# Windows 7: Microsoft's Linux killer?



## soumya (Nov 2, 2008)

Linux has been making inroads into PC sales lately because it runs so well on lightweight netbooks with limited RAM and processing power. Windows 7, though, appears to run well on lightweight hardware as well, which could mean that it's Microsoft's Linux killer.

At the recent PDC, where Windows 7 was unveiled, Windows and Windows Live senior vice president Steve Sinofsky claimed that Windows 7 used less than half of the 1 GB of RAM on his Lenovo S10 netbook. Making the new operating system lightweight has clearly been Microsoft's goal. In addition to light RAM use, Windows also strips out a variety of applications, including Windows Mail, among others.

Of course, it's one thing for Sinofsky for claim Windows 7 runs on a netbook. But how does it work in real life? According to this review, Windows 7 pre-beta works well on an ASUS Eee PC 1000H with a 1.6 GHz Intel Atom processor and 1GB of RAM.

The writer found that Windows 7 uses 485MB of RAM. Despite that light RAM use she notes:

_things are pretty smooth in terms of performance...in my use of the Eee PC 1000H for the entire evening I didn't have any hang ups while simultaneously chatting on Skype, writing this post in Wordpress, editing pictures in GIMP and uploading video files using Filezilla._ 

She did say, however, there were some problems with video playback. Keep in mind, though, that Windows 7 is pre-beta.

I expect Microsoft to push Windows 7 for netbooks hard. It's a tremendous growth area, and it's where Linux has been gaining traction. I wouldn't even be surprised to see a netbook-specific version designed for lower-powered processors and less RAM.

Given all that, Linux's growth in netbooks may be just a blip on the radar after Windows 7 is released. 

Source


----------



## Cool G5 (Nov 3, 2008)

Linux killer.. Lol

It won't even stand a chance in front of Arch or Gentoo. 

Maybe MS should call it Vista Killer, it seems more apt.


----------



## ravi_9793 (Nov 3, 2008)

and apple killer too.............


----------



## CadCrazy (Nov 3, 2008)

Lol MVP banne ka ye matlab thori hai kuch bhi anab shanab bakte rahoge.

Linux FTW
Window$ FTL


----------



## amitava82 (Nov 3, 2008)

With less than 10% market share, let Linux live first then we can talk about killing it.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2008)

*blogs.computerworld.com/user/preston_gralla

lol


----------



## NIGHTMARE (Nov 3, 2008)

vista dustbin hai dekho yeh kaya banaya hai


----------



## IronManForever (Nov 3, 2008)

> I expect Microsoft to push Windows 7 for netbooks hard. It's a tremendous growth area, and it's where Linux has been gaining traction. I wouldn't even be surprised to see a netbook-specific version designed for lower-powered processors and less RAM.



Netbook-specific?  Its already so low in requirements. (I hope things dont change for the worse in final release..) And if they are optimising it for a lower footprint, by the time it releases; Mobile phones should be able to run it.. 

Though yeah; Windows 7 does seem promising.


----------



## Tech.Masti (Nov 3, 2008)

Thats better....


----------



## chesss (Nov 3, 2008)

> The writer found that Windows 7 uses 485MB of RAM (*with no applications running*


 err my xp is using 340 mb with all applications(8-9) running . Ofcourse xp is pretty old now..
but I just don'tsee how 485mb idle usage is low...


----------



## NucleusKore (Nov 3, 2008)

soumya said:


> The writer found that Windows 7 uses 485MB of RAM.



Ok, so that's the OS. What about installation of an antivirus and firewall which is mandatory if you want some peace of mind? How much RAM will be used then? The whole 1 GB I suppose?

And with third party apps? I see a 2 GB minimum RAM requirement here !

You can run your linux with built in firewall (idling) comfortably on 0.5 GB RAM


----------



## IronManForever (Nov 3, 2008)

^^ But then again BY the time Windows 7 is out; it wont be a pain in teh ass to upgrade RAM. Because Vista requirements have raised the bar so much that Windows 7; despite being a 3 year newer OS to vista; will be featherweight to the hardware.

And I do not think that a good antivirus + Firewall will take more than 100 MB RAM. I have 1 GB RAM and AVG Free + Comodo Firewall. And the AV takes around 20 MB ram during idle. The firewall manages at 10. And I doubt that it would increase to even a total of hundred while background scanning.
Also I have Opera 9.61 running with 7 tabs of the forum open in 1 window, 3 tabs of CNET.com in another window and  bbc.co.uk 5 tabs in 3rd window. And the RAM usage is just 73.6 MB. 

And Windows 7 is taking 485 out of 1 GB because there is FREE ram, its just utilising it while its Free. If programs ask for ram, there are a lot many un-essential parts of the OS that can be offloaded.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 3, 2008)

There was a time when people used to tell different Linux distributions were potential Windows killers.

Now here is an article which says Windows is a gonna be a potential Linux killer.  Anyone noticed how fast the world has changed?  

Also, development has just started.  From what I see in screenshots and read on sites, current state of Windows 7 desktop is greatly incomplete.  Let's look back at its performance after its final release with all apps (as in Linux netbooks) loaded and other Windows specific resource hogs like an anti-virus which on-access scans and scheduled full-system scans.  Even my XP system at office dies when the scheduled AV scans start.

Ah...  after all it is posted by Windows' books author and posted here by an MVP.  How will they have time to analyse such real-world facts?

*Note:* Though Ubuntu 8.10 is just a small evolution from 8.04 (unlike Windows 7 which sounds like total re-make of Vista), the RAM requirements have gone down by  a notch in release notes.


----------



## tuxybuzz (Nov 3, 2008)

VISTA Killer is definitely more appropriate..but linux KILLER..lol!!


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 3, 2008)

Linux killer ? Lolz, what kills windows is the volume of windows users who are n00bs. N00b windows users outnumber pro windows users with a magnitude such that if the whole of India is full of windows n00bs, only the whole of south africa is full of sensible (or above) grade windows users.

For example, I know this girl who users windows for 2 hours every day, and tried to press the monitor button to restart windows 

Luckily, linux is complicated enough to be n00b proof (though ubuntu is changing all that, but then, you can always migrate over to archlinux like I did ) so that no user does something silly like download random shell scripts off the net and execute them with sudo, nor do we have each and every software distributed with installers which are in the form of shell scripts which HAVE to be run as root.


----------



## desiibond (Nov 3, 2008)

guys, stop creating overhype out of the demo given by MS.

If you think that running it on netbook makes it linux killer, take a break.

Price: a netbook with windows 7 will cost lot more than one with linux
review: All that we saw is demo from MS and not review in tech sites. So, don't come to a conclusion
Don't get too much into the demo. Media created too much hype around Vista OS initially and then started doing too much -ve publicity. So, chill out and stop creating assumptions out of thin air.


----------



## gxsaurav (Nov 3, 2008)

NucleusKore said:


> Ok, so that's the OS. What about installation of an antivirus and firewall which is mandatory if you want some peace of mind? How much RAM will be used then? The whole 1 GB I suppose?



No. You are wrong. 

If you install 3rd party apps like Firefox/Pidgin/openoffice then the system requirement of Linux also shoots up.



> You can run your linux with built in firewall (idling) comfortably on 0.5 GB RAM



You can run Windows XP same way on 256 MB RAM & Vista same way even at 512 MB RAM. 



> And Windows 7 is taking 485 out of 1 GB because there is FREE ram, its just utilising it while its Free. If programs ask for ram, there are a lot many un-essential parts of the OS that can be offloaded.



Yes, it is called prefatch. Keep in mind that the current builds shown are full of beta & debug code which result in memory leeks


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 3, 2008)

gxsaurav said:


> If you install 3rd party apps like Firefox/Pidgin/openoffice then the system requirement of Linux also shoots up.


Every netbook I read about comes with these and still perform very well on low RAM.  Also these apps are different from AV which Nucleus was telling about.  An AV runs always but these apps run only when user starts them.


gxsaurav said:


> You can run Windows XP same way on 256 MB RAM & Vista same way even at 512 MB RAM.


No it is not the same way.  Say I run a Linux system with no AV and an idling Firewall.  Now my friend brings a USB key in which there is a document he downloaded from his mail in a neighborhood browsing center or from another friend of his.  I can happily plug the device and copy the file without worrying abt malware.  Can I do that on Windows Vista (don't even imagine XP), if I have no AV?



gxsaurav said:


> Yes, it is called prefatch. Keep in mind that the current builds shown are full of beta & debug code which result in memory leeks


I agree with you there.  But it also is incomplete, which means there will be more upcoming features which will hog resources too.  So it is too early to call Windows 7 a light OS and calling it a Linux killer is a joke for sure.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 3, 2008)

gxsaurav said:


> No. You are wrong.
> 
> If you install 3rd party apps like Firefox/Pidgin/openoffice then the system requirement of Linux also shoots up.



No, YOU are wrong. I installed all of the above and more and I am working comfortably on my 256MB RAM.


----------



## thewisecrab (Nov 3, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> There was a time when people used to tell different Linux distributions were potential Windows killers.
> 
> Now here is an article which says Windows is a gonna be a potential Linux killer.  Anyone noticed how fast the world has changed?


Great Find...looks like MS have acknowledged the spread of Linux and are FINALLY willing to do something about it.



MetalheadGautham said:


> For example, I know this girl who users windows for 2 hours every day, and tried to press the monitor button to restart windows



LOL


----------



## gxsaurav (Nov 3, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> Every netbook I read about comes with these and still perform very well on low RAM.  Also these apps are different from AV which Nucleus was telling about.  An AV runs always but these apps run only when user starts them.



I agree that linux runs better then Vista on netbooks & Vista needs 1.5GB+ RAM to run nicely, but using this philosophy to say Windows 7 will still run slow is wrong.


> No it is not the same way.  Say I run a Linux system with no AV and an idling Firewall.  Now my friend brings a USB key in which there is a document he downloaded from his mail in a neighborhood browsing center or from another friend of his.  I can happily plug the device and copy the file without worrying abt malware.  Can I do that on Windows Vista (don't even imagine XP), if I have no AV?



Yup. With UAC turned on in Vista SP1 by default, if the Malware tries to run in the form of a CMD or Exe or Bat file, it will notify you first & then it will allow it to run.



> I agree with you there.  But it also is incomplete, which means there will be more upcoming features which will hog resources too.  So it is too early to call Windows 7 a light OS and calling it a Linux killer is a joke for sure.



It goes both way. Like I said long back that Windows 7 is nothing but optimised Vista with new features, RAM requirments can go low as well as high, so saying that Windows 7 can't kill Linux is also wrong.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 3, 2008)

gxsaurav said:


> It goes both way. Like I said long back that Windows 7 is nothing but optimised Vista with new features, RAM requirments can go low as well as high, so saying that Windows 7 can't kill Linux is also wrong.



Saying either windows can kill linux or linux can kill windows is just dumb from the PoV of a guy with working brains. Statements like those are for the dumb brain damage infested sections of the media which seek to gain popularity by using extreme language and double superlatives and exaggeration.

I am sure that people like you and me know, that even if linux gains 90% market share, you will continue using windows and me linux, and the same holds true even if linux market share drops to 0.01%.


----------



## alter_ego (Nov 3, 2008)

You know why its called Window$ 7 because it will (Window$) $uck record seventh time!!!!!!!!


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 3, 2008)

gxsaurav said:


> Yup. With UAC turned on in Vista SP1 by default, if the Malware tries to run in the form of a CMD or Exe or Bat file, it will notify you first & then it will allow it to run.


If I have understood UAC right, it warns me for everything.  Be it a genuine software or a malware.  For example, when I tried to install avast AV on a friends Vista lappy even then Vista warned.  So basically users will just accept any warning Vista shows without thinking twice.  You have to agree on this given your attention towards UX.  The fact that the world has several virus infected Vista PCs is the proof of my statement.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 3, 2008)

Offtopic: NOW I understood what intel might have been thinking with Core i7. Could it be an imitation of AMD's old time stratagy with Athlon XP ? To name similar to the next generation windows ?


----------



## Abhishek Dwivedi (Nov 3, 2008)

soumya said:


> The writer found that Windows 7 uses 485MB of RAM. Despite that light RAM use she notes:



485MB is utilized only *by the OS for the OS* p)...u need more of Applications...now that means a minimum of 2Gigs of RAM for a smooth computing...


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 3, 2008)

> With less than 10% market share, let Linux live first then we can talk about killing it.


Linux has always had pretty much the same market share. If a product with a mere sub 10% invoked a blogger to write a "Linux killer" post then trust me when i say that Linux is alive enough to cause some interest in the population. 

I'm not going to judge Windows 7 without trying it . I hope Microsoft builds something worth my money. Anyway I prefer not to continue on since the thread is obviously  flame bait which the op usually does for giggles.


----------



## Faun (Nov 3, 2008)

lolutriestoexplaininvain!


----------



## hellknight (Nov 3, 2008)

This kinda hype always happen when a new OS from Microsoft is in development.. 
@Metal.. i know a girl who is doing CS Engg. with me.. and when i asked which web browser do you use she said, "Web Browser??".. then i said what do you use for Orkut, then she said "Oh!!.. I use E!!"


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 3, 2008)

> lolutriestoexplaininvain!


Lol. Theres nothing to explain . Each time someone comes out with a product media quote it as its competitions killer. Some people thrive on the ad hype and try to blow it into a fist fight while watching on the sidelines. This forum is notorious for it. Even if Windows 9998765 comes out, guess what Linux its still going be there . Otherwise let me know when it happens. The rest is moot. 

Now to add to the amusement of the thread.

Oh noes. My linux going to Be killed by Win 7 . Oh woes. 

*www.imgx.org/pthumbs/small/12228/nobody-cares.jpg


----------



## NucleusKore (Nov 3, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> Every netbook I read about comes with these and still perform very well on low RAM.  Also these apps are different from AV which Nucleus was telling about.  An AV runs always but these apps run only when user starts them.



hit the nail on the head.........ouch


----------



## a_k_s_h_a_y (Nov 3, 2008)

LOL ! OMG ! Again some jobless fool with no work has hit it right.
*blogs.computerworld.com/windows_7_microsofts_linux_killer


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 3, 2008)

What services and apps was it running when it consumed 485 MB of RAM?

If it ran none or very light apps and services (like ones bundled with basic Windows install usually), then it is friggin' damn heavy.  A typical Linux install consumes quite a lot less than it.  Light weight set-ups (like in netbooks) consume far far far less than that.


----------



## NucleusKore (Nov 3, 2008)

And if you use Arch it flies


----------



## amritpal2489 (Nov 3, 2008)

Vista also seemed promising before its launch.........
Lets see what does Win 7 has in store for us..


----------



## NIGHTMARE (Nov 4, 2008)

just for wait 2010


----------



## amitava82 (Nov 4, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> I hope Microsoft builds something *worth my money*. Anyway I prefer not to continue on since the thread is obviously  flame bait which the op usually does for giggles.


I know bunch of people here who play pirated games on Pirated Windows and still say it does not worth his/her money! At least it's worth his/her time!

@MetalheadGautham: Just because you know 2 line linux commands, it does not make you super genius. It makes you idiot; as idiot as those typical windows users. Grow up.


----------



## Dark Star (Nov 4, 2008)

I don't know whats wrong with people , there is no killer thing in the market .. Everything has its own importance and its upto audience  to use the product they like. MS has always been tagging the foolish title , they did with Zune i.e. Ipod Killer .. and initially Zune was a pathetic player.. Though it improved later on but its just can't replace what is already existing..

Linux has its own stronghold and Windows has its.. Watching 7 SS makes me feel that they are mesmerized by KDE 4 ,,, It will be good if it better than Vista but who really cares .. Security will be strong this time so less chance of piracy  Means Indian user will stick to pirated stuff.. Also majority of Indians are not good at adapting changes.. Apart from that 7 will cost high and no one will pay $200+ for OS.. 

and calling its Linux killer would be lame as MS will never ever release a Free and Open Source OS 

Edit  : Linux like Puppy Linux runs smoothly even in 16Mb of Ram , now beat that  and XFCE based distro like Dream Linux runs @ 128 MB...


----------



## IronManForever (Nov 4, 2008)

^^ i have Zenwalk 4.4 running pretty well on Celeron 500Mhz with 64 MB RAM.


----------



## Sumeet_naik (Nov 4, 2008)

Windows 7 - Linux killer..

*Are they giving it for free.*


----------



## victor_rambo (Nov 4, 2008)

just replying here to show-off my siggy


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2008)

Sumeet_naik said:


> Windows 7 - Linux killer..
> 
> *Are they giving it for free.*


lolumad?


----------



## blueshift (Nov 4, 2008)

Looks like Preston Gralla is afraid of Linux!

Anyway heres more reasons Windows 7 will kill Linux!


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 4, 2008)

^^  Yup he has to be.  After all his books have to be sold.


----------



## comp@ddict (Nov 4, 2008)

WINDOWS 7 shall be no LINUX killer I say


----------



## Sumeet_naik (Nov 4, 2008)

T159 said:


> lolumad?



Its the only way they can kill linux..


----------



## Hitboxx (Nov 4, 2008)

Yesterday I laughed hard at this thread and went to sleep, got too lazy to reply.

Today once again I'm laughing hard at this thread, not got lazy yet. 

Hahaha. So they all want to kill Linux, good good, atleast we know now who is actually improving and leading ahead and who is catching up. In all fairness I really hope Linux will never become a mass OS, that should be only Windows, Linux is a privilege that should be only bestowed upon the few lucky souls that are thoughtful and brave enough to head the mighty way.


----------



## Cool G5 (Nov 4, 2008)

Hitboxx said:


> Yesterday I laughed hard at this thread and went to sleep, got too lazy to reply.
> 
> Today once again I'm laughing hard at this thread, not got lazy yet.
> 
> Hahaha. So they all want to kill Linux, good good, atleast we know now who is actually improving and leading ahead and who is catching up. In all fairness I really hope Linux will never become a mass OS, that should be only Windows, *Linux is a privilege that should be only bestowed upon the few lucky souls that are thoughtful and brave enough to head the mighty way*.



Well said hitboxx. 
Agree with you.


----------



## NucleusKore (Nov 4, 2008)

Yes, as if we will all suddenly enjoy being enslaved. No way, not once you've tasted freedom.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 4, 2008)

^^  Esp When we have people like Nucleus preparing APT CDs soon after an Ubuntu release.


----------



## gopi_vbboy (Nov 4, 2008)

Linux can't be killed-but windows can kill itself.


----------



## j_h (Nov 4, 2008)

I use linux because I dont want to spend moeny on softwares. If Linux is free and doing the job for me why pay for windows, if Gimp is free and doing the job for me why pay for photoshop.
So, windows 7 will not be a linux killer. It may be if microsoft releases it under GPL .


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 4, 2008)

> I know bunch of people here who play pirated games on Pirated Windows and still say it does not worth his/her money! At least it's worth his/her time!



LOL


----------



## NucleusKore (Nov 4, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> ^^  Esp When we have people like Nucleus preparing APT CDs soon after an Ubuntu release.



 Many doubted my commitment when I started out, first with SUSE (some seniors in their forums) then with Ubuntu. Some even questioned the usefulness (you know sometimes one man's junk is another man's utility).  Now that I've proved them wrong they've just shut up  I've been particularly successful with Ubuntu and it's derivatives, due to AptOnCD. That guy's done a great job with it.


----------



## JAK (Nov 4, 2008)

hmmm...
The guys at MS are very good at marketing...they have flagged off the campaign a couple of years before the actual launch( dunno if the launch is gonna be plagued with delays as in Vista).
In the end what the end customer gets is a bloat-ware complimented with a memory hogger that too at a exorbitant price not to forget the WGA headache...


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 4, 2008)

amitava82 said:


> @MetalheadGautham: Just because you know 2 line linux commands, it does not make you super genius. It makes you idiot; as idiot as those typical windows users. Grow up.


I guess you enjoy doing the extremes.
Either I should be super genius or super idiot, right ? 
I am living in the middle and I am happy that I know enough to get my work done without getting pwned by problems.
ThankYou.


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 4, 2008)

> Linux killer ? Lolz, what kills windows is the volume of windows users who are n00bs. N00b windows users outnumber pro windows users with a magnitude such that if the whole of India is full of windows n00bs, only the whole of south africa is full of sensible (or above) grade windows users





> I guess you enjoy doing the extremes.
> Either I should be super genius or super idiot, right ?
> I am living in the middle and I am happy that I know enough to get my work done without getting pwned by problems.



What makes you think that a majority of Windows users are "n00bs" as you put it. Do you have a reliable source that indicates the number of "n00bs" with comparison of Pro users. You invited the flame and imho you sure as well deserved it. A person can be a noob in either Windows or Linux . The only difference is Windows is much more easily available and hence the users increase. Since you seem to be living in the "middle" although your post suggests otherwise illa sk you one thing . How many posts do you have in the Open Source section asking for help ?  If you even have one by definition you are noob to the other thousands who probably new the answer. 

Im not ranting at Linux users or Windows users. Im just ranting at some peoples attitude that Windows is a bunch of "n00bs"  and we Linux users are what balances out the equation. Learn not to classify people by the software they use. That theory is astoundingly stupid.


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2008)

gopi_vbboy said:


> Linux can't be killed-but windows can kill itself.


lolfailatfailing!


----------



## desiibond (Nov 4, 2008)

I caught hold of Windows 7 prebeta and am ready to test it. Will udpate once I find out how it runs on my 2yr old rig.


----------



## Faun (Nov 4, 2008)

how much GB it is? Waiting for some reviews


----------



## desiibond (Nov 4, 2008)

Got it just this evening. Got 32bit edition. Looks like it's around 2.5gig. Don't now if it has all the features or not.

Finished installation. Took around 1hr.

First impression: What the hell is this??

Will upload pictures soon.

using 585MB of 2Gig ram without any apps running.


----------



## Partymonger (Nov 5, 2008)

Haha..you got the wrong build..

You should have waited for the next release..

before jumping the gun remember that this is pre beta software..you dont get to cry abt it


----------



## desiibond (Nov 5, 2008)

Looks how a beta build should look like. 90% Vista like look.

First issue that I encountered: There is a 100Gb partition in one HDD and that partition is not visible under "Computer" and is visible in "Disk management".


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

desiibond said:


> Finished installation. Took around 1hr.


One hour to install an OS which does even have any useful app by default?  Ok so Ubuntu wins hands down on installation front.  It installed from Live CD on my system (along with loads of useful apps) in exactly 20 mins (mirrors were too busy as I installed on day of release and around 5-7 mins mins of those 20 were spent on downloading the package lists at 5-20 kbps).


----------



## desiibond (Nov 5, 2008)

Partymonger said:


> Haha..you got the wrong build..
> 
> You should have waited for the next release..
> 
> before jumping the gun remember that this is pre beta software..you dont get to cry abt it



I have been testing Windows OS builds for a decade. I know how to handle them and that could be a reason why I was able to get most out of Vista when others boo'ed it


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

Partymonger said:


> before jumping the gun remember that this is pre beta software..you dont get to cry abt it


But pre-beta release is what was used to quote RAM usage and was called Linux killer in the title.


----------



## desiibond (Nov 5, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> One hour to install an OS which does even have any useful app by default?  Ok so Ubuntu wins hands down on installation front.  It installed from Live CD on my system (along with loads of useful apps) in exactly 20 mins (mirrors were too busy as I installed on day of release and around 5-7 mins mins of those 20 were spent on downloading the package lists at 5-20 kbps).



oh. and you are comparing a prebeta build of this OS to Ubuntu?

How about this: I tried to install beta of Ubuntu 8.10 on my PC and it used to hand at the step where it formats partitions for installation. Tried on 3 different PC's and faced the same problem. What would this mean?

I can say, chalo atleast windows 7 prebeta is working???



chandru.in said:


> But pre-beta release is what was used to quote RAM usage and was called Linux killer in the title.




Didn't you notice the "?" at the end of the title 

and here comes problem 2: Two windows are maximised and the title bar's text of two windows is overlapped 

If you guys want me to test any apps, let me know. And ofcourse, they should be free apps!!!

Correction 

Installation time: Around 40 minutes.

Score:

Processor: 4.1
RAM: 4.6
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming: 5.1
HDD: 5.5

base score: 4.1

Installed ATI catalyst 8.10 and wow, it looks lot cleaner now.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

desiibond said:


> oh. and you are comparing a prebeta build of this OS to Ubuntu?
> How about this: I tried to install beta of Ubuntu 8.10 on my PC and it used to hand at the step where it formats partitions for installation. Tried on 3 different PC's and faced the same problem. What would this mean?
> 
> I can say, chalo atleast windows 7 prebeta is working???


Windows has never been fast at installation.  Even XP takes at least 30-40 mins to install (without drivers and other apps).  Also, there was a mention about partitioning problems in many of 8.10 test releases.  Can you point me to a slow installation issue in Windows 7 noted in any form in any of Microsoft's sites?



desiibond said:


> Didn't you notice the "?" at the end of the title


Yup that's why I'm answering his & her question.


----------



## desiibond (Nov 5, 2008)

hehe. okay. 

*Booting time: 43seconds*

Issue numer 3: My tech-com internal card not working (philips 7138 chipset). Installed drivers (vista drivers) and included app and error when I try to open the app is: 
"Hardware could not be initialized".

Rebooting the OS, let's see how it goes.

after reboot, no luck.Couldn't get the card work. 

anyways, it's getting too late now. Testing to resume tomorrow.

This time, will try it on another PC, HP xw4300 workstation.


----------



## IronManForever (Nov 5, 2008)

chandru.in said:
			
		

> Even XP takes at least 30-40 mins to install


26 mins flat on my system. Though it does say 39 mins on start.


----------



## amitava82 (Nov 5, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> One hour to install an OS which does even have any useful app by default?  Ok so Ubuntu wins hands down on installation front.  It installed from Live CD on my system (along with loads of useful apps) in exactly 20 mins (mirrors were too busy as I installed on day of release and around 5-7 mins mins of those *20 were spent on downloading the package lists at 5-20 kbps*).


Stop trolling around. You want me to believe that Live Ubuntu CD downloads packages during installation? Please don't lie to prove that Linux is better than any other OS. You know why I don't talk for Linux anymore? because of guys like you, MetalheadGautham and bunch of new breeds of linux users. If you think it's better, use it. You don't have to lie and spread your FUD to prove it better. And since you like it so much and it worth something, why not make some donations or join in development team and do some contribution? Or it's all about saving money or being 'geek' & 'expert' in front of you stupid friends who use Windows?

I hate these guys who keep on shouting: oh look windows and MAC is crap, Windows and MAC users are noob, Linux is freedom, Opensource (half of the linux users don't even care about source code or don't have any idea about programming), look at me, I'm a linux geek, bla bla. Please get a life. (__)


----------



## gopi_vbboy (Nov 5, 2008)

@amitava82- I guess u r a M$ MVP.....dude why do u bother when they r comparing with linux or mac.....its jus comparision.....ur argument gonna not stop them from commenting...

If u wanna argue more..tell mods to move this thread to fight club...Then Lets see abt ur opinion n others opinion.


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2008)

amitava82 said:


> You want me to believe that Live Ubuntu CD downloads packages during installation?


lol...



amitava82 said:


> You know why I don't talk for Linux anymore? because of guys like you, MetalheadGautham and bunch of new breeds of linux users.


good grief


----------



## New (Nov 5, 2008)

For me Windows 7(6801) took just around 30 minutes to get installed.You can enable the superbar(new taskbar) using this or this guide.

I am happy with Windows 7


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2008)

amitava82 said:


> And since you like it so much and it worth something, why not make some donations or join in development team and do some contribution?


Your sense of contribution is denatured


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

> @amitava82- I guess u r a M$ MVP.....dude why do u bother when they r comparing with linux or mac.....its jus comparision.....ur argument gonna not stop them from commenting...


Amitava is far from an MVP as they can get. Hes just another computer user who prefers not to go to extreme lengths of advocating products. 



> Ok so Ubuntu wins hands down on installation front. It installed from Live CD on my system (along with loads of useful apps) in exactly 20 mins (mirrors were too busy as I installed on day of release and around 5-7 mins mins of those 20 were spent on downloading the package lists at 5-20 kbps).


I find that hard to believe as well. 



> I hate these guys who keep on shouting: oh look windows and MAC is crap, Windows and MAC users are noob, Linux is freedom, Opensource (half of the linux users don't even care about source code or don't have any idea about programming), look at me, I'm a linux geek, bla bla. Please get a life. (__)


Please note that not everyone is a fanboy or spreads fud either. But I do agree with what you said. People who go to extreme lengths to advocate a product make me feel sorry using it in the first place.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

amitava82 said:


> You want me to believe that Live Ubuntu CD downloads packages during installation?


When on holy earth did I say that non-sense.  In your effort to attack me, do not put words in my mouth.  

Read the part you highlighted again.  I said "package lists" not "packages".  Package lists sent by repositories are not 100s of MBs FYI.



amitava82 said:


> And since you like it so much and it worth something, why not make some donations or join in development team and do some contribution


What made you decide I don't contribute?  



FilledVoid said:


> I find that hard to believe as well.


What is so hard to believe in it?  If you meant the installation time, I can reliably demonstrate.  If you meant download time, see my reply to amitava above.


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

> What is so hard to believe in it? If you meant the installation time, I can reliably demonstrate. If you meant download time, see my reply to amitava above.


I find it hard to believe that you would find that you could install Ubuntu in 13-15 minutes as per your claim. (Download time reduced for your benefit.)
*www.filledvoid.com/2008/05/19/hardy-heron-installed/


> Please note that it does take quite some time to boot up the Live CD / DVD and also it will very independent on the hardware you are running it on. On the above machine I believe it took 2-3 minutes to boot up.





> Now keep your fingers crossed and go ahead and click on the Install button . Please notethat the installation process does take a considerable amount of time. I wasn't out to set any new speed records but I believe the Install procedure did take about up to 45 minutes. While I was waiting I tried out the Gnu Chess Program. Although it doesn't look all that appeasing I must say that its quite smart at outwitting its opponents. You can pretty much use all the features of the Live CD/DVD while the installation goes on so be free to do anything while it is installing.


I've installed this on pretty much on all my family members' computers. The install time either hit anywhere between 40 to 1 hr. No customization no nothing. Just the defaults for most. 

Im not here to prove Ubuntu is crappy. I've said it before and always stuck with it. Ubuntu is a great OS to start out with. But I do call FUD when I see it. In my PoV what you said is FUD . Hence Im calling it. Not to mention I knew all the options for the install before install. The chances of a person new to Ubuntu knowing that is near to nil.


Sicne people think I might be making up stuff. here we go. I went to #Ubuntu to find out what I could have possibly done wrong. 

*www.imgx.org/pthumbs/small/12257/ubuntu-myproof.jpg

Im not even going to mention who answered that cause the last thing he needs is people to join the channel just to flame him. Hes been supporting Ubuntu in that channel for ages. not to mention hes an Op there as well.


----------



## Pat (Nov 5, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> I've installed this on pretty much on all my family members' computers. The install time either hit anywhere between 40 to 1 hr. No customization no nothing. Just the defaults for most.



To be honest, installation of Ubuntu never took more than 25-30 mins on any of the systems I have installed it on. (Ofcourse that does not include the boot time of the live system)


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

> To be honest, installation of Ubuntu never took more than 25-30 mins on any of the systems I have installed it on. (Ofcourse that does not include the boot time of the live system)


Im including everything I would if I were to pass the same judgement on Windows. Boot up and reboot time included.


----------



## lywyre (Nov 5, 2008)

^^. I have installed ubuntu too. Never took more than 25 mins for me either. May be you guys forgot to try, or were fiddling with the partition jargon  and got delayed. Anyway, even in an Celeron 900 MHz and 256MB SD RAM PC, I managed to get Ubuntu 7 up in about 27 mins. Ubuntu 8.1 installed in 23 mins on a PIV, 512MB DDR 400 MHz. Thats better than what XP figures.


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

/shrug Maybe Im doing something wrong I guess. My install times have never gone below what I have experienced. But I still don't buy the 13-15 minutes claim. DO any of you actually boot up the Live CD and then install it from there? Because seriously any Live disk I used has gone well beyond 2-3 minutes just to boot up.


----------



## desiibond (Nov 5, 2008)

ONe thing: Text mode installation is lot faster than full GUI based installation. Not sure if this is available in Ubuntu.


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

> ONe thing: Text mode installation is lot faster than full GUI based installation. Not sure if this is available in Ubuntu.


Yes obviously which is why im trying to get people to understand that I used the Live CD/ DVD to do the install on my computer. Well in my case it was the Live DVD although I seriously doubt whether it added anything more than the Live CD would. Actually never mind I have also used the CD version too. I downloaded one from the torrent when I had nothing else to download in my free time.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

@FilledVoid

It is very clearly proved that either you have done something very wrong to get such huge install times.  Also one difference I noticed is that you are installing from DVD which has more language packs and hence a bit slower to install (just my guess).

Yes it did take about 1 min and 45 sec boot the Live CD and yeah I didn't count boot time of Live CD.  I mean come on how can you count it when comparing with Windows install.  Ubuntu Live CD boots to a fully functional desktop but Windows boots just into the installer (if by any odd chance Win 7 has a Live CD mode, I'll take back my words )


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

> It is very clearly proved that either you have done something very wrong to get such huge install times. Also one difference I noticed is that you are installing from DVD which has more language packs and hence a bit slower to install (just my guess).



Considering that an expert in Ubuntu agrees with my times I think I'm not actually doing something hideously wrong as you would suggest. I could agree with people installing it with 30 minutes but yours is a straight out lie. 



> Yes it did take about 1 min and 45 sec boot the Live CD and yeah I didn't count boot time of Live CD. I mean come on how can you count it when comparing with Windows install. Ubuntu Live CD boots to a fully functional desktop but Windows boots just into the installer (if by any odd chance Win 7 has a Live CD mode, I'll take back my words )



Why couldn't I count it . Its part of the install procedure hence to me it is countable. Im not here to compare Windows and Ubuntu like you do in every other post of yours. My post disagrees with *your* install times. Period. I have no propaganda in proving Windows is better or Linux is better.


----------



## j_h (Nov 5, 2008)

It takes less than half an hour to install ubuntu on my machines.


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2008)

lol...exatly it takes less than 30 minutes to install on my system too.
E6300, DG965RY, seagate 160GB SATA 2, 1GB RAM Transcend

But to be honest it takes time to shutdown as one of my HDD is crapping out. Hardware plays important role.

But boot time is less than 30 seconds.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 5, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> What makes you think that a majority of Windows users are "n00bs" as you put it. Do you have a reliable source that indicates the number of "n00bs" with comparison of Pro users. You invited the flame and imho you sure as well deserved it. A person can be a noob in either Windows or Linux . The only difference is Windows is much more easily available and hence the users increase. Since you seem to be living in the "middle" although your post suggests otherwise illa sk you one thing . How many posts do you have in the Open Source section asking for help ?  If you even have one by definition you are noob to the other thousands who probably new the answer.
> 
> Im not ranting at Linux users or Windows users. Im just ranting at some peoples attitude that Windows is a bunch of "n00bs"  and we Linux users are what balances out the equation. Learn not to classify people by the software they use. That theory is astoundingly stupid.


_*Let me put my words more formally:*_

1. Anyone who uses linux does so by choice, so there is a good reason to belive that he is aware of what he is doing, and if he is not, he can ask for help (note: asking for help does not mean that a person is a n00b. Please read *www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=noob )

2. Due the fact that windows is a defacto OS, simply anyone can use it. That includes both those who use it out of choice and total awareness of their actions, and some misc. tom, dick and harry.

3. When security in an OS requires you to KNOW what you are doing, but random users use the OS, there is a high chance that security holes will be opened up by the users themselves.

PS: When I use extreme language, with words like n00b to describe a certain product's user base of a particular kind, you find it offensive. But here, the extremely intelligent and wise author who has written over 36 books says Windows 7 can "kill" linux, and it sounds natural ?


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

> 1. Anyone who uses linux does so by choice, so there is a good reason to belive that he is aware of what he is doing, and if he is not, he can ask for help (note: asking for help does not mean that a person is a n00b. Please read *www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=noob )



This is the same case of WIndows. If the person doesnt know what he/she is doing the person may ask for help. Its the point of forums if you didn't know already. 

From the link you gave 


> Noobs are often referred to as n00bs as a sign of disrespect toward them, and it's often hella funny, but I will refer to them as noobs during this reading.





> A noob or n00b is someone that lacks intellegance or common sense, most people think that noob is a word used only in the online gaming world, but in reality it is becoming an ever popular word with teenage society.





> 2. Due the fact that windows is a defacto OS, simply anyone can use it. That includes both those who use it out of choice and total awareness of their actions, and some misc. tom, dick and harry.



This is funny. You numbered it as a point but basically all it says is that anyone uses Windows uses it out of choice or because hes some random person ? In either case it doesnt justify you calling the users of  a product a noob. 



> 3. When security in an OS requires you to KNOW what you are doing, but random users use the OS, there is a high chance that security holes will be opened up by the users themselves.


Again irrelative, New users to either OSes can cause havoc or security risks in the operating system they use. Not only rocket scientists use Linux. You don't need the IQ of someone in NASA to use it. 



> PS: When I use extreme language, with words like n00b to describe a certain product's user base of a particular kind, you find it offensive. But here, the extremely intelligent and wise author who has written over 36 books says Windows 7 can "kill" linux, and it sounds natural ?



He is entitled to his opinion. His opinion doesn't not include comments like Linux users are gay or noobs do they? By calling everyone who uses a product n00b you are actually worser than he is. The author posted his own educated opinion about the products not the userbase as you did. Hence the difference. Why don't you go there and post your inifinite number of l337 points and take it up with the author instead of criticizing the userbase of Windows.  

No offense but alot of my friends and parents use Windows cause it suits there needs. keep on with the "n00b" calling and Ill show you a new meaning to the use of derogatory words.


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2008)

lol...the OP succeeded in his plan 
And that author of the article is a blindfolded loled up version of typical stereotypes who's got one leg over MS


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 5, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> This is the same case of WIndows. If the person doesnt know what he/she is doing the person may ask for help. Its the point of forums if you didn't know already.
> 
> From the link you gave
> 
> ...


Once again you misunderstood me. I never EVER called all windows users noobs. I just said that you have a good number of noob users who use windows and this is the reason why windows is infested with viruses.

The phrase "noob windows users" does not mean windows users are noobs. It just refers to "windows users WHO are noobs". And such people exist in large numbers. Thats a fact. But that does not mean the opposite type are non-existant.

I too have lots of friends and relatives who use windows, and I never meant anything against such people.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> Considering that an expert in Ubuntu agrees with my times I think I'm not actually doing something hideously wrong as you would suggest. I could agree with people installing it with 30 minutes but yours is a straight out lie.


If you call it a lie only based on you experience I can say nothing.  



FilledVoid said:


> Why couldn't I count it . Its part of the install procedure hence to me it is countable.


Then go ahead and get an Alternate CD and then compare.  Alternate CD of Ubuntu is fairly equal to the install medium of Windows (in terms of booting process).  Compare apples to apples.



FilledVoid said:


> Im not here to compare Windows and Ubuntu like you do in every other post of yours.


I have never mentioned Linux anywhere unless either the topic was a straight out war (this topic) or some other poster had put a false claim about Linux in the thread before me.



FilledVoid said:


> My post disagrees with *your* install times. Period. I have no propaganda in proving Windows is better or Linux is better.


And so do I.  So there is no way you can claim mine as a lie.  Also, I never claimed that install time will be 15 mins.  You simply removed the whole package refresh time.  Even if mirrors were not busy, there would have been package list download albeit a bit faster.


----------



## desiibond (Nov 5, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> Once again you misunderstood me. I never EVER called all windows users noobs. I just said that you have a good number of noob users who use windows and this is the reason why windows is infested with viruses.
> 
> The phrase "noob windows users" does not mean windows users are noobs. It just refers to "windows users WHO are noobs". And such people exist in large numbers. Thats a fact. But that does not mean the opposite type are non-existant.
> 
> I too have lots of friends and relatives who use windows, and I never meant anything against such people.



Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. Some like windows, some like linux. So, peace


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

> The phrase "noob windows users" does not mean windows users are noobs. It just refers to "windows users WHO are noobs". And such people exist in large numbers. Thats a fact. But that does not mean the opposite type are non-existant.


Yes which again brings me to what i said earlier. Comparitively to the market share each has its far share of people who don't have a clue of what they are doing. To be frank Im one of those people. You have somehow found a factual source that equates the number of pro users to the number of "noob" users. If you have it post it . Otherwise its not a fact . Its just another guesstimate. "Its a fact that 99% of the Linux users who install it the first time have no clue what they are doing." 


> f you call it a lie only based on you experience I can say nothing.


You would have wanted me to call it a lie based on someone elses experience? 


> Then go ahead and get an Alternate CD and then compare. Alternate CD of Ubuntu is fairly equal to the install medium of Windows (in terms of booting process). Compare apples to apples.


In no place did I say that the Alternate CD would not give you a lower install time. If I recall correctly you mentioned that the Live CD gave you the times mentioned and hence merely I said I don't believe it. 


> I have never mentioned Linux anywhere unless either the topic was a straight out war (this topic) or some other poster had put a false claim about Linux in the thread before me.


Im not even going to use the Search feature to prove this is correct or not. If you believe you haven't good for you. 


> And so do I. So there is no way you can claim mine as a lie. Also, I never claimed that install time will be 15 mins. You simply removed the whole package refresh time. Even if mirrors were not busy, there would have been package list download albeit a bit faster.


Even on 20 minutes with a Live CD I find that hard to believe. Just to be sure Ill download one and video tape one, obviously as you put it Im doing somethign very wrong. Maybe Ill see if I can arrange a system to get this installed on and then video it on put it on my website. If it does install it in 20 Ill be more than happy to apologize. if it doesnt maybe you could show me those install tips you followed and correct it.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> You would have wanted me to call it a lie based on someone elses experience?


I'd want to call it a lie after sitting beside me while I'm installing and if I fail to install in 20 mins.



FilledVoid said:


> In no place did I say that the Alternate CD would not give you a lower install time. If I recall correctly you mentioned that the Live CD gave you the times mentioned and hence merely I said I don't believe it.


Yes Live CD did give me those time but I did not count boot time of Live CD.  I asked you to use Alternate only if you want to count boot time of CD in install time.



FilledVoid said:


> If it does install it in 20 Ill be more than happy to apologize.


Good but don't count boot time of Live CD.  Don't count time taken by you to re-arrange partitions (I have a very clear pre-made partition scheme which I use for every new version).  Don't count more than 30 secs for entering user name and password during install.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 5, 2008)

@amitava:

Congratulations. Join the club of users who continue misinterpreting others' words and go all whammy over it.



amitava82 said:


> Stop trolling around. You want me to believe that Live Ubuntu CD downloads packages during installation? Please don't lie to prove that Linux is better than any other OS.



Ubuntu does NOT download software from the net while installing. He is simply quoting the time it takes to install ubuntu and get it to a "fully" usable state, as in <including> codecs, flash, etc. I too take an additional 15 min time to get those stuff installed.



> You know why I don't talk for Linux anymore? because of guys like you, MetalheadGautham and bunch of new breeds of linux users. If you think it's better, use it. You don't have to lie and spread your FUD to prove it better.



If somebody insults a particular type of windows users, it does not mean the whole windows user community is being insulted.

Nobody, including me, would assume that using a particular OS makes you an idiot. Wait a second, I remember your comment on some old chitchat thread now. Wasn't it YOU who said some guys were racist, because they said some singer called Akon was ugly ?



> Or it's all about saving money or being 'geek' & 'expert' in front of you stupid friends who use Windows?



Commenting on someone does not mean that the commenter has a superiority complex.



> I hate these guys who keep on shouting: oh look windows and MAC is crap, Windows and MAC users are noob, Linux is freedom, Opensource (half of the linux users don't even care about source code or don't have any idea about programming), look at me, I'm a linux geek, bla bla. Please get a life. (__)



Several linux users don't use it just because its opensource, free, etc. They simply use it because its more flexible. Or, they may have their own reasons. And its their choice, and there is nothing wrong if they praise their OS. Don't others do the same for their OS ? Each person is entitled to his/her own opinion. And expressing one's own opinion does NOT mean that he thinks great things about himself.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
_
Once again, please stop assuming things about everyone. Things you comment about are often told in an entirely different context but you go on and assume the worst and start bashing people for no reason._

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


----------



## axxo (Nov 5, 2008)

@soumya 
Thanks for entertaining us with yet another win vs lin war.


----------



## Cool G5 (Nov 5, 2008)

Take it with a pinch of salt


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 5, 2008)

axxo said:


> @soumya
> Thanks for entertaining us with yet another win vs lin war.



where is the war ?


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> where is the war ?


In the topic may be.


----------



## kalpik (Nov 5, 2008)

Hmm.. People, please stop the fighting!

P.S.: I could also install ubuntu in about 15 minutes on my machine using a live DVD.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

kalpik said:


> P.S.: I could also install ubuntu in about 15 minutes on my machine using a live DVD.




Whether MS fears it or not, Preston Gralla seems to be greatly scared of Linux's success to ensure market for his books.  He is digging out old stories and claims.

*blogs.computerworld.com/one_more_reason_linux_must_fear_windows_7

But ASUS CEO had clearly explained at least for EEE, returns rates were similar for XP and Linux versions.  I guess MSI just messed up the UI.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 5, 2008)

kalpik said:


> P.S.: I could also install ubuntu in about 15 minutes on my machine using a live DVD.


Thats the time Sidux took to install for me. Ubuntu took 20 min.

But tell me, how long does it take for the first dist-upgrade and install of restricted-extras ?


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

> Congratulations. Join the club of users who continue misinterpreting others' words and go all whammy over it.


If the club includes me then Yes Id love to be in it. 


> He is simply quoting the time it takes to install ubuntu and get it to a "fully" usable state, as in <including> codecs, flash, etc. I too take an additional 15 min time to get those stuff installed.


Are you stating that he included package install times like Flash and codecs in the 20 minutes too  . Cause I definitely don't see that happening either. I believe he just referred to updating his package lists. 


> If somebody insults a particular type of windows users, it does not mean the whole windows user community is being insulted.


And who on earth gave you permission to insult that particular Windows user? What makes you think that he needs the insulting ?


> I'd want to call it a lie after sitting beside me while I'm installing and if I fail to install in 20 mins.


Unfortunately geographical factors do prevent that from happening else Id be more than happy to drive there to see this 20 minute install procedure. Hence I call it based on my experience. My experience tells me that there is no way you got an Ubuntu up and running for a Live CD in 20 minutes. If I hadn't done a reinstall of Arch I probably would have installed Hardy Heron and confirmed again. 


> Yes Live CD did give me those time but I did not count boot time of Live CD. I asked you to use Alternate only if you want to count boot time of CD in install time.


As I said I have no comment on the Alternate CD install. I pointed at the comment on the Live CD install and that is what I still stick too. 


> Good but don't count boot time of Live CD. Don't count time taken by you to re-arrange partitions (I have a very clear pre-made partition scheme which I use for every new version). Don't count more than 30 secs for entering user name and password during install.


No I dont intend on weaseling my way out of it. In other words I dont intend on taking 1 minute coming up with a weird login name or hostname.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> Are you stating that he included package install times like Flash and codecs in the 20 minutes too  . Cause I definitely don't see that happening either. I believe he just referred to updating his package lists.


You are right I did not include installing any additional package just the plain install including refreshing of package list.



FilledVoid said:


> Unfortunately geographical factors do prevent that from happening else Id be more than happy to drive there to see this 20 minute install procedure. Hence I call it based on my experience. My experience tells me that there is no way you got an Ubuntu up and running for a Live CD in 20 minutes. If I hadn't done a reinstall of Arch I probably would have installed Hardy Heron and confirmed again.


And you say this even after kalpik confirmed my statement.  And in any case, even if you fail 100 times to achieve it, you have no reason to claim I was lying.  I did it and it is my experience (now Kalpik's too).



FilledVoid said:


> As I said I have no comment on the Alternate CD install. I pointed at the comment on the Live CD install and that is what I still stick too.


I'll stick with same too.  But in that case don't add Live CD boot time to install time.  If you want to include boot time, use alternate CD simple.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 5, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> If the club includes me then Yes Id love to be in it.







> Are you stating that he included package install times like Flash and codecs in the 20 minutes too  . Cause I definitely don't see that happening either. I believe he just referred to updating his package lists.



Seriously. I DID take that much time on BSNL H500. I just used the IIT Chennai mirrors. 210kbps min and 240kbps max 



> And who on earth gave you permission to insult that particular Windows user? What makes you think that he needs the insulting ?



I am refering to a pompous i-know-everything-in-the-world type of guy I personally know. I now realise that I should not have mentioned it here.


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

> And you say this even after kalpik confirmed my statement. And in any case, even if you fail 100 times to achieve it, you have no reason to claim I was lying. I did it and it is my experience (now Kalpik's too).


Yes as you claimed from your experience so did I. Since I guess kalpik can back your claim I guess it might  be right then. My apologies. 


> I'll stick with same too. But in that case don't add Live CD boot time to install time. If you want to include boot time, use alternate CD simple.


Nope, if I intend to judge Windows on their whole install procedure the I intend to do the same on any OS I use, Including the boot up time.


----------



## kalpik (Nov 5, 2008)

Ok.. Let me clarify.. I think it depends a lot on your hardware.. I guess my hardware is more "linux friendly" than yours, probably that's why the huge difference in installation time


----------



## RCuber (Nov 5, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> I am refering to a pompous i-know-everything-in-the-world type of guy I personally know. I now realise that I should not have mentioned it here.


How do we know your i-know-everything-in-the-world type of guy you personally know . as per your statement you were refering every windows user as a n00b, and when some questions the statement you say I was not refering to those guys and blah blah  , please think before making a statement, make sure you dont make a fool of yourself by such comments.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> Yes as you claimed from your experience so did I. Since I guess kalpik can back your claim I guess it might  be right then. My apologies.


Ah finally thanks for taking back your claims that I was lying.



FilledVoid said:


> Nope, if I intend to judge Windows on their whole install procedure the I intend to do the same on any OS I use, Including the boot up time.


You are welcome to do it.  But compare apples to apples in terms of install medium.

Live CD of Ubuntu - Live CD of Windows (If one is ever made)
Alternate CD of Ubuntu - Normal install DVD of Windows

Come on man what is it that you don't get?  Loading a fully functional desktop is several times intensive than loading just an installer.



kalpik said:


> Ok.. Let me clarify.. I think it depends a lot on your hardware.. I guess my hardware is more "linux friendly" than yours, probably that's why the huge difference in installation time


I agree with that too.  I was irritated only coz FilledVoid outright denied my statement and called it a lie.  But yeah before I upgraded my system recently I cherry picked most Ubuntu friendly hardware components.  So it very much possible that Ubuntu came bundled high performing drivers for my system.


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2008)

kalpik said:


> Ok.. Let me clarify.. I think it depends a lot on your hardware.. I guess my hardware is more "linux friendly" than yours, probably that's why the huge difference in installation time


yep...exactly. Just get the right piece of hardware before banging your head 
Though I still dont think that new BIOS update fixes the BIOS bug for Debian lenny netinst discs  

Btw Flledvoid, I think majority of users here said that it took less than 30 mins but still nevermind

Btw it's all fine until you take it verbally personal...lolz


----------



## 4T7 (Nov 5, 2008)

So, that means MS will start using windows on their servers?


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2008)

^^wtf?


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

4T7 said:


> So, that means MS will start using windows on their servers?


Yup Windows servers are not in any shape good but hey MS is not so stupid to leave a huge PR hole by not using it themself.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 5, 2008)

Charan said:


> How do we know your i-know-everything-in-the-world type of guy you personally know . as per your statement you were refering every windows user as a n00b, and when some questions the statement you say I was not refering to those guys and blah blah  , please think before making a statement, make sure you dont make a fool of yourself by such comments.


If thats the case, maybe its because my language is becoming worse for some reason 
Time to start learning to use words better I guess.

I hope I did not offend anybody in my "out-of-context" statements.


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

> Btw Flledvoid, I think majority of users here said that it took less than 30 mins but still nevermind


Respect is earned. I take Kalpiks word with more value than I would for a majority of users theres nothing to be amazed there. 


> Live CD of Ubuntu - Live CD of Windows (If one is ever made)


As I said earlier I didnt judge an alternate cd ior a text install procedure or an FTP procedure. I did mention that I based my judgement on a Live CD/DVD . There is no Apples being compared here since Im not comparing Windows with Linux. All I was comparing was the Install Time. In other words Boot up -> Live CD -> Installation Procedure -> Restart -> Boot up to my desktop. I would use to include any timings incurred as the previously mentioned procedure as my judgement. How you judge Windows vs Linux is irrelative to me.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 5, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> As I said earlier I didnt judge an alternate cd ior a text install procedure or an FTP procedure. I did mention that I based my judgement on a Live CD/DVD . There is no Apples beign compared here since Im not comparing Windows with Linux. All I was comparing was the Install Time. In other words Boot up -> Live CD -> Installation procedure -> Restart -> Boot up to my desktop. I would use to include any timings I refer to.


I noticed that ubuntu started taking LOTS of time to boot and go between install steps ever since 7.10 was released. I think its because my comp and several others' computers have hardware that causes compiz to hang and waste time.

Whats YOUR hardware configuration ?


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

@FilledVoid

I was mentioning about Ubuntu getting installed much faster than Windows so obviously I did not count boot time of Live CD.  It was after that post that you chipped in saying it is hard to believe.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Nov 5, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> so obviously I did not count boot time of Live CD.


even windows has its own boot time, doesn't it ?
whats it like in vista sp1 ? 
For me, windows XP SP2 cd takes 1 mintue to boot.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

MetalheadGautham said:


> I noticed that ubuntu started taking LOTS of time to boot and go between install steps ever since 7.10 was released. I think its because my comp and several others' computers have hardware that causes compiz to hang and waste time.
> 
> Whats YOUR hardware configuration ?


8.10 boots in close to 30 secs (timed with mobile ) and I find it pretty good given the fact that I did absolutely nothing to configure anything in it (except wallpaper and FF bookmarks and installation of few packages).  As number of installed packages grows, movement between install steps should theoretically increase (but never noticed anything significant in all Ubuntu versions I have used).

My config AMD dual core 4000+ and 2 GB RAM with an ASUS Mobo using nvidia's chipset and graphics.



MetalheadGautham said:


> even windows has its own boot time, doesn't it ?


Yup definitely it would and it will not be as heavy as Live CD.  Technically it should be similar to Alternate CD's as both boot the system and load just the installer instead of a full desktop.


----------



## Hitboxx (Nov 5, 2008)

Just for the record, I still hold the best installation record for Fedora 9 64bit from Live Gnome cd under 6 minutes without any codecs but still a fully working OS. Yep that was an awesome day.


----------



## chandru.in (Nov 5, 2008)

Hitboxx said:


> Just for the record, I still hold the best installation record for Fedora 9 64bit from Live Gnome cd under 6 minutes without any codecs but still a fully working OS. Yep that was an awesome day.


He he more reliable sources proving I was not a liar.


----------



## Faun (Nov 5, 2008)

FilledVoid said:


> Respect is earned. I take Kalpiks word with more value than I would for a majority of users theres nothing to be amazed there.


Enlightening words. So obviously you too are no less no more than Metaaaaaaaaal.


----------



## FilledVoid (Nov 5, 2008)

> Enlightening words. So obviously you too are no less no more than Metaaaaaaaaal.


Ive never claimed I was. As I said how you think I am is your perception. I care very little of of what that is.


----------



## kalpik (Nov 5, 2008)

Ok.. First this thread went off-topic with people comparing boot times (and im ashamed i chipped into the discussion for the same), and now i see that this thread has turned into a ground for personal attacks. So i guess there is nothing else to but to lock it.


----------

