Now I Remember Why I Hate Windows

SmokeRngs said:
I'm not an average user. I'm also running two OSes. I have software installed for both. I need additional space to install additional software in the future. I need space leftover so the drive isn't actually full. A 256GB drive is not enough for that in the first place. Even then it's about useless because most of the software still wouldn't be on the SSD nor would it even remotely fit. I know exactly what my requirements are and anything under 1TB isn't worth it. As it is a 1TB would be mostly full by the time I was done copying over anything which would be better on an SSD. I've already researched what I would need as a minimum and did it quite a while back.

At one point I was going to purchase a Crucial MX500 1TB SATA SSD. I had almost hit the button to purchase it more than once but for whatever reason I simply didn't do it. Then my monitor died. Thus, the money that was earmarked for an SSD went to a new, very cheap monitor since that was more important. Two hours after hitting the button to purchase the monitor my old socket 775 board died. Let's just say it was a good thing I didn't buy the SSD at the time since it would have been useless at best.
Click to expand...

You can use smaller capacity SSD's as OS drives and mechanical HDD's for absolutely everything else easier under Linux than Windows due to the fact you can shift your /home partition onto the mechanical HDD leaving the SSD purely for OS duties. No browsing to alternate HDD's when installing software like under Windows, everything just works.

People underestimate just how popular mechanical HDD's still are.
 
Mazzspeed said:
You can use smaller capacity SSD's as OS drives and mechanical HDD's for absolutely everything else easier under Linux than Windows due to the fact you can shift your /home partition onto the mechanical HDD leaving the SSD purely for OS duties. No browsing to alternate HDD's when installing software like under Windows, everything just works.

People underestimate just how popular mechanical HDD's still are.
Click to expand...

But I don't care about the OS that much. Once it's loaded at boot, it's effectively done. At that point the vast majority of the OS which is needed is already loaded into RAM. It's everything else that can't be loaded into RAM that matters. However, if I'm going SSD I'm going to make sure everything which benefits from an SSD can fit onto any SSD I get. Otherwise it's effectively a waste of time and money for me.

I also don't care about boot times. My machines are never shut off. My server doesn't even reboot unless the power goes out or a kernel upgrade comes through. For my main machine it just stays on with whatever OS I have up at the time and the reboot only happens when I switch to the other OS.

The fact is an SSD for me is nothing more than a convenience. If I had the money I'd go with an SSD or three but I simply don't have the money and most of my stuff still runs "fast enough" for my needs. Definitely not all of it, but most of it.
 
SmokeRngs said:
But I don't care about the OS that much. Once it's loaded at boot, it's effectively done. At that point the vast majority of the OS which is needed is already loaded into RAM. It's everything else that can't be loaded into RAM that matters. However, if I'm going SSD I'm going to make sure everything which benefits from an SSD can fit onto any SSD I get. Otherwise it's effectively a waste of time and money for me.

I also don't care about boot times. My machines are never shut off. My server doesn't even reboot unless the power goes out or a kernel upgrade comes through. For my main machine it just stays on with whatever OS I have up at the time and the reboot only happens when I switch to the other OS.

The fact is an SSD for me is nothing more than a convenience. If I had the money I'd go with an SSD or three but I simply don't have the money and most of my stuff still runs "fast enough" for my needs. Definitely not all of it, but most of it.
Click to expand...

Based on hard disk IO monitoring, the OS is accessed far more than simply at boot time. I prefer a separate /home partition, so I run a 250GB m.2 SSD as the OS drive (or root partition) and a 1TB SATA SSD as my /home partition. I also run a large capacity mechanical HDD as /storage. You could run a single SSD for both OS (root) and /home, I just prefer them to be separate as I can keep an eye out for issues via SMART monitoring and quickly rsync the drive to a new device (or DD the drive), edit the fstab file and I'm back in business in no time.

However, considering the file system performance of Linux, SSD's aren't as necessary as they are under Windows.
 
Algrim said:
My primary system (in sig) uses a single 1 TB Seagate spinning rust drive. :rolleyes: That will almost certainly not be true for my next system (which is a ways off thanks to recent pistol acquisitions). I have a 2 TB spinner that I'm going to throw a Linux distro on soon; I'll see how nice Budgie looks on a 55" TV/monitor. :)
Click to expand...

SmokeRngs said:
The system in my sig has nothing but spinners in it. My server has nothing but spinners in it. I don't even own an SSD and likely won't for quite a while due to a lack of funds. Computer purchases for myself have been nothing but absolute necessities for years now. At this point I need more storage in my server than I need an SSD.

By the way, OS loading on Manjaro is faster than Win10 and Manjaro has a usable desktop much faster than Win10 and they boot off the exact same drive. Windows has serious speed issues regarding reading from drives compared to Linux. As stated earlier this is covered up when using SSDs but the underlying performance issues have been there for years for anyone to see.
Click to expand...


The fact that you guys cannot choose to spend $50 on a 500GB SSD today is not a cover up on Windows. Windows 10 has been optimized to run very fast on SSD's, there is nothing being covered up. As for Linux, the fact that it is being designed to run as a primary drive off spinners does not mean it is faster, just more willing to support old, outdated hardware in an SSD age.

Now, you guys can choose what you want to use because it is your money. However, that does not make your choice predominate for most people, thankfully. :)

Edit: Oh, and I have run Linux Desktop on spinning rust and yes, it is slow. :( No, logging in does not mean the Linux Desktop, after a bootup, is going to be available immediately. As well, I do not leave my computers running 24/7, since there is no need too since no one but me uses them. Heck, running something as straight forward as Firefox takes 10 seconds or more before it can even be used, on an HDD.
 
Last edited:
Mazzspeed said:
Still making this personal?

Everything's optimized to run better on an SSD if you're talking about TRIM, doesn't change the fact that some file systems are better than others. It's OK though, nothing's worse than HFS/HFS+.
Click to expand...

Nope, not making it personal at all, are you?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
So I'll point out the obvious: you're running different software on Linux. A bare Windows machine loads pretty quick, even on spinners.
Click to expand...

Yep, and my Windows machines never remain bare and load fast all the time and does not slow down. The fact is, something is physically wrong when a program that usually takes 1 second to load is now taking 15 seconds.
 
SmokeRngs said:
Why the hell would I waste money on tiny ass SSDs like that? A 120GB SSD wouldn't even be enough to run my Windows install much less have enough room for my Linux install. Even worse is that the vast majority of my software would still be stuck on the exact same spinner that it's installed on now. What would that gain me? Jack shit except a little time off booting which I don't even care much about. At the minimum I would need a 1TB SSD to make it worth the time and money to mess with it and that's the absolute minimum. Hell, most software I use regularly wouldn't even start any faster since most of it is cached in RAM in the first place.

Anyway, this is getting quite off topic. The fact of the matter is Windows disk performance is definitely not up to par with Linux performance.

As for a clean install of Windows booting quick, that's effectively a myth. Sure, it's going to take less time than after half your stuff installs launchers and everything else to start up at boot but it's still not fast. Other than absolute necessities I don't allow much of anything to start up at boot and the boot times aren't actually much longer than with a clean install on a spinner. I know because I just did all this a couple of months or so ago. At no point has Win10 come even close to how fast my Manjaro install boots.

Talk up Win10 updates all you want but they're also nowhere near fast or efficient compared to Linux. It's quite likely Win10 has the slowest updating out there right now but my experience is limited to Win10 and a couple Linux distros so I can't speak for others.
Click to expand...

A myth? LOL! Tell that to all 3 of my desktop computers that are ready to use before I even get comfortable in my chair. Linux on a spinner is slow from my experience, just as Windows 10 is. If someone is using spinners then they tolerate slow speed, which is fine and people can spend their money on whatever they want. That said, and I will say it again because it is true, Linux desktop is slow on spinners and as a fact, all OSes today are slow on spinners.
 
Mazzspeed said:
You can use smaller capacity SSD's as OS drives and mechanical HDD's for absolutely everything else easier under Linux than Windows due to the fact you can shift your /home partition onto the mechanical HDD leaving the SSD purely for OS duties. No browsing to alternate HDD's when installing software like under Windows, everything just works.
Click to expand...

I mean... yeah, moving /home is the same as moving your User to another drive, but with Linux, you actually need to research beforehand to know where a particular piece of software is going to install if it installs automatically. In fact, most Windows applications that aren't Office give you the option to choose where to install, while on Linux stuff from the repository goes were it likes.

For me, I tend to move at least my Downloads folder elsewhere, especially if there's a spinner available. That takes care of most of the problems with the root drive filling up.
 
SmokeRngs said:
But I don't care about the OS that much. Once it's loaded at boot, it's effectively done.
Click to expand...

Not even remotely true, for either OS.

I can't tell from all of your posts here as to whether you have ever used an SSD or not. It's hard to tell, but I'll comment as if you haven't.

Th differences are night and day. The Linux AND Windows OS's could easily fit on a 500gb drive. Even 250gb is likely fine, but I don't have any that small, so I can't comment on that.

I am running Windows 10 and Ubuntu MATE on a 500gb SSD and there is plenty of space remaining.

The fact you think an SSD is "no big deal" but you're also "not a noob" is slightly worrying. It's like saying DSL/Cable in the 90's wasn't needed because dial up was "just fine".

It wasn't.
 
An SSD is simply one of the greatest upgrades you can make to any system that doesn't have one. The difference is staggering. Assuming you do something other than boot up the OS and stare at a blank desktop :ROFLMAO:
 
ManofGod said:
Except that is not the way it works, ever, but you do Linux a disservice by trying to exaggerate Windows realities. Trying to make Linux look good by making others look bad, hmmmmm....., oh well, if you use Linux, you must work within it's limitations.
Click to expand...

I wish, I really really really really wish what I said about Windows absolutely hideously awful patching wasn't true. I really do.
 
SSDs are a huge difference, probably one of the biggest advancements in recent years. I had my old mining rig with a 128GB SSD, that was more than enough to install Ubuntu a few mining apps.

For a machine I was using, I would not go lower than 256GB, but you can even make that work. 512GB is more comfortable, so you have some room to breathe, and 1TB would be almost extravagant.

On this machine now I have several SSDs and HDDs. The SSDs are used for the OS and basic programs like Firefox. The HDDs are for any files or media, downloads, etc.

For the Ubuntu OS I have that on a 512GB SATA drive, and then I got an external 1TB SSD that I'm using for Steam. Never had the space to install games on an SSD before, and it's pretty nice.

Also, I stream everything now, so I have no need for lots of downloaded files, and the SSD works nice to have all programs installed super zippy.

They are not as expensive as they were. I got the 1TB NVMe drive for $100. Prices have come down a lot.

And, to stay on topic, I did get an Ubuntu update today that required a restart. It was for the Nvidia binary driver and xorg service and related dependencies.

It was still pretty fast, 200MB download in about 1 or 2 minutes and a quick restart. Also allowed me to see exactly what was being updated while it was happening.
 
In the end, I think we can all agree that Linux updates faster, more informative logs and in general allows us to use the OS sooner after hitting the desktop.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I mean... yeah, moving /home is the same as moving your User to another drive, but with Linux, you actually need to research beforehand to know where a particular piece of software is going to install if it installs automatically. In fact, most Windows applications that aren't Office give you the option to choose where to install, while on Linux stuff from the repository goes were it likes.

For me, I tend to move at least my Downloads folder elsewhere, especially if there's a spinner available. That takes care of most of the problems with the root drive filling up.
Click to expand...

Why do you need to research where a particular piece of software installs beforehand? Just install it.
 
auntjemima said:
In the end, I think we can all agree that Linux updates faster, more informative logs and in general allows us to use the OS sooner after hitting the desktop.
Click to expand...

I would send it depends on the person and hardware. Much of that is subjective and I have personally found, on my own computers, that Windows 10 boots up faster, logs in quicker and lets me get to work faster. Now, that faster is not by all that much and really, it feels that way more than anything else. This is on the exact same hardware but, that did not mean Linux was slow.

Now, to those who claim I am, I am not a specific OS fanboy, I just call it like it is, right in front of my own two eyes. I can use the machine well the updates are being installed, reboot, walk away and use the bathroom and by the time I am back, the computer is ready to be logged into and good to go. Also, although this is completely subjective, the Windows 10 desktop straight up looked sharper and cleaner than the Ubuntu desktop on the same machine, for whatever reason.

I do not hate any Operating systems, I just cannot do that. Only thing I hate is when I personally screw things up, late at night and then, it is hard to let it go to the next day. :D Basically, in Linux, just like in Windows, I would start the updates and then let them go on in the background well doing other stuff. The only exception is the AMD driver update, which should be obvious at that point.
 
Mazzspeed said:
Why do you need to research where a particular piece of software installs beforehand? Just install it.
Click to expand...

Because some folks want to know where it is being installed. Under Linux, I really did not care, except for games and would mount a second drive and create a game path for that.
 
ManofGod said:
Because some folks want to know where it is being installed. Under Linux, I really did not care, except for games and would mount a second drive and create a game path for that.
Click to expand...

Due to the file structure of Linux, a folder called C:\program files does not exist for everything, thank God. In this sense you cannot compare both operating systems, however I never have a problem locating just where software is installed in the extremely rare chance that I need to do so.

Generally speaking, my OS is limited to the faster 250GB SSD and everything else installs on the /home SSD, which is perfect. As highlighted by yourself, under certain game launchers you can specify a path to install games as easily as under Windows.

auntjemima said:
In the end, I think we can all agree that Linux updates faster, more informative logs and in general allows us to use the OS sooner after hitting the desktop.
Click to expand...

I think this pretty much sums it up.
 
Last edited:
Stanley Pain said:
An SSD is simply one of the greatest upgrades you can make to any system that doesn't have one. The difference is staggering. Assuming you do something other than boot up the OS and stare at a blank desktop :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

In the real world, your browser doesn't enjoy any perceptible decrease in loading times off a spinner than it does off an SSD - At least in my experience under Linux.

Based on what certain individuals are claiming in this thread, under Windows you have to stare at a blank desktop as installing software slows the system down.
 
Mazzspeed said:
You think Windows updates faster? You think the Windows updating process overall is better than the updating process under Linux? Not sure if serious.
Click to expand...
the winky says im not serious. or am i.... ;)
i honestly havent tried linux in 10 years. just felt like disturbing the shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top