On Aug 6, 5:33 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Linux laptop, make or buy?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Because Linux requires less storage, less RAM, and less chip speed to run
> | than Windows Vista, it seems to mostly be a make market. You’re not going to
> | get a deal buying something new, so why not refurbish something old that
> | you’ll like?
> `----
Even if you are buying a brand new computer, there are advantages to
purchasing the machine with a convertable Vista license such as Home
Premium or Business.
Many OEMs now offer XP installation kits, so you can install XP if you
want.
You can use VMWare converter to capture the XP on your old PC to an
externel USB drive as a VMWare image.
You can install Linux as the Native operating system using either a
downloaded ISO image or a DVD purchased at the local bookstore. Nearly
every major city in the world now has stores where you can by Linux
DVDs in the Magazine rack as well as the computer section of the
bookshelves.
Then you can copy the VMWare Image to the new PC, because you had the
original Vista license (and you are simply using a downgrade).
Ironically, the Linux OS has better performance in terms of memory
management, disk buffering, and high speed context switching between
processes (including Windows processes). As a result, you end up with
a version of XP which runs faster and more efficiently than "Native"
mode, with fewer hangs, pauses, and glitches.
64 bit Linux allows you to use 4 gigabytes of RAM, and allocate some
subset of that, as little as 1/2 gigabyte to the XP machine.
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2741
> Recent:
>
> Linux preinstalls rocket to three per cent
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Microsoft is still be shipped with 93 per cent of all PCs sold through
> | distribution in the UK, according to Context.
> |
> | Yet Linux has nevertheless made an impressive gain.
So Linux preinstalls by OEMs have gone up 2800% to 3%.
Of course, revenues for desktop Linux distributions such as Novell and
Red Hat are up 300-400% per year.
And total Linux volumes across all distributions are up about 80% per
year.
Primarily because of end-user installed Linux systems.
You'd think that maybe OEMs would get the message. If End Users are
willing to install Linux on those PCs, and they are flocking to the
iMac and OS/X, maybe it's time that the OEMs put their foot down and
tell Microsoft "We will configure it OUR WAY". They should be
demanding the same flexibility that Apple has been getting. Part of
the popularity of Apple, what has catapulted them to the Number 3
position, with almost 15% of the market share, has been the ability to
run Unix (OS/X) and Windows concurrently. Why shouldn't HP, Dell,
Lenovo, and Acer have the ability to offer the ability to run Linux
and Windows concurrently?
Rex
|
|
