|
Nostratic posted:So... Will I kill my 6-7 year old PC if I upgrade from win8 to 10? It's got an i5 cpu and an ATI 7600 graphics card. As long as your hardware isn't broken Windows 10 will probably run on anything that could run 7 properly. I had an E6300 with mismatched RAM on an nForce (!) motherboard with an nVidia GTX 260 (and admittedly a year-old Antec Neo Eco 520C). Had to roll the SATA controller back to generic so TRIM could work, but nForce SATA controllers have that problem on every version of Windows. Otherwise fine.
|
# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:40 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 04:02 |
|
Does anyone know if it will be possible to do GPGPU programming with the new Ubuntu subsystem announced for Windows 10? Will I be able to install CUDA and use theano/tensorflow easily?
|
# ? Apr 6, 2016 23:49 |
Cryolite posted:Does anyone know if it will be possible to do GPGPU programming with the new Ubuntu subsystem announced for Windows 10? Will I be able to install CUDA and use theano/tensorflow easily? Unlikely. It's specifically not virtualization (they say) and Windows is definitely in full control of the hardware. You wouldn't be able to use software that requires special access to any hardware.
|
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 00:02 |
|
sweet So on CygWIN I've had problems getting certain poo poo (Gradle) to run right due to CygWIN's weird two-different-kinds-of-filepaths thing (C:\filename vs /cygdrive/c/filename); someone who has a spare machine to install this on, tell me how the new Bash shell handles filepaths because this is worth installing for me if and only if that works properly.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 02:17 |
|
With cygwin, I just add C:\cygwin\bin to my PATH, use Powershell as my shell, and side step the entire filepath thing. There's also an add-on for Powershell that display additional information about Git repos.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 02:26 |
|
Does this effectively eliminate the need for putty? Also, anyone try the new Dark Theme?
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 02:44 |
|
Wow, Windows 10 is actually getting some pretty sweet features. I never thought I'd see bash on Windows. Now try and get devs to migrate to the new Windows repository system that you can use with Powershell. That's one feature I really liked from Linux: repositories versus individual program updaters. Death to individual update systems!
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 02:48 |
|
Alright, I might dive in and get win 10 this weekend. Thanks!
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 03:09 |
|
Tab8715 posted:Does this effectively eliminate the need for putty? In that it provides yet another way to run SSH on Windows? Yes. If you don't like putty, you could always use Cygwin. SSH works fine with it, and it would be virtually the same experience as Microsoft's approach.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 03:10 |
|
I maintain that MobaXTerm is the best Windows SSH client, mostly because it supports tabbed sessions and MOSH, both of which are basically essential
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 03:17 |
|
Regarding the Linux on Windows feature, does anyone know if : a) this can coexist with/replace Cygwin completely and seamlessly and b) they're planning on integrating an X-Windows client directly into windows so the Linux subsystem can run GUI applications as well as cli ones? I use an application that currently depends on Cygwin for installing cross-compiling tools, so I don't want to have that break by having the Ubuntu toolset creating conflicts. If I can uninstall Cygwin completely that would be great too, even if it means tweaking the Linux environment a bit. I'm hoping we'd be able to use mobaxterm or similar for x-windows applications still, but it would be great if windows had an X client built in.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 05:42 |
|
Tab8715 posted:Does this effectively eliminate the need for putty?
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 05:46 |
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Installing the whole Ubuntu subsystem vs. Putty? Former is kind of heavy-handed, no? Aren't they anticipating it'll be installed by default? Why bother installing putty when I'm able merely open Powershell and type ssh sever24.na.contoso.com?
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 06:17 |
|
beuges posted:Regarding the Linux on Windows feature, does anyone know if : a) Both Cygwin and WSL live in their own private areas. The file system Cygwin sees is separate from the file system WSL sees, and both are separate from the file system Win32 sees. Although all three do have access to the other file spaces, it would take a massively misbehaving user or application to cause any sort of interference (i.e. don't type "rm -rf /" and expect to have a functioning system). Also, Cygwin applications are actually just Win32 applications that use a special DLL. This makes them a bit unique: you can write a Cygwin application that uses both Win32 and Cygwin filespaces, which is impossible for plain Win32 or WSL. b) You'd need an X server to do that, not a client. The clients are the applications that want to draw to the screen. You should be able to run Cygwin's X server and have the WSL applications draw to it, if you know how to set your shell exports correctly in WSL. If you want native X support, you're probably out of luck. Windows uses a compositing window manager, which means each application draws itself somewhere in memory, and the window manager puts that drawing somewhere on the screen. X doesn't work that way; it just provides applications with a single screen and lets them draw on that screen. There are ways around it; for instance, you can start up a virtual X instance for each application and have it draw to that, but that's a hacky solution. Native Linux systems have their own window managers that sit between X and the applications and handle compositing, but each distribution does their own thing, and Microsoft probably doesn't want to restrict themselves to Ubuntu. X is a dying protocol, anyway, so why bother putting such effort for a feature most people will see only marginal benefits from when there's already a functional solution?
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 07:04 |
|
dpbjinc posted:a) Both Cygwin and WSL live in their own private areas. The file system Cygwin sees is separate from the file system WSL sees, and both are separate from the file system Win32 sees. Although all three do have access to the other file spaces, it would take a massively misbehaving user or application to cause any sort of interference (i.e. don't type "rm -rf /" and expect to have a functioning system). Also, Cygwin applications are actually just Win32 applications that use a special DLL. This makes them a bit unique: you can write a Cygwin application that uses both Win32 and Cygwin filespaces, which is impossible for plain Win32 or WSL. Very informative post, thanks. I always get mixed up between x client and server. I guess the biggest issue for me specifically would be making sure that for this application, if it actually invokes bash (I think it runs a few .sh scripts which would run under bash I think?) that it invokes the bash from Cygwin and not the WSL one. I guess I'll switch back over to the fast ring and play around with this myself.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 07:56 |
|
Tab8715 posted:Aren't they anticipating it'll be installed by default? Why bother installing putty when I'm able merely open Powershell and type ssh sever24.na.contoso.com? Also is it just bash now or is it possible to use something good like zsh instead?
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:23 |
|
mobby_6kl posted:I dunno, are they? I'd rather not have any of the Ubuntu stuff installed by default if I'm not going to need it. As far as anyone's determined you'll use bash and (tolerate) it. Also it's, you know, Ubuntu.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 13:59 |
|
loquacius posted:I maintain that MobaXTerm is the best Windows SSH client, mostly because it supports tabbed sessions and MOSH, both of which are basically essential I second this motion. I use this everyday at work, and it is invaluable. Tabs and macro keys are a must for me. It makes me regret somewhat working at home on my Mac. Terminal does the job, but I love those macros.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 15:24 |
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:As far as anyone's determined you'll use bash and (tolerate) it. Also it's, you know, Ubuntu. zsh isn't there by default but it looks like pulling it in from apt works. But you could have a windows shortcut to do "bash.exe -c zsh" which will get you close enough. edit: Nevermind, doing "bash.exe -c zsh" launches zsh as your shell without there being a bash process running at all in the subsystem, so there's that. biznatchio fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Apr 7, 2016 |
# ? Apr 7, 2016 16:12 |
|
I reiterate that everyone here who is SSH-ing into a Linux box that has MOSH installed or that they can install MOSH on should use MobaXterm and use MOSH sessions instead of SSH like, you know how if you don't use your terminal window for like ten minutes SSH craps out and you need to start a new session? Or how the same thing happens if you, y'know, momentarily lose WiFi connectivity? MOSH is basically SSH but without that The only time you need to start a new MOSH session is if one or the other of the two computers in question gets rebooted. Otherwise it just sits there in the background waiting for you to use it. It is well-behaved. Like SSH should be. also PuTTY is terrible
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 16:36 |
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Good to know, thanks. Yeah got it a couple of days ago. I'm an Office 365 user, so big improvement for me.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 19:34 |
|
Eletriarnation posted:Windows 10 runs fine on a 12 year old single core and the AMD 7000 series is fully supported. It's careless. Or delusional at best.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 20:51 |
|
Tapedump posted:Please don't post crap like this.. "Fine" is nowhere near an adequate description of Win10's performance on such a proc. Er what? If you were ok with how a program ran on that hardware in Windows 7, you'll be almost always be ok with how it runs on the same hardware in Windows 10.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 21:29 |
|
fishmech posted:Er what? If you were ok with how a program ran on that hardware in Windows 7, you'll be almost always be ok with how it runs on the same hardware in Windows 10. This seems pretty true. It's not like the performance of either is going to be fantastic on old-as-balls hardware. In fact, I'm actually happier with the performance of 10 on my old C2S Acer netbook thingy (though, admittedly that's also probably partly got to do with it being a fresh install vs. one nearly a decade old).
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 21:40 |
|
Tapedump posted:Please don't post crap like this.. "Fine" is nowhere near an adequate description of Win10's performance on such a proc. I installed win 10 on an old Toshiba Portege R200 and it runs great for its age, that has a Pentium M chip, so I guess it depends
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 22:11 |
|
Tapedump posted:Please don't post crap like this.. "Fine" is nowhere near an adequate description of Win10's performance on such a proc. I'm running windows 10 on a bunch of Pentium 4s. They work in general better than an updated Windows 7 install.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 22:14 |
|
I didn't manage to get Win10 working on a P4 machine due to lack of drivers IIRC biznatchio posted:zsh isn't there by default but it looks like pulling it in from apt works. That's cool, thanks for testing this.
|
# ? Apr 7, 2016 22:24 |
|
Tapedump posted:Please don't post crap like this.. "Fine" is nowhere near an adequate description of Win10's performance on such a proc. "Fine" is obviously a pretty subjective term that can be defined in a lot of ways, but I'd love to know what concrete experience you have to claim that it's "delusional." I have a Pentium M 760 running on a 875P desktop board with 4GB of memory and I'm not claiming that it's comparable to anything Core 2 or newer, but it's perfectly functional for browsing websites or for playing games that it would be able to run on older versions of Windows. I even started Skyrim on 720p/low and the opening scene played out without any errors although I wouldn't recommend that anyone actually play it like that. The point is not that a 12 year old system is as good as a new one, but that Windows 10 doesn't raise the bar on system requirements in most ways. I also have an Atom N450 netbook that's even slower and while I can notice the difference, it works too. You might need to wait a bit but it's not broken just because it's not instantaneous. fishmech posted:Er what? If you were ok with how a program ran on that hardware in Windows 7, you'll be almost always be ok with how it runs on the same hardware in Windows 10. This is basically it. Yes, of course it won't run well with new software for which it doesn't meet the requirements. Things haven't gotten any worse though and this is a machine that was quite fast for its day. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Apr 8, 2016 |
# ? Apr 8, 2016 03:14 |
|
On all the Windows 10 builds, I could hit the start button, start typing and poo poo would appear. Now nothing appears with the latest build. Anyone else experience this?
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 03:35 |
|
GreenNight posted:On all the Windows 10 builds, I could hit the start button, start typing and poo poo would appear. Now nothing appears with the latest build. Anyone else experience this? I was having this issue just now as well. Are you by chance running f.lux? uninstalling it seems to have worked for me at least for the last 20 minutes.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 03:36 |
|
Nope, no f.lux here.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 03:38 |
GreenNight posted:On all the Windows 10 builds, I could hit the start button, start typing and poo poo would appear. Now nothing appears with the latest build. Anyone else experience this?
|
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 03:54 |
|
xylo posted:index may be rebuilding. seems to do every update. how long since you upgraded? 2 hours. Good call though, I'll check in the morning.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 04:00 |
|
Orcs and Ostriches posted:I'm running windows 10 on a bunch of Pentium 4s. They work in general better than an updated Windows 7 install.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 04:37 |
|
Windows 10 may not "raise the bar" significantly in terms of requirements, but there are graphics drivers that need a lot of manual loving around to get working that were fine on 7, and Windows 10 does larger updates in one go which can be pretty painful on an HDD. Pretending that all of the new chatty applications and the large updates make no difference to a tired old machine with a HDD is not really accurate.
HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Apr 8, 2016 |
# ? Apr 8, 2016 13:19 |
|
Plus Windows 10 can get stuck on the driver install part (32% main, 6% features and drivers) that cost you hours because you have to hit reset upon which Windows will roll back the changes. And that turns into a cycle until you remove and turn off everything.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 13:57 |
|
HalloKitty posted:Windows 10 may not "raise the bar" significantly in terms of requirements, but there are graphics drivers that need a lot of manual loving around to get working that were fine on 7, and Windows 10 does larger updates in one go which can be pretty painful on an HDD. Pretending that all of the new chatty applications and the large updates make no difference to a tired old machine with a HDD is not really accurate. Yes, these are the two biggest pain points I've had - the machine is still using the same 80GB Seagate 7200.7 it came with, and it has AGP so the newest graphics card I can use is a Radeon 4650 which only has Windows Update driver support. The Windows Update driver is fine except it's stuck on 7% overscan and you have to fix that with a 10 minute registry tweak, but this is a problem for any Radeon from that series or older with HDMI so I've seen it affect newer and much more capable machines too. I blame that one on AMD at least in part. The HDD is notably slower than new ones and of course it doesn't compare to an SSD, but it's in the same category of "this isn't any worse than it was on XP" with the exception of the full-image updates. I've swapped in an SSD just to see and even with SATA 1 it makes a big difference like it would on any other machine. I/O bottlenecking feels like a much bigger deal for perceived quickness than having a second core until you get several applications open. The overall point isn't "this is as good as a new machine" but "this is as good as it was 10 years ago on XP, and at the time I thought it was great". If my 2500K died today I'd be out looking for a replacement and not falling back to my Pentium M, but it's not in the same category as my P3-1000 desktop where I'm going "this can't even install new OSes, it's really useless." Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Apr 8, 2016 |
# ? Apr 8, 2016 15:30 |
|
HalloKitty posted:Windows 10 may not "raise the bar" significantly in terms of requirements The system requirements are the same as Windows 7
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 15:51 |
|
Factor Mystic posted:The system requirements are the same as Windows 7 Almost. If you don't have PAE/NX support you can't install even 32-bit, which was not the case in 7. This is notable because a 7*5 model Pentium M from 2003 won't work but a 7*0 model from 2004 will. I originally had a 735 but had to get the 760 off eBay when I tried to upgrade to 10 and found this out. Also, there are a few obscure things that the motherboard needs to support for 64-bit (that it didn't in 7) and if you're unfortunate enough to have certain particular Intel boards that didn't see BIOS updates after like 2009 then you can't install 64-bit even if you have a Core 2 Quad and 64-bit Ubuntu works just fine. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Apr 8, 2016 |
# ? Apr 8, 2016 15:54 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 04:02 |
|
I feel a little responsible for the current disagreement about system reqs Did my backups and system image last night, so I'll probably upgrade tonight sometime. I double checked my CPU and it's an i5, so I should be good.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2016 20:08 |