<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ubuntu 9.10 vs Windows 7 video explored</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jaredheinrichs.com/ubuntu-9-10-vs-windows-7-video-explored.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jaredheinrichs.com/ubuntu-9-10-vs-windows-7-video-explored.html</link>
	<description>A Winnipeg &#34;How to&#34; Blog on Software and Technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:40:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Phil</title>
		<link>http://jaredheinrichs.com/ubuntu-9-10-vs-windows-7-video-explored.html/comment-page-1#comment-4466</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 02:23:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaredheinrichs.com/ubuntu-9-10-vs-windows-7-video-explored.html#comment-4466</guid>
		<description>Dear Jared..

I hope this email finds you well. I am installing Backtrack-linux for my virtual Box ver 4.0.10 oracle. When the VM boots it runs into a problem giving me the following error message &#039;this kernel requires an x86-64 CPU but only detected an i686 CPU unable to boot - please use a kernel appropriate to your CPU&#039; 

I have my Virtual Box installed into my physical machine which runs window 7 at 64 bit host OS. I have a dell inspiron 1545 , RAM 4.00 GB, Intel Pentium processor. 

How do I make the kernel to read x86-64 CPU from a i686 CPU? Most importantly my virtual machine should have the following parameters: Name: Backtrack, OS Type: Oracle (64 bit), Base Memory: 1453 MB, Boot Hard Disk: Backtrack.vdi(normal 20.00GB). 

Yet my virtual box reads, Name: Backtrack , OS Type: oracle*, Base Memory: 1453 MB, Boot Hard Disk: Backtrack.vdi(normal 20.00GB). 

NOTE: *here is where my VMBox differs I have just Oracle without the (64 bit)&gt; 

Please advise 

Phil</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Jared..</p>
<p>I hope this email finds you well. I am installing Backtrack-linux for my virtual Box ver 4.0.10 oracle. When the VM boots it runs into a problem giving me the following error message &#8216;this kernel requires an x86-64 CPU but only detected an i686 CPU unable to boot &#8211; please use a kernel appropriate to your CPU&#8217; </p>
<p>I have my Virtual Box installed into my physical machine which runs window 7 at 64 bit host OS. I have a dell inspiron 1545 , RAM 4.00 GB, Intel Pentium processor. </p>
<p>How do I make the kernel to read x86-64 CPU from a i686 CPU? Most importantly my virtual machine should have the following parameters: Name: Backtrack, OS Type: Oracle (64 bit), Base Memory: 1453 MB, Boot Hard Disk: Backtrack.vdi(normal 20.00GB). </p>
<p>Yet my virtual box reads, Name: Backtrack , OS Type: oracle*, Base Memory: 1453 MB, Boot Hard Disk: Backtrack.vdi(normal 20.00GB). </p>
<p>NOTE: *here is where my VMBox differs I have just Oracle without the (64 bit)&gt; </p>
<p>Please advise </p>
<p>Phil</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie</title>
		<link>http://jaredheinrichs.com/ubuntu-9-10-vs-windows-7-video-explored.html/comment-page-1#comment-86</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:35:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaredheinrichs.com/ubuntu-9-10-vs-windows-7-video-explored.html#comment-86</guid>
		<description>&quot;What would be an interesting benchmark is to take some piece of hardware and time various things, particularly installing the OS from bare metal...&quot;

What a surprise, today I stumbled onto just such a test.  From my quick glance, the article seems pretty unbiased, even though it IS hosted on a pro-Linux site, [and I&#039;m not talking about the host OS, as even this site is running on *nix ;) ].  Now, these tests are from early this year, when both Jaunty and 7 were in early development, so both would have changed since now, (Jaunty has since been released).

Bottom line I pulled from the article: Ubuntu can do much more out of the box, takes up FAR less disk space, and beta software should not be used in production regardless of publisher.  Other then that, both Intrepid/Jaunty and Vista/7 were comparable in tests.

http://tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;What would be an interesting benchmark is to take some piece of hardware and time various things, particularly installing the OS from bare metal&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>What a surprise, today I stumbled onto just such a test.  From my quick glance, the article seems pretty unbiased, even though it IS hosted on a pro-Linux site, [and I'm not talking about the host OS, as even this site is running on *nix <img src='http://jaredheinrichs.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' />  ].  Now, these tests are from early this year, when both Jaunty and 7 were in early development, so both would have changed since now, (Jaunty has since been released).</p>
<p>Bottom line I pulled from the article: Ubuntu can do much more out of the box, takes up FAR less disk space, and beta software should not be used in production regardless of publisher.  Other then that, both Intrepid/Jaunty and Vista/7 were comparable in tests.</p>
<p><a href="http://tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7" rel="nofollow">http://tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jared Heinrichs</title>
		<link>http://jaredheinrichs.com/ubuntu-9-10-vs-windows-7-video-explored.html/comment-page-1#comment-82</link>
		<dc:creator>Jared Heinrichs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaredheinrichs.com/ubuntu-9-10-vs-windows-7-video-explored.html#comment-82</guid>
		<description>Hey Charlie :) Thanks for the comment.
Run Windows 7 first and you&#039;ll notice why most Twitter comment are giving it praise. I run the Cs4 suite with several of the programs open at once (photoshop,Dreamweaver,Illustrator), several browsers, and coding software and the machine never seems to slow down. This is both on a year old laptop and 6 month old desktop.  I&#039;ve been using Win7 since BETA, Then RC 1 and Now RTM. It&#039;s so much better then anything out there right now. In my opinion MS is really getting their act together... (about time)... They have even released an antivirus program that can rivial Nod32 :) 

I wrote a review and provided a link on my blog. It runs on Windows XP, Vista and now 7. It takes very little memory Under 10MB and updates with Windows update. (You don&#039;t need another program needing to run just to update the darn machine!) &lt;a href=&quot;http://jaredheinrichs.com/free-microsoft-antivirus-microsoft-security-essentials.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://jaredheinrichs.com/free-microsoft-antivirus-microsoft-security-essentials.html&lt;/a&gt;

Another cool find that you might or might not have herd about is Microsoft Live Mesh! If you have more then one PC I can&#039;t imagine living without this service. (Pssst You can even remote desktop into any computer that is part of your mesh from anywhere using your Windows Live account ) PC and Mac support is out right now... Phone support is coming soon</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Charlie <img src='http://jaredheinrichs.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  Thanks for the comment.<br />
Run Windows 7 first and you&#8217;ll notice why most Twitter comment are giving it praise. I run the Cs4 suite with several of the programs open at once (photoshop,Dreamweaver,Illustrator), several browsers, and coding software and the machine never seems to slow down. This is both on a year old laptop and 6 month old desktop.  I&#8217;ve been using Win7 since BETA, Then RC 1 and Now RTM. It&#8217;s so much better then anything out there right now. In my opinion MS is really getting their act together&#8230; (about time)&#8230; They have even released an antivirus program that can rivial Nod32 <img src='http://jaredheinrichs.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />  </p>
<p>I wrote a review and provided a link on my blog. It runs on Windows XP, Vista and now 7. It takes very little memory Under 10MB and updates with Windows update. (You don&#8217;t need another program needing to run just to update the darn machine!) <a href="http://jaredheinrichs.com/free-microsoft-antivirus-microsoft-security-essentials.html" rel="nofollow">http://jaredheinrichs.com/free-microsoft-antivirus-microsoft-security-essentials.html</a></p>
<p>Another cool find that you might or might not have herd about is Microsoft Live Mesh! If you have more then one PC I can&#8217;t imagine living without this service. (Pssst You can even remote desktop into any computer that is part of your mesh from anywhere using your Windows Live account ) PC and Mac support is out right now&#8230; Phone support is coming soon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie</title>
		<link>http://jaredheinrichs.com/ubuntu-9-10-vs-windows-7-video-explored.html/comment-page-1#comment-81</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:39:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jaredheinrichs.com/ubuntu-9-10-vs-windows-7-video-explored.html#comment-81</guid>
		<description>I have a few comments about your post, some agreeing with you, some not so much.  First off the hardware specs on both machines; you&#039;re spot on with this.  The viewer does not know the actual specs on the machines.  Even if they were the same machine to begin with, memory could have been removed on one, (ever try to boot Vista on ONLY 1GB?).

At least in 9.04, the default state of compiz IS to have 3d disabled, so in that aspect the demonstrator IS comparing the stock setups on both OS&#039;s.  Not to mention the window compositor doesn&#039;t actually load until the GUI starts, so it has no threshold over boot time of the OS, (or very minimal if any).  I didn&#039;t notice any antivirus boot up, and Norton definitely doesn&#039;t go unnoticed; another could be installed, so this is within the realm of possibility.

About the browser, you have another point there.  The demonstrator should have used a clean install of both default browsers for the respective OS.  In this case, it would have been FF3 vs. IE8.  However as to leaving the windows open, I personally have windows open all day, in fact usually I run with about 10-15 apps open at any given point throughout the day, all spread out on different desktops.  Not to mention, where is the cache kept for the application?  If this cache is memory, then one could argue that memory would be more useful dedicated to running applications that actually need it, not applications that the user MAY start.  This affect is felt even harder when the various &#039;creative&#039; applications are used; would you want all Photoshop, Illustrator, and Autocad in cache at once?  You wouldn&#039;t be able to use the computer! (This I know from personal experience with Vista, hopefully M$ is allowing the user to change the settings with win version 6.1, er win &quot;7&quot;, but I expect not.)

On your standby issue, I have to agree with you there.  The Linux kernel does not quite have sleep/hibernate working quite right yet.  However, one thing about sleep, the computer is not actually shutdown, as if power is removed from the device, all unsaved data is lost.  I know this is extremely obvious for many of us, but I feel uneasy if my data is saved on only 1 HDD, little alone volatile memory!  But, for when you do not have important data and just need to throw your laptop in your bag after class or a meeting, sleep is usually good enough.

What would be an interesting benchmark is to take some piece of hardware and time various things, particularly installing the OS from bare metal and boot up/shutdown times after installed.  Another interesting feature would be how long it takes for the drivers to work on the various OS&#039;s.  How many times have you installed a winOS, only to discover the OS cannot access a basic generic 10/100 NIC...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a few comments about your post, some agreeing with you, some not so much.  First off the hardware specs on both machines; you&#8217;re spot on with this.  The viewer does not know the actual specs on the machines.  Even if they were the same machine to begin with, memory could have been removed on one, (ever try to boot Vista on ONLY 1GB?).</p>
<p>At least in 9.04, the default state of compiz IS to have 3d disabled, so in that aspect the demonstrator IS comparing the stock setups on both OS&#8217;s.  Not to mention the window compositor doesn&#8217;t actually load until the GUI starts, so it has no threshold over boot time of the OS, (or very minimal if any).  I didn&#8217;t notice any antivirus boot up, and Norton definitely doesn&#8217;t go unnoticed; another could be installed, so this is within the realm of possibility.</p>
<p>About the browser, you have another point there.  The demonstrator should have used a clean install of both default browsers for the respective OS.  In this case, it would have been FF3 vs. IE8.  However as to leaving the windows open, I personally have windows open all day, in fact usually I run with about 10-15 apps open at any given point throughout the day, all spread out on different desktops.  Not to mention, where is the cache kept for the application?  If this cache is memory, then one could argue that memory would be more useful dedicated to running applications that actually need it, not applications that the user MAY start.  This affect is felt even harder when the various &#8216;creative&#8217; applications are used; would you want all Photoshop, Illustrator, and Autocad in cache at once?  You wouldn&#8217;t be able to use the computer! (This I know from personal experience with Vista, hopefully M$ is allowing the user to change the settings with win version 6.1, er win &#8220;7&#8243;, but I expect not.)</p>
<p>On your standby issue, I have to agree with you there.  The Linux kernel does not quite have sleep/hibernate working quite right yet.  However, one thing about sleep, the computer is not actually shutdown, as if power is removed from the device, all unsaved data is lost.  I know this is extremely obvious for many of us, but I feel uneasy if my data is saved on only 1 HDD, little alone volatile memory!  But, for when you do not have important data and just need to throw your laptop in your bag after class or a meeting, sleep is usually good enough.</p>
<p>What would be an interesting benchmark is to take some piece of hardware and time various things, particularly installing the OS from bare metal and boot up/shutdown times after installed.  Another interesting feature would be how long it takes for the drivers to work on the various OS&#8217;s.  How many times have you installed a winOS, only to discover the OS cannot access a basic generic 10/100 NIC&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

