Linux has better hardware support than OS X • Hacker News Board

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#121

Post by vacri » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 12:53 AM UTC

hdra wrote: post #111

DanBC wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux's "basic functionality" used the full resolution of my integrated graphics card to allow me to run my monitor at native resolution. Windows 7's basic functionality didn't let me run my monitor at native resolution, thus I had to put up with blurry fonts until I downloaded the (huge!) new driver. At the moment there's lots of anecdote - "This worked under one OS, but not the other" - but a comprehensive review o…

Not sure what kind of hardware you have, but the last time I experienced something like that was in XP.

A friend of mine got tired of never having network drivers out-of-the-box in XP, so he made a slipstream install image that was vanilla XP SP2... plus 676 network card drivers.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#122

Post by vacri » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 12:57 AM UTC

shalmanese wrote: post #79

Linux doesn't "just work" on Thinkpads either. Here's a list of all the known linux incompatibilities with Thinkpads: http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Known_Problems

'Dead pixels' is a linux incompatibility? Large harddrives not being seen by the BIOS of a very old model? How is that linux's fault if the machine can't even start to read the drive?

That's a list of Thinkpad issues, they're not all linux-on-thinkpad issues. You could make one for every brand - Macbook pros would have "sometimes catch fire", from a story in this thread.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#123

Post by namuol » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 12:58 AM UTC

Um, obviously Linux has "better" hardware support since OS X wasn't meant to run on more than a few different machines.

This isn't a design flaw so much as a circumstantial necessity. I agree with the article's point, but is this really a common refrain?

As an interesting aside, I wrote this comment from Ubuntu running on a ThinkPad. Touche.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#124

Post by mikegioia » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 1:00 AM UTC

kryten wrote: post #36

driverdan wrote: post #21

Valid points but the author highlights one of the original reasons I switched from a ThinkPad running Linux to a MacBook. All high end Linux laptops have driver issues, including ThinkPads. Last thing I knew you still couldn't switch between discreet NVIDIA graphics and the Intel 4000 without a reboot. I've been told some laptops still have issues with sleep / hibernation. Maybe the Dell XPS 13 highlighted in the art…

I use Windows 7 on a 7 year old ThinkPad with Linux inside a VirtualBox VM. Works better and consumes less power and therefore has longer battery life than Linux on bare metal. My 2010 MacBook Pro caught fire, so I can't vouch for Apple's reliability.

I really find it hard to believe that Win7 on 7 year old hardware with Linux in a VM works better than just Linux on the same hardware. What on earth are you measuring this on?

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#125

Post by lanna » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 1:14 AM UTC

Linux doesn't have better hardware support than OS X. Linux may support more pieces of hardware than OS X, but whatever OS X supports is better supported.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#126

Post by krakensden » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 1:16 AM UTC

rodgerd wrote: post #54

loser777 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, this is increasingly the case. Kernels 3.9.x still have power consumption issues when using suspend/resume on Tx2x (Sandy Bridge) machines. If you managed to buy a ThinkPad from that generation with "Thinkpad Wireless," good luck getting reliable wireless connectivity, as the binary blob 8188CE drivers are worse than garbage. As much as people talk about how AMAZING hardware support on linux is, if you want a "j…

Unfortunately Ingo has pretty much shitcanned any efforts to progress power saving support for the forseeable future, so don't expect things to improve.

My impression was that problems with power management on laptops wasn't really about scheduling, more about supporting the billion permutations of OEM firmware and hardware.

Yes, it would be nice to have slicker support for things like big.little, but... it doesn't really address the current problems with laptop support.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#127

Post by songco » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 1:20 AM UTC

Except video card..

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#128

Post by jgh » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 1:56 AM UTC

You know, for all the arguments about why to use OSX over Linux I'd never think that hardware support would be one of them, considering OSX is designed to run on Macs with a pretty limited scope of hardware.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#129

Post by Sealy » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 2:12 AM UTC

city41 wrote: post #4

That's not a double standard at all . OSX having superior hardware support because it runs in a walled garden on hand picked hardware from Apple themselves is entirely by design and something Apple put a lot of energy, money and dedication into. OSX absolutely should benefit from this over other OSes, as it did not come for free.

I'm willing to pay the premium and always do (willingly), every time I make that upgrade decision.

Re: Linux has better hardware support than OS X

#130

Post by taeric » Mon, Jun 17, 2013, 2:36 AM UTC

kryten wrote: post #35

taeric wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know my wife wanted a windows computer specifically for Excel. She did not realize it costs a good deal extra, so was delighted when I installed LibreOffice. (Other computing devices are kindles. Had a chromebook for a time.) So, there is still some desire for the basic programs. I agree that LibreOffice is more than good enough for the task, though. I don't think I could handle Explorer to support my workflow for…

I used hibernate regularly until I got an SSD, mainly for convenience. I boot in a few seconds now so it's a non issue.

I guess my question is what makes hibernate better than sleep? I mean, I realize for extended periods it makes sense, but I have not had a time when I would have needed the extra time a full hibernate would have afforded me.

Now, I have realized massive increases in battery life by choosing to not live life at full brightness. I have to confess I felt silly the first time I finally lowered the brightness and saw how much of a difference that made on battery life.