A tale of two installs...

[mikkh]

... and why Linux wins hands down

I decided, rather than running into the other room to use Windows to check peoples specific software problems, I'd go back to a dual boot system on my main PC. So starting from a blank hard drive I set about putting Windows 7 on first because Linux will see Windows and add it to the bootloader, while Windows will stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge Linux at all.

Install times -- Windows 20 mins, Linux 10 mins. 1 -0 to Linux (PClinuxOS in this instance)
Space Occupied by install -- Windows 14 GB, Linux 7 GB 2 - 0 to Linux
Drivers found automatically -- Windows all but USB 3, Linux all including USB 3 3 - 0 to Linux
Extra software included by default -- Windows, very bare bones set of small programs
Linux, literally every piece of software you'll ever need including a full Office suite, Professional quality graphic manipulation, DVD burning/copying, music player/converters, Skype, Google Earth, FTP clients, Torrent programs, instant messengers, cloud online storage etc etc . Plus a built in program to access at least 30,000 more - definitely 4 - 0 to Linux

Time to get fully updated -- Linux 100+ small updates done in 5 minutes and taking up an extra 46 MB
Windows, hmm not even attempted it yet, but it will be hours even days and a huge extra lump on the hard drive of at least several GB's I think you'll find that's 5 - 0 to Linux

Extra software needed before I dare do online banking etc -- Linux, Nothing extra required, Windows, a whole host of security software and a big drain on resources. 6 - 0 and game over

[Pete]

Hi Mikkh,
That is very informative, and interesting comparison. It's a lot cheaper to run Linux too. Is Linux more secure than windows 7, seems to be so?

[GuiltySpark]

But Windows does keep people like me in business

[GuiltySpark]

Pete

To some degree yes it is but mainly because less people use it so from a malware writers perspective, there is less money/mischief to be had.

If all businesses used Linux you would likely see less malware written for windows machines (but not completely as there are many variables involved, one of which the ease of writing a piece of malware for a windows file system).

[mikkh]

It's not just because less people use it though, Windows firewall for instance is pretty basic to say the least, while Linux has a much more robust albeit very geeky firewall in iptables. A decent router does give ample protection though - luckily for Windows users.

It's a more security minded OS overall I think, and should the unthinkable happen, as it has a few rare times in the past, it gets fixed very quickly unlike most Windows exploits which can take weeks or even months to sort out. Some never get fixed until the next version of Windows comes out.

Linux is not perfect, but for a free OS that lets me do everything I used to do in Windows but without bloated virus checkers etc running in the background, that's pretty amazing.

Another plus for a hoarder like me, is that old hardware is still supported in Linux. I can plug my old Mustek USB scanner in Linux and it will work. Try that in Windows Vista or later and you will have no joy at all. Windows will know it's there because it's USB but it won't find a driver and you can troll the internet for hours looking but you'll just find hundreds of other people with the same problem

[alexham36]

I have PCLinuxOS installed onto an old 10GB HD. I like it, except that it will neither "Sleep" nor "Hibernate", so every time I want to check my emails it takes 2 minutes to boot up in comparison with WinXP that takes about 10 seconds. I have tried several Linux OSs, probably about 10 and they all have Sleep/Hibernate options that do not work! I think that Linux will not become generally accepted until this time saving feature is sorted out. I suspect that the many thousands of programmers that work on Linux do not appreciate how important this feature is for people that do not want to have their computers left running 24/7.

Best,

Alex

[Pete]

Thanks

[mikkh]

I never use sleep or hibernate, partly because I was put off by early versions of these 'features' in Windows that crashed a lot, but mostly because I can't see the point. If I'm away from my PC for a short time, the screensaver and/or monitor power saving mode will kick in and I can just waggle my mouse and get back to what I'm doing immediately. If I think I'll be away for longer, I'll just switch it off completely. If I'm called away suddenly to answer the phone or door, reaching for the sleep or hibernate button doesn't even enter my mind to be honest, but I guess we all do things differently.

I know people who do use it in Linux though and if the 10 you tried were on the same machine, then perhaps it's your PSU or motherboard that are at fault. I don't keep my PC running 24/7 and if I've been out shopping or on a call fixing a PC, the first thing I'm interested in when returning is making a cup of tea (after I've switched the PC back on of course) So by the time I've made tea, the PC is ready to use again.

I live on my own and don't watch TV at all - unless it's via iPlayer etc on my PC, so the scenario of needing hibernate etc just doesn't crop up for me. I'll test it later for research purposes but I also suspect you're using an old version. Most Linux's get updated at least twice a year - which is quite annoying in a way, but it does guarantee any new toys I add will have some kind of support already.

[mikkh]

OK I just tried hibernate, it works fine here on the latest version of PClinuxOS. It's not brilliantly fast compared to the 10 seconds you mentioned - more like 30 secs, but it works. My boot up time from cold isn't much more than a minute anyway, so I probably won't use it again

[alexham36]

Mikkh,

I timed it in WinXP and it wakes up from hibernation in 15 seconds, including me typing the password and it goes out into hiberantion is less than 5 seconds, but that depends on the background programmes all being off. I am running AMD Athlon 64 x 2 Dual Core processor 2.11GHz with 1GB of RAM. I did not think that that was particularly ancient, but you could be right in that the motherboard is not suitable for Linux.

Best,

Alex

[mikkh]

The CPU is not terrible, but 1 GB of RAM is a bit low even for XP. When I had 'conky' running in Linux (PCLOS) It was showing not much more than 512 MB being used, but starting a browser quickly added several hundred more, which would leave your system seriously short. Unless you're running something like Puppy, Linux like Windows, really needs 2 GB of RAM or more especially if you're using the default KDE in PClinuxOS.

My main PC is a quad core with 4 GB of RAM, I'll probably upgrade that to 8 soon, not because I need it, but because it's a single stick of medium speed stuff I just threw in when i first built it a year or so ago. 2 sticks of higher speed will also enable dual channel mode. 2 x 2 will do me, but 2 x 4 is only £20 more, so I'll do that.

Adding an extra GB to yours will show a definite improvement in both systems. You will get penalised for running an old rig though. If it's DDR2 you'll pay as much for 1 GB as 2 GB of DDR3 currently costs. If it's DDR1 you'll be hard pressed to source any new stuff at all and have to rely on Ebay or similar for second hand gear

[alexham36]

Computer Specification.rtf (491 B)

Hi, Mikkh,

I am sending you in the attachments the computer specification and a picture of the memory - looks like 2 DDR2s and 2 empty slots. I am no sure why the emty slots are different colour. Does that look to you that I could add another 1 GB of memory? Money is not that important and it would be cheaper than buying a new PC.

Another question if I may. Is it possible that the system will not suspend/hibernate because it has not got enough memory?

I downloaded LinuxMate64 and burned it on DVD last night. It has very little on and I would have to download more applications before I could really use it. I have had another session with LinuxKDE32 this morning and it really is most impressive.

Best,

Alex

[mikkh]

Yeah looks like DDR2 with the smaller RAM chips on it and the two spare ones do appear to match from that angle. A lot of boards did come with DDR1 and DDR2 slots at one time though and there's only a very slight difference where the notch is on both, so I couldn't say for definite.

It's not important though, because if you do upgrade, you'd be better off removing both the existing ones and replacing them with 2 x 1GB or 2 x 2GB of the same brand/speed to ensure maximum compatibility and avoid possible conflicts.

And yes low RAM could be an issue with hibernate/suspend. If you go for 4 GB you'll lose some on a 32 bit Windows system because it can't 'see' it all. It's not a problem as regards smooth running of the system goes, but 64 bit would be better. If you've ever seen PAE mentioned in Linux, it basically means it will see all 4 GB (and up to 64 GB) on a 32 bit version. Puppy has PAE (physical address extension) versions available for instance

[alexham36]

Thank you very much for that Mikkh. Much appreciated. I will approach the people that supplied the computer to make sure it all works.

Thanks again,

Alex

[johnnybee]

Alex; you don't say what make your motherboard is, but from the pic supplied I can see that it's got a dual-channel memory setup on board; the two different colurs identify the two channels - Slots0 and 1 are for channel#1, slots2 and 3 are for channel#2.
It appears to me from that the way the DIMMs are arranged in the pic that you're running it in single-channel mode. Moving DIMM2 to slot3 should bring it into dual-channel mode, which would be a big help when running memory-hungry apps.
From the specsheet I see you have DDR2 533MHz modules fitted, and nowt wrong there; however it might be an idea to google up the specs on your motherboard to find out if it will work with 800 or 1066MHz modules - the BIOS revision will tell you yes or no.
It will also tell you the maximum supported RAM value - typically for a 'board like that it will be either 4 or 8Gb.
Lastly, all DDR2's have the same 240- pin configuration, whereas the old DDR1 specced units have 184 pins, and they also LOOK different with the chips being squarer, smaller and mounted higher on the backstrip.
Your best bet therefore is to go for four 1Gb PC800 sticks - which will be in dual channel mode by default - and maybe contemplate an upgrade to something like a x2 7750 running at 2.7GHz - they're cheap as chips these days, even the black edition.
Best of luck, mate!

[alexham36]

Thank you for the advice. I have installed 2X1GB DDR2s in and left 2 512KB DDR2s as well, so I am now on 3GB of RAM. Win7 has a performance monitor and the Base Score was 3.1 before and it is 3.0 now. Not sure what to make of that, but LinuxOS seems faster. It still will not go into sleep/suspend, so it is not a practical proposition for me although I prefer it to any Windows.

I have decided not to attempt to update the BIOS. I suppose that marks me as a raw beginner.

Thanks again,

Alex

[mikkh]

The Windows experience index is a very basic benchmark program and very misleading because your overall score is just based on the worst component which seems slightly ridiculous to me. If you have a middle of the road old computer with a half decent graphics card, you could get an overall score of say 4 or 5. But then you could have a brand new PC with the fastest CPU, fast hard drive and RAM but with average or poor on-board graphics and score less overall. Is the older computer better? Of course it isn't, but it might appear to be to the casual observer who isn't very computer literate.

As for your lower score, RAM will always run at the speed of the slowest stick - which should be the speed of the old stuff, so therefore no change should have occurred unless the newer RAM is slower for some strange reason. You should try it with just the newer RAM and see if there is any difference. If it's behaving OK, I wouldn't worry about the scores, it must feel faster with that extra RAM in it

[alexham36]

It is behaving faster, so I am not worried about the base score. By the way in WinXP the OS is described as Windows XP - Service Pack 3 - Physical Adress Extension! I did not think that Win had that facility, so I am guessing that it was a part of Service Pack 3.

[mikkh]

Never fully implemented in 32 bit Windows because it was found to be unstable, so Microsoft deliberately crippled it as a quick and dirty fix