RejZoRThen again they aren't as crap as Linux either, so cost kinda explains itself why... I mean, lets be real, I'm not your casual user and I can't stand the monumental clumsiness of Linux. Yeah, it's great tool for live boot tools, but for OS that you expect something more from than just basic out of the box experience, it always drove me absolutely insane. Even something as simple as installing a graphic driver means you'll spend typing freaking long noodles of commands into the damn terminal. Or make 2 clicks in Windows and be done with it.

So, yeah, Windows costs money. But for a reason.

Sorry, but you are obviously doing it wrong. Use the provided package manager and get rid of that Windows "open browser > find reliable site > download program > next > next > next" mentality.

RejZoRThen again they aren't as crap as Linux either, so cost kinda explains itself why... I mean, lets be real, I'm not your casual user and I can't stand the monumental clumsiness of Linux. Yeah, it's great tool for live boot tools, but for OS that you expect something more from than just basic out of the box experience, it always drove me absolutely insane. Even something as simple as installing a graphic driver means you'll spend typing freaking long noodles of commands into the damn terminal. Or make 2 clicks in Windows and be done with it.

So, yeah, Windows costs money. But for a reason.

@RejZoR , that's only valid for sandbox-distros or some server OSes. Most modern distributions have a much easier way of installing drivers.
For example, Ubuntu and many Debian-based distros will show a popup icon, saying that you have a proprietary/alternative driver available for one of your devices (or you can manually check with a built-in manager).
You simply click "install" and forget that it ever happened. Binary downloads of AMD and NVidia drivers also work fine, though they were not always as pretty as windows installers.
Same goes for software - either use a GUI for package manager (akin to Control Panel > Programs and Features), a built-in "App store" (Windows store), binary package (downloadable installer), or command line package manager (there is similar functionality in windows) - it all works.

BTW, starting from Windows Vista, lots of features and improvements were inspired by/copied from Linux, OSX and BSD. Both in terms of GUI, software, security, and "what's hidden under the hood".

I didn't get any popup, the driver I tried installing through the repository was bitching about some error constantly and the one from AMD page wouldn't even work. I was using Ubuntu. On several occasions until I totally and entirely gave up. That device is now running Windows 10. It's not perfect because it's old and slow, but at least it works.

Thank you @R-T-B I knew there had to be an updated kernel for the distro. For those who do follow along, all you have to do is download and compile the 4.9.X/4.10.X source from www.kernel.org/ and install it on any applicable distro.

If I update I will need to do the same until updated distro's are available. I am an android dev.

RejZoRI didn't get any popup, the driver I tried installing through the repository was bitching about some error constantly and the one from AMD page wouldn't even work. I was using Ubuntu. On several occasions until I totally and entirely gave up. That device is now running Windows 10. It's not perfect because it's old and slow, but at least it works.

I think modern Linux distros have a lot better functionality than windows in that matter. The package managers can automatically update every single application and their dependencies. I think it's way faster and smarter. Yeah, sometimes hiccups may occur. But that's why it's even better, because it makes the users (well,the majority, I believe) to dig deep and learn more about the shit. It's not yet a "gaming platform", but it's getting there. Even windows isn't complete in that sense - compared to consoles. But IMHO, Linux to windows is what windows is to - say - xbox or ps. Some can be happy with a PS4. Some like more.

krukYou don't have to use a rolling distro to have the latest kernel. You can use backports/PPAs/updates or whatever for your stable distribution and update only specific packages. This way you can have latest kernel on a stable system.

As an old Linux user I know this very well. I've even done it a few times. Heck, you can even compile it from source if you have too much free time. But my point is the simple fact that most Linux users don't upgrade their kernels unless they have good reason to. I think you'll understand this if you want to.

Thing is Linux don't cost the typical $130 a time to upgrade, anyways good to hear they are getting it updated.

AsRockThing is Linux don't cost the typical $130 a time to upgrade, anyways good to hear they are getting it updated.

And people upgrade Windows how often? Twice a decade? It this really such a huge cost compared to the rest of PC?
[BTW: Nowadays most people buy factory-built PCs - usually laptops - so usually the latest OS is bundled.]

Think about what you get in return - it's not only a more mature interface and easier setup. How high do you value peace of mind?
Buying a piece of hardware for Windows (or OSX for that matter) is easy - usually the box says which drivers are available and you're good to go.
Buying a piece of hardware for Linux (especially something less mainstream - like a TV tuner or a feature-rich keyboard) equals to a weekend lost on the Internet looking for help.

Living with Linux gives you the smidge of excitement that something will suddenly stop working and you'll have a reason to tinker and meet new friends on a forum.
And it can be a lot of fun if it's Friday evening, the weather is awful and you have no plans for the weekend.
It's not that much fun, if tomorrow is a deadline for your semester project or personal tax assessment. :)

TheinsanegamerNNew linux kernel needed to use new hardware. News at 11.

A cpu is a more interesting one to report on, because they often do not require drivers to "just work," even if unofficially. Not the case here.

@R-T-B Hey speaking of updated drivers/kernel, what's your thoughts of the leaked benches? Think they were fudged a bit and could only hold a small candle, just due to being pre-update?

RejZoREven something as simple as installing a graphic driver means you'll spend typing freaking long noodles of commands into the damn terminal. Or make 2 clicks in Windows and be done with it.

So, yeah, Windows costs money. But for a reason.

If you're talking about proprietary drivers, it's not Linux's fault that they're basically the Windows drivers inside a wrapper. When running Linux, you're supposed to use open source drivers whenever possible, because they integrate properly into the OS.

Anyway, if you really want an easy way to install proprietary drivers, you should give Manjaro a spin. They created a tool called mhwd — that can be used via both CLI and GUI — that lets you switch between available GPU drivers. There's even mhwd-kernel that lets you install a wide variety of kernels! :)

notbLiving with Linux gives you the smidge of excitement that something will suddenly stop working and you'll have a reason to tinker and meet new friends on a forum.
And it can be a lot of fun if it's Friday evening, the weather is awful and you have no plans for the weekend.
It's not that much fun, if tomorrow is a deadline for your semester project or personal tax assessment. :)

That's why you do your research in advance. There's nothing stopping manufacturers from making a Linux driver for their hardware. Hell, sometimes, just giving proper documentation is enough — the community will do the rest. But yeah, if a piece of hardware requires reverse-engineering and more generally speaking, fumbling in the dark, all with zero documentation, don't be astonished that making it work requires so much effort.

R-T-BA cpu is a more interesting one to report on, because they often do not require drivers to "just work," even if unofficially. Not the case here.

Well, haven't CPUs gotten complex? I guess not everything will work, like power saving features or performance wise, but I'd bet Ryzen still works (as in, it won't give you a kernel panic) with a slightly older kernel.

WaroDaBeastThat's why you do your research in advance.

Exactly - you HAVE to do a research. Windows is so much easier to live with.

Moreover, it's not always about buying and having time for research.
E.g. I've surrendered using Linux on my notebook, because it was simply killing the whole idea of a mobile computer.
It made huge problems with many projectors I've come accross, with connecting phones.
There was simply no way to connect via a 3G modem I got from my employer (and a following research confirmed it wasn't compatible...)

But the biggest problem was the battery life.
Despite spending days on optimizing everything I could, I got only slightly above 3h of battery life (from both Debian+Xfce and Arch+Openbox).
That notebook came with a Windows XP and 4.5h battery life. Imagine the shock when - after upgrading to W10 - I once again had over 4h of battery life.
How can Linux have such an appalling power management? :/

WaroDaBeastThere's nothing stopping manufacturers from making a Linux driver for their hardware.

Of course there is - it costs money. :)

eidairaman1They just don't want to spend time back coding it for older Kernels

of all the useless comments... because your old linux OS gets new kernels, unlike windows! the entire architecture & design of the two kernels is very different, graphics features alone are overly tied to the entire windows kernel or OS base, the way they should not be

notbExactly - you HAVE to do a research. Windows is so much easier to live with.

Moreover, it's not always about buying and having time for research.
E.g. I've surrendered using Linux on my notebook, because it was simply killing the whole idea of a mobile computer.
It made huge problems with many projectors I've come accross, with connecting phones.
There was simply no way to connect via a 3G modem I got from my employer (and a following research confirmed it wasn't compatible...)

But the biggest problem was the battery life.
Despite spending days on optimizing everything I could, I got only slightly above 3h of battery life (from both Debian+Xfce and Arch+Openbox).
That notebook came with a Windows XP and 4.5h battery life. Imagine the shock when - after upgrading to W10 - I once again had over 4h of battery life.
How can Linux have such an appalling power management? :/

this is the second thread i've seen recently with old hardware running win10, i thought some drivers dont exist, such as for entire generations of gpus (therefore, when you cant use windows on old hardware, you better switch to linux/bsd/etc to get actual security & feature updates)

i never liked the battery life measurement, it's not what should be measured, which is power usage, clockspeeds, etc

i ran into a topic about tuning for battery recently www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/5pueys/how_to_save_power_with_your_laptop_running_fedora/

speaking of which, if you're nvidia, modern nv gpus boot at 2d clockspeeds, the open source driver is reverse engineered since nv doesnt help with that, the end result is funny.. you would have better battery life (lower power usage) in linux due to the fact that windows will be clocking the gpu higher when watching videos or running light games or webgl stuff like google maps (let's assume 60fps performance target for both, not 10fps linux game 90fps windows game)

anyway, hard to say what is causing your old laptop to use more power, it doesnt have to be kernel or OS related, simply the manufacturer of one of the devices writing (or not writing) the driver, it's not like microsoft is the one writing drivers for hardware

kn00tcnof all the useless comments... because your old linux OS gets new kernels, unlike windows! the entire architecture & design of the two kernels is very different, graphics features alone are overly tied to the entire windows kernel or OS base, the way they should not be


this is the second thread i've seen recently with old hardware running win10, i thought some drivers dont exist, such as for entire generations of gpus (therefore, when you cant use windows on old hardware, you better switch to linux/bsd/etc to get actual security & feature updates)

i never liked the battery life measurement, it's not what should be measured, which is power usage, clockspeeds, etc

i ran into a topic about tuning for battery recently www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/5pueys/how_to_save_power_with_your_laptop_running_fedora/

speaking of which, if you're nvidia, modern nv gpus boot at 2d clockspeeds, the open source driver is reverse engineered since nv doesnt help with that, the end result is funny.. you would have better battery life (lower power usage) in linux due to the fact that windows will be clocking the gpu higher when watching videos or running light games or webgl stuff like google maps (let's assume 60fps performance target for both, not 10fps linux game 90fps windows game)

anyway, hard to say what is causing your old laptop to use more power, it doesnt have to be kernel or OS related, simply the manufacturer of one of the devices writing (or not writing) the driver, it's not like microsoft is the one writing drivers for hardware

I use Windows myself on PC, Android on a S5, I was putting custom roms on this phone want to learn about deving my own on it though.

kn00tcnof all the useless comments... because your old linux OS gets new kernels, unlike windows! the entire architecture & design of the two kernels is very different, graphics features alone are overly tied to the entire windows kernel or OS base, the way they should not be

I've already written about this in the thread. Yes, Windows is more GUI-dependent, but the whole package works better than X Window, so who am I to criticize? :)

kn00tcnthis is the second thread i've seen recently with old hardware running win10, i thought some drivers dont exist, such as for entire generations of gpus (therefore, when you cant use windows on old hardware, you better switch to linux/bsd/etc to get actual security & feature updates)

While I'm not sure about dGPUs, Windows 10 is backward-compatible with many (quite possibly: all) Intel IGP since Extreme Graphics (2001). I don't know if it'll manage the 1st gen GPUs (Intel740 from 1998). This is even more impressive when you consider that earlier IGP were in the chipset (not CPU), so it was a totally different approach. Intel and MS cooperate beautifully.

kn00tcnanyway, hard to say what is causing your old laptop to use more power, it doesnt have to be kernel or OS related, simply the manufacturer of one of the devices writing (or not writing) the driver, it's not like microsoft is the one writing drivers for hardware

Whether or not this is the case here, we know that newer Linux kernels increase PC power consumption - even though there is really no reason for that to happen. End of story.

I agree on the driver availability and of course this is one of the main advantages of Windows: hardware manufacturers care about these customers. Linux users are left alone (IMO partly for a reason).

Generally, FOSS apps are often very demanding from hardware (as in: poorly optimized) which doesn't help energy efficiency. Even something as fundamental as LibreOffice is much slower than MS Office on the same hardware. :/

RejZoRThen again they aren't as crap as Linux either, so cost kinda explains itself why... I mean, lets be real, I'm not your casual user and I can't stand the monumental clumsiness of Linux. Yeah, it's great tool for live boot tools, but for OS that you expect something more from than just basic out of the box experience, it always drove me absolutely insane.

Well, my 78 year old grandmother runs linux. Some distros provide a WAY better experience than any version of Windows I've ever used. You have everything you need right out of the box and she can never do anything wrong because of the amazing crew of package maintainers that automatically ships every security update for her without her even knowing. She can't accidentally install any kind of malware and her Antivirus-software isn't constantly pestering her about her subscription running out. And she isn't getting full-screen pop-ups about having to upgrade to Windows 10.

For people who AREN'T computer-savvy Linux is such a life-saver. And when you are scared of inputting a few shell-commands... Maybe research what they do and learn a little... Making a sweeping statement about something being 'crap' really only shows me the unwillingness to see something from multiple viewpoints.

notbAnd people upgrade Windows how often? Twice a decade? It this really such a huge cost compared to the rest of PC?
[BTW: Nowadays most people buy factory-built PCs - usually laptops - so usually the latest OS is bundled.]

You're completely right, there isn't really a big cost-saving and people shouldn't run Linux because it is free as in beer. But because it is free as in speech. :) And this is actually my biggest gripe about buying factory-built PC's I'd love to have the option of not having Windows bundled, because it should be my choice what software I want running on my computer. So whenever I can I steer clear of windows-bundling.

Don't get me wrong. I run Windows every day and it definitely has its uses. I just prefer it in a virtualized environment and selectively running the version that fits my needs.

notbThink about what you get in return - it's not only a more mature interface and easier setup. How high do you value peace of mind?

I value peace of mind very much. That is exactly why I run Linux. I don't have a corporation that changes the OS without me knowing what the changes are. It is also why my grandmother has Linux installed on her computer, so that I don't have to worry about any sudden changes, that comes down through Microsoft's update channel, that are forced onto my system.

notbLiving with Linux gives you the smidge of excitement that something will suddenly stop working and you'll have a reason to tinker and meet new friends on a forum.
And it can be a lot of fun if it's Friday evening, the weather is awful and you have no plans for the weekend.
It's not that much fun, if tomorrow is a deadline for your semester project or personal tax assessment. :)

I can't deny that I do like a smidge of excitement :-D I have however never experienced anything not working all of a sudden. There is always a reason why something isn't working, be it Windows, Linux or OSX. That is my personal experience at least. Sometimes it does feel like it, but computers never do anything but what they are programmed to do ;-)

notbI've already written about this in the thread. Yes, Windows is more GUI-dependent, but the whole package works better than X Window, so who am I to criticize? :)

You should definitely criticize X.Org It is the only way Linux can move forward. :-D

notbWhile I'm not sure about dGPUs, Windows 10 is backward-compatible with many (quite possibly: all) Intel IGP since Extreme Graphics (2001). I don't know if it'll manage the 1st gen GPUs (Intel740 from 1998). This is even more impressive when you consider that earlier IGP were in the chipset (not CPU), so it was a totally different approach. Intel and MS cooperate beautifully.

Whether or not this is the case here, we know that newer Linux kernels increase PC power consumption - even though there is really no reason for that to happen. End of story.

I agree on the driver availability and of course this is one of the main advantages of Windows: hardware manufacturers care about these customers. Linux users are left alone (IMO partly for a reason).

Intel also has several people employed to support the Linux-kernel. There really isn't any noticeable difference between Intel hardware running on Linux or Windows. And they support the same iGPU's. Many corporations care deeply about Linux, you have to look beyond the desktop-computer. And yes, power-consumption IS an issue. It's something that would be awesome if more clever people worked on, maybe if more people were vocal about the issue?

Personally, as a Linux user, I don't feel left alone. AMD, Intel and Valve are contributing a huge effort to areas like Vulkan and OpenGL on mesa. Red Hat and Ubuntu does great work on virtualization and filesystems. The amount of games available has sky-rocketed in the last couple of years. If I have something I can't solve myself there is always a score of nice people who wants to help over the internets :D

It's 2017, I don't have time or nerves to input noodles of commands that could be a matter of few simple clicks. I've had enough of that crap with BASIC and MS-DOS...

Let's make a few points clear.

Everybody seems to understand this already, however little known its major implications can be:

Linux in itself is a kernel, not an OS. Its main project is centralized but, as mentioned, not an OS, which's maintained otherwise.

From a kernel standpoint, 4.10 or higher may be necessary for the full-blown ryzen experience... Given that the Linux project developers have really settled for not backporting it - truly doubt it from history though. It's just too early to say anything definite about the kernel alone.

Now let's head to the often missed consequences of the whole thing (open source Linux kernel != OS).

You don't likely run a standalone kernel (or an OS built from scratch for that matter), you most probably run a heavily maintained OS.

Distribution developers modify Linux kernels as they see fit, especially when it comes to adding hardware support.

Major if not all Linux distributions (OS's) feature custom kernels underneath. Type uname -a on a terminal emulator and see for yourself, or compile a vanilla Linux kernel downloaded from kernel.org and check its hash against your average distro kernel's.

When you install proprietary video drivers from some Ubuntu GUI, you inject the kernel with it. When you're installing a distro featuring preloaded proprietary drivers options, the same applies. It doesn't come packaged with vanilla Linux.

That's why that quirky broadcom wifi will work out of the box on Ubuntu but not on Debian (not that it can't be easily fixed by loading some firmware from official repositories).

Kernel.org LTS kernel != Ubuntu LTS kernel, for instance.

A distro as mainstream as Ubuntu will definitely backport ryzen support for all of its LTS versions (that haven't gone EOL obviously).

Same goes for Debian Stable... And I shouldn't even mention Arch (including the stable branch) as it's rolling, meaning the whole system is regularly upgraded, user land software AND kernel, so there's no "brand new" Arch, you just keep it up-to-date.

yesyesloudLet's make a few points clear.

Everybody seems to understand this already, however little known its major implications can be:

Linux in itself is a kernel, not an OS. Its main project is centralized but, as mentioned, not an OS, which's maintained otherwise.

Thanks for the reminder! Too many people don't know or care about that detail.

RejZoRIt's 2017, I don't have time or nerves to input noodles of commands that could be a matter of few simple clicks. I've had enough of that crap with BASIC and MS-DOS...

If you think Linux is about using the terminal all the time, then you're wrong. You can do things via the terminal, but you certainly don't have to. Where I live high schoolers get a laptop with Ubuntu on it, and only those who want to use the terminal. Most forget it's even there, since they never touch it.

notbExactly - you HAVE to do a research. Windows is so much easier to live with.

I always look up anything I buy in advance, as I don't like unnecessary trips back to the store. So, to me, checking whether or not a computer works well under Linux is just one item out of my list. Not saying my method is the best or anything here, just explaining that I'll do research at any rate.

But anyway, you must've not paid attention while reading my previous comment. I said that hardware that does not come with documentation is going to have poor support.

Imagine a famous writer who decides to write their book in Uzbek only: is it our job to learn that language, or is it up to the writer (or editor, or whomever's in charge) to release an English translation? I think the answer is quite obvious.

Now, let's go back to computers: you can't demand that open source devs systematically make drivers (from scratch, no less) during their own free time. You like Windows better and you got your own reasons. That's totally fine. What's not fine though, is going around blaming the Linux kernel for the manufacturer's own shortcomings. They're the ones who need to make a Linux driver.

notbMoreover, it's not always about buying and having time for research.
E.g. I've surrendered using Linux on my notebook, because it was simply killing the whole idea of a mobile computer.
It made huge problems with many projectors I've come accross, with connecting phones.
There was simply no way to connect via a 3G modem I got from my employer (and a following research confirmed it wasn't compatible...)

But the biggest problem was the battery life.
Despite spending days on optimizing everything I could, I got only slightly above 3h of battery life (from both Debian+Xfce and Arch+Openbox).
That notebook came with a Windows XP and 4.5h battery life. Imagine the shock when - after upgrading to W10 - I once again had over 4h of battery life.
How can Linux have such an appalling power management? :/

Perhaps your laptop has a crappy BIOS/UEFI? I have a Dell E6420 running Manjaro, and battery life is great, the WWAN card works perfectly (I picked the plasma edition) and I've always been able to make it work with projectors at work. I could say the same about a Toshiba C50D (I can't be bothered to dig it to get the full model name) and an Asus A6Vc, minus the WWAN as those two last laptops don't have a WWAN slot. I could use my phone's tethering function just fine though. :)

I could also say that the Asus didn't have drivers for certain components under Windows 7, and, weirdly enough, going back to Win XP for testing, I found out that a couple just wouldn't work with either the drivers from the Asus website or third party websites (I did try... Hell, I even resorted to looking up drivers on softpedia). Still, no dice.

Lastly, I could also list all the laptops that have got good battery life at school, which would be over a dozen models (probably more in reality, as the project itself started in 2010 and I didn't work there back then).

I can't stress it enough: some manufacturers make crappy BIOSes and UEFIs (or anything other non standard piece of software, really) and we, the end users, have to suffer because of it.

Every time I had a problem (which was often), people started with "And then you open terminal and..." NO!

RejZoREvery time I had a problem (which was often), people started with "And then you open terminal and..." NO!

Hahaha! That's because it's often more direct to copy-paste stuff into the terminal rather than downloading an app that does the same thing.

Hope you've recovered from the trauma since. ;)

I wonder which operating system is hairier problem-wise, lemme fetch some massive statistics off the top of my head. Even after balancing proportions, hm...

OK, forget it, don't wanna bother the lazy ;)


On the other hand, I've read something about Linux being less power efficient, that's utter bull, just load proprietary video drivers and the major power hog (if any really) is gone. Do people prefer using generic video drivers on windows?

Also... Laptop-mode-tools anyone? Just one of the ways Linux can get really power efficient. My laptop HDD once died and for the very first time I got in touch with Linux, running a live distro from a "classy" usb flash drive. My laptop power lasted 1 hour more with laptop-mode-tools enabled, at the very least. Doing the same tasks (surfing the web, coding, editing text) I used to perform on Windows. And that is an AMD PC.

Seriously, any distro featuring LXDE, XFCE or even Unit will drain your battery considerably slower than Windows 7/8.x/10.

My wife runs Manjaro on her old core 2 duo laptop with a nearly dead battery, yet it surprisingly works for more than half an hour unplugged, whereas Windows dies almost immediately upon a cold boot, even if I override all critical power actions with no action using 3rd party software.

Battery challenge for Windows fanboys: let youtube play HD videos on Windows until the PC powers off/hibernates/whatever. Then do it on Lubuntu, Manjaro or Ubuntu with laptop-mode-tools (and proprietary video drivers). Let us know the results.

yesyesloudAlso... Laptop-mode-tools anyone? Just one of the ways Linux can get really power efficient. My laptop HDD once died and for the very first time I got in touch with Linux, running a live distro from a "classy" usb flash drive. My laptop power lasted 1 hour more with laptop-mode-tools enabled, at the very least. Doing the same tasks (surfing the web, coding, editing text) I used to perform on Windows. And that is an AMD PC.

Laptop-mode-tools was among things that got me over 3h of battery life. Without them it drained twice as fast.
I don't know the current situation, but late kernel 2.6 (so in this decade!!!) didn't even have CPU frequency scaling tuned on by default.
You had to teach the PC, that its CPU can run something below max. Happily, that was simple: just open the terminal...

I remember setting up Arch Linux on my laptop for the first time. It took me a whole weekend (around 20h) to reach a state at which taking the laptop out seemed reasonable.
Sure, there are more user-friendly distros - I was prepared for the extra work, but I wasn't prepared for the amount of it. I mean: just how basic a "basic Linux" can be and how unwilling it would be to cooperate with my PC.
It was meant to be an adventure that would teach me a lot about Linux. And it was, but together with the OS-knowledge came a very strong impression that I don't want to do that again. Ever.
[I had prepared a "wrong hole" analogy here, but as some people could be underage, I decided to present it only to my girlfriend. You'll find out yourself one day.]

Honestly, should a feature not be included in the "basic Linux" just because it's not essential (as in: only 99% of people use it), when making it work takes these 99% of people around an hour (if they're pretty tech-savvy and lucky)?

And it's all great with doing researches: checking manuals and asking on forums.... if you have access to Internet. But if you don't? At that point I only had 1 PC at home (and didn't have a smartphone). I remember going to my neighbours and printing some pages with instructions how to setup WiFi. And then I used a text-web-browser, to setup X...
Seriously, connecting to a WiFi network is not rocket science and not something that only 1 in 1000 Linux users need. It should be among priorities, but even on very popular distros (like Debian) it's not as polished and stable as on Windows. Why?!

yesyesloudSeriously, any distro featuring LXDE, XFCE or even Unit will drain your battery considerably slower than Windows 7/8.x/10.

No, it won't. You clearly haven't checked this. Windows turns out to be better in general: partly because it is designed with laptops in mind (so this is prioritized from the start) and partly because the drivers are possibly much better. I think we all agree: hardware manufacturers actually care about Windows/OSX users, while it's a mixed bag with Linux.

It seems that the availability and quality of Linux drivers is often a result of having a Linux geek among employees who, at some point, we'll say that "hey, we don't support Linux!" and the management (after saying "so what?") will let him write a driver after hours.

notbIt seems that the availability and quality of Linux drivers is often a result of having a Linux geek among employees who, at some point, we'll say that "hey, we don't support Linux!" and the management (after saying "so what?") will let him write a driver after hours.

I've seen it range from "Let's support Linux" (AMD, for instance) to "Hey guys, I found a firmware along with basic documentation on some random Romanian FTP," from someone not even part of the company. YMMV

notbLaptop-mode-tools was among things that got me over 3h of battery life. Without them it drained twice as fast.
I don't know the current situation, but late kernel 2.6 (so in this decade!!!) didn't even have CPU frequency scaling tuned on by default.
You had to teach the PC, that its CPU can run something below max. Happily, that was simple: just open the terminal...

I remember setting up Arch Linux on my laptop for the first time. It took me a whole weekend (around 20h) to reach a state at which taking the laptop out seemed reasonable.
Sure, there are more user-friendly distros - I was prepared for the extra work, but I wasn't prepared for the amount of it. I mean: just how basic a "basic Linux" can be and how unwilling it would be to cooperate with my PC.
It was meant to be an adventure that would teach me a lot about Linux. And it was, but together with the OS-knowledge came a very strong impression that I don't want to do that again. Ever.
[I had prepared a "wrong hole" analogy here, but as some people could be underage, I decided to present it only to my girlfriend. You'll find out yourself one day.]

Honestly, should a feature not be included in the "basic Linux" just because it's not essential (as in: only 99% of people use it), when making it work takes these 99% of people around an hour (if they're pretty tech-savvy and lucky)?

And it's all great with doing researches: checking manuals and asking on forums.... if you have access to Internet. But if you don't? At that point I only had 1 PC at home (and didn't have a smartphone). I remember going to my neighbours and printing some pages with instructions how to setup WiFi. And then I used a text-web-browser, to setup X...
Seriously, connecting to a WiFi network is not rocket science and not something that only 1 in 1000 Linux users need. It should be among priorities, but even on very popular distros (like Debian) it's not as polished and stable as on Windows. Why?!

Hah.

I knew you'd talk about horror stories from eons past. Yes, Linux was hard back then. I even gave up on Mandrake back in 2001 because I couldn't get a driver for my 56k modem (though eveything else was fine, even my Voodoo Banshee's driver). But then, I could equally tell you horror stories about Windows (I was running Windows 98 back then). But hey, water under the bridge. Things have a changed a lot since. You can't complain about the current state of affairs for issues that no longer exist, nor have any consequence (besides any potential mental trauma).

Honestly though, if you're going to argue about connecting to wifi being hard under Linux. I've used Unity, Gnome (both 2.x and 3.), Plasma 5 and XFCE 4 quite a lot, and connecting to wifi has always been a non issue. Hell, if we're going to talk about wifi, let's talk about setting up your laptop as an access point. That's something I needed on daily basis for my previous job. With Linux, you go to network settings and create a new connection with the appropriate type. There. Done.

With Windows.... Guess what the first step is? That's right, open the console. Of course, there are third party apps, but that's not exactly straightforward.

notbLaptop-mode-tools was among things that got me over 3h of battery life. Without them it drained twice as fast.
I don't know the current situation, but late kernel 2.6 (so in this decade!!!) didn't even have CPU frequency scaling tuned on by default.
You had to teach the PC, that its CPU can run something below max. Happily, that was simple: just open the terminal...

Well, I know something on the state of the art. Although I haven't touched 2.x, I've been running Linux since kernel 3.5. Ubuntu was my first distribution (surprise).

CPU frequency auto-scaling was already present.

Cpufrequtils, a very straightforward command line tool, was also there for those who wanted to clock their laptop CPU themselves. Don't be terrified just yet, there were GUI's too.

Oh, Ubuntu already drained power slower than Windows on my PC at the time, regardless of laptop-mode-tools:

All I did was load proprietary video drivers with the additional driversGUI. *buntus and several other distributions offer such option by default, you don't even have to download anything from the manufacturer website or use the command line. MS took ages to start detecting and delivering drivers this way, yet it's really messy.

Do you use generic video drivers on Windows? Probably not.

As a side note, generic Linux drivers are unquestionably better than generic MS trash (developed by MS itself, not the rebranded ones sourced from manufacturers).

notbI remember setting up Arch Linux on my laptop for the first time. It took me a whole weekend (around 20h) to reach a state at which taking the laptop out seemed reasonable.
Sure, there are more user-friendly distros - I was prepared for the extra work, but I wasn't prepared for the amount of it. I mean: just how basic a "basic Linux" can be and how unwilling it would be to cooperate with my PC.
It was meant to be an adventure that would teach me a lot about Linux. And it was, but together with the OS-knowledge came a very strong impression that I don't want to do that again. Ever.
[I had prepared a "wrong hole" analogy here, but as some people could be underage, I decided to present it only to my girlfriend. You'll find out yourself one day.]

Info you don't manage to absorb/retain properly doesn't turn into knowledge (to yourself).

Well, the learning curve isn't always steep. It took me about 3 hours to set up Arch at first as I was already familiar with the basics. Now I can happily perform a vanilla Arch install within an hour or so. Half an hour when I'm inspired.

Anyway, just go for Antergoswhen you're not in the mood to install Arch properly. It's just a graphical installer for Arch, so you get the real thing (Arch purists would kill me now hah). Manjaro is even more simplified, although it's more of a derivative. You can get user-friendly distros installed at least 4x faster than W10.

notbHonestly, should a feature not be included in the "basic Linux" just because it's not essential (as in: only 99% of people use it), when making it work takes these 99% of people around an hour (if they're pretty tech-savvy and lucky)?

I rather assume you didn't read my posts thoroughly as you should understand at least part of what you're trying to imply.

You do realize most amateur users stick with Ubuntu and its derivatives (Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Mint etc), right?

As mentioned:

You don't likely run a standalone kernel [that "basic linux" of yours] or an OS built from scratch for that matter, you most probably run a heavily maintained OS [like Arch, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu. Most of those distributions will probably add support for Ryzen to their custom kernels if Kernel.org weirdly decides not to backport it widely. Arch and other rolling distros get regular upgrades close to the latest kernel, so they're fine].

You don't seem to be so familiar with how popular distros updates work in detail, there's nothing wrong to it as long as you don't spread misinformation or FUD. This thread is based on rumors. Facts weren't properly checked, sources are unclear, alleged decisions can change etc.

We're dealing with guesswork right now.

notbAnd it's all great with doing researches: checking manuals and asking on forums.... if you have access to Internet. But if you don't? At that point I only had 1 PC at home (and didn't have a smartphone). I remember going to my neighbours and printing some pages with instructions how to setup WiFi. And then I used a text-web-browser, to setup X...
Seriously, connecting to a WiFi network is not rocket science and not something that only 1 in 1000 Linux users need. It should be among priorities, but even on very popular distros (like Debian) it's not as polished and stable as on Windows. Why?!

Don't quit Ubuntu when you're a Linux dummy. Zorinsmiles at you. Keep your wifi happy effortlessly.

Worry not. Debian is not nearly as popular as its bastard child, Ubuntu, at least when it comes to home users. I bet more than 1 in 1000 Linux users have great wifi...

Elaborating on the topic, some wifi manufacturers (namely Broadcom) don't want to cooperate with the Linux project. Vanilla Debian only features FOSS drivers due to its philosophy. It's easy to get wifi working anyway, lspci and aptitude are your friends.

Hey... Wireless more polished on Windows? Seriously? How many windows PCs with wireless issues have you serviced? K then.

It's been long, very long since I've last had wireless issues on Linux. Can't say the same about Windows (try enabling and establishing 1000+ connections on a torrent client).

Next you say Windows is also known for its serious scalability & stability in networking, parallel computing and raw processing power hah...

notbNo, it won't. You clearly haven't checked this. Windows turns out to be better in general: partly because it is designed with laptops in mind (so this is prioritized from the start) and partly because the drivers are possibly much better. I think we all agree: hardware manufacturers actually care about Windows/OSX users, while it's a mixed bag with Linux.

It seems that the availability and quality of Linux drivers is often a result of having a Linux geek among employees who, at some point, we'll say that "hey, we don't support Linux!" and the management (after saying "so what?") will let him write a driver after hours.

Again, as I said:

My wife runs Manjaro on her old core 2 duo laptop with a nearly dead battery, yet it surprisingly works for more than half an hour unplugged, whereas Windows dies almost immediately upon a cold boot.

Oh, I forgot to mention: she's using free drivers.

I run newer hardware and the results aren't so different. W10 will last at least half an hour less on battery power. All I need is proprietary video drivers.

W10 doesn't compare to lightweight Linux distributions power-wise, champ.

Updated power efficiency challenge for MS lovers: let youtube play HD videos on Windows until your laptop runs out of juice. Then do it on Lubuntu or Manjaro, same videos, proprietary GPU drivers loaded if available, just like you did on Windows. Let us know the results.