Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Chat about Linux in general
Forum rules
Do not post support questions here. Before you post read the forum rules. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 6 months after creation.
Locked
MarkusR

Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by MarkusR »

Since I have finally reached the magical 4GB marker in system memory, I've had to begin to consider 64-bit OS.

The system I built is currently a dual-boot between Linux Mint 7 32-bit and Windows XP 64-bit. After giving the 64-bit Mint initial consideration, I've found it more convenient to stick to 32-bit. Linux can handle the extra memory better than Windows in 32-bit mode, so I suppose having 32-bit Mint shouldn't concern me as much as having 32-bit XP.

Does it seem like we missed/are missing another great opportunity to drive the Linux to more desktops? It looks like the HW developers are tossing us on the curb yet again by not giving proper 64-bit Linux support. And could it also be that the GNU movement hasn't been able to do the shift quick enough for sufficient amount of programs? I suppose the only consolidation is that Win7 is still going to be offered also in 32-bit, so perhaps there is still plenty of time to do the transition.

I don't mean to argue this is the case, I'd be more than happy to be filled with information I'm missing here. :(
monkeyboy

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by monkeyboy »

I think using 64-bit as a promotion tool for Linux may work better in a year or so. Right now too many folks see it as a "work in progress" that is a bit short on applications and stability. On a personal note, I feel 64-bit is the way to go but wider acceptance is still a ways off.
Muzer

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by Muzer »

What has everyone got against Linux 64-bit?

There are three problems with it. THREE! And these are minor!



1) Flash is slightly harder to install (will be fixed in Flash 11)
2) ndiswrapper only works with drivers for XP 64-bit which aren't as common as one would like (will be fixed if/when they implement Vista 64-bit support)
3) Binary-distributed, 32-bit only apps are a bit tempremental, but thankfully these are relatively rare.
Fred

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by Fred »

There is that competition thing again between Windows and Linux. "Windows might get ahead of us with 64 bit systems even though Linux was first by a wide margin. The sky is falling. What on earth will we do!?"

Who cares? If you do care, why? Do you own a company that is trying to make money from Linux by competing with the Windows OS? If you do then that is your problem/opportunity, not the communities'.

Linux is not owned by a company. It is owned by a wide community of developers and contributors, which anybody can join or depart from at will. It is only in competition with itself, not Windows or any other OS.

Fred
waldo
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by waldo »

Who cares? If you do care, why?
Fred, I care.

I care because I know that the only way computers will improve is if there is competition. That is the way the real world works. There is competition in hardware, and it certain has improved in giant steps since IBM introduced their PC in 1981. They were a giant step ahead of Apple at the time.

Software, particularly the OS, is another story. There has been no competition. Microsoft has a stranglehold monopoly. Linux has not been competition. It has been a nuisance of a gnat to be swatted away. Microsoft introduced XP in 2001, and by 2002 Linux, if it had been supported by people who wanted to beat (with financial incentives) Microsoft, would have had a product much better than XP, and made significant inroads among computer users. Instead, it has been tinkered with by people, such as yourself, who find "that competition thing" distasteful.

Because of this, 95% of computer users are stuck with Microsoft, and their unmotivated method of trickling out meager improvements. It took them six years to bring us awful Vista, and still Linux has no real answer that turkey. Two years later, we are getting Windows 7, which should have come about in 2003, if Microsoft had competition. Windows 7 is the product of customer gripes about Vista, and the threat of income loss, not of competition from Linux or Apple. [Apple produces Bentleys in a world that buys Fords and Toyotas. They are not competition.]

Until Microsoft actually is worried about Linux (and has good reason to be), then Linux is a failure. Nobody that matters (i.e., those who choose and pay for tools to get a job done) gives a hoot about "competition" between distros. The competition is Microsoft. If Linux or any other OS wants to matter, then a company that is hungry and has a vision has to come forward. It's everybody's loss that this is not happening. Most computer users are stuck with Yugos.
Fred

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by Fred »

waldo wrote:
... 95% of computer users are stuck with Microsoft, and their unmotivated method of trickling out meager improvements. It took them six years to bring us awful Vista, and still Linux has no real answer that turkey. Two years later, we are getting Windows 7, which should have come about in 2003, if Microsoft had competition. Windows 7 is the product of customer gripes about Vista, and the threat of income loss, not of competition from Linux or Apple.
It sounds like what you want is somebody, anybody, to give Microsoft competition so you can have a better Windows. Well, personally, I don't care if you can't get Microsoft to build a better Windows at a lower cost. Some companies have started using the threat of moving their desktops to Linux as a lever to get better pricing from Microsoft. That's fine with me. In business, you do what you have to do, within bounds of course. But I really don't care if they can buy Windows for less or not. It's not my problem.

The part you aren't getting is that Linux is not a commercial product, entity or endeavor. It was never designed or intended to compete with Microsoft, and still isn't. There are some companies, Red Hat, Novell, IBM, etc., that use Linux as a tool in their competition with Microsoft but that isn't what Linux itself is about, and never has been. You might wish it was something different than what it is but that doesn't change anything.

When I said Linux only competes with itself I wasn't talking about the various distros. Linux competes with itself by trying to be better than it is today. Contributors are constantly competing with what exists in Linux, trying to build a better Linux for tomorrow. Actually the distros look to each other for improvements in the way they aggregate and build their offerings. They pass their improvements along, they don't horde them as differentiators. Different distros are aimed at different demographics. In Microsoft's world one size fits all, not so in the Linux world.
Microsoft introduced XP in 2001, and by 2002 Linux, if it had been supported by people who wanted to beat (with financial incentives) Microsoft, would have had a product much better than XP, and made significant inroads among computer users. Instead, it has been tinkered with by people, such as yourself, who find "that competition thing" distasteful.
Again, it sounds like your biggest concern is a better, cheaper Windows, or beating Microsoft, for whatever reason. Linux is owned by a wide community of developers and contributors, not a company with a financial interest. Why would we care about your quoted scenario? I don't much care what Microsoft does with their software. I think they are too poor. They need to raise their prices and really crack down on pirated software. :-)

You missed the mark about "people such as yourself" too. I started a business, raised it from a puppy you might say, owned and ran it for over twenty years. I am a little bit familiar with the advantages of a competitive market place and what it takes to survive and flourish. :-)
Until Microsoft actually is worried about Linux (and has good reason to be), then Linux is a failure.
Now that is a logically twisted statement. How can you possibly define the success or failure of Linux in terms of what Microsoft does or doesn't do? Microsoft isn't a part of anything related to Linux. Your quote would make just as much sense if it was worded:

"Until the Corn Farmers Assoc. in Iowa is worried about the Banana Growers Collective in Brazil, (and has good reason to be), then the Banana Growers Collective is a failure."

You will just have to get used to the idea that Linux is not in business, or in the market place, and was never intended to be.

You are of course free to take Linux and use it in your business of competing with Microsoft if you wish. :-)

Fred
exploder
Level 15
Level 15
Posts: 5623
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:50 am
Location: HartfordCity, Indiana USA

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by exploder »

Fred, I always enjoy reading your views on topics like this. :D I personally do not care what Microsoft is doing, I lost interest in them years ago when they introduced "product activation". I think eventually Linux will be competitive in business because people will get fed up with Microsoft's "planned obsolescence" and the way they build proprietary products that lock you out unless you have the latest greatest version of Windows.

In Linux we share our technology and no one is locked out of anything. I remember someone on hardware central built new ATI drivers for Windows XP, he was quickly ordered to stop what he was doing. The drivers in question allowed older cards to function properly without features being lost. This effort was stopped dead in it's tracks because people would continue to use the older graphics cards rather than buy the latest greatest. Microsoft does the same thing, you will not be running IE8 in Windows 2000 now will you?

Microsoft has a long history of stealing technology and making it their own. Microsoft stole their GUI from apple! Microsoft stole technology for their office product and that one is going to cost them. Do we really care what a company that operates like this does?
timh
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:36 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by timh »

...what's about the competition of the Top 500 Supercomputers? Over 85% running Linux and near to 1% Microsoft HPC :lol:
Linux had a lot of competition because of the big communities everywhere.
I think if more and more people will try and use it the problems with hardware will be less depending of the vendors.
(But right now so many things running ❞out of the box❞)
But for me the two Nr°1's is Freedom & Security. :mrgreen:
Tim
Image
DrHu

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by DrHu »

MarkusR wrote:Since I have finally reached the magical 4GB marker in system memory, I've had to begin to consider 64-bit OS
Ahaha!, the 4GB threshold, do I now switch to 64bit
--actually apart from the the 4GB threshold, the advantage of 64bit is faster performance, with a 64bit processor, and even running 32bit applications, there is little of a performance hit, memory size (RAM) might not be its (64bit) most significant advantage
Personally at 4GB, it would be a tossup, if I really wanted to run fully 64bit systems, I would only want to do so, if I could stack the memory higher (8-32GB) or more, lets say as much as is affordable..
It becomes a toy/gadget, personal interest..., as you really need a business to justify such an expense, like a sound studio, animation studio or other high end application that needs the address space that 64bits can provide.
MarkusR wrote:Does it seem like we missed/are missing another great opportunity to drive the Linux to more desktops? It looks like the HW developers are tossing us on the curb yet again by not giving proper 64-bit Linux support. And could it also be that the GNU movement hasn't been able to do the shift quick enough for sufficient amount of programs? I suppose the only consolidation is that Win7 is still going to be offered also in 32-bit, so perhaps there is still plenty of time to do the transition.
Does it seem like we missed/are missing another great opportunity..
Even if it looks like Linux has a missed opportunity, it is often not the true case, for example you will find many people who are aware of the options will buy a netbook with windows OS (of some type, even the stripped down windows 7 version), dump windows OS, and install their choice of Linux distributions
--the reason, cost saving and the market of available systems; and they then even go after Microsoft for the windows refund, which they should be entitled to if they do not accept the windows EULA, and delete it from the system; although both the manufacturers (OEMS) and Microsoft make that difficult, it is still their legal right.

I suppose the only consolidation is that Win7 is still going ...
Linux 64bit has been available long before either Windows or Apple got on board..
The problem is always cost/benefit
--does it make sense for most users to use a 64bit system, when a 32bit is more than adequate for almost all computer activity of the normal user group
  • email
    streaming movies, audio, TV
    blogging
    web sites, creating
    chat
    voip
--that can all mostly be handled by a netbook (not even a full computer), and they are unlikely to be 64bit for quite some time, given their role
Last edited by DrHu on Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DrHu

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by DrHu »

waldo wrote:Until Microsoft actually is worried about Linux (and has good reason to be), then Linux is a failure
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/column ... rating.htm
I don't think Linux as a project need worry about Microsoft, it is actually the other way round, as their own statements attest to..
  • Microsoft is also worried about Linux because of its success in the data center, where its share of the server market, at a little below 20 percent, is significant. It's these worries that prompted Microsoft to warn anyone who cared to listen that Linux infringed its intellectual property and to mutter darkly about legal repercussions
    ...
    Which is a polite way of saying that in Microsoft's opinion Apple is not really a competitor worth worrying about. Its desktop market share is beginning to fall back after a strong couple of years, and with no presence in the server room it doesn't pose a threat in the way that Linux does
Apple, of course has their I-products (IPhone) etc..
  • Apple's consumer goodies are forbidden fruit for the Gates clan, Bill's wife Melinda told Vogue magazine recently. "There are very few things that are on the banned list in our household. But iPods and iPhones are two things we don't get for our kids ... Every now and then I look at my friends and say, 'Ooh, I wouldn't mind having that iPhone,'" she laments.
Wamukota

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by Wamukota »

Linux does not need 4Gb of RAM to run, Windows does more or less, so the pressure to develop a 64-bit OS made MS go for 64-bit as all Windows users are aware of the 3.2 Gb bottleneck.
As most Linux users run with 1Gb or less, there is no gain in prioritising 64-bit development. On my HP Compaq nx6325 with 1Gb RAM Ubuntu 9.04/64bit ran slightly faster then its 32-bit brother, but some Flash applications failed to run, forcing me to downgrade to 32-bit.

No, we are not missing the 64-bit boat, because the manpower needed to convert ALL win32 applications worldwide to 64-bit is enormous, while a Linux user can single-handled download the source code and compile it for 64-bit.

Just my 2 cents

A.
exploder
Level 15
Level 15
Posts: 5623
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:50 am
Location: HartfordCity, Indiana USA

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by exploder »

Here is something worth considering.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/fin ... 22424.html
User avatar
subslug
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:05 pm

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by subslug »

It seems to me like, for what Linux attempts to be that it is a larger success than Windows ever will be just for the simple fact that, Linux is Open Source. Windows being closed source is hamstrung in who and what can be developed for it and how it can evolve whereas Linux doesn't suffer from this sort of problem. The sky is the limit, so how do you judge success?
That's why you see Linux embedded in hundreds of devices and generally those devices are much better than the few using the ones with Windows embedded.

How many times has Windows been completely rewritten and started over back to scratch? Linux is still pretty much what it's been since it was born.

FWIW I've been running Mint7 64 bit since day one and for me anyway it's a no brainer to go 64 bit. In the past 64 bit wasn't always smooth sailing but, really not so much now.
I do a lot of video editing on this system and I haven't really hit any major gotchas at all.
User avatar
vishgaur
Level 3
Level 3
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:59 pm
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by vishgaur »

I really don't understand this competition.
I installed Linux mint which is nowhere better than Windows 10 in maturity. I started using it. Crashed just once and reinstalled (was my mistake but Windows is somewhat mistake proof because it simply doesn't allow you to delete certain files which maybe bad for some people but good overall). However, it runs with same pace as my Windows 10 on my PC (with high end laptops the difference would be negligible but mine is not a high end, it is intel i3 with 4GB ram and there is no difference amid windows 10 and lm 19 cinnamon on this laptop).
I use TLP for battery saving and it increased my battery life.

Why did I switch when I myself agree to the fact that Windows is better in many aspects?

1. I'm not a student, I don't need to use proprietary software. At max I sometimes would use MS Office (Office online from chrome) when some work is unacceptable when done with Libre office. I condemn the use of wine/playonlinux and virtualbox for some reason that I don't want to add as it would increase this message length.
2. I am an average user with basic needs and no basic need aspect is unavailable on Linux platform (I mean apps/software).
3. I just wanted to see how Linux Mint functions :D
4. I love the way it keeps your files (like android). No drives, nothing! One simple basic drive with directories (I love the android management and it is same on Linux mint).
5. My battery used to last for about 2 hours on Windows 10 no matter how many things I turned off (This is the MAIN REASON). I hate plugging in charger all the time, sometimes I just want some peace, sit in a corner and do my work where there is no outlet and LM 19 with TLP gives me over 5 hours of screen on time (more than double than that on Windows 10). However, without TLP it just roughly runs equal to Windows, or maybe 10-20 minutes more.

I don't condemn Windows, for students and employees in several organisations it is still a gem. It is although more of a necessity in those cases. But for a personal machine that you don't often use for your company/college/school or whatever, linux is much better as it is SIMPLER.

Updating linux is more simple imho. And it just doesn't hang on update screen and I love the thing that there are updates available every now and then (but it is not a very good habit to keep updating everyday, don't fix it until it is broken).

I had lost my job and still unemployed after a year of that incident and once I get a job I'd get myself another laptop with Windows 10 to do my enterprise tasks. I would stick with Linux for my personal use.
PROFESSIONAL LIFE= Windows
PERSONAL LIFE = LINUX

Another reason for doing that is privacy. However, I'm not over concerned as I believe that privacy online is a myth. But still, letting giant firms look into my private pictures/passwords and other data just doesn't work for me. No matter what they say (Google says they use our pictures in photos app to improve image search. A conman like Google is providing unlimited storage with my Android One device on Photos sounds fishy to me. Why would google give such a huge space for free? I removed photos app and service and use open source simple gallery with my total commander to hold files offline-I am a offline file keeper kind of guy, cloud isn't just safe and it is not forever).

Whatever you say, Windows is just not inferior to Linux and neither Linux is that to Windows. Both are meant for some similar and many many more dissimilar tasks.
Hope you get it.
Since 2003 on computers, since 2014 on Linux.

Blog: https://www.inksup.wordpress.com
Image
Hoser Rob
Level 20
Level 20
Posts: 11806
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:57 am

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by Hoser Rob »

vishgaur wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:03 am ... Hope you get it.
This thread is almost 10 years old, a record for necroposting AFAIK. You should just hope he or she will READ it.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong - H. L. Mencken
User avatar
Pierre
Level 21
Level 21
Posts: 13192
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:33 am
Location: Perth, AU.

Re: Is Windows beating Linux to 64-bit desktop?

Post by Pierre »

some nice thoughts about an comparison of Both Systems:
but, this is an Linux Forum, so one could be forgiven, if you thought that we aren't biased.
:)
But - Locked This, anyway.
Image
Please edit your original post title to include [SOLVED] - when your problem is solved!
and DO LOOK at those Unanswered Topics - - you may be able to answer some!.
Locked

Return to “Chat about Linux”