Microsoft Challenges Linux's Legacy Claims 618
Michael writes "Microsoft Corp.'s Linux and open-source lab on the Redmond campus has been running some interesting tests of late, one of which was looking at how well the latest Windows client software runs on legacy hardware in comparison to its Linux competitors. The tests, which found that Windows performed as well as Linux on legacy hardware when installed and run out-of-the-box, were done in part to give Microsoft the data it needed to effectively 'put to rest the myth that Linux can run on anything.'"
Come back (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Come back (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Come back (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Come back (Score:3, Interesting)
Heck, some of the security problems are legacy because of the support of the other architectures. For god's sake, add another ring for drivers so they can't touch the kernel. It's supported on the x86.
Re:Come back (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Come back (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Come back (Score:4, Insightful)
Or does that make me a luddite?
Re:Come back (Score:2)
Re:Come back (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe Vista will make Windows 64-bit more seamless but I somehow doubt it.
Re:Come back (Score:5, Informative)
"Windows NT 3.1 ran on Intel IA-32 x86, DEC Alpha, and MIPS R4000 processors. Windows NT 3.51 added support for PowerPC processors. Intergraph Corporation ported Windows NT to its Clipper architecture and later SPARC, but neither version was sold to the public. Windows NT 4.0 was the last major release to support Alpha, MIPS, or PowerPC, though development of Windows 2000 for Alpha continued until 1999, when Compaq stopped support for Windows NT on that architecture."
NT 4.0 ran well on my alphastation
Toastworthy Computing (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Toastworthy Computing (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that in 15 years of IT, admittedly not often working in Windows shops but often visiting numerous companies to help them setup FOSS solutions and integrate them w/ their existing (often Windows) stuff, I don't think I've met more than a couple decent admins. The others didn't appear to really understand what they were doing. That is if they were doing anything beyond the usual rebooting to fix the occasional glitch.
OTOH, while there are apparently fewer Unix admins in the wild, the average level is *much* higher (although I've seen my share of really bad ones too of course).
I used to understand Windows (well, what called that in windows 3.0 days) but nowadays, it seems to be volutarily obfuscated to me. If I had to learn how the system works I wouldn't even know where to start.
Re:Come back (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooo
Besides, for old hardware, where's Debian in their comparison? And what about some actual information, instead of generic 'about the same requirements' sweeping statements? Like how much of Win 2k3 Server do you have to disable to get it running as a simple fileserver on an old Pentium MMX? or at least whatever specs they tested, what software they installed
Re:Come back (Score:4, Funny)
Well, don't you think that comparison would be a tad unfair? I mean after all, doesn't Debian stable date from about 1997?
(Ducking and running)
Re:Come back (Score:3, Funny)
Forget it, that was a German dude
Re:Come back (Score:3, Insightful)
I never ran linux on this old machine but I know it would be much fast as I could get the same level of service without a GUI. Once setup, I controlled the server from several computers so the need for a GUI in linux would
Re:Come back (Score:3, Informative)
Does this mean we can come back now then?
XBox 360 is windows based and running on a PowerPC variant. Also there are the smartphones and mobile devices, and even watches... (All running either embedded Windows or a Variant version of NT form of Windows as on the PocketPC devices).
Oh and lets not forget that Windows NT4.0 was available on RISC, Alpha, PPC.
And we could go on with Windows Embedded technologies that are also running Windows NT or a v
Re:Come back (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me know when you can go to the store and pick up a copy of that OS.
Well even Wal-mart was selling XBox 360s, so I guess you could check there first. Or maybe Best Buy, they also were stocking them.
Oh and lets not forget that Windows NT4.0 was available on RISC, Alpha, PPC.
Let me know when you can put Windows XP on a box running one of those chips.
Who was talking about XP, we were talking about NT. Besides the fact that these architectures are
Re:Come back (Score:4, Informative)
The real funny part of this is that I have Debian Linux 3.1 (2.6 kernel) running right now upstairs on a 233MHz AMD box with 128MB of memory as a server (no gui) and it runs OK. Not the speediest thing in the world, but OK. Acceptable. Try running XP on something like that, and you'll grow old or end up pulling what's left of your hair out!
Besides, older versions of Linux would probably run rings around whatever version of DimWoes that M$ claims to outperform Linux. Yeah. Let's see Windblows 95 outperform RedHat 6.0. Yeah. Good luck with that!
Best Regards,
Kalecomm
So guys (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So guys (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's not better, just more expensive.
Re:So guys (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
Also, more importantly, would the applications and software those users need be available and run on these machines? And would they not cost more than the hardware itself and thus blow the benefits of cheaper hardware out of the water? Asked about this, Hilf would only say that "this is precisely the challenge Microsoft is working with the industry to address."
In other words: "Please ignore the fact that even if we win, we lose." And I'd really like to see some DATA, on this, rather then "Oh really, it did just as well! (Course we installed full-blown Linux setups, and likely minimal Win installations...)". What did they use? GNOME? KDE? Something in the vein of a blackbox or fluxbox? Or no GUI at all? The ability to choose heavy, light, or no GUI is one of Linux's main strengths in itself, and one Win currently cannot match.
Phone Exchanges (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Phone Exchanges (Score:2)
Re:Phone Exchanges (Score:4, Interesting)
Not reading the article? (Score:3, Interesting)
From TFA:
""Quite simply, I wanted to examine this factually, using real customer scenarios to test this hypothesis: can Linux run on older hardware than Windows? In many developing countries and public institutions, such as a local library, they typically don't have deep technical staff, so they need to use software without lots of modification and customization."
Re:Not reading the article? (Score:2)
""Quite simply, I wanted to examine this factually, using real customer scenarios to test this hypothesis: can Linux run on older hardware than Windows? In many developing countries and public institutions, such as a local library, they typically don't have deep technical staff, so they need to use software without lots of modification and customization."
And yet, the summary used the 'run on anything' phrase, which is commonly known to mean running a version of Linunx on whatever bizarre thing you can im
Re:Not reading the article? (Score:5, Interesting)
I also always get a kick out of the "poor people are idiots who can't learn to run the system" argument as well. That'll really get them on your side and buying your products.
Dear Bill,
Let me give you a hint. Poor people have more time than money and expect to have to do things the self-sufficient hard way. Many of them even take pride in being able to do so.
And the local library is full of things called "books" and people who know how to read them. Like, computer books. That's where I went to read Kernighan & Ritchie. They've got a full set of Knuth too. Not to mention that computer training is a standard part of library science these days.
Nice try.
Yours,
KFG
You make the same stupid mistake MS makes (Score:5, Insightful)
Some crazy fin writes an OS and I get a cheap desktop that doesn't blue screen and actually performs a lot better then certain commercial OS'es and does not costs me a sackfull of money to get the latest bugfixes.
The Internet has made a huge impact on the way the world works. No not because of internet shopping but in that communities can be build with a far larger catching area. It doesn't matter how obscure your interest are, with the global internet their are bound to be other weirdos out there who are intrested in the same things as you.
As someone who actually had an interest in anime/manga before the internet (yeah I am old so what?) I am still at times amazed by the huge change the internet has made. Previously you had to really seek out a club that probably had only 1-2 members per province and would have real trouble getting their message out. With the internet I can google and find hundreds of sites specializing in every type of manga/anime.
It would probably be quit hard to find enough people in your own town to build an OS. In fact linux shows this. Not that many other fins involved but because of the internet it doesn't matter. Weirdos allover can easily find each other.
So a knoppix live cd made by persons from all over the globe can be easily found by anyone else on the planet. Same with firewall on a floppy distro's. Just check distrowatch to see how many tiny little 1 man distro's there are that nevertheless manage to reach a global audience.
MS must really be getting desperate if now they are even trying to spread fud about the capacity for Linux to run on cheap hardware.
Linux is made by people for people. It does not have to be succesfull, it does not have to be worth it. There are countless people out there who are happy to spend all their free time producing special versions of Linux and give away their work for free.
This allows for Linux distro's to be easily available in the most obscure languages possible since all it requires is one(1) person with a passion and there is no need for a cost benefit study.
Linux runs on X because. Not because anything just because. Windows CE only runs on X when someone decides it is worth their time and effort and money.
Yes some companies have decided that they want to try making money from Linux. Good luck to them and they add valuable extra's to the effort but they are not Linux. They are a small subset of the global effort. Not a coordinated effort. Just hundreds of thousands of people who want software to do what they want and screw it being complex. That is part of the enjoyment. You don't think someone modding a GBA to run as a webserver has anyother motive then "Because"?
Linux is people who grow their own food, Linux is people that take 20 years to build their own plane, Linux is people who climb up a mountain nobody cares about, Linux is all these efforts being able to benefit all the others. Or not. because it don't matter. If all the effort to put Linux on PPC never ever generates a single bit of usefull code it don't matter because Linux does not ever have to make a profit to survive.
Even if Linux died, so what? Linux ain't Linux, Linux is an idea and BSD or god forbid Hurd could easily take over. because Linux is not new. It is in fact ancient. Linux is civilisation. Each generation building on the achievements of their elders and sharing their knowledge with the next generation.
The idea that you keep new ideas locked up is not how mankind has progressed.
I do not have to figure out how to pump water or filter it or store it or even figure out that I need it to survive. Others have done it before me and shared it with the world at large. I do not have to figure out h
Re:You make the same stupid mistake MS makes (Score:3, Informative)
E.g.: RULE :Run Up-to-date Linux Everywhere [rule-project.org]. Though (fortunately) this is nmore than one geek. This is a version of Redhat that has all the security of the current version, with a base install that uses minimal RAM and storage.
Idiotic test, they INSTALLED it (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the dumbest, most shill-like "benchmark" I've read about in a while. Come back when they do webserver benchmarks on the legacy HW. How many of the tests will read "No results for Windows because the OS won't install on this platform" ?
Read the whole article. (Score:2)
Re:Read the whole article. (Score:3, Insightful)
The main difference is that with Windows what you get out of the box is largely what you will end up using. With Linux you can take a RHEL system running a fat desktop and put a light-weight desktop environment or window manager in place of Gnome and you've got your
Re:Read the whole article. (Score:4, Insightful)
IT Manager: Can I extend the life of this old Win98 hardware with Linux?
Answer: Absolutely! You just need to run some weird distro with no commercial support, use some wacky window manager, and live without anything like MS Office!
IT Manager: Aaaaah. OK. (Slowly backs away and starts perusing $300 Dell Celerons).
W2K and older are not commercially supported. (Score:3, Insightful)
I will tell you what. With Linux you become owner of your infrastructure. Once you have the dosh to move to commercially supported versions the migration is far less painful, not to mention that you always know that your data is accessible and protected agianst the whims of a coporate concern.
Re:Read the whole article. (Score:3, Informative)
That's MS's rebuttal to bloat complaints. Actually, from my personal experience editing files sent to me in Word by dozens of users, it's not true, rather 95% of users use ONLY the functions iconised on the formatting toolbar. Actually, most users could run Winword 2 with no loss of functionality (and a large increase in speed). Even better, spend a day tutoring them in Word 5 for DOS or WordPerfect 5.1
Re:Idiotic test, they INSTALLED it (Score:2)
Re:Idiotic test, they INSTALLED it (Score:2)
Yes, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not what I can display on a monitor with my old hardware, it's what I can get that damn machine to do.
Re:Yes, but ... (Score:2)
Not to mention the inevitable
The Study didn't prove that at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Study didn't prove that at all (Score:5, Funny)
The myth they were actually trying to disprove is that Windows doesn't run on old hardware.
It isn't a myth: Windows doesn't run on a 486, it walks.
Re:The Study didn't prove that at all (Score:3, Informative)
Actually I CAN run Windows 95 on my 486 66Mhz, which has 16 MB RAM and a gig of space... but then again it's "overclocked" to 75 Mhz... and I can't run anything besides IE3, and word 95 (or whatever it's called)...
I COULD run the latest Oo and firefox if I had a *nix distro though... That's where the difference is. I can have a FUNCTIONAL PC using obsolete (legacy) hardware using *nix, with the latest software running...
Re:The Study didn't prove that at all (Score:4, Interesting)
Pick up a distribution that actually claims to target older hardware, or just generally fit in smaller places, like say Damn Small Linux [damnsmalllinux.org], Feather Linux [berlios.de] or Zenwalk [zenwalk.org] and I suspect you'll find much better performance and much lower system requirements all 'out of the box'. The counter-claim seems to be that Windows CE, with the right customisations, will run on older hardware too. Does anyone know if their is a release of CE set up for desktop use on older hardwre?
Jedidiah.
The study proves absolutely nothing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft doesn't know how to attack Linux, since it comes in so many shapes and sizes. So, they pick a specific point where they know the results will be favorable - or at least not negative in their direction.
It's a dumb argument. The point of Linux is that you can do whatever you want with it, anyone can. And I can get a distribution (or make my own!) that will run happily on a 486 with limited memory, complete with a GUI and some software such as
Sans RJ45? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words: None of these devices were actually connected to the Internet.
apples to apples... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the article isn't that they aren't comparing apples with apples, but that they're ignoring the fact that the oranges exist. If you aren't running desktop apps Linux will run well on small amounts of RAM - even less than the 64MB they quote as the minimum limit - and that similar apps aren't as readily available under the Windows OS.
They're also neglecting to mention that you'd need to spend hundreds to obtain a licensed copy of XP for your legacy hardware, as opposed to downloading a Linux CD image.
Re:apples to apples... (Score:2)
> instead are showing that computers running similar application suites behave similarly, whether running on Linux or NT.
Exactly correct. With the bloated applications stacks typical on both platforms any OS advantage is lost on the desktop. Firefox is a pig. Openoffice.org is beyond that to fscking huge, and that is before the JVM loads.
Plus they compared current 'enterprise' off
Recidivist Fudsters (Score:5, Insightful)
The real story here is how revealing this "Comparison" is about attitudes at Microsoft. They weren't interested in doing a valid test which might have been of some use in improving their product. All they were interested in doing was showing a competitor in a bad light, even if it meant blatantly rigging the test. This is an ostrich "head in the sand" trick.
It's because they refuse to accept fair comparison and competition, and to improve as a result of that competition that they continue to expose users to constant security risks.
what did you expect? (Score:2)
Seriously, any sensible corporation tests their competitors' products, and keeps the results strictly to themselves. Why give the competition any help? On the other hand, when some random test or other has results that look good for you, how
Re:Recidivist Fudsters (Score:2)
At least with Windows, there is a quite usable stack of desktop applications from 5-8 years ago, where that's not true with *nix.
Yeah, right (Score:3, Funny)
This was so stupid (Score:2)
128 Megs of RAM ?? Puh-leeez. (Score:5, Insightful)
I winced at the bolded section. 128 megs? Windows XP? Are they bloody serious? We don't want a computer that just boots up - we want productivity. And for productivity, XP needs more than 128 megs, unless by "productivity" you mean "wordpad"
memory management , too (Score:2)
On the other hand, I've routinely run my Linux machines for 3-6 months without reboot, 'cause the memory management is sound.
Re:memory management , too (Score:2)
Windows 2k/XP/2K3 have been surprisingly crafty when it comes to maintaining system performance over a long period of time. Leaked memory is reclaimed, and the system does a "pseudo-defrag" whenever you're not using the computer (moving the apps and files you use the most to the center of the drive for faster access). User profiles are more cleanly kept than in the past, and honestly I only have to restart my PC every few months when I do my updates.
Re:128 Megs of RAM ?? Puh-leeez. (Score:2)
Maybe they mean notepad.
Re:128 Megs of RAM ?? Puh-leeez. (Score:3, Informative)
The computers ran Windows XP Pro, and were getting a full install of Visual Studio, plus a test suite called DevPartner installed. I believe they were also going to be able to serve web pages, not as a full blown server but just locally for testing purposes.
We found that the bare minimum we could use
Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
It took a long time for Windows to be able to run well on low cost hardware. Nowadays, everyone has 256 or 512MB even on budget systems, and so the requirements aren't much different because EVERYONE will run X.
Basically, the test was stupid and missed the point of being able to run Linux on older hardware - by lowering the requirements through a choice of what you want to install (namely the GUI).
Re:Missing the point (Score:2)
It would seem the problem is that MS STILL doesn't understand that a server is NOT a desktop machine with more RAM, more HD and a crappier monitor. I would like to see Windows survive as a DNS or mail server for a small office/workgroup on a P166 w/ 64MB RAM. Linux has no problems there, just don't run X and it'll be fine.
Being installable just doesn't cut it. To be a valid test, they need to look at usefulness for various purposes. Of course, many would argue that Windows shouldn't be used for any purpos
Just as I suspected (Score:3, Informative)
*yawn*. Same old MS crap.
Re:Just as I suspected (Score:2)
You must be new here.
Bait and Switch / BS (Score:5, Interesting)
The salient points are in the statment above. The claim that "most" linuix distros had limitations preventing them from accessing a 32mb system with "aceptable performance" is entirely unsurprising. I note that neither RedHat (to pick one) nor Windows XP would like such a system very much, especially for modern "desktop application performance" (read OpenOffice and MS Office). In that case it is really the apps that are the limiting factors.
They never state what distros were tested (I assume Novell and RedHat when in doubt) nor how installation was done. Rather they pull a nice switching strategy. They test some unnamed distros and then state that windows CE is better than them on legacy hardware.
That is much like saying Windows CE is better than Windows XP on legacy hardware or that MuLinux is better than RedHat on older hardware. In both cases the former was designed for such a task while the latter was not. In both cases the former have limitations that prevent them from running "Modern Desktop Apps", that is in fact the point.
This is a simple "bait and switch" comparison, and if this is all the CTO uses when comparing all distros of linux to windows for some use; fire them.
Why post this crap? (Score:3, Funny)
It's below a non-story.
Can you say... (Score:2)
Astroturf!
Well not by the strict definition, but you get the point; Microsoft has this lab, you see. And in it they test systems from all over the gal^h^h^hworld. And in one of these test Microsoft products outpreformed their competitor's.
Wow! That's news. We better get it on Slashdot right away. Oh, and be sure to include an URL encoded identifer so that the submitter can get his boobie prize.
Just my opinion, but you better modify that URL before you click it. Especially if you aren't running in para
Hey, can I be next? (Score:5, Funny)
No seriously. I want it. And a end to run on sentences....
Microsoft is confused, maybe deliberately (Score:3, Insightful)
So it seems that Microsoft is deliberately confusing the issues here. A modern Gnome or KDE desktop on Linux no better or worse than Windows XP on 10 year old hardware with a full GUI desktop. But can Windows XP run on a 20-year-old 386 at all? Linux can. And while a Gnome desktop might now, X11 with a GUI of some kind certainly can. That's what we mean when we say linux can run on older hardware. Furthermore, much about Linux that enables compatibility stretching back 30 years doesn't really have anything to do with Linux itself either. For example, I can connect a Gnome desktop remotely to a 30-year old Unix mainframe and run X11 programs completely seamlessly. I could even fire up a 20-year old unix workstation running X11 and connect to a brand-new gnome desktop running on FC4 somewhere and expect it to work at least.
Further, Linux seems to be able to adapt much quicker to new platforms than Microsoft. The 32-bit to 64-bit jump was made years ago with Linux, with no major kernel API changes. Compare this to Windows which has Win16, Win32, and now Win64, with major changes in between, requiring some interesting hacks to preserve backwards compatibility. Linux, thanks to its Unix heritage, has always thought about things like making x-bit clean (where x is 32, 64, or whatever) and dealing with things like endianness. Linux isn't perfect; if there are issues with moving between 32 and 64 bits, or moving between little and big endian, they are bugs that need to be fixed. Microsoft has never expended much effort to think about such issues, as near as I can tell, since they thrive on the Wintel monopoly. Getting Windows endian-clean, for example, just isn't a priority.
HARDWARE STATS (From The Article) (Score:3, Insightful)
But first, my comment:
Judge for yourself whether or not the minimal configuration is really the minimal one. I personally am inclined to think 2GB is way too big of a disk. If you just want a webserver, DNS box, firewall, etc. you don't need a bigger disk than 32MB, if you are using a BSD. I would guess it is the same or better with Linux. But Windows includes so much unnecessary stuff in the basic install, you need 2GB. This actually does matter -- if you need 32MB, that is a cheap flash disk. If you need 2GB, that's a lot.
"In the tests run in its lab, Microsoft found that most modern commercial Linux distributions could be installed successfully on systems with a Pentium processor, with 64MB of RAM and a minimum of 2GB of hard disk space.
"Memory prevented the successful installation on a typical 1997 system, as 32MB of memory is not enough to install most Linux distributions or to run desktop applications with acceptable performance. A memory upgrade could prolong the life of such hardware, but the cost and effort of locating old memory and installing it onto all corporate clients significantly reduces the potential savings," Hilf said.
Minimum requirements for office productivity performance on a Linux system were any Pentium II (PII) system with at least 64MB of RAM, he said, adding that playback of sound and video would typically require a PII 400 or better.
"This corresponds to an average PC issued between 1998 and 1999," Hilf said.
If Linux was installed on an older system, such as an average PC of 1997, then the desktop performance falls below what is typically acceptable for a common user, he said."
Claims not benchmarks (Score:2, Insightful)
The only way Windows will convince people that Windows is good for legacy hardware will be if they either restart support for Windows 95 and Windows 98 o
so.... (Score:2)
They picked a distribution for older PCs right?
Running kernel 2.0, and a fairly minimal X11, instead of KDE/Gnome? Right?
Or perhaps they even picked a recent distribution and pared it down to get it to run well?
Didn't think so.
Out of box Windows vs out of box Linux both chew a fair bit of RAM these days. Difference is, with Linux yo
MS Marketing challedge, Linux Sucks (Score:2)
Suse 9.2 runs on my Dell P150 96Meg Ram just fine. Microsoft Windows doesn't even pick up on the NeoMagic video chipse
One problem with Linux vs. Windows comparisons.... (Score:3, Insightful)
One problem with Linux vs. Windows comparisons is that Linux is just a kernel, whereas Windows is a kernel + desktop environment + userland + web browser + more. Linux can run on legacy hardware; even the latest Linux kernel will run decently even on an old 386 with 8MB RAM, along with the latest versions of the GNU userland, X, a text editor like vim or emacs, and maybe even lynx. (Just don't think about doing anything more complex, such as use a graphical web browser, Java, GTK or QT application, fancy desktops, etc.) On the flipside, can Windows XP even install on an 386? You'll have to revert to DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 if you want a decently-performing Windows config with those specs. And who'd use that in 2006? (You'd have to pay me to use DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11, and give me copies of WordPerfect 5.1 and Lotus 1-2-3 2.4, as well ;).) Windows 95 can technically run on that machine, but you'll be in swap city....
If you are a hardcore Unix user, you can be very comfortable with a 386 or 486 with 8-16MB RAM, as long as you love the command line (and are not even considering any intensive GUI applications). Heck, 386 and 486 users got it much better than Thompson and Ritchie did ;). However, once you start adding GUI toolkits, multimedia applications, quality web browsers like Firefox and Konqueror, full-blown desktops, office suites, VMs for all of these languages supported by the developers (like Java, Python, Ruby, Perl, ...), libraries for oodles of functions, transparent graphics, and all of those other features, Linux, just like any other OS, needs much more processor speed and much more memory. You'll need at least a 233MHz processor with a minimum of 256MB RAM in order to avoid much of Swap City, and you'll need 500MHz and at least 384MB RAM to completely avoid all of it (unless your work is truly computer-intensive). Windows XP works the same way.
All that I'm saying with these comparisons is that many people quickly forget that all Linux is is a kernel. Linux, along with the GNU tools, can be ran from specifications as little as a 386SX with 4MB RAM to 96-node Beowulf clusters each featuring the fastest chips on the market, along with tens of gigabytes of RAM. Just don't come crying when your OpenOffice takes a year to compile on your 386, and a day to open ;).
Yeah? SO WHAT? Pointless "benchmark"... (Score:5, Insightful)
People buy Linux because:
1. It's much cheaper than Windows, with a much more liberal license which lets you do whatever you want without a huge, complex, draconian EULA;
2. It comes with a full set of development tools out of the box, and for most people offers all the software they will EVER need, so you don't have to blow hundreds of bucks on additional software packages;
3. Most of the additional tools people want can be had for free or very little money (like Java's SDK, which can be downloaded for nothing, or Oracle Express, which is also free).
4. It has better default driver support than Windows, without having to go out to a vendor site and hope they still offer downloads; In fact, most hardware is detected right off the bat nowadays.
5. YES, Linux is more secure than Windows, and offers better and more diverse tools for locking down your system. Also it tends to be more stable, and has much more gentle memory and disk requirements.
6. This one's esoteric, but what the hell: I can use Reiser FS on Linux; Windows didn't offer a journaling ANYTHING up until their latest greatest (does that even offer journals???). Under Windows, if you lose power suddenly, the next time you power up you could have a garbled registry (reinstall time!). Under Linux with Reiser, when you reboot, the system politely tells you it's going to check the journal, and it fixes itself. This alone is a good reason to prefer Linux.
Overall, Linux is better than Windows in almost every conceivable way. The only other operating systems that come close are Mac OS/X and the *BSDs.
But I guess, if I was Bill Gates, I'd want to divert everyone's attention away from the "Linux is better" problem, too. Hey, kids! Look over here! Windows installed on a 486! Don't pay any attention to that nasty Novell guy over there, with his nasty Kontact information manager, and all his talk of "security" and "stability" -- you don't want those, they're not good for you! Come have some Outlook and IE!
Feh.
Re:Yeah? SO WHAT? Pointless "benchmark"... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry... WHAT?! (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know what they were installing, but not the distros I use. See... lesser known fact about *nix is that it comes in many flavors. If, say, you had an older, piece of junk, you can get just as new a version of Damn Small Linux as you could Fedora Core 4. One is 50 MB, on a cd, the other 6 GB on 4. The thing they're assuming here is that you have to have a GUI to be productive. I call shenanagins.
I've done this same test with a box I 'liberated' from another source. (Was given to me, as it was too old to donate, believe it or not). 'Tis a first gen Pentium, with a whopping 32 MB RAM. I've got Fedora Core 4 on there just fine! It works as a web server, a file server, as well as a programming workstation, and email. I even browse the web on it fine! Oh, one small thing, it won't run X, de to size. (Ok, it will, ya just don't wanna... trust me). Guess what OS was on there previously? a very, VERY sluggish version of 2000. I don't know how they kept it running, but they did.
I ask you, which is better on legacy hardware? The ability to choose what you need, so as to maximize what you have? Or the ability to run everything in the world, and see what breaks?
To the people out there about to mod me flamebait: Yes, I read TFA, and no, I don't buy it. To judge to world of Linux on a few distros is foolish. Just as they test a bunch of versions of Windows, they need to do a range of Linux. Jump to the end of the article:
Good, they acknolwdge what I just said. But again, how do you define out of the box? Is it whatever boots from the CD? Or a 'full install'? I really think this is one of the worst benchmarks I've seen (even the other "independant" studies Microsoft did over the summer) due to the vagueness of the problem (my 'legacy' is your 'dream machine') to the differences inherant in different operating systems.
As an aside, my 'check' word here is "unguided". How fitting I think.
Uh... (Score:2, Funny)
linux works when windows won't (Score:2)
Five miles through the snow (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been in this silly business for damn near 40 years (augh); my first computer had 8K of memory (yes, 8K, not megs) but we successfully ran a whole small business accounting system on it. 100 lines per minute chain printer. TI doesn't make a calculator that small.
I went to grad school in Computer Science in 1983; we ran a whole graduate department on a PDP 11/70. Less than a megabyte of RAM, maybe 250 MB of disk total. Less than one MIP. We got a VAX in 1985; suddenly we had a WHOLE MIP, and a shared terminal in each grad student office.
I'm writing this on a G5 MAC. God alone knows how many MIPS --- thousands, certainly. I use it alone.
Frankly, I'm not sure where all the cycles go.
Title should say MS proves linux runs on anything (Score:4, Informative)
Anyhow, reading Hilf's responses in the interview it appears that the tests showed that linux does run on anything based on their test results. He admited that "The tests, which found that Windows performed as well as Linux on legacy hardware" and therefore linux did run on the legacy hardware as installed "out-of-the-box". So the title to the article is wrong as Microsoft's own tests proved that linux would run on the legacy hardware.
Now I suspect that what Hilf wanted to say was that BOTH the Windows and linux installations did not run adequately on the legacy hardware with "out-of-the-box" installs. But he doesn't want to admit it because he actually does realize why there is a wide spread assumption that linux runs well on legacy hardware, because it does.
Note the response to the journalist's question about why there was a "linux runs on anything" assumption, "Hilf said the technical capability to modify Linux, to strip it down to run with a minimal set of services and software so that it could run on all sorts of hardware devices, had generated that larger assumption that any type of Linux distribution could run on all sorts of hardware devices".
And here Hilf is at first correct and then only half correct. It is true that you can strip down linux to make it more efficient and capable on legacy hardware, and it is also true that the latest desktop distros take advantage of the latest hardware and therefore have similar requirements to Windows. But he fails to acknowlege two facts that I suspect he is aware of, 1) even the latest distros can be pared down so they can be efficeintly used on legacy hardware for applications which have reduced resource requirements, and 2) there are light weight linux distros out there which are capable of effectively running on legacy hardware.
Case in point. I can, and have, taken a 533MHz system with a Via Eden processor, 128MB of RAM, dual ethernet cards, and one wireless network card and install the latest Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Fedora Core and have the latest kernel, selinux ACL, iptables, apache, bind, dhcpd, openvpn, and nfs and then proceed to efficiently use the box as a small business web server, file server, firewalled router, wireless access point, caching nameserver, and LAN dhcp server. And the first step is to simply click on only the software packages you need on the box when going through the graphical install.
And the second case in point, as has been pointed out in several other posts I've read, a usable desktop can be made out of legacy hardware using something like knoppix, damn small linux, or any other distro that was designed to use limited resources.
They are really grabbing at straws in their linux lab at Microsoft to try and prove their misconceptions about linux.
burnin
slackware (Score:3, Informative)
From my experience slack is the easiest to put on an old box. Most current versions of Linux cann't seem to handle low res video during the install. I don't know about version 10.1 but 10 installs nicely on 200mhz pentium for use as a firewall.
Legacy machines don't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Credibility. (Score:3, Insightful)
In a scale of 1 to 10 I would say -1.
Honestly guys, keep the results to yourselves, and all the best for you. To publish them is a no win situation. If you say Windows is better in any measure it will be pointed out, rightly, that you are an interested party. If you find that Linux is better, well, I would like to see the day you plublish that. Most likely that will be quietly ignored.
So what is the frigging point exactly?
My own anecdote (Score:3, Informative)
To quote an old SCotUS Justice, "Common sense revolts at the idea."
I am running several domains on an old Toshiba laptop with a 233 PII and 96MB RAM. Specifically, I am running the most recent version of Ubuntu Linux (Ubuntu Server Edition 5.10). It handles 4 web domains, 5 mailing lists, dns, and a horde of other responsibilties.
My challenge to Microsoft? Do the same thing on the same hardware with their latest OS. I'm waiting.
For anyone curious about what is set up and how, you can see my how-to page on the topic of installing these services in Ubuntu on the laptop. [digitalelite.com].
Re:Window vs Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Window vs Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Window vs Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Window vs Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen both work wonderfully on a P-166 w/ 32MB Ram; MP3 playback, web browsing, video, whatever. Lots of popular OSS will run on either (especially BeOS) with little trouble, including Firefox (unofficial builds, I think, look at BeBits.com). If all you want to do is make an old machine productive, those are your best bets. I'm sure there are torrents out there for BeOS (can't buy it anymore, except maybe on Ebay), and I think you can
Re:Window vs Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear Hear!! Mod parent up. (Score:2)
Couldn't have said it better. Compare apples to apples [pardon the pun.]
Re:Window vs Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly spoken by someone who didn't live through it...
Re:Window vs Linux (Score:2)
So when was the last time Microsoft released a security patch for your OS? In my (admittedly small) world, the lack of patch support prohibits the use of any OS.
Re:Lets all get defensive and moan (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why, looking at the list, they picked the distros that they did. I'd be curious to know if they turned off all the extras that come turned on in most distros. It's not a fair comparison, for example, to install a stock Mandrake that comes with OpenOffice turned on when Windows doesn't ship with Office installed.
Re:Wow, great news.... (Score:2)
Re:Wow, great news.... (Score:2)
I run postfix/spamassassin, cvs, apache, and MySQL on a dual-266 with 256MB of memory. I actually upgraded the memory and put in new fans a while back because it was worth making a smaller investment upgrading an old piece of hardware than purchasing something new. I routinely scavange my friend's "throw away" Windows boxes and put them in my server farm.
Re:Wow, great news.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you realize how much the environment is choking on throw-away tech every year? I covered this very topic http://techn0manc3r.blogspot.com/2005/12/linux-and -environment.html [blogspot.com] with links. Yes, it's a huge deal. Count me in with the other who recycles old Windows boxes I find and gets year's further use out of them. More money to donate to FOSS, less waste to the environment.
By the way, when I worked for no less an enterprise than Citigroup incorporated, you couldn't walk two feet in the processing center without tripping over a 486. This was only two years ago.
Re:Wow, great news.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you realize how much the environment is choking on throw-away tech every year?
I've been volunteering at Free Geek in Portland. We get donated computers from individuals and companies, save what can be reused and recycle what can't. I haven't done anything on the recycle end yet myself (except reject newly received machines that will end up in the recycle area), but it looks like a huge job. There's a lot of toxic crap to dispose of.
Regarding the article, Free Geek sets PIII/500MHz as a minimum f
Re:Wow, great news.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Some Linux distributions... (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you install all of the extras? Did you disable the things you didn't want? Windows comes with a minimal set of tools, and no word processor, spread sheet, data base, etc. Most Linux distros cram every extra in existence onto your drive. While I detest this practice, and and only install what I need, Windows doesn't even give you the option.
In short, Linux is a kernel and drivers. Everything else is GNU, Apache, Mozilla, etc. The distros bundle that all together in different ways. Most people forget that fact most of the time, and it makes it easy for the unscrupulous and the incompetent to compare apples to oranges.
Re:Out of the box? (Score:2)
Re:Legacy hardware, Windows and Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
"'[Pentium II with a minimum 64MB RAM] corresponds to an average PC issued between 1998 and 1999,' Hilf said."
In 1998, the latest Slackware distro ran fine on my 386DX40 with 8MB of RAM, though X was a bit choppy. Conversely, the newly-released Win98 required a 486DX66 and 16MB RAM.
Hilf should have just gone all-out and said that many modern distros which come on DVD won't even install on older boxes because they lack DVD drives. It would have been just as valid.