Seriously thinking about switching my OS, what do you guys think?

[Silicate Wielder]

First off, I am running a computer that is around 8 years old and runs windows XP, I'm thinking of switching to Ubuntu.
the reason being is that my current windows XP installation is a wreck and the CD that came with it is for windows 98.
not only that but I'm starting to feel weird with windows XP

I have 2 options:
Tiny XP: A more up-to-date installation of XP but it has all of the extra's removed, installing on a actual computer would require getting the Drivers before hand and risk that it doesn't work.

Ubuntu: I'm rather fond of Ubuntu and the fact that it's next version will be available pre-installed on phones but the phone version will still be able to act as the PC version has only made me more oriented towards it. It's also more of a free use OS that dosn't limit you to installing only verified programs but you can still install homebrew and its also majorely configurable when certain applications are installed. its not good for playing games that are designed for windows and MAC only, but windows application support can still be enabled.
Please note my CD drive is suspected to be slow, I will have to test how well it runs by installing it alongside windows before switching.

My system has the following specs
CPU: 2.66GHz
Ram: 480MB DDR
Hard Drive: 40GB
Includes Axillary in
Which do you guys think I should choose?

[Sugaree]

If you're going with Ubuntu, go for 12.04. This is the long term support version and should hold you over until 13.04 comes out in April.

[Magus]

I am against Ubuntu. It's really heavy on old systems, and you will eventually see the downfall of your system.

I'd say Linux Mint with Mate environment(desktop environment which shows how it looks and interacts - the one I recommended is light weight and not heavy on your system - I used LXDE but they are similar). It will be fast with that. Even faster? Give Crunch Bang a spin.

At first, don't install it as your OS. Try it on a USB with persistent memory(stuff stays even after reboot on usb flash disk).

[TheMatrix]

I much like the distros with RPM support. You might like Mandriva, for example, if you can fit any more RAM into it.
If you want to try something that isn't GNU/Linux, you can try openSolaris(it seems to rarely fail based on what I've heard), or even ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org/en/) if you don't want GNU/Linux or any type of Unix at all.

I am against Ubuntu. It's really heavy on old systems, and you will eventually see the downfall of your system.
That, and it spies on you (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/07/stallman_on_ubuntu_spyware/), as it was recently found.

At first, don't install it as your OS. Try it on a USB with persistent memory(stuff stays even after reboot on usb flash disk).

The only problem with that is, USB speed isn't fast enough to get a proper idea of how fast it will really be: everything will appear slow, irrespective of the OS you're trying.
Unless, of course, you manage to load the whole thing and all common programs into memory and still have space for the other programs.
With today's executable sizes and libraries, you would barely make do with 16GB of memory. And even then it would take a LONG time to copy everything from the USB to memory, and would need to be repeated every time you restart.

[Magus]

Unless, of course, you manage to load the whole thing and all common programs into memory and still have space for the other programs.With today's executable sizes and libraries, you would barely make do with 16GB of memory. And even then it would take a LONG time to copy everything from the USB to memory, and would need to be repeated every time you restart.

I did, with Mint 11 LXDE on a 8 GB ancient memory sticks. It works pretty well. Much compared to what it used to work as a CD(but cd doesn't store stuff). 4 GB is all I need, as I just want Linux for music productions(Jack, jack-rack, lmms, amsynth, ladspas, p-data, audacity, bristol, wine for vsti and etc)

Oh well. If you are tired with XP and with that spec, any smart alternative to Winsore will work.

[answers-101]

if i were u, id seriously consider upgrading ur RAM a little - ubunto may be a little laggy with only 480MB of RAM. ur probs takling roughly 4GB of RAM to run ubunto efficiently - bearing that you arn't gunna use it for gaming.

[Magus]

if i were u, id seriously consider upgrading ur RAM a little - ubunto may be a little laggy with only 480MB of RAM. ur probs takling roughly 4GB of RAM to run ubunto efficiently - bearing that you arn't gunna use it for gaming.

Also you forget to mention that the kind of the RAM plays a role, too. A DDR3 is less laggier than a DDR 2, and DDR 2 to DDR. And their frequencies.

[Silicate Wielder]

well I have DDR (Original DDR) if I can upgrade DDR ram to DDR2 or even DDR3 that would be greatly helpful, my mom wants to upgrade to Windows 8 (I doubt it would run well on an 8 year old laptop)

I can also spare 1 gig of hardrive space to use as swap, that would be helpful. My CD drive is very slow so I have to figure out how to boot from USB on a laptop that dosn't support it. I have a 12.04 disk already.

besides I can always convert the system to run using Gnome3 which will be less resource eating than Unity. although, I prefer Unity over Gnome.

Also windows XP already has lagging issues, ubuntu may either be less or worse.
However I am looking up the system requirements for different Linux distributions.

[ethanf93]

well I have DDR (Original DDR) if I can upgrade DDR ram to DDR2 or even DDR3 that would be greatly helpful, my mom wants to upgrade to Windows 8 (I doubt it would run well on an 8 year old laptop) Forgive me if I'm wrong but you can't just upgrade DDR to DDR2/DDR3, that requires a motherboard that supports those chips.

I can also spare 1 gig of hardrive space to use as swap, that would be helpful. My CD drive is very slow so I have to figure out how to boot from USB on a laptop that dosn't support it. I have a 12.04 disk already.

besides I can always convert the system to run using Gnome3 which will be less resource eating than Unity. although, I prefer Unity over Gnome.

Also windows XP already has lagging issues, ubuntu may either be less or worse.
However I am looking up the system requirements for different Linux distributions.No matter how much swap space you through at it, Windows 8 will not run on this system (I believe it refuses to even try with <512MB RAM. You can work around this but I don't think it's worth your time.) I believe you might also run into some issues with modern Linux systems like Ubuntu. I would suggest a slimmer system like DSL (http://damnsmalllinux.org) which is aimed more at older system.s

[Magus]

No matter how much swap space you through at it, Windows 8 will not run on this system (I believe it refuses to even try with <512MB RAM. You can work around this but I don't think it's worth your time.) I believe you might also run into some issues with modern Linux systems like Ubuntu. I would suggest a slimmer system like DSL (http://damnsmalllinux.org) which is aimed more at older system.s

I used Tinycore. They don't have all of the eye candy, but I am sure they will probably work quite well with old system. That's why I am looking for an old laptop from the early 2ks, so that I can toy around with it.

And yeah, you need to change the mobo to change the RAM sticks. I used to have one that has the original RAM, it costed me 60$ to buy 1 GB of Ram to upgrade it. With that money, I could have bought a DDR3 with 8 GB in it. Stuff changed man.

@MysticalBurrito

You have Bhodi, PuppyLinux and VectorLinux(which are a bit eyecandies) to try out without hurting your machine.

[Archimedes]

Install both linux and windows. I always install 2 OS if I doubt

[Silicate Wielder]

Well I tried installing Windows XP All I get is a black screen after the installer finishes and I give it an hour while I use my mom's laptop but it does nothing, so I reboot I get the same thing. although when i try safemode it loads drivers but it stops when it loads a few and the entire system freezes, ubntu does the same thing (except i get a driver incompatibility error with ubuntu)

[HunterSteele]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but you can't just upgrade DDR to DDR2/DDR3, that requires a motherboard that supports those chips.

That is what I was going to say. Also, being a laptop there will not be a lot of RAM slots in the first place.

What you can do is purchase a Windows XP recovery CD on eBay for about $5. Then, reinstall Windows XP.

[Archimedes]

why should he purchase it if it's available on torrents and he can just make bootable usb or burn a disc

[TheMatrix]

why should he purchase it if it's available on torrents and he can just make bootable usb or burn a disc

Because he doesn't want trouble with the law?

[Infidelitas]

why should he purchase it if it's available on torrents and he can just make bootable usb or burn a disc

Some people want to do the right thing?

[Silicate Wielder]

Well my computer bluescreened and now can't boot into it, so I'm using my hardrive adaptor to use my mom's laptop, I'm running ubuntu though ^_^

(Aparently ubuntu dosn't run well on mmy laptop so I have to get a linux distribution called "CrashBang"

Also it came with a windows 98 recovery disk for the same model laptop, but my laptop came with the windows XP sticker and certificate of authentification. Should I just install windows 98 and use it with that untill I get a proper linux distribution?

[Magus]

Aparently ubuntu dosn't run well on mmy laptop so I have to get a linux distribution called "CrashBang"

Didn't I tell yah? Didn't I? DIDN'T I? O.[O]. It's called Crunch Bang, by the way.

If Ubuntu works slow, I am sure Crunchbang will work a bit faster. Trust me. When my XP started to act like an ass. I switched to Linux, and I was much more comfortable on it.

I am against Ubuntu. It's really heavy on old systems, and you will eventually see the downfall of your system.

I'd say Linux Mint with Mate environment(desktop environment which shows how it looks and interacts - the one I recommended is light weight and not heavy on your system - I used LXDE but they are similar). It will be fast with that. Even faster? Give Crunch Bang a spin.

[Silicate Wielder]

I'm happily using Ubuntu on my mom's laptop at the moment, I'm gonna wait to upgrade my RAM because we found some original DDR. I'm currently installing the beta build of Steam for ubuntu :3

I tried to install crunch bang but my broadband doesn't allow it to download I tried 5 times and I can't get it to download.

I'm actually only havign problems with there being enough memory. other than that it works fine. the CPU can handle the performance needed Easily. (it runs at 2.66Ghz,plus it's dualcore from my understanding, thats more power than the AMD cpu in my mom's laptop)

I may be wrong about it being dual-core I just interpreted that based on how the the CPU specs the system gave to me were displayed.

[Axw_JD]

well for starters that isn't a system you want to put Ubuntu on. If you can upgrade the RAM first and foremost. That system should be able to handle 2 GB easily, and that would be more than enough for any lightweight OS: Debian if you want Linux (And really learn about it), Windows 8 if you want to be able to run everything you want.

The second upgrade option will be the Hard Drive (but only after you upgrade the RAM!). If you aren't upgrading anything, don't bother with any modern OS. Even a barebones Debian installation will be suffocated by the lack of RAM and a GPU with dedicated VRAM.

Seeing the specs of your system, I'm not gonna lie, you will feel that Windows 98 SE would be an improvement over XP, since it is less resource heavy (and you can still use a fairly modern version of the Opera browser, as well as Skype and stuff like that on it).

[HunterSteele]

why should he purchase it if it's available on torrents and he can just make bootable usb or burn a disc
Because it might be modified to contain malware, and not everyone wants to download a file that large. Also you're going to have to burn a disk anyway, so why not be lazy and get the disk already burned for you?

[Magus]

Because it might be modified to contain malware, and not everyone wants to download a file that large. Also you're going to have to burn a disk anyway, so why not be lazy and get the disk already burned for you?

I have done it, and they are absolute crap that comes with bunch of crap which bloats the shit out of your device. Highly against it.

Get a clean and fresh linux iso and burn it to a fresh CD. That's not that hard.

[Axw_JD]

You should never, ever install any of the crap "modified XP" versions floating around the web... you have no idea what files might have been altered or what they could have removed / added. Windows XP (specially SP2 and below) is pretty unstable when you remove some components from it.

If you don't wanna upgrade the hardware, just get the Windows XP install disc (if you download it illegally, check the MD5 / CRC32 with the ones Microsoft posted. If they match, is safe to use your CD key with it).

If you don't have a CD key, put some extra RAM and get Win8 while its cheap (beats having to buy XP by about $40).

[Magus]

If you don't have a CD key, put some extra RAM and get Win8 while its cheap (beats having to buy XP by about $40).

Got myself a fresh DVD install of Crunchbang. And it absolutely rocks. It's rocket fast and easy to use, and beautiful(in a minimalistic sense) while at it. And it doesn't cost shit.

It takes about 3 percent of processor power and 150 mb of ram. Can you believe that? 150 MB of Ram? That's 1/3 of what Xubuntu takes.

If you are scared to look for it. Here it is:


Start at 12 Minute.
59J8qrTQRd0

Omg he used VBOX.

[Axw_JD]

Got myself a fresh DVD install of Crunchbang. And it absolutely rocks. It's rocket fast and easy to use, and beautiful(in a minimalistic sense) while at it. And it doesn't cost shit.

It takes about 3 percent of processor power and 150 mb of ram. Can you believe that? 150 MB of Ram? That's 1/3 of what Xubuntu takes.

If you are scared to look for it. Here it is:

"You get what you pay for"
And when it comes to Linux, 99% of the time this is true.

3% of "processor power"? what is that supposed to mean?
Also, what processor? at what speed? compared to which other OS in the exact same machine?

Same goes for the RAM usage. Swapping will happen based mostly on the programs you run, not on the OS footprint (Windows 8 has a pretty small footprint for example, yet recommends the same amount of RAM as other modern OSes because the user needs to be able to run everything else as well).

Please don't come with you Linux BS if you don't really know what you are talking about. Saving a couple bucks in the OS is pointless if that OS can't run shit, which is the main problem Linux has always had and will still have for the foreseeable future.

[TheMatrix]

Windows XP (specially SP2 and below) is pretty unstable when you remove some components from it.
Well, that applies to any operating system, really. Remove some of those seemingly pointless *.dll files, and magically, many programs stop working!

"You get what you pay for"
And when it comes to Linux, 99% of the time this is true.
Well, okay. It's not for everybody. GNU/Linux is not designed to compete with huge commercial operating systems, per se. It just so happens that it's widely used and gets played against commercial operating systems.

3% of "processor power"? what is that supposed to mean?
Also, what processor? at what speed? compared to which other OS in the exact same machine?

Please don't come with you Linux BS if you don't really know what you are talking about. Saving a couple bucks in the OS is pointless if that OS can't run shit, which is the main problem Linux has always had and will still have for the foreseeable future.

Like I said, it isn't for everybody. You don't like it? That's fine, nobody's forcing you to use it.
So why do people use it at all? Well, it's free software(in the GNU sense). You can do what you want with it, pretty much. You can propose a fix to a core feature if it's broken, and your fix becomes part of the product that everybody else uses. Community control prevents vendor dictatorship, as is the case with corporations such as Microsoft and Apple.

People use commercial operating systems because of marketing. The success of the product and corporation depends solely on whether enough people use it or not, hence the marketing. Obviously, people hear about that and will buy it. This causes others to seize the opportunity of writing software and earning profits in doing so.
Furthermore, many GNU/Linux users are mistrusting of non-free programs. I don't typically install or run executables or libraries for which I can't obtain the source, unless I have no other choice(vendor lock-in: i.e., graphics card driver). And half the time they don't work anyways, because every distribution varies, as do many installations.

One should make an informed decision on what they need, and use that. See also Linux is not Windows (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm).

[Magus]

"You get what you pay for"
And when it comes to Linux, 99% of the time this is true.
Uhhh... not really.


3% of "processor power"? what is that supposed to mean?Cpu usage at idle I suppose.

compared to which other OS in the exact same machine?Some OS do take more CPU usage at idle. Especially if you consider the old hardware underneath.

Same goes for the RAM usage. Swapping will happen based mostly on the programs you run, not on the OS footprint (Windows 8 has a pretty small footprint for example, yet recommends the same amount of RAM as other modern OSes because the user needs to be able to run everything else as well).True Win8 has less RAM usage than Win7 and consequently faster than the old Vista. But let us suppose you don't have that kind of ram that not even the OS footprint can handle. Suppose you want to run a lot of applications and with a decent speed. I don't think modern OS can run that good on old deadbeat hardware, and with that amount of ram that had a hard time to run XP at a decent level. Still don't know where you are going with that logic.

Please don't come with you Linux BS if you don't really know what you are talking about.I just recommended Linux. Which isn't really bad as you think it is. Don't know why you have to be pompous ass about it.

Saving a couple bucks in the OS is pointless if that OS can't run shitLinux is not an operating system, you know. It's a standard which has implementations and libraries from across the OS spectrum. Oh, and it can run almost anything Windows can run. Beside some hardware.

which is the main problem Linux has always had and will still have for the foreseeable future.I don't know what problems you are talking about. I recommend that you should do much more research on it, instead of pretending to be a tech-savvy dude who courageously swings the giant sword of M$ hacking off the heretical Linux elitist head.

Linux is not a snake oil, it is a fully operation system that doesn't cost shit and won't bloat or shit out your old hardware.

I recommend every user to play with Linux and remove or add it with Windows. Heck, try it on Virtualbox if you have a good enough system. :yes:

From a Windows user perspective, it is something new and unique. Strange and a bit scary. I am not like a Mactard, who wants to shove down your throat a six month minimum wage salary down your throat.

Linux doesn't costs shit, stable, resource friendly, user-friendly, has a decent amount of applications and decent amount of enthusiast who will guide you with it. So why not?

Apparently I cannot browse on Linux. Goddamnit he was right. I think I should run Win8. :yawn:
http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx144/deadlydreamerx/SlitazOS_zps92fcca98.gif
----------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't dismiss Windows. Like you did to Linux. If I am going to make a new gaming rig. Its primary OS is definitely going to be Windows. That's a good investment. GFX cards are geared towards Windows and DX more than anything else.

But if I have a raggedy old laptop from 2004, I'd most definitely pick Linux to use on it and learn more about it and computers in General.

Well, that applies to any operating system, really. Remove some of those seemingly pointless *.dll files, and magically, many programs stop working!
Dude. I finally made Slitaz and Crunchbang to work. Give me an applause already, goddamn it. Tried to install Archlinux, but I died half way through installing it.

[Axw_JD]

Uhhh... not really.

Cpu usage at idle I suppose.

Some OS do take more CPU usage at idle. Especially if you consider the old hardware underneath.

True Win8 has less RAM usage than Win7 and consequently faster than the old Vista. But let us suppose you don't have that kind of ram that not even the OS footprint can handle. Suppose you want to run a lot of applications and with a decent speed. I don't think modern OS can run that good on old deadbeat hardware, and with that amount of ram that had a hard time to run XP at a decent level. Still don't know where you are going with that logic.

I just recommended Linux. Which isn't really bad as you think it is. Don't know why you have to be pompous ass about it.

Linux is not an operating system, you know. It's a standard which has implementations and libraries from across the OS spectrum. Oh, and it can run almost anything Windows can run. Beside some hardware.

I don't know what problems you are talking about. I recommend that you should do much more research on it, instead of pretending to be a tech-savvy dude who courageously swings the giant sword of M$ hacking off the heretical Linux elitist head.

Linux is not a snake oil, it is a fully operation system that doesn't cost shit and won't bloat or shit out your old hardware.

I recommend every user to play with Linux and remove or add it with Windows. Heck, try it on Virtualbox if you have a good enough system. :yes:

From a Windows user perspective, it is something new and unique. Strange and a bit scary. I am not like a Mactard, who wants to shove down your throat a six month minimum wage salary down your throat.

Linux doesn't costs shit, stable, resource friendly, user-friendly, has a decent amount of applications and decent amount of enthusiast who will guide you with it. So why not?

Apparently I cannot browse on Linux. Goddamnit he was right. I think I should run Win8. :yawn:
image (http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx144/deadlydreamerx/SlitazOS_zps92fcca98.gif)
----------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't dismiss Windows. Like you did to Linux. If I am going to make a new gaming rig. Its primary OS is definitely going to be Windows. That's a good investment. GFX cards are geared towards Windows and DX more than anything else.

But if I have a raggedy old laptop from 2004, I'd most definitely pick Linux to use on it and learn more about it and computers in General.

Sorry but anyone that spells MS with a $ deserves no real respect. Grow up, it isn't 2002 any more.

So now that you bring up that image, lets take a look at my Win8 (1% CPU, 33% RAM and that is with Windows-on-Windows and a couple of 32-bit programs running, as well as the Skype App, Xbox SmartGlass and an Xbox LIVE game running in the background...
http://i.imgur.com/kRdahTH.png

If your OS is constantly using 5% of your CPU, specially when just browsing, something isn't completely right.

Also wrong Linux isn't a standard. If you want to get technical, is a kernel: the heart of the OS and no, it can't run anywhere near as much stuff as Windows or even MacOS can (not even with hacks like wine that add even more overhead to running programs: the worst you can do on old hardware)

I could go forever on the problems that plague Linux-based OSes but it is certainly not worth my time, specially with someone like you who feels special for running Linux.... I run Linux on a daily basis (inside a virtual machine on my laptop, as main server OS, in a virtual machine on my desktop) for the few limited uses the OS has. (specially when using a real pro distro, like Debian).

Linux is far from stable, or reliable, or resource friendly, and is probably the furthest away from user friendly. It certainly isn't an OS for 99% of the PC users, and it most certainly isn't one that should be blindly recommended, but rather carefully avoided. If being "free" is the only reason to install it, you should think twice before even trying.

[Unholy]

You can always try Ubuntu via a LiveCD and see if you like it or not. I would also recommend Xubuntu. It's pretty much just Ubuntu with the XFCE desktop environment.

[Magus]

Sorry but anyone that spells MS with a $ deserves no real respect. Grow up, it isn't 2002 any more.
Bahahaha! M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$ M$

So now that you bring up that image, lets take a look at my Win8 (1% CPU, 33% RAM and that is with Windows-on-Windows and a couple of 32-bit programs running, as well as the Skype App, Xbox SmartGlass and an Xbox LIVE game running in the background...
image (http://i.imgur.com/kRdahTH.png)All this on a DDRI 256 stick with a northwood Celeron processor right? Right? No?

If your OS is constantly using 5% of your CPU, specially when just browsing, something isn't completely right.
I was testing it in VBox... :(

Also wrong Linux isn't a standard. If you want to get technical, is a kernel: the heart of the OS and no,Congratulations. You have just cracked the code.

it can't run anywhere near as much stuff as Windows or even MacOS can (not even with hacks like wine that add even more overhead to running programs: the worst you can do on old hardware)We don't know where you going with this if you don't tell us what stuff you are talking about. If you mean software and drives, there are plenty of them, and are made everyday by experienced users. But you forget that Windows has the biggest share of users, and tends to have more developers. Must I always iterate the obvious?

I could go forever on the problems that plague Linux-based OSes but it is certainly not worth my time
Well just say that you don't know anything. It will save all of our time.

specially with someone like you who feels special for running Linux.... This is so pathetic, I have no words for it. Seriously, you did not have to to go to that road, mate. I bet this is the whole reason of the contention, to prove that I am inferior because you think that I think of myself a genius for having the thought of dabbling with Linux.

I run Linux on a daily basis (inside a virtual machine on my laptop, as main server OS, in a virtual machine on my desktop) for the few limited uses the OS has. (specially when using a real pro distro, like Debian).Oh wow. So you are running a debian server, so you basically know the in and out and that makes your points immutably valid, while mine should be shoved out of the window. You must get a prize for this, mate.

Linux is far from stableTested and verified?
or reliableThis can be tackled in many different ways.
or resource friendlyHmm... it does take a lot of storage, if you think of the dependencies.

and is probably the furthest away from user friendly.
Oh no wonder Ubuntu is not gaining popularity anymore, it's too difficult for people to click few things it seems.

It certainly isn't an OS for 99% of the PC users
What a silly over generalization. Oh, and flash news. The OP is trying to make his own distro. XD

and it most certainly isn't one that should be blindly recommended, but rather carefully avoided.I recommend it day and night. No one dies from experimenting things.

If being "free" is the only reason to install it, you should think twice before even trying.Implying that "free" is the only reason that exists to try it.

You can always try Ubuntu via a LiveCD and see if you like it or not. I would also recommend Xubuntu. It's pretty much just Ubuntu with the XFCE desktop environment.
I am using Xubuntu right now. But using the awesome window manager instead of xfce. Pretty minimalistic.

[TheMatrix]

So now that you bring up that image, lets take a look at my Win8 (1% CPU, 33% RAM and that is with Windows-on-Windows and a couple of 32-bit programs running, as well as the Skype App, Xbox SmartGlass and an Xbox LIVE game running in the background...
image (http://i.imgur.com/kRdahTH.png)

If your OS is constantly using 5% of your CPU, specially when just browsing, something isn't completely right.
That is a completely irrelevant fact and measurement. One should only look at idle CPU usage in comparison to other operating systems when it is too high, so that other tasks become impossible. And then, one should look at what they can do to fix it.
Is an indexer of some sort running? Perhaps you could set it to run with a lower priority, or less often. Is a process stuck? Kill it, then search on the internet for other users with the same problem. Perhaps post in the project's forum or mailing list, then file a bug report if needed.
And so much more. But this doesn't only apply to GNU/Linux. It applies to Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and basically any operating system vendor.

no, it can't run anywhere near as much stuff as Windows or even MacOS can (not even with hacks like wine that add even more overhead to running programs: the worst you can do on old hardware)
That's because a program compiled for Windows or MacOS cannot run on GNU/Linux, obviously.

I could go forever on the problems that plague Linux-based OSes but it is certainly not worth my time, specially with someone like you who feels special for running Linux.... I run Linux on a daily basis (inside a virtual machine on my laptop, as main server OS, in a virtual machine on my desktop) for the few limited uses the OS has. (specially when using a real pro distro, like Debian).
So Linux is ridden with problems, but it's a "pro" anyways? Hmm, that makes sense...
And these problems are mostly FUD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) spread around by large corporations whose profits rely on as many people buying their stuff as possible.

Linux is far from stable, or reliable, or resource friendly, and is probably the furthest away from user friendly. It certainly isn't an OS for 99% of the PC users, and it most certainly isn't one that should be blindly recommended, but rather carefully avoided.
Describe. Actually, don't, I know what you mean.
You say this because you are unable to use it in the way that you have been forced into using by your commercial operating systems. Did you know that an average end-user with little experience of operating system fundamentals is more qualified to use it? That's because they don't think they know what they're doing -- they admit they probably don't. They are willing to learn; you...eh, perhaps not so much.
You are convinced that your corporate overlords are right -- and in the myopia that they have you live in, they're right(again with the FUD). You don't like reading my response because it breaks that "bubble".


If being "free" is the only reason to install it, you should think twice before even trying.
I did it more for free security. I don't have a "virus scanner" on this computer. I also don't need one. I think AVG has one(in the non-oss repository, which many GNU/Linux users, including myself, avoid as much as possible), but only a handful of people use it.

~~~
But we have digressed from the original topic again. Please let's go back to it. I'd really hate to lock this thread.

[Axw_JD]

That was exactly my point. Those measurements are completely useless, and I was proving it by showing that Windows is just as light on the CPU as any other OS. That was exactly my point!

Also I don't have a virus scanner either. Windows isn't inherently less safe than Linux (in fact, is probably safer, since its under attack 24/7). The free Windows Defender / Microsoft Security Essentials (that is now part of Windows) is good enough for pretty much any user that isn't doing anything illegal, and for any advanced user there isn't really any need for an antivirus at all. The number of viruses and malware in general is only proportional to how many users use said operating system. Look at Android, which is open source... that thing is worse than using IE6 on an outdated Windows XP to torrent porn and games but is simply because of how popular the OS is.

PS: I love your threat too. "Agree with me or I will lock the thread". Typical of your kind. Oh and don't forget your tinfoil hat! Microsoft and other megacorporations and the CIA could be reading your thoughts right now! xD

[TheMatrix]

PS: I love your threat too. "Agree with me or I will lock the thread". Typical of your kind. Oh and don't forget your tinfoil hat! Microsoft and other megacorporations and the CIA could be reading your thoughts right now! xD

I don't appreciate that, and you're wrong as well. I didn't say you had to agree with me -- everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I said you had to remain on-topic. You're more than welcome to start/continue on another thread about which is better. But this thread's purpose was to give advice, and not to argue.

This is your last warning. Any more and I will lock the thread. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.

[Silicate Wielder]

"You get what you pay for"
And when it comes to Linux, 99% of the time this is true.

3% of "processor power"? what is that supposed to mean?
Also, what processor? at what speed? compared to which other OS in the exact same machine?

Same goes for the RAM usage. Swapping will happen based mostly on the programs you run, not on the OS footprint (Windows 8 has a pretty small footprint for example, yet recommends the same amount of RAM as other modern OSes because the user needs to be able to run everything else as well).

Please don't come with you Linux BS if you don't really know what you are talking about. Saving a couple bucks in the OS is pointless if that OS can't run shit, which is the main problem Linux has always had and will still have for the foreseeable future.

That is not necessarily true, I can run about 95% of the programs I can run in windows and with wine installed that percentage jumps to 99% Atleast in my case anyways, not to mention steam works on the OS now and games are starting to get ported to it. You shouldn't just make assumptions like this without looking into it first.

plus there have always been a good deal of games and apps for the OS you just have to look and if you don't mind a command prompt its a really nice OS to use.


EDIT: Going to try out crunchbang on my DIY Tablet It it runs well then I'll consider switching to this. :)

[meghanrye]

your computer's specs are quite old, so you really may have to switch to a more compatible and less power-hungry OS like Linux. i'd usually recommend switching to Windows 7 because it's pretty stable, but it needs a whole lot of RAM (at least 2 GB) and a decent graphics card (i'm using an Nvidia that has 512 MB of RAM).