The cost of revving up hardwares just to enjoy the ideal use of Windows v.s. other OS (ubuntu, kubuntu, MAC, etc.)

Does anyone wonder why it costs a lot of money just to enjoy the full ideal working experience of a Windows OS as compared to other OS like Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and MAC which do not require that much "full specs"? For instance, to enjoy Windows Vista, one needs to have an at least 3GB of RAM, 2.6GHz, 512MB video card or higher, and other related customisation and upgrades which is really pricey. It's actually a thought to ponder. Windows, as relatively compared to competitors in the market, other operating systems only eat up a reasonable amount of memory and specs but offer the same lucrative user-interface just like Windows Vista (although not all applications are compatible). Proof to this is the GNOME interface of Ubuntu and KDE interface of Kubuntu which are really both impressive and comparable to a Windows-Mac merged interface with an uncompromised speed.

Having said these, do you think it's reasonable to concede to Windows' demands just for us to enjoy its optimum performance despite the exorbitant costs of revving up computer hardwares (desktop and notebooks)?
I guess such conundrum can be, to a certain extent, viewed as a paradox: Windows having the 'pride' of being the forerunner in pc softwares; thereby, demanding its users a pricey opportunity cost vis-a-vis other OS affordable use while optimum performance guaranteed? Why then does Windows affiliate itself with almost all the other existing OS?

________________________________
Any comments, criticisms, or opinions?

 

This isn't true. Where did you find these requirements?

The rest of your post, are you saying that Microsoft intentionally beefs up requirements?

 

2GB (2 x 1GB) costs what, $30 and Vista runs fine with 2GB, I ran Vista on my N10J with Atom 1.6GHz CPU (equivalent to P4 at same speed) without much issue. Granted XP runs much better than Vista on the machine, but the point is that it runs fine. Also, amount of video RAM is dependent on if you want to run Aero and the resolution. This is just the nature of the 3D graphics beast. Same with MAC or Linux.

I can build a desktop Vista machine that can "max out" Vista for probably less than $300. I bought a Comaq from Best Buy for $300 that runs Vista Home Premium flawlessly with Aero. I don't think cost of hardware is an issue. Your biggest need with Vista is RAM, which is fortunately very inexpensive.

Vista has its share of issues, and I have never been a big fan of Vista but you are claiming is not really true. Vista is a resource hog compared with XP, but I've come to the realization that you are comparing an OS's that are 7 or 8 years apart. Try Windows 7, it runs so much better on lesser hardware too, basically a highly optimized Vista.

 

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. I have an Inspiron (specs in sig) on which I run Vista and Ubuntu. They both run "maxed out" just fine with no hiccups or anything, and my laptop is definitely below your "minimum specs." And no, there is no conspiracy here. If you want to use a 6 year old laptop and "max out" Ubuntu (6 years might be a little much), then go ahead. It's not like you'll have any good processing power. Windows releases are designed with the current available hardware in mind. So, if there's a lot of good hardware around, Windows will take advantage of it.

Nice AUG by the way.

 

i can run Windows Vista on a P3 1.1 ghz cpu, sure it takes a few minutes to boot up but it works just fine. i cant run Aero with the current gpu but i never did like it so i don't run it. it also comes with only 1gb of system memory rated at PC-133.

 

I have a very capable laptop that cost me under $500-. It's running win7 very well can can handle 3 or more active VirtualBox sessions.

Sounds like you're trying to set up a strawman or have a basic misunderstanding/lack of knowledge about what is needed here.

 

As soon as you start running any decent desktop environment like Gnome or KDE the resource requirements shoot up anyway.

 

Vista isn't that bad in resource usage compared to contemporary OS'es. Mac OS's memory usage has been steadily increasing as well, and while it may be a bit lower than Vista, consider that Win7 is going to use the same amount of memory as Vista, and Macs tend to come with less memory installed than PC's at the same price, anyways, negating the difference. And a recent Linux with desktop effects isn't that light on resources, either - sure you could get a lightweight Linux, but if you really wanted lightweight Windows, you could do just fine with Windows 2000 today, and even XP is fairly lightweight these days.

Your specific specs are way over the top. 512 MB of VRAM to run Vista is total overkill - I ran Vista with a 256 MB card and 2007-era games ran perfectly fine at medium-high settings (excepting Crysis), let alone the Windows desktop. 2 GB of RAM was also plenty, both for the desktop and gaming. As for the 2.6 GHz, I can only hope you mean in Pentium 4 terms, which even then is overkill. I can run Windows 7 well enough with my CPU locked at 600 MHz, even single-core, equivalent to about a 1.1 GHz Pentium 4 Northwood. Sure, it's not quite the same as running a full-fledged 2.2 GHz Core 2 (about 4 GHz Pentium D equivalent), but a bit over 1 GHz P4 is plenty adequate to enjoy using a computer running Windows 6.x.

For reference, my laptop is the same model and very similar specs to bossier330's.

 

That's a Macbook Pro, with OS X 10.5.8, running nothing.

Tell me again that Macs don't require much.

 

I remember buying an Imac back in 2004 running OSX 10.3 and it ran like a pig with the 512MB of ram installed. I had to bump it up to 2GB for the OS to give me quicker boot times as well as having the so called "snappy" feeling from the UI and programs launching.

 

you can use neither the mac activity monintor or the windows task manager to accurately measure the use of system resources.

you MUST use a program that takes measurements over time, logs those measurements, then allows for analysis.

It's akin to peeking over the fence at the interstate, noting the number of cars passing at any one time (a second? an hour??) and coming to a conclusion about the usefulness of the highway and the efficiency of the cars. You didn't say if you looked over the fence during 'rush hour' or at 3 AM either.

Without the use of logging and analysis, there is no way a pair of (human) eyes can capture and analyze the data being presented by a snapshot tool like AM and/or TM.

 

In the case of estimating memory usage for various operating systems, I'm peeking over the fence at an interstate I've driven on every single day for the last several years, and I happen to live right near it, and I see it all day even when I'm not in my car.

I have a pretty good idea how this highway operates on an hour-to-hour basis. Sure any OS can have it's memory spikes and downslides for scheduled tasks and whatnot, but for the most part, an untouched OS is going to sit in a particular range of RAM usage.

 

you're saying that your machine and os and applications are exactly the same today as they were seven years ago?

 

The cost of labor to setup EACH AND EVERY desktop with Linux alone makes Windows worth it.

Linux does not make it very easy to mass deploy installations, unlike Windows. Sure the hardware requirements are lower.........

As soon as open source software like Firefox ease up the cost of mass deployment, people will be more likely to use them. Think about 150 copies of Firefox trying to update itself in one morning..............

 

I really don't get why this would be?

 

It takes about 20 minutes to set up a Ubuntu install(from putting a cd in to having it on your HDD and booted up, listening to music and running 3D effects). Windows Vista easily takes over 2 hours to install for me. Then you have to worry about drivers and stuff(though they have gotten better about it with windows update).

 

Not at all. For your highway analogy, lanes get added, exits get added, the number of cars increases or decreases, and points of interest for traffic can change. Just because a lot has changed in the last several years doesn't mean i have absolutely no clue at all how traffic was yesterday, or can't possibly guess how it will be tomorrow.

Vista on RTM day 1 and Vista SP2 today are not significantly different on resource usage when sitting idle. OS X 10.5 and OS X 10.5.8 are not significantly different on RAM usage. XP pre-SP2 and XP post-SP2 are a little different due to how much SP2 changed the OS, but XP SP2 on day 1 is not dramatically different than XP SP3 today. None of these OS's will dramatically change their resource usage sitting idle, either.

 

You can say this, because you know Ubuntu. As someone who does not know Ubuntu, I can tell you it took me a lot more than 20 minutes to get an mp3 to play, and I never did get standard copy-protected DVDs working right. Oh and Compiz? HAHA.. I think I spent the better part of a day on that one. Again, I don't know Ubuntu. Presuming I just landed on earth from the moon, you can't go "oh just get it from the repositories" because at this point I have no idea what a "repository" is, or what a "Compiz" is, or what a "libdvdcss2" is. All I know is I have an Ubuntu LiveCD, a laptop, and I want to watch this Transformers DVD and have wobbly windows. The #linux IRC channel on < insert any IRC network here > was useless, they just gave me grief and told me to RTFM. I never figured out how to watch the movie.

In Windows, I already know how to do all the things I want to do. Vista (and even more Windows 7) has drivers up on Windows Update. Windows 7 even knows the chipset of my Macbook Pro, and told me not only what driver I needed, but gave me a direct link to it. Windows already knows what mp3s are, and several flavors of Vista and 7 already know how to play copy-protected DVDs. *I* can be watching Transformers on a fresh Windows 7 install in a short amount of time. If it takes you two hours, maybe it's because you don't know Windows.

 

Um 2 hours to install Vista, then set up drivers? I've never had Vista take longer than 20-30 min installing itself. Drivers are usually pretty easy to find (or supplied by your manufacturer) and don't take long to install.

Most people don't know Ubuntu well and would never be able to install it and set it up in 20 min.

 

this picture will explain why they are always trying to get money from our pockets

Microsoft know that we don't have any other os that have more software compatability so it uses us , each windows we are forced to buy new hardware so we can get the most out of it ,like gaming some rumors say that GPU companies are bribing gaming coders to produce more bloated code to but new GPUs frequently , unlike mac you don't always need new hardware ,but 30% of programs i use don't work on mac ><

N.B: i am not a mac fan , i am not a windows fan

 

This isn't about the "average user" being able to install Ubuntu quickly, the argument was that it cannot be mass deployed, presumably by someone who knows what the hell they are doing, as quickly and easily as windows can, and that it is labor intensive for each and every installation.

 

You can install ubuntu on one pc, then clone it to others relatively easy.
And *THIS* is about hardware requirements of Windows vs. Others.

For a SP 0 disk, putting the disk in, choosing the disk, installing and all takes easily over 1 1/2 hour for me - not kidding. I had a SP 1 disc and tried it in a vm - it was much better(still like 45 minutes, though).

What if someone has never used Windows - it's going to be a challenge as well. I'm not trying to spark a Windows vs Other debate but it really is stupid to say linux and others suck. Ubuntu would actually be very easy to deploy - the install has all the needed drivers for most hardware you would use(that saves quite a bit of time).

I remember the first time I used Ubuntu. Took about 20 minutes to setup everything. It was really easy - if different. Before Using Ubuntu I used Windows for quite some time - my entire time of using computers, actually. In Ubuntu, within half an hour I can sit their and listen to youtube videos and IM my friends while looking at pretty effects.

And if you had so much trouble - why didn't you ask for help here? or at LEAST google it.

Ubuntu is different - easier in a lot of ways than Windows, but it is still DIFFERENT - not everyone likes how Windows works, ok?

On another note, you should try Linux Mint 7, takes less time to setup than Ubuntu.

 

Those upgrades are pricey...yes. However, I think you are referring to a notebook with almost maxed out specs. In other words, those specs would be for a gaming rig or multimedia editing notebook and are more than enough to run Vista.

Also, you have to be clear on which version of Vista you are referring to. From the official Microsoft Support Page, the recommended minimum system requirements are as follows (for each version of Vista):

Windows Vista Home Basic
800-megahertz (MHz) 32-bit (x86) processor or 800-MHz 64-bit (x64) processor
512 megabytes (MB) of system memory
Note On system configurations that use system memory as graphics memory, at least 448 MB of system memory must be available to the operating system after some memory is allocated for graphics.
DirectX 9-class graphics card
32 MB of graphics memory
20-gigabyte (GB) hard disk that has 15 GB of free hard disk space
Internal or external DVD drive
Internet access capability
Audio output capability

Windows Vista Home Premium, Windows Vista Business, Windows Vista Enterprise, and Windows Vista Ultimate
1-gigahertz (GHz) 32-bit (x86) processor or 1-GHz 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory
Windows Aero-capable graphics card

Note This includes a DirectX 9-class graphics card that supports the following:
A WDDM driver
Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
32 bits per pixel
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
40-GB hard disk that has 15 GB of free hard disk space (the 15GB of free space provides room for temporary file storage during the install or upgrade.)
Internal or external DVD drive
Internet access capability
Audio output capability

I also recently saw the following on a Windows 7 review by Cnet which might be of help:
Comparing Windows: XP vs. Vista vs. 7 Windows XP Windows Vista Windows 7:
Windows XP
Minimum hardware Processor: 300MHz
RAM: 128MB
Super VGA graphics device
HD: 4.2 GB (for SP3)
Windows Vista
Processor: 1GHz
RAM: 1 GB (32-bit), 2 GB (64-bit)
Support for DirectX 9 graphics device with 128MB of memory
HD: 20 GB (32-bit), 40 GB (64-bit)
Windows 7
Processor: 1 GHz
RAM: 1 GB (32-bit), 2 GB (64-bit)
Support for DirectX 9 graphics device with 128MB of memory
HD: 16 GB (32-bit), 20 GB (64-bit)

As you can see, these specs for Vista are resonably higher than the ones for XP, but the specs you mentioned aren't the minimum or ideal. As for the GPU, if you're a gamer or multimedia developer, you'd need a dedicated graphics card (e.g. ATI, NVIDIA); but for a casual user, a typical Intel Integrated Graphics card would suffice.

 

I never said that Ubuntu sucks - it's a great OS. I use it from time to time on a work computer. However, being unfamiliar with it, the setup process takes me pretty long on a Ubuntu computer.

Anyways, back on topic...
Yes Windows generally needs "better hardware", but the time savings (for me, at least) of using Windows of Ubuntu makes it more than worth it. I don't want to have to look up everything whenever I want to do something. Also, Ubuntu isn't good for gaming.

 

i ran vista home basic on 512gb of ram and a 256gb card, that was a couple year old dell dimension i had. i eventually upgraded it to 2gb and sold it.
but anyways didn't have much of any hiccups with 512 running vista myself.
i also use ubuntu, vista and ubuntu took about the same time to install for me. also got oblivion and halo, and my dvds to work w/o any problems.
the thing windows has over ubuntu is more hardware support and more/better program support for certain things i myself use.
as far as things being "pricey" not really. prices are always going down, and you don't really need to have the latest and greatest even though its nice. IMO
(and windows 7 i've read is supposed to take up less than vista did)

 

WDDM drives many of the higher system requirements. WDDM is powerful, but one thing it is not is lean. The result is that in terms of basic front-end responsiveness and eye candy, a P3/866 with a Geforce MX4 and Ubuntu is going to provide a similar visual experience to a P4/2.0 with a Radeon 9800-class GPU running Vista/W7.

The bigger question has always been about functionality - Ubuntu delivers most of the same operating system services as Vista does with a fraction of the footprint. So there is an argument to be made: wouldn't it be better to take advantage of modern hardware by providing new innovative functionality, instead of by making note of how much performant your bloated now is?

In that sense, I rather like W7 which provides some innovative functionality--I'm really liking Libraries--in order to "earn its keep" aka. justify its use of increased hardware resources versus other OSs. Whether it's enough remains to be seen but I think W7 is a step in the right direction.

(Whereas Vista seemed to come from the "let's burn clock cycles just because they're there" school of software design.)

One thing everyone should keep in mind is this: with storage systems delivering 100MB/sec, multicore processors delivering billions of operations per second per core, and CPU-RAM bandwidth exceeding 20GB/second, and GPU frame buffer bandwidth being even higher, you have to ask yourself whether there is any reason for any operating system to behave with anything other than 200ms response time for common tasks.

 

There's no possible way Vista can run on a netbook!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVuKPkeT1s8
...

 

Well, based on the specs of that S10, Vista Home Basic would run on it no problem. For Home Basic, you only need 800-megahertz (MHz), 512 megabytes (MB) of system memory, and a 20-gigabyte (GB) hard disk that has 15 GB of free hard disk space. That Lenovo s10 has 1.6ghz, 1gb memory, and an 80gb HD which is more than the minimum requirements.

Besides, as of May this year, there have already been other netbooks running Vista (Home Basic though I think). While it isn't as ideal as running XP, and they are certainly a bit more pricey than their competitors, both the HP 2133 Mini-Note PC and the Sony Vaio VGN-P588E Lifestyle PC run on Vista.

 

Either way, I think we scared off the OP. He hasn't shown his hide here since the original Post. LOL.

 

When you are comparing OSes, it's more than JUSt about the hardware. Over the life span of a machine, hardware computes to just a small fraction of the cost of maintaining the machine. Labor is by far your biggest concern, so anything to lower that cost should determine the OS. Lower the cost includes training a replacement for me when I get promoted. Capable Windows admins are a bigger and cheaper labor pool.

Group Policy is why I choose Server 2003. It is a one stop utility to configure user profiles. I don't have to switch from one utility to another to setup each user's needs.

Plus Exchange runs like crap on WINE.

Again, Hardware is just a fraction of the cost. Heck, the desk my boss sits in costs more than 5 servers combined.

 

Linux isn't meant for mass deployment. It isn't even a desktop operating system by any standards; it is primarily a server OS that is often modified for specific uses.

If you're talking about a desktop distro like Ubuntu, then sure it isn't great for mass deployments; but that is because of a lack of trying. The software is there for modifying ISOs in the same manner as nlite or vlite.

Overall I would say that Window's undisputably higher system requirements compared to competing operating systems is mainly due to the large compatibility overhead that MS has to deal with; Apple doesn't have to worry about legacy compatibility, just as the Linux kernel doesn't suffer much from it either.

And we must keep in mind that all these operating systems are used in completely different ways; each one has a niche, with the exception of Linux (several distros are trying to rebrand themselves as "desktop distros").

 

Touche. ......

Touche.

 

What do you mean Linux isn't meant for mass deployment? Linux is MORE resilient in the face of hardware changes than Windows. As long as you have Linux compatible hardware, you just toss in a drive with a completely standard Linux image on it, and it will work. That will NEVER work with Windows... you have to create a system image with custom drivers for each and every system you intend to put Windows on. Windows 7 is finally getting a little better about including drivers, but it still gets upset if you replace a motherboard.

Now, if you said that Linux applications and remote management applications aren't as well developed and clicky-box featured as Windows', I'd agree with you. But Linux is quite well designed to be deployed widely, across many different machines.

 

En garde! If that's how you spell it...

If one expects to install Linux on multiple machines in a custom configuration, then I think that the ISO programs I mentioned are needed, in the same way that Windows requires the same thing; you can't just say *if* there is Linux compatible hardware. By the same note, I could play the devil's advocate and point out that I could make the same premise for Windows; mass deployments for Windows are easy *if* you have Windows-compatible hardware.

I'm not saying that both OSes are equal in terms of built-in drivers; in that regard, Linux is undoubtedly far superior. But in a corporate environment, there is no time to fiddle with getting any Linux distro to work 100% with the hardware. Efficiency and time-saving is the key to mass deployment, and Linux does not do well in the latter category, I think.

While I readily concede that out-of-the-box hardware detection works better on Linux, I wouldn't say that it works on Linux either; at least, not when hardware isn't detected. The difference is, I think, that Windows drivers are straightforward to fetch and install whereas Linux drivers expect to be installed via a CLI. Granted, Ubuntu has managed to solve this with the Hardware Drivers applet, but this is only one distro that still doesn't cover all the drivers out there.

A summary of my paragraph above is that Linux is not as easy to configure to specific hardware as Windows is.

I'm having a grand old time managing my Ubuntu server with this cross-platform manager:

www.nomachine.com

It uses an NX connection that compresses X server data, so the performance is more fluid than, say, a VNC connection.

 

I removed Vista and replaced it with Ubuntu on one of my desktops. As such I can say quite assuredly that Ubuntu feels faster and is more "responsive" on low end systems. Besides games it was a capable of doing what it should no matter which OS it had. On my other desktop Vista is just as fast as Ubuntu because of the dedicated graphics card (boot time: Ubuntu wins by a long shot).

My experience with Mac OS X 10.5 is that the OS is just as bloated as Vista, with no real gains over linux. As such I think that people who use Mac OS are hurting Torvald's push for Linux to become a desktop operating system, which Apple is just as hostile to as Microsoft (which actually contributed large chunks of code to the kernel). Instead Apple is pushing its Darwin system derived from NeXT (Oh, how do I hate Objective C). Well they did open source launchd, but no major projects use it yet...