0
No.
A simple Linux installation uses way less memory than Vista, and even way less than XP. Even with advanced 3d graphics for the desktop, Linux still uses less memory.
Let's expand on that answer. Memory usage by an operating system is based on many factors, not the least of which is the behavior of the application in question. It is not a fair question to ask whether one system or another will use more memory, when the applications are built in different compilers to start with, and the desktop environments, a major memory user, may be radically different. Both systems will work fine with the same amount of memory. I have no idea why Vista is mentioned, since it's obsolete now, and very few people use it, much less XP. Since XP will run well on systems that most recent Linux distributions will not, I suspect the previous answerer is being a little facetious, or is biased.
Wiki User
∙ 8y ago
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoLinux has various versions. Windows steals linux and add various inefficiency so that people will force to buy new hardware.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Which is more secure Windows or Linux?
Linux is considered to be more secure than Windows.
Why is Linux better than Windows for servers?
Linux is better than Windows for servers because it is more stable and more secure which are two important reasons why it is better for your server and why you can trust it more.
Why does Linux and unix share more commands than windows xp and unix?
Because Linux evolved from UNIX, but Windows evolved from DOS.
In what way is windows better than linux?
It is more user friendly.
Differences of Virtual Memory between Windows and Linux?
Virtual memory may be implemented in different ways in different operating systems, such as Windows and Linux, but the core concept is the same; you are simulating more memory than you have by temporarily putting it on disk. The idea is the same between the two operating systems, and the way of implementing may be very different.From the user's point of view they are the same.
Can installing Linux ruin sectors on your hard drive and prevent future Windows installations?
No. Installing Linux is no more destructive than installing Windows.
Which one is more powerful Windows or Linux hosting?
Both Windows and Linux hosting is powerful. If you use ASP or .NET then you should use Windows hosting platform. If you do not, then you can use the more affordable and more popular Linux hosting platform.
Why is windows more vulnerable than Linux?
It's not really more vulnerable. Windows is more widely used so it has more viruses written for it.
Which is more vulnerable to a hacker attack a windows system or a Linux system?
it depends if firewall setup correctly or not , but in general windows is more vulnerable than Linux
Could Windows have more users than Linux?
That depends on whether you are asking whether more people use Windows or Linux or which system supports more users. The maximum number of users in a modern Linux system is 4,294,967,295. Windows doesn't have any specific limit that has been published, but each account takes up a significant amount of space, limiting the number to well below the limit in Linux. As to how many people use them, more people use Windows on their personal computers than Linux.
Is the Linux OS better than Windows for a home laptop?
How the home laptop is used is the first thing to consider when choosing an operating system. Linux is free and comes with a suite of application software. Microsoft Windows costs are higher, and no application software is bundled with Windows. More games are available for Windows than for Linux.
Why does Windows have better driver support than Linux?
First of all, its debatable whether Windows' driver support is "better." The current Linux kernel supports more devices than any single Windows release. Linux also supports more legacy devices than Windows Vista or Windows 7 and supports numerous architectures not supported at all by Windows. Drivers in Linux are also usually considered to be more stable than the drivers supplied by the manufacturer for Windows. The reason new off-the-shelf devices may work in Windows but not in Linux is the result of a vicious cycle. Basically, some manufacturers are unwilling to expend the resources to develop Linux drivers and/or do not want to provide the documentation to do so, on the grounds that not many people use Linux. In turn, not many people use Linux because some of their devices won't work. Linux developers are more than willing to develop drivers for the device even if the manufacturer does not want to, but if the manufacturer doesn't provide at least some technical data, it is extremely difficult.
