Chris,
sorry for being OT:
>although I will tell you that it runs terribly slowly for the majority of
users.
> It is so bad as to be describable as unbearable (for those use to running
GNU/Linux).
> I don't care how much more powerful the hardware one runs is it is
unbearable for the
>large majority of Microsoft Windows users.
Wow, I smell big prejudice and hearsay in this statement.
>When an Intel Atom with 2GB of ram outperforms a 6GB dual-core
>Microsoft Windows system at a fraction of the price you know
>there is something wrong. That is the situation I see almost
>every day.
And what systems do you see here ?
I have an AMD E-350 (as you might remember) with 8GB running Xubuntu. It is
really blazingly fast. A colleague runs a pretty identical system with
Windows 7 and it is fast as well. I would bet that it doesn't make a big
difference here if you cut down memory to 3-4 GB. I can hardly imagine why
someone would buy a system with below 4 GB anyhow nowadays. My 2x4GB DDR3 kit
costed something around 33€ IIRC.
My point here: Linux folks should not devalue MS operating systems. This
gives a bad taste. A well set up Windows 7 will run as fast and as
stable as the latest Linux installation with a more demanding desktop
environment (e.g. Gnome 3, KDE, Unity). Most Windows systems I have seen from
friends or relatives which became amazingly slow often face similar issues:
Either the system is overloaded with pre-installed crap from the PC vendors
themself, which you can of course not de-install because you only have a
resuce CD or the users themself put so many test / trial / freeware programs
to them plus gazillions of toolbars inside Firefox / IE. This will of course
bog down even a quadcore system with 4 GB of RAM. You can dislike MS Windows
because it is propritary closed source stuff which phones home but do not
devalue it because of hearsay facts.
This are just my observations. I am no M$ fanboy but I am no Linux fanboy
either. Being an engineer I judge on what I can see and test myself.
Regards,
Holger
