Have you looked at the benchmarks? This is the perfect reason why Linux won't succeed. Not only is it being submissive to the Windows environment, it's doing it poorly. Don't get me wrong, Linux is a great concept... But for it to succeed, it's going to need some direction. Once company to drive it and one company to develop it. This convoluted system of kernel updates, compiling, root and "make"-ing programs is foreign to the people that Linux people are bitching about-- the biggest user base of computers-- the "average" user.
Hang on a moment there. What you're asking for is the same thing that makes Microsoft suck, and makes Apple expensive. The lack of one company driving/developing it is what makes it work and keeps it honest!
If you want to go there, get a copy of RedHat/Mandrake, install everything from rpm, use the up2date apps, and don't even think about compiling your own code.
Don't take this personally, but if you can't handle the idea of root (or Administrator), best stick with WinMe. Just don't get upset when someone trashes your system.
Re Windows on Linux... Bad Idea. Period. I found a copy on BadTrans just to see if I could infect myself, and yup, Wine got infected (but nothing outside of the wine dir got damamaged). Trying to make Linux more Windows like, and Windows compatible is a bad move for many, many reasons, IMO. Fine, keep an emulator/translator on hand if you really need to make that "special app" run, but the real solution is find/write a Linux app that does what you want.
The Win4Lin benchmarks are FUD. Seriously.
There's a version of Corel for Linux (it uses a version of Wine, I think). IBM has ViaVoice for Linux. Would anyone really run an emulated version of Netscape (which is slow anyway) on a platform which has a native version? Don't think so. And there's plenty of office type apps for Linux. True, there's no real Qucktime apps, but only because Apple is too pig-headed to support Linux.
It's misleading about Linux performance, too. Joe user looks at that and says, gee, Linux is slow. Well, I've just seen benchmarks on the IBM dev site some showing Linux with a 700 MB/s pipe throughput vs 2K 500MB/s vs XP 120MB/s. Linux ain't slow, but Win4Lin apparently is.
Ok, the published results probably are accurate for the given scenario, but the scenario itself is stupid.
Toms Hardware should stick to hardware.
December 30, 2001 5:41:11 PM
"It's misleading about Linux performance, too. Joe user looks at that and says, gee, Linux is slow."
It was not my intent in writing the article to suggest that linux is slower than Windows. I just wanted to know if Win4Lin was fast enough to run Office... and it is. The article was benchmarking Win4Lin peformance, not linux performance.
I understand that, but I think the inclusion of some of the other apps was pointless...
Also, Win4Lin got 64MB to run Office 2K, while the native test got the full 256MB?
December 31, 2001 4:18:08 AM
"I understand that, but I think the inclusion of some of the other apps was pointless... "
I'm not saying anyone should run Netscape using an emulator. I ran all of the tests in Sysmark 2000 and Netscape is one app that Sysmark happens to use.
"Win4Lin got 64MB to run Office 2K, while the native test got the full 256MB?"
I was trying to run the tests to simulate a realistic user experience. Win4Lin is actually limited to a maximum of 64MB... I was just giving it as much memory as it could handle, and I saw no reason to limit the memory available to Windows since it can use it all. VMWare does not share the same 64MB limitation, so it may do better than Win4Lin.