Dell Selling Dual-Boot Laptops 289
rsmiller510 writes "The EE Times reports this week that Dell has released a hybrid laptop running both Linux and Windows clearly aimed at business travelers. Linux for quick tasks and Windows for more intensive ones, but will such a machine really fly in the business world?"
Will it fly? (Score:5, Insightful)
NO!
Rebooting is a chore. Once people start up, they don't want to shut down to start up another application. It's not what they are used to. On the other hand, if this were done as a VM where the Linux machine were to boot and they installed Windows XP in a VirtualBox or some other VM, then that might be acceptable. Then they would have their safer, virus-free environment for email and web browsing and then a VM to host the applications they need to run. This stuff works really well.
Re:Will it fly? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Will it fly? (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm, a Linux laptop would also fly if it were in Ballmer's presence and he ran out of chairs. . .
Re:Will it fly? (Score:5, Funny)
But, will it blend?
Re:Will it fly? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. And you can even suspend/hibernate/resume and both OSes will retain their state. This is what I did for my wife's laptop. She occasionally needs Windows for a few things (like loading/converting other people's Microsoft Publisher or Visio files), and it works great. Just make sure you buy lots of RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that many RAM makers have been spanked for price fixing, RAM is cheap again... nicely cheap. Lots of RAM ain't hard to come by unless you are using an older machine. Then again, 4GB RAM (the standard maximum for a lot of machines made in the past 5 years) is starting to feel rather cramped.
Re:Will it fly? (Score:5, Insightful)
That'll change. 64-bit OSes are now mainstream -- and even VMs are becoming mainstream -- so it's only a matter of time before chipset and mobo manufacturers push the limits of more and more of their consumer-grade commodity stuff beyond the previous '4GB barrier'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so it's only a matter of time before chipset and mobo manufacturers push the limits of more and more of their consumer-grade commodity stuff beyond the previous '4GB barrier'.
Yep, but for now multiple active VM's are a non-starter when Windows itself needs 4GB. The only way I can see it is if one had a very lightweight version of Linux that did nothing but host the VMs, and then a VM of Windows and a VM of Linux to alternate between.
Re:Will it fly? What do you mean win needs 4GB? (Score:2, Informative)
If Win 7 is any indication, win better NOT need more than 1GB. When SMART companies realize that Linux is running in under 1 GB with pretty decent response, and that Vista w/o any SP1 runs "so-so" to "ok" in VirtualBox, in a 2GB max system, then they should begin the next round of PUMMELING the hell out of ms.
For example, my laptop:
Gateway P-6301, 17-inch lappy with TWO HDD slots.
2GB RAM max, with 256 MB going to graphics
Mandriva Linux 2008.0, with use of under 300 MB... because
VBox i assigned 1.5 GB so win
Re:Will it fly? (Score:5, Informative)
The new 17inch Macbook Pro's have an 8gb limit [apple.com].
Dell XPS line of laptops also have an 8gb limit [dell.com].
It may take a while for that standard to trickle down to the lower end laptops, but the trend at least has started.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with "Dual-Hibernate" (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no idea how a "Dual-Suspend" would work if you mean "suspend-to-RAM"! How can you even start the other OS while one is in suspend? How do you tell each OS to only use a part of the memory?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would presume that he meant that he had Windows installed in a VM. That would not presumably have any more issues with S3 than any other program.
Re:Will it fly? (Score:4, Interesting)
What they should do - what I am sure someone will do at some point - is to make an "LPARable" PC/laptop after the same general principle as IBM's newest pSeries servers. The system would come with a VM hypervisor in NVRAM, as the "BIOS", and all other systems would run under that, concurrently.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Okay, I'm going to admit my ignorance in the hopes that someone else will learn. I've been a bit removed from Linux, so my question was going to be "Does Linux support the NTFS file system?" Because VMs running on FAT-based file systems suck. The last Linux-based OS I had used was Ubuntu 6.04 (Hardy Heron), which, to my knowledge didn't support NTFS.
Then, with 30 seconds of research, I came across NTFS-3G [wikipedia.org] implementation.
All of that to say, I agree with the Windows VM idea. But Dell had better set up the VM,
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you care if Linux had NTFS support if you're running windows in a VM?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you care if Linux had NTFS support if you're running windows in a VM?
It's helpful to be able to access the files on your virtual disk from your main OS. Being able to mount your virtual disk in GNU would be sweet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The host can use small(2GB) chunks and tell the guest that it is one big drive. The guest OS can then format that into NTFS or whatever and store large files.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, Linux supports NTFS. You've referenced the right module NTFS-3G.
Ubuntu has had this module included by default since version 7.10: gutsy gibbon. Prior to that, it had to be manually installed.
I run a windows XP / Ubuntu 7.10 dual boot setup at home & the NTFS support is great. Ubuntu can read and write to both windows & linux partitions flawlessly. All of your windows files are accessible in the linux mode. I think that there is a slight performance hit (10% or so) for using linux rather t
Re:Will it fly? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, Linux supports NTFS. You've referenced the right module NTFS-3G. Ubuntu has had this module included by default since version 7.10: gutsy gibbon. Prior to that, it had to be manually installed.
I run a windows XP / Ubuntu 7.10 dual boot setup at home & the NTFS support is great. Ubuntu can read and write to both windows & linux partitions flawlessly. All of your windows files are accessible in the linux mode. I think that there is a slight performance hit (10% or so) for using linux rather than windows to write to the ntfs partition.
The sole downside to that arrangement is that it does not provide any facility for fsck-type maintainance of the NTFS filesystem. The NTFS-3G userspace driver unfortunately does not come bundled with anything of the sort and I've had difficulty trying to find a standalone fsck.ntfs type of program. You can find good programs to read, write, and resize an NTFS filesystem but no Open Source software seems able to repair one. I'd love to find out I'm wrong about this. A friend of mine used a setup like this and eventually experienced a small amount of data loss after unexpected shutdowns (power failures) that were not immediately repaired like Windows would have done on bootup.
If anyone does know a reliable way to repair NTFS filesystems under Linux without actually running Windows, please let me know. Otherwise I'd recommend staying away from NTFS filesystems if at all possible or considering an alternative like FAT32 (as terrible as that may be). If you don't mind Windows having read-only access to your data, you may want to try the EXT2/3 driver for Windows as an alternative.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True, but it's unusable as the root file system.
And also unusable by apps that use 8+3 (SFN) links internally, like Microsoft Office.
Re:Will it fly? (Score:5, Informative)
ntfsfix is the equivalent fsck.ntfs
It comes in the package ntfsprogs.
Re:Will it fly? (Score:4, Informative)
ntfsfix is the equivalent fsck.ntfs
It comes in the package ntfsprogs.
I appreciate you pointing this out but I looked into it and unfortunately it looks like a partial solution.
From the output of "man ntfsfix":
Regretably, that does not make me feel very confident. Filesystem integrity is one of the few areas where I really must insist on a complete solution. I don't take that position because I want to but because it's dictated by necessity. Preventable data loss or even the possibility of such is simply not acceptable to me.
Just my personal opinion, I don't really consider trying to play catch-up with Microsoft's proprietary standards (or even when the standards are published, their proprietary implementations) to be a sound idea especially when truly open alternatives are readily available. I just feel like you're always going to have problems like this that you can never completely overcome because you're playing someone else's game. Considering the inherent difficulty of this task, the progress that Open Source has made is really quite amazing but I just don't consider this to be anything like an ideal solution.
Microsoft created NTFS, they own it, they can "upgrade" or change it on a whim, and they have no interest in anyone else being able to work with it. That's the nature of the situation and it's beyond our control. Therefore, to me, NTFS compatibility is very much like a dual-boot setup; it is to be avoided unless truly necessary.
Re:Will it fly? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the ARM side has access to the hard disk and wireless, I'll definitely be running it in ARM mode for 10x the battery life.
Will it fly? Sure It Will (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the virtualization bit. If this were 2002, or even 2005 I could see them thinking dual boot was the best way to go about putting Windows and Linux on the same box. Nowadays, though, using virtual machines is the clearly superior answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I didn't switch over to Linux until I had a computer that was purely Linux. I had a dual boot machine for a while, but simply never ended up using the Linux partition, except the first time it was installed. Rather than the dual boot helping me learn, it just sat there. The better learning experience was probably doing things for school on the command line over ssh (via putty).
I eventually simply had to make the plunge, and have been very happy with Linux since.
Why? (Score:2)
Any linux distro able to do that would take around as long to boot as windows (depending on startup aps) which eliminates the point of having this kind of setup. Then you'd have to deal with the added drain on resources running a VM on top of another OS would have, both in terms of CPU and ram usage and in terms of battery life.
Re:Will it fly? (Score:5, Interesting)
Summary is bad (as usual) (Score:5, Interesting)
The Linux install is actually running out of a little embedded ARM card, not the main system. Dell call it Latitude ON, and it's activated by a dedicated button near the power button.
Since suspending/hibernating (rather than sleeping) a Windows laptop usually means you got through much of the boot process anyway (where this thing can kick in), it *might* have some practical value.
Unfortunately I got my E4300 before Latitude ON was available, but I was under the impression that when it was finalised, I'd get the necessary upgrade for free.
Might have to give my Dell rep a call...
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I decided to give Vista (another) try and didn't mind doing menial tasks like surfing, coding, and email. I left my XP partition for gaming. However, I found myself just booting straight into XP because it seemed bothersome to go somewhere that gave me less functionality and endure a reboot just to game.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Rebooting is a chore. Once people start up, they don't want to shut down to start up another application. It's not what they are used to. On the other hand, if this were done as a VM where the Linux machine were to boot and they installed Windows XP in a VirtualBox or some other VM, then that might be acceptable. Then they would have their safer, virus-free environment for email and web browsing and then a VM to host the applications they need to run. This stuff works really well.
RTFA.
First, your average bu
Re: (Score:2)
That laptop wasn't really capable of good virtualization, but if you need both Windows and Linux, I'd say that's the way to go. If you need to access some lightweight program, pull it up in a VM. If you need dedicated resources (or dependable graphics acceleration), reboot. Configuring hardware profiles can be a bit of a pain, but if we're talking about selling computers with this out of the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Rebooting is a chore.
Yeah, have it crash randomly.
Re: (Score:2)
MAYBE
Assuming windows can learn to suspend to disk as well as Linux (a HUGE assumption), I think there could be a really good case for choosing which system you want to resume at boot-time.
From the consumer point of view, you get a screen at boot time that says "Browsing" and "Full Windows O/S", you pick browsing and you have your browser up in 3 seconds without a login. You pick the other alternative and windows thrashes for 30 seconds before it stabilizes. I could see uses for both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is new? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is new? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is different because the Linux install does not run on the relatively power-hungry x86 chip.
I could see this making sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I could see this making sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Once they innevitably complete botch their windows partition: I could imagine some people trying linux.
Re:I could see this making sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Wooo! Now That is a perspective that had not entered my mind! Suddenly Windows becomes "broken-slow" mode and Linux becomes "Reliable Backup" mode.
A Linux "spare tire" might well be a good way to prove its reliability to the average user/consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. After I had to reinstall windows for my friend for the third time (he has some innate talent to destroy his system) I put a small ubuntu partition on his drive so I could more easily retrieve his data from the borked windows partition.
Re: (Score:2)
"why do I want to boot into Linux when I have windows right here?"
Because Linux can boot from the end of POST to a fully loaded desktop in five seconds [slashdot.org]. Can even Windows 7 do this?
Good Idea but (Score:2, Insightful)
it won't work. People will boot to the 1st OS (as they don't want to select one and they will get annoyed if the 1st OS in the boot menu is not windows because they won't be able to leave the computer unattended to boot.
Sadly it's human nature to be lazy. The computer would need to select the correct OS by reading the user's thoughts before it would be viable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's exactly what it is. There are two power buttons. One boots Windows, the other boots Linux on a special ARM thingy.
Isn't this a dupe? Not just dual boot... (Score:4, Informative)
Hasn't this already been seen, a couple months ago when Dell announced it?
It's not just dual boot, the Linux boot is on a low power ARM CPU, so not only does it boot fast you should get significantly more battery life when running Linux.
Dupe? (Score:5, Informative)
It's not dual-booting really, you either run Linux on an ARM, or Windows on a Core2.
Link at end to the original EE article, rather than gushy blog.
Did we not cover this earlier this week?
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=3TF41VYEZTQY0QSNDLRSKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=213402554&printable=true&printable=true [eetimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So was last Tuesday in October then ?
Either I just lost 3 months of my life, or you posted the same link twice !
Disagree with summary (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>Linux for quick tasks and Windows for more intensive ones
This implies that Linux can't do intensive work, as if it's not a real OS. That's not true, is it? Besides the real benefit of abandoning Windows is you can lower your retail price by ~$100, since Linux is free. With this dual boot configuration there's no price savings.
Well whatever. Bottom line is: If I could buy a Windows Vista machine with a Linux at no additional charge, then sure I'd go for it. I enjoy free extras.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Retail price won't go down, may go up. Dell, et al, get $$ from application vendors for including trialware w/ icons on the desktop. AOL, McAffee, etc. all pay for "product placement". Ever wonder why a new in box machine has all sorts of icons, etc. on the desktop when a clean install of Windows doesn't?
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought it was because Dell hated me...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>AOL, McAffee, etc. all pay for "product placement".
So with Windows it cost around $100 to license from Microsoft, minus the dollars collected from AOL, et cetera paying to advertise their warez. Now with Linux it costs $0.00, minus the advertising dollars, which yields a net negative cost for the software. So overall a Linux PC should still be cheaper cost.
Who knows, with enough advertising maybe the PC could be free or almost-free, like those magazines I find in the grocery store.
Re: (Score:2)
$100 - $20 - $20 - $40 - $30 = -$10
If they crap up your computer enough, OP is right. And I quite suspect that is the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind, ignore that. I fail reading comprehension.
Anyway it's probably chicken-egg syndrome. You can't sell virus scanners for Linux (yet), so why advertise them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>use windows for gaming, Powerpoint, MS office.
Linux does all of that. Well maybe not the gaming, but you can substitute OpenOffice for your presentations, database, and word processing.
Re: (Score:2)
Did Cedega disappear since I last stopped caring about PC games when I bought a PS3?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed -- I spend most of many days in Photoshop and InDesign. I could run them in a VM, but I hate to use up processor or memory for that when I could get it all for my apps.
I kept a Mac and a PC for a while, but since I do a lot of web development there were some tools I was more comfortable with in Windows. So my daughter has the Mac now (still around for the two or three times a year I need it) and I have an old box behind me running Kubuntu. I hate to wait for reboots, so I find that just having discre
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Where intensive == booting windows and running Norton AV
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
It runs with two chips, one from ARM and one from Intel. The ARM chip, provides instant on booting and is much more power efficient, while the Intel chip provides the juice to run apps that require more computing power.
So Linux can do heavy lifting, but the ARM chipping running it can't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to keep reading...
The the different OS's run on different processors.
Linux, running on the power efficient ARM on a flash drive is for quick tasks.
Windows, running on the more power hungry yet more powerful cpu, is for more cpu intensive things.
The only thing it implies (to me) is that windows is less suited to small & quick applications.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>The only thing it implies (to me) is that windows is less suited to small & quick applications.
+1 insightful. I wonder which is faster, a small light OS on ARM processor, or a topheavy Vista OS on an Intel DualCore. I suspect it would be a tie.
Bassk askwards (Score:5, Funny)
Should read Linux for intensive tasks and Windows for Powerpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's correct. Since Windows is so bloated, all task on windows (including the calculator) are hugely CPU intensive. Whereas if you want to run "intensive" tasks like encoding video or real number crunching, linux is your best bet.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's correct. Since Windows is so bloated, all task on windows (including the calculator) are hugely CPU intensive. Whereas if you want to run "intensive" tasks like encoding video or real number crunching, linux is your best bet.
Except openoffice's calc is a lot slower than excel at the 10 minute (on excel, 20 minute on calc) simple simulations I had to run in grad school. And no, the Windows Calculator is incredibly resource light and feels literally instantly responsive, just like Notepad and a million other little Windows tools.
Just because you want it to be different doesn't make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of a single widely used "slow" calculator on Linux.
F11 [OT] (Score:2)
Bad for Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to be in technical marketing for a desktop Linux distro. People listen to the marketing message especially when it is negative. What does that mean? Well lets look at the implied marketing message that is given by this system:
ANY corporate non-techie is going to see that if they have to boot Windows to get their big tasks done they obviously don't want Linux on their main system.
Now let us think about the actual environment you get with each:
Seriously ... things like this are the WORST thing possible for getting the idea of Linux as a desktop replacement out to the mass market. They not only have to fight the current battles regarding custom apps not being written for them but they add artificial misperceptions about the limitations of Linux.
Sometimes no exposure -is- better than bad exposure. If you look only at the bullet points it is cool that a laptop is shipping Linux. And if you can keep your bosses from ever reading the parts about using Linux in a limited way (and NEVER let them touch one of these) then it would be good. But you can't. And you can't control the perception that Linux is limited once they start using it in a stunted environment like this.
Re: (Score:2)
It can also mean that Linux can do things that Windows cannot do, after all why putting Linux on a PC if you could do all of it with Windows ?
Maybe as you say, Microsoft has paid to have this gizmo produced to show Linux in bad light, it kind of make sense, but I would wait to see how things actually perform before killing it.
Anybody actually tryed it ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you can keep your bosses from ever reading the parts about using Linux in a limited way (and NEVER let them touch one of these) then it would be good. But you can't. And you can't control the perception that Linux is limited once they start using it in a stunted environment like this.
No doubt--it seems to me that most people rarely forget a bad experience with new things. Let them see Linux for their first time on this wacky machine, and they'll be telling their friends for the next 5 years that they "tried Linux and Windows on the same machine and Linux was slow as hell."
I suppose there's some awesome technical issue beyond my comprehension that would explain why I can't just run either OS on either processor. If anybody knows what it is, I'd love to hear about it.
Re: (Score:2)
1- windows only runs on x86 systems nowadays
2- the linux in question is a ROM-based, ARM version, so it won't run on an x86. You can still install another , x86 linux, like on any PC.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose there's some awesome technical issue beyond my comprehension that would explain why I can't just run either OS on either processor. If anybody knows what it is, I'd love to hear about it.
The fact that Windows won't run on the ARM processor?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a non-corporate techie and I don't have Linux on my main system. Once I decided that I had to have Windows directly on the metal at any time, I had to jettison Linux. Why? Because pretty much anything I can do in Linux, I can do in Windows, and this way I don't have to multi-boot. Sure, Linux does many things BETTER than Windows, and if I need to attack a device with dd or something, I'm not running dd.exe. I'm plugging into one of my Linux systems. But for day to day use Windows will do everything, and
Re: (Score:2)
you're kidding, I can't remember when I last needed to DD to read a device, unless you mean a floppy that Windows can't access ..
Obviously you don't do anything very interesting. When I want to make a backup of the 512MB IDE flash disk from inside my DT Research WebDT 360 to a plain image, I don't reach for Ghost. I mean, I could use some big complicated software package. Or I could just boot the system from a 4GB USB stick with Linux loaded on it, and then dd if=/dev/hda of=filename. Switch if and of and I can restore the backup. Want to really and truly erase the disk's labeling? Just dd /dev/zero over the first chunks of the disk.
Good for Linux (Score:2)
When Windows is hosed up from the latest virus/trojan/malware and Linux is the only thing that works...it will be good for Linux.
Yes, yes they will... (Score:2, Funny)
"but will such a machine really fly in the business world?"
Yes, yes they will along with the chairs as soon as Balmer gets his hands on them.
Easily enhanced (Score:5, Interesting)
Surely the obvious thing to do with this is to scrub Windows and install Linux on the other processor too. Then you can have low-power instant-on Linux for long battery life and quick tasks, then a fairly transparent transition to high power Linux when you want to do something requiring more grunt. It would be interesting to see whether you can have both running at the same time and communicating with each other.
Re:Easily enhanced (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting... share your home directory (diff partition) between the 2 oses, and you wouldn't even need to move settings around... Boot the ARM version for long battery life, boot the x86 side when you want lots of speed.
I Was A Dual-Booter (Score:2)
But now I run Ubuntu 8.0.4 in a VMWare server on top of Vista Home Edition (this all powered by an AMD-64 with 4GB RAM).
Works for my meager needs. I have access to the very few Windows-only apps I like (Quicken, iTunes) but I can use Linux for development and testing - at the same time. No more booting back and forth.
And with the NoMachine [nomachine.com] server and client, I can access the Linux desktop from the cube-farm.
Maybe not elegant, but it's cheaper than a Mac.
Linux is ready for business - Why use Windows? (Score:4, Interesting)
My Dell Latitude D820 is loaded up with Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex. My co-workers use Windows. Yesterday I got our department Sprint data card. They told me it would probably take me a bit to get it working on the laptop (because it took them a while to get the driver installed and setup to run). So I took the card and inserted it into the PCMCIA slot. In about 20 seconds (without my doing ANYTHING else) it was connected to Sprint's network and I was using it like the laptop was born to use it.
I use it for doing every task that I have to do for work. There are over ten thousand windows users here at work. We went through a big change from Groupwise to Exchange and Outlook. I use Evolution, and I get complete access to everything I need - scheduling, email, the works.
When people say that Linux is not ready for business use, they smoking somethin' that making them see the world in a false and distorted way. I'll never go back to Windows.
Oblig. (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our ariborne dual-booting overlords.
Funny (Score:2)
So delete the Windows partition and... (Score:2)
1. Nuke the Win partition.
2. Setup Linux to run on ARM when using batteries, x86 when plugged in. (Yeah yeah, a reboot may be required to switch modes.)
3. Watch as you have nice long battery life as well as good power when you need it.
4. Profit!
my laptop dual boots too (Score:2)
Now if only it ran the apps I (mostly) want on the plane.
- play music / watch video
- a pen-notepad I can doodle on and write notes
- a PDF reader to review presentations, spreadsheets and to read books.
- browse websites when that's allowed inflight.
Perhaps it would have a full-sized screen inside and a cut down screen and keyboard that could be accessed when it was closed. Or a flip around touchscreen with a virtual keyboard.
First done 25 years ago... (Score:3, Informative)
Is This Good For Linux, Or Harmful? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd usually applaud any OEM's decision to sell their kit with Linux installed, but I'm seriously questioning whether this particular implementation style is going to help Linux or not.
Why?
PHB's, that's why. Already articles like the one linked to are setting-up Linux as a "light duty OS" by saying things like:
The Linux OS provides a quick boot for checking email and other "light" computing duties while the Windows side allows "heavier duty" computing like running Microsoft Office applications.
Taken out of context that's a complete load of crap, but it's something Microsoft must be just loving to see.
You and I would understand that, in this case, it's because Linux is installed and running on an ARM-based subsystem with less memory and less bandwidth to play with, but PHB's will get this light-duty reference stuck in their heads. And this will be reinforced when they try to do something "difficult" with it, and it happens slowly or not at all, and they'll come away thinking "Linux is crap" when they really should be thinking "Windows is crap, why does it need so many resources?"
Why should I care? Because it's the PHB's, unfortunately, that sign the cheques to get new hardware and if they get the wrong ideas about Linux then Microsoft with their Windows and other software will continue to dominate the market.
Why couldn't Dell just quick boot into Linux and then run Windows apps under Wine, or even VM the whole Windows installation? :(
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I dual boot for one simple reason: The machine I bought had XP on it, it's a legal copy, and having it provides some level of compatibility with Windows only software for now. I don't use Windows, but keep that drive installed and updated should I ever need a Windows machine. I boot to Windows about twice a month just to upgrade and run anti-virus software and make sure it still works. Other than that it just sits there. It's cheaper and more resource respectful to use the dual boot option and leave Windows
Re:Honestly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Please re-read my post. I don't use Windows. I keep it running so I can use it if I have to for some compatibility reason or other. I give it 10 minutes of maintenance about twice a month... then go to bed while it runs the anti-virus etc. It would take much more than that to set up VM and fiddle with that every time I upgrade.. meh, I'll reboot if I ever have to use Windows for something, which is looking less and less likely thank you very much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)