17-10-2019, 11:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 17-10-2019, 11:34 AM by ppppenguin.)
For several years I've been thinking of moving from Windows to Linux. The dedicated Linux users here will wonder why I've not got around to it. The reason is inertia, if everything is working adequately in Windows then why bother. I'm not particularly interested in PCs, except as useful tools. I dislike learning about new and complex software. What's totally obvious to Linux folk may well not be to me. I clung to XP for at least a year after it went out of support.
I currently use W7 64 bit on my main PC and it works well. I run XP in a virtual machine for legacy bits that won't run in W7. But W7 is going out of support in a few months so perhaps it's time for a serious go at Linux.
Which version? Probablly Mint, with Cinnamon. I've played with it on a couple of PCs and it seems OK. But then I don't have much to compare it with. My preference is plain and simple, not fancy. I run W7 to look like W2K and turn off all animations. I like conventional menu bars, not ribbons and "hamburgers". I run Office 2000; it's quick and it works for me. I'm used to the shortcut keys.
So how would a Linux setup look for me? I already use Firefox and Thunderbird so that's no change. I sometimes use Lbreoffice and would be willing to move away from Office 2000. Any real legacy stuff would run in an XP virtual machine. I would miss Irfanview but there must be something similar in Linux. I'd need to establish a new backup solution as I don't think Macrium reflect is available for Linux. I use Foxit for PDFs, available for Linux.
That brings me to the serious stuff. Xilinx tools. The current Vivado tools are available for Ubuntu so they ought to work in Mint. I still use ISE14.7 heavily for work. It's available for Red Hat and there seem to be workarounds for Ubuntu/Mint. Not sure I want the bother. Then I realised that it's specified to work in XP 32 bit. So I installed it in a VM and ran a typical work project. This takes about 50 minutes to run in W7. I was astonished to see it take 25 minutes in XP. That's with the overhead of virtualisation, sending files back and forth across the virtual network to the host and the small 3GB memory model of a 32 bit OS. I have 16GB on the W7 host. I repeated the exercise to prove I wasn't dreaming.
I'm sure there will be all sorts of things that will need fixing after the move. Such as the W98 and XP PCs on my bench that need to see the file system on my main PC. At the moment I run an open network, very insecure, where every machine can see everything. It's only me on those PCs so I don't care about security but do care about convenience.
Why not W10? I'd still be at the mercy of whatever dreams Microsoft have that week. I've read too many horror stories of changes to W10 breaking things. If I'm going to change, I'd rather change to something a bit more stable.
I currently use W7 64 bit on my main PC and it works well. I run XP in a virtual machine for legacy bits that won't run in W7. But W7 is going out of support in a few months so perhaps it's time for a serious go at Linux.
Which version? Probablly Mint, with Cinnamon. I've played with it on a couple of PCs and it seems OK. But then I don't have much to compare it with. My preference is plain and simple, not fancy. I run W7 to look like W2K and turn off all animations. I like conventional menu bars, not ribbons and "hamburgers". I run Office 2000; it's quick and it works for me. I'm used to the shortcut keys.
So how would a Linux setup look for me? I already use Firefox and Thunderbird so that's no change. I sometimes use Lbreoffice and would be willing to move away from Office 2000. Any real legacy stuff would run in an XP virtual machine. I would miss Irfanview but there must be something similar in Linux. I'd need to establish a new backup solution as I don't think Macrium reflect is available for Linux. I use Foxit for PDFs, available for Linux.
That brings me to the serious stuff. Xilinx tools. The current Vivado tools are available for Ubuntu so they ought to work in Mint. I still use ISE14.7 heavily for work. It's available for Red Hat and there seem to be workarounds for Ubuntu/Mint. Not sure I want the bother. Then I realised that it's specified to work in XP 32 bit. So I installed it in a VM and ran a typical work project. This takes about 50 minutes to run in W7. I was astonished to see it take 25 minutes in XP. That's with the overhead of virtualisation, sending files back and forth across the virtual network to the host and the small 3GB memory model of a 32 bit OS. I have 16GB on the W7 host. I repeated the exercise to prove I wasn't dreaming.
I'm sure there will be all sorts of things that will need fixing after the move. Such as the W98 and XP PCs on my bench that need to see the file system on my main PC. At the moment I run an open network, very insecure, where every machine can see everything. It's only me on those PCs so I don't care about security but do care about convenience.
Why not W10? I'd still be at the mercy of whatever dreams Microsoft have that week. I've read too many horror stories of changes to W10 breaking things. If I'm going to change, I'd rather change to something a bit more stable.
www.borinsky.co.uk Jeffrey Borinsky www.becg.tv
