I love my Win10 installation, no problems and its faster and more secure.
> I love my Win10 installation | (https://i.imgur.com/AfwWGfD.png) |
> I prefer using W8.1 | (https://i.imgur.com/0k13mj2.png) |
Edit: it's definitely more stable and convenient for the typical end user experience though. You don't have to reboot it multiple times a week.you have to reboot your linux? i have not done so since i changed the ram in the machine, windows ends up self rebooting but not my linux machines. although i use Debian for most machines, but even the opensuse one is running without proper reboot for a while. i had to move it so it was shut down but it was the 1st time since building it so 4 months.
Imo, XP was the best version. There are a few things windows 10 does well here and there but the UI is worse. They keep getting rig of useful features so that I have to hack my own computer to make it be able to do what it could in 1995.i liked 2000 better, found that everything was easier to get to, but then i was 5 so maybe not that great :) and i crashed it quite a lot.
XP was the best version.
Edit: it's definitely more stable and convenient for the typical end user experience though. You don't have to reboot it multiple times a week.you have to reboot your linux? i have not done so since i changed the ram in the machine, windows ends up self rebooting but not my linux machines. although i use Debian for most machines, but even the opensuse one is running without proper reboot for a while. i had to move it so it was shut down but it was the 1st time since building it so 4 months.
and like you i have to work with windows and the bugs in it and office that are known since the dawn of time are numerous. i do not understand why companies are willing to pay that much money for a software that does not actually really work.Imo, XP was the best version. There are a few things windows 10 does well here and there but the UI is worse. They keep getting rig of useful features so that I have to hack my own computer to make it be able to do what it could in 1995.i liked 2000 better, found that everything was easier to get to, but then i was 5 so maybe not that great :) and i crashed it quite a lot.
LeslieannYou have this backwards (I don't hate win8, it's just dead and Win7 is on the way), at any rate, there's a whole huge thread with my thoughts on Win10, this one is too easy.
you have to reboot your linux? i have not done so since i changed the ram in the machineYou should in order to properly update the kernel.
I found the installation really painful. All the popups .... constantly clicking no...
I found the installation really painful. All the popups .... constantly clicking no...
Kekeke.. it's alot easier than the XP days. Then try installing Dos on old systems, drivers by commandline. And you gotta phone in to that ONE guy on the usenet who got it working on that specific hardware, and it turns out he's some sort of hardened criminal and now you fear for your life because you guys agreed to meet afk to talk about soundblaster.
I mean, getting all of your info from the internet has a costI found the installation really painful. All the popups .... constantly clicking no...
Kekeke.. it's alot easier than the XP days. Then try installing Dos on old systems, drivers by commandline. And you gotta phone in to that ONE guy on the usenet who got it working on that specific hardware, and it turns out he's some sort of hardened criminal and now you fear for your life because you guys agreed to meet afk to talk about soundblaster.
Man I'm really glad that I was to young to do computer stuff at home before Windows 3.0. All the DOS was in easy mode by that time.
I love my Win10 installation, no problems and its faster and more secure.Nice troll attempt ;D Especially this statement: "more secure" :cool:
I'd like to get into Linux but I feel I'm not worthy hmRead this (https://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=94156.msg2564130#msg2564130), it might help get you started and help decide if it's even right for you.
I'd like to get into Linux but I feel I'm not worthy hmeveryone is worthy, just need to find your home, for me it is OpenSuse with KDE other would rather use Ubuntu or Mint, i agree not everyone is open to help new comers but just ignore peoples trying to bring you down, linux has become much easier over the years.
are you working for microsoft? or never used anything else? nowadays yeah it is kinda more secure than 7 but it still is not secure in the slightest and it is so much slower than 7 that it itself much slower than alternatives. to be fair i do not use aero on 7 but i can't disable metro on 10 nor can i disable cortana or the telemetry using up to 50% of the cpu on some machines. sure on a threadripper or epyc it will be faster as 7 can't use all the cores but otherwise i do not expect it to be ever actually faster, faster feeling maybe as it never shuts down the pc fully to make you believe it starts up fast and it caches in ram more aggressively.
XP was the best version.
I am inclined to agree. After a few service fixes 98 was great, and I was also very happy in 7 for many years.
are you working for microsoft? or never used anything else? nowadays yeah it is kinda more secure than 7 but it still is not secure in the slightest and it is so much slower than 7 that it itself much slower than alternatives. to be fair i do not use aero on 7 but i can't disable metro on 10 nor can i disable cortana or the telemetry using up to 50% of the cpu on some machines. sure on a threadripper or epyc it will be faster as 7 can't use all the cores but otherwise i do not expect it to be ever actually faster, faster feeling maybe as it never shuts down the pc fully to make you believe it starts up fast and it caches in ram more aggressively.
Windows 10 runs great on almost anything. I was surprised by how well it runs on Baytrail Atoms with just 2GB of RAM. The same was the case with 8, just the interface was much worse. I wouldn't even want to try to run Windows 7 on that hardware, regardless of aero. Cortana being enabled is what eats the most pointless system resources in my experience, shutting her off means smooth sailing on most systems made in the last 10 years ... or more.
Linux the king of speed/efficiency though, of course.
XP was the best version.
I am inclined to agree. After a few service fixes 98 was great, and I was also very happy in 7 for many years.
Yes, XP is king of Windows. Organization was perfect, better than any other operating system I have used, and performance was good too ... if you could look past/deal with its quirks. I wish M$ would have chosen it as their, "last operating system". But then again, if they had, they would probably be constantly making it worse with pointless "feature" updates.
Windows 10 runs great on almost anything.Win7 runs just fine on them, the problem being you need to deal with SSD trim, drivers and GPT formatting, not to mentiond getting it installed to begin with as Intel has blocked anything but 10 on them. 7 was designed to run on 256megs of ram and scales quite well.
I wouldn't even want to try to run Windows 7 on that hardware, regardless of aero. Cortana being enabled is what eats the most pointless system resources in my experience, shutting her off means smooth sailing on most systems made in the last 10 years ... or more.
Linux the king of speed/efficiency though, of course.
I'm still not getting quite the performance I want out of a Linux distro, though, on my, admittedly overkill computer.Software is optimized for certain hardware.
3950x with 64 gigs of RAM and like a hundred hard drives. It doesn't seem like Linux scales as well to that kind of multi-core usage in the software I use.
Even with just 12 threads I almost always have at least one core sitting idle, it shuffles around but it's quite common.
I'm still not getting quite the performance I want out of a Linux distro, though, on my, admittedly overkill computer.so far i tested windows 10 pro, home, OpenSuse and Debian on my old server machine (dual opteron 4184, 64GB DDR3 ECC-Reg, R9 Nano, actually very cheap for what it is), so far windows never managed to use the whole 12 cores under synthetic loads, although perform slightly better at graphics, while on linux i could fully use 100% on 12 cores and use less ram but the gpu folding score was much lower. yes the load i used to test that was folding at home.
3950x with 64 gigs of RAM and like a hundred hard drives. It doesn't seem like Linux scales as well to that kind of multi-core usage in the software I use.
I'm still not getting quite the performance I want out of a Linux distro, though, on my, admittedly overkill computer.so far i tested windows 10 pro, home, OpenSuse and Debian on my old server machine (dual opteron 4184, 64GB DDR3 ECC-Reg, R9 Nano, actually very cheap for what it is), so far windows never managed to use the whole 12 cores under synthetic loads, although perform slightly better at graphics, while on linux i could fully use 100% on 12 cores and use less ram but the gpu folding score was much lower. yes the load i used to test that was folding at home.
3950x with 64 gigs of RAM and like a hundred hard drives. It doesn't seem like Linux scales as well to that kind of multi-core usage in the software I use.
This is interesting to see, with eight physical cores and no HT, I see the core load almost always spread evenly and no idle cores. Then again, maybe I've just got a lot of background processes.
so far i tested windows 10 pro, home, OpenSuse and Debian on my old server machine (dual opteron 4184, 64GB DDR3 ECC-Reg, R9 Nano, actually very cheap for what it is), so far windows never managed to use the whole 12 cores under synthetic loads, although perform slightly better at graphics, while on linux i could fully use 100% on 12 cores and use less ram but the gpu folding score was much lower. yes the load i used to test that was folding at home.There was an issue with the Windows kernel and AMD cpus where people couldn't get full performance, one solution was to dedicate cpu 0 to managing the other cores. I know AMD and MS are aware of it but I'm not sure if they have a patch for it yet or not.
Windows 10 runs great on almost anything.Win7 runs just fine on them, the problem being you need to deal with SSD trim, drivers and GPT formatting, not to mentiond getting it installed to begin with as Intel has blocked anything but 10 on them. 7 was designed to run on 256megs of ram and scales quite well.
I wouldn't even want to try to run Windows 7 on that hardware, regardless of aero. Cortana being enabled is what eats the most pointless system resources in my experience, shutting her off means smooth sailing on most systems made in the last 10 years ... or more.
Linux the king of speed/efficiency though, of course.
Linux isn't always king.
I did a bunch of testing on this a while back. 10 would install and boot with only 512megs ram, it didn't run well but it would actually run. Ubuntu and quite a few others wouldn't install with less than 1 gig and when I got around that they had a ton of errors when you tried doing anything. However, once you did have a gig, Linux did run better. Though to be fair, Win10 did admirable considering, so long as you didn't install Chrome or need to update.
Yes, there are distros designed for low resources but they aren't mainstream like Ubuntu, and it wasn't really Ubuntu's problem it's a desktop environment problem. Good luck convincing the average Win10 user to switch to a stripped down barebones XFCE or I3 interface if they don't have to, some people like that, but Windows users are used to eye candy.
I'm usually not running SSDs in older systems. With Bay Trail systems, in particular, driver support even in Windows 8 and 10 is sketchy. Then you need a 32 bit EFI configuration to even boot. I don't recall whether or not I ever got Windows 7 running on Bay Trail hardware. Even Linux support has been horrendous without a bunch of random patches.Linux on those systems was pretty easy you just need one or two files copies to the usb stick, been a while since I did Windows 7 on such a system (if ever), they were built for Win8. That split EFI was a stupid, stupid idea.
I imagine this was the 32 bit version of Windows 10? Lubuntu used to run quite nicely with 512mb. I haven't used it with that little RAM in some time though. Chrome shouldn't be installed on literally anything. All I ever use it for is printing Google documents at work.All were 64bit because I was using Virtualbox to test browser memory scaling from 8-16 gigs and then decided to see how low they could go. A 32bit distro might have worked but I rarely do anything 32bit these days and many distros are dropping it entirely.
Would you not consider Lubuntu mainstream? I had 19.04 with the new-ish LXQT desktop running on an old P4 Dell Dimension 3000 surprisingly well ... with the original IDE hard drive. I think it would still do nicely for light-medium web browsing. lol I think I did upgrade the RAM to about 1GB though. My uncle, knowing very little about computers, gave that dinosaur to me, so I figured why not make it somewhat usable and give it away to someone else?Any distro based on Ubuntu claiming low resources is a joke, but not for the reason you think.
I'm usually not running SSDs in older systems. With Bay Trail systems, in particular, driver support even in Windows 8 and 10 is sketchy. Then you need a 32 bit EFI configuration to even boot. I don't recall whether or not I ever got Windows 7 running on Bay Trail hardware. Even Linux support has been horrendous without a bunch of random patches.Linux on those systems was pretty easy you just need one or two files copies to the usb stick, been a while since I did Windows 7 on such a system (if ever), they were built for Win8. That split EFI was a stupid, stupid idea.
I imagine this was the 32 bit version of Windows 10? Lubuntu used to run quite nicely with 512mb. I haven't used it with that little RAM in some time though. Chrome shouldn't be installed on literally anything. All I ever use it for is printing Google documents at work.All were 64bit because I was using Virtualbox to test browser memory scaling from 8-16 gigs and then decided to see how low they could go. A 32bit distro might have worked but I rarely do anything 32bit these days and many distros are dropping it entirely.
Would you not consider Lubuntu mainstream? I had 19.04 with the new-ish LXQT desktop running on an old P4 Dell Dimension 3000 surprisingly well ... with the original IDE hard drive. I think it would still do nicely for light-medium web browsing. lol I think I did upgrade the RAM to about 1GB though. My uncle, knowing very little about computers, gave that dinosaur to me, so I figured why not make it somewhat usable and give it away to someone else?Any distro based on Ubuntu claiming low resources is a joke, but not for the reason you think.
There's a distro called Watt that claims to be specifically for that, do you know how much better it is than stock Ubuntu or even Mint? Almost zero. It's not that it's bad, it's that Ubuntu is actually really, really good right out of the box, it's hard to beat it even with something like Arch tuned to the hilt. Most of these groups are simply throwing a "light" desktop environment (D.E.) on it and calling it low resource. They may swap out some software here or there but for the most part it's Ubuntu with a different D.E., is it lower, yes, but Ubuntu did the real work.
I did some testing on this and basically if you have a newer CPU, and by new I mean anything made in the last 8 to 10 years, and more than 1 or 2gigs of ram there is very, very little to be gained using a "low resource" D.E. because the hardware enhancements (not computing power) offset the increased CPU use. In your case, yes it will help but you're also the exception not the rule as that is much older than what most people use today. You lack those enhancements so a newer D.E. is actually burden to the cpu, so old rules apply.
Keep in mind, apps also use these enhancements, and if the D.E. doesn't support them the app doesn't benefit either (depending on the enhancement), so while you "saved" resources on your desktop, Firefox and Chrome won't be able to use them either and if they can't then their load can actually be worse than if you had just used a D.E. that did support it. My understanding is that LXDE was this way, hence the development of LXQT. In your case an LXDE distro would probably be better than LXQT since you can't use them anyhow.
That depends on the particular system I think. My knockoff compute stick had audio, wireless, bluetooth, and I think even sleep state issues ... maybe more, right out of the box in Linux for at least a few years.I was mostly concerend with the EFI, Ubuntu dealt with that party easy, other systems less so.
Maybe this is a recent development? Lubuntu, LXLE (is this even still maintained?), puppy, and others, have been my go-to on systems that would choke and die with the cinnamon flavor of mint (my preference), much less Ubuntu's unity abomination. I remember that when that first came out, it was eating more system resources than Windows 7 even was, so I promptly went back to Windows on that system. The timing probably couldn't have been better, since I believe that was just before the spyware fiasco.Timing did probably play a part but running a newer distro on an older system you face different challenges as software typically becomes more and more bloated with time. Linux is nowhere near as bad as Windows with this (it doesn't need to "add features" to create sales) but it's typical (XP's install size tripled over it's lifespan).
{combined}
I think I tried LXDE on the same system and it was almost unusable, I may be mistaken though. I know I definitely wouldn't expect it to be functional. It made core 2 duo systems with minimal ram with aging mechanical drives relatively snappy, but I could tell there was only so much those systems could do these days with LXDE. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That depends on the particular system I think. My knockoff compute stick had audio, wireless, bluetooth, and I think even sleep state issues ... maybe more, right out of the box in Linux for at least a few years.I was mostly concerend with the EFI, Ubuntu dealt with that party easy, other systems less so.
Unfortunately as you found they often use a lot of proprietary stuff, while they're kind of neat I pretty much gave up on them because of it. The non-knockoffs are not much better. Buy a newer Pi, much easier.
Maybe this is a recent development? Lubuntu, LXLE (is this even still maintained?), puppy, and others, have been my go-to on systems that would choke and die with the cinnamon flavor of mint (my preference), much less Ubuntu's unity abomination. I remember that when that first came out, it was eating more system resources than Windows 7 even was, so I promptly went back to Windows on that system. The timing probably couldn't have been better, since I believe that was just before the spyware fiasco.Timing did probably play a part but running a newer distro on an older system you face different challenges as software typically becomes more and more bloated with time. Linux is nowhere near as bad as Windows with this (it doesn't need to "add features" to create sales) but it's typical (XP's install size tripled over it's lifespan).
{combined}
I think I tried LXDE on the same system and it was almost unusable, I may be mistaken though. I know I definitely wouldn't expect it to be functional. It made core 2 duo systems with minimal ram with aging mechanical drives relatively snappy, but I could tell there was only so much those systems could do these days with LXDE. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Win10 is ok.agreed, still my favorite windows interface... so easy to get to everything. although not safe at all anymore...
I remember Windows 2000 SP3, one of the best...
Still have a soft spot for Win 3.1.
Linux Mint Cinnamon is comfortable and comprehensible for a Windows user.
Yes, totally useless...Linux Mint Cinnamon is comfortable and comprehensible for a Windows user.Unless you need to do some actual work, in which case it's useless.
The internet runs on linux.i 2nd that trying to develop websites on Windows is a nightmare compared to linux, i'd love for my boss to allow me a linux server, but he does not know how to work it so it's a no.
I love my Win10 installation, no problems and its faster and more secure.
How can anyone abide by forced updates? Even when you set them for as far away as possible if MS deems it a needed update they force you to take it regardless of your settings. Have fun waking up to your computer reset. Were you compiling something or running a server? Haha **** you! RESET!there are some cludgy workarounds, like preventing your pc from communicating with MS until you want the update (if it does not know there is an update it will not do the update) but you need an hardware firewall to implement it, there is also the ameliorated edition that exist, with no microsoft products preinstalled inside including windows update
Plus start menu ads, unexpected changes, spying... It's literally become malware.
Workarounds? You shouldn't need to hack the OS much less install a hardware firewall just to keep it from doing malware like things.
Plus start menu ads, unexpected changes, spying... It's literally become malware.i do agree and it is why all my actual personal computers are running linux, but it is not something you can always do, i asked at work and the answer was a hard no, for example, and some peoples will not be willing to transition, when i build a pc for someone i always ask them if they want to try, and the answer has always been no, and running radeon pro or nividia cuda drivers on linux is a pain too (never managed to do it), so my 2 GPU folding machines both run 10... although they just run 24-7 and so do not require much of anything from me even with 10 on them.
Workarounds? You shouldn't need to hack the OS much less install a hardware firewall just to keep it from doing malware like things.
At least with Linux you have to write a function to get it to do something specific you want. With Win10 you need to tell it to stop.Yes, but Linux doesn't (usually) come along later and wipe all of it out on purpose.
radeon pro or nividia cuda drivers on linux is a pain too
For my Radeon I didn't need anything special except when trying to use a pass through, the open source drivers are that good.for gaming the OSS drivers are really good but they lack OpenCL that is needed for folding, there in lies the issue and the fact that i tried 3 times to install Radeon Pro and got 3 kernel panics on 2 distros... i know i must be doing something wrong but i can't find what
Radeon and Nvidia are both easy to install (at least on the distros I use), whether Nvidia works or not is never guaranteed.