Re: [PLUG] hardware - a deal I couldn't refuse

[Matthew Rosewarne <mrosewarne@inoutbox.com>]

On Monday 03 December 2007, jeff wrote:
> Some things to consider if you're going to do this:

0. While I have no real preference when it comes to the current crop of 
AMD/Intel CPUs, there is absolutely no way you could convince me to get an 
AMD-based desktop/laptop system at this point.  Whereas Intel-based systems 
have mature, actively-maintained, Free drivers for the onboard Intel video 
devices, with AMD-based systems you are forced to use some sort of 
proprietary video driver.  I've dealt with both the nvidia and fglrx drivers, 
and I want nothing more to do with either of them if I can get away with it.

Yes, I know about the recent advancements with regard to AMD/ATI's driver, but 
that driver is far from complete and AMD/ATI doesn't commit anywhere near the 
amount of development resources to it as Intel does to theirs.  Indeed, Intel 
contracted Tungsten Graphics (creators & maintainers of MESA, *the* Linux GL 
library) to write their driver, hired X.org developers (like Keith Packard), 
and released the Linux and Windows versions *simultaneously*.  AMD/ATI only 
recently decided to even co-operate in the effort to write a Free driver, and 
only for their newer cards, with the actual work being written by Novell.  
For the future, AMD/ATI have only promised documentation and a barebones 
driver; so it seems they are at best somewhat indifferent towards Linux 
support.

> I haven't spent enough time to critically evaluate the performance but
> it's fast.  Later in the week I'll put it through its paces, but it
> doesn't feel like that tremendous a speed burst.  The old cpu was an AMD
> 2400 or thereabouts, with 1.5g and the same OS.  Keep in mind that I run
> Xubuntu on purpose - even with one of the fastest dual cores on the
> market, I still don't want my GUI bogging down my pc.  No Vista, no
> Compiz, no KDE, no eye candy (except my wife and dog).  I use a solid
> color background for the desktop.

I've never quite understood that outlook.  Unless you need an extra few FPS in 
a game (and you don't, since you run Linux), or are trying to do some sort of 
overwhelmingly-intensive task (like editing ultra-high-res video) on a 
machine that isn't up to it, what is all that horsepower for?  I'd much 
rather use a little bit more of my machine's resources in order to save 
myself time and effort.  I switch between KDE and the ultra-minimal ratpoison 
WM; ratpoison when I need every last CPU cycle & bit of RAM (... games), and 
KDE for when I want to actually get something done.

Also, even if the minimal WMs themselves start up faster, the total amount of 
resources used tends to be quite similar to a full-fledged desktop 
environment when you want to actually do something, and in some cases can 
even be higher.


%!PS: I've been going 9 years on my P3, running Windows 2000 and later Linux 
with KDE.  The only times it really feels slow are when I try to play more 
recent games or when I notice out how much less time it takes people with 
newer machines to compile software.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug