vista or linux on new notebook
•
6 Dec 2008, 22:55
•
Journals
hi all
i´m getting a new notebook soon and figured out that:
The hardware should be faster than the one of my pc but
vista suxx and makes everything slowly so overall the new notebook isn´t rly faster than my pc. I got 4 gb ram and got adviced to use the 64bit vista which is included in my laptop package.
So my question:
Will the notebook run faster with linux (64bit or not?) or windows vista 64bit
Windows XP isn´t rly recommended on that notebook due some driver and the 2gb ram bug
It should be possible to run the notebook on linux (read some guide how to install drivers etc) but is it really faster?
64 bit vista suxx -> some progrs won´t work , slowly
Linux -> some progs won´t work too.. but maybe its faster?
I touched linux just from some live cd and the only real distru i ever installed & used was "BackTrack2". So i dont know at all if i can also work with that notebook at school? Programms like mplap,schematics,pspice,... aren´t maybe avi for linux. Wine can propably run them but i heard its slow? Some friend had linux on his notebook and couldn´t get the beamer work with it (for some presentation).
Maybe you can answer my question :P
Would be nice thx bb (gonna shower , read the comments , answer , go to bed)
p.s. please only answer if u know what you are talking about. Some comments like "linux suxx" doesn´t rly help.
i´m getting a new notebook soon and figured out that:
The hardware should be faster than the one of my pc but
vista suxx and makes everything slowly so overall the new notebook isn´t rly faster than my pc. I got 4 gb ram and got adviced to use the 64bit vista which is included in my laptop package.
So my question:
Will the notebook run faster with linux (64bit or not?) or windows vista 64bit
Windows XP isn´t rly recommended on that notebook due some driver and the 2gb ram bug
It should be possible to run the notebook on linux (read some guide how to install drivers etc) but is it really faster?
64 bit vista suxx -> some progrs won´t work , slowly
Linux -> some progs won´t work too.. but maybe its faster?
I touched linux just from some live cd and the only real distru i ever installed & used was "BackTrack2". So i dont know at all if i can also work with that notebook at school? Programms like mplap,schematics,pspice,... aren´t maybe avi for linux. Wine can propably run them but i heard its slow? Some friend had linux on his notebook and couldn´t get the beamer work with it (for some presentation).
Maybe you can answer my question :P
Would be nice thx bb (gonna shower , read the comments , answer , go to bed)
p.s. please only answer if u know what you are talking about. Some comments like "linux suxx" doesn´t rly help.
and its not 2gb bug, more like 3 point something gb bug, which in the end isnt that bad considering of course how you have planned to use the computer.
it will replace my desktop pc so i will also play on it
And windows xp isn´t much faster too.hard to say with which benchmarks i could compare (Since everyone got different results on the same notebook) but xp only got 500-600 points more than vista on 3dmark06.
Vista 64bit notebook: 8075
my pc xp 32bit: 10000 (a bit more can´t remember)
And the notebook got much better hardware.
THere was also a benchmark which jsut tested the hardware. And the benachmark from the notebooks cpu#1 ,#2 and gpu was much better. so it must be the OS :(
my desktop: amd athlond 64 x2 600+
my notebook: intel centrino2 dual core 2 duo 2,53GHZ (T9400)
that sould be atleast equal? Some cpu test/benchmark also gave the cpu more points in that laptop than my pc reached :/
Can i downgrade my vista to make it faster?
Which things would make linux slowlier ? maybe i dont need them anyway?
and compiz (nice desktop 3d effects) arent really a ressource hog, lots of ppl use them on 5 year old computers without and trouble... and you are getting a new system...so.. care!
linux is a kernel, and the linux kernel is superior to the NT kernel
I used a pentium 180mhz as my desktop PC with linux on and it worked like a charm. Do that with Vista.
if you really wanna go with linux you would be happier with an ATI graphics card atm.
if you are just a beginner take ubuntu 8.1 . easy to setup, huge hardware support.
ET feels so awesome on linux :))
nvidia has always worked better for me in linux ;_;
and ati somehow managed to get better drivers/better linux-support than nvidia in like 1 year and the gap is still widening, also nvidia has made it clear that they will never be able to open source their drivers...
I never had or met anyone having problems with nvidia cards under linux. Only constant whine about ATI drivers
e: got 9700m gt which is pretty rare in my laptop - absolutely no problems.
Hello, actually i have Ubuntu as a primary OS on my laptop and using Vista ONLY to play new games or use some windows software which i dont want to spend a lot of time on trying to launch it under wine or find alternative.But that's not the point.
Judging what is better by NVIDIA forum is the most stupid thing ever, no ATI owner would post his problem there, there're plenty of other more suitable places. According to your logic ETQW is awesome because nobody has problems with it here on crossfire and Killerboy isnt retarded coz there're no his posts at forums for retards.Yeah... right!
Yes, ATI drivers improved a lot in 2008 offering great varieties of supported gfx-cards and lots of features, but nvidia drivers are still more stable and TROUBLE-FREE. geforce 9 series have been out for a year, most problems you may get are easily solvable. Most people still buy nvidia cards if they have linux.
by your logic wouldnt it seem strange that nvidia users desperatly want ati-features and even envy ati users? (at the NV forums)
hf! support of those graphic chipsets(9***) is a MESS atm... it will get better and you can give it a try ofc... but what ive heard support of this chipset is not cool :))
sweet my kernel just finished compiling! :D
hf with your kernel :P
if you have got enough hd space you can go for dualboot. install both linux and windows and see what works better!
wine is not really slower but it can be very tricky when it comes to configuring for special software. as long as it is nothing graphically you can do a good job with virtual machines. the problem is that those take a lot of cpu power which might be not so good when running on battery.
And who cares about boot times? :D
But I personally doubt that you need Linux to get your ET running smoothly.
thought i could get them work with wine since some comment up told me wine isn´t rly slowly
I would go for a dualboot system:
Windows for gaming and Linux for ET and applications.
hf gl with your new pc anyways :>
i will get 600+fps with vista also at ET.. its more about new games where i need the performance
thx anyway :)
The crossfire linuxnerd-community will help you with
1. Flaming the hell out of the windowsnubs
2. Uh... yeah.
Serious'd:
Yes, in everyday use Linux will be faster than Vista. The question is wether the extra performance is worth the time you'll have to invest on learning how to use it and solve any problems that may rise. Learning Linux properly will pay off in the long run though.
With wine and/or virtualization you should be able to get the applications you need running, but it might take som time to make it work. You'll get the pleasure of a system that doesn't bloat over time, doesn't get spyware/viruses, and, if you're as nerdy as me, is a lot more fun to play around with than Windows. But then again, by installing linux your chances for getting laid decreases dramatically.
You may install Vista, some linux distro and XP and boot the one you need more :)
Yes, if you decided to buy asus g50v, everything works under XP except:
-IR Driver(care)
-Direct Console 2.0(leds, led display & overclocking)
-Smart Logon(lol care)
And losing ~700MB is ok even if you play new games like cod5.
Btw with linux IR, TV-tuner wont work + i have some probs with the latest kernel - my sound doesnt work anymore, but i suppose i can solve this sound prob.
and ye these 3 things won´t work under xp.. and the benachmark isn´t rly faster than the vista on too :(
hmm is linux much faster than your vista?
no offense.
Linux definately is more configurable to get max performance out of system, while Vista would be cool only becacause of useless DX10 and the fact that you're using "top" Windows system right now.
Also, now there is no such problem for "oh god how to make this and that work on linux". Now it's for more suitable for Vista systems.
i mean wine? Isn´t that slow? And takes performance?
gonna sleep now, wil lreplay otmorrow ;)
bb
don't make it sound like you copy it onto your harddrive and whooosh are able to play. many games are a nightmare to set up with wine!
but if you define 'simply' as having to invest lots of time fixing stupid problems with missing dll's or sound or wrong renderers, searching for adventurous workarounds and in the end most likely still having less functionality than on windows - never mind what I said.
Although I admit that there are games which simply refuse to run or run with visible bugs while being emulated.
Wonder if there are cracks or serials? :P
Well dual booting or just a vm for the school stuff would be an option.
Still i would like to know how much faster linux is.. but i think thats not rly possible to say :P
And ofc another big plus is the no virus/spyware stuff.. which also takes ressources / time again.. on windows i always got kaspersky i-net security running in the backround which takes ressources