A few weeks ago, I reviewed the Acer Aspire One notebook, the variant which came with an Acer-modified version of Linpus Linux. This version was locked-down and difficult to modify, so not too long after I installed Ubuntu, and was reasonably pleased - despite the amount of tweaking it took to get it working. A few days ago, however, I realised Linux wouldn't be ideal for me on my netbook. Due to pragmatic reasons, I'm now running Windows XP.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2008-03-17
One of the things that stuck me is that running a vanilla (i.e.not netbook customized) gnome based distro is that one looses a lot of space due to the oversized gtk dialogs and widgets.
One of the things about all the windows dialogs and widgets that I like are that they are much more densly packed than even condensed gtk themes and as a result my desktop tends to have more space for content as opposed to wasted space for an ok button.
This wasted spaced is doubly annoying on low resolution screens.
Then again more densely packed also means less readable on small screens...each to his own I guess
Member since:2008-06-07
There was a recent OSNews story dealing with the problem:
http://osnews.com/story/20206/Using_GNOME_on_a_Small_Screen
I commented there about my settings, so if you want help, there is.
Member since:2005-12-13
I'd actually like vanilla GTK+ to look well without any theme applied. And yes! -Clearlooks does waste quite a lot of space on your desktop, which I find a shame since in general I'm otherwise very satisfied with its look and feel.
Moreover, I'm really looking forward to a Mac OS X like 'column view' in Nautilus and I'm truly hoping for this to be a part of Gnome 2.24 as promised!
One may only wish that 'spring loading folders' might become a possibility at some point - be it from applying a patch or be it included in the official source ...
Member since:
2006-09-22
Thom, I'm not really surprised you were able to get better performance with XP for the following reasons:
1) It's a five years old OS. Your netbook has more similarities with an old desktop than with a modern one. But as long as it covers your needs...
2) A fresh XP install is fast. It's been fast for a few hardware generations. The problems arise when you start adding stuff like... your software, which includes crap like antivirus and antispyware tools. And I bet that, in a few months, your netbook won't feel as snappy as it feels now.
3) XP was, and still is, extremely configurable resource-wise. A friend of mine is able to strip a non-nLited XP install to a bare 40 megs of memory consumption. Before installing apps, however.
I'm a Linux user and I wouldn't install XP on my netbook for sure but, hey, the right tool for the right worker for the right task 
On a completely unrelated note, I'm a bit disappointed by the Aspire One SSD performance, I was really looking forward to get one and install Ubuntu in it 
Member since:2006-03-12
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-12-05
gah...
I've given up on anti-virus software in my last, oh, seven years using Windows (and I've used it for about ten). They all want you to pay, pay, pay, and try to install themselves as deep down as possible, with every "automatic" feature (ie. autostarting, services, etc.) they can. Running low on your "protection" time? Let the nagging begin! You may have found one with no added services--I have too--but in my experience, those tend to suffer badly in other areas, to the point that they aren't worth using either.
And which one to get to begin with... they all seem to have major annoyances... like trying to put EVERYTHING in one central program, including crap that has nothing to do with viruses (firewalls, spam filtering, adware and spyware, etc.), plus the resource hoggers, and those that break your system unless you uninstall (or even refuse to let you cleanly uninstall!). And yeah, I've seen some that don't hide any of those "extras" and are glad to shove it right in your face, to get you to subscribe to that too.
Of course, I've moved away from Windows about two years ago, so this doesn't effect me at all anymore. If I wanted to do a quick virus scan, I could use ClamAV, but I haven't felt the need to do a virus scan in so many years, it's not any funny... even when using Windows. Just some common sense and proper judgement when it comes to trusting third parties, and maybe a Google search, and I'm safe.
Viruses and trojans and friends vs. anti-virus software... if I had to choose one, I'd shoot myself. Thankfully, by using your brain, you can avoid malware without intrusive anti-virus software (though anti-spyware/adware like AdAware can be useful still), and by using a better built operating system, you can avoid them almost completely.
Edited 2008-09-05 05:40 UTC
Member since:2007-02-17
Valid points.
If I personally have to set up a system with windows (as some people who I want to help do want me to do sometimes) ... this is what I would use:
http://www.moonsecure.com/
They might be asking for a bit of help (by people submitting undetected virus samples), but they sure aren't asking you to pay, pay, pay.
http://www.moonsecure.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id...
Our vision is to release an enterprise level antivirus, which can be used in any windows environment.
The aim is to provide a superior antivirus capable with competing with the market leaders and still at the same price, free!
We aim to be part of an opensource suite which will allow all users to still use the environment they are comfortable with but benefit from the terrific opensource community.
That seems like a pretty reasonable deal to me.
Being open source means that it itself contains no malware.
Edited 2008-09-05 09:25 UTC
Member since:2006-08-15
Are you serious? OSnews == a story on how to install XP on a generic x86 system that just doesn't happen to have a cd-rom?
Are you kidding me?
Thom, if you don't have interesting news to post, don't go out and write silly little things like this. You can buy XP versions of the Acer right out of the store.
I agree. Linux > Windows. Post something about Asterisk vs FreeSWITCH instead, that's a lot more interesting than this.
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:
2008-09-04
Member since:
2005-07-06
I made the mistake to install WinXP with NTFS on the SSD of my Aspire One. My god it was SLOW, even when disabling everything.
Scrap that, did another fresh install but using FAT32 and BAM! It was much much better. It could be faster but the SSD in the Aspire is probably the cheapest part of the Netbook. It's plain slow.
I wish I had waited a couple of weeks and get the Aspire One with the 120Gb HDD and 1Gb & WinXP. For only $50 more, it's a steal. I bet that the HDD is much faster than the SSD.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2006-12-18
Member since:2007-08-11
out of curiousity were you using linux with a non-journaling fs as well?
i find it hard to believe that XP was more snappy or more responsive than ubuntu on any pc.
In my experience with several xp boxes and several linux boxes, the linux ones generally feel more responsive. Not necessarily "faster" at everything but definitely if you had a few things running at once it generally does a better job of keeping things responsive, without locking the system up while reading from disks, network drives etc.
Dont get me wrong Windows XP is great, but I think it suffers when you have a few resource-intensive processes running at once. and particularly explorer really struggles a lot when accessing slow network drives etc. One bad connection pulls all explorer windows to a halt. Another example is when you put a cd into the cdrom drive - the whole system stops for a few seconds while it tries to read from the disk.
Linux just seems to deal with IO and overall system load so much better - probably its server roots coming into play i guess. And this is just in my experience so others mileage may vary.
Member since:2005-06-29
Yup, I used ext2. I tried just as hard to minimalise small writes to the SSD on Linux as I did on Windows
. Many people forget that Windows XP is actually a very mature, stable, and highly optimised piece of kit. It takes some work, but it can be made to run properly on a lot of old crap - and this netbook, in case we forget, has a hyperthreading processor running at 1.6Ghz.
The big problem with Ubuntu is not so much the OS itsellf, but the applications. Evolution is slower and heavier than Outlook 2003, Firefox/Linux is slower than Firefox/Windows, Gaim is a total dog compared to Miranda, and OOo doesn't hold a candle to this specialised version of Office 2003 (seriously, that's something you gotta see to believe) and so on.
Edited 2008-09-05 06:30 UTC
RE[4]: FAT, it's all about FAT
Member since:2007-02-17
Ext2 is indeed not a journaling filesystem, but it is getting quite venerable now and it has the worst performance of filesystems that you could choose for Linux.
http://librenix.com/?inode=922
http://lists.mysql.com/benchmarks/133
Agreed that you wouldn't want to use a journalling filesystem for a SSD ...
... so why didn't you try a Linux filesystem that was actually designed for use with SSDs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFFS2
http://sourceware.org/jffs2/
http://logfs.org/logfs/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAFFS
There are at least these three. In fact, there is a quite a selection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems#Flash_memory_.2F_...
Note that FAT32 is not one of them. FAT or exFAT (FAT64) ... maybe. However, given the lack of attributes that any MS FAT filesystem can support, FAT filesystems are not recommended for Linux use.
Utter rubbish. Twaddle. Bunk.
Why would you even say such a thing?
Edited 2008-09-05 09:51 UTC
Member since:2006-11-17
Did you use ext2 on SSD? That's a big mistake if you ask me. Maybe you are not aware, but on SSD, we use JFFS2. Of course, you must have had very slow performance with ext2! jffs2 is a journaled file system, you don't have to choose to disable that feature to obtain good performances. It has been around for quite some time now and jffs3 will soon replace it. Flash memory doesn't work like hard drive at all and the ext file system isn't designed to be used on flash drive. It's like using a ferrari in the jungle. It's fast when on the road, but it doesn't make any sense in the jungle.
Edited 2008-09-05 12:04 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
.
Member since:2005-07-06
Not hard to believe. I have done many comparisons between Windows 2000/XP and Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu, Xubuntu...) on old, slow computers at work and Linux can not compare. These have been computers <= 1,8 GHz, often less than 1 GHz.
The anything-but-Microsoft people may not like it but Windows is the most usable operating system for older computers. Yes, there are distributions like DSL but they are generally too different and too hard to use.
Member since:2005-12-04
Have you looked at what writes NTFS was generating that caused it to be slower than FAT? The worst case for an SSD is random writes; as another poster pointed out, NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate and NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation should take care of a bunch of those. I'm surprised that there would be a significant difference in random writes between NTFS & FAT.
Member since:2005-06-29
You and Thom could also try enabling Enhanced Write Filter:
http://jymster.org/wordpress/2008/06/18/windows-xp-running-from-a-c...
It caches all changes to file system to RAM at sector level (my understanding). If you need to save changes you can commit them manually or automatically on some condition.
Of course this adds some complexity to daily usage. You would probably need to separate documents partition from OS and only enable EWF for OS one. And after installing something and/or system settings change you would have to commit FS changes to disk but I think this should improve FS access speed quite noticeably. Also EWF and 1GB RAM would probably be better combination than 512MB
Edit: URL linking too confusing for me here
Edited 2008-09-05 06:23 UTC
Member since:
2008-09-05
Member since:
2007-01-01
Member since:2005-10-12
It probably was. Now I bought the Win XP version because I wanted the 120GB HDD, and proceeded to load the latest development versions of Fedora and Ubuntu. Not quite the hassle, and both Linuxes seem to work reasonably well, but neither gives full use of both card slots. Haven't checked out WinXP with the slots, but I'm betting it'll just work.
Member since:
2007-02-17
No Bluetooth on the Acer Aspire One, and a slow SSD. It also has a 3-cell battery ... 1.5 hours only.
That was the disappointment for me, in addtition to the attempted lock-down of Linux. It also has a sealed case.
Given that it was rumoured to have Ubuntu pre-installed, I was going to opt for a Dell Mini Inspiron 9 if it seemed right, but no ... Dell don't want to sell to me:
http://www.cnet.com.au/laptops/laptops/0,239035649,339291812,00.htm
"While in the US there are a range of configuration options including the choice for Ubuntu as your operating system, Australia at this stage has one configuration alone."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/aaa/dell-joins-netbook-fray/2008/09/0...
"Dell has launched itself into the nascent netbook market pioneered by the Asus Eee PC, which analysts predict will soon account for a third of all laptop sales. From today consumers can order the diminutive Dell Inspiron Mini 9 for $599. The first review, published by APC magazine, described it as "very sexy" and praised the inclusion of a 16GB hard drive, webcam and Bluetooth support." (So far, so good)
but then disaster ... "In Australia the Mini 9 comes with Windows XP only, despite Linux being included as an option overseas."
Dell Australia have blown it very badly here IMO.
Oh well, that has enticed me to look out for other options to get an Ubuntu pre-loaded Linux netbook in Australia.
http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/info.asp?c1=3&c2=12&id=...
And there we have it.
Made in Australia. Check.
$549 = $50 cheaper. Check.
60GB Hard disk. Check.
1 GB RAM. Check. (2 GB maximum ... I thought Microsoft had banned that much RAM in a netbook?)
Webcam included. Check.
Ethernet, Wireless and Bluetooth all included. Check.
Keyboard with function keys. Check.
http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/products/configure.asp?c1=3&c2=1...
Ubuntu pre-installed as an option. Check. (Save $49 over XP Home). Double check.
Bad luck, Dell Australia ... you miss out. You could have had the market, but you blew it.
Edited 2008-09-05 04:09 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-02-17
That's nonsense, by the way. In both Windows XP and Linux, battery time averages out at ~2.5hrs, with wireless ON. "
Well I don't have a netbook myself yet, so I can't comment, but 1.5 hours was a figure I'd read somewhere in comparisons.
Regardless, the Aspire One has one of the puniest batteries in this class of machine, however long it actually lasts:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/hardware/laptops/soa/Acer-Aspire-On...
"The Acer Aspire One is better than most netbooks and is fantastic for anyone who wants a small, cheap machine on which to type and surf the Web. However, its battery life lets it down slightly.
...
The bad:
* Small, oddly designed mouse trackpad
* Poor battery life
...
be warned, though: the One saves weight because it comes with a very small, very lightweight 2200mAh battery"
I mean to say, three warnings in the one review should be enough to alert anybody.
I priced an Acer Aspire One in the local shops today ... here in Australia, with: its weaker battery (3 cell vs 4 cell); same processor, ports and screen; half the RAM capacity; one eighth the disk space and no Bluetooth it costs $150 more in the stores than the Pioneer DreamBook Light IL3 netbook.
http://jkkmobile.blogspot.com/2008/08/meet-pioneer-dreambook-light-...
http://www.ferret.com.au/c/PIONEER-Computers-Australia/PIONEER-Comp...
I know which one I would recommend.
Edited 2008-09-05 15:06 UTC
Member since:
2005-09-21
Member since:2008-09-05
I have to second this report. I was going CRAZY trying to get Firefox 3 working right on my EeePC (running Xubuntu) without long hangs and instability... turning off the phishing protections did the trick, and it works just as well as it does on any other platform now.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Why disable write-caching? Random writes on SSD are very slow.
And disabling prefetch to gain speed? This is a myth: http://askbobrankin.com/windows_prefetch.html
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Common misconception. Prefetch doesn't only check which applications you run, but also how often. At every launch, it writes a little bit to disk. This is not noticeable on normal hard drives, but on these slow SSDs, it adds up. Disabling prefetch makes a noticeable difference.
Member since:
2007-03-06
I've found linpus to be quite usable on my aspire one, once I unlocked the xfce menu. It feels really snappy despite of having only 512MB.
My only gripe is with it's repositories, other than that I haven't had any problem so far.
Anyway if I was to replace the OS (which I'll probably do eventually) I'd rather go with debian instead of ubuntu.
Member since:
2006-11-17
If you know linux well, you can make it way faster than Windows. However, it requires a lot of knowledge to do it. Windows on the other hand doesn't require knowledge to deliver poor performance, but is still acceptable when you don't have the knowledge. Ubuntu doesn't require knowledge, but can make use of it if you have it and can deliver performance with knowledge applied.
Edited 2008-09-05 12:01 UTC
Member since:2007-02-17
To make XP fast the knowledge needed was: "don't use NTFS, use the only other choice, which is FAT".
To make Linux as fast on the same machine, the knowledge needed was: "don't use ext2, use another choice suitable for SSDs, which is jffs2".
Apparently Acer themselves didn't know that second bit of knowledge.
Even given that Acer didn't know it, in and of itself that doesn't mean that the knowledge in Linux is intrinsically harder. A little more obscure, I will grant you ... but not actually any harder to know or find out.
One google search using keywords "filesystem" and SSD wasn't enough ... so I then tried keywords "filesystem" and "flash memory" and presto ... I found out what was needed to know (for both XP and Linux). It took no more than a minute.
Edited 2008-09-05 15:46 UTC
Member since:
2006-01-16
I would say Ubuntu is the wrong choice for limited hardware like this. Ubuntu has a fairly bloaty design.
You should try a slim distribution like Arch Linux instead. You will end up, for example, with lots more of free memory for your applications. Also the optimization to 686, stripping debug symbols etc. Arch does should help quite a bit compared to Ubuntu.
Finally you could try other browser products like Epiphany or something Webkit-based (like Chrome which you use).
I installed ArchLinux on a friend's old laptop (Pentium 2 w/ 266 Mhz, 64 MB RAM only). I made it minimal (easy, as Arch starts minimal and you have to add stuff yourself, not the other way round), using Fluxbox as Window manager, Epiphany as browser (not the smallest one, but my friend likes the History feature a lot), Thunar as file manager with automount for usb sticks, and some stuff like vlc, abiword, etc.
It works surprisingly well as a mainly mail-reading & websurfing machine. No swap is used when thunar and epiphany are running and some heavy websites were used (even youtube videos work). For 64 MB, this is an awesome result to me. We are talking about cutting-edge software here, giving today's web experience, on such an old system.
So if you ever think of a gnu/linux distribution for a netbook, better not use Ubuntu or Suse. Apply one of the strengths of the open source world by choosing a system that fits you (your hardware) most.
And Thom: Have fun w/ your XP. It's a shame for your university though.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Since when was it a bad choice to install WinXP on any device that I would like to use, instead of any Linux distro?
It almost look like Thom committed a sin in wanting WinXP on his Aspire One. Whatever, if it's better for him, then that's fine with me. I did the same with my Aspire and I'm quite happy.
Thom, good article.
Member since:2006-11-17
Tom's choice is Tom's choice. I don't believe anybody has a problem with that.
This is an article on OSNews and people are commenting on the article. On the news, if somebody had bad experience with linux and prefer using Windows, then this is fine. If some people report that there are alternative linux distributions that you can use to have a better experience, or if some people report as a comment that on the contrary they had a good experience, this is fine as well. To each their own.
Member since:
2007-09-08
Hello fanboys,
what 'bout a bit of recherche ?
A SSD is different from a pure piece
of flash memory. Its an advanced controller
presenting multiple parts of flash memory as
a SATA disk to bus hardware and OS. It handles
multi-channel access and wear-leveling internally.
(fine specimen even include a DRAM buffer).
Shooting at it with jffs, logfs, FATxy or
whatsoever will never hit a distinct flash
memory cell.
(btw, would youve expected Sandisk and others
asking microsoft about a Vista release with
an especially created filesystem for their
upcoming high capacity SSDs ?)
Anyone out there with profund informations about
an actual filesystem derivate that take care
of real SSD features ?
Bye
Member since:2006-11-17
This is why there is BLK-MTD for linux. SSD drives are flash drive at the core with a layer on top of it making the system think it is a block device. However, it does not have the same performance as a SATA disk, but that of a flash drive. BLK-MTD is a layer on top of the block device making a block device appear as MTD. You can use jffs2 on BLK-MTD on a SSD, or UBIFS, or LogFS.
Member since:2007-09-08
Fine !
Thats been profound :-)
So, why did noone else talk about the
necessity of block2mtd ?
Isn't that overhead compared to the SSDs onboard
drive logic ?
Oh, Wikipedia tells me Aspire Ones are
equipped e.g. with an Intel® Z-P230 SSD.
And Intel says in the Preliminary Product Manual :
The PATA controller in the Intel® Z-P230 PATA Solid State Drive uses
a microcontrollerbased architecture that enables two flash memory
channels to service read and write operations. See Figure 3,
“Functional Block Diagram of Intel Z-P230 PATA Solid State Drive”
on page 7. Capable of performing flash management functions, the
SSD also implements internal wear leveling to
minimize system overhead.
Now, that even enables Windows to be installed on those
- without tweaking device type emulation layers and experimental filesystems.
Carry on ...
Edited 2008-09-09 16:50 UTC
