Linux vs Windows.....

[Excessum]

Originally Posted by noodle

You can tweek vista to make it faster than XP could ever be... Vista has some serious power when you allocate a limited amount of memory to all the crap that's running in the background.

Tell it to the average end user lol. But you will have to give me some solid proof for me to believe that Vista runs 32bit apps better than XP.

Originally Posted by noodle

Also, at work, I'm actually testing a computer I built for some Video/Graphics guru's. dual core Xeon processor, 16gb Ram, SAS drives etc. On 32bit Xp, it was terrible. The ram, as you know, won't go past 3gb. I set up an array to have two SAS drives work together to become one which makes things faster, but 32bit XP doesn't see much difference...
Then come the 64bit xp... For this, XP runs amazingly well. But has disgusting issues running a lot of programs. In fact, the majority of programs install, but have like a backward compatibility thing where they install and run as 32 bit programs. It sucks...

The thing with 64-bit XP was that when it came out, no-one really cared about it... the 64-bit software is starting to bloom only now... heck there wasn't even a decent antivirus available for a 64-bit system back in 2006. So yeah and now all the 64-bit windows stuff is developed basing on NT 6.0/6.1 API instead of the old one. That's progress, yet i see the 64-bit XP as a pretty important turning point in the evolution of workstation 64-bit software/hardware and ultimately - driver developement.

Originally Posted by noodle

Vista, aww, amazing vista. I never seen something run so smooth and so... WOW... I was in Awe... I set up a dual screen layout, ran several programs; Photoshop, Maya, AutoCAD, media player, IE, itunes, Call of Duty 4. THEN I opened a ONE GIG text file... The file opened in 5 seconds... On the other XP's, with nothing else running, the text file opened in no less than 5 minutes...

NT 6 is good, isn't it... but still, i suggest you give the Windows server 2008 evolution a try. You can even turn Aero on it and it will look and feel just like a Vista, only have a more fluent and less memory consuming work. You can find a lot of tutorials on the net on how to make it fly as high as Vista will never be able to do :P (btw, there is a rumor going around the forums that there is a Server 2008 workstation version in developement... it should kick ass)

Originally Posted by noodle

So now, in my report I'm giving in to the company, me and my boss (guy that actually knows all the stuff) are gonna recommend the company to incorporate Vista instead of sticking with XP. Especially for the high end users.
Next week, i'll be working on making a company specific image of Vista. So, soon enough, i'll be able to find out how much of the crap running the background is actually needed. But according to the boss, Vista has far greater potential than XP.

Well, make sure to tell us about the results... i will be more than glad to see how much of the services and utils you hacked out of there and the end results (maybe you could even do a lil before/after benchmark? That would rock!)

EDIT: ooff... forgot to mention that Vista (NT 6) actually is better for multi threading - both in multi-core CPUs and multi-GPU setups... but in the end it, of course, always depends on the software being used.

[Tyrien]

Originally Posted by Excessum

The funniest thing about macs is that for the money you spend on a mac, you can assemble a PC that will perform the graphic/video editing tasks on the same level (and in most cases even better) as the apple boxes... They had a entertaining article on Tom's hardware about this about a year ago... and now considering the new generation of Intel CPU's... well, macs in my opinion have lost all the appeal as a designers workstation... though the personal preferences, of course, still remain

Yup, the caching feature is nice, though rarely used X)

About the 64-bit OS'es... yeah, although most of the 32-bit software cam be launched through emulation, the biggest problem (which has held me back from migrating to 64-bit for a long time) however, is the lack of low level software and driver support, especially for legacy devices... and the fact that a lot of the "64-bit" software is actually a recompiled 32-bit one... which may (and often is) cause some compability issues. Right now i am looking for a good 64-bit security package and i have found that most of my favorite antiviruses just won't work properly on 64-bits, although they are marketed as 64-bit applications. I do hope that Eset's smart security will work as intended when i have my 64-bit setup up and running >_<

As i understand you have had experience with 64-bit OS, Tyren?

Well Macs aren't nearly as overpriced as they used to be. Macs have also become more upgradable, at least the Mac Pro.

I haven't have first hand experience with any 64-bit OS', just read up on them a bit when I was considering to go with Vista Ultimate for my laptop. Decided against it due to the compatibility issues I kept hearing about.

[emiluvsjmusic]

I use windows

[noodle]

I'll send you the name of a little program that allows you to allocate memory to things so you can try it out. If you do end up trying it, I recommend a seperate partition, cos I managed to bugger up the Registry files a few times, and I got the famous blue screen of death . First I have to get the name on mon.

I'll have to suggest Windows server 2008 to them then. I'm actually only on an internship where I work, so I'm not all that knowledgeable yet. I seem to be learning new things everyday, and you've possibly just taught me something about OS's.
And yeah, I'll keep you up to date on what we find out. One thing I'm pretty sure will help vista run faster is if we disable the function that saves all your history, files etc etc. (forgot what it's called).Will find out soon though.

EDIT. I made a mistake. I said directory files instead of Registry files.

[Excessum]

Originally Posted by Tyrien

I haven't have first hand experience with any 64-bit OS', just read up on them a bit when I was considering to go with Vista Ultimate for my laptop. Decided against it due to the compatibility issues I kept hearing about.

But still... as much as you read, it's better always to see it for yourself

Anywho... i will have my new hardware next week and i'll have a week or two before selling off my current one, so i will have plenty of time to play in the 64-bit sandbox and test it out in order to see if it fits me. Maybe i could give a little feedback as well, if anyone is interested.

A sidenote: Due to the apparent quantity of IT-tended JF'ers, i think it would be appropriate to start a PC-geek section (thread) somewhere around here... just to share experience and opinions about these kind of subjects and maybe a place for little less experienced JF'ers to ask for help with their computer problems X)

[IamKira]

i have ostracised microsoft crap from my computer.

right now i am booting ubuntu linux 9.04. and guess what?? it hasn't been infected with a zillion viruses yet, there are no annoying pop up notifications on boot up, the desktop enviornment is miles ahead of anything microsoft makes, has freeware versions of all the apps i uaed with windows... and also, it's fun.. with wondows, i'd find myself wanting to throw my computer into a bucket of wallpaper paste. nowdays, it's actually fun to use my computer...
not to mention, there are better freeware c++ compiling programs for linux, and if i want some windows software, i can wine it for the most part. the only exceptions i've come across with wine have been itunes (that's not cool, but ok) and some 3d games (i hate games for the most part so i'm good there

seriously, i am done with microsoft forever
it is purely osx and linux for me

might get an actual macbook sometime, but for now my lenovo will have to do- need an external harddrive so i can install ipc osx and dual boot between linux and osx.- i've already tried dual booting them on one hdd, figured from the start it would fail, but worth a shot.

[trunker]

have a look at crunchbang linux if you get tired of the ubuntu bloat. the great thing about it, other than coming with all the required multimedia codecs, is that tis so light weight on your system you really dont feel it. plus you can run most of it without a mouse.

if i wasnt doing serious audio work then i would be on linux 100% of my time. unfortunately there are some programs that i simply cant do without on windows, and linux audio is just too much of a pain. but my second laptop, for music and video and general internetness is running linux mint and crunchbang, and i simply dont miss anything from xp.

google's coming out with its own linux based OS soon which should be interesting.

[IamKira]

ooh, thanks for that. i was originally using rose linux with gnome desktop before i rebooted with ubuntu... ubuntu is soo much lighter and more stable, so i can't wait to try this out..(i've got the download going right now) only problem is i'ma need to get an external hdd first because i do not want to wipe my version.. i've got it all set up and tricked out.

[Aniki]

If I found this thread 3 months ago I would've said that Linux is better despite the fact that I've never used it. My hatred for Vista came to the point that I wanted throw my laptop into the wall, but after getting Windows 7 I'm still a Windows fanboy.

I always wanted to try out Linux, but the fact that you can't play most of the games and that it doesn't have a good audio player with descent online services is what pushes me away from it.

[IamKira]

well, i reinstalled ubuntu after my version of crunchbang failed to boot properly.. i think it was an error during the iso burn

so i experimented a bit and can now inform you that 7 does boot properly on a lenovo 3000 n100 and actually, it worked quite well. only issues were that the trackpad was a bit iffy (scrolling wasn't supported) and the audio did not work... oddly enough, the graphics drivers were installed on boot, but lenovo does not support drivers for win 7 and the n100 model,
so, i've now got dual boot going xp and ubuntu.

sucks though, because i could actually see myself getting accustomed to 7... although i do retain that i'd only use it for itunes so i could restore my iphone firmware on crashes...and rejailbreak w/ redsn0w... otherwise i'll stick to linux