Can Windows do this?

Slootvreter said:
Don't take what I said out of context. Read the WHOLE post :rolleyes: And I wasn't dissing Linux, or did you perhaps not read that part either?
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter what context you put it in (unless it is "some printers have reduced functionality due to driver issues") it still remains rubbish.
 
Moederloos said:
What else can it mean?
I am with icyrus there.
Click to expand...

Windows completely utilizes hardware (resource hog), while Linux does not. So, for instance, you have a display adapter which causes XP to blue screen, but Linux works fine with it. But that adapter worked in XP previously. Now why would it suddenly cause blue screens, even after a reinstallation of XP? If Linux managed to somehow use every resource that adapter has the same way XP does, it would also crash. I find this difficult to explain in writing :)
 
Slootvreter said:
Windows completely utilizes hardware (resource hog), while Linux does not. So, for instance, you have a display adapter which causes XP to blue screen, but Linux works fine with it. But that adapter worked in XP previously. Now why would it suddenly cause blue screens, even after a reinstallation of XP? If Linux managed to somehow use every resource that adapter has the same way XP does, it would also crash. I find this difficult to explain in writing :)
Click to expand...

Sigh. Where ever did you get this idea from?
 
Slootvreter said:
BSoD means hardware. Linux doesn't utilize the hardware to its full capacity, due to the fact that the drivers for Windows are written to (for lack of a better word) 'better' work with the hardware than the ones built into Linux. And in this case (now this is certainly no pat on the back for XP :) ) XP seems to have tried to use the faulty CPU completely, causing it to crash. As Ubuntu is less resource intensive, it managed to run fine. This is my experience with Linux and Windows.

---> Don't let my sig throw you off, I've got Intrepid running on a PC, my sig MIGHT change some time :D
Click to expand...

Uhm...what? So high-performance servers being run on Linux because it gives you the ability to use MORE of your servers capacity don't use your server fully? Or is this just a case of your remark not really having been thought out well?
 
frozt01100101 said:
Uhm...what? So high-performance servers being run on Linux because it gives you the ability to use MORE of your servers capacity don't use your server fully? Or is this just a case of your remark not really having been thought out well?
Click to expand...

High-performance servers? I thought we were talking about Ubuntu here? I suppose there is a reason why Linux server packages are a completely different distro. :rolleyes:
 
Veroland said:
Just remember, one of the reasons gentoo is so powerful is the fact that it compiles (the os and sub sequent applications) for the optimal performance for the specific hardware configuration. So he will problably not have been able to just slip in another mother board.

BTW Gentoo is my favorate Linux distro!
Click to expand...

I've taken a gentoo drive from an AMD thrown it into an intel, and it was good to go. Yes it wouldn't gimme the same performance as a clean install but still, powerful!
 
icyrus said:
Sigh. Where ever did you get this idea from?
Click to expand...

Happened here at work. That's why I said, from my experience. But I'm certainly not going to get into an argument with people who worship Linux, claiming it is the be-all and end-all. :rolleyes:
 
And, for the sake of argument, you can do the same with any Linux distro. Some are better attenuated to a certain task out of the box, as is the case of Ubuntu Desktop vs Ubuntu Server. Server has certain environment settings configured for the typical server usage scenarios, and the default installation package selection and configuration is that what you'd expect in a server environment.
 
Ok I get the fact that Windows might use some obscure feature / memory map of some hardware and that in itself can cause BSoDs, and following that Linux might not use these features the problem subsides.

But this is not to say that Linux does not fully use the hardware. Sure the resource requirements are not as high as Windows but that doesn't imply that to operate the graphics card that the OS can take some shortcuts.

This might just be a case of two very specific and unrelated scenarios being compared and that will always lead to some form of argument.
 
slayerza said:
Ok I get the fact that Windows might use some obscure feature / memory map of some hardware and that in itself can cause BSoDs, and following that Linux might not use these features the problem subsides.

But this is not to say that Linux does not fully use the hardware. Sure the resource requirements are not as high as Windows but that doesn't imply that to operate the graphics card that the OS can take some shortcuts.

This might just be a case of two very specific and unrelated scenarios being compared and that will always lead to some form of argument.
Click to expand...

*bows to slayerza* :D This is what I've been trying to say. And it came out sounding like I was pissing on Linux, which was not the case. And to get back on topic, yes Windows can do that, except for NT4, with which I had no luck, unless the PC was the EXACT same specification.
 
The_Librarian said:
Okay all you windows fanbois...

If you had to clone WindowsXP on 27 machines (all the same hardware specs), how would you do it? And how would you handle windoze activation?
Click to expand...

Do a drive clone or do a network install. Windows activation can be done the regular way, assuming they are connected to the internet.
 
slayerza said:
Ok I get the fact that Windows might use some obscure feature / memory map of some hardware and that in itself can cause BSoDs, and following that Linux might not use these features the problem subsides.

But this is not to say that Linux does not fully use the hardware. Sure the resource requirements are not as high as Windows but that doesn't imply that to operate the graphics card that the OS can take some shortcuts.

This might just be a case of two very specific and unrelated scenarios being compared and that will always lead to some form of argument.
Click to expand...

Case in point - had an MSI Nvidia video card - windows craps out when using that card, but Linux doesn't have a problem at all...
 
Nerfherder said:
I have done it on 2000 machines


but I am l33t.....


Oh try this on Ubuntu.... install on a 32 bit chip then drop in a 64.

FAIL...

My windows drive coped with 32 -> 64 but not the other way :/
Click to expand...

Strange, my experience has been the opposite. Perhaps you're so l33t you didn't consider a chipset driver issue?
 
Tux said:
...Last time I did that with Windows it BSoD'ed me through 7 timezones and would probably have swore at me if it had sound
Click to expand...

Windows XP at least, wont boot from an install with IDE drivers installed for a different IDE chip. When you swap mobos you swap IDE chips in general, the old drivers cause windows to not boot.

To fix it you must first uninstall your IDE drivers and install the "Standard IDE driver" that windows has, then you can swap motherboards like crazy, not allowing for other incompatibilities etc at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X