Win2K -vs- linux -- WAS: [lug] no fun with the sun

[Ferdinand P. Schmid]

> <snip>
> The obligatory microsoft snub is here: I've read that Windows 2000
> requires a minimum of 64 megs of real memory to run.
> <snip>

Seems no different than RedHat Sparc if their installer works right.

> Aye, I agree to Linux being extremely scalable.  I'm in the process of
> building a masquerading router with Slack 7 and have been amazed at how much
> fat can be trimmed.  My two 1.2GB disks are looking very vacant for the
> first time since NT 4.0 Server (more room for mp3s I guess.)  :)

For StarOffice or Netscape you need X.  If you need X then you need many 100
MB.  If you don't have enough RAM you need lots of Swap space (reducing the
available disk space).  So the biggest of all the bells and whistles (X) needs
to go on for any of the recent applications.  Lynx is fine for some things but
if you need to see a PDF or use ghostview then again you need X.

> I think the main argument is this:  Back in Slack 4 (I didn't use any other
> distro till recently, so I can't parallel) you could do a full workstation
> install with X, Star Office and a bunch of other cool additional stuff and
> squeeze it into 600 MB or less.  I think the complaint here is not so much
> how scalable it is, just how much the default bells and whistles are costing
> you in drive space.  It amazes me that it can suck up so much, but then I
> look at what that has done:  in my opinion, that (somewhat) unnecessary
> stuff has brought more people to try Linux because it's got more options and
> is friendlier, which is good.
>
> So anywho, I have to agree that the distros are getting fat by default
> installs, but have to agree that they are still a lot more scalable than
> anything else out there.   I think it's just another tribute to how
> amazingly useful Linux is.

Well - for server purposes you can trim down Linux quite well.  You can leave
off X and all GUI apps, which tend to be large.  A print server can run on a 0.5
GB disk and so can a Web server with only a few pages.  But for workstation
purposes you need more space and that's where Windows needs fewer resources.  At
least the currently commercially available versions.

But I shouldn't rant too much about that.  Windows has significant drawbacks on
other levels and I wish I could work (at work) in a different environment to
avoid its often unpredictable behavior.

> Side note... since I've moved the thread subject to Windoze...  I'm
> currently writing this from a 2000 Pro box Office 2000.  (I know... gag, but
> primary function at work and all... ack.)  You're correct in the comment
> that it takes a min of 64MB of physical RAM.  It runs OK on that!  I'm
> currently running it on a 96MB system with a P166 MMX and an Ultra SCSI
> controller in it and it's useful, but not impressive.  This same machine
> with 64MB, a 133 and NT 4.0 ran faster.  The only thing I can give MS for
> W2K is the stability, trimming of reboots (although not perfect yet) and
> multitasking capabilities.  There's a noticeable improvement in the solidity
> of the OS and it's memory management.  Too bad it eats 64 of it off the bat!
> They've also got it so you don't have to reboot after installations and some
> hardware changes, but it still has to be rebooted after network setting
> changes.  (EGAD!!!  You'd think they would have figured it out by now, it's
> freaking ridiculous to have to reboot for network changes... errrr!)  Oh
> yeah, it also takes three weeks to boot.
>
> Anywho, the repulsive part is the disk and RAM requirements.  It seems to me
> that they've started to get the core of the OS working really well, they're
> just so focused on making it so disgustingly GUI that they've turned what
> could be a good system into a vile pig.  OH well, I guess that's not much
> surprise and I'm sure it will continue to be a system for those who need it.
>
> Just some of my thoughts since I'm sure there's <i>some</i> morbid interest
> in how it's performing out there.  (BTW, this is the final, official,
> non-stolen version... MS Select agreement can be useful occasionally.)
>
> -Jim
>
> Another something that I find very interesting... Windoze 2000's spell
> checker recognizes Linux as a word now and corrects the capitalization if
> you put linux in.  Apparently Linux is a real thing now in MSs eyes.  :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug

--
Ferdinand Schmid
(Staff Engineer)

Architectural Energy Corporation
http://www.archenergy.com
2540 Frontier Avenue, Suite 201
Boulder, CO 80301
Phone: (303) 444-4149
Fax: (303) 444-4304
e-mail: mailto:fschmid at archenergy.com