Linux will ship on more PCs next year than Microsoft Windows
-
whatUrunning.com wrote:
Does your PC become sluggish after a few days without a fresh reboot?
Not at all. Why would it?
I guess it depends on what your using but small memory leaks can cause things to slow down. I do remember using hibernate on an XP machine a few years back and after 2-3 days it ran dog slow.
-
Thanks for the link :) I couldn't remember it (see above message).
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 beta 1 - out now!
((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x))I thought there was a youtube vid of the guys demonstrating it, can't find it now though.
-
Thanks for the link :) I couldn't remember it (see above message).
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 beta 1 - out now!
((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) -
I guess it depends on what your using but small memory leaks can cause things to slow down. I do remember using hibernate on an XP machine a few years back and after 2-3 days it ran dog slow.
whatUrunning.com wrote:
small memory leaks can cause things to slow down
If a desktop process leaks, just close it down and reopen it. No need for a reboot. A service that leaks is more of a problem, but even then, usually you can just stop and start the service.
-
Maybe but certainly not on any of mine.
Software Kinetics - Moving software
-
I've always had network problems resuming from hibernate, maybe its because I regularily connect to several VPNs. Does your PC become sluggish after a few days without a fresh reboot?
whatUrunning.com wrote:
Does your PC become sluggish after a few days without a fresh reboot?
If you are running applications that leak memory, then yes.
It is a crappy thing, but it's life -^ Carlo Pallini
-
But why turn off instead of hibernating? A hibernated PC consumes no power at all, but saves all the "state", so when you turn on again, you're instantly* back where you started. * subject to copying a memory image from disk, of course
Graham Bradshaw wrote:
But why turn off instead of hibernating
Because you need to have enough disk space to store the memory image and when you're short of disk space... Because if a laptop connected to the company network is hibernated you resume when no longer connected to the network then Windows searches for absolutely ages for network drives that no longer exist...
Graham Librarians rule, Ook!
-
Graham Bradshaw wrote:
But why turn off instead of hibernating
Because you need to have enough disk space to store the memory image and when you're short of disk space... Because if a laptop connected to the company network is hibernated you resume when no longer connected to the network then Windows searches for absolutely ages for network drives that no longer exist...
Graham Librarians rule, Ook!
Graham Shanks wrote:
Because you need to have enough disk space to store the memory image and when you're short of disk space...
True, but the hibernation file goes in the root of the system drive (and its location can't be changed). If you are that short of space on the system drive, you're asking for trouble anyway.
Graham Shanks wrote:
Because if a laptop connected to the company network is hibernated you resume when no longer connected to the network
Again, true, but I'm thinking more of the "go home for the evening... ... come back in the morning" scenario, when the network would still be there.
-
Graham Shanks wrote:
Because you need to have enough disk space to store the memory image and when you're short of disk space...
True, but the hibernation file goes in the root of the system drive (and its location can't be changed). If you are that short of space on the system drive, you're asking for trouble anyway.
Graham Shanks wrote:
Because if a laptop connected to the company network is hibernated you resume when no longer connected to the network
Again, true, but I'm thinking more of the "go home for the evening... ... come back in the morning" scenario, when the network would still be there.
Free disk space: 444 MB Disk space requried to hibernate: 2,048 MB And yes, it requires careful management :(
Graham Librarians rule, Ook!
-
If they'd just stop loading the @#)($ bloatware they could get sub 30s boots from their windows images as well.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
I'v found that linux actually boots slower than windows (ofcourse the laptop where I have linux on is over 7years old), could ofcourse be because I don't know much about linux and it's set up is probably wrong but still. I installed it because I wanted to test linux and because windows didn't work to well anymore on the laptop but it always booted faster. Linux takes about 2-3min before it's booted (like I said very old laptop) and windows XP (on the same laptop) took about 1 min but then took ages to open an application where linux works very nice once booted. Anyway like I said it's an very old laptop and I probably have linux set up completly wrong
-
I'v found that linux actually boots slower than windows (ofcourse the laptop where I have linux on is over 7years old), could ofcourse be because I don't know much about linux and it's set up is probably wrong but still. I installed it because I wanted to test linux and because windows didn't work to well anymore on the laptop but it always booted faster. Linux takes about 2-3min before it's booted (like I said very old laptop) and windows XP (on the same laptop) took about 1 min but then took ages to open an application where linux works very nice once booted. Anyway like I said it's an very old laptop and I probably have linux set up completly wrong
-
I'll check it out thanks I only use the laptop for msn and skype anyway (and some surfing) so doesn't have to be much :)
-
Well woo-hoo - so Linux will be installed on machines that also have Windows installed. I can't see MS being too worried about this - they'll still get paid, and consumers will still run application written for Windows.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
-
I'v found that linux actually boots slower than windows (ofcourse the laptop where I have linux on is over 7years old), could ofcourse be because I don't know much about linux and it's set up is probably wrong but still. I installed it because I wanted to test linux and because windows didn't work to well anymore on the laptop but it always booted faster. Linux takes about 2-3min before it's booted (like I said very old laptop) and windows XP (on the same laptop) took about 1 min but then took ages to open an application where linux works very nice once booted. Anyway like I said it's an very old laptop and I probably have linux set up completly wrong
The reason for this is quite simple - XP cheats - it lets you get to the desktop before it's actually finished booting (it continues loading services in the background) This is quite a simple thing to demonstrate. Assuming your PC has a login screen, boot the PC and log in as soon as it will let you, and try running stuff. Next reboot, and leave it sat on the login screen for a few minutes, and try the same stuff again. It should be much more responsive this time around, since you've given it a chance to load all the background stuff.
Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!
-
The funny thing is that the article says that a stripped-down Linux will be available in 30 seconds. Microsoft claims Windows 7 to boot in 22 seconds.
Boot or log-in and become usable? I can reach the log-in dialog in next to no time (prob <30 secs anyway), but then there's about 6 or 7 minutes of constant hard disk thrashing and unresponsiveness after logging in for 10 minutes before anything becomes usable. On my work PC, one you factor in loading visual studio 2005, excel (for timesheet), outlook and an instance of explorer this goes up to around 20 minutes after logging in before those programs are loaded and respond to mouse clicks.
-
The reason for this is quite simple - XP cheats - it lets you get to the desktop before it's actually finished booting (it continues loading services in the background) This is quite a simple thing to demonstrate. Assuming your PC has a login screen, boot the PC and log in as soon as it will let you, and try running stuff. Next reboot, and leave it sat on the login screen for a few minutes, and try the same stuff again. It should be much more responsive this time around, since you've given it a chance to load all the background stuff.
Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit! Buzzwords!
Yeah probably true But even after half an hour the laptop was still very slow (just not enough power). Besides the only thing I do on that thing is msn/skype and surfing so not going to install xp for that.
-
no more ludicrous than ms selling PCs with downgrade rights and claiming a Vista sale.
-
But most Windows PCs resume from hibernate in less than 30 seconds anyway. Does anyone actually shut down (as opposed to hibernating) a computer these days?
Absolutely. I don't need my computer to remind me what I was doing before I stopped. I want to get a fresh start in the morning. Would you start your day with a half-cup of the previous day's cold coffee? I think not. Hibernation is for pot-heads.
-
Absolutely. I don't need my computer to remind me what I was doing before I stopped. I want to get a fresh start in the morning. Would you start your day with a half-cup of the previous day's cold coffee? I think not. Hibernation is for pot-heads.
And shutting down and restarting is quicker than logging off and back on?