-Linux vs Windows-

m25

Distinguished
May 23, 2006
2,363
0
19,780
0
I know the title says 'move this thread from here', but my problem is actually CPU related and needs hardware guys;
I do a lot of 3D modeling, rendering and less photo editing, but most of the software I use are open source and also available for Linux. I continuously hear that Linux consumes much less resources, and experience the hunger of XP. I have also found out that 64bit systems improve my performance, so, If I do it, I should transition to a 64bit Linux,...now:
Is moving to a 64bit SUSE Linux going to somehow improve the performance of my current system?!
 

CaptRobertApril

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2006
2,205
0
19,780
0
I know the title says 'move this thread from here', but my problem is actually CPU related and needs hardware guys;
I do a lot of 3D modeling, rendering and less photo editing, but most of the software I use are open source and also available for Linux. I continuously hear that Linux consumes much less resources, and experience the hunger of XP. I have also found out that 64bit systems improve my performance, so, If I do it, I should transition to a 64bit Linux,...now:
Is moving to a 64bit SUSE Linux going to somehow improve the performance of my current system?!
Second me on this thread. I have a very similar question.
 

sandmanwn

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2006
915
0
18,990
1
My quick answer is a question.... What are you more familiar with, Windows or Linux?

Because in the end what good does an OS do if you have to waste a lot of time "getting to know" the OS. Kinda negates your performance gain doesnt it?
 

heartview

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2006
258
0
18,780
0
I know the title says 'move this thread from here', but my problem is actually CPU related and needs hardware guys;
I do a lot of 3D modeling, rendering and less photo editing, but most of the software I use are open source and also available for Linux. I continuously hear that Linux consumes much less resources, and experience the hunger of XP. I have also found out that 64bit systems improve my performance, so, If I do it, I should transition to a 64bit Linux,...now:
Is moving to a 64bit SUSE Linux going to somehow improve the performance of my current system?!
If you need OpenGL then 64-bit Vista is not an option currently. I know that's not what you asked, but it is relevant to the discussion. :)
 

CaptRobertApril

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2006
2,205
0
19,780
0
My quick answer is a question.... What are you more familiar with, Windows or Linux?

Because in the end what good does an OS do if you have to waste a lot of time "getting to know" the OS. Kinda negates your performance gain doesnt it?
For me, I have no option but stick with XP on at least a dualboot system. Job requirement. Won't go with Vista. I'm sure m25 has his own preferences.
 

CaptRobertApril

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2006
2,205
0
19,780
0
BTW, this is for a 2xQuad 8GB RAM system. So I know I'd need to use XP 64 which I already have but haven't installed. What I want is CRISP performance on big hogs like Photoshop. So, let's assume that at some point in the future I'll be able to run the CS suite on some Linux flavour, what kind of performance advantage would that gimme?

P.S. I've done enough damage for one day. Time to get back to making believe I'm doing some work. Back tomorrow!
 

m25

Distinguished
May 23, 2006
2,363
0
19,780
0
My quick answer is a question.... What are you more familiar with, Windows or Linux?

Because in the end what good does an OS do if you have to waste a lot of time "getting to know" the OS. Kinda negates your performance gain doesnt it?
No problem about familiarity, I have tried Linux in the past. I just need performance; I'm not a gamer, I'm not afraid of some command line app and not so keen to the bells and whistles of XP and recently Vista, just want to know the resource usage of a Linux system because Windows really sucks.
 

Centurion

Distinguished
May 28, 2004
81
0
18,630
0
BTW, this is for a 2xQuad 8GB RAM system. So I know I'd need to use XP 64 which I already have but haven't installed. What I want is CRISP performance on big hogs like Photoshop. So, let's assume that at some point in the future I'll be able to run the CS suite on some Linux flavour, what kind of performance advantage would that gimme?

P.S. I've done enough damage for one day. Time to get back to making believe I'm doing some work. Back tomorrow!
http://www.knithx.net/2006/07/29/how-to-run-photoshop-cscs2-in-linux/

Don't have linux, don't know if it works, but you can try.

Centurion
 

sandmanwn

Distinguished
Dec 1, 2006
915
0
18,990
1
Well here are my thoughts, and Im sure some will disagree...

@capt
Man I hate to say it but since you have to stick with Windows it looks like Vista outperforms XP for CS2 by about +5%. And that number should only grow larger over time and the updates start coming in.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page8.html
Dont kill the messenger! :p

The only other thing I could think of would be going with Windows2003. I use it myself for work apps like CS2. Way less of a resource hog compared to XP. I just finished an installation on a high end workstation and when the OS finished and was up and running the thing was only using 85Mb of memory. In my opinion 2003 is a downright killer OS. Drawbacks are cost obviously $600-$700 for standard x64.

@m25
I think it goes without question that Linux uses far less resources than Windows. Will it be noticeable is another question. Because of the way Linux ties its GUI into the system it often appears to be much slower than its Windows counterpart when opening up apps and so forth. But overall it feels much quicker once you get to your application and start the repetitive nature.

Personally I really enjoy running SUSE. Most people have been downing it since they signed what warring nations would consider a "non-proliferation act" with microsoft, but their apps like YaST definitely make things easier for those switching from Windows to Linux.
 

m25

Distinguished
May 23, 2006
2,363
0
19,780
0
Thanks for the details. What you say is really true; It is kind of downside of Linux, the fact that it does not pre-load the applications into memory; less resources consumed, but slower startups. However, I'd like to know something more in terms of pure performance, something like the Vista vs XP review.
And about Windows 2003; it's really nice and because I live in a country where 99.9% of the software are pirate copies, I'd have no problem to get one for $3 but want a 'clean' platform to work on and also give an example to others.
to apt403: Don't know if Gentoo or Debian have 64bit versions, because I am (like almost everybody here) a performance fanatic and want to squeeze x64 too. Since 64 bit systems are pretty expensive, the x64 open SUSE looks a good alternative.
 

apt403

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2006
2,923
0
20,780
0
apt403: Don't know if Gentoo or Debian have 64bit versions, because I am (like almost everybody here) a performance fanatic and want to squeeze x64 too. Since 64 bit systems are pretty expensive, the x64 open SUSE looks a good alternative.
Gentoo has been ported to pretty much every system out there, it supports processors i havent even hear of before. I dont really know how that matters know that i think about it, but yeah, there is a 64bit version.
 

m25

Distinguished
May 23, 2006
2,363
0
19,780
0
OK, and how is software support; I have heard SUSE has a very large base. and what about a good VM for it; I don;t like do dual boot but don't even want to be p!ssed for some windows only SW.
 

apt403

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2006
2,923
0
20,780
0
Gentoo software support is pretty good, although im not sure its going to be as good as SUSE. Do you mean a VM to run Gentoo, or run from Gentoo?
 

ches111

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2006
1,958
0
19,780
0
apt,

Do ya think the Gentoo suggestion is appropriate for a Linux newb?

My last dealings with Gentoo (compile a version of the Linux kernel totally tailored to your machine) put it being much more difficult than other distributions (has this changed?).

SUSE and Debian are likely alot easier to install/use/learn.

If m25 wants stability then Centos is good (knockoff of the enterprise edition from Redhat). Centos is very very stable (although not bleeding edge).

Redhat is likely a no go as well since installs have gotten a little better but are still an issue with some hardware.

Please be advised -- that in Linux getting good graphics support/speed can sometimes be difficult. It is an OpenGL platform and can work very very well but can be a pain to squeeze performance out of it.

Hope this helps...
 

apt403

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2006
2,923
0
20,780
0
apt,

Do ya think the Gentoo suggestion is appropriate for a Linux newb?

My last dealings with Gentoo (compile a version of the Linux kernel totally tailored to your machine) put it being much more difficult than other distributions (has this changed?).

SUSE and Debian are likely alot easier to install/use/learn.
Yeah, i guess your right, but he wants speed, and he said that hes not afraid of the command line. Gentoo is pretty much the fastest, most streamlined distro out there because you build it specificly for your hardware.

It hasnt changed, you can just install Gentoo from a cd like any other distro, but to get every last ounce of performance out of a machine installing from the command line is the way to go.
 

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY