Re: Linux-hating Dimdows concern trolls, listen up

On 12/19/24 7:55 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
 

On 12/18/24 1:31 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

-hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>

On 12/18/24 9:23 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:

>
<who cares?>

>
Linux's lightweight OS characteristics make it quite suitable for any
old hardware which it can run on, particularly when the user
expectations are basic (eg, web surfing, email, newsgroups).

>
You left out audio/video/photo editing, screen-casting, software development,
painting, MIDI, pen-testing, servers of all kinds, ...

>
Sure, because most users leave those out too, as the primary use case
that this is about are hand-me-downs.
>

Much of with is manageable on old hardware, as well.

>
Contingent on just what level of task which one is asking to do:  old
hadware can render 640 by 480 video without being too slow in the UI,
but to do 4K editing within the same day is beyond the hardware's
capability, regardless of OS.  Sure, one may get to "but it will run!"
but the workflow is a {fix a frame & let it run overnight} crawl.
>

Years ago I installed Linux on a single-core Acer laptop. I could run
SolidWorks on it in a VM on that little shit-box. It was my main laptop before
the Corporation started handing out decent hardware.

>
A Single core CPU would be more like "decades ago", as I can recall
having a dual core CPU back in 2006.

 I bought the single-core because it was cheap, especially with the Office Depot
discount.

Nothing wrong with being frugal; its just that our expectations grow over time:  who's deliberately buying a 300 baud modem this decade?

And its not merely that some software could be made to run:  the
question was how long to render the project, and for the likes of
Solidworks, doing how many discrete points in the mesh.
>
As I'd mentioned a week or two back, I had a FEA team working on a hot
project where the workstations would crash every ~4 days of runtime.

 Bully for you.

The point is that lots of stuff can be made to "run", but it doesn't do so in a timescale which is productive:  one tends to only do such things when there's no better alternative.
I've been guilty of doing some of this myself ... I can recall doing some photography work with a 35mm film scanner that the dpi was up there and the subsequent TIFF file size was ~1GB.  On the PC that did that nearly two decades ago, it of course took minutes & minutes to crunch anything while working on that file - - and the final outcome turned out to be no better than a much lower resolution scan.  But it "did work".
And a bit of s search later...I found these old files:
1,208,386,573 bytes - created Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 9:48 PM
Dimensions: 17433 x 11551 -- that would be ~200 megapixels.
Today, it took ~3 sec to open the file within the App.
And the much smaller 8673 x 5776 (50 MP) takes just ~1 sec.
Yet it still was a "can be done" 20 years ago ... the workflow just was minutes per step then, instead of seconds today.
-hh