robbo get real-if you want a desktop operating system that is nice and dumb, with some CLI and easy gui functionality go buy or borrow windows. you can get tons of stuff for windows, and who cares that if you leave it on overnight you 'll have blue screen in the morning. remember it's a hybrid code platform and is notoriously unstable; no serious user chooses to rely on windows 95/98. if you want something that you can develop, hack, serve, program and generally do what you want with, choose linux, and then learn how to use it.

0

First of all i said i don't have any need to leave it on overnight so why would i worry about that? Maybe your the dumb one and dont know how to use Windows, you can hack that to your hearts content but its much easier to do. Well from my personal experience windows is quite stable, sure i have the occasional problem where IE5 decides to shut one of its windows becoz of an error but that aint big enough of a problem to change OS's. As for this blue screen of death, have you ever really used windows? How often do you see it? seriuosly once ever 18months? at most? I also use that SETI thingo, and therefore quite often leave it on for a few days to get the work units done, so much for yor screen of death crap. at least that tells you wats wrong linux most probably gives you sum error msg that means nothing. I'm not saying you have to use windows here, i'm really just asking does linux deserve some of the reviews its getting about being the best OS?

0

Robbo. I have been trying to burn that dam peanut four 2 days.Seems Its not an iso. Could you please let me know what you burned it with??? thanks. ...mark..

0

Mark, I made a partition so as to keep win95 in case i needed it, and installed linux to the new EXT2(or sumthing) partition, so i cant help you with the burning thing. If your hard drives more than 5gig try that, trust me you'll want to keep Windows once you see how bad linux actually is. Peanut linux came with instructions on how to do this.

0

Robbo Hay thanks four the response. I just wonted to try peanut so what it was like.I allredy use win 98 and red hat 6.2. From what you say peanut has no gui whitch would make it relly hard to set up if you werent used to it. If you relley wont to try linux I would recomend you try 6.2 or some other flavor that has auto partiton and gnone desk top. There is a speed penality. But it wont drive you insane setting it up,And it is easy to switch to other desktops later. I wouldent give up just yet I mean 55mb doesent give a fair pix of this much talked about o/s :) Good luck..mark

0

Mark, you have to pay for Red hat etc..., or their download is way too big. Peanut wasn't bad, it had some KDE thingo netscape, icq, and heaps more, more than hwat i needed. As for 55mbs not being enough it really should be, NT3.1 was only 20mb, and that was great, Win95(not osr2) was only about 34mb from what i remeber so yeah 55mb should b e plenty.

0

You want a valid speed comparison, download the SETI software for linux, get a unit and process it, betting you will be surprised at the difference. I have been told, at least 20% faster on linux....

0

FREEEEEE Windows sux On My windows O/S I have to install drivers from a disk... with Linux I just tell it to do it an its done an Im on the net... only thing I dont like is the things I gotta do for the monitor setting this PEEG up is a pain but what can I expect from a Pentium 133mhz IBM Aptiva? 1024x768 @ 60hz 1024x768 256 colors low colors cuz I like it to be fast old computers performing a lil better doesnt lock up just hangs once in a while for a few minutes an usually comes out of it in time anyway havent had it HANG UP ON ME YET LIKE WINDOWS heh heh bring it on macroshaft monopolize this Bill Gates <^l^^)(^^l^> FREEEEEEEEEEEEE tight Yo check it out how hard is it to put a boot disk in to get windows back on if yer too dumb ta run linux? fdisk format C: BLAH BLAH BLAH MACROSHAFT

0

Yes SETI is quicker on linux, because the seti program is a command line thing, in windows it is a screensaver, with pretty pictures showing exactly what is happening, so of course it will take a bit longer to do. Oh and i had sooo many problems with my linux that my modem didn;t work properly which would make it imposible to run seti anyways, sometimes you have to think about ease of use than always saying linux iss a little bit quicker.

0

Robbo do you seriously know anything about windows or unix. What exactly do you think that blue screen tells you? Kernel-whatever-32.dll blah, blah, why don't you enlighten the rest of the world and tell us what happened, what caused this, how you would go about preventing this from happening again. And listen, I don't think anyone experiences blue screens consistantly from checking there email, surfing the net, or using MS word. Any way, back to my original point, I don't think you have a clue...

0

the Unix X-Window system was around since at least 1986. If anything they must've borrowed from Mac/OS, and not MS Windows.

0

Mango, Well as i said in five years of windows, 95 now 98, i have only seen this bluse screen thingo once, and it said. "unable to read disk in drive a:, esc to end or enter to continue" Well you obviously dont have a clue about windows so i'll tell you. A disk in drive a:, would be my floppy disk, esc that little button top left, enter the big one on the right. It seemed to be pretty self explainetery. Feel free to contact me if your having problems working out what a floppy drive is, i'll explain in more detail. As for the cause, well as it said, it couldn't read my floppy in drive a:, this was because i had thought it wasn't reading it anymore, but it was and I had removed it, hence it couldn't read it anymore. So to put it breifly to the rest of the world, I'd removed my floppy to early. As for your kernel problem you have, surly you know what that is? Hopefully anyway. I can tell you from personal experience that Linux is hardly helpfull if something goes wrong. If it crashes(and it does) what does it tell you?

0

Robbo, your great man, what is your point? If Linux is so crappy why does it backbone the internet? Why do more than 85% of local isp companies use it? Windows is ok if you want to run word or something, but for serious computing... please get real, windows can't play an mp3 and open a graphic file without pukin' all over the floor. Get a grip pal.

0

Ok it may be the backbone of the net, thats really good, great even. How many computer users need their computer to do that? what 10% max i suppose? Now over 90% of all computers are running windows(on then net, or a desktop), even more had it on at one stage, but have now got linux or similar. Wile i speak i infact have PSP5 open, winamp(midnight oils) IE5, outlokk express, Norton anti-virus, task scheduler, and a prog called config safe. Doesn't seem to have crashed as of yet, will let you know. Robbo.

0

i dont care what anyone says robbo. i havnt enjoed myself so much on the net for a long time. please keep hanging s--- on linux etc. i am having a ball reading your comments and everyones replies. this is the best bit of humorous education ive had in yonks... pt

0

The only reason a windows user would be able to say linux is nothing but dos is that he is as of yet too inexperienced to realize the power of linux. Please read up a little bit on Virtual Shells and some of the more advanced features of linux/unix before dissing the BEST no the ONLY operating system in existence worthy of being called an os.

0

And windows ME is not an operating system because? I know it has virtual shells, i spent s---loads of time with it, but it is confusing and useless. Whats the point of it? windows is great who needs another OS?

0

Windows ME is not an operating system, it is a GUI. DOS is the underlying operating system, Robbo. In fact the entire Windows family is just an gui for the DOS operating system... a p*ss poor gui at that. With windows, the Blue Screen of death does give you a Kernel fault. Your Windows/DOS hybrid has a kernel just like a linux box. If you do not believe me, goto the run option in your start menu, and type C:\con\con read the error message. It gives detailed information on what crashed, and why. It is arcane, because it is in Hexadecimal... and it even gives the memory address... Linux users:: Could the Blue Screen output be something the M$ "engineers" used for debug purposes? After all, who else would need the memory addresses of the system fault? Robbo: Pardon that... Now, your experience with Linux has been simply Peanut linux? 55Mb and you aren't happy with your system? My laptop is running muLinux, which without a GUI takes up 1770K of hard drive space... with a gui it is 3540K of hard drive space. Due to the tiny size, and the modular nature of linux, I have room for three other operating systems... Linux Slackware DOS Win3.1 and DOS 4.0 running underneath a windows 95 GUI. I don't need win 95... I just wanted to see how fast linux ran against it... Linux wins hands down.. So, before you start banging on Unix systems, (after all, all Unix systems have use /usr/local rather than \Program Files) perhaps you'll take a look, at a stable system that is so, because of more than thirty years of Unix advancements? Linux users: Is there a way I could install an X-Server on the slackware partition? THe laptop is ancient, and has only a floppy disk drive...

0

I dont understand whats so hard about Linux or anything. I just installed Linux-Mandrake a few days ago and love it. It sure is faster than WindowsME and is a lot more stable. Havent got any kind of error yet. But I am still running WindowsME because of many reasons ie. Games, MS-Word, Outlook(email), and a few other things. But what I have seen so far I like. I wanted to run a dual boot system and it set it right up for me with no problems. The only real problem that I had with Linux was that it would not recognize my modem. All I did was switched it to PnP because it is an older ISA modem and I used jumpers to configure it. After switching it to PnP Linux detected it and I went from there. Linux was easier to install than Windows and there are no frickin drivers to install. So far I am giving Linux a thumbs up!

0

For someone who isn't concerned with what lies 'underneath' your OS, windows is fine. For ease of use considering the variety of software windows has an edge.. this is mainly because there is one and only one maker of windows. They get to define the standards and every programmer follows them. It is progressively getting better in stability/speed (the ME kernel is much improved over previous 9X kernels.. faster and tighter code). At the same time linux is at it's core blazingly faster and more stable. Linux is in essence a workhorse that is only becoming more popular on the desktop of late.. it's the system for servers and the 'security enthusiasts' out there who like having extremem power and control over what goes on with their system. Certainly it's much more complex, but infinately more customizeable for those who like to believe they know better than their computer how to run things =). The 'fuss' is that with all it's power it's slowly becoming user friendly. There's a big barrier right now in standards as it's a matter of open source.. every joe blow with skill can write their own drivers, modules, programs or even kernel if they know enough about the system and what they want.. it still retains all this and now, for the people who just want to plug in a computer and have it run their music and games and program (i.e IMac lovers of the world) it's becoming easier steadily to achieve that with the power and speed of the linux core behind it. It isn't there yet, but (as has been predicted for a long time) it will in the long run reach the same ease of use and operation of windows while being faster and more powerful. The way that companies are slowly cluing in to this (mainly by the fervent popular demand of loyal linux users) foreshadows it. If you don't like it, nobody says you have to use it or prefer it to windows of any flavour... but don't discount it yet. The growing number of people who swear by it speak for themselves.

0

you all are a little bit right...however Linux DOES NOT back bone the net, true we at the #4 national ISP do depend on a linux box for our monitoring tools it pulls polled data out of SQL and graphs it in real-time. SUN backbones the internet as far as ISPs go maybe linux rules hosting but sure not service providers

0

Hey Robbo, only chumps like you actually like Windows. It's uneducated people like you that really don't understand Linux's full potential. You think Windows is easier to use and therefor think it's better. Well, Windows was designed to be "user friendly" so that idiots like you could understand what you were doing. Grab a brain!

0