Fed up with both Vista and Ubuntu!! !!

Post Reply New Topic

Might depend on the linux. I know stuff liek red hat is 6 dvds.. Ubuntu is slim through.

Looking now at my xp hard drive.. c:\windows is 3.04 gigs. The C:\drives program files is 4.59 gigs. I only keep microsoft stuff there, everything else is on the D drive.

The page file is 2x my ram, so its 6 gigs, as recomended. I actually have four, but a 32 bit system doesnt access it all.

So thats 13.6 or so gigs. I've deleted my hiberfil.sys as well. Hiberfil.sys is equal to ram size. so it would be 3 gigs.

So none of that includes stuff like office, or anything other than what basically installs with xp pro.

Looking at ubuntu the file system is 4.20 gigs in size. The cache is 3.72(I need to adjust that to be larger) and I cannot really count /home as its full of movies and music. Nothing in /home(which is the equivalent of programs and files and documents in windows) is critical to the operation of ubuntu.

so the totals..

windows ubuntu
-----------------------
3.04 4.20
4.59 N/A
6.00 3.72
3.00 0.00(uses the swap i think)

totals
============
16.63 7.92

I heard someone tell me that you at least need a 20GB HD for Ubuntu.

20 GB for /
1 GB for swap
5 GB for /home

There were no Linux codecs on that page. Unless it can be used by multiple apps unknown to the original programmer, then its not a codec, its really just a program. Linux does have several nice programs, but a lot of them are distributed as source because there wouldn't really be a practical way to compile a bin for every Linux version ever made. Again, windows handles backwards compatibility seamlessly, linux fails miserably.

Not sure about Mac OS10. I've heard rumors that it runs fine on PC's now. I don't know anything about it though.



My XP machines boot within 30 seconds from the time the power button is pressed to the time the system is usable. If an XP system takes much longer than that, its probably laced with crapware and antivirus tools.

Are you trying to compare NTFS to EXT3? NTFS is better, but as far as OS's go, Linux does have full support of NTFS now with the NTFS-3G driver. There are also windows drivers that support EXT2 and 3.




That just isn't so. I have installed XP PRO on a 2gb HDD so I'm pretty sure that it doesn't need 40gb. Perhaps you are thinking of vista. I tried to install linux (sorry I forget which one) on a 1gb hdd and it sat there and laughed at me for even trying. It wants several gb just for a swapper partition.

You guys are funny. I think you'd be less offended if I had insulted your religion than when I insult your favorite OS. All I can say is that if you like Linux, then you should use it. For me, its just not compatible with what I need to do. I really liked ubuntu until I tried to do something with it beyond word processing and browsing. My system is heavily multimedia oriented and linux's lack of installable codecs messes up the works for me.

Why 20 for /? The OS just isnt that big.

2. Installable drivers for codecs and hardware device drivers.

Honestly, I really don't see why this is such a hard problem. Just these two things alone would catapult Linux way ahead of windows.

Perhaps Ubuntu version 9 will be better. I've given up on versions 7 and 8 for the time being.