc. Why freeze?

Personally on the light hardware you have, I'd be tempted to install Damn Small Linux. .
I did put together a system that booted of Compact Flash card to Puppy Linux. Even on an old P60 that booted very very very fast.

I've seen Pentium III 450s with 128 meg of RAM chucked away. I was given parts for one for my son to customize for nothing. We had some fun with the angle grinder, putting in windows, and LED fans and cold cathodes. Great fun. It dual boots windows 98 and Linux now. (I really thought XP wouldn't be able to run on such old hardware).

Hey ho, that's what George goes and reviews Linux on. Errrm George......

0 Votes

+ -

you must be joking

lobo1953 20th Dec 2005

Windows wouldn't run on such old hardware? I have it running on an old compac 233Mhz, with 128Meg of ram. No it doesn't do what I normally do, things like convert video of my grandson's soccer games to dvd. but for my granddaughter it plays her games just fine.

0 Votes

+ -