Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs? - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs? - Linux ; At Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:26:01 +0100 Benjamin Gawert wrote: > > * raylopez99: > > I have not been able to get a straight answer to this, despite almost > > a year of trying. > > Maybe then ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

  1. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    At Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:26:01 +0100 Benjamin Gawert wrote:

    >
    > * raylopez99:
    > > I have not been able to get a straight answer to this, despite almost
    > > a year of trying.

    >
    > Maybe then this time you should take the time and at least check what
    > you really have? "...about 200 MHz clock, with about 500 MB RAM (or
    > maybe it's 225.." and "...It has a late 90s but
    > popular video card, forget the brand...." is worth nothing. There is no
    > PentiumII 200MHz, so either it is a Pentium 200 or a PentiumII with


    Pentium Pros were available at 200mhz -- not labeled as PIIs, but were
    686 processors and thus effectively PIIs in all but name. I'm guessing
    that the OP has one of these (and the vintage is about right). I used a
    200mhz Pentium Pro box at UMass until I was laid off in Nov of 2005 --
    at the time I had the oldest and slowest desktop in the lab were I
    worked -- a sort of point of pride -- I kept *refusing* newer boxes,
    since I liked that old box -- it worked well and I was confortable with
    it.

    > higher clock speed. If it's a Pentium then you won't have much fun
    > running Linux on it, too (except maybe for use as a router or file
    > server). Same about memory (exact size and type), the mainboard and also
    > the gfx card. You also want to check the gfx card because it won't give
    > you much fun if it's not supported by Linux.


    Most *older* graphic cards are supported on some level. Graphics cards
    that are supported are cheap -- almost any nVidia PCI or AGP card is
    supported.

    >
    > If you expect people to help you the least thing you can do is to
    > provide accurate details.
    >
    > Benjamin
    >


    --
    Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar!
    Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration
    http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database
    heller@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk


  2. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    On Jun 28, 5:38*am, Robert Heller wrote:

    > I used a
    > 200mhz Pentium Pro box at UMass until I was laid off in Nov of 2005 --
    > at the time I had the oldest and slowest desktop in the lab were I
    > worked -- a sort of point of pride -- I kept *refusing* newer boxes,
    > since I liked that old box -- it worked well and I was confortable with
    > it.
    >


    Uh, ok. But maybe that's why you were fired? (using old equipment)
    Probably not, but the thought comes to mind.

    Do you have a vote on a min hardware distro?

    It's surprising how un-helpful Linux advocates are. Their main point--
    and indeed only point--is not to waste bandwidth answering trolls.
    Back in the days when bandwidth was limited and the Internet was
    government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
    users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
    settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
    Windows regardless of what OS is actually loaded...that is so, what,
    1995?

    BTW If you don't believe I am sincere, at least answer the questions
    raised for the benefit of people Googling this issue in the future.

    RL

  3. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy raylopez99 wrote:
    > BTW If you don't believe I am sincere, at least answer the questions
    > raised for the benefit of people Googling this issue in the future.


    Can't come up with your own ideas?
    Note to readers. That's almost word for word what I put at the bottom of my
    first reply to this waster.
    "NB: this is not for the benefit of lopez, but for anyone googling in the
    future"

    If there's anything lopez lacks, it's sincerity.
    All he cares about is fud, and he's been chucking a lot of that about in
    this thread so far, hasn't he?
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

  4. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy raylopez99 wrote:
    > But do you have any constructive comments about Linux for my
    > question?


    I gave my ha'penny's worth days ago, which you of course chose to ignore.
    (along with everynoe else who gave you advice)
    --
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

  5. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    At Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:10:46 -0700 (PDT) raylopez99 wrote:

    >
    > On Jun 28, 5:38=A0am, Robert Heller wrote:
    >
    > > I used a
    > > 200mhz Pentium Pro box at UMass until I was laid off in Nov of 2005 --
    > > at the time I had the oldest and slowest desktop in the lab were I
    > > worked -- a sort of point of pride -- I kept *refusing* newer boxes,
    > > since I liked that old box -- it worked well and I was confortable with
    > > it.
    > >

    >
    > Uh, ok. But maybe that's why you were fired? (using old equipment)
    > Probably not, but the thought comes to mind.


    I wasn't 'fired' -- I was laid off due to lack of funding.

    >
    > Do you have a vote on a min hardware distro?


    I already answered that: I have used CentOS (4) on some fairly old
    hardware.

    >
    > It's surprising how un-helpful Linux advocates are. Their main point--
    > and indeed only point--is not to waste bandwidth answering trolls.
    > Back in the days when bandwidth was limited and the Internet was
    > government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
    > users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
    > settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
    > Windows regardless of what OS is actually loaded...that is so, what,
    > 1995?
    >
    > BTW If you don't believe I am sincere, at least answer the questions
    > raised for the benefit of people Googling this issue in the future.
    >
    > RL
    >


    --
    Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar!
    Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration
    http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database
    heller@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk


  6. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits onCDs?

    Robert Heller wrote (in part):
    > At Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:10:46 -0700 (PDT) raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> Do you have a vote on a min hardware distro?

    >
    > I already answered that: I have used CentOS (4) on some fairly old
    > hardware.
    >

    I run CentOS4 on my "old" machine, a dual 550 MHz Pentium III machine with
    512 MBytes RAM that I got in early 2000. So it is a little over 8 years old.
    CentOS4 runs perfectly well there.

    The oldest machine I had (now gone) had about 166 MHz Pentiun with 64 Megs
    RAM. It ran Red Hat Linux 7.3 OK, but it did not run RHL 9 very well because
    it was thrashing the disk. I upped the RAM to 128 Megs and that stopped the
    thrashing. I raised it to 256 Megs but that did not make much difference.
    The main trouble with it was that the 166MHz processor was just too slow.

    I am not sure if my "new" machine is still considered new as I built it
    myself and started running it in March 2004. It runs RHEL5 just fine still;
    I started it with RHEL3. It was almost state of the art then, but surely is
    no longer. Dual 3.06 GHz Xeon processors, 8 GBytes RAM, 10,000 rpm Ultra/320
    SCSI hard drives, ... . But these days, 4 year old machines are already
    considered fairly old by some.

    --
    .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
    /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
    /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
    ^^-^^ 08:20:01 up 3 days, 17:40, 4 users, load average: 4.10, 4.07, 4.11

  7. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits onCDs?

    * Robert Heller:

    > Pentium Pros were available at 200mhz -- not labeled as PIIs, but were
    > 686 processors and thus effectively PIIs in all but name.


    Definitely not. There are several non-minor differences between a
    Pentium Pro and Pentium II.

    > I'm guessing
    > that the OP has one of these


    It can be a Pentium Pro 200, it can be a Pentium 200, it can be a
    Pentium 200 MMX, it can be a Pentium II 233+, who knows. Guessing is
    just a waste of time.

    > Most *older* graphic cards are supported on some level.


    Yes, as frame buffer device. Nothing someone really wants to work with.

    > Graphics cards
    > that are supported are cheap -- almost any nVidia PCI or AGP card is
    > supported.


    Investing anything in a 200MHz computer is more or less just a waste as
    a much faster P3 (500+Mhz) can be had for almost nothing today.

    Benjamin

  8. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits onCDs?



    On Sun, 29 Jun 2008, Benjamin Gawert wrote:
    > Investing anything in a 200MHz computer is more or less just a waste as a
    > much faster P3 (500+Mhz) can be had for almost nothing today.
    >

    Well yes.

    I bought a used 200MHz Pentium in mid-2001 to run Linux. The next
    year, I found a nearly identical system lying on the sidewalk waiting
    for the garbage truck. Almost five years ago I was given this hand me
    down 1GHz computer, so basically I'm not paying attention to what's
    being thrown out these days. But surely it's better than 200MHz.
    A few weeks ago, I did finally find a computer with a 256meg DIMM
    in it, so I'm finally up to 512megs, the maximum of this computer. In
    retrospect, given that memory I should have taken a closer look to
    see if it was better than this one. At this point it likely is time
    to see better computers waiting for the garbage. Certainly, I'm seeing
    1GHz or slightly better in local ads around the $40 mark.

    Michael


  9. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
    > On Jun 28, 5:38*am, Robert Heller wrote:


    [deletia]

    > government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
    > users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
    > settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for


    A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
    ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.

    With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.
    I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
    by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was
    new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.

    Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...

    BTW, WindowMaker was what I ran when my system was a 32M 486.

    --

    Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to
    your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens |||
    rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal / | \
    affairs, government and business.


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  10. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    > On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
    >> On Jun 28, 5:38*am, Robert Heller wrote:

    >
    > [deletia]
    >
    >> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
    >> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
    >> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for

    >
    > A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
    > ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
    >
    > With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.


    That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.

    > I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
    > by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was


    Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.

    > new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
    >
    > Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...


    Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
    programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
    Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
    Frequency Scaling monitor and associated kernel support in OnDemand mode
    to reduce power consumption.

    >
    > BTW, WindowMaker was what I ran when my system was a 32M 486.


    --
    "We will never allow an event like an election reverse our
    independence, our sovereignty, our sweat and all that we fought
    for. -- Robert Mugabe, OSS supporter and advocate for freedom. COLA advocate."

  11. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits onCDs?

    Hadron wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>> On Jun 28, 5:38 am, Robert Heller wrote:

    >> [deletia]
    >>
    >>> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
    >>> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
    >>> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for

    >> A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
    >> ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
    >>
    >> With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.

    >
    > That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.
    >
    >> I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
    >> by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was

    >
    > Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.
    >
    >> new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
    >>
    >> Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...

    >
    > Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
    > programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
    > Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
    > Frequency Scaling monitor and associated kernel support in OnDemand mode
    > to reduce power consumption.
    >
    >> BTW, WindowMaker was what I ran when my system was a 32M 486.

    >

    What is COLA? Can't quite place the acronym..
    Eric

  12. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>> On Jun 28, 5:38*am, Robert Heller wrote:

    >>
    >> [deletia]
    >>
    >>> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
    >>> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
    >>> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for

    >>
    >> A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
    >> ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
    >>
    >> With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.

    >
    > That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.


    Why do you insist on being such an ass.

    >
    >> I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
    >> by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was

    >
    > Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.


    Obviously you've never really worked in the computing industry.

    >
    >> new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
    >>
    >> Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...

    >
    > Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
    > programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
    > Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU


    ....must not be much of movie then.

    > Frequency Scaling monitor and associated kernel support in OnDemand mode
    > to reduce power consumption.
    >
    >>
    >> BTW, WindowMaker was what I ran when my system was a 32M 486.


    ...in those days instead of converting movies while watching
    them it was listening to music while converting it. There was also the
    occasional programming, web surfing, document editing and running amok
    on Usenet.


    --

    Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,
    is genuinely new: culture, like science and |||
    technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \
    building on the works of those that came before.

    Judge Alex Kozinski
    US Court of Appeals
    9th Circuit


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  13. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    > "Hadron" quacked:
    >>
    >>Hence my question about why so many distros.


    Don't you mean your "continuous, cretinous, anti-choice trolling",
    Quack?


  14. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    > On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
    >> JEDIDIAH writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>> On Jun 28, 5:38Â*am, Robert Heller wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [deletia]
    >>>
    >>>> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
    >>>> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
    >>>> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
    >>>
    >>> A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
    >>> ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
    >>>
    >>> With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.

    >>
    >> That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.

    >
    > Why do you insist on being such an ass.
    >
    >>
    >>> I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
    >>> by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was

    >>
    >> Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.

    >
    > Obviously you've never really worked in the computing industry.
    >


    This must be a new meaning of "obviously" only you are familiar with.

    >>
    >>> new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
    >>>
    >>> Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...

    >>
    >> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
    >> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
    >> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU

    >
    > ...must not be much of movie then.


    Your clueless regarding video and video HW is simply gobsmacking in this
    day and age.


    --
    "Unfortunately, once again, the user-unfriendly dirtware sucks so bad it's
    hard to prove how bad it sucks."
    -- "DFS" in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  15. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
    >>> JEDIDIAH writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>>> On Jun 28, 5:38Â*am, Robert Heller wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> [deletia]
    >>>>
    >>>>> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
    >>>>> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
    >>>>> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
    >>>>
    >>>> A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
    >>>> ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
    >>>>
    >>>> With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.
    >>>
    >>> That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.

    >>
    >> Why do you insist on being such an ass.
    >>
    >>>
    >>>> I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
    >>>> by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was
    >>>
    >>> Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.

    >>
    >> Obviously you've never really worked in the computing industry.
    >>

    >
    > This must be a new meaning of "obviously" only you are familiar with.


    Don't kid yourself.

    >
    >>>
    >>>> new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
    >>>>
    >>>> Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...
    >>>
    >>> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
    >>> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
    >>> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU

    >>
    >> ...must not be much of movie then.

    >
    > Your clueless regarding video and video HW is simply gobsmacking in this
    > day and age.


    Not really. Although I am satisfied to just let your comments speak for
    themselves....

    --
    vi isn't easy to use. |||
    / | \
    vi is easy to REPLACE.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  16. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    > On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
    >> JEDIDIAH writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
    >>>> JEDIDIAH writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>>>> On Jun 28, 5:38ÂÂ*am, Robert Heller wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> [deletia]
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> government owned, that was a good point, but no more; however, Linux
    >>>>>> users are stuck in the past, still fighting the battle that was
    >>>>>> settled by litigation 10+ years ago, that MSFT charges vendors for
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A lot of trolls are stuck in the past too. They're probably the
    >>>>> ones that generate most of the counter-traffic.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> With Linux, it's not so much the distro but what you try and run.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's a cracker even for your silly word mangling games.
    >>>
    >>> Why do you insist on being such an ass.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I can take Ubuntu and easily adapt it to a less powerful system just
    >>>>> by running the sorts of things that I ran back when a PentiumPro was
    >>>>
    >>>> Yup. Hence my question about why so many distros.
    >>>
    >>> Obviously you've never really worked in the computing industry.
    >>>

    >>
    >> This must be a new meaning of "obviously" only you are familiar with.

    >
    > Don't kid yourself.
    >
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>>> new. A lot depends on what all your requirements are.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Even my current fancy desktop is mostly idle...
    >>>>
    >>>> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
    >>>> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
    >>>> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
    >>>
    >>> ...must not be much of movie then.

    >>
    >> Your clueless regarding video and video HW is simply gobsmacking in this
    >> day and age.

    >
    > Not really. Although I am satisfied to just let your comments speak for
    > themselves....


    As they have done. I use a dual head, HW accelerated video card on a top
    notch machine driving both a big plasma screen and a lcd monitor. I do
    play modern FPS and similar. You do none of these things. You have no
    experience of what I speak and your ridiculous word games reveal you to
    be a wannabe.

    --
    "Maybe you can buy a Saturday Night Special and blow your POS brains out."
    -- Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  17. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    On 2008-07-01, Hadron wrote:
    > JEDIDIAH writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
    >>> JEDIDIAH writes:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>> JEDIDIAH writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Jun 28, 5:38ÂÂ*am, Robert Heller wrote:
    >>>>>>

    [deletia]
    >>>>> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
    >>>>> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
    >>>>> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
    >>>>
    >>>> ...must not be much of movie then.
    >>>
    >>> Your clueless regarding video and video HW is simply gobsmacking in this
    >>> day and age.

    >>
    >> Not really. Although I am satisfied to just let your comments speak for
    >> themselves....

    >
    > As they have done. I use a dual head, HW accelerated video card on a top
    > notch machine driving both a big plasma screen and a lcd monitor. I do


    ....try your dick waving with someone who cares and/or doesn't know better.

    > play modern FPS and similar. You do none of these things. You have no
    > experience of what I speak and your ridiculous word games reveal you to
    > be a wannabe.
    >



    --
    vi isn't easy to use. |||
    / | \
    vi is easy to REPLACE.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  18. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    JEDIDIAH writes:

    > On 2008-07-01, Hadron wrote:
    >> JEDIDIAH writes:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
    >>>> JEDIDIAH writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2008-06-30, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>> JEDIDIAH writes:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 2008-06-29, raylopez99 wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On Jun 28, 5:38ÂÂÂ*am, Robert Heller wrote:
    >>>>>>>

    > [deletia]
    >>>>>> Yup. Mine too. I tend to play movies on the second head while
    >>>>>> programming or playing COLA (by far the best RPG available for
    >>>>>> Linux).. And the machine is still only ticking over. So I use the CPU
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ...must not be much of movie then.
    >>>>
    >>>> Your clueless regarding video and video HW is simply gobsmacking in this
    >>>> day and age.
    >>>
    >>> Not really. Although I am satisfied to just let your comments speak for
    >>> themselves....

    >>
    >> As they have done. I use a dual head, HW accelerated video card on a top
    >> notch machine driving both a big plasma screen and a lcd monitor. I do

    >
    > ...try your dick waving with someone who cares and/or doesn't know
    > better.


    We were discussing it with people who cared. Until you hopped in with
    your usual misinformation and hot air. You're not related to Mark Kent
    are you?

    --
    "Off the top of my head, I can't tell you which sites. They are ones that
    throw up some kind of dialog, I change the user agent and look at them
    again, then move on."
    -- Rick telling lies in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  19. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits onCDs?

    raylopez99 wrote:

    > Tell me seriously, hell-fire and brimstone boy, do you actually use
    > Linux? Does it ever crash on you? How often? Windows NT and 2000
    > are super stable--I've rarely gotten the BSOD except when first
    > configuring stuff on it. Once stable, it's stable. Is Linux the
    > same?


    In over six years of using Linux on an almost daily basis, on three
    separate machines, I have NEVER had Linux crash. I have had some
    improperly-designed Flash-based websites crash Firefox, but it always
    goes back to the KDE desktop. I repeat - Linux has NEVER crashed on me.

    I can't say the same for Windows.

    TJ

  20. Re: What Linux distro to use for old Intel machine, that fits on CDs?

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy TJ wrote:
    > raylopez99 wrote:
    >
    >> Tell me seriously, hell-fire and brimstone boy, do you actually use
    >> Linux? Does it ever crash on you? How often? Windows NT and 2000
    >> are super stable--I've rarely gotten the BSOD except when first
    >> configuring stuff on it. Once stable, it's stable. Is Linux the
    >> same?

    >
    > In over six years of using Linux on an almost daily basis, on three
    > separate machines, I have NEVER had Linux crash. I have had some
    > improperly-designed Flash-based websites crash Firefox, but it always
    > goes back to the KDE desktop. I repeat - Linux has NEVER crashed on me.
    >
    > I can't say the same for Windows.


    Indeed. I've had X crashes, I've had app crashes...
    But the only time I've ever seen a kernel panic was with a badly setup
    LILO/GRUB, duff RAM or other hardware problem.

    Oh, tell a lie, 5 years ago I tried a linmodem and that driver caused a
    panic when it had to dialin a second time...

    Watch as the wintrolls leap on this linmodem driver as proof of linux's
    instability, even though the driver wasn't part of linux (and was 5 years
    ago).


    --
    | spike1@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    | Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |

+ Reply to Thread