Windows 8 discussion

[Spyhop]

Is Linux efficient? Yes. Is it functional as a viable desktop OS? No.

Is Windows 7 efficient. Not as much as linux but yes. Is it functional as a viable desktop OS? More than any other OS I've ever used.

Keep in mind I'm not uneducated on the subject. I'm posting this from my job as a tech at a local ISP. All our servers are FreeBSD. They're terribly reliable, but I still don't want a *nix OS as a desktop.

[Strike105X]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

Well, sure, compared to current CPUs, but it's not a slouch by any means. We tend to focus too much on what we "see" nowadays that we forget just how powerful the stuffs we had a few years ago was.

Nope, it was a hunk of junk from day one, its not cause i focus on what we see nowdays, Celeron have always been the worst CPU's on the market, except that time when they made a 1 Ghz one after the P3 CPU.

Originally Posted by Spyhop

Is Linux efficient? Yes. Is it functional as a viable desktop OS? No.

Sorry but i can't agree with you here, Linux is quite functional as a viable Desktop OS, don't compare FreeBSD to more easy to use systems like mint or ubuntu. For an average user linux can be a great OS. Or for someone who doesn't care much about gaming or photoshop or some other piece of software that is best used on windows.

__________________

DeviantArt|AnimeList|PC Config

[Spyhop]

I've used ubuntu. CAN it be used as a desktop solution? Yes. Is it a good choice? No.

[Strike105X]

Which version of ubuntu (asking cause changes between versions can be quite big) ? And why isn't it a good choice ? (well latest ubuntu i do admit it has a shi.. interface (unity), but thankfully there's mint)

you can:

-can use office apps.
-plays all types of videos with little to no hassle at all.
-perfect for browsing the net, without risk of infection from viruses spyware, adware.
-stable.
-eye candy.

To me for an average user looks like the perfect OS, less hassle for the handy man as well, since noobs can fu.. this up as easily, to bad the majority of my clients want games cause either wise i would have mint running on there PC's...

__________________

DeviantArt|AnimeList|PC Config

[Spyhop]

Windows 7 is far more efficient to use. It's far more compatible as well. There's lots of things I do that don't have a native Linux solution and running so many things through VM or an emu blows.

[runawayprisoner]

Originally Posted by Strike105X

Nope, it was a hunk of junk from day one, its not cause i focus on what we see nowdays, Celeron have always been the worst CPU's on the market, except that time when they made a 1 Ghz one after the P3 CPU.

Well, yeah, but it works was what I wanted to say.

Strictly speaking, it's still better than Pentium 2 or Pentium 1...

However, 7 would blow when it's on anything less than a Core 2... or without an SSD... or without a GPU that supports Aero.

[Strike105X]

^Well it works, but badly, Celeron's are the biggest failures processors have ever seen, sorry but i really hate that brand/type for various reasons , i agree with you that anything but a dual core blows on 7 (though i think garnet said she got it to work nicely on a P4), but to run it on a Celeron out of all the single core CPU's and complain about it not working, its madness, madness i tell you :P.

Originally Posted by Spyhop

Windows 7 is far more efficient to use. It's far more compatible as well. There's lots of things I do that don't have a native Linux solution and running so many things through VM or an emu blows.

Spy, your misunderstanding me, i didn't even once hinted that linux would be a better pic for you than windows or anything along those lines, i'd be a hypocrite to do that considering i'm riding 7 to , all i said was that depending on the situation and use linux can be just as a viable desktop solution, that doesn't mean it has to or can be for your use or mine :P.

__________________

DeviantArt|AnimeList|PC Config

[Silenus]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

Well, yeah, but it works was what I wanted to say.

Strictly speaking, it's still better than Pentium 2 or Pentium 1...

However, 7 would blow when it's on anything less than a Core 2... or without an SSD... or without a GPU that supports Aero.

I know the performance jump from a SSD is drastic but 7 in no way blows without it.

__________________

DELL XPS 13 ULTRABOOK

...Mis sueños son mentiras que algun día dejarán de serlo...

[Princess Garnet]

Originally Posted by Strike105X

i agree with you that anything but a dual core blows on 7 (though i think garnet said she got it to work nicely on a P4)

I used a Pentium 4 641 in my primary system for a short while. It ran Windows 7 64-bit just fine. That is a decent (by it's standards) Hyper-threaded Pentium 4 though. Your typical-ish Pentium 4 in a more typical system with less RAM and a slower HDD might not fare as well.

I wouldn't condemn all Celerons either. It really varies with them.

__________________
"The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of."

[Strike105X]

Well like i said there was one model (which i did had) that was modded from a P3 and ran at 1 Ghz, that Celeron was indeed awesome (probably prior version to that weren't bad either dunno), but after a while they went down the drain...

__________________

DeviantArt|AnimeList|PC Config

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Originally Posted by runawayprisoner

Well, sure, compared to current CPUs, but it's not a slouch by any means. We tend to focus too much on what we "see" nowadays that we forget just how powerful the stuffs we had a few years ago was.

I had a 1.7Ghz Celeron and there wasn't a single moment that I didn't hate that thing...I'd have preferred to go back to my P3 866Mhz running Windows 98SE. When you're using a system and wish you had one with half the power (on paper)...something is wrong.

The happiest I've ever been (computing wise) was when I moved from that to a Athlon64 3700+.

__________________

Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83Ghz stock) | ASUS P5Q | 2x2GB Transcend JetRam DDR2-800 | ASUS ENGTX260\HDTP\896M | Windows Vista Home Premium 64bit SP1

The Champ has retired but may his Legacy live on FOREVER !!!!

No$GBA DS FAQ 2.0

Get it right fools! The glass is HALF-EMPTY, not half-full!!!

!!! WARNING: Emulation requires a brain !!! WARNING: Emulation =/= Piracy !!!

---

Last edited by SCHUMI_4EVER; October 19th, 2011 at 21:24..

[Princess Garnet]

Originally Posted by Strike105X

Well like i said there was one model (which i did had) that was modded from a P3 and ran at 1 Ghz, that Celeron was indeed awesome (probably prior version to that weren't bad either dunno), but after a while they went down the drain...

What do you mean "modded" from a Pentium III? If you mean the Celeron based off of the Pentium III, it was rather mediocre, some (the 66MHz FSB variants) even being some of the worst there probably were. They rank right down there with the Netburst Celerons.

You're saying Celerons are terrible, but calling one of the worst ones okay?

They've also gotten better in time (in my opinion), not worse. The Coppermine (Pentium III) and Netburst (Pentium 4) ones were their lower points. The latter of each, Tualatin-based and Prescott-based ones (Celeron D) were better, but on the whole, those were the days were they were bad. They've improved since then, not gotten worse. Since the Core 2 architecture, they've been rather okay.

__________________
"The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of."

[Strike105X]

I still don't know what heck of a CPU i had at the time actually, i presume it was based of an P3 since some apps would have detected my CPU as a celeron and some would say P3... but that thing was wild... it handle itself quite good, (OCed to 1300 Mhz), Worked way better then many Athlon XP's clocked higher then mine for example, never felt limited compared to a friends P4 at 1700 Mhz . Celeron D was terrible though, i chanced from that cpu which i just mentioned to a Celeron 2 and the difference was minimal to say the least... i was pretty pissed then... luckily i changed soon after to a Sempron 2600 and the difference was huge. Even since Core 2 arhitecture they still sucked mostly, although the latest G530 and higher seem to be pretty decent i got to admit.

__________________

DeviantArt|AnimeList|PC Config

[Princess Garnet]

If you overclocked it like that, it was likely a Tualatin. Those were better, as they had the same amount of cache as a comparable Pentium III, and by overclocking it (via the FSB), you effectively overcame all of what made it a Celeron, so it'd be no surprise to me. The Pentium III Tualatin's did have less cache latency, and some had 512k cache though.

Celeron Ds were rather poor, yes, but a marked improvement over the previous (Northwood-based) ones.

The Celeron L (420, 430, etc.) wasn't really bad at all. It was half of a Pentium Dual-core, and I could see those running Windows 7 relatively well if you're not a power user.

__________________
"The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of."

[runawayprisoner]

Originally Posted by Silenus

I know the performance jump from a SSD is drastic but 7 in no way blows without it.

It does blow on a system with only 1GB of RAM (or less) and a CPU slower than molass (or slower than the Celeron in discussion). But add an SSD and everything is magically snappy.

Originally Posted by SCHUMI_4EVER

I had a 1.7Ghz Celeron and there wasn't a single moment that I didn't hate that thing...I'd have preferred to go back to my P3 866Mhz running Windows 98SE. When you're using a system and wish you had one with half the power (on paper)...something is wrong.

The happiest I've ever been (computing wise) was when I moved from that to a Athlon64 3700+.

Yeah, gotta admit though, back in an era when SSD wasn't invented (or in reality, not released to the public), and stuffs were still chewing CPU cycles for breakfast, lunch, snack, dinner, supper, and late-night chew, the Celeron was pretty horrible. I gotta agree with you and Strike here that it is just a horrible CPU. No doubt about that.

But couple it with an SSD and things fly. It's a mystery... (or not! But I'll leave you to figure that one out)

[Strike105X]

Originally Posted by Princess Garnet

If you overclocked it like that, it was likely a Tualatin. Those were better, as they had the same amount of cache as a comparable Pentium III, and by overclocking it (via the FSB), you effectively overcame all of what made it a Celeron, so it'd be no surprise to me. The Pentium III Tualatin's did have less cache latency, and some had 512k cache though.

Probably that is what it was, i remember it having 512k cache.

Originally Posted by Princess Garnet

Celeron Ds were rather poor, yes, but a marked improvement over the previous (Northwood-based) ones.

You ain't kidding when saying poor, i'll never forget getting that over 2 Ghz Celeron D CPU and to my surprise it ran like sh..., in many situations it wasn't much or any difference between that and my P3/Celeron...

Originally Posted by Princess Garnet

The Celeron L (420, 430, etc.) wasn't really bad at all. It was half of a Pentium Dual-core, and I could see those running Windows 7 relatively well if you're not a power user.

Those are useless imho, while if your not a power user you may not be that affected by the low performance they just aren't worth it, especially since the difference between a G440 and a G530 isn't even worth mentioning, though looking at the specs a G530 is closer or actually its more of a pentium then a Celeron.

__________________

DeviantArt|AnimeList|PC Config

---

Last edited by Strike105X; October 20th, 2011 at 13:50..

[Redbear]

I honestly didn't mean to hijack this thread into a CPU discussion on how crappy my computers are..

IS it allowable to go back to the Windows 8 discussion,
as yer all brilliant and I just want to get back to the subject matter.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Don't worry as soon as there's something new on Win8 the thread will naturally return back to it's topic.

__________________

Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83Ghz stock) | ASUS P5Q | 2x2GB Transcend JetRam DDR2-800 | ASUS ENGTX260\HDTP\896M | Windows Vista Home Premium 64bit SP1

The Champ has retired but may his Legacy live on FOREVER !!!!

No$GBA DS FAQ 2.0

Get it right fools! The glass is HALF-EMPTY, not half-full!!!

!!! WARNING: Emulation requires a brain !!! WARNING: Emulation =/= Piracy !!!

[Strike105X]

Originally Posted by Redbear

I honestly didn't mean to hijack this thread into a CPU discussion on how crappy my computers are..

IS it allowable to go back to the Windows 8 discussion,
as yer all brilliant and I just want to get back to the subject matter.

Although we did started from your PC it, was actually more about how crappy that brand it wasn't really based around your PC so don't take it to hard :P.

__________________

DeviantArt|AnimeList|PC Config

[Redbear]

Well just to lighten things up,
turns out that Win 8 might just be a knacker in the race against linux,
I was browsing around and i found this lil tidbit of info..

Windows 8: Competition For Linux?
By Joey Sneddon,with some touching up by moi,
Published September 13, 2011


So Microsoft has been busy showing off Windows 8 today – and, to their credit, it’s looking and behaving pretty different to their previous releases.

So what does Windows 8 mean for Linux?

That’s the question I asked myself as I sat digesting the live-blog morsels dripping out from attendees at the ‘unveiling’. The simple answer is ‘nothing’: Windows 8 is unlikely to sway hardened Linux users; dual-booters will continue to dual-boot; and the linux-curious will remain curious.

But on a deeper level Windows 8 is significant: not only is it the first time Microsoft have deviated from the safety of the “Windows 95″ desktop metaphor, but it’s also bringing a bunch of smartphone and tablet concepts, features and technologies to the desktop experience. That’s not an easy thing to do, and from reviews and previews so far it seems Microsoft have outdone themselves in melding the the two successfully.

Rather than list every nuance demoed by Microsoft today i’m going to highlight a few features in Windows 8 that I think – emphasis on the I here folks – will provide some competitive flair for Linux developers to work against.

Metro UI

Ubuntu, GNOME and others have all been busy having their own interface overhauls recently, so the introduction of a new interface for Windows is following the trend of questioning the traditional “desktop metaphor” as it currently exists. They’ve seemingly opted to veer into a different direction than Unity or GNOME 3, and credit for doing something different.

I suspect that the sleek animated transitions and application feedback in the Metro interface so far will cause Linux developers to think a bit more about “polish” and presentation.

Multiplatform

Windows 8 will be ARM compatible, theoretically meaning that the competition for ARM-toting Linux efforts like Linaro is heating up. But Microsoft only demoed Windows 8 on an x86 Intel processor at the BUILD event (which was said to be very hot, very noisy and very sluggish in turning back on).

Microsoft insist that ARM support is being properly attended to, and that future announcements/demos of Windows 8 on ARM will be made.
The “one platform” approach

Windows 8 retains the “old style” Windows desktop as, essentially, another app in the Metro interface. The result is a single OS that is both tailored to tablets, but also to mouse-bound desktop users.

On a Linux related note, Ubuntu 11.04 saw Canonical fold the various netbook spins of Ubuntu into the main release. Similarly, although Canonical insist that Ubuntu is not heading to the tablet sector any time soon there’s no denying that various developments to the Ubuntu interface – particularly with regard to Unity and uTouch – mean Ubuntu already functions well on a tablet, although is by no means ideal.

Windows 8 is being sensible in this ‘unification’ approach. It’s less confusing for consumers, and easier for developers. That said, I still somewhat expect Microsoft to stuff it up by announcing an ensemble of “Tablet Edition Premium” and “Desktop Metro Home Professional” varieties.

Doesn’t close apps

Oh yes – Windows 8 appears, in demos so far, to take the OS X/Smartphone approach to application management and not quitting apps when closing a document/app window.

The result is almost instant launch times when those apps are opened again. Given the memory-hogging nature of many apps, it’ll be interesting to see how memory management works in Windows 8.

Linux developers have recently begun to question loading times of linux applications – but is there a case to be made for introducing a “document-orientated” approach on Ubuntu?

Minimal RAM Requirements

Microsoft “claim” that the ‘base system’ of Windows 8 can be run on as little as 256mB of RAM. Impressive if true, as Ubuntu 11.04 would struggle to perform adequately on such a meagre amount although official “light weight spins” such as Lubuntu are able to thrive on such resources.

Fast Boot Times

Microsoft claim that Windows 8 can boot in as little as 8 seconds. This is helped by the switch to a new filesystem – called ‘Protogon’ – and changes to the way the Windows kernel (the main component of an operating system) behaves during shutdown.

A bold claim that will be interesting to see tested on a typical user hardware rather than high-performance SSD.

Those with long memories may remember that Ubuntu 10.04 promised a 10 second boot, which is didn’t quite manage to achieve.
================================================== ========

Well there goes my claim about a Linux brand being better than win 8.