Step daughters PC motherboard died just before I went on holiday -- quick and dirty fix took the motherboard out of one of mine connected the hard
disk and it worked mephis Linux didn't hesitate for an instant it just booted and worked as if nothing had happened.
Ok I thought the computers had the same processor & chipset (Duron K7SOM) but they were from different manufacturers and had different sound
cards.
On return from holiday I was still one computer down so as I couldn't find another K7SOM motherboard on Ebay I ordered a new PC from Morgan
Computers -- just a cheap end of E-System with an Athlon 3000+.
Took most of the day to get XP fully setup and the software installed I then stuck my old hard disk loaded with Mint Linux in as the second hard
disk.
Pressing F8 at boot I booted from the second hard disk, result instant Mint Linux !
I quite like the idea of changing to Linux and turning my back on Bill Gates' emporium. I tried Ubuntu and although it was fuss free and
didn't mind my hardware configuration, I have invested too much time and cash on MS software (Office mainly) so it would probably mean converting
all of my Word, Excel, Project, Access etc files to make them useable in Linux.
Also I doubt that I could use my mapping software on the lappy, or edit my photos in Photoshop, plan a route with Autoroute, download music to my
phone or mp3 player etc etc. The list goes on.....
Looks like Bill has got me by the goolies
British - you really should say things like this on a forum which I read...
I think you know I'm a bit of a technophile... (I shall resist, I shall resist, I shall resist!)
Having said that I'm current looking at the new external 1Tb eSATA drives. With 5 times the speed of USB2. I dare say it would boot from a
detachable drive. (Oh no... that's done it!). Dam you man...!!!!
Steve
I use a linux boot disk to run without hard drive to check motherboards. They are a very handy tool.
isn't linux derived from the "holy grail" of systems?: UNIX? that would explain why its so good but VERY basic and still has the file
mayhem windows has.
my opinion: OSX has it all...
'derived' has some specific meaning in software copyright and so no Linux isn't derived from UNIX.
However it is a unix clone for all intense purposes and implements the full posix specification - which is, I think, what you meant.
If you think it's basic you haven't used it for 5 years KDE and Gnome do much the same job as OS/X and Vista in the eye-candy
department.
OS/X is very nice, but is also Unix under the shiny graphical interface you know.
quote:
Originally posted by Hellfire
British - you really should say things like this on a forum which I read...
I think you know I'm a bit of a technophile... (I shall resist, I shall resist, I shall resist!)
Having said that I'm current looking at the new external 1Tb eSATA drives. With 5 times the speed of USB2. I dare say it would boot from a detachable drive. (Oh no... that's done it!). Dam you man...!!!!
Steve
quote:
Originally posted by RazMan
I have invested too much time and cash on MS software (Office mainly) so it would probably mean converting all of my Word, Excel, Project, Access etc files to make them useable in Linux.
quote:
Also I doubt that I could use my mapping software on the lappy, or edit my photos in Photoshop, plan a route with Autoroute, download music to my phone or mp3 player etc etc. The list goes on.....
quote:
Originally posted by mangogrooveworkshop
quote:
Steve Ive been at you for ages to try the darkside....
And as for the other lad MS orifice aint the only suite in the world.....
Linux is so flexible that most apps not ported to linux can be run under wine or crossover....
Steve you know you want to
Linux is fun to play with, but I've never managed to be properly productive with it, partly because of the lack of several of the applications
that I use on a daily basis, that don't work properly under Wine either (mainly cross compilers and their IDE's).
Is it just me or are modern Linux distributions far more resource hungry than XP? e.g. whilst Ubunto runs at a just about acceptable speed on my main
XP2500 machine, a reasonably fresh XP install flies by comparison.
I recently tried the "lite" version XUbunto on an old 800MHz Duron based system with 512MB RAM and gave up trying to get it to install
(didn't like my SIS graphics adapter, the screen just went blank during installation and didn't recover). I then downloaded Mandriva which
installed ok, but the system is so slow as to be totally unusable, so it's back to XP again.
For software development I now use the Cygwin tools which allows me to run all the useful Linux command line tools under XP, so I get the best of both
worlds.
Mandriva - formerly known as Mandrake always ran like treacle it was so bad it nearly put me off Linux.
Problem usually down to the soundcard setup, test I used was to run the kDE game "Kolf" and hit a stroke if it took a second or more to hit
the put the soundcard setup wasn't working.
Unbuntu had a problem with SIS video for a short time -- why I don't know as every other Linux distro worked fine with SIS cards although the 3d
hardware acceleration for games is nonexistant.
I know from experience Ubuntu fiesty and Mint both run fine on SIS cards and Duron processors with 256mb
[Edited on 23/6/07 by britishtrident]
The xUbuntu release I tried to install was "Feisty Fawn". Also tried the previous xUbuntu version with same results
I have xubuntu rinning quite nicely on my old pIII 1000mhz machine with 512mb
running as a server with occasional desktop use. never had an ounce of issue with it.
Mandrake, well yes it is a little bloated, but it was the first distro I ever used, and I like that it did everything out of the box.
Apparently, I can put Linux on my PS3, hmmmmm
quote:
Originally posted by violentblue
Mandrake, well yes it is a little bloated, but it was the first distro I ever used, and I like that it did everything out of the box.
quote:
Originally posted by Marcus
Apparently, I can put Linux on my PS3, hmmmmm