| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 70375 | 2006-07-01 07:44:00 | Should I do Suse Linux install? | Shortcircuit (1666) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 467651 | 2006-07-04 03:36:00 | Jen- the thought of something being labelled 'e-mail' when it is actually e-mail appeals to me immensely, but then I have a very low IQ :p Hijack away SurferJoe, my work here is done... until my next attempt to install Linux :D I went and got a Ubuntu Live disk, (already have Kubuntu..this is a little different) and I like it a lot...it looks very much like Windows if you squint your eyes just so....but really...it looks like even I could run it. The version I got was for an AMD64, and it runs ok on this AMD XP...so I guess the cross-association is OK. As a live cd, it leaves a lot to the imagination as to how it will run as a full install...but there is that one point you made... Gads! the really slow slow slow boot!!!!!!!!!!! In my playing with it, I could not for the life of me figger out how to get Firefox running. I used the default browser, the name of which escapes me right now (that's the toughest curve so far...all those goofy names!), but I could not understand what happened...I got all the associated files and stuff, but there's no .exe or install icon anywhere...am I missing something? |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 467652 | 2006-07-04 04:40:00 | Yes, SurferJoe, Suse was like booting a wet blanket... slower than XP. I did notice that on my newer 64bit box both XP and Suse booted up very slowly, but when I installed XP on my older box (less ram and Athlon 1600+ CPU), XP booted much faster. Maybe it's a 64bit thing? Ubuntu sounds hopeful, especially if it's 64bit compatible and looks like Windows. Do you think someone with an IQ of 136 could use it... or is it too difficult? :D |
Shortcircuit (1666) | ||
| 467653 | 2006-07-04 05:39:00 | Live CDs are always slow to boot and run as they have to load and decompress large amounts of data from the CD. For some reason Suse also has a very slow boot compared to many other distributions. When running there are no speed issues though. | TGoddard (7263) | ||
| 467654 | 2006-07-04 05:40:00 | All the ones I have tried have taken way longer to boot than Windows. :( It's a Linux thing and requires a lot of fiddling to get that boot time down to a blink of an eye. |
FoxyMX (5) | ||
| 467655 | 2006-07-04 06:25:00 | Jen- the thought of something being labelled 'e-mail' when it is actually e-mail appeals to me immensely, but then I have a very low IQ :p If you are still listening . . . I don't use Outlook cos, well what does Outlook mean to a computer user . :D |
dolby digital (5073) | ||
| 467656 | 2006-07-04 06:29:00 | If you are still listening... I don't use Outlook cos, well what does Outlook mean to a computer user. :D I did try Outlook years ago, but couldn't get the hang of it because I was always wanting to look out the window. Thunderbird I can understand because I was brought up on a certain TV program with puppets (sorry marionettes) :D |
Shortcircuit (1666) | ||
| 467657 | 2006-07-04 07:14:00 | I did try Outlook years ago, but couldn't get the hang of it because I was always wanting to look out the window . Thunderbird I can understand because I was brought up on a certain TV program with puppets (sorry marionettes) :D LOL Yes, whats in a name eh? They did amazing things with those puppets . Kids would probably laugh these at them, but they where amazing at the time . . . although I could never work out how Thunderbird 2 could fly on those stubby wings :confused: |
dolby digital (5073) | ||
| 467658 | 2006-07-04 10:14:00 | I have been a Redhat user since 1998 with one small diversion to Mandrake as it was then. Because we are a Novell site at work, I have twice tried to change to SuSE. The reasons were: 1. Compatibility with Novell Netware. 2. The product looked so good on paper and on screen. Both times I gave up and went back to Redhat or now Fedora. With SuSE I had: 1. software support issues. 2. strange behaviour such as desktops screwing up for no apparent reason. 3. performance issues - it seemed to go much slower on my aging AMD850 than Fedora. I am not intending to try SuSE again - I know Fedora is not perfect, but it works with no unexplained screwups! |
johnd (85) | ||
| 467659 | 2006-07-04 15:43:00 | Yes, SurferJoe, Suse was like booting a wet blanket . . . slower than XP . I did notice that on my newer 64bit box both XP and Suse booted up very slowly, but when I installed XP on my older box (less ram and Athlon 1600+ CPU), XP booted much faster . Maybe it's a 64bit thing? Ubuntu sounds hopeful, especially if it's 64bit compatible and looks like Windows . Do you think someone with an IQ of 136 could use it . . . or is it too difficult? :D Now that you've mentioned it, yes! My little Dell 750 boots Mepis quite well . . not fast, but OK if I need time to take a shower first . . . it's there waiting for me if I hit the button before getting wet . Now as to the LIVE versions . . . I don't see a lot of time-for-boot differential with them, as the Mepis has to do a lot of unpacking too . . even though it's a hdd install . I wish they could set up defaults to boot when they got (intuitively?) older and saw that I just don't have any HP printers nor am I using VOIP either . All that fluff is what I think slows down the boot . Maybe after a while I will tweak the boot sequence to dump the hardware drivers for stuff that I don't have yet it looks for every time . All-in-all . . it looks promising . . . especially when XP is no longer supported and I refuse to buy new hdwr . . . as you see, I am getting crotchitdy and older by the minute . I intend to get worser too! :mad: Why do we grow so soon old and so late smart? |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 467660 | 2006-07-04 21:49:00 | Sounds like you have had some fun with Linux there!!!!! Must admit my first step into Linux was nasty but mainly cause I didn't know what I was doing when I did it . !!!!!! :badpc: My first problem was with my sony dvd burner it wouldn't let me install any Linux distros for some reason, fished out my old one and voila perfect install . All done on a separate partion of course so as not to kill the WinXP install . I think with Linux it pays to have some partial knowledge of partitioning and what packages you think are neccesary, but most of the distros tell you what to do (do remember this was my first turn and I was just reading off the screen the info it gave me) . We are expecting it to do it like a Microsoft box so when it starts giving us choices when freak out! MS is good for something then ;) Be warned Vista has a very similar install to Linux in my opinion, asking which partition do we want to install on, and all the security measures are very similar to a "root" account . I don't think Linux is for someone that is used to Windows but for a new person who jumps straight into it, I am sure it will make absolute sense if they are shown the right ways as most of us were with Windows . |
mantermite (9652) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||