quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
Firstly anyone who says that Linux isn't bloated because they can run it on a 386 off floppys, is clearly retarded. I could say that Windows isn't bloated because you can run it of a floppy disk. (well in DOS mode at least)
When I mean 10% of the total memory I mean the OS should, only consume, or boots up into, or only need 10% of the total system memory to store it's code in. Leaving the rest free, for you, the user to run your software in.
Can Linux run on 286s?
Forgive me if I'm wrong as I'm still new to linux but aren't 286s 16bit processors, and Linux is a 32bit OS?
http://forum.microsuck.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000887&p=2
I'm not going to say it again as this post is already long enough.
And you JimmyJames, call me immature for saying Linsux and Winbloze, your no better for being overly critical of my spelling. I can't help suffering from dyslexia, I do my best by spell checking all my posts in openoffice.
256MB RAM isn't too bad, Xpee dosn't run slowly, it's more than usable, it only runs slowly when the shit arse Xpee theme together with all the other crap skins and effects are enabled.
I only bought this computer a few months ago, I know it wasn't top of the range then, but already people are telling me to upgrade.
NOOOO!
I DON'T SEE WHY I SHOULD SPEND ANOTHER FUCKING PENNY!
This pc is more than fast enough to suit my needs Xpee isn't that slow and unresponsive. It runs Firefox and openoffice fairly well, It can burn CDs well too.
I was happy with my P200, the only reason why I upgraded the whole unit because I fucked the old one up!
I originally just wanted to add a CD burner, when the cover was off I spilt my drink.
If it wasn't for that I would still be stuck with a P200 running Win95 and M$ office!
Back in the day used to be a bit of a computer geek, I liked seeing what I could run on the shitteyest hardware.
I remember, and I know this sound's unbelievable.
One rainy day I was bored (correct spelling I hope)
I decided to install Win3.1 on a 4MB RAM drive on a 8MB 486.
It worked too! lol
I didn't have good internet access. (it cost 1p per min)
I didn't even know that Linux existed.
About 5 years ago I totally lost interest in computers when I did a computing A level, what was a hobby had became hard work, I hated it.
Until very recently I didn't know how much computers had evolved, as I wasn't using them for work.
The only PC I used was my P200.
We switched telecommunications provider to get unmetered Internet access, bought this new PC, then I discovered this website along with Linux.
I was happy enough with my old P200.
I'm sure at least some of you people must be able to remember the old 16 bit way, where you had just 640K for your programs to run in, you had to swap your code in and out of extended memory if you wanted more than that.
I still haven't regained any interest, bloatware has put me off even more.
Now we have lot's of memory and what do we do with it?
Waste it on running bloat.
It's just disgusting.
By the way Viper, just a few questions:
What do you use your computer for?
I know your an MS suporter, I respect you for showing your face here, after all everyone's entitled to their own opinion;
How do you support MS?
And why?
Please don't be afraid to answer these questions.
[ July 08, 2004: Message edited by: Aloone ]
The main reason why I support MS is because they are the reason why our technology is so advanced nowadays. Thier higher OS requirements naturally forced hardware to get faster and eventually cheaper(to bring computers into more households). Make no mistake about it, MS's monoply is the exact reason why 90% of households has a computer nowadays compared to less than 5% of households having one back in the 80's due to high prices.
Another reason why I support MS is for the same reason why Apple supporters support Apple. I like thier products, and I know that it takes 1 company to control a successful OS. Why in the hell do you think Linux has the lack of drivers, games and professional quality apps? IT is because there are so many different distros of it and no sane company is going to spend all of that development time to make thier stuff compatible with all of the fucking distros.
In my opinion I feel that Linux is more of a toy than a real desktop alternative. Linux is great as a server but I'd take Unix over Linux for server purposes.
I have tried Linux many of times and no matter how much I try to like it or find it useful I just simply cannot because it doesn't support all of the stuff I use on my computer and it is a huge hassle to do what should be simply like getting a Radeon card to work properly or installling a media player(MPlayer). Linux is not practicle. It probably never will be either simply because there is no centeralized control of it.
MacOS is based on a more complex kernel than Linux but it is practicle and very easy to use because you guessed it, a company maintains it...not a community of geeks+hackers. It is centeralized so software makers+driver makers can easily make an app that will work with any install of it because there aren't 4,000 other versions of the same kernel. On top of the easy software vendor support MacOSX also has an easy to use interface and a damn good+easy to use driver+software installation system. A user will never have to get into a command line to get thier shit to work like in Linux.
Linux will never have a real place in the home desktop market just because there are too many distros for any real software makers to keep track of. The real software support will always be for closed source, company owned systems like MacOS and Windows because it saves them alot of time and money(time saved is money saved for software companies).
Linux is useful for a hobbyist who really enjoys tinkering with everything or for a server that will need to be configured once and left running down in a basement, closet, etc.
As for being surprised about showing my face here don't be surprised. I've been a member here for a long time and for the most part I get along with these people(with the exception of a few). I'm not a bad guy becuase I like Windows. I am not one of those ignorant Windows fanboys who sit around and says stupid shit like MS rules the world, Linux sucks, switch to Windows, blah blah. I could care less what any of you use because your preference is just that as is mine. Software isn't a religion. FYI - don't ever say something like don't be afraid to answer your questions to me because you can take it as a given that I will answer any question at any time.
What do I use my computer for? I use it to play games, listen to music, burn music, transfer music and files to my iPod, surf the net, chat, do work(real work that requires profesional grade apps that are not available to Linux), to shop, etc. I use my computer for alot of different things and I demand an OS that just works and has something available for any possibility of what can be done with the system. I demand having fast, high-end hardware because it makes the experience better(especially with games or working with huge audio/video/picture files)as well as encoding.
I refuse to buy those OEM crap boxes like Dell because they use the cheapest hardware they can to cut costs and increase profits..especially thier crappy motherboards+they give you a crappy PSU which hurts stability big time. I am all for building my own system(s) with all quality parts. I do not skimp on anything(not even a floppy drive which I never use). If you say you had problems with XP on your system it is proably because 1 - it has a shit motherboard and a shit PSU and more than likely a shit intergrated video and sound card+shit ram and
2 - OEMs tend to load the OS to the brim with useless apps that run in the background at all times which hogs Memory and CPU cycles. If you do a restore installlation you will just be back at square 1 with all of the shit software that they felt they needed to have run at the startup of Windows. Do you know how many times Windows XP Professional(Corporate Edition) has crashed on me or locked up on me with this system? 1 time and it wasn't Windows fault. It fucked up because I uninstalled my ATI Catalyst drivers to install the Omega drivers and somehow the Omega driver installation fucked up the video cards' ability to display the desktop at Windows startup. No problem, I booted with F8 and went to the boot with last known good configuration option and boom my probelm was solved. I made the computer freeze once when I tried to take this puppy up to 3.32ghz without upping the voltage. Once again that wasn't Windows fault. It was just me trying to take my CPU to its' absolute limits on the stock Intel air-cooler. I found out that I max out at 3.26ghz but I opt to keep it at 3.2ghz just to be sure it is stable. I got an 800mhz O/C out of this puppy with stock voltage and cooling without any of my buses running out of spec...PCI/AGP is still at 33/66mhz and my Ram is still running at DDR400(200mhz). Not bad at all for a $150 CPU...I know I'm happy with it.
The only prebuilt OEM computer I would ever buy or consider buying would be an Apple Macintosh because Apple does not skimp on thier parts(hench why Macs are more expensive than OEM PC's) and Apple doesn't overload thier systems with useless apps that continuosly run in the background hogging the ram and CPU cycles. Apple actually makes a great quality computer.
To Solaris - My bad. I didn't notice you were canadian. When I talk about prices I'm always talking about prices in USD. Technically it may cost mroe in Canadian dollars but the canadian dollar value isn't quite as high as the American dollar so in the end the trade is about equal.
[ July 09, 2004: Message edited by: Viper ]
