fair comparison?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Jul 23, 2008 10:50 AM EDT |
Some of the gang at LT think that comparing a modern Linux to ancient old XP isn't fair. Judging by my own limited experiences, a comparison to Vista would come off even worse than XP! |
| rijelkentaurus Jul 23, 2008 11:22 AM EDT |
And I don't buy the "comparing a 2001 OS to a modern Linux isn't fair" argument, we're talking about the newest service pack, so MS has had plenty of time to at least get a freaking ethernet driver available upon installation. I hate Microsoft, I hate Windows. There. I said it. |
| tuxchick Jul 23, 2008 11:47 AM EDT |
Oh I don't know, after all MS is a poor struggling underdog. :P |
| bigg Jul 23, 2008 12:28 PM EDT |
It's hilarious to me to see that argument made. Whenever there is a posting about how Vista doesn't work for old machines, is too slow, or anything else along those lines, there is inevitably the claim, "But XP runs on those machines" or "XP isn't bloated". For whatever I do, the hardware support is always better with Linux. That includes printers, scanners, wireless, and nVidia drivers. I know that others have trouble, but the last time I had a problem was over a year ago with Broadcom wireless on my wife's laptop, and even that's now just a couple of commands. And her laptop still can't use our printer or scanner when she's running Vista. |
| d0nk3y Jul 23, 2008 5:07 PM EDT |
SP3 arguably makes it a 2008 OS not a 2001 one - plus (and this is from my own experience, not anecdotal), Vista has *exactly* the same driver issues as XP did on a circa-2004 notebook I had to rebuild. Ubuntu on a live-CD worked great (apart from the windows only modem - but windows didn’t see that either without the driver). And what about apps? The author is gave timings based on a standard Windows install which is OS only without Office or anything. Linux is *much* easier (and quicker) to install than Windows. Actually, this reminds me of a time I helped a friend setup his shiny new HP Vista desktop. In *less* time than it took the *pre-installed* Vista to tune and configure itself, I had installed Ubuntu (including re-partitioning the disk and installing all the updates, and turning on Compiz). |
| tracyanne Jul 23, 2008 5:46 PM EDT |
It's a fair compare, because Windows users are, in fact, installing Windows XP in place of Vista, on current hardware. It's a fair compare, because it is a reflection of what is currently being done with Windows XP, by Windows users, regardless of SP3. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!