Linux Vs Windows.

[Godesa]

Hello I would love to know if it really worths to download SL for Linux, as I heard its faster.

And if so, what version of Ubuntu is the best?

My OS now is Microsoft Windows 7 64-bit Service Pack 1 (Build 7601)

CPU: AMD FX(tm)-8120 Eight-Core Processor (3110.58 MHz)
Memory: 12190 MB
Graphics Card: GeForce GTX 760 AMP/PCIe/SSE2

Thank you.

Godesa

[hibit Spad]

If SL is the only reason your contemplating moving to linux then don't.   You won't be happy with the nerdiness/geek level of knowledge that is gonna be required of you over the years to make the linux system do what you want through various projects or other uses.

 

 

[Godesa]

I love challenges.

I just want to know if its really faster or not!

[Orca Flotta]

Hi Godesa,

the decision to toss Microsoft crappola is always a good one, period. I wouldn't necessarily go with any *buntu stuff tho. There are much nicer distros out there, Mint and Manjaro for example. Mint with Cinnamon DE is like a *buntu deluxe while Manajro is based on the super geeky Arch system but made more user friendly. So you get the best of both worlds, a rolling release (no need to ever install again) and yet a somehow manageable system. The best thing about Manjaro is it uses the AUR (Arch User Repository) which is the biggest and best and most cuttting edge. Also, as cherry on top, Singularity viewer is in the AUR. I decided on Singularity Alpha builds so I receive a new viewer every 3 - 4 days automagically and install it with just 1 click. Really computing heaven. Also I set my version up to have a very very bleeding edge kernel. Oh, and Manjaro features much newer Nvidia drivers than you'll ever get on Debian based distros like all the *buntus.

Your question about what version is best, you obviously mean the desktop environment, yes?

Well, that depends on personal taste, geekyness and what your hardware can take. Many ppl love KDE (Kubuntu in the *buntu world), I am more for a simpler desktop without all the trickery. I don't need wobbly windows and fancy 3D effects. So I'm torn between Cinnamon (kinda mix of Win7 and MacOS), which I recommend for Mint, and Mate (welcome back, Gnome2) which I use on Manjar right now. XFCE (Xubuntu) is nice as well on older machines. Ubuntu's Unity DE is a no-go for me, sorry. If I want spyware and my searches bringing me to Amazon automagically I would've stuck with Windows. I didn't really look into other DE's yet. E17 and OpenBox are way over my pretty head.

 

[Crim Mip]

And that's a question that nobody can really answer for you because a lot depends on your specific hardware. I ran a dual boot system for a while. Linux is far better at managing multiple applications running at the same time and more efficient with memory use from what I saw.

What I didn't like was the work required to get an SL viewer to work. Maybe it's gotten better now, but at that point every time one updated the viewer one had to go out and get updates for this or that package to get media, or voice, or a Space Nav working and sometimes one or more of those simply wouldn't work no matter what.

Windows is bloated, slow at times, and not the most stable OS, but I know I can just download, install, and run software and generally have it work. If Linux ever manages to get somewhat close to that point, I'll probably try it out again.

[Darren Scorpio]

As Orca and Crim have said there is really no "better" Linux distro, with there being literally hundreds out there each person will have their own favorite, mine is Linux Mint XFCE because for me that's what works better. What you can do is look at Distrowatch.com and pick out a couple that you'd like to try and then try them out! that's what is fun about picking a distro it's like shopping for a new home!

EDIT: And don't let anyone tell you that "Linux is too geeky and hard for a newcomer" that's BS. Most distros are newbie friendly nowadays and if you go with one that has a large community of users you will always find help on their forums.

[Wolfee Yaffle]

I personally use linux mint (pick which you prefer) (I also use XFCE). I can vouch I can use ultra graphics settings without any lag on a 2 year old quad core PC with 4GB ram, and a somewhat dated nvidia card. Not only that but if I reduce the graphics settings slightly, I can multi-task up to 8 viewers before my PC starts to choke. Back when I used Windows 7, I could barely run 2 viewers at once, and could never use ultra settings at all. Same computer, just a less bloated OS. My favorite SL viewer is Singularity, but if you want to use firestorm you can. Just keep in mind that firestorm still has yet to have 64bit support, which requires ia32 libraries. Singularity should work out of the box though. Both as easy as extracting a zip file and double clicking an icon.

[Ardy Lay]

I see you get the same non-answers that are usually provided when somebody asks in a public forum if Second Life is faster on Linux or Windows.  Since you mentioned that you use Windows 7 and are not afraid to try Linux, I'll suggest that you try it and tell us what you find!

Last time I compared Windows to Linux on IDENTICAL HARDWARE I was comparing Windows XP SP3 with Slackware 12.0, both 32 bit.  I installed the current video driver/Xserver from nvidia and gave SL a spin on FRESH INSTALLS of both operating systems.  The desktop environment I used on Slackware was KDE and I did not build a kernel.  I used the one the installer ran on.

Results?  Slackware was faster than XP in that comparison.  BECAUSE XP had been acting weird, but only when SL Viewer was running.  I reinstalled XP, drivers and SL Viewer.  The weird was still there.  I installed Slackware, nvidia Xserver and SL Viewer.  The weird was gone!  Then the GPU kinda exploded.  Turns out the GPU had been overheating all along.  Driver under Windows was throttling back the clock to save the GPU but not telling me what was going on.  Driver under Linux had no such throttling ability so GPU died. Thus, both versions failed me.

I do suggest that you try Linux but DO keep an eye on your hardware!  The issue that bit me is probably fixed in the driver now.  All it really did was put down an ailing video card.

I replaced the GPU and continued to use KDE on Slackware Linux for a while and think you may like Linux too.

I beta tested Windows 7 later and decided that I liked it better than Linux on my desktop for what I use a computer for.

(People bad mouthing operating systems are just being childish instead of helpful.  Slander will get you nowhere and only makes you look like a biggot.) -- professional product tester

[Wooja]

Opeating system is way down the list of critical factors in running SL optimally. These are:

1. Monster graphics card

2. Power supply to run the graphics card

3. Fans to stop the graphics card overheating

4. Superfast/wide internet connection.

5. A sense of humour so that when unplanned maintenance happens you don't take a hammer to the machine.

Wooja...ignoretheproselytisers

[Storm Clarence]

---

Godesa wrote:

I love challenges.

I just want to know if its really faster or not!

---

If you love challenges then skip both WindoZe and Linux and use Plan 9 OS with a rio interface.

It is fast, fun, and challenging. 

 

 

[Nova Convair]

I've set up Linux on my #2 computer and in a few VM's. Thats no problem and running the Singularity viewer is no problem.

I have no direct compare but I doubt that SL is faster here, I don't see a noticeable difference. The system is leaner and faster of course but not single applications. The only change I see is that the Ati drivers are maby not such a crap - but that I don't know and can't test (don't use Ati/Amd Gpu's).

The operating system you use depends on what software you use. If you have much Windows stuff it's nonsense to switch. (Simply ignore the babbling about Wine and VM's)
If the software is no problem I'd prefer Linux. Orca made good suggestions.

 

[Wolfee Yaffle]

^ What she said. This is why I recommend dual booting both systems together, and picking which one you want to use by a boot menu (grub). I see running windows in a VM a waste of time, and wine is far from perfect. I use it a lot, and for a lot of things it works great and fast, but there are lots of things that even if you make a prefix just for it, with all the necisary things I demands, it still refuses to launch. So always dual boot windows with linux. That way you can switch back and forth. And to answer the million dollar question. Yes it is faster.

[Teagan Tobias]

Crim Mip said:

Windows is bloated, slow at times, and not the most stable OS, but I know I can just download, install, and run software and generally have it work. If Linux ever manages to get somewhat close to that point, I'll probably try it out again.

 

This sounds like me. I tried Linux about a year ago and it was such a challenge just to install anything. I was told, if you want to just download and install with a click, that’s windows. No! that is not windows, that is a computer! A computer has this thing called a CPU that can make life easier for you, OS has nothing to do with it, unless its just lazy and thinks the user should do all the work. I was so disappointed that it was so geeky just to get the thing running. When Linux learns how to be more “computer” orientated for the user, I may try it again also. Okay, a bit of a rant but still its what I ran up against. (I'm not a geek, I just look like one.)

[Wolfee Yaffle]

---

Crim Mip wrote:

Windows is bloated, slow at times, and not the most stable OS, but I know I can just download, install, and run software and generally have it work. If Linux ever manages to get somewhat close to that point, I'll probably try it out again.

---

Its actually been that easy for years now. At least with Ubuntu and Mint. The software manager lets you dowload apps from an app store environment. You search for what you want, click install, wait, then access it from the start menu. Sadly there is no SecondLife in that store. However as I stated before; you only need to download SL, extract it, and double click SecondLife in the folder to run it. When you run SL for the first time, it automatically places an icon in the start menu in the "internet" section.

[Jean Horten]

I made the switch fromWindows to Linux in late 2007, never regretted it, won't go back to Windows.

Linux is different, no question about that, but it's only different, not more complicated.

If you want something that runs stable, reliable and for'ever', I'd propose to give Manjaro a try.

All these *buntus are strange systems, canonical, thecompany behind Ubuntu  suffers from sevral problems which result in theirs +buntus being kin dof strange, lots of packages are patched by them, work in astrange manner and their 'Unity' tablet user interface they try to push on everyone for me is one of the four operating system user interfaces available which I call unuseable.

Also, you won't find the word 'Linux' on Ubuntu's website, it's as if they are ashamed that their OSX wannabe is based off Linux, another reason not to use their OSses.

Another argument for me against *buntus is that they don't allow you to install the Nvidia drivers straight from the start, you need to dig through some subfunctions after installing to get the correct driver.

Your machine will be able to run  most Linuxes very well.

I you have any additional questions, feel free to ask me, here or in world.

J.

 

[Qie Niangao]

If Second Life is the only consideration here, stick with Windows. You'd need to run it for several millenia to accumulate one second of performance difference between the OSs, so unless you can install and configure a new operating system in less than a minute, you're much better off sticking with whatever you have.

I've run one or another Linux variant since the late 90s -- first Red Hat, then Gentoo for years, then Ubuntu -- and it's fine. Maybe six months ago for obscure hardware reasons, I switched my main machine to Windows 8.1, and it's fine too. I kinda "grew up" in Unix so Linux still feels a bit more natural to me, but I sure wouldn't invest time installing a different OS (or, even worse, an additional OS in dual boot) unless I had a pretty inescapable reason.

Maybe I just outgrew the hobby of incessant self-inflicted system administration.

[ETA: Whatever you do, don't waste the time of installing a 64-bit Linux distro if Second Life is going to be your main use of the machine. It's not that you can't get it to work, but it's going to mean even more of your first life invested in futzing around with sys admin trivia, for absolutely no gain whatsoever.]

[Aethelwine]

About a year ago I installed Ubuntu Linux and Secondlife and it all went pretty smoothly. I do remember having to google a fix for something, but solution was easily found on the secondlife wiki. What was the show stopper for me making the full transition from Windows was not being able to get music streaming software to work for me.

[SaraCarena]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

.......... not being able to get music streaming software to work for me.

---

I`d agree that getting sound an video to work on sl viewer on a new download with a new linux instal can be tricky and needs some do it yourself compared to windows.

I started using linux mint 17 a few months back and sl music didn`t work on the default sl viewer. For me the fix was to disable the openal sound driver that sl viewer uses as default when it starts up. The fmod driver worked fine then, everything was there in mint to work with that driver. There`s a readme file with the sl viewer download that explains how to do that.

Have got some video working by downloading the good,bad,ugly plugins and flash 32 bit but again that is confusing for the average user moving over from windows I think.

Overall I`d agree with Johnny that switching from windows to linux isn`t too bad at all, the mint 17 gui is very easy to use and similar to windows. Uses a LOT less memory than windows too, so great for anyone who`s low on ram.

[Qie Niangao]

You seem to be promoting 64-bit Linux, but I think you must have repressed some unpleasant memories. The native 64-bit TPV trials have fallen far behind current versions, and other viewers will need to run with 32-bit libraries anyway; I went through configuring those again a few months ago and that's become remarkably more difficult than it used to be.

Meanwhile, the likelihood of a native 64-bit viewer ever going mainstream is reduced by the prospect of SL itself being superceded. That's already had very evident impact on TPV project teams.

I'll say it again: If Second Life is the only consideration, currently a 32-bit Linux distro will be less hassle than 64-bit, for no difference in performance. If you need 64-bit Linux for something else, it can be made to work with SL, but expect to spend some time finding and configuring all the libraries you'll need. (I haven't seen any issues with 64-bit Windows, and Windows needs 64 bit addressing a lot more than Linux: it's fatter, and less PAE-capable above 4GB.)

[EDIT: Hmmm. Although Firestorm is much delayed compared to other viewers, it's certainly "mainstream" enough, and apparently its current release does have a native Windows 64-bit version and "beta" 64-bit versions for Mac and Linux. So if you can live with Firestorm -- and a lot of folks do -- then there may be some advantage to running that on 64-bit Linux. Seems worth a try anyway, especially if you've got a 64-bit OS installed already. It would be fun to see benchmarks.]

[Jean Horten]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

You seem to be promoting

64-bit

Linux, but I think you must have repressed some unpleasant memories. The native 64-bit TPV trials have fallen far behind current versions, and other viewers will need to run with 32-bit libraries anyway; I went through configuring those again a few months ago and that's become remarkably 

more

difficult than it used to be.

Meanwhile, the likelihood of a native 64-bit viewer ever going mainstream is reduced by the prospect of SL itself being superceded. That's already had very evident impact on TPV project teams.

I'll say it again: If Second Life is the only consideration, currently a 32-bit Linux distro will be less hassle than 64-bit, for no difference in performance. If you need 64-bit Linux for something else, it can be made to work with SL, but expect to spend some time finding and configuring all the libraries you'll need. (I haven't seen any issues with 64-bit Windows, and Windows needs 64 bit addressing a lot more than Linux: it's fatter, and less PAE-capable above 4GB.)

---

32 bit is dying as hardware is advancing and making progress.

Singularity 64 bit has been working very well on my 64 bit linuxes for quite a while and I had no problems 'configuring those 32 bit libs'.

Your problems in this regard seem to result in you using debian/*buntu based multiarsch systems.

When using 32 bit systems with max 3.7 Gb of RAM, you can and will expect viewer or even system crashes, especially in crowded areas when zooming around due to the viewer  using up all system ram, so recommending memory restricted systems might not be the best idea.

Ubuntu by the way is slowly preparing top  drop 32 bit kernels completely

We have 2014, not 1999, but you still promote technology from the last millenium as superior.

J

[Qie Niangao]

Not superior, but yeah, I do claim easier.

You're quite correct that it's in 64-bit Ubuntu that I've repeatedly found it a hassle to get SL running. It is true that Ubuntu has shifted (but only within the last year or so) to recommending 64-bit as the default even for desktop installs (it used to be the default download only for servers). And to be fair, at least the basic Ubuntu 64-bit install seems to be reasonably stable these days, whereas it wasn't all that long ago that it would reliably crash just running the desktop.

But again, the reason I made so much of a thing about a native 64-bit viewer is that for all the "hardware is advancing and making progress", all that makes no difference if running a 32-bit executable. The thread was originally about performance, and although there's no prospect of a performance benefit running 32-bit binaries on 64-bit OS, as I said it would be fun to see if native 64-bit Firestorm has any performance advantage over its 32-bit version. Although, if I understand correctly, for lack of 64-bit Havok libraries, that 64-bit viewer can't perform certain mesh and pathfinding functions.

[SaraCarena]

I`m a total newbie when it comes to linux but I`ve found mint 17 x64 (which is ubuntu I think) to be 100% stable. As for sl, no probs running it on sl viewer or firestorm x64, the nvidia drivers seem a bit more prone to crash but only when I push the graphics settings way higher than it`s wise to for my card, so no surprises there.

I do remember Oz Linden stating at a TPV meeting that their crash stats show that any viewer running on a 64 bit OS is significantly less likely to crash compared to 32 bit but I guess that would be more relevant to windows than linux and you could argue that less crashing is a performance benefit.

The only thing that peeves me about sl on linux is getting media to work, have all the reccomended plugins I think (good,bad, ugly etc). Does anyone know a failsafe way to do it and would this vary depending on which distro you have?

[Jean Horten]

Now try a real Linux...

J,

[Wolfee Yaffle]

I use Linux Mint 64bit with the 64bit Singularity viewer and I don't have any issues getting SL working. Unless I try to compile my own viewer. THEN I run into failures (even if I have the dependencies). But using the prepared download works like a charm, so I really don't really need to build my own. I was just curious to try it... 64bit firestorm works too except media on a prim will not play youtube videos at all. It works fine under singularity. I think the firestorm team has plans to fix it, but it's a back burner plan, so for now I use singularity, which tries to keep up with latest features, but the rendering of shaders is sub-par compared to V3 based viewers.

[Jean Horten]

---

jonhnnyroleplay wrote:

There are triers...then there are doers...you try "stuff" like this...I do post facts...you "try" to help Linux users...I do...you try...I do. Apparently it is quite a surprise for someone to step up and *answer*  Linux questions with  working solutions/facts, that really *do* resolve issues and not  post a lot of crap cut n pasted off forums/sites that do not even work. According to my chatlogs I sought help from you among other  Linux experts/SL residents claiming to have knowledge about Ubuntu/Linux....not one of you had the answer on how to run Phoenix Firestorm x64 on 14.04 x64...I got bs dribble, so when in doubt "try" make it appear you know right?  Ring my doorbell I will answer the door one last time, but  not with futile insults, or bs...just the facts. As for other guessers on here who want to "try" this stuff from now on I am not even going to validify it with a reply. I'd rather be helping s SL resident ...byyyye ~~

---

I have been here longer than you, I have been using Linux since 2007, I have helped many many linux users here and in world, I have even ran  Sl users through installing and configuring complete Linux systems.. You ony post about *buntu here, *buntu there, *buntu everywhere. If you'd take a look outside your little unityfied ppa multiarsch world, you would find a different world where you would not have to fiddle around with manual installation of a ton of  32 bit multiarsch  libs manually. (no, that will not work in *buntu or debian). But just go on confusing GNU/Linux with Ubuntu, a distro that has eradicated the word Linux completely from their website.

I still wish you good luck with *buntu/debian, you will need it in the very near future.

J.