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.'"
Just as I suspected (Score:3, Informative)
*yawn*. Same old MS crap.
Re:Come back (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Come back (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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
Re:Come back (Score:1, Informative)
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 to do anything useful at all was 512MB, and that was a little slow when we were doing things like static code reviews. The general opinion we came to was that for the computer to be fast enough to use effectively, you'd need more like a gigabyte of RAM. 512 would work, but a gig was better.
We had another machine running Windows 2000, doing about the same things, That one would run ok on 512MB of ram, given all the tools we were using. Anything less than that crawled like molasses.
So, if you want to talk about actually DOING something, well, the memory requirements are a teensy bit more stringent.
Re:Come back (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Window vs Linux (Score:2, Informative)
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 variant on everything from Network switches to Cable Boxes.
I guess your post was funny at least. Maybe not toasters, but watches and smartphones are enough off the norm to get a nod.
Re:Come back (Score:5, Informative)
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
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:Microsoft is confused, maybe deliberately (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think Microsoft's Alpha effort compares very favorably to the Unix and Linux offerings of the same period, both of which had made a complete transition to the platform. I ran Linux on Alpha for many years, and all my applications ran natively at full speed; no emulation software or hardware required.
Re:Window vs Linux (Score:3, Informative)
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.
WinXP o Pentium II (Score:1, Informative)
This machine running windows 98 feels faster than a brand-new box on XP. Of course windows 98 is useless now-a-days. Ubuntu Linux works as installed by default as fast as win98. I wouldn't really recommend Windows on legacy sytems.
PR stunt key: be reasonable (Score:2, Informative)
We've all seen these skewed comparisons before. The technical bits tick me off, because everybody knows that with a half hour at distrowatch and an hour or two of googling you could find a version of Linux that would make for a valid comparison.
The thing I find interesting is the PR side (I guess I would, that's my field). In PR you learn that one key to winning public opinion is to appear to be reasonable. The American public (can't speak to any others, even though I live in Germany at the moment) will give you the benefit of the doubt if you appear reasonable.
MS did that. They loaded up the most popular versions of Linux, they used the default installations (hey, it's what the Linux guys recommend!), they let the chips fall where they may. A couple of things helped them, of course. They have Linux guys (or former Linux guys) working in the lab that did it. People will assume those guys would, if not put up a fuss about an unfair comparison, at least make sure Linux was installed as well as Windows was. Second, they traded on the computer user psychology they themselves have mostly set up -- use what comes on your machine, or what comes in the shrinkwrap. Go with the default on everything, because it's too damn complicated to figure out all this tech stuff. We know what's best for you (and it ain't choice).
And, as somebody noted, they alluded to the "we've got to help our little brown brothers" school of thought by talking about the poor devils just trying to get by with older hardware and limited knowledge, completly ignoring ingenuity, necessity being the mother of invention, etc.
All very slick, all very reasonable sounding to those who don't know the details and aren't inclined, or don't have the time, to find out more or think it through.
Unfortunately, people fall for this stuff all the time. How often should you change the oil in your car? Every 3,000 miles or three months. Who says so? Why, the guys who sell oil changes, of course. You see it again and again. MS is just playing the game. Open source is a different game. The question is, can is stay on the court with the big boys playing the usual game. Looks promising now, but (as we used to say in the Army) every day's an adventure.
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.
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 and they'd be twice as productive.
Let's be fair (Score:2, Informative)
But let's be real fair here: most people don't do a clean install of Windows; they take whatever was installed on the machine by their favorite OEM that they ordered the machine from.
I recently worked on a Dell machine for another client: a P4 2.8 GHz Celeron with 256M RAM (upgraded to 512 M RAM after complaints to tech support about performance). The thing was a dog! It ran slower than the PII-433 system mentioned above. There were two big culprits:
1. all the "crapware" that Dell installs as a matter of course on every machine they ship (I classify a lot of it as spyware - it constantly uses the Internet when connected to report back to Dell, pop-up ads about latest offerings from Dell, etc, etc).
2. Norton Internet Security package that Dell now seems to install on any machine they shup. This stuff is an absolute pig that seems able to bring the fastest system to its knees. It includes a built-in software firewall that was so stringent that my client could not even connect to AOL thru their 800 number to establish what local numbers were available without disabling the firewall. It even managed to slow down his Internet connection which was only a 28.8 dialup (he could only manage 28.8 because of noisy phone lines). How can you possibly slow down a 28.8 dialup connection?
I managed to get the system to run effectively by doing a complete clean reinstall of XP from a standard Windows XP install disk and then installing only Norton AV 2002 and using XP's builtin firewall. The system was easily 10X faster at the screen and mouse. A coupla weeks later I got a call from the same client complaining about slow performance again. When I got to his location, all of the offending software was back in place! It seems that the very first thing Dell tech support does is force the customer to use the included restore CD to reinstall the factory configuration. They won't even answer questions about the system if it has any configuration except theirs!
Maybe Microsoft is not the (only) one forcing the need for ridiculous amounts of computing power on the desktop. I see much more drive for this from OEM manufacturers who see their systems not as a tool for their customers to use, but as an opportunity to continuously sell more crap to their customers.
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].