| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 101349 | 2009-07-11 03:58:00 | Worshipping Linux | Sir Prospect (14735) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 790775 | 2009-07-11 06:27:00 | Vista......... How did I know someone would say Vista ;) Compared to ME Vista is perfect. Personally I have had next to no trouble with Vista, and neither have any of the customers I have sold PC / Vista to. What I have found its not Vista that causes the problems most of the time - its third party programs that do a lot of the damage. It may not be any good on gaming PC's -- But then it doesn't matter what OS MS bring out, not every one will like it. Windows 7 Included. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 790776 | 2009-07-11 06:32:00 | Ironic, Every time I buy a pc, I always end up with the most hated OS ever, from 3.0, to ME and finally Vista. And also Ironic, that a new one comes out 1-2 months after I buy it. Missed out on 95, XP and now 7. Sigh.... |
Sir Prospect (14735) | ||
| 790777 | 2009-07-11 06:49:00 | As Erayd mentioned, Ubuntu will work fine on older hardware, athough it may need a little massaging I have put earlier versions on PC's with about the same spec's as yours. Up until the latest Version of Ubuntu, I have found it not to be exactly user friendly, its a learning cure if all you are used to is Windows. Some things you do the same others are completely different. (This will cause a debate) :D One thing I have found, is Ubuntu, with each new version, some actions are getting closer and closer ( on the surface) to how Windows works. This way if a person wanted to use Ubuntu, its not so much of a change. Windows 7 is built from Vista - so outwardly a lot of the functions work the same. It is however a better running OS ( well the RC is). When it goes RTM in 2-3 days, that's basically the finished version, except if there is a major bug found before GA on the 22nd October. Personally if you want to run Ubuntu, I'm sure either Erayd, Chill ( when the honey moon claims down) :D, or any other person running Linux will advise if any problems. Edited: I had a problem here last week with Ubuntu -- got a working reply very quickly. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 790778 | 2009-07-11 07:44:00 | Yep. Put any version of Linux on a box. Then spend a lot of time making it look like another operating system. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 790779 | 2009-07-11 08:32:00 | Then of course you can go Completely Silly (www.imagef1.net.nz) if you got a new PC sometime in the future with some power - As per the picture linked -- Windows 7 , running XP mode - which is in turn running Real VNC - remote connection to ubuntu :lol: -- Had A few drinks --- couldn't resist. :D | wainuitech (129) | ||
| 790780 | 2009-07-11 09:09:00 | It didnt get that far for me to disable it in the setup. It boots from the cd checks whatever / spits the dummy, then says something about it being 1999 / pre-2000, something about APIC thats it. Then stops And its not in the BIOS if thats what you mean. Too bad now, XP is on it. This is set on the kernel commandline, at the bootloader stage. It's not in the setup app or in the bios. The option you probably want is 'noapic', as systems of that era often didn't even have one (so you obviously don't want the kernel trying to use something pretty fundamental that simply isn't there). FYI, APIC stands for 'Advanced Programmable Interrupt Controller'. Cant see why Ubuntu cant run with 184 mb if I can run XP on a laptop with only 96 mbThey will both run just fine on a 96mb system. You won't like the experience with either. The same comment applies to 182MB, just to a lesser degree. Also, bear in mind that the defaults are geared towards a system with much more grunt, as that's what most people have. If you want to install it on something this old, you *will* need to mess with a few things to get it working to your satisfaction. And again, the same comment applies to XP here. |
Erayd (23) | ||
| 790781 | 2009-07-11 09:14:00 | Well, wherever it is, its not gonna work. XP is actually pretty usable with 96 mb. It loads pretty fast. Altho it doesnt help when the hdd is only 4 GB lol | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 790782 | 2009-07-11 09:20:00 | Yikes... dunno how I'd survive with a 4GB HDD! | Erayd (23) | ||
| 790783 | 2009-07-11 09:31:00 | Should pull it to bits, and do something like this (www.bit-tech.net) lol. | Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 790784 | 2009-07-11 21:22:00 | Yikes... dunno how I'd survive with a 4GB HDD! That's why I have an 8GB SDHC card for games on my netbook :D Hmm, I wonder how well XP will run on 64MB RAM... :p |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | |||||