It’s just an opinion, but it seems to me that todays hardware is pushed to do more, faster, better, and so on. Given that hardware manufacturers are in the business to make money, it makes me wonder if some other facets of our hardware has not suffered somewhere? Sensitivity to power fluctuations, heat, EMI (electromagnetic interference), ESD (static electricity) maybe? Granted, when I started playing with computers, there was no such thing as cell phones, etc. that could effect computer equipment. And that equipment was no where near as powerful (or sensitive) as today’s equipment.

A case in point, the only reason why I have limited hardware issues (it really is the only reason), is that I operate my hardware in cooler environments (and air clean it regularly). Yet I still have had hardware failures. Also as a very lose guide, hard drives tend to fail (on average) after a few hundred  operating hours. It differs between manufactures, but there’s a bit more understanding on Wikipedia’s “Hard disk failure” post, there they also refer to the “Bathtub Curve” (an engineering aspect that describes decreasing, increasing and constant failure rates). Always make sure you have a backup of your backup (redundancy).

Side note: For those that don’t know me, I’ve been playing with computer’s since the early days, (to consumers at least) of the 1970′s

Case in point, I paid almost $300 for a high end cooling case on one box (and it works great – the sides even, always feel cold when in use). My servers (those on my LAN) operate in an ambient air temperature currently averaging at 16°C (in the summer they are moved and average 20°C).

On the boxes in my work area they average 22°C and I even use an external fan on them to remove radiant heat away from the fan intakes on those boxes, when the temperature goes up. Remember if the fans on your computer exhaust warm air, and then suck it back in, your PC is getting virtually zero cooling!

Granted, this has given me an environment with a lower failure rate than most, and still the odd time I loose a drive, optical drive, power supply (or network card), etc.

What a lot of people don’t realize, I think, is that static (ESD) we do not feel, can still damage components. A case in point for obvious ESD, last winter I was moving one computer, I reached to pick the box up and felt a static jolt. Because it was the case of the unit, I didn’t think it would have been an issue (I’d gotten away with that before). It was an issue, the network card got pooched. Another time I reached for the USB drive and pulled it out, no static or anything was felt, but the moment I touched it, my hard drive failed (because of static) and I could hear the speakers make a brief noise (and the USB drive was dead).

Finally, I’ve come across this again, and again, and again, avoid using a cell phone near your PC. Granted it’s not medical equipment, but the cell still radiates a relatively strong field (EMI) which can interfere with PC components. Given that today’s  hardware is becoming increasing specialized, it has to do more, store more, be faster, use less energy, etc., it’s much, much more sensitive as a result. You can in some circumstances, actually cause a data read and write error if the EMI field interferes with that operation – which over period of several errors (or one big one) can eventually “pooch” data or a file system.

Speaking of ESD… Commonly a static charge (like you get walking across a carpet) is about  the 10000V – 13000V range. That sounds very high, but remember that the amperage is super low. It’s the amperage that causes us (terminal at times) harm, not the voltage.

In winter, when humidity is low and it’s warm (from the heater or furnace) static shocks (ESD) hurt more (we feel that a lot). But it terms of our hardware and how we are able to feel ESD, charges below about 4000v are not felt. You can handle your hardware and never feel any ESD, but still have damaged components from low ESD voltages. Components can be damaged voltages as low as 400 volts!

Often, the component appears fine, but days, weeks, even months later, your computer may freeze up or start exhibiting strange symptoms. Damaged motherboards, memory, hard drives, etc. are generally easier to diagnose if they failed right after after you install it (“DOA”). Unfortunately low voltage ESD can also cause latent damage, by destroying a few microscopic parts out of the millions in a computer’s tiny circuitry. That is virtually almost impossible to diagnose, for us! And… the damage may not cause problems for a long time.

Hard drives are susceptible to being damaged by too much heat, excessive (or strong) vibrations, high humidity, EMI, ESD, RF (any strong microwave or other strong transmission). With an RF source, the amount of energy received falls quickly as the distance from that source increases, depending on the frequency, and the energy output of the source. Cell phones are not high output devices, but shouldn’t really operated to close anything that they could effect. (That’s one reason why hospitals require cell phones to be turned off).

So, remember to take all this into account to safeguard your hardware. Not forgetting to wear your tin foil hat, in front of your monitor, under a blanket, with the lights out…

On a serious note though, the biggest causes of hardware failure I’ve seen both personally and professionally are:

Heat
Dust & Dirt
Static Discharge

Heat being the all out #1 issue in my experience!!!

Why am I writing this post? Because I’m getting a lot of “help me” phone calls and email messages (it happens about this time every year) reporting PC problems, that are found to relate to some piece of hardware failing (or already failed). I hope the above information and advice will help some of you avoid “feeling the pain” of loosing some or all of your data.

Have something to add? Be heard! Please, feel free to add your comments below…

Side note: Given the recent FUD in the news about Win7 black screening and Apple’s “Trust me” marketing, among other things, it’s no wonder the average consumer feels unsure.

A couple of things prompted me to write a post about Linux adoption experiences; for the average consumer, as in many ways, this really is a sociopolitical issue.

First,  I was talking to an old business partner the other day. Given the issues with Windows operating systems (he preferred to avoid) and the costs of Mac systems (he thought were to high), I suggested he give Ubuntu Linux a try. The response was somewhat dubious. As best I can recall here’s how the conversation played out (I have changed his name for the purposes of his post, let’s call him “Jake”):

Roger: “Why don’t you try Ubuntu?” If you don’t like it after a while, we can always move to another OS.

Jake: “No, Linux is difficult, I want a system that will just work”

Roger: “Well, Ubuntu has come a long way, it should be able to do what you need”

Jake: “I want to plug my camera in and have the photos copy to my system, I want to use Word. Linux is for geeks with technical knowledge, it’s not user friendly”

Roger: “It’s user friendly, I plug my camera in and Linux just uses it, and there’s all kinds of software, for free, that manages pictures. I use Open Office, my system just works! Besides, Linux adoption is increasing worldwide, we just don’t hear as much about that in the North American market”

Jake: “Not really, what about the kids in India for example? The schools all use Windows. Windows will always be the dominant system”

Roger: “Jake, the schools in India are encouraged to use Linux, and many of them do”.

Side note: (Indian schools to use homebrew Debian distro, Linux for 30,000 PCs at Schools in India, India’s largest Linux rollout forges ahead despite tremendous odds)

Jake: “Well, I don’t have time to learn something new. Linux is tricky and difficult, I prefer a system that just works”.

Roger: “Have you actually tried using Linux?”

Jake: (Tone of voice seems very unsure) “Well… yes, I tried it”.

The conversation drew to a close. Personally I know he’s never tried it as I’ve been taking care of his PC technical issues for years. Every single system he’s had (and used at work) is Windows based. Don’t misunderstand me, there’s nothing wrong with that (I have a Windows box on the network too).

The second motivation for this post was a CNet quote I saw on the DimDim site (I was looking for an Open Source Video Conferencing / Meeting solution):

“…solutions that remain islands, developed and deployed by one company, are much less interesting than open-source solutions that are developed and deployed by a community.”

Seems to me that Linux adoption’s primary barrier (in North America) is consumer perception (misguided or otherwise). Throughout other conversations with “Jake” as well as other clients, I found the focus of most people seemed to rest on the notion of OS superiority. Personally, I think that thought process is misplaced, particularly when it’s based on mistaken information or slick advertising. Having been in the IT arena for some years, and having had some not too nice experiences. It’s taken me some time and actually using multiple operating systems to realize some of the issues surrounding the relatively slow adoption of Linux. As one reader (Spode) mentioned in the post “Some Things Linux Can Do, That Windows Won’t “:

“…The problem is, people see Linux as a Windows “replacement”. It’s not. It’s an operating system in it’s own right – it’s like trying to compare a pick-up truck to a car. Close enough that you can try, but realistically – a pointless exercise”

Many have argued that the issue is related to the fact that Windows is the dominant desktop because it’s the easiest to use (“it just works”, is something I often hear).

Windows has always been good at locking competitors out of the OEMs using questionable methods, that (the news services inform us) have had them convicted of monopoly type abuse (by both the US and the EU) on more than one occasion.

Windows knows that Mac’s are mainly targeted to a niche market, thereby posing no real threat to their profit lines. Mac systems also don’t try to break into the OEMs. Linux on the other hand is already dominant in the Server market, it’s dominant in the “devices” market too, as such it could be perceived as a threat.  It appears that Windows will do almost anything to retain the loyalty of OEMs.

Another reader comment on an earlier post was more pointed in saying:

“Linux = I can install my OS and apps on a USB stick and take them with me, boot any PC and go. It just works.

Given the above, it’s no wonder that many resist Linux as all they’ve ever used (really used) is Windows – As it almost always preinstalled on every prebuilt PC or laptop they purchase. Personally, moving to Linux was a big step, I remember that the hardest thing (for me) was to realize that it was not very much different from using Windows, strictly in terms of the default GUI. I had preconceived notions that it would be difficult and tough to use and that there’d be very few applications to use. I was stunned at the shear wealth of applications and of the robust quality of them!

The bottom line really is (in my opinion) that companies are able to unfairly control the market (such as the case with Windows). It has nothing to do with OS superiority. Different operating systems each have their good and bad points.

In my opinion, the one barrier to faster Linux desktop adoption is the Linux community itself,  among them companies that develop Linux distributions.

I very rarely (maybe once every 10 years or so) see any advertising for Linux on Television (or on Radio).

I’ve never heard of “Linux” attempting to enter the OEM field (or develop their own).

The times I’ve seen Linux preinstalled (especially on Laptops), I found the cost was too high. (I could buy more powerful hardware for cheaper cost and install Linux myself).

I’ve seen no real incentives, Linux provides application developers to support Linux platforms.

On the flip side, North America it seems has groomed a PC consumer that:

Simply believes what they’re told in advertising (I’m talking about the general masses here, not about intelligent individuals).

Has little initiative to change, to learn, grow, try new things (OSs).

Is willing to pay a little more to conform with the general public perception.

Less motivated to try innovative solutions.

Granted the above are perceptions, but it seems to me the predominant issues surrounding the “What about Linux?” questions are best answered by those who build and support desktop and laptop hardware as well as those who develop software. Less short term thinking and more long term thinking, perhaps would be the best way to go.

Regardless of everything written above, it all boils down to the individual. How open minded are they, how adventurous, how tech savvy, how observant, and so on. Are they sheep or tigers? This issue smacks very much of “Eloi culture”.

Side note (from Wikipedia): Scottish social and cultural commentator Gordon P. Clarkson has termed contemporary Mass Culture “Eloi Culture” as he claims that it is creating a society of unthinking passive consumers of “meaningless trivia”.

Finally, I find the hardware support in Linux is actually better than in Windows. Having said that, I really think hardware developers and marketers need to reevaluate the sometimes excessive costing when selling preinstalled Linux systems. And… Software developers, like Steam, Adobe, etc. quite frankly should be aware enough to realize the long term growth of Linux (including the migration to it), and develop Linux based versions of their products. Again, the thinking needs to be LONG TERM, not a quick buck in the short term.

“I have a ati r128 graphics driver. I dont see the driver in hardware drivers at all. The driver is a inf file. I dont know how to install it. Please help me!”

I don’t have much information provided in the question (more information is always helpful and allows for better answers).  However, I hope the following will help.

First, the inf file is a Windows based file, you don’t need that in Linux. I had an ATI Rage 128 card a while back, and a do remember having issues. If I recall correctly (this was a few years ago for me), the issue was that the card was not detected properly. In your case, I’d suggest that the card driver is not ATI, instead you’ll want R128 because (again, if I remember correctly) X11 detects the card incorrectly.

If you’re not sure what “X11″ means, please see the article: X Window System

From their site:

“…The X Window System (commonly X or X11) is a computer software system and network protocol that provides a graphical user interface (GUI) for networked computers, and was initially developed as part of Project Athena. It implements the X display protocol and provides windowing on raster graphics (bitmap) computer displays and manages keyboard and pointing device control functions…”

Here’s one approach you can take to try and fix this…

As mentioned, you need to ensure that R128 is the used driver. To accomplish this, please edit your xorg.conf file, but make a BACKUP FIRST! In fact, it’s good practise to keep a backup of any data you find valuable, that way if you feel a need to reinstall your OS, you will not lose all your valuable files. So, ALWAYS keep a current backup of files you never want to lose – I learned this the hard way (more than once).

Here’s the terminal command to do this:

sudo gedit /etc/X11/xorg.conf

Look for two lines that starts with:

Section “Device”
Identifier    “Configured Video Device”

Now ensure the following line (just under those) that says:

Boardname “ATI Rage 128″

is changed to reflect the real name of your video card.

Next look for the line that says:

Driver “ati”

and change it to say:

Driver “r128″

The other directives should be okay. Save the file and reboot your system: sudo shutdown -r now

I hope this information helps you overcome the driver issue.

To recap, here is the list of hardware used:

Shuttle SN68SG2 Socket AM2 Barebone – NVIDIA 7025, Audio, Video, PCI Express, Gigabit LAN, USB 2.0, Firewire, Serial ATA, 250 Watt Power Supply.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Processor ADA4200CUBOX – 2.20GHz, 1MB Cache, 1000MHz (2000 MT/s) FSB, Windsor, Dual-Core, Retail, Socket AM2, Processor with Fan.

Kingston 1024MB PC5400 DDR2 667MHz Memory (2 of these for 2GB).

Western Digital Caviar SE16 500GB Hard Drive – 7200, Browser Problems – Creating a Linux Based Virtual Box – Part 1 of 2 16MB, SATA-300, OEM.

DVD burner: LG GSA H55N Super-Multi Disk Drive 20×20×12

Putting the actual pieces together was very straight forward (use the guide that comes with the Shuttle package). However, I did make one mistake in ordering the hardware…

The Shuttle SN68SG2 comes with it’s own heat sink and cooling system. The metal fins are inserted right behind the fan of the power supply, so that the outbound air blows over the fins and draws heat away from the CPU. (I thought that was an innovative design idea when building such a small-footprint unit). As such, I did not need to order the retail version of the CPU (there’s no use or place, for the fan). Instead, I should have ordered the OEM version of the CPU (without the fan).

Also, after following the instructions that come with the shuttle unit, you may wish to flash the BIOS. I found that I was able to reboot the system with no problem, but whenever I powered it down and then back up (cold start), the PC always tries to boot off the network (until I use the ctrl-alt-del combo to restart it), the shuttle site indicated the fix was BIOS related. It’s probably better to flash the BIOS prior to moving forward (if you’re even interested in fixing this issue). You can fix it with Shuttle’s Flash Utility (awdflash) and the new BIOS (bin file) here: http://global.shuttle.com/download03.jsp?PI=647. Flashing the BIOS is not in the scope of this post, but one guide that gives you the basics of flashing is here: http://howflow.com/tricks/flash_your_award_bios_with_linux. Please remember that flashing a BIOS is serious, if you make a mistake (or power fails while flashing) you might damage the BIOS and have to buy a new motherboard! Be warned! ;) I chose not to flash the bios as (for now) the cold-start issue is just a minor thing.

I didn’t specify a monitor in the list above (I’m sure most would work), but I’ve had no problems using an Acer AL1916W. It’s a 19 inch wide screen (1440 x 900 – 16:10).

Make sure that you have a USB keyboard and USB mouse. I didn’t pay attention the first time and had to exchange the keyboard for a USB one. ;)

During the installation you’ll find two issues:

1. Video may not display clearly (it’s a driver issue).
2. The network card may not work properly (it’s also driver issue).

Here’s one trick I did to resolve this (and make my server install much smoother!)

After putting the hardware together, I did a quick install of Ubuntu 8.04 LTS Desktop Edition (64-bit) as I wanted to see if there were any issues. The most critical one I found was that network card appeared not to be working. By fixing this now, I found out I didn’t have to do it during the server install! I’d suggest (strongly) that you also do a quick desktop OS install as well, just to make sure everything is working as it should. (Besides, I don’t mind doing reinstalls as it helps me prepare and get a bit more exposure to some issues.) ;)

Fixing the Network Drivers:

To get the network card working properly took a bit of searching the learn that it was a Marvell. Once I had this information, I opened a terminal and tried:

sudo modeprobe marvell
sudo modeprobe marvell 88e1116

After (88E1116 was the model) the commands completed, I found the network card was able to connect and I could surf the web. I installed the desktop OS twice more and the server OS three times more (because I messed things up), but I never had to modeprobe the network card again – it always worked.

Fixing the Video Drivers:

Each time you install the OS (Server or Desktop), you’ll need to ensure you install the nVidia driver. To get the video drivers working, in terminal:

sudo apt-get install envyng-gtk

The above will install a tool in your desktop GUI. Use it to install the nVidia drivers. This solution came from: http://www.albertomilone.com/nvidia_scripts1.html

That’s it for this entry. The next post in this 12 part series, will have us rolling our sleeves up and installing the LAMP server software. :)

Side note: As I’ve mentioned before, the upkeep of this site is a financial burden (but I think this blog does provide value to the community), as such I often collaborate on web projects to help with the server fees etc., which lead to the discussion at hand.

One particularly vexing issue we discussed was how IE positions DIV elements (via CSS) compared to other browsers such as Firefox, Opera etc. A site structure that looked great in other browsers often presented design challenges when using IE. Of course many of the Firefox fan boys were quick to jump in and say “don’t design for IE”, I think that is somewhat unrealistic, even though I’d love :) to comply (I’m smiling here). A case in point, if the client uses IE, the finished site has to work properly in IE as well. ;) In terms of browser adoption, many of you might find this resource helpful: Browser Statistics. According to the W3schools.com statistics, in March of 2008, IE comprises 53.1% of web users and non-IE browsers are used by 41.6% of users. Hence the importance of cross browser compatibility.

A specific issue encountered, that motivated me to post Part 1 (the introduction and ground work) was that the designer uses a Windows 2000 platform and unfortunately he cannot install any IE browser greater that IE6 (the buggy one). One pertinent observation was the viewing of the site via browsershots.org. For those not familiar:

“…Browsershots makes screenshots of your web design in different browsers. It is a free open-source online service created by Johann C. Rocholl. When you submit your web address, it will be added to the job queue. A number of distributed computers will open your website in their browser. Then they will make screenshots and upload them to the BrowserShots central server… ” where you can see how your site looks on the large, growing number of browsers available. That is one tool I suggested he use to garner an understanding of how different browsers render (because Windows 2000 could not move beyond IE6).

As he (the designer) also uses Apple, I assumed that perhaps he could make use of a Linux box in his network which would allow him to view all versions of IE without having to upgrade his existing Windows to XP. Open source does have it’s benefits! :) IE on Linux you ask? Yes, on Linux. last year I bumped into a great tool that someone sent me. It’s called IEs 4 Linux and here’s what they have to say:

“…IEs4Linux is the simpler way to have Microsoft Internet Explorer running on Linux (or any OS running Wine).
No clicks needed. No boring setup processes. No Wine complications. Just one easy script and you’ll get three IE versions to test your Sites. And it’s free and open source…“

and

“…Who is the target public? WebDesigners that want to move to Linux but still need to test their sites on IE, People who have to open IE-only sites.

The IEs installations are smaller than usual because they include only the necessary files to have a good test browser (there is no Outlook, Media Player etc)…”

Their IE7 is currently working in Beta here: http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Beta

So… Here’s the game plan.

I’ll be using Shuttle box to install Linux and VirtualBox. VirtualBox will be used to install different versions of Linux (and perhaps Windows too), with which applications, settings, etc. can be installed or changed without damaging the the primary OS. I think it’s a great tool for any web developer or designer as it allows for maximum viewability (is there such a word?), without having to boot up an extra PC or reboot the existing PC to a different OS. Here’s what we’re going to use:

Software:

Linux (Ubuntu 8.04): http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download

VirtualBox: http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads

IEs 4 Linux: http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Installation

Hardware:

1) Shuttle SN68SG2 Socket AM2 Barebone – NVIDIA 7025, Audio, Video, PCI Express, Gigabit LAN, USB 2.0, Firewire, Serial ATA, 250 Watt Power Supply.

2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Processor ADA4200CUBOX – 2.20GHz, 1MB Cache, 1000MHz (2000 MT/s) FSB, Windsor, Dual-Core, Retail, Socket AM2, Processor with Fan.

3) Kingston 1024MB PC5400 DDR2 667MHz Memory (2 of these for 2GB).

4) Western Digital Caviar SE16 500GB Hard Drive – 7200, 16MB, SATA-300, OEM.

The above is a bit hard financially, (it’s at a cost of $473 CAN), but worthwhile because I can put it to very good use (in great part because of VirtualBox). Besides, someone already gave me a used monitor, keyboard and mouse.

I’ve done my best to check Linux compatibility, and I don’t think I’ll have much issues in terms of this.
Part 2 of this post will describe any OS installation problems an solutions I may have encountered. It will also provide the installation steps I took for VirtualBox (they are very easy). And as a side note I’d also like to install XvidCap (so I can show videos of some things in future posts).

As always, please feel free to comment as I often find I learn a lot from all of you!

Cheers!
:)

Update: Part 2 of this post is here: Browser Problems – Creating a Linux Based Virtual Box – Part 2 of 2

[tags]shuttle, linux ,ubuntu, video, network, drivers, fix, how to, SN68SG2, ethernet, virtualbox, marvell, envyeng, nvidia[/tags]

Blogging is great because so many people provide valuable input, and often can correct errors I sometimes might make. That’s a bonus. However, back to the subject at hand…

A reader of this blog (Bob Townsend) commented saying:

“As a system administrator, I have plenty of access to laptops to use as I please. The problem is they are all 4 years old. So I took a discarded laptop and installed Ubuntu to see if Linux really is “ready for prime time”. I had zero Linux experience and I just learned as I went along. The thing that has impressed me the most is how much faster things ran on the Linux box compared to an identical machine with Windows XP and I started to wonder why? Is it the OS? Is it the apps? Or is it because I don’t have those processor intensive, resource hungry AV and Antispyware apps running on it?“

It left me thinking, “Yes, I’ve experienced that too… I wonder why it appears to run faster than Windows?”

Hoping to find some answers, I decided to try a bit of Googling: why does linux run faster that windows?

I came across a post titled “Windows Games Run Faster on Linux than on Windows Vista“

Wherin it showed that apparently Windows games run faster on Linux using Wine or Cedega than on native Windows. In fact the post stated that Windows games ran 33-40% faster. No? Really? That much? The post lead me to some benchmarks for Cedega 6.0 Performance. Additionally, WINE’s benchmarks are also impressive: http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.33

My father (who is in his eighties) likes to play games and told me his Windows games ran faster (than when he played them on Windows). I thought he was just imagining the improvement, but given the benchmarks at phoronix.com, I have to believe him!

However, this still did not really answer my primary question. It also left me wondering if perhaps some of the issue causing Windows (especially Vista) to run slower is excessive legacy support? Perhaps another contributing factor is the excessive bloat of software in Windows vs Linux. I also suspect that much of the issue is also the type of desktop used. Let’s clarify a few issues…

One issue (as I just alluded to) may be they type of desktop used. Obviously the more intensive the desktop, the more resources it uses and the slower the system runs.

Unfortunately Windows only has one desktop, that’s it. No negotiation, you’re stuck with it. Linux on the other hand has several. Gnome, KDE and Xfce probably being the most well known, with several releases available from the latest versions to the oldest; available for installation. In my opinion, Linux runs faster because the desktop environment does not have to be resource intensive.

A good example is installing Xubuntu, Antemium or VectorLinux on systems with limited resources. This currently does not appear to be an option for Windows (at least I’ve not seen or experienced it).

I’ve touched on the excessive bloatware before. Suffice it to say, unfortunately it appears (in my opinion) that Windows comes with far more software bloat than Linux. The more bloat, the slower the system.

I suspect however, that the real crux of the matter is the OS itself. The very guts that make it work, perhaps the very way it was designed.

I remember when I was earning my MCSE, and we learned about cooperative and preemptive multitasking, because we were taught how this contributed to making Windows a superior product.

Cooperative Multitasking:
“A type of multitasking in which the process currently controlling the CPU must offer control to other processes. It is called cooperative because all programs must cooperate for it to work. If one program does not cooperate, it can hog the CPU. In contrast, preemptive multitasking forces applications to share the CPU whether they want to or not. Versions 8.0-9.2.2 of Macintosh OS and Windows 3.x operating systems are based on cooperative multitasking, whereas UNIX, Windows 95, Windows NT, OS/2, and later versions of Mac OS are based on preemptive multitasking.” Source: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/c/cooperative_multitasking.htm

Preemptive Multitasking:
“A multitasking method that shares processing time with all running programs. Preemptive multitasking creates a time-shared environment in which running programs receive a recurring slice of time from the CPU. Depending on the operating system, the time slice may be the same for all programs or it may be adjustable to meet the current mix of programs and users. For example, background programs can be given more CPU time no matter how heavy the foreground load and vice versa. In addition, the OS is able to grab the machine cycles that a modem or network program needs for uninterrupted processing.” Source: http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm.jhtml?term=preemptivemultitasking

At that time, I thought preemptive multitasking (which I think started with Win95 or 98) was the best “Windows” technology. I did not realize that Unix systems had been using it for some time. It left me surmising that Unix/Linux has had a longer track record (tweaks, updated, improvements, etc.) than Windows, so perhaps it’s a safe bet that it may be more efficient in Linux than Windows. After all, in my opinion, the real question is “How efficient is multitasking going to be when it is added to an operating system, as opposed to one where it was included in the design from the start?” Don’t misunderstand, I’m not a Linux architectural guru by any stretch of the imagination, but I think I’m intelligent enough to figure some things out, or ask the right questions.

However, in the grand scheme of things, will I even notice if multitasking takes a millionth of a second longer in Windows than Linux. No! But my system will. For any OS or application to operate smoothly, I’m sure there are millions of calculations that occur. (After all it’s just 1′s and 0′s) and the faster my OS can complete them the better the overall environment should operate.

One thing I have witnessed that Bob Townsend (the commenter in that post) alluded to, is that Windows performance degrades severely as PC speed decreases (due to less powerful hardware), Linux however remains operating faster for a longer period that Windows could ever hope. To further the point via “experience”. Several years ago I installed a Linux based quake server on a PII 333 with 128MB of RAM, just for fun, to see if I could do it. At one point there were 30+ players (it was years ago, I don’t remember the exact numbers) on it and it did not crash. I know it may sound outrageous to some, but believe me when I say I never thought it would work, I kept telling everyone it’s going to crash – It never did. Out of curiosity, just to see what would happen, I did the same thing with Windows (on the same hardware), it crashed with about 10-20 players.

Side note: For later exploration, I strongly suspect another issue is that Windows relies on the registry to function. Linux does not. Upon boot, many of the registry settings are loaded into memory, not so with Linux.

Another approach I took to try and answer my question, was memory. When thinking about the Windows registry loading into memory, it occurred to me that this may be among the biggest factors. Does Linux handle memory better than Windows? Maybe that is one of the primary reasons why Linux runs faster. I think it is. Experience has always shown me that I can do more with a low memory PC using Linux than Windows.

I jumped back into Google and found a post on another blog (written by someone with the screen name “Locutus”) that seems to agree with much of my opinions. Here’s what they had to say:

“This brings me to the biggest, I believe, reason Linux runs faster than Windows. That is memory usage. Linux is far more efficient at handling memory than Windows is. Even Vista with its SuperFetch technology still hasn’t got it right yet. Windows is still too much hard disk bound to be ever able to realise its true speed potential. It still leaves too much memory free that could be cached and runs its caching procedure at inopportune times as well as trying to swap memory out at any and every opportunity. Linux on the other hand uses memory like it should be used. Virtually all of the available memory is used for both programs and disk caching. Fast changing tempora9:13 AM 5/6/2008ry files are written to virtual directories mounted in memory. Swap disks are only used when needed and how aggressively those swap disks are used can be set in a simple configuration file.” Source: http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/locutus/archives/why-linux-still-runs-faster-than-windows-14828

That post showed me exactly what I wondered had about the memory handling issue. I didn’t need to look much further as this appeared very accurate in terms of the swap file. I remember learning how we had to tweak the virtual memory’s paging file size in Windows to allow for maximum performance.

So, it seems to me the primary reason why Linux runs faster than Windows is because it is better designed to work with hardware, in the context that it handles operations in a more efficient manner than Windows.

In my opinion, I also get the perception, that perhaps the development of Linux is guided by people who seek to maximize performance. It does not appear to be developed predominantly by those who seek to maximize profits.

Update: For those of us looking for some hard statistics. It’s seems that Linux really has the win. You can read the stats here: Face off: Windows vs Linux real world RAM and disk tests.
[tags]windows, linux, vista, faster, games, memory, performance, ubuntu[/tags]

Linux does not support gaming.
In my opinion, this is a “canned” response, perhaps encouraged by game vendors? Quite the contrary, it is game vendors/developers who do not support Linux!
Additionally, I’ve read that Ubuntu linux has full OpenGL support.

I can’t use Linux because my windows games won’t work.
There are some good solutions that currently facilitate the use of windows based software on Linux platforms.

My father (who is in his 80′s) uses Cedega to play windows based games.
I use Wine on occasion (Installing IE on Ubuntu Linux).

To properly use any new Operating System, it’s important to become familiar with the system. When you’ve gained familiarity, it becomes easier to implement solutions.

The are no good games for linux.
Really!? Are you serious!!??? Here are twelve of the best ones I’ve found so far, starting with #1: Top 12 Best Games for Ubuntu Linux – #1 Tremulous.

Don’t be afraid to look around for more, the following link took 5 minutes to Google: Play Ubuntu and includes a list of about 1970 games! If you’re a hardcore gamer, perhaps you’re better to get a console for gaming. ;)

Linux has too many video and hardware support problems.
I’d have to disagree, but with some explanation: “Hardly Any Hardware Works on Ubuntu Linux!”

If you’re in the market for a “Budget Gaming” system, try something like:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte P35-DS3P
RAM: 2 x 1GB Kingston DDR2-800
HDD: Seagate/Western Digital/Samsung 320GB SATAII
GPU: eVGA GeForce 256MB 8600GT Superclocked
Case & PSU: Thermaltake Matrix with 430W PSU
Optical Drive: ASUS BLT-1814 Lightscribe x18 SATA

…and to read the complete version, head on over to: Ubuntu Gaming PC Suggested Builds

As to specific video issues: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=690760

Additionally linuX-gamers has some good resources to help.

Hopefully some of these resources and perceptions will help those of you who have asked me.
Happy gaming! :)

System76.com comes to mind as a premier provider. However, (for me) there are a couple of drawbacks:

The biggest issue is that they don’t seem to offer 17″ laptops. (I really don’t know why because 17″ units have been out for at least 3-4 years now?). At the time I emailed them, asking when they might have 17″ models, the sales representative who responded didn’t seem very interested and simply indicated they don’t have them, nor expect them in the near future. Bummer… too bad for me.

At least LinuxCertified has a 17″ incher: http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux-laptop-lc2520dc.html
(But the hard drive is too small – 80GB – With no option, that I could read, to increase the size. The CPU was a little slow as I also want to use some heavier graphic applications among other things).

The second issue was the price. After exaustive research, some individuals had posted information about who the manufacturers of the laptops were. At which point I found out I could purchase them cheaper (shipping was cheaper too) from the manufacturer (but I need to find a dealer that will sell one without Windows on it – Because I’m not a business that can purchase units direct from a manufacturer).

Don’t get me wrong other than the two points above, I think System76 are tops.

After a little more googling, I found a page for the Ubuntu Laptop Testing Team. This resource is incredible because it provides Make and Models of laptops and then tells you which Ubuntu releases have been tested on them, and the results. There’s a section for “Canonical Supplied Laptops Tests”, “Community Supplied Laptop Tests”, an “Unmaintained” list (that requests more testing). At the bottom of the page is a massive list of Laptops, click the link, get taken to the info.

This (for me at least) makes the buying process much simpler. Interested in a specific model? Now all I have to do is visit the link! And… before I forget to copy & paste the URL, here it is: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam

Also, if your laptop works with Ubuntu, you can report that here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTesting

Update 1: This link was sent, http://webapps.ubuntu.com/certification/list/?category=Laptop

Update 2: Here’s another really good one: http://www.linux-laptop.net/