Check out this quote!

[U-Bom-2]

Hi ppl, i just want to show this quote i took from DJ Flush in the comments of his blog: 10 reasons why linux ubuntu is bette than windows (http://www.sizlopedia.com/2008/03/29/10-reasons-why-linux-ubuntu-is-better-than-windows/)

Here we go


I don’t know the exact PC requirements to run Ubuntu but lets just say that if your PC can smoothly run XP then its definitely going to rock Ubuntu.

I love it and it make me laught.
What you think?

[DMcA]

I don’t know the exact PC requirements to run Ubuntu but lets just say that if your PC can smoothly run XP then its definitely going to rock Ubuntu.
What you think?

This is nonsense; XP will run very nicely with 128 MB of RAM and just a few megs for graphics. I doubt very much whether the latest Ubuntu would be responsive on those sort of specs. That said, once you've been using XP for while it does seem to slow right down, something that isn't noticeable with Ubuntu

[_sAm_]

This is nonsense; XP will run very nicely with 128 MB of RAM and just a few megs for graphics.
Is this true also for Win Xp + SP1/2/3?

[Giant Speck]

Windows XP Professional recommended system requirements:

Processor: 233 MHz
Memory: 128 MB
Disk Space: 1.5 GB free

Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex recommended system requirements:

Processor: 700 MHz
Memory: 384 MB
Hard Drive: 8 GB free

[Pasdar]

My father has WinXP on his PC, which is a 2Ghz Celeron I think with 256 MB mem and 64MB video card, 100GB space. The only thing he does on it is edit pictures in Photoshop and check his email once in a while. It started out okay, but it is so slow now that its unbearable. Every action seems to take at least 1 minute to start. Some applications don't even work anymore.

When 9.04 is released I'm going to install it for him and see how that runs.

[Giant Speck]

My father has WinXP on his PC, which is a 2Ghz Celeron I think with 256 MB mem and 64MB video card, 100GB space. The only thing he does on it is edit pictures in Photoshop and check his email once in a while. It started out okay, but it is so slow now that its unbearable. Every action seems to take at least 1 minute to start. Some applications don't even work anymore.

When 9.04 is released I'm going to install it for him and see how that runs.

Why don't you just upgrade the RAM? Or is 256MB the limit for his computer?

[Tristam Green]

Windows XP Professional recommended system requirements:

Processor: 233 MHz
Memory: 128 MB
Disk Space: 1.5 GB free

Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex recommended system requirements:

Processor: 700 MHz
Memory: 384 MB
Hard Drive: 8 GB free

Windows XP
Release date
RTM: August 24, 2001
Retail: October 25, 2001

Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex
Release date
October 30, 2008

Times change, so do system specs.

[Giant Speck]

Times change, so do system specs.

Yes, but the minimum system requirements of Windows XP haven't increased even after the release of SP2 and SP3. The only increase in requirements that I've read about is disk space. Windows XP with SP3 requires about 500 MB more free disk space.

[WatchingThePain]

It's not really a fair comparison as XP is a lot older than the current Ubuntu.
Unless you mean to Use a version of Ubuntu from round about the same time XP came out.

[Johnsie]

What if Ubuntu doesn't have the drivers for the hardware? Some hardware works better with Windows because the manufacturers have released Windows drivers but not Linux ones. So it's impossible to say Ubuntu will work fully on anything that supports XP.

Ps. XP might not be as old as some people think. There are monthly updates and also several service packs. Windows XP in 2009 with patches is very different under the hood to Windows XP circa 2001.

Either way, both operating systems have DIFFERENT technical requirements because they are build differently.

[Tristam Green]

Yes, but the minimum system requirements of Windows XP haven't increased even after the release of SP2 and SP3. The only increase in requirements that I've read about is disk space. Windows XP with SP3 requires about 500 MB more free disk space.

You also have to take into consideration that those system specifications (Drive space in particular) are only slightly skewed, as Ubuntu comes packaged with loads of software, while Windows only comes with its operating system.

[barbedsaber]

It should be noted
microsoft's idea of "working" is, technically it will boot, and it doesn't matter if you move the mouse and 20 seconds later the cursor moves, <b>technically</b> it works
Ubuntu working is a very useable environment for word processing, web browsing and listening to music, at the same time.
also, ubuntu comes with a hell of a lot more software than xp does, like an office suite.

[3rdalbum]

The minimum specifications for Ubuntu are misleading. A fully-installed Ubuntu takes up less than 3 gigabytes, not 8 gigabytes. It can run on a slower processor than 700MHz, although you wouldn't really want to. Also, if you install from the Alternate CD you can run the system in 256 megabytes of RAM, not 384 (which is the figure for running the live CD).

[geoken]

It should be noted
microsoft's idea of "working" is, technically it will boot, and it doesn't matter if you move the mouse and 20 seconds later the cursor moves, <b>technically</b> it works

To expand on this, at work I'm running XP SP3 on a PIII 733 w/ 512 mb of RAM and a 10gb HD.

The computer is in a constant state of being bogged down. It takes the better part of 10 minutes to get to a usable desktop from boot. Getting to a usable desktop from the screensaver frequently takes more than a minute. On average, opening explorer takes 30 seconds+ and starting FF will usually take more than a minute.

Sequoia View (hd space monitoring program) sits in my Quick Launch menu because of how frequently I need to free up HD space. The C:/Windows folder (once you start installing updates) is weighing in at 5.88gb. Add the 1.08gb page file and you're already at ~7gb. I'm not really sure how this is supposed to work with 1.5gb.

With 5 apps running (Outlook 2k, Word 2k, Firefox, Task Manager, Explorer -the file manager) I'm already well into my paged memory by about 200mb. 128mb is just enough to run Windows' own services.

[happysmileman]

Yes, but the minimum system requirements of Windows XP haven't increased even after the release of SP2 and SP3. The only increase in requirements that I've read about is disk space. Windows XP with SP3 requires about 500 MB more free disk space.

I doubt that very much, Windows XP with Service pack 2 is horribly slow on my laptop, which has 224MB RAM and I think about 1.8Ghz, whereas I'm sure without any service packs it would fly.

Keep in mind that most companies (This isn't a Microsoft specific thing) will set their minimum/recommended requirements as low as possible to maximise sales.

[billgoldberg]

This is nonsense; XP will run very nicely with 128 MB of RAM and just a few megs for graphics.

Yeah right.

Maybe the first week you use it.

Install and anti-virus scanner and spyware scanner (you can't afford to run without those on XP) and watch your system crumble when opening anything.

I ran XP on a dell PIV with 256mb of ram for years.

It ran, but painfully slow.

After a reinstall it would be ok for a few weeks, then the slowness came back.

Note that this was pre-SP3.

[koshatnik]

Yes, but the minimum system requirements of Windows XP haven't increased even after the release of SP2 and SP3. The only increase in requirements that I've read about is disk space. Windows XP with SP3 requires about 500 MB more free disk space.

The minimum specs for WinXP arent at all realistic. Good luck trying to doing anything task orientated in an XP install with 128MB RAM and 233mhz processor.

[forrestcupp]

When 9.04 is released I'm going to install it for him and see how that runs.Just make sure that his version of Photoshop works well on Ubuntu, or he may be unhappy.




Times change, so do system specs.


It's not really a fair comparison as XP is a lot older than the current Ubuntu.
Unless you mean to Use a version of Ubuntu from round about the same time XP came out.
True, times and specs do change. And you're right; it's not a fair comparison. But what he said was fair because he was refuting the original quote and showing that what was said is not necessarily the case.

I just tried to install a lot of different distros on my dad's old laptop. It wouldn't run any of them properly. I finally put XP on there and it runs like a charm.

[Methuselah]

Xp is a much lighter OS than the latest Ubuntus.
If you install a lot of the oft recommended support software that may change but in its pristine state Xp is quite happy on weaker hardware.

[wsonar]

That said, once you've been using XP for while it does seem to slow right down, something that isn't noticeable with Ubuntu

I'd say it only slows down from proccesess and services that keep building up in startup from new applications

The main thing in Ubuntu you need good hardware for is alot of the compiz effects and settings where in sence it make it more like vista visually
and there the hardware specs would be more comparable to vista than XP
--------------------------------------------------------------
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

----------------------------------------
Vista Home

*

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
*

512 MB of system memory
*

20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
*

Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory
*

DVD-ROM drive
*

Audio Output
*

Internet access (fees may apply)



While all editions of Windows Vista can support multiple core CPUs, only Windows Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise can support dual processors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Premium / Business / Ultimate

*

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
*

1 GB of system memory
*

40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
*

Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
o

WDDM Driver
o

128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
o

Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
o

32 bits per pixel
----------------------------------

System Requirements

Ubuntu is available for PC, 64-Bit PC and Intel based Mac architectures. At least 256 MB of RAM is required to run the alternate install CD (384MB of RAM is required to use the live CD based installer). Install requires at least 4 GB of disk space.

[Therion]

It should be noted microsoft's idea of "working" is, technically it will boot...
Bingo.

I'm willing to bet that XP SP3 (fully updated) would boot on those specs, that much I'll grant you; but anything further? For instance say, oh... I dunno... Getting anything done in the real world? That's going to be an exercise in frustration at best and more likely utter futility on those specs. I mean (dot)NET Framework alone...

[geoken]

Xp is a much lighter OS than the latest Ubuntus.
If you install a lot of the oft recommended support software that may change but in its pristine state Xp is quite happy on weaker hardware.

By recommended support software are you referring to security patches. Like I said before, the C:/Windows directory on my PC may have been under 1.5gb initially, but after getting through security updates and service packs it's ballooned to 5.88gb. My only additional drivers are printer and gpu.

[swoll1980]

This is nonsense; XP will run very nicely with 128 MB of RAM and just a few megs for graphics. I doubt very much whether the latest Ubuntu would be responsive on those sort of specs. That said, once you've been using XP for while it does seem to slow right down, something that isn't noticeable with Ubuntu

=; Very nicely?

[Hyper Tails]

nice quote!!

[DMcA]

Yeah right.

Maybe the first week you use it.

Install and anti-virus scanner and spyware scanner (you can't afford to run without those on XP) and watch your system crumble when opening anything.

I ran XP on a dell PIV with 256mb of ram for years.

It ran, but painfully slow.

After a reinstall it would be ok for a few weeks, then the slowness came back.

Note that this was pre-SP3.


Well, I don't use any antivirus or antispyware software on XP and it's really not a problem at all. I don't go on any unknown websites, install any untrusted software or open any emails, and it's behind several firewalls. It's not going to get infected.



=; Very nicely?

Sorry, I'm missing your point here. Are you calling me on grammar or something else?

[MadMax2]

The problem with linux is that there are problems installing peripherals and for an average person trying to figure it out for themselves this is the achillies heel. In windows it is easy to uninstall/ reinstall and you have manufacturers disks.

[PhoHammer]

This is nonsense; XP will run very nicely with 128 MB of RAM and just a few megs for graphics. I doubt very much whether the latest Ubuntu would be responsive on those sort of specs. That said, once you've been using XP for while it does seem to slow right down, something that isn't noticeable with Ubuntu

I've seen XP "run" on a 128 MB rig. It was laughable.

[swoll1980]

Sorry, I'm missing your point here. Are you calling me on grammar or something else?

No. The fact that xp runs very nicely on those specs. Microsoft recommends 512 MB RAM. Win2k won't even run "Very nicely" on 128 MB RAM

[Giant Speck]

Microsoft recommends 512 MB RAM.

And where can one find that piece of information?

[swoll1980]

And where can one find that piece of information?

I just looked it up. It was Vista that was 512 MB RAM. That just shows you how skewed those recommended specs are, compared to reality.

[Giant Speck]

I just looked it up. It was Vista that was 512 MB RAM. That just shows you how skewed those recommended specs are, compared to reality.

Well, the 512 MB of RAM is the minimum recommended requirement for Vista Home Basic. For any other version of Vista, Microsoft recommends 1 GB of RAM.

[inobe]

xp will run like crap on the minimum requirements, i would be surprised if it even booted in the next millennium.

i know because i tried it countless times, it ain't nice.

512 ram takes away most of the lag, 2.6 ghz pentium 4, at least a decent 40gig drive with a decent cache and it still wouldn't be a speed demon.

[Methuselah]

xp will run like crap on the minimum requirements, i would be surprised if it even booted in the next millennium.

i know because i tried it countless times, it ain't nice.

512 ram takes away most of the lag, 2.6 ghz pentium 4, at least a decent 40gig drive with a decent cache and it still wouldn't be a speed demon.

I've had a 512MB RAM/1GHZ PIII system with Xp for years and it's quite fast enough. Ubuntu runs well on it too.
I'm not sure how it would run on a system with less RAM but I'm guessing not too well.

[U-Bom-2]

God, i thought all ppl here loved Ubuntu before Windows but i see that this is not true, some ppl love more Windows that Ubuntu. I don't understand why because Ubuntu pwn Windows in all sense of the word (maybe not with drivers n that stuff) but run better, is faster, customizable, free, different. Stop difending Windows, it only steal your money and try to get the world...

Ubuntu FTW

[Giant Speck]

God, i thought all ppl here loved Ubuntu before Windows but i see that this is not true, some ppl love more Windows that Ubuntu. I don't understand why because Ubuntu pwn Windows in all sense of the word (maybe not with drivers n that stuff) but run better, is faster, customizable, free, different. Stop difending Windows, it only steal your money and try to get the world...

Ubuntu FTW

You're right. I'm going to go wipe both of my Windows partitions right now. How dare I love anything other than Ubuntu? :rolleyes:

[DMcA]

No. The fact that xp runs very nicely on those specs. Microsoft recommends 512 MB RAM. Win2k won't even run "Very nicely" on 128 MB RAM

I'm going to get completely shot down on this one but my last computer came with 128 MB of RAM even handled ME quite nicely, which was worse on resources than XP (it was later upgraded to XP).

I'm running XP right now with 192 MB of virtual RAM and It is completely usable for my purposes, it opens programs and boots far faster than ubuntu and the only issues I have are with sound (which I'm not sure is XP's fault). This contrasts with a factory installed XP image, with additional associated crapware and antivirus software, which ran painfully slowly on the same hardware with 512 MB RAM after shrinking its partition.

XP being unusable on low specs is not (directly) Microsoft's fault. How many people criticising it here have actually installed and configured it from fresh and are running it without antivirus software etc?

[swoll1980]

XP being unusable on low specs is not (directly) Microsoft's fault. How many people criticising it here have actually installed and configured it from fresh and are running it without antivirus software etc?

I have. I'm not saying it won't run on 128MB RAM. It will run very slowly. Anybody can run almost any os on any system. I had Ubuntu running on the same machine, but it ran very slowly as well. I saw a computer at the store running vista with 256MB RAM

[forrestcupp]

I just looked it up. It was Vista that was 512 MB RAM. That just shows you how skewed those recommended specs are, compared to reality.Vista will run just fine on 512 MB with Aero turned off. I've even gotten it to work decently with a little less than 1 GB with Aero turned on. Aero is where most of the bloat is. I wish you could run Compiz in Vista.


I have. I'm not saying it won't run on 128MB RAM. It will run very slowly.

You're right. You really need at least 256 MB to get a bearable experience in XP. But I guess bearable is relative to the person. Nowadays, I'd have trouble living with less than 2 GB.

[jbruced]

Those who like windows, stay with windows, be happy with it, go in peace. We here are obviously Linux users, and have made a choice to use Linux. We've all seen and used windows, so ask yourselves, why did we switch to Linux?

[DMcA]

Those who like windows, stay with windows, be happy with it, go in peace. We here are obviously Linux users, and have made a choice to use Linux. We've all seen and used windows, so ask yourselves, why did we switch to Linux?

I'd just like to point out that no where did I say that I liked windows. I actually can't stand using it, but that's irrelevant.

I do, however, take exception to people stating things that I can demonstrate not to be true. I am running XP, right now, with 192 MB of RAM and it performs perfectly well for my needs. Windows has enough things wrong with it, the linux community does not need to go spreading misinformation or repeating commonly held viewpoints that have little basis. This only undermines well founded arguments.

[Godly]

Hi ppl, i just want to show this quote i took from DJ Flush in the comments of his blog: 10 reasons why linux ubuntu is bette than windows (http://www.sizlopedia.com/2008/03/29/10-reasons-why-linux-ubuntu-is-better-than-windows/)

Here we go



I love it and it make me laught.
What you think?

I agree. Those are 10 very good reasons. There are so many people that have no idea what linux, or ubuntu even are. Spread the word.