Actually, there is no ideal operating system. Windows is a pig, but
has the advantage that it will run on almost any hardware, and is cheap
and easy to install.
Just about any flavor of linux will have *some* hardware issues unless
you buy the OS and hardware as a package. OS X only runs on Apple
hardware, as far as I know, for which you pay a HUGE premium in cost.
$2500 for a core2duo when you can get the same hardware from HP or Dell
for <$1000, and that's the high end of the PC world.
I put together a bare-bones core2quad system with an Intel DP35DP
motherboard for about $800. I installed Ubuntu 7.0.4 64-bit version.
It was not able to recognize the gigabit ethernet on the motherboard,
so had to install an old 3Com 10/100 PCI ethernet card. Ubuntu also
will not recognize a SATA drive (at least not on this motherboard),
only ATA.
Linux also has a steep learning curve. Ubuntu was very easy to
install, but when you run into problems, which you certainly will, you
are catapulted into a netherworld of geeks who speak NHL (no human
language), which has a different dialect for each of the 10^100 flavors
of linux.
On the plus side, Michael Hanke's FSL distro for Debian/Ubunta (see
what I mean about the geek talk?) was trivially easy to install and
upgrade, and has worked flawlessly (well, one small glitch, which he
fixed within a few hours).
The optimal solution may be when OS X runs on generic hardware,
although I suspect that if this ever happens, it will experience all of
the same compatibility issues you get for free with Linux.
If you do choose Linux, I would recommend buying it pre-installed on a
new computer. More expensive that DIY, less expensive than Apple.
On Sep 8, 2007, at 12:06 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Hi - I agree with the other replies that you've had - I would just add
> that if your intention is to buy a nice new top-spec computer to get
> improved performance then PLEASE don't then put Windows on it!! Linux
> is pretty easy to install and administer these days, and MacOSX
> (Apple) is even easier - so I would very strongly recommend either of
> those options instead of Windows.
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
>
>
>
> On 7 Sep 2007, at 15:51, Emily Rubin Ferreira wrote:
>
>> Dear FSL,
>> We are using your fabulous software for DTI analysis (FDT), and it is
>> really wonderful but takes quite a while, especially bedpost. So we
>> are planning to get a new PC that will be a faster system. We are
>> wondering:
>>
>> Is FSL (specifically FDT and bedpost) optimized for 2 Quad-core
>> processors (xeon x5355 2.66Ghz L2 Cache 1333MHz)?
>> Or, are we better off with multiple Dual-core processors? The website
>> does say under Windows system requirements that FSL recommends Dual
>> core CPU/multple CPU.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> emily
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> Stephen M. Smith, Professor of Biomedical Engineering
> Associate Director, Oxford University FMRIB Centre
>
> FMRIB, JR Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
> +44 (0) 1865 222726 (fax 222717)
> [log in to unmask] http://www.fmrib.ox.ac.uk/~steve
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
|
