Nvidea !!!

[Uncensored2008]

Haven't had any problems with boot speeds, really... but then I only use Windows when I want to watch Netflix in my office. My box takes longer to POST...

The BIOS I have prevents me from booting from the USB port - a minor inconvenience, it would be nice to have a few linux distros preloaded

One thing an SSD won't do is increase post time.

I noted elsewhere in this forum that Windows 7 boots in about a third the amount of time Ubuntu takes - but this is after post completes and I get to the boot menu. Post takes far longer than booting either OS does.

Are you a fan of Unity?

 

[oldernwiser]

In my experience, Ubuntu and Vista are only equal if Vista has just been loaded and hasn't had a chance to get bogged down with too many apps. One of the biggest problems is that a lot of programmers still use TSR technology to keep their apps ready at a keypress - and that really puts a strain on the time slicer.

I actually tried to like Unity. But I found that it was too cumbersome and not at all intuitive to use. It also got in the way of my workflow to the point that I stopped upgrading at 10.11. The 11.04 release is where they ended the "Classic" option. UbuntuStudio, which is the distro I use, slid over to XFCE with the release of 11.04 - I might follow suit one of these days.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In my experience, Ubuntu and Vista are only equal if Vista has just been loaded and hasn't had a chance to get bogged down with too many apps. One of the biggest problems is that a lot of programmers still use TSR technology to keep their apps ready at a keypress - and that really puts a strain on the time slicer.

I actually tried to like Unity. But I found that it was too cumbersome and not at all intuitive to use. It also got in the way of my workflow to the point that I stopped upgrading at 10.11. The 11.04 release is where they ended the "Classic" option. UbuntuStudio, which is the distro I use, slid over to XFCE with the release of 11.04 - I might follow suit one of these days.

Vista booted slower than Windows 7 - but ran faster due to a better implementation of Superfetch. Part of the boot time of Vista was pre-caching applications that were commonly used. Unfortunately, the FUD from Apple caused Microsoft to scale back Superfetch significantly. Sure, I have a 17 second boot, but applications load slower than in Vista.

Bear in mind that the Longhorn kernel, that both Vista and Windows 7 (as well as 8 and Server 2008R2) uses is not natively a time slicer. With multicore architecture this is full mufti-threading SMP. On an hyperthreaded 8 core system, such as an I7 or Xeon, there is very little chance that a thread would be unable to find an available core and relegated to time slicing. Even the OSX Lion is using a similar technique, as much of the technology belongs to Intel, and not Microsoft. Linux doesn't have access to core architecture features and lags behind significantly on multithreading. This gives both Apple and Microsoft a significant advantage on Core processors.

The issue with Ubuntu 12.04 is two fold. First, Windows 7 is bloody fast, secondly, Unity isn't. Grub loads fast enough, but the Unity shell takes another full minute after grub is loaded.

Ultimately the weak multithreading on Ubuntu isn't really a big deal, as I am rarely running very much. Maybe an RDP session and a browser. Since application support for most of what I use is simply not there (Wine sucks) I mostly just fart around and then return to Windows when I need to do real work. In my line of work, I live inside of SQL 08R2, Visual Studio, Exchange 2010, Sharepoint and Advanced Reporting. Linux isn't able to run any of these.

When I used XP, I spent about 60% of my time in Linux, with Windows 7 it's down to about 5% - I like to play around, but Windows 7 is simply a superior OS.

 

[oldernwiser]

In my experience, Ubuntu and Vista are only equal if Vista has just been loaded and hasn't had a chance to get bogged down with too many apps. One of the biggest problems is that a lot of programmers still use TSR technology to keep their apps ready at a keypress - and that really puts a strain on the time slicer.


Bear in mind that the Longhorn kernel, that both Vista and Windows 7 (as well as 8 and Server 2008R2) uses is not natively a time slicer. With multicore architecture this is full mufti-threading SMP. On an hyperthreaded 8 core system, such as an I7 or Xeon, there is very little chance that a thread would be unable to find an available core and relegated to time slicing. Even the OSX Lion is using a similar technique, as much of the technology belongs to Intel, and not Microsoft. Linux doesn't have access to core architecture features and lags behind significantly on multithreading. This gives both Apple and Microsoft a significant advantage on Core processors.

What leads you to this? I run a quad core with the multi-threaded kernel build which supported multiple core architectures. I have great response.

The issue with Ubuntu 12.04 is two fold. First, Windows 7 is bloody fast, secondly, Unity isn't. Grub loads fast enough, but the Unity shell takes another full minute after grub is loaded.

Which is yet another good reason not to follow that upgrade path.

Ultimately the weak multithreading on Ubuntu isn't really a big deal, as I am rarely running very much. Maybe an RDP session and a browser. Since application support for most of what I use is simply not there (Wine sucks) I mostly just fart around and then return to Windows when I need to do real work. In my line of work, I live inside of SQL 08R2, Visual Studio, Exchange 2010, Sharepoint and Advanced Reporting. Linux isn't able to run any of these.

When I used XP, I spent about 60% of my time in Linux, with Windows 7 it's down to about 5% - I like to play around, but Windows 7 is simply a superior OS.

To begin with, I never had much need for SQL beyond what's required for some web servers - MySql works just fine for that. Depending on what you're coding, CodeBlocks or any other IDE works fine for me - true you don't get the automatic windoze support, but I live in linux-land now and don't have any real need to support Win apps.

At any point in time, my system is likely to have a browser or 2 open, an IDE open along with a few terminals, Blender which may even include animated rendering depending on the chore (also maybe a Python editor too), all while running a background Apache server. The only time I really see any performance issues is with rendering software - but that's to be expected with compute-bound jobs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What leads you to this? I run a quad core with the multi-threaded kernel build which supported multiple core architectures. I have great response.

It's not so much a mater of response as one of technology. Intel has refused to allow the Linux community to access hyperthreading technology because the Linux core is open source and the technology must be covered in SLA's. That means that Linux physically cannot acheive the levels of performance on Intel Core hardware that MS and Apple have. Further, there are exceptions to this; Novel signed an NDA and SLA with Intel and DOES include hyperthreading in SUSE, but this is not an open source system, even though it is Linux based.

Which is yet another good reason not to follow that upgrade path.

Perhaps, but the performance is phenomenal.

To begin with, I never had much need for SQL beyond what's required for some web servers - MySql works just fine for that. Depending on what you're coding, CodeBlocks or any other IDE works fine for me - true you don't get the automatic windoze support, but I live in linux-land now and don't have any real need to support Win apps.

Yep. I run the IT for a corporation that uses an ERP with embedded CRM and tons of back-office apps. As a result, I need a professional SQL engine. I could use DB2, Oracle, or SQL Server. On smaller hardware, the performance of SQL server is magnitudes better than Oracle, which is tuned more for large farm implementations. Oracle runs beautifully on 5 dozens racks of IBM Blades on Suse, but I don't run 40 million dollar systems so it isn't in my range.

At any point in time, my system is likely to have a browser or 2 open, an IDE open along with a few terminals, Blender which may even include animated rendering depending on the chore (also maybe a Python editor too), all while running a background Apache server. The only time I really see any performance issues is with rendering software - but that's to be expected with compute-bound jobs.

What OS to use is highly dependent on what you're doing. Where I question things is in that there are many things Ubuntu or Mint do just as well as Windows, but I can't think of anything Linux does better. I have never been in Windows and needed to reboot to run an application in Linux. The reverse is constant, though. Every time I use Linux, I'll end up rebooting to run a Windows application. Plus I like to game, and that just isn't there with Linux.