windows vs linux

[sri_nav]

y does processor give out more heat when working with linux os when compared with windows

[khaled]

y does processor give out more heat when working with linux os when compared with windows

 

What linux are you using, with what desktop environment ?

 

Try Linux Mint with LXDE (which is the lightest desktop environment): Lisa:LXDE 32-bit

 

If you don't like LXDE, you can try Genome 2

 

Try to stay away from KDE, unless your processor is good enough to be fine with it

[ydoaPs]

y does processor give out more heat when working with linux os when compared with windows

 

That's odd. Most Linux distributions have far smaller requirements than Windows. For instance, the RAM requirements for Ubuntu (one of the most popular distributions) is one third of the RAM requirements of Windows 7.

 

Windows 7 Requirements:

 

1GHz processor

1GB RAM

16GB HD

 

 

Ubuntu Requirements:

 

700MHz processor

384MB RAM

5GB HD

 

 

What are you doing on Linux that makes it put out x amount of thermal energy? How much is put out when you do the same tasks in Windows?

[insane_alien]

just tried it out, when linux is running on my laptop the time between fan turning on at idle is 10 minutes. when running windows 7 at idle 7 minutes.

 

seems to indicate that linux puts out less heat (both can keep the fan on max if there is sufficient load)

[doG]

y does processor give out more heat when working with linux os when compared with windows

What distro of Linux are you comparing with what version of Windoze?

 

My netbook gets significantly more battery life when I'm booted in Xubuntu vs Windows 7 and I find the same results as insane_alien above, my fan runs less.

[CaptainPanic]

I think this is just a pro-Windows troll, on a drive-by shooting. He has only 1 post. I don't think we'll see him back.

 

I agree with everybody else: generally linux runs lighter than windows... but it depends on the distro.

[sri_nav]

linux 11.10

 

my system specs:

 

memory : 7.8 GiB

processor : Intel® Core™ i3-2330M CPU @ 2.20GHz × 4

os : 64-bit

 

windows 7 ultimate -64-bit

[doG]

linux 11.10

 

my system specs:

 

memory : 7.8 GiB

processor : Intel® Core™ i3-2330M CPU @ 2.20GHz × 4

os : 64-bit

 

windows 7 ultimate -64-bit

linux 11.10 is not a distribution. Maybe you have Ubuntu 11.10? Kubuntu? Some other assembly?

 

Even then it would be perfectly possible to run a distro like Ubuntu 11.10 configured to run a desktop like Compbiz's Desktop Cube with its 3D windows plugin and you could push the processor much harder than MS Windows. OTOH you could run a power conservative desktop like XFCE or LXDE and save power over WIndows. Since we have no idea what you have though we have no idea what we're making comparisons of.

[insane_alien]

linux 11.10 is not a distribution. Maybe you have Ubuntu 11.10? Kubuntu? Some other assembly?

 

Even then it would be perfectly possible to run a distro like Ubuntu 11.10 configured to run a desktop like Compbiz's Desktop Cube with its 3D windows plugin and you could push the processor much harder than MS Windows. OTOH you could run a power conservative desktop like XFCE or LXDE and save power over WIndows. Since we have no idea what you have though we have no idea what we're making comparisons of.

 

yeah, ubuntu can push your computer up because of all the eyecandy.

 

if you're not using eyecandy because you don't like it then the processor usage stays low till you actually do something that requires the CPU to work hard.

[sri_nav]

i dont have any app's running on my laptop.

distro is the one which i have already said.

 

i just wanted to know why this problem comes with linux because i had the same problem even with my old laptop.

 

people can start posting about the advantages of linux and links that could enhance the usage of linux for a much much better way.(i would prefer llinux as a programmer)

[Klaynos]

Can you run the following in a terminal and tell us what it says?

 

uname -a

 

As stated "linux 11.10" is not a distribution...

[ydoaPs]

yeah, ubuntu can push your computer up because of all the eyecandy.

 

if you're not using eyecandy because you don't like it then the processor usage stays low till you actually do something that requires the CPU to work hard.

It's still way smaller than Windows 7, though.

[doG]

It's still way smaller than Windows 7, though.

Yes but......how is it configured? I run Xubuntu on my ASUS netbook which is nothing more than Ubuntu with XFCE. The netbook came with Windows 7. In regular desktop use I can get 11 hours of battery life in Xubuntu and I've never succeeded in getting anymore than 6 hours in Windows 7. It's so bad that when I need to run Windows I run it in VirtualBox under Linux instead of booting it natively. All of this considered I have to wonder how and why the OP is having the opposite experience because it's certainly not what I've experienced.

[sri_nav]

Can you run the following in a terminal and tell us what it says?

 

uname -a

 

As stated "linux 11.10" is not a distribution...

 

Linux srinaveen 3.0.0-17-generic #30-Ubuntu SMP Thu Mar 8 20:45:39 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

 

I run it in VirtualBox under Linux instead of booting it natively. All of this considered I have to wonder how and why the OP is having the opposite experience because it's certainly not what I've experienced.

 

may be because of grub.In virtual machines i guess the grub don play an active part,which is rather handled by virtual machine itself.

[insane_alien]

grub is just a bootloader. why would that impact anything? all it does is provide a way to load the kernel. windows has one too but you just don't get any options with it.

 

it has negligble impact on battery life because it won't be running after boot.

 

also, grub will still run on boot in a virtual machine.

[ecoli]

That's odd. Most Linux distributions have far smaller requirements than Windows. For instance, the RAM requirements for Ubuntu (one of the most popular distributions) is one third of the RAM requirements of Windows 7.

 

Windows 7 Requirements:

 

1GHz processor

1GB RAM

16GB HD

 

 

Ubuntu Requirements:

 

700MHz processor

384MB RAM

5GB HD

 

 

What are you doing on Linux that makes it put out x amount of thermal energy? How much is put out when you do the same tasks in Windows?

 

True, but at least the ubuntu distro I'm running is not as good at energy management as runnning window's 7 on the same machine (3-4 solid hours of battery compared to ~6 when running windows). This could, theoretically, result in more thermal output.

[timo]

True, but at least the ubuntu distro I'm running is not as good at energy management as runnning window's 7 on the same machine (3-4 solid hours of battery compared to ~6 when running windows). This could, theoretically, result in more thermal output.

That was my first thought, too (even the oh-so-lightweight Lubuntu gets beaten up by Windows 7 in terms of battery lifetime on my netbook). However, my guess would be that the main advantage of Windows comes from being able to use power saving features of components, since hardware manufacturers develop for Windows (except for Apple, of course). One example is the Nvidia ION-2 that I was initially interested in - until I read that the new power saving feature only works in Windows. My feeling would be that the processor, that has been specifically mentioned in the OP, is the smallest support problem for a Linux system.

[doG]

That was my first thought, too (even the oh-so-lightweight Lubuntu gets beaten up by Windows 7 in terms of battery lifetime on my netbook). However, my guess would be that the main advantage of Windows comes from being able to use power saving features of components, since hardware manufacturers develop for Windows (except for Apple, of course). One example is the Nvidia ION-2 that I was initially interested in - until I read that the new power saving feature only works in Windows. My feeling would be that the processor, that has been specifically mentioned in the OP, is the smallest support problem for a Linux system.

That could be why I get better performance with Linux. My ASUS Seashell was originally designed for Linux and later came out with Win7 on it. That was the main reason I chose it because it was my intention to run Linux on it anyhow and I wanted a netbook that I knew had been optimized at the design stage for Linux. For me it's paid off, I've got Win7 on the machine if I should ever need it but it runs Linux very well

[sri_nav]

OK, have a look at these two articles:

 

http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/How_to_use_cpufrequtils

 

http://www.webupd8.org/2011/07/cpu-f...tor-fixed.html

 

cpufreq allows you to use a number of 'governors' (essentially profiles) to manage the CPU. I'd recommend ondemand - it will scale up and down depending on active processes.

 

Also, top is kind of hard to read sometimes - for a easier to read version which is also more user friendly, have a look at htop. Just run this command to install it:

 

Code: sudo apt-get install htop And then type htop at the command line.

 

Let us know how you get on

[alextui]

Personally i think window system give out more heat than linux, that is why so many small business using linux as their hosting server.

[sri_nav]

i to agree with you,for a computer programmer linux will always come in handy.

 

can anyone help with the ppa: of ubuntu 12.04. some of my links got currupted

[Arun Nayak]

Both windows and linux are good operating system..the main difference between them is windows is most user friendly comparission to linux..but linux is more secure then windows ..so many corporate sector used that..its resolution also high..

[ecoli]

Both windows and linux are good operating system..the main difference between them is windows is most user friendly comparission to linux..

 

That's definitely subjective. I would tend to agree that software written for linux machines is more unstable that windows commercial software, but you can't tell me that user account controls (for example) in windows vista & 7 is more user friendly than user accounts in linux systems (I'm thinking particularly of ubuntu here).

[ecoli]

Both windows and linux are good operating system..the main difference between them is windows is most user friendly comparission to linux. But Now are days Linux is also supported GUI and its also good graphics as well as features. But Windows is more realiable.

 

I deny vehemently that user friendliness is the main difference between the two OSes, especially as you mentioned that Linux has good GUIs these days.

[Klaynos]

I'd disagree that windows is more reliable.