The Linux Thread - The Autist's OS of Choice

[GeorgeFloydFentanylStash]

Windows 10 at launch you may not remember but it was horrific

Oh I was there, supporting desktops and Windows 10 when it released. And it was a bad product when launched. If Microsoft didn’t have all the data collection and AI shoe horned into their OS, 10 would be their best OS since 7.

 

[Ferryman]

ok so guix chads i need ur advice
im thinking i wanna eventually run on this chinkpad guix with exwm and just live in emacs for this particular computer
is systemcrafters a good resource, and if so what order should i follow their guides in

System Crafters is one of the best resources, yeah. If you're keen to read you can go over the manual and cookbook, but otherwise, the tonybtw video gives you a pretty good first step into Guixxing. The way I did it is to just play around with implementing stuff you already kinda know in Guix. Take your WM or DE for example; see if you can't figure out how to apply dotfiles or GTK settings with Home, then mess around with tweaking SDDM or something via your config.scm and build from there. Sky's the limit! Trust me, once you play around with it a bit, you'll catch the declarative configuration bug real quick.

 

[ScooterL]

no one wants to use their software

Three-quarters of corporate desktops are Windows.

I often know it's probably going to fail because there are Byzantine bureaucratic processes involved and ancient software involved that is essentially for running something incredibly important and was built on Visual Fox Pro or some such nonsense.

If there's no need to change software, businesses will usually see the cost as dead money. I recently encountered a laser cutter controlled by a computer running Windows XP. It works perfectly well, and no manager will ever sign off on changing it.

 

[jeff7989]

XP didn't have SATA drivers

Switch SATA mode from AHCI to Legacy/IDE, easy.

 

[SCV]

Phoronix forums having a normal one


Everyone else is raising their kids to hate rust too, right?

 

[the rat]

However, all the 64-bit NT variants of Windows were pretty solid, as they were all based on Windows Server.

32-bit versions are also based off of Windows Server. Has been like this since Vista due to XP and pre-reset Longhorn being quite insecure and broken.

Probably. Generally, though, Windows XP was slow as well if you had most of the effects on, even on machines with relatively good GPUs

I have had a laptop with a C2D T6400 and a GMA 4500mhd which I doubt would have had much issue with XPs rendering considering Vista's Aero glass never really made much of a performance impact on it and an IBM ThinkCenter using whatever budget shit was available in 2003 that ran XP just fine until my electrical installation decided it had enough of it. You sure that slowdown was a GPU bottleneck issue and not just the explorer taking 15 minutes to open because both your 5400rpm drive and Pentium M were struggling to cope with all the 5000 background processes (pre-installed for good luck ) running (less we not also forget slow SWAP memory and how much slower it used to be)?

Slow HDDs, the need to use SWAP and the billions of both installed and running OEM pre-installed processes are honestly what I suspect to be a big cause for bad performance on Vista back then.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Phoronix forums having a normal one
View attachment 9051501

Everyone else is raising their kids to hate rust too, right?

NO INDIANS
NO TROONS
NO RUST
NO SYSTEMD

 

[Curry Teafag]

• Linux was IMO barely usable. Lots of stuff didn't work, and getting X working wasn't easy. BSDs weren't great either.
• Windows had 3 or 4 consumer versions that were still supported at the time. Getting XP to run on anything past 2004 was a PITA because XP didn't have SATA drivers and machines were phasing out floppy controllers. I had a XP 64-bit install ISO where I had streamlined service packs and drivers.

My experience with either was the complete opposite of yours. You probably were just unlucky with your hardware choices.

 

[SchizoDaemon]

My experience with either was the complete opposite of yours. You probably were just unlucky with your hardware choices.

No, I bought hardware that would work well with Linux. I had fairly standard hardware at the time.

Switch SATA mode from AHCI to Legacy/IDE, easy.

No, it wouldn't detect the drives at all. You needed to slipstream the drivers. Older Linux distros wouldn't work either.

32-bit versions are also based off of Windows Server.

It looks like you were right. However, 32-bit versions of Vista and 7 always seemed to work poorly. I don't think it was hardware with low specs either. It ran poorly on relatively well spec'd machines.

Slow HDDs, the need to use SWAP and the billions of both installed and running OEM pre-installed processes are honestly what I suspect to be a big cause for bad performance on Vista back then.

While that is true for any OS. If you turn off all the graphical effects in XP and use the old Windows Classic-style UI. Everything was much snappier;

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

It looks like you were right. However, 32-bit versions of Vista and 7 always seemed to work poorly. I don't think it was hardware with low specs either. It ran poorly on relatively well spec'd machines.

I really have no idea what you're talking about.

• It is silly to talk about whether a NT based version of Windows (whether NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 2000, XP, Server 2003, SBS or Vista or whatever bullshit names they give them nowadays) is 'based on Windows Server'. They are all just NT.
• I am skeptical that 32-bit versions of Vista/7 ran 'poorly' for you, unless you were running software that had a variant that been explicitly recompiled for 64-bit processors (pretty rare in the time period) or you were exceeding the RAM limits. Regular 32-bit software ran no better- possibly slightly worse- on 64-bit Windows. And on 7, you couldn't even run OG SkiFree or Microsoft Bob without something like WineVDM I can still run a T60p Thinkpad with i386 Linux today just fine.. sure, it'd be nice to have the 64-bit proc, but because it's way faster regardless of the architecture, and because nowadays many distros are abandoning i386, but that's just a convenience thing.

While that is true for any OS. If you turn off all the graphical effects in XP and use the old Windows Classic-style UI. Everything was much snappier;

Yes, Windows has greatly declined since the point where you could just disable the Theming Service and everything would work better. Removing that choice was a Poettring-esque decision.