Which operating system for a Netbook?
in [Dell]
|
Prev: Thunderbird--windows7--charter
Next: Something new
From: BillW50 on 27 Jun 2010 15:00 In news:i0835g02qug(a)news1.newsguy.com, Nate Nagel typed on Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:52:48 -0400: > considered one of the Linux distros for netbooks? I don't have a > netbook, but I've found Ubuntu to run well on both my laptop and my > (non-Dell) desktop. Certainly *much* faster than XP Pro on my work > computer. A netbook especially I think is a good app for Linux > because you won't miss the stuff that's not available either as a > Linux version of the same software that you'd run under Windows, or > else an equivalent GPL version (the big one that I can think of is > AutoCAD, but who runs CAD on a netbook?) I'm thinking Ubuntu, with > Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, and your IM program of choice > (Pidgin seems to work well) should cover 99% of the typical netbook > user's computing needs. Well I too have many laptops and netbooks and I have some with Linux on them. But Linux has the crappiest applications. And I include Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and Pidgin among them. And Linux is awful when it comes to multimedia. As multimedia needs three times more CPU power for the same performance than Windows XP does. So I can't do very much under Linux. But I suppose some people don't do very much with their computers anyway and it might be ok for them. If you do go with Linux on a netbook... Btw, in the beginning they only sold Linux on netbooks. As Windows XP was too expensive. Well that all changed when Microsoft would give netbook manufactures a real deal of OEM copies for Windows on their netbooks. Anyway, there was only Linux available and they were not selling too well. Then you got a choice later and get them either with Linux or Windows XP. Well the Linux machines didn't sell well as virtually everybody bought the Windows XP ones. And today you just can't find one that offers Linux on them anymore because they just don't sell. That being said, the Linux distro I really liked on a netbook was the Asus Xandros distro. It came configured in Easy mode (vs. Advanced or normal KDE desktop). I like this configuration because it would boot up in a mere 20 seconds. Booting fast on a netbook is very important. As you turn them on and off so much. Any other Linux configuration had taken 40 or more seconds to boot up. While Windows XP takes 50 seconds on the same machines. So unless you are running Xandros in Easy mode, you are not gaining much if anything over than Windows XP anyway. Sadly if you wanted wireless right away, even this Linux distro won't help you. As even Xandros had taken like an extra 50 seconds to grab your wireless. So Windows XP was still faster in the end anyway. As Windows XP did the same in like 2 seconds. Just putting things perspective. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2
From: Zack on 28 Jun 2010 17:18 I'd suggest either Linux of XP. If you are not comfortable with Linux, the limited use of a Netbook can be a blessing to start playing with it. Or, you may want not to mess with Linux, and simply go with XP. Either way: make sure you take care of how to set it up, with booting, services etc. This will be more important, for speed/performance and just about everything else, than whether it is Linux or XP. (Even win7 should be fine.) Regarding BillW50's "persepective" (the above post): I find it very strange. I've had no problems with Linux on a Netbook, and I know more people who haven't. In fact, they strongly prefer it. (I have not used a Netbook enough to have a preference.) And I mean with full distros, not some easy ones. Also, I cannot disagree more about his judgement of apps, specially the very basic ones that he mentions. I have to say: what Bill says is *his* persepective. One can use Linux very nicely, on a Netbook just as well. (Note that you have way more flexibility with how you want your system set up, when you use Linux. But then you do need to know a bit about it.) On Jun 27, 12:00 pm, "BillW50" <Bill...(a)aol.kom> wrote: > Innews:i0835g02qug(a)news1.newsguy.com, > Nate Nagel typed on Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:52:48 -0400: > > > considered one of the Linux distros for netbooks? I don't have a > > netbook, but I've found Ubuntu to run well on both my laptop and my > > (non-Dell) desktop. Certainly *much* faster than XP Pro on my work > > computer. A netbook especially I think is a good app for Linux > > because you won't miss the stuff that's not available either as a > > Linux version of the same software that you'd run under Windows, or > > else an equivalent GPL version (the big one that I can think of is > > AutoCAD, but who runs CAD on a netbook?) I'm thinking Ubuntu, with > > Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, and your IM program of choice > > (Pidgin seems to work well) should cover 99% of the typical netbook > > user's computing needs. > > Well I too have many laptops and netbooks and I have some with Linux on > them. But Linux has the crappiest applications. And I include Firefox, > Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and Pidgin among them. And Linux is awful when > it comes to multimedia. As multimedia needs three times more CPU power > for the same performance than Windows XP does. So I can't do very much > under Linux. But I suppose some people don't do very much with their > computers anyway and it might be ok for them. > > If you do go with Linux on a netbook... Btw, in the beginning they only > sold Linux on netbooks. As Windows XP was too expensive. Well that all > changed when Microsoft would give netbook manufactures a real deal of > OEM copies for Windows on their netbooks. > > Anyway, there was only Linux available and they were not selling too > well. Then you got a choice later and get them either with Linux or > Windows XP. Well the Linux machines didn't sell well as virtually > everybody bought the Windows XP ones. And today you just can't find one > that offers Linux on them anymore because they just don't sell. > > That being said, the Linux distro I really liked on a netbook was the > Asus Xandros distro. It came configured in Easy mode (vs. Advanced or > normal KDE desktop). I like this configuration because it would boot up > in a mere 20 seconds. Booting fast on a netbook is very important. As > you turn them on and off so much. Any other Linux configuration had > taken 40 or more seconds to boot up. While Windows XP takes 50 seconds > on the same machines. So unless you are running Xandros in Easy mode, > you are not gaining much if anything over than Windows XP anyway. > > Sadly if you wanted wireless right away, even this Linux distro won't > help you. As even Xandros had taken like an extra 50 seconds to grab > your wireless. So Windows XP was still faster in the end anyway. As > Windows XP did the same in like 2 seconds. > > Just putting things perspective. > > -- > Bill > Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC > Windows XP SP2
From: BillW50 on 29 Jun 2010 17:33 Zack wrote: > Regarding BillW50's "persepective" (the above post): I find it very > strange. > I've had no problems with Linux on a Netbook, and I know more people > who haven't. In fact, they strongly prefer it. (I have not used a > Netbook > enough to have a preference.) And I mean with full distros, not some > easy > ones. Also, I cannot disagree more about his judgement of apps, > specially > the very basic ones that he mentions. I have to say: what Bill says is > *his* > persepective. One can use Linux very nicely, on a Netbook just as > well. > (Note that you have way more flexibility with how you want your system > set up, when you use Linux. But then you do need to know a bit about > it.) Zack is a rare individual and only less than 1% agree with his statement! As I use Linux all of the time and it has been around since 1992. And it has never even grown past 1% with the masses. So it is only a niche OS. There is a very good reason for this. There isn't any good applications for Linux at all. If Linux had great applications like Windows does, it would be something. And the reason why Linux doesn't do multimedia without using lots of CPU power is because nobody has written something equivalent to DirectX for Linux. Linux is nothing more than a glorified PDA OS. That is all it is. And all it does is bare bones simple tasks and that is all it can do. But about 1% of computer users only do simple tasks on their computers so Linux is just fine for them. But it isn't just fine for 99% of computer users. As they need to do more with their computers than Linux can give them. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
From: Bob Villa on 30 Jun 2010 07:21 On Jun 29, 4:33 pm, BillW50 <Bill...(a)aol.kom> wrote: > Zack wrote: > > Regarding BillW50's "persepective" (the above post): I find it very > > strange. > > I've had no problems with Linux on a Netbook, and I know more people > > who haven't. In fact, they strongly prefer it. (I have not used a > > Netbook > > enough to have a preference.) And I mean with full distros, not some > > easy > > ones. Also, I cannot disagree more about his judgement of apps, > > specially > > the very basic ones that he mentions. I have to say: what Bill says is > > *his* > > persepective. One can use Linux very nicely, on a Netbook just as > > well. > > (Note that you have way more flexibility with how you want your system > > set up, when you use Linux. But then you do need to know a bit about > > it.) > > Zack is a rare individual and only less than 1% agree with his > statement! As I use Linux all of the time and it has been around since > 1992. And it has never even grown past 1% with the masses. So it is only > a niche OS. There is a very good reason for this. There isn't any good > applications for Linux at all. If Linux had great applications like > Windows does, it would be something. > > And the reason why Linux doesn't do multimedia without using lots of CPU > power is because nobody has written something equivalent to DirectX for > Linux. > > Linux is nothing more than a glorified PDA OS. That is all it is. And > all it does is bare bones simple tasks and that is all it can do. But > about 1% of computer users only do simple tasks on their computers so > Linux is just fine for them. But it isn't just fine for 99% of computer > users. As they need to do more with their computers than Linux can give > them. > > -- > Bill > Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC > Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03) I can only speak from observation and use of the daughter's 1545 LT. Ubuntu has a very good DVD player...better IMO than Win players. Also, FF seemed, to me, faster. This is one more reason to disregard certain prejudices of certain individuals. bob
From: BillW50 on 30 Jun 2010 08:38
Bob Villa wrote: > On Jun 29, 4:33 pm, BillW50 <Bill...(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> Zack wrote: >>> Regarding BillW50's "persepective" (the above post): I find it very >>> strange. >>> I've had no problems with Linux on a Netbook, and I know more people >>> who haven't. In fact, they strongly prefer it. (I have not used a >>> Netbook >>> enough to have a preference.) And I mean with full distros, not some >>> easy >>> ones. Also, I cannot disagree more about his judgement of apps, >>> specially >>> the very basic ones that he mentions. I have to say: what Bill says is >>> *his* >>> persepective. One can use Linux very nicely, on a Netbook just as >>> well. >>> (Note that you have way more flexibility with how you want your system >>> set up, when you use Linux. But then you do need to know a bit about >>> it.) >> Zack is a rare individual and only less than 1% agree with his >> statement! As I use Linux all of the time and it has been around since >> 1992. And it has never even grown past 1% with the masses. So it is only >> a niche OS. There is a very good reason for this. There isn't any good >> applications for Linux at all. If Linux had great applications like >> Windows does, it would be something. >> >> And the reason why Linux doesn't do multimedia without using lots of CPU >> power is because nobody has written something equivalent to DirectX for >> Linux. >> >> Linux is nothing more than a glorified PDA OS. That is all it is. And >> all it does is bare bones simple tasks and that is all it can do. But >> about 1% of computer users only do simple tasks on their computers so >> Linux is just fine for them. But it isn't just fine for 99% of computer >> users. As they need to do more with their computers than Linux can give >> them. >> >> -- >> Bill >> Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC >> Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03) > > I can only speak from observation and use of the daughter's 1545 LT. > Ubuntu has a very good DVD player...better IMO than Win players. > Also, FF seemed, to me, faster. > This is one more reason to disregard certain prejudices of certain > individuals. > bob You bet Bob. That is why I have multiple same model computers configured with all of the same hardware. As you can run them side by side running different OS. And the neat thing about these Celeron netbooks, as slow performing software shows up clear as a bell. And take any distro of Linux and run it on one of these. Throw an external 1440x900 monitor on and open up some multimedia video playing full screen. And you see that Linux is showing you one frame per 5 seconds. That is 1/5 of a frame per second. That is just awful! Do the same thing under Windows XP and Windows has no problems playing the same video on the same external monitor at full screen even @ 30fps. There is a huge difference in performance between media played between Linux and Windows XP. Also if you like playing music files like I do. Using Firefox while the music is playing causes the audio to start and stop under Linux while Firefox is just loading pages. This is just terrible! Windows can pull this off because it has DirectX and reduces the processor use to play files tremendously. Linux has no such help. And Linux has to muscle the CPU just to play low bandwidth stuff. This isn't my opinion Bob, it is technological fact. And can be shown scientifically. And it is repeatable over and over again. And by the way, Ubuntu doesn't even include a DVD player either. They claim they can't include one because it falls under restrictive software. So you have to download it separately and if it refuses to, you are just SOL. Look for yourself. https://help.ubuntu.com/9.10/musicvideophotos/C/video-dvd.html -- Bill 2 Asus EEE PC 7014G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC 2 Asus EEE PC 7028G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2/SP3 ~ Xandros Linux |