Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
dont be mean to me
May 2, 2007

I'm interplanetary, bitch
Let's go to Mars




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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Cryolite
Oct 2, 2006
sodium aluminum fluoride

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?

nielsm
Jun 1, 2009




Fallen Rib

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.

loquacius
Oct 21, 2008

IT'S INCISIVE COMMENTARY!



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.

Mecca-Benghazi
Mar 31, 2012



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.

Gabriel S.
May 20, 2006
EVERY MORNING I WAKE UP AND OPEN PALM SLAM TURDS INTO MY MOUTH


Does this effectively eliminate the need for putty?

Also, anyone try the new Dark Theme?

syntaxfunction
Oct 27, 2010


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!

a mysterious cloak
Apr 5, 2003

Leave me alone, dad, I'm with my friends!



Alright, I might dive in and get win 10 this weekend. Thanks!

Double Punctuation
Dec 30, 2009

Ships were made for sinking;
Whiskey made for drinking;
If we were made of cellophane
We'd all get stinking drunk much faster!


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.

loquacius
Oct 21, 2008

IT'S INCISIVE COMMENTARY!


I maintain that MobaXTerm is the best Windows SSH client, mostly because it supports tabbed sessions and MOSH, both of which are basically essential

beuges
Jul 4, 2005
fluffy bunny butterfly broomstick

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.

Combat Pretzel
Jun 23, 2004

No, seriously... what kurds?!

Tab8715 posted:

Does this effectively eliminate the need for putty?
Installing the whole Ubuntu subsystem vs. Putty? Former is kind of heavy-handed, no?

Gabriel S.
May 20, 2006
EVERY MORNING I WAKE UP AND OPEN PALM SLAM TURDS INTO MY MOUTH


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?

Double Punctuation
Dec 30, 2009

Ships were made for sinking;
Whiskey made for drinking;
If we were made of cellophane
We'd all get stinking drunk much faster!


beuges posted:

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.

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?

beuges
Jul 4, 2005
fluffy bunny butterfly broomstick

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.

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?

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.

mobby_6kl
Aug 9, 2009

"You are the best poster... do not let anyone say otherwise."


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?
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.

Also is it just bash now or is it possible to use something good like zsh instead?

dont be mean to me
May 2, 2007

I'm interplanetary, bitch
Let's go to Mars




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.

Also is it just bash now or is it possible to use something good like zsh instead?

As far as anyone's determined you'll use bash and (tolerate) it. Also it's, you know, Ubuntu.

IUG
Jul 14, 2007

Without me, there is no mission.
I am the mission!


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.

biznatchio
Mar 31, 2001



Buglord

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.



The only entrypoint into the Linux subsystem is bash.exe though, which is a tiny executable that looks like it basically just spins up a bash process in the subsystem and redirects its IO to the console window, so you can't enter directly into a zsh session.

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 15:19 on Apr 7, 2016

loquacius
Oct 21, 2008

IT'S INCISIVE COMMENTARY!


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

Rusty!
Aug 25, 2005

Play Up Pompey
Pompey Play Up


WattsvilleBlues posted:

Good to know, thanks.

Has anyone got the updated Outlook.com/Hotmail web interface yet? I'm still looking at the 2012 version.

Yeah got it a couple of days ago. I'm an Office 365 user, so big improvement for me.

Tapedump
Aug 31, 2007


College Slice

Eletriarnation posted:

Windows 10 runs fine on a 12 year old single core and the AMD 7000 series is fully supported.
Please don't post crap like this.. "Fine" is nowhere near an adequate description of Win10's performance on such a proc.

It's careless. Or delusional at best.

fishmech
Jul 16, 2006

by VideoGames


Salad Prong

Tapedump posted:

Please don't post crap like this.. "Fine" is nowhere near an adequate description of Win10's performance on such a proc.

It's careless. Or delusional at best.

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.

Magnus Praeda
Jul 18, 2003
The largess in the land.

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).

djssniper
Jan 10, 2003




Tapedump posted:

Please don't post crap like this.. "Fine" is nowhere near an adequate description of Win10's performance on such a proc.

It's careless. Or delusional at best.

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

Orcs and Ostriches
Aug 26, 2010




The Great Twist

Tapedump posted:

Please don't post crap like this.. "Fine" is nowhere near an adequate description of Win10's performance on such a proc.

It's careless. Or delusional at best.

I'm running windows 10 on a bunch of Pentium 4s. They work in general better than an updated Windows 7 install.

mobby_6kl
Aug 9, 2009

"You are the best poster... do not let anyone say otherwise."


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.



The only entrypoint into the Linux subsystem is bash.exe though, which is a tiny executable that looks like it basically just spins up a bash process in the subsystem and redirects its IO to the console window, so you can't enter directly into a zsh session.

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.



That's cool, thanks for testing this.

Eletriarnation
Apr 6, 2005

People don't appreciate the substance of things...
objects in space.



Oven Wrangler

Tapedump posted:

Please don't post crap like this.. "Fine" is nowhere near an adequate description of Win10's performance on such a proc.

It's careless. Or delusional at best.

"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 03:30 on Apr 8, 2016

GreenNight
Feb 19, 2006
Turning the light on the darkest places, you and I know we got to face this now. We got to face this now.

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?

CalvinandHobbes
Aug 4, 2004



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.

GreenNight
Feb 19, 2006
Turning the light on the darkest places, you and I know we got to face this now. We got to face this now.

Nope, no f.lux here.

xylo
Feb 21, 2007


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?
index may be rebuilding. seems to do every update. how long since you upgraded?

GreenNight
Feb 19, 2006
Turning the light on the darkest places, you and I know we got to face this now. We got to face this now.

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.

Col.Kiwi
Dec 28, 2004
And the grave digger puts on the forceps...

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.
I have also anecdotally seen several computers with 10-12 year old processors run the same or a little better with win10 than they did with win7 and/or vista. So, still slow. But running 10 the same or faster compared to an older OS.

HalloKitty
Sep 30, 2005

Adjust the bass and let the Alpine blast


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 12:59 on Apr 8, 2016

Riso
Oct 11, 2008

by merry exmarx


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.

Eletriarnation
Apr 6, 2005

People don't appreciate the substance of things...
objects in space.



Oven Wrangler

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 14:32 on Apr 8, 2016

Factor Mystic
Mar 19, 2006

Baby's First Post-Apocalyptic Fiction

HalloKitty posted:

Windows 10 may not "raise the bar" significantly in terms of requirements

The system requirements are the same as Windows 7

Eletriarnation
Apr 6, 2005

People don't appreciate the substance of things...
objects in space.



Oven Wrangler

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 15:04 on Apr 8, 2016

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

a mysterious cloak
Apr 5, 2003

Leave me alone, dad, I'm with my friends!



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.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply