PDA

View Full Version : Linux needs to become more hardware-hungry



professor_chaos
June 18th, 2006, 06:27 AM
This article I just read suggests that to compete with Vista for hardware vendor support, linux must become more resource demanding. Read it for yourself.
http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/05/25/1542211&from=rss

It certainly makes a unique argument, but I don't know if it really makes sense from a computer manufactures point of view. Does anyone agree with the article? If you don't agree, you can't post anything! Just kidding.;)

nalmeth
June 18th, 2006, 06:52 AM
The psychology behind getting people to switch an Operating System is, well, complicated isn't it?

Mathias-K
June 18th, 2006, 07:16 AM
I think it would be great if all the new hardware was supported by Linux. I was really lucky to get a talk with one of nVIDIAs press guys at CeBIT 2006 in Hannover. He just laughed when I asked what was going on for out-of-the-box cross-platform SLI-support.

prizrak
June 18th, 2006, 08:13 AM
I don't think his right. The reality is that regular users who buy comps from stores and don't even know what an OS is could care less what the specs are. Hardware vendors can still sell huge power tanks and load lets say Ubuntu on them, it will just work faster on it than Vista. Those who know what's up will be doing their homework anyways. Basically the user buys what the marketing tells him/her to that's about it.

siimo
June 18th, 2006, 08:24 AM
hell no!

only reason im using linux currently is because my current system has no hope of supporting windows vista (at good speeds) when it comes out and i want to get used to the transition than switch straight when XP is cancelled for support cycle.

23meg
June 18th, 2006, 08:30 AM
With regard to XGL/Compiz which the author refers to as "eyecandy" the article is plain misinformed. It doesn't take any more than a $25 nvidia card to run it (even less if you buy second hand), it runs fine on even four year old (more?) Geforce MX series chips and the CPU requirement will be just about zero once development is done.

It's so superficial it doesn't deserve being called an "article" actually; it's very easy to rant about "the future of Linux" for a few paragraphs with an ill informed industrial mindset and it's done so often it's starting to become harmful.

professor_chaos
June 18th, 2006, 08:42 AM
I don't think his right. The reality is that regular users who buy comps from stores and don't even know what an OS is could care less what the specs are. Hardware vendors can still sell huge power tanks and load lets say Ubuntu on them, it will just work faster on it than Vista. Those who know what's up will be doing their homework anyways. Basically the user buys what the marketing tells him/her to that's about it.

I agree, Joe-Blow is probably going to go into Bestbuy and look at model X1000 and then X2000 and so on and just find the model with the largest number that he can afford and not really care much about the OS speed on those hardware specs.

However, perhaps there is a certain incentive for hardware vendors to release product that ONLY meet or come close to meeting the system requirements, so that after two years, Joe-Blow is tired of his operating system running a bit slow and has the incentive to go out and buy a new computer. And if vendor Y is selling X1000's with linux and vendor Z is selling X3000's with vista, Joe-Blow is going to think the X3000's run faster, when in reality he is just spending more for an operating system that runs the same speed.

paullinux
June 18th, 2006, 09:40 AM
What Linux (or Ubuntu for that matter) is missing on this point is 'advertising'. The average Joe doesn't know anything when it comes down the operating system involved. Actual advertising on billboards and papers, magazines... is needed to make people aware that there is something like Linux and Ubuntu. Only then , when marketforces arise, you will find computers especially configured and designed with linux in mind. Nowadays every computer comes with XP installed. When will the day come that every computer has linux on it? Never without the advertising..

adam.tropics
June 18th, 2006, 10:56 AM
23Meg, you're absolututely right, I run Xgl/Compiz just fine on shared memory. As the author pointed out, he is not too much of an eye candy fanatic, although I think at least open minded wouldn't have been much to ask, in an article intended for publication.

On the upside, Vista may well cause a tidal wave of otherwise decent computers showing up on ebay in a few months, so I look forward to that. Plus you would think Vista would cause component price falls?

B0rsuk
June 18th, 2006, 02:08 PM
Nonsense. Low requirements are a plus. If you're concerned Linux should use 'bigger' hardware, leave it up to gamers. Gamers like to play the shiniest stuff, like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Prey, Bioshock.
(two last games aren't confirmed to have linux versions, but they're based on Doom3 and Unreal3 engines respectively, so chance for linux client is pretty high)

More linux games will appear as linux gets more popular. And it does.

jc87
June 18th, 2006, 02:20 PM
Nonsense. Low requirements are a plus. If you're concerned Linux should use 'bigger' hardware, leave it up to gamers. Gamers like to play the shiniest stuff, like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Prey, Bioshock.
(two last games aren't confirmed to have linux versions, but they're based on Doom3 and Unreal3 engines respectively, so chance for linux client is pretty high)

More linux games will appear as linux gets more popular. And it does.

Agree!

I for instance discovered apt-build recently and i loved it , firefox never looked so fast and responsive , and im thinking in messing around more with my Ubuntu-system to a even better performance.

Low requirements plus shinny toys make Ubuntu a great OS:cool:

fuscia
June 18th, 2006, 02:57 PM
'bigger and better' is an easy sell. people in the US, at least, are so used to being sold this way, they actually think bigger is better. it's no surprise to me that microsoft keeps coming out with bigger products and it's no surprise to see hardware companies taking the release of a new version of windows as an oppurtunity to sell bigger equipment. linux makes better use of the hardware one already owns. it's a no-brainer for hardware companies to see a linux user as one less customer. (imagine what they must think of netbsd.)

as a parallel, think of how many golfers will spend $500 on a new driver just to hit their balls 15 yards further into the woods, while still using that putter they stole from the local windmills and dragons course.

EdThaSlayer
June 18th, 2006, 04:14 PM
I like the idea that linux doesnt need the fastest hardware to run smoothly, because if you do buy the fastest hardware and run Linux....WOAAAHAH!!![super speedy operating system!!!!]

nuvo
June 18th, 2006, 05:21 PM
I think what he's getting at is that manufacturers aren't going to start selling systems with Linux on them simply because it's more efficient.
If you can flog a system that's got new shiny hardware in it for more money, and which will need upgrading within a few years, would you really choose to sell a system that will last much longer and which doesn't really need cutting edge hardware instead?
Granted, you could sell the powerful system with Linux on it, but then you still get stuck with people buying your products less often.

Linux doesn't need to be more power hungry, computer companies want it to be before they'll use it instead of OEM versions of Windows.

Some of his arguments are ill informed though as he claims XGL will bump up the hardware requirements considerably, but it actually doesn't much.
My system uses a 2.53Ghz Celeron D and 256Mb of RAM, which simply will not run Vista with any effects (or at all for that matter) and I ended up throwing in a 256Mb GeForce 6600 under XP to make XP run better, but under Ubuntu 6.06 with XGL, I get a great working system with many fancy effects and no noticable slowness.

G Morgan
June 18th, 2006, 06:32 PM
Linux market share is growing irrespective of the fact it is good. Linux doesn't need to become crap to gain mindshare.

RAV TUX
June 18th, 2006, 07:24 PM
'bigger and better' is an easy sell. people in the US, at least, are so used to being sold this way, they actually think bigger is better. it's no surprise to me that microsoft keeps coming out with bigger products and it's no surprise to see hardware companies taking the release of a new version of windows as an oppurtunity to sell bigger equipment. linux makes better use of the hardware one already owns. it's a no-brainer for hardware companies to see a linux user as one less customer. (imagine what they must think of netbsd.)

as a parallel, think of how many golfers will spend $500 on a new driver just to hit their balls 15 yards further into the woods, while still using that putter they stole from the local windmills and dragons course.
Good analogy.

Here is the Paradox as hardware is getting more advanced, (for example my Intel EM64T computer 64-bit Dual-core) the quality of the OS becomes more and more irrelavant:
I run XPsp2 and have no problems but of course I use Bitdefender 9 Internet Security. My wife uses OpenOffice.org, I use the Gimp, we use both Firefox and Opera(Firefox is our primary browser). So what is happening even if the Linux OS isn't dominating, Open Source is.

blastus
June 18th, 2006, 07:44 PM
Everyone knows that the games industry, not Windows, has largely driven video card manufacturers and other PC manufacturers to push the envelope. Games are increasingly demanding on hardware but for good reason. Most people don't mind buying a new PC so that it can run the latest game, but the idea of buying a new PC just so that it can run a new version of an OS is stupid.

An operating system doesn't provide any value, especially Windows since it comes with NOTHING. It's the applications that run on the OS that provide value. The more demanding an OS is on hardware, the less resources there are available for everything else, including games, which means everything else will be impacted. :rolleyes:

People don't want to have to buy more powerful computers just to be able to continue doing the same things they've done for the last 15 years. Who knows, given the stupidity of the article and the rampant bloat and increasing inefficiency of software on all levels, there may come a day when we'll need a 20Ghz machine just to send a text/plain email to someone. But then again, if there are 2000Ghz machines I doubt anyone will care about software efficiency.

Mathias-K
June 18th, 2006, 08:18 PM
Still, I think there has to be a benefit for the Linux user who buys new and shiny hardware. I think this could be an easily won battle for Linux, as Windows XP lags tremendously in supporting multiple processor cores, 64-bit computing, all the new instructions and so on. A kernel that would fit just right for your machine would be very nice to have out of the box.

DoctorMO
June 18th, 2006, 10:06 PM
I like the idea that because of the GNU/Linux and general open source mind set we will see more and more useful, creative and efficent tools.

More tools like adept which makes the system just run (but not like windows or mac just runs, it's more about being flexible _and_ still just working)