Linux Distributions

[Ringel05]

Please post in English, not Turkish.

That's not Turkish. Don't you recognize Geekish when you see it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Didn't say it won't run fine but if you're used to speed, like I am, it's much better with a duo core and 2 gigs of RAM, super fast, much faster then Windows. Hell It's on my "test" system, Dell 4550, (IDE) Pentium 4, 1 gig of RAM and a half a gig NVidia graphics card but it doesn't run nearly as well as the dual boot I have on my primary AMD Phenom II x2 (SATA 2) with 8 gigs of RAM and a one gig NVidia card..... obviously.
The lightweight distros run as fast on the Dell as Mint 12 does on my primary home built.
I also have a switch out hard drive with Win 7 on it that I run on the Dell, both it and the Mint 12 distro run at about the same speed.
Again notice I stipulated "super fast speed".

I've noticed that with Linux in general, there is a diminishing return curve. Most of the distros will run on machines I wouldn't imaging putting Windows on. (Such as the Netbook.) BUT when you get into the top hardware, a 2600K with 8+ gigs of RAM, the Linux distros don't run any faster than Win-7. Microsoft completely distorts what the minimum requirements are - once you meet those, then the playing field is leveled.

I like Windows 7, a whole lot, but you have to throw a LOT of hardware at it for it to run well.

 

[Ringel05]

Didn't say it won't run fine but if you're used to speed, like I am, it's much better with a duo core and 2 gigs of RAM, super fast, much faster then Windows. Hell It's on my "test" system, Dell 4550, (IDE) Pentium 4, 1 gig of RAM and a half a gig NVidia graphics card but it doesn't run nearly as well as the dual boot I have on my primary AMD Phenom II x2 (SATA 2) with 8 gigs of RAM and a one gig NVidia card..... obviously.
The lightweight distros run as fast on the Dell as Mint 12 does on my primary home built.
I also have a switch out hard drive with Win 7 on it that I run on the Dell, both it and the Mint 12 distro run at about the same speed.
Again notice I stipulated "super fast speed".

I've noticed that with Linux in general, there is a diminishing return curve. Most of the distros will run on machines I wouldn't imaging putting Windows on. (Such as the Netbook.) BUT when you get into the top hardware, a 2600K with 8+ gigs of RAM, the Linux distros don't run any faster than Win-7. Microsoft completely distorts what the minimum requirements are - once you meet those, then the playing field is leveled.

I like Windows 7, a whole lot, but you have to throw a LOT of hardware at it for it to run well.

My primary is fast with Win 7 on it (yeah, I don't have an issue with Win 7 either other then I think it's too expensive for what you get) but the dual booted Mint 12 runs like lightning on it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My primary is fast with Win 7 on it (yeah, I don't have an issue with Win 7 either other then I think it's too expensive for what you get) but the dual booted Mint 12 runs like lightning on it.

On my home machine, an I7 2600K overclocked to 4.6, I have it set to duel boot to either Kubuntu or Windows 7, 64 bit. I really don't see an advantage with either of them. They both respond instantly to any command. The Kubuntu is 32 bit, as the 64 never ran stable, so it runs out of memory on some Wine Apps (games.) You're right about cost, but MSDN means I never pay, so I don't pay a lot of attention to the cost.

 

[Ringel05]

My primary is fast with Win 7 on it (yeah, I don't have an issue with Win 7 either other then I think it's too expensive for what you get) but the dual booted Mint 12 runs like lightning on it.

On my home machine, an I7 2600K overclocked to 4.6, I have it set to duel boot to either Kubuntu or Windows 7, 64 bit. I really don't see an advantage with either of them. They both respond instantly to any command. The Kubuntu is 32 bit, as the 64 never ran stable, so it runs out of memory on some Wine Apps (games.) You're right about cost, but MSDN means I never pay, so I don't pay a lot of attention to the cost.

Well my 2 core can't compete with your i7 so I have no basis for speed comparisons as far as that's concerned.
My next build will most likely use AMDs new Fusion LLano processor which has better graphics technology and reduced energy usage then Intels i chips at about half the cost. Bulldozer looks really good if you're running servers but it's only marginal in the PC arena due to software application limitations. They've gotten better at multi-threading multiple cores which is great for servers but most PC applications only use single threading one at a time which is why Intel uses the Sandy Bridge and soon to be released Ivy Bridge which gives it a slight edge in the PC processor market.

 

[Ringel05]

For anyone who's interested here's a video of the Linux Mint 12 operating system
(With Gnome shell)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU_VCWpfrsw]Linux Mint 12 Lisa - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ringle;

What do you think of Unity?

Also, what do you think of the benchmarks showing Windows 7 outperforming Ubuntu 11? (Overall, the results were mixed on a test by test basis.)

Ubuntu 11.10 Review: Benchmarked Against Windows 7 : Ubuntu 11.10 'Oneiric Ocelot', Reviewed

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Ringle;

What do you think of Unity?

Also, what do you think of the benchmarks showing Windows 7 outperforming Ubuntu 11? (Overall, the results were mixed on a test by test basis.)

Ubuntu 11.10 Review: Benchmarked Against Windows 7 : Ubuntu 11.10 'Oneiric Ocelot', Reviewed

Ahh...but there is a little piece of information not listed here.
Ubuntu will run that fast on a system with half that memory...try Win7 on a machine with 1 GB ram.
I have no doubt Win7 is equally fast on a blazing system like this guy has - 8 GB of RAM???? Again do the test on a machine with 2 GB of RAM.


Edit: I am running Ubuntu Lucid....I have 1GB RAM and my startup is between 25-30 seconds....but then I have a lot of stuff installed.
Edit II: I can port 1080i HD video to a widescreen TV at the same time the video is still playing on the monitor as well...without the slightest chatter or flicker in the playback.
Again - try that with Win7 with 1GB RAM.

 

[Ringel05]

Ringle;

What do you think of Unity?

Also, what do you think of the benchmarks showing Windows 7 outperforming Ubuntu 11? (Overall, the results were mixed on a test by test basis.)

Ubuntu 11.10 Review: Benchmarked Against Windows 7 : Ubuntu 11.10 'Oneiric Ocelot', Reviewed

Personally I hated Unity, it's what made me switch over to Mint (which I had tried before). It took me a little bit to get used to Gnome shell but now I prefer it to Gnome classic. Who knows, I may give Unity another try when it matures a little more.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Personally I hated Unity, it's what made me switch over to Mint (which I had tried before). It took me a little bit to get used to Gnome shell but now I prefer it to Gnome classic. Who knows, I may give Unity another try when it matures a little more.

Apparently that's a common position.

I put Mint as the second boot on the Alienware - but I might play with the new Ubuntu to see if I can learn to like Unity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ahh...but there is a little piece of information not listed here.
Ubuntu will run that fast on a system with half that memory...try Win7 on a machine with 1 GB ram.
I have no doubt Win7 is equally fast on a blazing system like this guy has - 8 GB of RAM???? Again do the test on a machine with 2 GB of RAM.

No question about it. On lower end machines, Linux is the way to go.

Edit: I am running Ubuntu Lucid....I have 1GB RAM and my startup is between 25-30 seconds....but then I have a lot of stuff installed.
Edit II: I can port 1080i HD video to a widescreen TV at the same time the video is still playing on the monitor as well...without the slightest chatter or flicker in the playback.
Again - try that with Win7 with 1GB RAM.

For Win7, I want 64 bit and at least 6GB of DDR3.

 

[Ringel05]

Personally I hated Unity, it's what made me switch over to Mint (which I had tried before). It took me a little bit to get used to Gnome shell but now I prefer it to Gnome classic. Who knows, I may give Unity another try when it matures a little more.

Apparently that's a common position.

I put Mint as the second boot on the Alienware - but I might play with the new Ubuntu to see if I can learn to like Unity.

My first Linux distro was Ubuntu so it was always more of a sentimental preference until they made Unity the only interface. I know you can choose now between Uinity and classic but I prefer Mint now over Ubuntu.

 

[Ringel05]

Here's the Ubuntu 11.10 with the Unity interface.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XPyUMLg2hY]Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot (w/ Unity 3D) - Final Version - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Ringel05]

I decided to give Ubuntu another shot, an honest assessment, and in the meantime made a discovery. Canonical, the Ubuntu developers developed the Unity interface with the idea of moving into the small format arena, phones and tablet touch screens. We, their unwitting users were their beta testers.
For those who like more customization capabilities the Unity interface, (desktop to you non-geeks), takes most of your options away though now you can run Ubuntu classic or the Gnome Shell interfaces by selecting which one you want at log in and get much of those customization features back.
While I found the Unity interface much more stable then the first release and realized there were elements I liked, including being able to hide the Unity bar, I found it somewhat restrictive for my needs. New users, specifically those migrating from Windows will find it much easier to learn then the old classic simply because most of the work is done for you.
Ubuntu also has it's version of the Gnome Shell interface but again here I find Mint 12s Shell interface to be cleaner, more polished and more customizable because it can utilize many, if not all of Ubuntu's positive features while being saddled with none of it's negatives, after all it is built on Ubuntu.
Essentially non-geek types, especially younger users who are all to familiar with small format interfaces will find Ubuntu almost familiar (particularly if you're coming from a Mac environment) and very easy to use.
Still if you prefer more customization ability and are not particularly familiar with Linux operating systems I still say you can't beat Linux Mint.

 

[Ringel05]

Also found a cool app, a CCleaner for Linux called BleachBit.

Just open Terminal and type (or cut and past from here):

sudo apt-get install bleachbit

It will install in "System Tools".

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hi Ringel,

I downloaded 11.10 last week and it seems to be a corrupted distro, it won't install on any of the three machines I've tried it on. This was from the main Ubuntu site. I'm going to try a different download site and see if it works better.

Just a heads up.

 

[Ringel05]

Hi Ringel,

I downloaded 11.10 last week and it seems to be a corrupted distro, it won't install on any of the three machines I've tried it on. This was from the main Ubuntu site. I'm going to try a different download site and see if it works better.

Just a heads up.

That's weird, I have yet to have a corrupted download from any of the distros I've tried. Check your ISO burning software, the problem might be there.
BTW What burning software are you using?

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's weird, I have yet to have a corrupted download from any of the distros I've tried. Check your ISO burning software, the problem might be there.
BTW What burning software are you using?

Good point. I used Roxio on the new Alienware - first time I've used it.

I first thought that it just didn't understand my Raid 0 on the Alien. Then I tried my work desktop with a single SSD for a boot drive. Then I made a VM and tried that. All reacted the same, Linux boots but the shell fails to load. And I can't get root access from the command prompt.

Update: No go, I mounted the ISO as a drive for the VM, same reaction.

 

[Ringel05]

That's weird, I have yet to have a corrupted download from any of the distros I've tried. Check your ISO burning software, the problem might be there.
BTW What burning software are you using?

Good point. I used Roxio on the new Alienware - first time I've used it.

I first thought that it just didn't understand my Raid 0 on the Alien. Then I tried my work desktop with a single SSD for a boot drive. Then I made a VM and tried that. All reacted the same, Linux boots but the shell fails to load. And I can't get root access from the command prompt.

Update: No go, I mounted the ISO as a drive for the VM, same reaction.

I hate Roxio......
I use Ashampoo Burning Studio 6 and have never had an issue buring an ISO. I'm assuming you are telling Roxio to burn a bootable ISO, right?
(With the Ashampoo, yes, I made sure I unselected the search engine option during the install.......)

 

[Uncensored2008]

I hate Roxio......
I use Ashampoo Burning Studio 6 and have never had an issue buring an ISO. I'm assuming you are telling Roxio to burn a bootable ISO, right?
(With the Ashampoo, yes, I made sure I unselected the search engine option during the install.......)

It's not Roxio.

With VMWare, you have the option to mount an ISO as a DVD drive and boot off it. I tried that and got the same reaction.

I just need to redownload from another site.