Windows Vs Linux

[Billy09]

No disrespect to you linux users cause i use dream linux atm
Im just wondering why i can run Windows XP Home Edition sp3 with a crap load of programs running at one time and not use all of my 128mb ram. Yet on the other hand i cant even get ubuntu desktop to load. Seem a bit odd that linux takes more hardware then windows? Opinions are encouraged

[jrusso2]

I doubt you can run XP on 128 mb of ram. My windows XP uses over 400 mb of ram at idle.

[colau]

No disrespect to you linux users cause i use dream linux atm
Im just wondering why i can run Windows XP Home Edition sp3 with a crap load of programs running at one time and not use all of my 128mb ram. Yet on the other hand i cant even get ubuntu desktop to load. Seem a bit odd that linux takes more hardware then windows? Opinions are encouraged

Linux Hardware (http://changelog.complete.org/archives/644-linux-hardware-support-better-than-windows/comment-page-1);)

[colau]

I doubt you can run XP on 128 mb of ram. My windows XP uses over 400 mb of ram at idle.
I have doubt too.

[Simian Man]

If you have 128 megs of ram, you can use Linux, but not a general-purpose distro like Ubuntu. Look at Puppy Linux which is meant to be as light as possible. I also am very skeptical of XP on that machine.

[colau]

Damn small linux may be insalled.
damnsmalllinux/ (http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/)

[sigixv]

I doubt you can run XP on 128 mb of ram. My windows XP uses over 400 mb of ram at idle.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx

Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional

•PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
•128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
•1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
•Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
•CD-ROM or DVD drive
•Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device




These are of course theoretical requirements as we might have experienced in the past ourselves :p

[colau]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sysreqs/pro.mspx

here's what you need to use windows xp professional

•pc with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 mhz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* intel pentium/celeron family, or amd k6/athlon/duron family, or compatible processor recommended
•128 megabytes (mb) of ram or higher recommended (64 mb minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
•1.5 gigabytes (gb) of available hard disk space*
•super vga (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
•cd-rom or dvd drive
•keyboard and microsoft mouse or compatible pointing device




these are of course theoretical requirements as we might have experienced in the past ourselves :p

+1

[DGortze380]

No disrespect to you linux users cause i use dream linux atm
Im just wondering why i can run Windows XP Home Edition sp3 with a crap load of programs running at one time and not use all of my 128mb ram. Yet on the other hand i cant even get ubuntu desktop to load. Seem a bit odd that linux takes more hardware then windows? Opinions are encouraged

I call bull.

You absolutely can install XP with 128MB. No problem there.

I want to know what programs you're running, simultaneously, on a single Core, XP SP3 with 128MB in a USABLE fashion...

The last time I used a low end XP Machine with SP3 (500mhz P3, 256MB), I could run AIM (6 full minutes to load), and firefox (5 full minutes to load). Switching windows took a full 45 seconds. Adding iTunes to the above mix locked up the machine for 2 hours.

No, Ubuntu won't run any better. Upgrade the computer, or run a light weight distro. I've run a USABLE install of DSL on lower spec machines.

EDIT: And left out from the quote above -


Published: August 24, 2001


Though not officially released (that I can find), SP3 requires more resources than a straight XP install from 2001. Additionally, the updated version of programs also require more resources than their 2001 counterparts.

[rcayea]

Linux Hardware (http://changelog.complete.org/archives/644-linux-hardware-support-better-than-windows/comment-page-1);)

You beat me to it. I was about to post the very same article link. :)

[jonobr]

Man,

For your second post in the forums , you really made an impression!!!

I notice your other post was about getting new hardware.

I would recommend you posting a question requesting assistance.
There are plenty of people willing to help and share their experience.

[Billy09]

DGortze380 wow is all i can say on your behalf. What can i run at the same time you say?
Lets see i can run msn messenger, firefox 3, doom 2, windows media player, ect...
Just about any combination of programs and it will do fine

Screenshot (= http://i44.tinypic.com/2qkjiow.png

[EDIT]: Jonobr is was just wondering why it takes so much to run ubuntu man

[dhughes]

DGortze380 wow is all i can say on your behalf. What can i run at the same time you say?
Lets see i can run msn messenger, firefox 3, doom 2, windows media player, ect...
Just about any combination of programs and it will do fine

Screenshot (= http://i44.tinypic.com/2qkjiow.png

[EDIT]: Jonobr is was just wondering why it takes so much to run ubuntu man

You forgot to show Taskmanager and the memory usage.

[growled]

I'm beginning to wonder if he has ever used XP or Linux.

[mobilediesel]

I doubt you can run XP on 128 mb of ram. My windows XP uses over 400 mb of ram at idle.

128mb is plenty if you're content with staring at an empty desktop. Running actual programs within Windows is another thing..

[jocko]

No disrespect to you linux users cause i use dream linux atm
Im just wondering why i can run Windows XP Home Edition sp3 with a crap load of programs running at one time and not use all of my 128mb ram. Yet on the other hand i cant even get ubuntu desktop to load. Seem a bit odd that linux takes more hardware then windows? Opinions are encouraged

You should be able to load the ubuntu desktop with 128 Mb ram (the absolute minimum is 64 Mb (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements)), but it will of course not run smoothly and it will probably use the swap partition most or all of the time. How did you install ubuntu? How large swap partition did you make? What error message do you get when it fails to start?

I've never been able to run windows xp smoothly on less than 512 Mb.
Also, remember that windows xp was released in 2001, so it was built with the hardware available at that time in mind.

[DeMus]

You should be able to load the ubuntu desktop with 128 Mb ram (the absolute minimum is 64 Mb (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/SystemRequirements)), but it will of course not run smoothly and it will probably use the swap partition most or all of the time. How did you install ubuntu? How large swap partition did you make? What error message do you get when it fails to start?

I've never been able to run windows xp smoothly on less than 512 Mb.
Also, remember that windows xp was released in 2001, so it was built with the hardware available at that time in mind.

I have a Compaq Armada E500 with a P3-600MHz processor and originally 128MB ram. It runs "XP lite" (a download with all bells and whistles taken out, just the core plus the "normal" programs) and it runs fine. I upgraded to 256MB ram and it runs even better.
I also had (in a dual boot) Ubuntu Hardy on the same drive and it is slow as hell. I replaced Ubuntu Hardy with Xubuntu Hardy and it is still the same: slow as hell.
Please don't tell me Linux is better on older and slower hardware because IT IS NOT.
How much I want to believe it, since I love Linux and I am glad I made the step, XP (yes, I know it's from 2001 and Hardy is from 2008) just runs multiple times faster. Period!

[H2SO_four]

You forgot to show Taskmanager and the memory usage.

Not sure he actually "forgot".

Note to OP: nice flame bait. offer up no proof and try to spark response. Nicely done.

BTW. Ubuntu is not "free windows". It is an operating system that allows similar or same functions as other OS's, however can't be expected to be the same. It is its own entity.

[sigixv]

Please don't tell me Linux is better on older and slower hardware because IT IS NOT.

Even so, there's always the possibility to run a window manager instead of a desktop environment. This allows to run modern *nix distros on even the most ancient of hardware

[DeMus]

Even so, there's always the possibility to run a window manager instead of a desktop environment. This allows to run modern *nix distros on even the most ancient of hardware

Please tell me more about that because this is new for me. I can use all the help I can get. Thanks.

[Billy09]

ughh this basically went way off topic due to i really only wanted to know why ubuntu wont load for me after 28 mins and windows runs fine. no im not comparing the two in any way i like them both. just wondering what keep ubuntu from loading for me. im getting new pc in 3 days i was just curious. anyway seems this might start a flame war soon so sorry for that :)

[sigixv]

http://xwinman.org/

if you do an install and leave out the DE (gnome, kde or xfe) or remove it afterwards, you can use these window managers. They just manage your windows and do not come loaded with all the eyecandy or programs.

Nice bit of explanation here:
http://xwinman.org/intro.php

a bit like playing with lego and really creating your own desktop from scratch

[aysiu]

Linux has an entirely different approach to Windows when it comes to older computers and lower specs.

The Windows way is to use an older version. Vista won't run well? Use XP. XP won't run well, use Windows 98 (even though it doesn't get security updates, I guess).

That isn't the Linux way at all. In fact, generally speaking, newer versions of Linux will perform better on the same resources than older versions. Ubuntu 4.10 does not perform better than Ubuntu 9.04. In fact, the boot times in Ubuntu 9.04 are phenomenal.

The way to make Linux work well on old hardware is to change the interface and services. Standard Ubuntu isn't made for older hardware. It will not run well in 128 MB of RAM, because it has a ton of services running, and because it's using a fullblown desktop environment (Gnome).

Run a stripped down IceWM or Fluxbox version of Ubuntu, and it'll fly on 128 MB of RAM.

If you want a fairly usable tweaked Ubuntu in a lighweight graphical environment (I think it's the OpenBox window manager--not sure), use Crunchbang Linux:
http://crunchbanglinux.org/

I've also created a really pared-down version of Ubuntu running IceWM with almost nothing else (Firefox, Thunar, WICD, Synaptic Package Manager). That will perform better but you'll have to add in a lot of stuff yourself to make it a bit more useful:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=7412240#post7412240

I have to say, though, I'm very skeptical that XP performs well on 128 MB of RAM with a "crapload" of programs running. I'd love to see a screenshot of your Task Manager window with all the processes running.

[jocko]

ughh this basically went way off topic due to i really only wanted to know why ubuntu wont load for me after 28 mins and windows runs fine. no im not comparing the two in any way i like them both. just wondering what keep ubuntu from loading for me. im getting new pc in 3 days i was just curious. anyway seems this might start a flame war soon so sorry for that :)

How are you trying to load ubuntu? Have you installed it (using the alternate installer cd), and it hangs when you try to boot the installed system? In that case there is something wrong with your install. Did you make sure to make a swap partition?
Or are you just trying to boot from a live cd? In that case, good luck. The live cd loads an entire system plus the installer in ram, and since it does not use the hard drive at all it will just hang once ram is full. A live cd requires at least 256 Mb of ram to boot, and can not be compared to running a installed os from the hard drive. Windows xp would probably require a lot more ram if you tried to load it completely into ram without the use of a hard drive.

[rookcifer]

Im just wondering why i can run Windows XP Home Edition sp3 with a crap load of programs running at one time and not use all of my 128mb ram. Yet on the other hand i cant even get ubuntu desktop to load. Seem a bit odd that linux takes more hardware then windows? Opinions are encouraged

That's because viruses don't count as programs here.

The last time I used a low end XP Machine with SP3 (500mhz P3, 256MB), I could run AIM (6 full minutes to load), and firefox (5 full minutes to load). Switching windows took a full 45 seconds. Adding iTunes to the above mix locked up the machine for 2 hours.

I can vouch for this. I have a friend who has a 2 Ghz Celeron and 256 MB of RAM. He is always calling me to come fix his PC because of how slow Windows runs. Saying that it takes 45 seconds to switch Windows is not an exaggeration. Even after I did a format, reinstall, it was back to its old ways within days.

[jprophet420]

ughh this basically went way off topic due to i really only wanted to know why ubuntu wont load for me after 28 mins and windows runs fine. no im not comparing the two in any way i like them both. just wondering what keep ubuntu from loading for me. im getting new pc in 3 days i was just curious. anyway seems this might start a flame war soon so sorry for that :)
To answer your question directly:
You're running an OS (XP) from years ago on hardware from years ago.

To say Linux doesen't work as well on old equipment, it can run well if you have old linux it does, or if you have a minimal install.

New Ubuntu wont run on that machine (for crap or better) as neither would Vista or windows 7.

[jbruced]

DGortze380 wow is all i can say on your behalf. What can i run at the same time you say?
Lets see i can run msn messenger, firefox 3, doom 2, windows media player, ect...
Just about any combination of programs and it will do fine

Screenshot (= http://i44.tinypic.com/2qkjiow.png

[EDIT]: Jonobr is was just wondering why it takes so much to run ubuntu man

Stopped reading at this. ^^^^

Show us your ram, do a youtube vid with your ram showing.


[edit]

I have to say, though, I'm very skeptical that XP performs well on 128 MB of RAM with a "crapload" of programs running. I'd love to see a screenshot of your Task Manager window with all the processes running.

me too.

[Billy09]

Show us your ram, do a youtube vid with your ram showing.

I get it now man about it being like windows vista and stuff
Video of it to show you my crap computer atm =)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiYiJdC4jNQ

[starcannon]

No disrespect to you linux users cause i use dream linux atm
Im just wondering why i can run Windows XP Home Edition sp3 with a crap load of programs running at one time and not use all of my 128mb ram. Yet on the other hand i cant even get ubuntu desktop to load. Seem a bit odd that linux takes more hardware then windows? Opinions are encouraged

No disrespect to you Billy09 I use WinXP to play EveOnline, but I am very sceptical that one can run, and I quote, "a crap load of programs" on WinXP HE SP3 with only 128mb of ram (not even if you n-lited the living hell out of it). I would not even consider running XP on anything less than 512mb of ram:


It would be too slow
RAM is cheaper than dirt

Linux does not take more hardware than windows; however some Desktop managers are heavier than others. On 128mb of ram Fluxbuntu (http://www.fluxbuntu.org/) or one of the other lite Linux distributions would be a better fit for you.

Anyway, if your OS and hardware choice is working for you, then exactly why are you looking for something else?

[monsterstack]

Give Slitaz a whirl. With 128mb of RAM you can easily get the entire desktop environment running off the RAM. My old laptop screams along with Slitaz with 256mb of RAM. Much prettier than DSL or Puppy in my opinion, and a good deal more lightweight, too.

[DGortze380]

I get it now man about it being like windows vista and stuff
Video of it to show you my crap computer atm =)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiYiJdC4jNQ

Yeah...

You're using 129MB Page File with JUST Firefox running.

I'd love to do a forensic analysis of your hard drive. LMAO.

[Billy09]

ok rofl

[TheMendez1]

I doubt you can run XP on 128 mb of ram. My windows XP uses over 400 mb of ram at idle.
I used to have a computer with only 256 MB with XP so I dont think so, but I can GUARANTEE that Vista uses 400MB of RAM at Idle I know because
I have vista right now.

[aysiu]

I get it now man about it being like windows vista and stuff
Video of it to show you my crap computer atm =)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiYiJdC4jNQ
So a "crapload" of applications means two? Firefox and Windows Explorer?

[Koori23]

Here's my XP system as it stands right now. Firefox active: AVG, Windows Defender running in the background.

What's interesting is, I have an SVCHOST that's taking up 65MB, Firefox is taking up 70MB and the SYSTEM process is taking 70MB. That's 205MB. I haven't hit swap area yet, but those three things on a 128MB system would put the brakes on productivity for sure.


It is entirely possible to do. I wouldn't want to, but it can be done. If you have a decent graphics card, wouldn't that help speed it up a little? Unless he's running XPLite or something with all the stuff stripped out.

DGortze380 wow is all i can say on your behalf. What can i run at the same time you say?
Lets see i can run msn messenger, firefox 3, doom 2, windows media player, ect...
Just about any combination of programs and it will do fine

Screenshot (= http://i44.tinypic.com/2qkjiow.png

[EDIT]: Jonobr is was just wondering why it takes so much to run ubuntu man

[H2SO_four]

so a "crapload" of applications means two? Firefox and windows explorer?

+1

[Billy09]

wow do u guys want me to load whatever i have on my pc then show you in a video my ram usage and stuff lol. cant satisfy u guys :) also no i dont have a stripped down version. it is the real windows xp home edition sp3.

[Giant Speck]

A screenshot would be better.

That video was too trippy.

[Billy09]

A screenshot would be better.
Done showed a screenshot man but here ya go
NEW Screenshot then =)

http://i43.tinypic.com/14mgefc.png

[DGortze380]

Actually... you're using 127.48 MB of ram ... WITH A 269MB PAGE FILE!!

So, really you're using 396MB of Memory. Nice try though.

lmao.

Have fun with that dude.

[Billy09]

duhh a page file rofl you guys are dumb here arent you
i can make page file in linux and still not do ****
point is i can do more in windows with 128mb ram!

[Giant Speck]

What exactly is a page file? Is it like a swap partition?

[CharmyBee]

What exactly is a page file? Is it like a swap partition?

Yep, except it's a file.

[DGortze380]

you guys are dumb here arent you

Now that's uncalled for. We're discussing facts about memory usage here, no one has made personal comments about you.



(and fyi, you do have a page file in linux, it's called swap ... same difference, virtual memory).

[Sublime Porte]

What exactly is a page file? Is it like a swap partition?

It's pretty much exactly the same as a swap file. You can in fact use a swap file in Linux too, instead of a partition, and in the olden days, that's pretty much how everyone used to use swap space.

[Billy09]

well sorry let me rephrase that some of your guys are
i have 128mb of ram physically like i said i did
i use memory from other places but i still only have 128mb of ram
i was just trying to say i can do all that with 128mb ram lol

[yoasif]

I would recommend that you try debian with the lxde desktop.

http://wiki.lxde.org/en/Debian#Lightweight_systems_CD

there are other distros for older pcs that you can try as well, try doing a search here on the forum.

ubuntu is not always the most appropriate distro for older PCs.

[H2SO_four]

ubuntu is not always the most appropriate distro for older PCs.

Agreed, at idle my Ubuntu consumes about 280Mb mem. It isn't for all PC's. I have a spare computer that is very similar to the OP's and its running Xubuntu 8.10 and it doesn't take much to make it strain. Just because its a flavor of linux doesn't automatically mean you can have a bunch of apps open on 10 year old hardware.

[Billy09]

yea i hear ya guys but im keeping windows xp on this pc. my new one im getting in 2 days will have ubuntu on it. well its not a brand new pc but new to me. hopefullly ubuntu will run on it. im looking for more ram for it as we speak. hopefully i will have 1.5gb of ram soon.
the specs of my new pc coming in is Pentium 4 2.4ghz, 512mb ram, 1 40gb hd and 1 80gb hd

[aysiu]

Did you completely miss my earlier post about how vanilla Ubuntu isn't meant to be run in 128 MB of RAM?

There are plenty of stripped-down versions using lightweight window managers (IceWM, OpenBox, Fluxbox). Check out Crunchbang. Seriously.

[jocko]

well sorry let me rephrase that some of your guys are
i have 128mb of ram physically like i said i did
i use memory from other places but i still only have 128mb of ram
i was just trying to say i can do all that with 128mb ram lol

I'm pretty sure you could run ubuntu on 128 Mb ram as well it's just that it would be completely dependent on a the swap partition, exactly like your windows XP is completely dependent on a pagefile.
I'm currently running jaunty (gnome), with firefox, audacious, a few nautilus windows and a terminal open and it uses totally 341 Mb of my ram (1.5Gb). So I could run with only 128 Mb ram plus a swap partition and would see slightly LESS memory usage than you do in windows (in your screenshot: 127Mb of used ram + 269Mb of page file usage = 396Mb). Give your windows xp another 512 or more Mb of ram and I'm sure you would see a HUGE difference in performance. Ram is a LOT faster than your hard drive.

[Billy09]

anyone tried aros?

[H2SO_four]

anyone tried aros?

Looks promising...

[Billy09]

ughh tried it didnt like the setup all that much. Doubt i will use it again (=

[philcamlin]

haha my grandma had an asus P3 with windows 98 so i shwed her to ubuntu and its way faster!!!!!

kubuntu+old hardware= fun for people :popcorn:

[keplerspeed]

Im confused as to why your discussing this, OP. It appears that you are not willing to try a light distro, and your not going to convert us to XP with its 'outstanding performance'.

We are willing to provide opinion with a more suitable distro, and help getting that work.

ughh tried it didnt like the setup all that much. Doubt i will use it again (=

Didnt like the installer? It the OS you need to like, not the installer!

EDIT: instead of paying for XP, why not buy some more RAM??

[Billy09]

the setup of the operating system sucks like the desktop and graphical interface :D

[yoasif]

the setup of the operating system sucks like the desktop and graphical interface :Dwhat are you talking about? AROS?

[Billy09]

oh yea lol

[guitar_man]

This people are trying to help you run linux on your old crappy machine.,..
If your not convince then why not ask questions on Windows XP forums for you crappy box..

I have a pentium II running on DSL with 64Mb of ram...It smoothly surfs the web..

[meeples]

wow. im very impressed if you can run win xp with loads of apps running simultaneously with 128mb of ram. because when i use xp i need 512mb just to get msn and firefox to run smoothly.

there are alot of distros that cater to ur lowspec.

give one of them a try :)


or stay with win xp if its so fast.

[guitar_man]

I had a box before with 1.3Ghz CPU and a 128Mb of ram..
And Yes it runs on XP.

[Billy09]

Meeples i will most likely keep xp on this pc
when i get my new one in on wed i will look for a good linux

[Billy09]

Oh yea i got a question
does it matter what montior you have if i want to switch desktops in a cube
like im sure my new pc will be able to but i have an old bulky monitor
will that matter in this case?

[yoasif]

Oh yea i got a question
does it matter what montior you have if i want to switch desktops in a cube
like im sure my new pc will be able to but i have an old bulky monitor
will that matter in this case?
no, your monitor has nothing to do with those effects, as long as you can get compositing working with your video card.

[heroidi]

Today i installed ubuntu on one of the School pc's and yes it works the computers @ school have very old hardware and that pc IBM with german bios really old one and it had 128MB ram and 8 mb graphic card 4.2 gb hard drive and yes ubuntu runs on it very smoothly and very nice the teacher did like it and said linux is cool by the way i installed ubuntu in graphices mode not in text mode on that pc

[Billy09]

woah makes me feel better about my new pc that will be here tomorrow. cant wait to try ubuntu on it. i really hope it runs smoothly. here are the specs of it.


Brand Dell
Model Optiplex GX270
Processor Brand Intel
Processor Type Pentium 4
Processor Speed 2.4 GHz
Installed Memory 512MB
Graphics Card Intel Extreme Graphics 2
Hard Drive Size 40GB
Optical 1 CDROM
Floppy Yes
Ethernet 10/1000
Front USB Port(s) 2
Back USB Port(s) 6
Case Style SFF
Operating System Windows XP Pro


Picture of it:

http://www.pacificgeek.com/productimages/xl/GX270P426-3B.jpg

[3startuna]

Dude you should seriously upgrade.

a 1GB stick of ram is like 40 bucks now.

My computer was 512mb. And I was running on XP on it for a few years with acceptable speed, but it would crash all the time!

and firefox would take forever to load.

I installed Linux and I noticed a definite improvement in performance.

But my music would stutter while launching programs or running an update. Mainly because Linux was using alot of swap space.

Upgraded the memory and the graphics card problem solved. The graphics card alone freed up 200mb of ram from my system.

(open GL with flipping RULES!)

[spo00n]

Windows XP can most certainly be run w/ 128mb. sp3 didn't ad THAT much. It's still essentially the same 8 year old OS.
Debian, Mepis, Sidux, Madriva...gosh just about any Linux distro is faster than any of the *buntu flavours or derivatives (LinuxMint would be awesome, if it weren't so slow). I don't know why. The 'buntus have nice features, but are just slow & a li'l flakey sometimes. I've encountered crashes & errors on them I never see in other linux OSes.
Google "why is ubuntu so slow"... you're not alone in your assessment. It also seems to be hit or miss. Some folks have problems, others don't. I've had one 'buntu install be great & an exact redo wind up being windows vista-like slow x 10.

[Billy09]

dude i bought that pc for $70 and havent even got it in the mail yet lol
it will be in tomorrow and i know where i can get 1gb ram for $15
i will also upgrade the graphics card soon so i can try out quake live

[starcannon]

http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/_files_troll_2.jpg