All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Muzzy, why does Windows rule?
piratePenguin:
I've had Windows XP on this machine and it was aload of shite. Slackware runs like a dream on it, as has Mandrake (now Mandrivia), SuSE (which I hate), and a few other distros. I haven't used Fedora, but from what I hear, it's deadly.
You shouldn't have to recompile the kernel in Fedora (I would assume) to make it run fast. Your setup could have had numerous services loaded that _you_ mightn't need. They're not hard to stop. Same in Windows, but I (used to) always disable stuff I don't use in it.
I would doubt that Fedora is more bloated than Windows, XP especially.
BTW, did you try using the manufacturer (graphics card, mainly) drivers in Fedora? I know they make a huge difference in Windows (Windows was always barely usable before I installed graphics card drivers etc.), maybe not so much in GNU/Linux (I don't even use nvidias drivers, 'cause they're not free software), but if you don't mind giving up the freedom that you obviously don't value-
EDIT: Fedora isn't exactly a distro for not-so-modern computers. Why are we even having this conversation?
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I've had Windows XP on this machine and it was aload of shite. Slackware runs like a dream on it, as has Mandrake (now Mandrivia), SuSE (which I hate), and a few other distros. I haven't used Fedora, but from what I hear, it's deadly.
You shouldn't have to recompile the kernel in Fedora (I would assume) to make it run fast. Your setup could have had numerous services loaded that _you_ mightn't need. They're not hard to stop. Same in Windows, but I (used to) always disable stuff I don't use in it.
--- End quote ---
Your personal experiance vs mine - it's not worth argueing about don't you think?
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I would doubt that Fedora is more bloated than Windows, XP especially.
--- End quote ---
Well Fedora's default configuretion requireing more resources than Windows XP would suggest this.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---BTW, did you try using the manufacturer (graphics card, mainly) drivers in Fedora? I know they make a huge difference in Windows (Windows was always barely usable before I installed graphics card drivers etc.), maybe not so much in GNU/Linux (I don't even use nvidias drivers, 'cause they're not free software), but if you don't mind giving up the freedom that you obviously don't value-
--- End quote ---
I did have a graphics card driver problem that caused the graphics to be slow. I'm reffering to boot time and how long it takes to launch big programs like OpenOffice and even how long it takes to copy a damn flopy disk. Windows XP beat Fedora hands down for all of these tasks, Vector Linux has been the fastest though.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---EDIT: Fedora isn't exactly a distro for not-so-modern computers.
--- End quote ---
1800MHz, 256MB RAM isn't that old.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---Why are we even having this conversation?
--- End quote ---
You tell me.
My point is that I've found if you want to get a fast stable operating system to run on your PC without fucking, a light Linux distrobution is the best way to go personally I'd stear clear of Fedora, Mandrake, Linspire ect. in my opinion even Windows XP would be a better choice. But I accept your opinion is different lets agree to dissagree.
piratePenguin:
If Fedora is slow, bloated, and unstable, you can't make the assumption that all GNU/Linux distributions are slow, bloated, and unstable. There are hundreds of GNU/Linux distros out there. I haven't used any that are slow, bloated, and unstable. Then again I haven't used Fedora.
So why bother comparing Windows with Fedora? If Windows beats Fedora, does that mean Windows is better than GNU/Linux? It can't.
Just like if I compared my current system to a friends unstable Windows system, it's not fair to say that GNU/Linux is better than Windows.
I haven't ever used a "stable" Windows system. Even in school, we use Windows 2000 and it ocassionally goes into "slugish" mode (you know what I'm talking about!), taking ages to load up applications, clicking on "start" and nothing happens... Then, CRASH! Hold down the power button, and if that doesn't work pull the plug from the back.
That's why I formed the conclusion that Windows is rarely stable! Isn't that perfectly fair? I think it is.
You've used Fedora, one of the many GNU/Linux distros, and you found it unstable. Obviously it's fair for you to say Fedora is unstable, you CANNOT say GNU/Linux is unstable (for I would eat you alive).
You've also used Vector Linux, which you say is very stable (does it beat your Windows system?). Now, your more-educated conclusion can be "some GNU/Linux distros are stable, and some are unstable". And I'd agree with ya (wasn't that part of my part-of-the-conclusion above (when I asked who'd agree with the statement...)?).
I've already said some Windows systems are stable (which I do find hard to believe, but I have to believe it).
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---If Fedora is slow, bloated, and unstable, you can't make the assumption that all GNU/Linux distributions are slow, bloated, and unstable. There are hundreds of GNU/Linux distros out there. I haven't used any that are slow, bloated, and unstable. Then again I haven't used Fedora.
--- End quote ---
I didn't say all Linux distros are slow and bloated, Vector Linux isn't Knoppix isn't and neither is slackware, and I'm sure there're lots of good distros out there.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---So why bother comparing Windows with Fedora? If Windows beats Fedora, does that mean Windows is better than GNU/Linux? It can't.
Just like if I compared my current system to a friends unstable Windows system, it's not fair to say that GNU/Linux is better than Windows.
I haven't ever used a "stable" Windows system. Even in school, we use Windows 2000 and it ocassionally goes into "slugish" mode (you know what I'm talking about!), taking ages to load up applications, clicking on "start" and nothing happens... Then, CRASH! Hold down the power button, and if that doesn't work pull the plug from the back.
That's why I formed the conclusion that Windows is rarely stable! Isn't that perfectly fair? I think it is.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---You've used Fedora, one of the many GNU/Linux distros, and you found it unstable. Obviously it's fair for you to say Fedora is unstable, you CANNOT say GNU/Linux is unstable (for I would eat you alive).
--- End quote ---
I've never said that GNU/Linux is unstable, just because I slag off one Linux distrobution it doesn't mean I don't like Linux.
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---You've also used Vector Linux, which you say is very stable (does it beat your Windows system?). Now, your more-educated conclusion can be "some GNU/Linux distros are stable, and some are unstable". And I'd agree with ya (wasn't that part of my part-of-the-conclusion above (when I asked who'd agree with the statement...)?).
--- End quote ---
This was my arguement all a long, and I'm sure you could make Fedora run well if I can make Windows XP run well then I'm sure you could get Fedora to work well. I was reffering to the default configureations for both OS's
--- Quote from: piratePenguin ---I've already said some Windows systems are stable (which I do find hard to believe, but I have to believe it).
--- End quote ---
If Windows was really that bad do you seriously think it would be still popular? If it went down every day and lost people's work costing companies millions of pounds a year people just wouldn't put up with it. Even Windows 95 was very unstable but with just a little work it could be made more stable.
--- End quote ---
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: aloone_jonez ---Vector Linux uses up very little recources compared to the modern full bloat distros like Mandrake, Linspire and Fedora etc. Knoppix is also a good example of a light distro.
--- End quote ---
That comment could've passed by me only that you had to mention Mandrake (which is now called Mandriva btw).
Mandrake 10.0 was the first GNU/Linux distro I installed, and if it was any more bloat than Windows, I might not be here (on the microsuck forums that is). Explain, how in the hell is Mandriva, of all GNU/Linux distros "full bloat"?
Bear in mind that the first GNU/Linux distro I used was MandrakeMove (Mandrakes livecd). And that was on my old piece of shit (128mb ram, 233mhz cpu) PC that ran (and struggled with) Windows 98 (I remember I tried to install Windows XP on that system. Didn't even install (I think it was my CD-ROM drive, too slow). I consider myself damn lucky that it didn't install.).
Guess what? With the MandrakeMove CD in the drive, suddenly my system was MORE usable!
I got my brother to download Mandrake 10.0 (I'm on dialup), which ran too well on my piece of shit PC, and when I eventually got round to building a new one... Phew.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version