472 of the top 500 super computers use Linux
- Thread starter XXL TideFan
- Start date
I don't see myself buying another Windows upgrade ever. In fact, all the "upgrades" I got were free (I know someone that works for Microsoft.) Would anyone strongly recommend switching my laptop to Linux? I don't really do anything crazy on my computer so I haven't bothered, but I would consider it.
I replaced vista on my son's laptop with Ubuntu and he wouldn't switch back when I asked him which did he prefer.
The Ubuntu is at least 3 times faster than the vista was.
AMD 64 with 2 Gb of ram.
IBM offers an office suite called Symphony that appears to be a very good replacement for MS office and slicker than Open Office. I would suggest a dual boot set up just to test the water.
The Ubuntu is at least 3 times faster than the vista was.
AMD 64 with 2 Gb of ram.
IBM offers an office suite called Symphony that appears to be a very good replacement for MS office and slicker than Open Office. I would suggest a dual boot set up just to test the water.
Ubuntu is, in my opinion, the best user friendly linux OS out there, and one of if not the best period.
I have to say, though, that Windows 7 looks to be the best Windows OS, by far. And they seem to have fixed a lot of the bloat issues - Windows 7 runs just as speedily as Ubuntu on my laptop. Much, much better than Vista.
As for running Ubuntu on your laptop, I'd definitely recommend it for most users, unless you have a lot of Windows software you have to run regularly. Even then, much of the software might could be run with WINE. If you have Windows software that won't run on WINE, and you don't have to use it too often, you can run a virtual machine for that software. I use VirtualBox and run TinyXP in seamless mode for Outlook 2007, Photoshop CS3, and a couple other Windows softwares that don't run well enough on WINE. I give it 1GB of RAM and can't see any performance issues with the vm running with Outlook and Photoshop open. In fact, I get significantly better Photoshop benchmark scores running it inside VirtualBox on Ubuntu than natively on Vista on my laptop.
However, I do get better benchmark scores running Photoshop natively on my laptop in Windows 7 than on the VM or on a full, standard install of XP, or OSX. Of course, Hackintosh is known to not have as good performance as a true install on a MacBook. It is easy to have a stable, secure OS, though, when it only runs on a couple dozen hardware configurations.
Having said all that, Ubuntu is still my favorite OS, with Windows 7 a surprisingly close second. OSX is now a distant third, with XP behind it. I haven't decided who gets fifth place; it's neck and neck between 2000 and Vista.
I have to say, though, that Windows 7 looks to be the best Windows OS, by far. And they seem to have fixed a lot of the bloat issues - Windows 7 runs just as speedily as Ubuntu on my laptop. Much, much better than Vista.
As for running Ubuntu on your laptop, I'd definitely recommend it for most users, unless you have a lot of Windows software you have to run regularly. Even then, much of the software might could be run with WINE. If you have Windows software that won't run on WINE, and you don't have to use it too often, you can run a virtual machine for that software. I use VirtualBox and run TinyXP in seamless mode for Outlook 2007, Photoshop CS3, and a couple other Windows softwares that don't run well enough on WINE. I give it 1GB of RAM and can't see any performance issues with the vm running with Outlook and Photoshop open. In fact, I get significantly better Photoshop benchmark scores running it inside VirtualBox on Ubuntu than natively on Vista on my laptop.
However, I do get better benchmark scores running Photoshop natively on my laptop in Windows 7 than on the VM or on a full, standard install of XP, or OSX. Of course, Hackintosh is known to not have as good performance as a true install on a MacBook. It is easy to have a stable, secure OS, though, when it only runs on a couple dozen hardware configurations.
Having said all that, Ubuntu is still my favorite OS, with Windows 7 a surprisingly close second. OSX is now a distant third, with XP behind it. I haven't decided who gets fifth place; it's neck and neck between 2000 and Vista.
I'm going to have to set up BootCamp on my MacBook since there's one program I need for school that doesn't play well with OS X. Would you recommend waiting for Windows 7 or just going with a minimal Vista install?Ubuntu is, in my opinion, the best user friendly linux OS out there, and one of if not the best period.
I have to say, though, that Windows 7 looks to be the best Windows OS, by far. And they seem to have fixed a lot of the bloat issues - Windows 7 runs just as speedily as Ubuntu on my laptop. Much, much better than Vista.
As for running Ubuntu on your laptop, I'd definitely recommend it for most users, unless you have a lot of Windows software you have to run regularly. Even then, much of the software might could be run with WINE. If you have Windows software that won't run on WINE, and you don't have to use it too often, you can run a virtual machine for that software. I use VirtualBox and run TinyXP in seamless mode for Outlook 2007, Photoshop CS3, and a couple other Windows softwares that don't run well enough on WINE. I give it 1GB of RAM and can't see any performance issues with the vm running with Outlook and Photoshop open. In fact, I get significantly better Photoshop benchmark scores running it inside VirtualBox on Ubuntu than natively on Vista on my laptop.
However, I do get better benchmark scores running Photoshop natively on my laptop in Windows 7 than on the VM or on a full, standard install of XP, or OSX. Of course, Hackintosh is known to not have as good performance as a true install on a MacBook. It is easy to have a stable, secure OS, though, when it only runs on a couple dozen hardware configurations.
Having said all that, Ubuntu is still my favorite OS, with Windows 7 a surprisingly close second. OSX is now a distant third, with XP behind it. I haven't decided who gets fifth place; it's neck and neck between 2000 and Vista.
For the record, I have a really hard time installing anything that was ever named "Longhorn" on my computer.
Download Windows 7 release candidate for free and try it.
I have been using it since the public release and I am thrilled with it.
Even in the RC stage it seems more polished than any Windows OS I have used in the past, even after one service pack.
Absolutely. My netbook runs Ubuntu as the primary OS and I love it, but my desktop and HTPC both run Windows 7, which is an incredible improvement over any past Windows OS.
Truth. I tried installing OSX on my laptop. Although I got it booting and functional, I gave up after the 364538263432th kext problem.Of course, Hackintosh is known to not have as good performance as a true install on a MacBook. It is easy to have a stable, secure OS, though, when it only runs on a couple dozen hardware configurations.
Windows 7 looks like the best OS ever released by MS. That said, it will soon be a target for the hordes of thieves that roam cyber space...
Yes, but it'll be the best prepared to resist it. Combine Windows 7 with NOD32 and HitManPro 3 and I'd be surprised if you ever get hit with much of anything.
I've got over 20 computers running primarily Vista, but also Windows 7, XP, and 2000 along with a couple 2003 and 2008 flavor server OS's. Every computer runs NOD32 and HitManPro 3, with my Exchange Servers also running the NOD32 for Exchange module, all behind a free (Open Source Package) Untangle Server. In a little over 2 years, I've had one virus get through to a desktop via email, and it was caught by the desktop NOD32 client immediately. Not a single infection in over 2 years. Not even when my boss plugged in a USB stick laden with Viruses after downloading pictures from his daughter's PC - she had Vista with no AV or AntiMalware software to speak of.
I think she was running McAfee.
Probably the trial version that expires and no ones wants to pay to keep it going.I think she was running McAfee.
The full version's not that much better. I used to have a flash drive I used for testing that had a boatload of malware on it with an active script that loaded on the autorun seek. It attempted to load several trojans, some anti-anti-virus malware, a few different rootkits, and a couple bios viruses.
7 or 8 times out of 10 I could kill an up-to-date, protected computer with it. The only AV / Anti-Malware combinations that I tested I couldn't kill with it were:
NOD32 or Kaspersky + HitManPro - Win Defender
NOD32 or Kaspersky + SpySweeper - Win Defender
NOD32 or Kaspersky + AdAware Pro - SpyBot S&D (w/ TeaTimer) - SuperAntiSpyware - Win Defender
There is also a relatively cheap AV software called F-Prot that worked well, but needed a little extra protection - HitManPro, SpyBot w/ TeaTimer, SuperAntiSpyware, and Windows Defender. Anything else I could kill on a regular basis. Anything with McAfee I could almost always kill.
I almost always recommended staying away from Norton or McAfee, for three reasons. One, even though they always rank high in published tests, those are controlled tests, and even then they don't rank as high as other softwares. Second, they are the big boys on the block and, as such, are primary targets for malware. Third, I've never seen a computer that the big suites (Norton especially but McAfee also) didn't slow down considerably all by themselves.
I should note that it's been close to 2 years since I tested softwares, so this information is out of date. However, I've found that these results were accurate for a few years of testing, and I doubt they've changed that much. There may be some new Anti-Malware softwares out there that work great, I'm just not aware of them. Although, knowing that stuff isn't really my job anymore.
Last edited:
super computers use Linux
There are several members who are clearly more deeply into this stuff than most of us.
For you folks, a question: Does Windows7 appear to use less resources (memory, etc) than Vista and/or XP?
Thanks.
There are several members who are clearly more deeply into this stuff than most of us.
For you folks, a question: Does Windows7 appear to use less resources (memory, etc) than Vista and/or XP?
Thanks.
Re: super computers use Linux
One thing is certain, it makes better use of the resources it does consume, resulting in a more pleasant user experience.
on XP and especially Vista I find myself wondering "What am I waiting for? Why should this simple application take so long to open?" The answer, I have learned, was often a part of the Windows kernel called the "dispatcher spin lock" which previously would become a bottleneck in multicore systems (which are very common now). This has been redesigned in Windows 7, and you can feel the difference.
I cannot really tell whether it actually uses less resources.
One thing is certain, it makes better use of the resources it does consume, resulting in a more pleasant user experience.
on XP and especially Vista I find myself wondering "What am I waiting for? Why should this simple application take so long to open?" The answer, I have learned, was often a part of the Windows kernel called the "dispatcher spin lock" which previously would become a bottleneck in multicore systems (which are very common now). This has been redesigned in Windows 7, and you can feel the difference.
Re: super computers use Linux
Vista? Yes, by far. XP? It depends. Fresh, clean install? No, but not a huge difference like Vista. More resources, but it's doing more - it's not bloated like Vista. Now, install office 2007, AV and AntiMalware, Pidgin, CS3, Firefox, etc. and the difference is minimal. Windows 7 is much more efficient with resource allocation and sharing than even XP. 1GB of RAM in XP or Windows 7 is like 2GB in Vista.
Re: super computers use Linux
Threw one of the new Phenom II's in my new desktop, and no other OS (Vista, XP, Ubuntu) can match Windows 7 in that configuration. Toss in the superbar, which functions and integrates better than OSX's dock, and Microsoft has a winner.
Absolutely better than Vista, and that's probably its biggest improvement. I'm currently typing this on my old laptop with a 1.86GHz processor and 1GB RAM, which is running the Win7 RC. I could never run Vista with any degree of snappiness on this platform, but 7 runs flawlessly on 5-year-old hardware. The Vista kernel has been completely overhauled, but I've only had maybe one program compatability issue thus far.
Threw one of the new Phenom II's in my new desktop, and no other OS (Vista, XP, Ubuntu) can match Windows 7 in that configuration. Toss in the superbar, which functions and integrates better than OSX's dock, and Microsoft has a winner.
I'm doing something similar with my MacBookPro running Mac OS X Leopard and I have VM Ware Fusion with an XP image and an Ubuntu image for the few apps I need that won't play well with the Mac.
super computers use Linux
Thanks to cbi, uafan, and crimsonct for replies.
This sort of thing is a big part of what makes this such a great website.
Thanks to cbi, uafan, and crimsonct for replies.
This sort of thing is a big part of what makes this such a great website.
Latest threads
-
A huge win today at my doctor's office...
- Started by uafan4life
- Replies: 3
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
