[GDS|Entropy] <gds### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Mostly my problem with it is that anything that I want to do takes longer, 
> uses more ram and vidram, and maxes the processor. Even using a win98 theme.
> I did install it on an old computer, but that isn't any excuse, as xp pro 
> worked just fine on it and did so quickly.

  While I can't talk from real experience and knowledge, I have the
understanding that with Vista (and the Windows line in general) you don't
even have any choice: The OS will consume significant amounts of RAM and
other resources, period. There's little you can do to reduce the footprint
of the OS even if you wanted to. (Ok, this might not be entirely true, as
memory consumption and speed could probably be improved by a simple change
in the GUI theme, etc, but I'd dare to say that there's a limit under which
you just can't go no matter what, at least not without seriously crippling
the entire system, and that this limit is still pretty high.)

  This is because Windows has been designed to be a rather monolithic OS
(not to be confused with "monolithic kernel", which is not at all what
I'm talking about): Things like the GUI (including its API, etc) are
integral parts of the OS and cannot be separated from it (at least not
with serious hacking, which will probably cripple the system). While this
has some advantages (eg. programs become more compatible because there's
only one single API for anything any program might need), it also has its
disadvantages: The OS becomes large and heavy, and you have little choice
about this.

  The design philosophy of Unix in general and Linux in particular is
rather different: The Operating System itself (which is basically
comprised of the kernel and its modules) is deliberately kept completely
separate from the GUI system (which in case of Unix is de-facto usually
the X Windowing System).

  This separation can be clearly seen. The OS is in no way tied to the
GUI system, and the GUI system is in no way tied to the OS. You can run
the OS without any GUI system whatsoever (usually with a console interface),
and the X Windowing System implementations are usually more or easily
portable to different kernels (eg. X11 has been ported to the Linux, BSD,
Solaris and Darwin kernels, among others).

  Even the de-facto GUI system for Unix-style OS's follows the same
principle internally: The X Windowing System specification is not tied
to any particular Window Manager. This is the reason why you have such
an ample choice of managers, such as Gnome, KDE (which are heavy but
pretty) and other more lightweight options.

  This means that if you need a lightweight OS, you can build one that is
(or use a pre-built distro which has been designed to be lightweight),
as the entire system is very customizable.

  For example a server which has no monitor nor even a graphics card
does not need a GUI, and thus you can install a very lightwright Linux
system in it which has no GUI support (with the consequent overhead)
whatsoever.

  If you need to run Linux on an older computer (eg. a 486) which is too
slow to run the latest eyecandy (ie. KDE or Gnome), but you still need
it to be graphical, you can choose a lightweight implementation of the
X Windowing System and an ultralight window manager for it.

  So you will still be running the latest version of Linux (as a whole,
including the kernel, its modules, the X Windowing System as well as the
window manager), but on a very old computer without problems. Something
like Vista will probably outright refuse to install in such a computer,
let alone run.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message