SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    SitePoint Enthusiast jeremyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Change from Windows

    I'm taking the leap and installing Linux (latest version of Mandrake). Is anybody running it that feels like giving me a few tips?
    File not found. Look behind couch? (Y/N)

  2. #2
    SitePoint Guru jkcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    746
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    why may I ask, I am just curious to your reasons.

  3. #3
    Xbox why have you forsaken me? moospot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Clearwater, FL
    Posts
    3,615
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Make sure you have a fast computer! My Linux installation runs slower than Windows! The install itself was pretty easy. All you have to do is read the instructions on the screen.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Enthusiast jeremyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why you ask? I'm planning on taking a course that deals heavy with the *nix OS, so I thought I'd jump in at home first. That's all.

    Fast computer? Yeah, I think my little 'ol 1.4 AMD can keep up with the penguin
    File not found. Look behind couch? (Y/N)

  5. #5
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    140
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    go with the standard

    If you are installing something like mandrake, i would suggest going more deeply into the manual way of doing things, I say this because I installed mandrake and when I saw debian, it was a whole different ball game. So what I am saying is don't get used to Mandrake cause it is one of the more user friendly distro and might spoil you.
    Ali Memon
    Direct Print

  6. #6
    Xbox why have you forsaken me? moospot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Clearwater, FL
    Posts
    3,615
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by jeremyk
    Why you ask? I'm planning on taking a course that deals heavy with the *nix OS, so I thought I'd jump in at home first. That's all.

    Fast computer? Yeah, I think my little 'ol 1.4 AMD can keep up with the penguin
    My PII 300 didnt like it so much

  7. #7
    SitePoint Wizard dominique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    orbis terrarum
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My PIII 750 runs Red Hat 7.1 much faster than Win98SE.

  8. #8
    What? Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Whistler BC originally from Guelph Ontario
    Posts
    2,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by dominique
    My PIII 750 runs Red Hat 7.1 much faster than Win98SE.
    Thats because win98 se is the worst version of window ever created. Even worse then win95 beta releases in my opinion
    Maelstrom Personal - Apparition Visions
    Development - PhP || Mysql || Zend || Devshed
    Unix - FreeBSD || FreeBsdForums || Man Pages
    They made me a sitepoint Mentor - Feel free to PM me or Email me and I will see if I can help.

  9. #9
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    313
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Maelstrom: Win98SE was easily the best of the Win9x releases, any competent person can see that. Win95 & Win95b were revolutional, but compared to Win98SE .. terrible. Win98 wasn't so hot either. WinME was cluttered and about as stable as the Win95 betas. That leaves Win98SE which is, as I said, the best of the 9x releases.

  10. #10
    SitePoint Wizard dominique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    orbis terrarum
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Maelstrom, I have to agree with Pixel26!

  11. #11
    What? Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Whistler BC originally from Guelph Ontario
    Posts
    2,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Pixel26
    Maelstrom: Win98SE was easily the best of the Win9x releases, any competent person can see that. Win95 & Win95b were revolutional, but compared to Win98SE .. terrible. Win98 wasn't so hot either. WinME was cluttered and about as stable as the Win95 betas. That leaves Win98SE which is, as I said, the best of the 9x releases.
    Well I am a very competent person. And every (and I am not exagerating with that statment) version I ever installed on all the computers I built or fixed of win98SE had serious problem. Either compatibility or other. I did have problems with win95 but not even close to 98se and I have several friends back east who would agree with me. 98SE for some reason didn't work well for anyone I knew. Maybe you had better luck.

    Maybe I just have weird computers but I didn't even have a problem with ME. It never stalled on me I never got a blue screen and was compatible with everything I put in it. Although I only had it for a month before I upgraded.

    (ps I was exagerating about the 95 betas. I was a tester and they more or less sucked until the last set of releases )
    Maelstrom Personal - Apparition Visions
    Development - PhP || Mysql || Zend || Devshed
    Unix - FreeBSD || FreeBsdForums || Man Pages
    They made me a sitepoint Mentor - Feel free to PM me or Email me and I will see if I can help.

  12. #12
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    313
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ( I know you're competent, I just wanted to use the word competent in that post. )

    Anyways, well .. ME was compatible, but in the end it was about as stable as a seesaw with the worlds fattest man on one end, and a 7 year old child on the other.

    Win95 was even less stable than that, and unless you had Win95b USB devices were (almost) out of the question. And no-one I know ever had any problems installing 98SE, maybe you just did have bad luck.

  13. #13
    + platinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    6,441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well... windows 95 was a massive jump from win3.1... even if it was a little unstable, it was better than the alternative by a long shot.

    win98 was IMO, very good (better than 95) since it basically improved a lot of things... it improved upon many things (FAT32 is one of the main ones) as well as it's integration with the internet. Windows 98 i think was probably the most popular MS OS to date.

    NT - I can't stand NT.... really everything is so wierd.. but is did spawn windows 2000.

    windows 2000 is very stable, perfect for business, power useres, etc, although it is still struggling a little on many fronts.

    Windows ME... forget it unless you are buying it for free... It is more for the friendly old age pensioner who wants a nofuss OS... but still, there is nothing wrong with it as such.

    Windows XP (escpecially the pro. edition) looks like this will be as popular as windows 98 was, it works well, not really any problems i can see with it. The only real problem is support for older software and devices.

    there we go

  14. #14
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Yeppoon, Australia
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I too would agree that Win98SE was definitely the best of the Win 9x releases for the reasons already mentioned.

    I've found that you can run Linux comfortably on a P166 (I'm running RH 7.1 on a P200 with 128MB). What you definitely need is a good chunk of RAM if you're running the GUI. If you're not, a 3/486 is plenty. Depends what you're doing really.

    Take care installing it on *really* new hardware as you may have some issues getting drivers for a little bit.

    As already mentioned, you may want look at another distribution as the Mandrake one's are pretty and all but they shield you from a lot of inards so you won't learn as much as say a Redhat or Debian dist.

    As far as I have been able to fathom, Redhat (various versions, but especially 6.2) is run on a lot of servers around the web so you may want to look at installing a redhat distribution to get experience with it.

    Get to know and love the "man" command , google, usenet and other related resources.
    Knowledge is knowing that a tomatoe is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

  15. #15
    Mlle. Ledoyen silver trophy seanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,168
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have said this before and I will say it again, I found WinME much more stable than Win98

    Sean
    Harry Potter

    -- You lived inside my world so softly
    -- Protected only by the kindness of your nature

  16. #16
    SitePoint Enthusiast jeremyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hmmm... Maybe I'll look into installing RedHat, too.

    As for the win 9x debate? I cried when I had to upgrade from windows 95 to 98se (for software reasons). Win 98se was supposedly the hottest 9x release to date, and even my version C with every update imaginable, managed to crash at least 5 times a day. I was formatting and clean-installing it once every month or two.

    I switched to Win2k and it's been smooth sailing since.
    File not found. Look behind couch? (Y/N)

  17. #17
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    313
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ME was hella stable for me too, it just didn't have 'it'. I amn't sure what 'it' is, but 98SE had it and ME didn't.

    I have used all versions of Windows over the past 5 years, even 3.1 and 3.11 (my uncle took agggesss to upgrade to 95), and the most stable version I have come across is XP, with 2000 trailing slightly.

    3.1 and 3.11 were stable, but, they didn't have multitasking, so they were useless. 95 and 95b had multitasking, but were still useless.

    98 was, again, useless. 98SE was the first version of Windows that is still considered 'good' 3 years later. ME, was, again .. useless, it was 98SE with a few bells and whistles that just slowed things down (it had a nice boot time though.). NT 3.1 was utter pants, NT4 was a slight improvement, but if you wanted to play games .. not a chance. 2000 was the first version of Windows that was both stable, and moderately compatible!! Then we have XP .. which is good.

    ***These views are my own, and only my own .. you may disagree .. that's fine with me.***

  18. #18
    We like music. weirdbeardmt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Channel Islands Girth: Footlong
    Posts
    5,882
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would take Win95 over Win98 anytime, but then I wouldn't swap either for my bootiful (see what I did there? ) Win2k machine. I have barely had a single problem and not one blue screen yet.

    :fingerscrossed:
    I swear to drunk I'm not God.
    Matt's debating is not a crime
    Hint: Don't buy a stupid dwarf Clicky

  19. #19
    What? Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Whistler BC originally from Guelph Ontario
    Posts
    2,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by seanf
    I have said this before and I will say it again, I found WinME much more stable than Win98

    Sean
    Yeah /me jumps for joy...
    Maelstrom Personal - Apparition Visions
    Development - PhP || Mysql || Zend || Devshed
    Unix - FreeBSD || FreeBsdForums || Man Pages
    They made me a sitepoint Mentor - Feel free to PM me or Email me and I will see if I can help.

  20. #20
    What? Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Whistler BC originally from Guelph Ontario
    Posts
    2,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by jeremyk
    Hmmm... Maybe I'll look into installing RedHat, too.

    If you really want to get into linux why not installl one of the less user friendly versions. (sorry not a linux expert but I do know redhat and mandrake are the easiest versions to work with)...
    Maelstrom Personal - Apparition Visions
    Development - PhP || Mysql || Zend || Devshed
    Unix - FreeBSD || FreeBsdForums || Man Pages
    They made me a sitepoint Mentor - Feel free to PM me or Email me and I will see if I can help.

  21. #21
    epsilon transition cupid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Kent, Ohio
    Posts
    367
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Jeremy, why not partition your harddrive and install both unix and windows? If you're leaping into the *nix world, it's natural that you won't be familiar with the new os. This way, you can still boot into windows when you need something you just don't know how to do on the new platform.

    As for the windows debate, ME turned out to be the most stable for me. Running 2k right now.. it'd be okay if it wasn't so picky with hardware.

  22. #22
    SitePoint Wizard dominique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    orbis terrarum
    Posts
    1,523
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd install Red Hat because it's not as easy as Mandrake (so I'm told) but it's far easier than Debian! (And it is better than both.)

    If you know absolutely nothing about *nix OSes, then I'd go with Red Hat. You can learn a lot and you won't go insane (as you would if you went with, say, Debian).

    If you're really devoted to learning the inner workings, and have a lot of time to dedicate to this, then go with Debian. If you can learn Debian through and through, you'll know 98% of all that there is to know about *nix OSes.

    Be warned though, it will not be an easy and painless journey!

  23. #23
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    actually tha best version of Win9x ive found was Win95C it was released bout 2 or 3 months before 98, had usb support, Ie4 (NOT integrated) ran faster than 98 if it wasnt better than 98SE it gave it a run for tha money.

    As Far as *nix try BSD if its a true unix type class if it just covers linux Redhat or mandrake be tha easiest to learn initially.

  24. #24
    SitePoint Zealot Grandmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Location: Houlton, ME
    Posts
    148
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My windows 2000 is the best ever. I can run games, its stable, and I love the security..
    Ken Prescott - 21Studios freelancing design
    Graphic-Forums - The Forums for the Graphic User

  25. #25
    SitePoint Enthusiast jeremyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Pixel26
    NT 3.1 was utter pants, NT4 was a slight improvement, but if you wanted to play games .. not a chance.
    I'm sorry, but did you just say "utter pants"? I can't say I've heard that before...
    File not found. Look behind couch? (Y/N)


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •