New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Linux had around 80% market share of the netbook a few years ago, when Windows Vista was terrible and Microsoft stopped selling XP.
Then Microsoft was fed up with Linux having a large proportion of the netbook market, so they brought back XP for manufacturers, then forced them to use it, otherwise their rise their license price.
Now NetBooks are shipping with Windows 7 Starter, and it doesn't even let you change your background? Freedom much?
I've installed Xubuntu, and installed Burg and also installed a custom version of Plymouth that supports ATIs closed-source drivers.
Boot time is around 10 seconds from after the boot loader starts, and I'm happy with that, now I have to install Gobi_loader so I can use the GSM Card in my netbook, but its fairly easy todo since I've done it before and just requires patching a few of the files.
Sigh, all this hate towards windows. Windows still has a much much better power management than Linux, which I think is most important on netbooks/laptops.
Well, as always Daniel trolls Windows, if is about business/marketshare/pricing and so, and not about performance, then that is out of discussion.
@KuJoe do you have the high or low resolution LCD?
Also have you tested your Atom against an AMD E450 (HP DM1) i have been interested in one, but havent been able to test it with a VM.
[OT] If I'm not running Ubuntu on the netbook, I'm using Windows XP SP3. You get that for around 10-15 Euro. And every hardware I ever used is supported. Just install the Zune theme and XP looks also quite good. If you then add cygwin to it, it's a really nice working-machine for the road.
I want to use an OS that supports multiple users..
Maybe I don't understand that right, but what do you mean with "multiple" users and seem to exclude Windows XP from it?
Windows XP isn't a multi-user operating system
I think I don't understand the difference of your "multi-user" and the one used by Wikipedia then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Security
Windows XP allowed for concurrent users, but permissions wise wasn't really multi-user.
Hum. But just like on my Linux boxes I create groups on XP and can assign users to it. And the access control lists work like Linux permission schemes with system, owner, group and world permission (just like owner, group, world in linux).
The Window Permission system is flawed when compared to the UNIX permission system, UNIX-like system have a much more mature system.
Eg (from what I know), on Windows if you're an administrator, your a REAL administrator. You can go delete whatever files you want, and the system doesn't care. Whereas on *NIX there is only one true admin, root, and all the other admins are pretty much just user accounts in the sudoer's files, and have permission to elevate to root privileges temporarily.
There was a flaw in word reported a few months ago, that allowed a "limited" user to execute code as Administrator through word, now how could you call that a multi-user OS?
The permissions are at filesystem level, not properly at the OS level.
I use both (Linux and Windows) but I must admin that I never understood why some people say that the Windows permission system is flawed. I'm not a pro, so most things I know about computers I have from Wikipedia or sources alike. But when reading their texts about the permission system (file permissions and access control lists) I cannot see a big disadvantage of the Windows based-permissions from NT-versions and up. To be honest, to me it sounds much alike, just a different flavour.
I'm in no way defending Microsoft or their OS. I just use Windows XP Pro for some tasks and my Debian box for other tasks. I don't care about the names. I don't use the Windows admin for my daily work just like I don't use root for my daily work on my Linux box. I use SuRun on Windows and sudo on Linux for quite some time and it works fine. And I just use both systems just for my private/personal work. And in this usage-scenario I must admit, that I could never feel a big difference of the two permission-system-flavours.
So maybe there's a difference for pro-users. Maybe someone could bring some more light into this.
Afaik, this was true for Windows 95 but the big difference to the NT line.
I think you're mixing apples and pineapples. The fact that there is/was a security flaw in Word/Windows doesn't mean that Windows is or isn't a multi-user OS. There are frequently security exploits in Linux that allow ordinary users to attain elevated privileges.
But I agree that Windows isn't really a true multi-user OS. It supports multiple users, but basically one user at a time. Yes, multiple users can login simultaneously to a Windows CLI environment, but functionality there is seriously limited.
I don't understand this. Why does it only support one user at a time? I occasionally login as one user and let a programm calculate data, then switch to another user and surf the web, check mails etc. So there are two users doing their stuff. It's the same what I do on my Debian box. So for my private use that's pretty much what I expect to be multi-user
I agree that I prefer bash instead of Powershell, but I must admit that i never really used the Windows Powershell. I use ffmpeg on Windows via CLI as well as some other stuff. But where's the big disadvange of the Powershell to bash?
Switching to User-2 requires that you are first logged in as User-1. This works for you because you know the passwords for both users. But User-2 cannot login independently and use the system while User-1 is logged in.
But isn't that is how the Remote Desktop works? I mean I've Windows XP on my computer and are logged in. Additionally I can login via Remote Desktop as a new user. This is how every Windows VPS works that I used before. Or do you mean something different?
Are you sure?
Because when you login via remote desktop, you get disconnected n_n (you need a modified DLL to allow concurrent logins in XP)
RDP on XP limits the number of concurrent Remote Desktop sessions to one (maybe it's changed?). So one local login plus one RDP login is the limit. I'd call that dual-user not multi-user
There is a third party patch that removes this limitations. Not sure how legal it is to use it though.
I think I know the answer to that....
But really, the lack of support for multiple simultaneous users isn't the real drawback with Windows IMO. It's the expectation that the user has Administrator privileges. I'm referring to XP here -- somethings are indeed better with Windows 7.
If you're running as a Limited User and what to know what day of the week January 15 is, double-click on the clock to bring up the calendar. Oops, sorry you don't have permission. Makes sense, 'cause that's for setting the time/date. But it's ingrained in Windows users as the way to see a calendar....
Why can't I connect to that local server? Maybe my network config is messed up? I'll just have at look a my current network properties. Oops, permission denied. I know I can't change things but at least let me see things....
Third-party software can be particularly atrocious. Login as Administrator and install something. Logout, login as Limited User, run the app and it fails with registry errors like 'permission denied', blah bah.
No wonder Windows users always run as root.
As I said before, Windows 7 is better.
Yes, I have tested my Advent 4211 (Atom N270) against Lenovo IdeaPad S205 (AMD E-450 APU). My newer netbook is much faster than older netbook.
At least you guys get a choice. I'm stuck with Windows 7 on a Toshiba laptop since Toshiba decided to start using this goofy "InsydeH20" bios.
I have the high resolution... always the high resolution, 1024x600 always looked like crap to me.
HP Mini-Note 2133 = 1280 x 768 (8.9" LCD)
HP Mini 210 = 1366 x 768 (10.1" LCD)
Haven't tested any of the AMD but so far every "mobile" CPU they put out barely gets half of the battery life of an Intel Atom of equal specs (could easily be the netbook manufacturer though). I used to be an AMD fanboy but now I'm an Intel Atom fanboy (I use them for everything from desktops to servers).
You can search for the XP drivers :P Or is a BIOS issue? o_O
I've actually been thinking about XP, too...
It's a BIOS issue for Linux. It could be kind of thought like Intel UEFI "Lite", or just the absolute minimum to get the system going enough for Windows to take over.
I've been reading that Linux kernels > 3.0.0 work well with this BIOS, but none of the distros are installing that out of the box yet, so it's the problem of getting there.
You can't install a debian basic netinstall?
So you can put the experimental repos and get 3.0 Kernels
Worked on my Asus. Only problem is that you'll need to be on a network so it can pull packages down as not everything's included in the netinstall download. At least I had to. The initial install worked fine except for sound when I wasn't connected.