jdulmage 0 Posted July 9, 2002 You guys kill me sometimes Not literally... anyways.. yeah, but see, you are doing enough with the system to need a nice set up like that. I'm really focusing on people who have systems much like yours just to play Diablo II and Warcraft III, lol. It isn't worth the price I don't think. (By the way..this huge thread isn't huge enough yet, and plus, it isn't really bashing anyone, except those ol' grannies who play Solitare) Share this post Link to post
DosFreak 2 Posted July 9, 2002 Lay off the ol' grannies who play Solitaire. You see I do not know how to play Solitaire so therefore I shall not diss the grannies out there who could most assuredly layeth the smack down on my ***. Share this post Link to post
JP- 0 Posted July 9, 2002 Yeah i build my granny a solitare "rig", she loves it and thats all she ever does with it So no dissin grannies! Share this post Link to post
Admiral LSD 0 Posted July 9, 2002 Quote: And some pay the amount they can buy a car for a new 2.4 Ghz "gaming" rig with 2GB of memory. And then install "WINDOWS 98SE" on it. This is true, i sold it myself. And the idiot did not listen to me to install 2K or XP, cause the gaming magazine he reads claimed W98 is still the best os for gaming and his "expert" friend said i was wrong when i said w98 can't use more than 256 MB memory!!! Figure That! Did he bring it back a few days later asking why it was crashing? Not only are Windows 98s memory management routines complete crap above 256Mb, they crap out entirely above 512Mb and the OS can't even address more than 1Gb. Share this post Link to post
Uykucu 0 Posted July 9, 2002 Quote: Did he bring it back a few days later asking why it was crashing? Not only are Windows 98s memory management routines complete crap above 256Mb, they crap out entirely above 512Mb and the OS can't even address more than 1Gb. I didn't know it existed above 512 MB.... I put a gun to his head and sold him a Win XP OEM. and had my guys install it. Share this post Link to post
Admiral LSD 0 Posted July 9, 2002 Between 512Mb and 1Gb you get all kinds of ****ed up **** happening like "Out of memory" errors and random lockups (more often than usual for a Win98 box ). The solution is to set Windows VCACHE to something like 25% of the installed RAM but in doing so you prevent other programs from using it so theres really no point. Share this post Link to post
jdulmage 0 Posted July 9, 2002 Quote: I didn't know it existed above 512 MB.... I put a gun to his head and sold him a Win XP OEM. and had my guys install it. I can relate to that. I often wonder "If they have 'expert' friends, why do they need us to help build and install when their 'expert' friends could do it for little to no cost?" I hate people like that. But we know, the customer is always WRONG Share this post Link to post
Alien 1 Posted July 9, 2002 This kinda thing reminds me of someone who's a total Linux-head, & hasn't used windows since 98se. He apparently tried XP for about 30 mins then condemned it as being crap - it takes longer than that to tweak it & get all the settings the way you want them & start installing all those little essential apps that everyone has. & then he goes on trying to act like an expert on XP & tell ppl about how bad it is!!! Share this post Link to post
Uykucu 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Quote: Compared with Linux XP is crap I think it is now the que to say: "Linux has a long way to go before it becomes a logical choice of OS for Office or Home use, and requires strong office applications and support etc." Oh nearly forgot, " Linux is crap compared to W2k" Or something like that. Please note despite not liking Linux, and recommending it, I am in no way target for your dear linux-lover backlash... I am just fullfilling the requirements of a Linux - Windows discussion. Share this post Link to post
jdulmage 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Yea...Which this really wasn't even a discussion about. Linux has a long way to go in terms of making it user-friendly. I don't want to spend 28 hours setting it up, when I can install Windows and set it up the way I want it (including apps and games) in under 3. Share this post Link to post
Admiral LSD 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Quote: "Linux has a long way to go before it becomes a logical choice of OS for Office or Home use, and requires strong office applications and support etc." I agree with this statement which is why my machine currently runs Windows XP If I could fully migrate to Linux I would have done so ages ago. Share this post Link to post
jdulmage 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Quote: I agree with this statement which is why my machine currently runs Windows XP If I could fully migrate to Linux I would have done so ages ago. Probably same here, but it lacks. It also lacks in something called up[censored]. I don't want to have to download 500 MB every time I need to fix a problem in the OS. The security holes and bugs are there (even viruses now), but because they don't have a "Windows Update" equivelant, you have to wait until they release a revision. Last year's bug reports show 3 different distros of Linux having more security holes/bugs in it than Windows 2000, which sat roughly in the middle of that chart....so I would love to see an easier way of handling those problems. Share this post Link to post
Uykucu 0 Posted July 10, 2002 I dunno, Linux just does not make sense to me at the moment. I used it on Cobalt Raq's, Wasn't very hapy about it despite having Sun behind to support. Or maybe I like the pain and expense of Microsoft and get some form of hidden pleasure. No atter how much i complain about it, Or how expensive they make it. we just don't have an alternative to MS. So we gotta shut up, bend over and take it like a man! Share this post Link to post
Admiral LSD 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Quote: It also lacks in something called up[censored]. I don't want to have to download 500 MB every time I need to fix a problem in the OS. The security holes and bugs are there (even viruses now), but because they don't have a "Windows Update" equivelant, you have to wait until they release a revision. You can download the source for just about every component in any major Linux distribution off the projects website, you don't have to redownload the latest version of the distribution. Source trees aren't exactly large either, the Apache 2.0.35 source comes in at just over 9Mb and compiling them isn't all that difficult, like I said earlier it's simply a matter of issuing three commands: ./configure; make; make install although it's best to read and README or INSTALL documents that come with any source first. Share this post Link to post
jdulmage 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Exactly...and how is it in windows, double click, install, finished. I shouldn't need a masters degree in programming to use Linux. I just started downloading RedHat, and jesus, another complaint. Why the hell is the OS almost 2 GBs big? All I need is an OS, not a bloat boat. Share this post Link to post
Admiral LSD 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Quote: Exactly...and how is it in windows, double click, install, finished. I shouldn't need a masters degree in programming to use Linux. You don't need a Masters Degree in programming to issue three commands on a command line. I know absolutely no C and I can compile software just fine. A few weeks ago I compiled Apache 2.0.36, PHP 4.2.1, Postfix and ProFTPd on a machine I'm in the process of setting up as a server. Granted installing binary packages is considerably easier, particularly under Red Hat (and other rpm baesd distros) since all you have to do is type rpm -ivv {package name}, but binary packages aren't available for all the major open source projects. Quote: I just started downloading RedHat, and jesus, another complaint. Why the hell is the OS almost 2 GBs big? All I need is an OS, not a bloat boat. You don't have to install everything on offer, you can cull an RH install down to about 600-700Mb. Other distros can install into even less than that. Share this post Link to post
jdulmage 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Quote: You don't need a Masters Degree in programming to issue three commands on a command line. I know absolutely no C and I can compile software just fine. A few weeks ago I compiled Apache 2.0.36, PHP 4.2.1, Postfix and ProFTPd on a machine I'm in the process of setting up as a server. Granted installing binary packages is considerably easier, particularly under Red Hat (and other rpm baesd distros) since all you have to do is type rpm -ivv {package name}, but binary packages aren't available for all the major open source projects. You don't have to install everything on offer, you can cull an RH install down to about 600-700Mb. Other distros can install into even less than that. Oh, I believe that for a minute, but the point is, having to download 2 GB of waste, just to install only 600 to 700 MB of it. There should be a way to only have to download what you need, it's annoying. Time Remaining: 9 hours, 54 minutes. ;( Share this post Link to post
jdulmage 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Quote: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org No thanks How 'bout a beer? Share this post Link to post
Admiral LSD 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Actually, it's possible (at least with older versions) to install Red Hat entirely from an FTP site. All you need is a boot disk (an image of which I presume can be downloaded from wherever you plan to do the install from) to start the installation and you're away. ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/7.3/en/os/i386/ Appears to be where Red Hat stash their RPMs. Dunno how long it's take to install it this way though... Share this post Link to post
jdulmage 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Admiral LSD, you live up to your name (druggy) to think I would do that...I won't be pulling that move, it'll take twice as long to do it that way, hehe. I'll just let it download, i'm going out tonight, so when I come back, it'll be damn near done. Share this post Link to post
clutch 1 Posted July 10, 2002 Quote: Actually, it's possible (at least with older versions) to install Red Hat entirely from an FTP site. I did that with an old laptop. I hosted the original binaries on my IIS FTP box, and ran the install on my LAN. It didn't take too long, or at least it wasn't long enough to really annoy me. Share this post Link to post
jdulmage 0 Posted July 10, 2002 You have high patience clutch, I like that 9 hours, 12 minutes remaining Share this post Link to post
