Which operating system for a Netbook?
NJ_Annie
7 starter and Windows 7, which one would be best suited for a Netbook?
By best suited, I mean which one of the three will tax the system
resources the least? I am more concerned with that than the
functionality of the operating system. I am fairly familiar with XP.
Would it be best to stick with something I know and can easily work
with?
Thank You
NJA
CJJE
"NJ_Annie" <nj_a...@golfilla.info> wrote in message
news:06a019ae-59f8-4c84...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Although Windows 7 is now being sold with netbooks, and performs better than
Vista, tests have been showing that a netbook's battery life is still best
when using XP. The only problem is that M$ want to stop supporting XP!
See http://www.liliputing.com/page/4 and
http://blog.laptopmag.com/stick-with-xp-windows-7-battery-life-worse-on-netbooks
for details.
Chris
RnR
wrote:
I realize I can't speak for everyone else but I could care less if MS
supports XP or not. I find better support from 3rd party software
companies and people on the net. I do not allow MS to update my
system and am a happier person for that decision. So what I am saying
is that the more independent I am from MS, the better off my system is
for that. Maybe I might agree with you on a large corporate network
tho.
Camper
"RnR" <rnrt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m0v7g5991ic2ifc4l...@4ax.com...
Does that mean if I took your advise that me XP machine should not even have
SP1 installed?
Camper
RnR
>Camper, I can't answer that because I don't know what you ran / run
>on your system. If it helps you any, I still run SP2 not SP3 because
>I don't need SP3.
>
>Let me quote part of what I said above again to refresh your
>memory.....
> " I realize I can't speak for everyone else.....".
OT: Sorry I was messing with my system clock and failed to correct it
so my post will be out of sequence. My apology to all.
Louis
> on your system. If it helps you any, I still run SP2 not SP3 because
> I don't need SP3.
>
> Let me quote part of what I said above again to refresh your
> memory.....
Hopefully its a operating system which doesnt run a year ahed of itself....
RnR
Nope. Operator error.
Weavertech89
Windows 7 is a combination of XP and VISTA. with the same looks and
setup as Vista, and the speed performance of XP or better. Windows 7
starter is the cheapest one to buy. I have experienced 7 home premium
and it is very good indeed. I'm still a linux fan, but the Operating
System is all up to you and what you can afford.
Nate Nagel
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:13:36 +1000, "Camper"<br...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
> on your system. If it helps you any, I still run SP2 not SP3 because
> I don't need SP3.
>
> Let me quote part of what I said above again to refresh your
> memory.....
considered one of the Linux distros for netbooks? I don't have a
netbook, but I've found Ubuntu to run well on both my laptop and my
(non-Dell) desktop. Certainly *much* faster than XP Pro on my work
computer. A netbook especially I think is a good app for Linux because
you won't miss the stuff that's not available either as a Linux version
of the same software that you'd run under Windows, or else an equivalent
GPL version (the big one that I can think of is AutoCAD, but who runs
CAD on a netbook?) I'm thinking Ubuntu, with Firefox, Thunderbird,
OpenOffice.org, and your IM program of choice (Pidgin seems to work
well) should cover 99% of the typical netbook user's computing needs.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
BillW50
Nate Nagel typed on Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:52:48 -0400:
> considered one of the Linux distros for netbooks? I don't have a
> netbook, but I've found Ubuntu to run well on both my laptop and my
> (non-Dell) desktop. Certainly *much* faster than XP Pro on my work
> computer. A netbook especially I think is a good app for Linux
> because you won't miss the stuff that's not available either as a
> Linux version of the same software that you'd run under Windows, or
> else an equivalent GPL version (the big one that I can think of is
> AutoCAD, but who runs CAD on a netbook?) I'm thinking Ubuntu, with
> Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, and your IM program of choice
> (Pidgin seems to work well) should cover 99% of the typical netbook
> user's computing needs.
Well I too have many laptops and netbooks and I have some with Linux on
them. But Linux has the crappiest applications. And I include Firefox,
Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and Pidgin among them. And Linux is awful when
it comes to multimedia. As multimedia needs three times more CPU power
for the same performance than Windows XP does. So I can't do very much
under Linux. But I suppose some people don't do very much with their
computers anyway and it might be ok for them.
If you do go with Linux on a netbook... Btw, in the beginning they only
sold Linux on netbooks. As Windows XP was too expensive. Well that all
changed when Microsoft would give netbook manufactures a real deal of
OEM copies for Windows on their netbooks.
Anyway, there was only Linux available and they were not selling too
well. Then you got a choice later and get them either with Linux or
Windows XP. Well the Linux machines didn't sell well as virtually
everybody bought the Windows XP ones. And today you just can't find one
that offers Linux on them anymore because they just don't sell.
That being said, the Linux distro I really liked on a netbook was the
Asus Xandros distro. It came configured in Easy mode (vs. Advanced or
normal KDE desktop). I like this configuration because it would boot up
in a mere 20 seconds. Booting fast on a netbook is very important. As
you turn them on and off so much. Any other Linux configuration had
taken 40 or more seconds to boot up. While Windows XP takes 50 seconds
on the same machines. So unless you are running Xandros in Easy mode,
you are not gaining much if anything over than Windows XP anyway.
Sadly if you wanted wireless right away, even this Linux distro won't
help you. As even Xandros had taken like an extra 50 seconds to grab
your wireless. So Windows XP was still faster in the end anyway. As
Windows XP did the same in like 2 seconds.
Just putting things perspective.
--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2
Zack
Linux,
the limited use of a Netbook can be a blessing to start playing with
it.
Or, you may want not to mess with Linux, and simply go with XP.
Either way: make sure you take care of how to set it up, with booting,
services etc. This will be more important, for speed/performance and
just about everything else, than whether it is Linux or XP. (Even win7
should be fine.)
Regarding BillW50's "persepective" (the above post): I find it very
strange.
I've had no problems with Linux on a Netbook, and I know more people
who haven't. In fact, they strongly prefer it. (I have not used a
Netbook
enough to have a preference.) And I mean with full distros, not some
easy
ones. Also, I cannot disagree more about his judgement of apps,
specially
the very basic ones that he mentions. I have to say: what Bill says is
*his*
persepective. One can use Linux very nicely, on a Netbook just as
well.
(Note that you have way more flexibility with how you want your system
set up, when you use Linux. But then you do need to know a bit about
it.)
On Jun 27, 12:00 pm, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
> Innews:i0835...@news1.newsguy.com,
BillW50
> Regarding BillW50's "persepective" (the above post): I find it very
> strange.
> I've had no problems with Linux on a Netbook, and I know more people
> who haven't. In fact, they strongly prefer it. (I have not used a
> Netbook
> enough to have a preference.) And I mean with full distros, not some
> easy
> ones. Also, I cannot disagree more about his judgement of apps,
> specially
> the very basic ones that he mentions. I have to say: what Bill says is
> *his*
> persepective. One can use Linux very nicely, on a Netbook just as
> well.
> (Note that you have way more flexibility with how you want your system
> set up, when you use Linux. But then you do need to know a bit about
> it.)
Zack is a rare individual and only less than 1% agree with his
statement! As I use Linux all of the time and it has been around since
1992. And it has never even grown past 1% with the masses. So it is only
a niche OS. There is a very good reason for this. There isn't any good
applications for Linux at all. If Linux had great applications like
Windows does, it would be something.
And the reason why Linux doesn't do multimedia without using lots of CPU
power is because nobody has written something equivalent to DirectX for
Linux.
Linux is nothing more than a glorified PDA OS. That is all it is. And
all it does is bare bones simple tasks and that is all it can do. But
about 1% of computer users only do simple tasks on their computers so
Linux is just fine for them. But it isn't just fine for 99% of computer
users. As they need to do more with their computers than Linux can give
them.
--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
Bob Villa
I can only speak from observation and use of the daughter's 1545 LT.
Ubuntu has a very good DVD player...better IMO than Win players.
Also, FF seemed, to me, faster.
This is one more reason to disregard certain prejudices of certain
individuals.
bob
BillW50
You bet Bob. That is why I have multiple same model computers configured
with all of the same hardware. As you can run them side by side running
different OS. And the neat thing about these Celeron netbooks, as slow
performing software shows up clear as a bell.
And take any distro of Linux and run it on one of these. Throw an
external 1440x900 monitor on and open up some multimedia video playing
full screen. And you see that Linux is showing you one frame per 5
seconds. That is 1/5 of a frame per second. That is just awful!
Do the same thing under Windows XP and Windows has no problems playing
the same video on the same external monitor at full screen even @ 30fps.
There is a huge difference in performance between media played between
Linux and Windows XP.
Also if you like playing music files like I do. Using Firefox while the
music is playing causes the audio to start and stop under Linux while
Firefox is just loading pages. This is just terrible!
Windows can pull this off because it has DirectX and reduces the
processor use to play files tremendously. Linux has no such help. And
Linux has to muscle the CPU just to play low bandwidth stuff.
This isn't my opinion Bob, it is technological fact. And can be shown
scientifically. And it is repeatable over and over again.
And by the way, Ubuntu doesn't even include a DVD player either. They
claim they can't include one because it falls under restrictive
software. So you have to download it separately and if it refuses to,
you are just SOL. Look for yourself.
https://help.ubuntu.com/9.10/musicvideophotos/C/video-dvd.html
--
Bill
2 Asus EEE PC 7014G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 7028G ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2/SP3 ~ Xandros Linux
Bob Villa
player in it!
Many opinions are based how much MS stock we own. I'm not a hater of
Windows (XP is still my fave) but some prejudices are unfounded or
motivated by other gains.
bob
BillW50
Oh sorry, I thought we were talking about the downloadable version of
Ubuntu. So does Dell also offer all of their computers with Ubuntu
installed? Or just some of them?
Zack
want infinite discussions of operating systems, that is plain silly.
But since some people do read this in seek of advice, I cannot stand
by while you bash a full-fledged, capable operating system, in an
unjustified manner. For one thing, you seem to have reversed some
things: Linux is a better system, that can do more; while it is way
behind Windowds in terms of applications. (Did you confuse an
operating system with applications?) But it does have a solid
application base, and I have used it for years to do work, as serious
as it gets. Bill, you obviously dislike it a lot; fine, it's your
opinion, I don't contest that. But please refrain from offering
*your* opinion as a judgement. People read this. We have a
responsibility to post measured statements. (Why do you have Linux in
your signature when you can only say the worst things about it?
Clearly, *you* should not use that system, so don't.)
I am very careful with advising anyone to start using Linux, because
you do want to learn a bit about it in order to use it fully
effectively. (Did you learn it well? How on Earth do you manage to
get such awful perforance out of it?! Your example sounds simply like
a misconfigured player. Since 1992, you say? And you ask whether one
gets a player with it?! You install software on a Linux system, within
a minute, completely free of any charge or hassle. You can get all
kinds of players, and it's a breeze. You must know that!) Just to
state where I stand: Linux is my preference and choice, for a number
of reasons, and this is the system I use. But I use Windows often
too, and like a lot of things about it. In some sense, we are really
spoiled with options. (While in another sense one can say that it
should all be much, much better.)
Please measure your words man. Otherwise, what you say is obviously
biased and may get dismissed, while I am sure that you have valuable
experience to share. I've learned a lot from this group over years,
and I always followed unbiased advice. Sometimes it meant a lot of
reading to find it. Can we not be a little responsible, to make it
easier to assemble good advice for someone who doesn't know much?
Bob Villa
I think Bill blew his creditability quite a while back...in so far as
Windows is the cat's me-wow and Linux being a pile of crap.
I will admit he has given me some good advice at times though.
Some people "get off" on their own BS.
b_v
BillW50
Really Bob? Well I am a computer scientist since the 70's. And being a
scientist, I don't buy your average BS! And if you believe you are
right. Show me any evidence at all that Linux has ever broken 1% of
favor with the masses. And if you can, you have some hope of convincing
me of something. But if you can't, less than 1% of favor with the masses
means nothing. And that is how it is Bob.
There has been many promising OS over the decades (and I followed them
many times too). But if you can't make it with the masses, it becomes
nothing. And Linux has been trying for 18 years now and it is still
nothing. That is the truth and I can prove it all scientifically. But
you are not interested in proof now, are you Bob?
Nate Nagel
> And take any distro of Linux and run it on one of these. Throw an
> external 1440x900 monitor on and open up some multimedia video playing
> full screen. And you see that Linux is showing you one frame per 5
> seconds. That is 1/5 of a frame per second. That is just awful!
It would be awful if that was what happened. I can't speak for
1440x900, but at 1920x1080 I'm not noticing anything like that.
Ben Myers
Whew! I had to put on my waders to read that response. Imagine! A
"computer scientist" in our midst! ... Ben Myers
BillW50
> On 06/30/2010 08:38 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>
>> And take any distro of Linux and run it on one of these. Throw an
>> external 1440x900 monitor on and open up some multimedia video playing
>> full screen. And you see that Linux is showing you one frame per 5
>> seconds. That is 1/5 of a frame per second. That is just awful!
>
> It would be awful if that was what happened. I can't speak for
> 1440x900, but at 1920x1080 I'm not noticing anything like that.
>
> nate
I take the scientific approach, Nate. If we get different results, I
believe it should be investigated to learn why? So let's start with what
kind of system are you getting this amazing Linux performance? And what
Linux distro are you using and the version number? And are you using the
stock player or another one?
BillW50
We can *always* count on you, Ben! To take an intellectual conversation
and turn it into an ad hominem one. Can't we?
And by chance Ben isn't just playing dumb this time...
1) Yes scientists do use computers and some even use Dells too.
2) Yes scientists do use the Internet, just like anybody else does.
3) Yes in the early beginnings, the Internet was called ARPANET
(Advanced Research Projects Agency NET). And computer scientists were
its first users. So why shouldn't we be still here?
Bob Villa
Bill...I did say you have been helpful!? You really take yourself
waaay too seriously...chill, k?
BillW50
Yes you did.
> You really take yourself
> waaay too seriously...chill, k?
We scientists believe in the data, not in personal opinions. It is just
our nature Bob. ;-)
BillW50
> Nate Nagel wrote on Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:10:31 -0400:
>> On 06/30/2010 08:38 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> And take any distro of Linux and run it on one of these. Throw an
>>> external 1440x900 monitor on and open up some multimedia video playing
>>> full screen. And you see that Linux is showing you one frame per 5
>>> seconds. That is 1/5 of a frame per second. That is just awful!
>>
>> It would be awful if that was what happened. I can't speak for
>> 1440x900, but at 1920x1080 I'm not noticing anything like that.
>>
>> nate
>
> I take the scientific approach, Nate. If we get different results, I
> believe it should be investigated to learn why? So let's start with what
> kind of system are you getting this amazing Linux performance? And what
> Linux distro are you using and the version number? And are you using the
> stock player or another one?
I just double checked again and I tried to play a non-copy protected DVD
on this 1440x900 screen. It is very bad! Slow, choppy, and the sound
pauses and starts over and over again.
SMPlayer v0.5.21
Ben Myers
I could not help myself. I feel really humbled to be in the virtual
presence of a real computer scientist... Ben
BillW50
I don't know why? As the computer scientists I know (including myself),
don't think it is any big deal. And I remember a computer magazine
called .info (yes with the dot in front of it) had an article that
talked about the computer scientists. That magazine called us "computer
elite gods"... Anyway some wanted to give the power of computers to the
masses (me included). While another side wanted to keep it out of the
hands of the common people and keep the power of computers to
themselves. Well you know the end of that story. ;-)
BillW50
I did all of this testing last year and I am doing it again just to make
sure my memory was right. And I am now playing the same video DVD on
Windows XP on the same model machine. I am using the K-Lite codecs and
Windows Media Player v10 running the 900MHz Celeron at 633MHz on the
external 1440x900 monitor in full screen. It is just beautiful! With CPU
power to spare. Not a lot, but about 15 to 20% still left. ;-)
Ben Myers
That's it! It's the virtual presence of an elite god in a virtual white
lab coat that is absolutely jaw-dropping for me. I remain in awe at
your virtual presence! ... Ben
BillW50
It is always nice to know we can always depend on you for the ad hominem
side of any issue, Ben.
Ben Myers
Same as we can all depend on a lot of hot air in your posts. If there
was far less hot air and more down and dirty factual information, this
would be good... Ben
Nate Nagel
> Nate Nagel wrote on Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:10:31 -0400:
>> On 06/30/2010 08:38 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> And take any distro of Linux and run it on one of these. Throw an
>>> external 1440x900 monitor on and open up some multimedia video playing
>>> full screen. And you see that Linux is showing you one frame per 5
>>> seconds. That is 1/5 of a frame per second. That is just awful!
>>
>> It would be awful if that was what happened. I can't speak for
>> 1440x900, but at 1920x1080 I'm not noticing anything like that.
>>
>> nate
>
> I take the scientific approach, Nate. If we get different results, I
> believe it should be investigated to learn why? So let's start with what
> kind of system are you getting this amazing Linux performance? And what
> Linux distro are you using and the version number? And are you using the
> stock player or another one?
>
Ubuntu 10.04, VLC, PowerSpec G207
Nate Nagel
> On 07/01/2010 07:05 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>>> On 06/30/2010 08:38 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>>>
>>>> And take any distro of Linux and run it on one of these. Throw an
>>>> external 1440x900 monitor on and open up some multimedia video playing
>>>> full screen. And you see that Linux is showing you one frame per 5
>>>> seconds. That is 1/5 of a frame per second. That is just awful!
>>>
>>> It would be awful if that was what happened. I can't speak for
>>> 1440x900, but at 1920x1080 I'm not noticing anything like that.
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>> I take the scientific approach, Nate. If we get different results, I
>> believe it should be investigated to learn why? So let's start with what
>> kind of system are you getting this amazing Linux performance? And what
>> Linux distro are you using and the version number? And are you using the
>> stock player or another one?
>>
>
>
Forgot to mention, that just happens to be what I'm using now. Also no
problem with 10.04/VLC on a Precision M90 or Studio 1555. Retired my
old Gateway something-or-other laptop which was running 9.10 and that
worked as well. Precision M90 also had 9.04 on it prior to the release
of 10.04 with no problems.
BillW50
I sure don't know why you prefer to BS your way through all of this. But
the Apollo project used one of the first IC based computers called the
AGC. And no that computer glitch that Armstrong had wasn't my fault on
the first lunar landing, I swear!
And that same computer was quickly adopted by the the military for
fighter jets. And I was contracted by Honeywell and Westinghouse and
hired as a rocket and computer scientist. And Honeywell renamed the AGC
to the VTAS computer. And both the Westinghouse and Honeywell computers
were interfaced to communicate to guided missiles to guide them on their
way by radar (this was before GPS). And that is what my job was. And
yes, white lab coats and the whole bit. And that is how I got my start
into my career. And yes, we were using ARPANET (aka the Internet) back
then too.
Ben Myers
So???
BillW50
So you ask? Who is the one full of hot air here Ben?
Btw, I guess I didn't make myself clear before. But I hated .info
magazine calling us "computer elite gods". As I wanted no part of that.
BillW50
Geez Nate! A PowerSpec G207? What the hell happened? Couldn't find a
more powerful computer at the time? Hell you are burning 500 watts and I
am here burning a cool 10 watts on a Celeron 900MHz underclocked to
633MHz with only 2GB of RAM on a 400MHz front bus.
Linux can't (so far) pull off multimedia on such a system like this one
(which is like most netbooks so far). Strangely enough, Windows XP can
on such a system even at 1440x900 with some CPU usage to spare.
Are you seeing the difference here? You *can* pull off multimedia with
Linux if you throw enough power at it. But why? When you can get by with
far less and run Windows XP instead. See what I am saying here Nate?
As I have to replace all eight of my computers here with far more
powerful computers just to get the same performance I had with Windows
XP and to be able to do less than I was doing under Windows XP. I dunno
Nate, that doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
Nate Nagel
190-200 watts, including 25" LCD monitor (my UPS has a display)
I figured, being the cheap bastard that I am, if I bought the most
badass computer I could today, that I wouldn't find it obsolete for a
good long time. (it was on sale, too, because they'd just released a
newer version.)
>
> Linux can't (so far) pull off multimedia on such a system like this one
> (which is like most netbooks so far). Strangely enough, Windows XP can
> on such a system even at 1440x900 with some CPU usage to spare.
>
> Are you seeing the difference here? You *can* pull off multimedia with
> Linux if you throw enough power at it. But why? When you can get by with
> far less and run Windows XP instead. See what I am saying here Nate?
>
> As I have to replace all eight of my computers here with far more
> powerful computers just to get the same performance I had with Windows
> XP and to be able to do less than I was doing under Windows XP. I dunno
> Nate, that doesn't sound like a good deal to me.
>
My Gateway laptop is the exact opposite (I bought it new something like
7 years ago, and it's kind of like a "George Washington's Axe" computer
- I've patched it together so many times; I finally gave up when I
realized that if anything else broke it'd likely cost more to fix than
it would cost me to buy a faster computer) and it worked the same. In
fact I'm tempted to fire it up to see if it'll drive the 1080p monitor.
Last time I seriously used it was on a trip to Japan, I lugged it
along so I wouldn't be completely disconnected from the outside world
(US cell phones don't work in Japan...) I think it's a P4-something or
other. Hot running power hog, but not exactly blazing fast.
Hell, I bet the old P133 in the garage would handle it OK, but I am too
lazy to bother to fire it up just to prove a point.