turn it off and on again

[Tsutarja]

So it took me an entire router settings reset just to make TightVNC work across my network. I have no idea what caused the glitch, but no TightVNC clients were working prior to the reset.

Oh, and upon the reset, it went back to WEP security. Of course, that's been changed back. :)

 

[Legendary Silke]

Sometimes I think electronics just want to be reset every once in a while. ;)

It's like eventually something will go wrong.

 

[Tsutarja]

Whipped out my dad's netbook to do some basics on it like Windows updates and scan for viruses. I asked about him letting me use it for school purposes, then I realized at how much I'd dislike Windows 7 Starter. :|

I wonder if I could at least put Windows 7 Home Premium on it :P

 

[Dter ic]

Whipped out my dad's netbook to do some basics on it like Windows updates and scan for viruses. I asked about him letting me use it for school purposes, then I realized at how much I'd dislike Windows 7 Starter. :|

I wonder if I could at least put Windows 7 Home Premium on it :P

We had a Acer Aspire One that came with Windows starter. The only diference I noticed from home premium and starters was the lack of Aero. Besides that, performances was roughly the same between the two editions (and you'd think starter would be 'optimized' for netbooks) - slow, can barely run one program at a time etc.

You're better off installing a Linux distro with Xface to make it usable.

 

[Legendary Silke]

Whipped out my dad's netbook to do some basics on it like Windows updates and scan for viruses. I asked about him letting me use it for school purposes, then I realized at how much I'd dislike Windows 7 Starter. :|

I wonder if I could at least put Windows 7 Home Premium on it :P

Does Windows 10 count? At least that should make it nicer.

 

[Tsutarja]

Does Windows 10 count? At least that should make it nicer.

Even if the netbook can run Windows 10, I'm not real sure. I was already barely cutting it with a 1024x600 screen anyways. :P

 

[Legendary Silke]

Even if the netbook can run Windows 10, I'm not real sure. I was already barely cutting it with a 1024x600 screen anyways. :P

Well, Windows 8.1 and 10 are supposedly lighter than Windows 7, so why not? At least it's not Vista.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

We had a Acer Aspire One that came with Windows starter. The only diference I noticed from home premium and starters was the lack of Aero. Besides that, performances was roughly the same between the two editions (and you'd think starter would be 'optimized' for netbooks) - slow, can barely run one program at a time etc.

You're better off installing a Linux distro with Xface to make it usable.

don't you mean Xfce? And yeah, the only Windows that worked on the two netbooks I had was XP. Sad how bloated the OS has become.

 

[Legendary Silke]

don't you mean Xfce? And yeah, the only Windows that worked on the two netbooks I had was XP. Sad how bloated the OS has become.

I'd argue that Windows is less bloated since the release of Vista, or has gotten stuck at the same level of "bloat", whichever way you put it.

Going from Windows 7 Starter to Windows 10 Home would also mean gaining a lot of features that were missing in Starter, and most importantly, enabling Desktop Window Manager, whether you have a video card that can actually process it or not. That alone should make the CPU work much less when on the normal desktop (it's counter-intuitive, but, yes, DWM makes your computer faster) The system requirements has also pretty much got frozen in place while the baseline hardware keeps on improving, and there's also work being done to optimize it out on low-storage, low-memory devices.

xfce is a fine choice is 10 doesn't quite work out, anyway.

 

[Tsutarja]

I did a clean install of Windows 7 Home Premium on this netbook I have. It originally came with Windows 7 Starter, which has got to be the shittiest OS ever, IMO.

Oh, and checking for Windows updates on a clean install is quite fun too.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

I'd argue that Windows is less bloated since the release of Vista, or has gotten stuck at the same level of "bloat", whichever way you put it.

Going from Windows 7 Starter to Windows 10 Home would also mean gaining a lot of features that were missing in Starter, and most importantly, enabling Desktop Window Manager, whether you have a video card that can actually process it or not. That alone should make the CPU work much less when on the normal desktop (it's counter-intuitive, but, yes, DWM makes your computer faster) The system requirements has also pretty much got frozen in place while the baseline hardware keeps on improving, and there's also work being done to optimize it out on low-storage, low-memory devices.

Yeah yeah, but my 650MB XP ISO is no doubt smaller than my 4GB 10 ISO. And the proof is in the pudding: XP works better on a netbook than Vista or 7 or 8 or 8.1 or even 10. :P

Also, Windows is complaining that " may be a victim of software counterfeiting," since my non-genuine Windows on this VM can't connect to the Internet and do what it pleases "validating it as genuine." Sorry, but I like using my product key more than once with VMs, MS. And no, you cannot have Internet access.

 

[Legendary Silke]

Yeah yeah, but my 650MB XP ISO is no doubt smaller than my 4GB 10 ISO. And the proof is in the pudding: XP works better on a netbook than Vista or 7 or 8 or 8.1 or even 10. :P

Also, Windows is complaining that " may be a victim of software counterfeiting," since my non-genuine Windows on this VM can't connect to the Internet and do what it pleases "validating it as genuine." Sorry, but I like using my product key more than once with VMs, MS. And no, you cannot have Internet access.

It sure does, though WIndows 8.1 and 10 aren't slouches, and do also bring in compatibility with modern software and hardware combinations, so yeah. That said, storage usage is definitely in Windows XP's favour, hands down. They're still trying to improve the storage situation post-Vista, though.

At least it's working as intended. :) (You know how to deal with it.)

Speaking of Windows Updates, I sometimes like doing a check manually if I feel like doing that. Sometimes, well, things happen.

 

[wakachamo]

Yeah yeah, but my 650MB XP ISO is no doubt smaller than my 4GB 10 ISO. And the proof is in the pudding: XP works better on a netbook than Vista or 7 or 8 or 8.1 or even 10. :P

I really don't see your point. Should consumer software stop evolving just so we can keep it at 650MB and running on 10 year-old hardware just as it did when it was released? What's the gain in that?

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

I really don't see your point. Should consumer software stop evolving just so we can keep it at 650MB and running on 10 year-old hardware just as it did when it was released? What's the gain in that?

Linux has been around 500MiB for quite some time. And binary size doesn't equate to "evolution," whatever you mean by that. lol

 

[wakachamo]

Linux has been around 500MiB for quite some time.

'Linux' is not a particular OS distribution, nor is it by any means a widely used consumer OS. Moot point.

And binary size doesn't equate to "evolution," whatever you mean by that. lol

Yes it does. Consumer OS evolution is largely measured by functionality – the more you add, the more your binary grows. You're with me so far, right? If not I guess we should all just go back to Windows 3.1?

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

'Linux' is not a particular OS distribution, nor is it by any means a widely used consumer OS. Moot point.

The Linux kernel is around 500MiB. Instead of playing denialist for your own benefit you can look at Arch Linux (657MiB), Debian Linux (627MB), CentOS (637 MB), or for more Windows-like "out-of-the-box" distributions you can look at #! Linux (739MB), ^! Linux (523MB), or Lubuntu (639MB). Just like XP they all run great on older hardware but without the limitations of being old, and aren't well over a gigabyte in ISO size unlike Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10.

Yes it does. Consumer OS evolution is largely measured by functionality – the more you add, the more your binary grows.

Growing != evolution. Regardless, things can change without addition. And as far as an OS is concerned, it can most certainly evolve (or change, since you wish to synonymize those words) without gaining weight – that can be observed in any life form. :p

You're with me so far, right? If not I guess we should all just go back to Windows 3.1?

lol k

 

[wakachamo]

The Linux kernel is around 500MiB. Instead of playing denialist for your own benefit you can look at Arch Linux (657MiB), Debian Linux (627MB), CentOS (637 MB), or for more Windows-like "out-of-the-box" distributions you can look at #! Linux (739MB), ^! Linux (523MB), or Lubuntu (639MB). Just like XP they all run great on older hardware but without the limitations of being old, and aren't well over a gigabyte in ISO size unlike Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, and 10.

Right now you're comparing Linux to Windows. I'm not gonna start an 'OS war' (ugh lol), but here's why this comparison has issues:

- Linux is not driven by market share, and therefore
- Is also not driven by competition, and thus the need for constant feature development.

You're comparing an 'OS' that is naturally stagnant compared to one whose goal is to grow and keep itself marketable. Like you said – just like XP they run great on older hardware because there have been no significant advancements in Linux. Linux is never at the forefront of consumer app development. Linux is not the source of major architectural revisions or usability improvements. Linux also does not have one central organization driving it in a particular direction. There is no combined effort to push the envelope not only because it's not a widely used consumer OS (again – note how I've been referring to consumer software throughout this thread), but simply because it varies in nature compared to commercially sold software.

Growing != evolution. Regardless, things can change without addition. And as far as an OS is concerned, it can most certainly evolve (or change, since you wish to synonymize those words) without gaining weight – that can be observed in any life form. :p

I disagree – like I said before, growth is necessary for consumer software to survive. Feature stagnation renders it irrelevant in the long run.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Right now you're comparing Linux to Windows. I'm not gonna start an 'OS war' (ugh lol), but here's why this comparison has issues:

- Linux is not driven by market share, and therefore

- Is also not driven by competition, and thus the need for constant feature development.

Despite this, it is heavily driven by user interests which makes the whole concept of competition moot in regard to features development.

You're comparing an 'OS' that is naturally stagnant compared to one whose goal is to grow and keep itself marketable.

Okay?

Like you said – just like XP they run great on older hardware because there have been no significant advancements in Linux.

That's a very bold statement to make, and a false one at that. I really don't need to waste my time talking about the long list of modern standards and concepts the kernel alone makes an effort to support, let alone what the distros can handle... compared to XP of all things.

Linux is never at the forefront of consumer app development.

SteamOS much?

Linux is not the source of major architectural revisions or usability improvements.

Oh wow... have you never heard of Unix philosophy? Linux is bringing that very thing to consumers and is the only system doing so.

Linux also does not have one central organization driving it in a particular direction.

Does it need one? Regardless, the GNU exists and so does the FSF. GNU tends to Linux – after all, it's called GNU/Linux.

There is no combined effort to push the envelope not only because it's not a widely used consumer OS (again – note how I've been referring to consumer software throughout this thread), but simply because it varies in nature compared to commercially sold software.

You have a point on that second part. The thing is, how is it so difficult for countless for-profit institutions to handle "consumer-grade" OSes when they handle enterprise-grade RHEL and CentOS fine? We're talking about the companies here.

I disagree – like I said before, growth is necessary for consumer software to survive. Feature stagnation renders it irrelevant in the long run.

Growing != evolution. Regardless, things can change without addition. And as far as an OS is concerned, it can most certainly evolve (or change, since you wish to synonymize those words) without gaining weight – that can be observed in any life form. :p

 

[wakachamo]

Despite this, it is heavily driven by user interests which makes the whole concept of competition moot in regard to features development.

Not nearly in the same magnitude as for-profit software.

Okay?

Yes. :p

That's a very bold statement to make, and a false one at that. I really don't need to waste my time talking about the long list of modern standards and concepts the kernel alone makes an effort to support, let alone what the distros can handle... compared to XP of all things.

The kernel ≠ the OS. And yeah I don't want to get into specifics here, but like you said, the kernel makes an effort to support, not innovate. Low-level innovations are largely backed by consumer software motivations, and aren't necessarily tied to Linux distro improvements. And no, I'm not comparing it to XP... that's my whole point. You brought XP into this discussion and I'm trying to tell you why it's irrelevant today. :p

SteamOS much?

You're right; point taken. But to say that Linux is at the 'forefront' is also pushing it a little – the forefront in this case is Valve, who is adding a bunch of closed-source components.

Oh wow... have you never heard of Unix philosophy? Linux is bringing that very thing to consumers and is the only system doing so.

Linux is not the only system based off of Unix principles. Unix philosophy is also not gospel, and I have reservations regarding some of its 'Rules', like the Rule of Economy.

Does it need one? Regardless, the GNU exists and so does the FSF. GNU tends to Linux – after all, it's called GNU/Linux.

If Linux has 'market share' as a goal (which once again, it doesn't), yes it does. The FSF also doesn't dictate the requirements for a modern-day OS in terms of functionality nor does it remotely have any influence on the particular direction of any distro.

You have a point on that second part. The thing is, how is it so difficult for countless for-profit institutions to handle "consumer-grade" OSes when they handle enterprise-grade RHEL and CentOS fine? We're talking about the companies here.

That's what I'm getting at – consumer-grade and enterprise-grade are entirely different beasts, and you were comparing consumer-grade with something that's mostly associated with enterprise-grade.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Not nearly in the same magnitude as for-profit software.

Point taken.

The kernel ≠ the OS.

Reading about it, Reference.com kernel and OS are essentially synonymous. So that's kinda the end of that train. The way I see it, Linux is an operating system (since it alone satisfies that definition) and a "distro" is that operating system with a collection of software for it packaged alongside. If you put it in terms of Windows, Microsoft simply forces shipping and running those two things together while Linux takes a more modular UNIX-like approach by separating the two. Linux retains its ability to forego the need for the software a distro provides, too.

the collection of software that directs a computer's operations, controlling and scheduling the execution of other programs, and managing storage, input/output, and communication resources.

And no, I'm not comparing it to XP... that's my whole point. You brought XP into this discussion and I'm trying to tell you why it's irrelevant today. :p

Okay...

You're right; point taken. But to say that Linux is at the 'forefront' is also pushing it a little – the forefront in this case is Valve, who is adding a bunch of closed-source components.

It still utilizes the Linux kernel regardless. So, it is Linux. Granted Linux with a big closed-source crap taken on it, but still Linux.

Linux is not the only system based off of Unix principles.

What other system has as significant a presence using those philosophies than Linux, then? I find Linux to be the only relevant one that follows the Unix philosophy.

Unix philosophy is also not gospel, and I have reservations with some of its 'Rules', like the Rule of Economy.

I wasn't insinuating that it was, sorry if it came off that way.

If Linux has 'market share' as a goal (which once again, it doesn't), yes it does. The FSF also doesn't dictate the requirements for a modern-day OS in terms of functionality nor does it remotely have any influence on the particular direction of any distro.

Acknowledged.

That's what I'm getting at – consumer-grade and enterprise-grade are entirely different beasts, and you were comparing consumer-grade with something that's mostly associated with enterprise-grade.

That's what out-of-the-box Linux distros are meant for. They're something your average tech-literate person (i.e. can do a Google search and has basic problem-solving skills) can work through.

My main point is, Linux and most any distro are undoubtedly more efficient than Windows. XP comes close but is ancient so doesn't really count. The whole thing about Microsoft's market share amounts to the fact that they snagged de facto status for all the companies and big whigs who know nothing about computers and got a foothold in, because the only reason anyone needs Windows at the moment is for software compatibility. Besides that there is support, but even Linux distros provide that – see RHEL. If Microsoft didn't get that foothold they'd be good as gone for average Joe, and who knows what would've taken their place? My guess is OS X and Linux personally. It's more than likely Linux would have a larger userbase because for everything except X video game and Y old piece of legacy junk program, they don't need Windows and would probably switch simply for hearing that it "works better." Which it does in most ways. And if that happened Linux would get the de facto "market share" Windows has simply by virtue of Windows not being there, and so on and so forth. I don't think consumers really care too much if a business backs an operating system or if a mission in the name of free software does and no person is in charge. Only enterprises care about having an authority that answers to them when something doesn't work right, and even then the approach Red Hat takes to providing just that is also a thing. And if they do – say you're right and every OS with market share needs an owner of some kind – there is the hypothetical OS X. Which I imagine would be a lot more lenient towards developers working between it and Linux than Windows is, judging from how much more similar the two are in reality compared to either one and Windows.

But all that never happened. Point of that is, Windows is just here now and there's not a whole lot we can do about it. It's jammed the door open for itself, so to speak. Which kind of sucks because it's not the most efficient or modular thing ever, and is largely a one-size-fits-all shoe figuratively speaking.