# Linux Distributions



## ekrem

Which do you use?

I'm using Pardus, but I'm testing different versions at the moment, and maybe will make a permanent switch. Maybe. 
I've tested Debian Wheezy (Testing branch) the last days and I run Debian Lenny (Stable) in non-X environment on Servers.

I've never run Linux Mint, but they've released a version which has Debian Testing branch in its source, they call it "LMDE".
Download - Linux Mint
Has anyone tried this?
It is similar to Debian Cut project (no release so far).

Another Linux Version I'll test is Aptosid, which has Debian Sid (Unstable) as its source.
I have read only good things about it so far, and what they say is, that it is one of fastest KDE implementation.
aptosid.com :: aptosid - Debian hot and spicy!


At home I'm limited to KDE due to KDE's perfect and stable implementation of ssh/sftp (fish://) handling. Gnome, XFCE etc. all suck in this regard.
The only thing I can not figure out is the behavour of remote file-saving. Only Kwrite/Kate will save the files immediately to remote machine. 
If I modify files with Geany (best Text-Editor) or Gedit, I first have to close Geany/Gedit and *only then* the Filebrowser asks if the modified file should be uploaded. 
It doesn't save the files immediately on remote machine, but makes a copy on local machine in /tmp/var/kde-cache. Be it with Pardus or Debian.

If I mount the remote machine with sshfs/fuse then I can instantly save the files from *all* Text-Editors. But sshfs is too slow with Directory-browsing within mount-point, it takes seconds to display contents within folders if there are more than 20 files or folders within a folder.


----------



## Sallow

Remote file saving? You can use all sorts of methods to do that..from ftp, nfs, nis, and scp to name a few.

What are you trying to do?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Main computer is Ubuntu 10.04 (I installed 11.0, but reverted - I hated it)
Laptop 1 - Linux Mint 11...very good OS..solid..requires very little additional tweaking after install.
Laptop 2 - Linux Mint 10.x...just haven't upgraded it yet (daughters and she is in college)

Laptop 3 - Ultimate Edition Ubuntu...what a riot...the install is something like 3 GB. It has the most flashiest- gay looking theme on the planet...it comes with virtually every Linux program pre-installed. It takes about 3-4 minutes to boot up. It is hilarious.


----------



## Sallow

iamwhatiseem said:


> Main computer is Ubuntu 10.04 (I installed 11.0, but reverted - I hated it)
> Laptop 1 - Linux Mint 11...very good OS..solid..requires very little additional tweaking after install.
> Laptop 2 - Linux Mint 10.x...just haven't upgraded it yet (daughters and she is in college)
> 
> Laptop 3 - Ultimate Edition Ubuntu...what a riot...the install is something like 3 GB. It has the most flashiest- gay looking theme on the planet...it comes with virtually every Linux program pre-installed. It takes about 3-4 minutes to boot up. It is hilarious.



You can turn off the services on Laptop 3. You probably aren't using a good many of them.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Sallow said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Main computer is Ubuntu 10.04 (I installed 11.0, but reverted - I hated it)
> Laptop 1 - Linux Mint 11...very good OS..solid..requires very little additional tweaking after install.
> Laptop 2 - Linux Mint 10.x...just haven't upgraded it yet (daughters and she is in college)
> 
> Laptop 3 - Ultimate Edition Ubuntu...what a riot...the install is something like 3 GB. It has the most flashiest- gay looking theme on the planet...it comes with virtually every Linux program pre-installed. It takes about 3-4 minutes to boot up. It is hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can turn off the services on Laptop 3. You probably aren't using a good many of them.
Click to expand...


Absolutely....it has to be the most overdone OS on the planet...even more than Windows. I installed it for the helluvit a few months back...wow...whoever designed the themes is either a flaming shemale or designed it while on LSD.
 I can't remember now - but the memory it eats while just sitting still is amazing.


----------



## Sallow

iamwhatiseem said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Main computer is Ubuntu 10.04 (I installed 11.0, but reverted - I hated it)
> Laptop 1 - Linux Mint 11...very good OS..solid..requires very little additional tweaking after install.
> Laptop 2 - Linux Mint 10.x...just haven't upgraded it yet (daughters and she is in college)
> 
> Laptop 3 - Ultimate Edition Ubuntu...what a riot...the install is something like 3 GB. It has the most flashiest- gay looking theme on the planet...it comes with virtually every Linux program pre-installed. It takes about 3-4 minutes to boot up. It is hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can turn off the services on Laptop 3. You probably aren't using a good many of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely....it has to be the most overdone OS on the planet...even more than Windows. I installed it for the helluvit a few months back...wow...whoever designed the themes is either a flaming shemale or designed it while on LSD.
> I can't remember now - but the memory it eats while just sitting still is amazing.
Click to expand...



You can open up a terminal session and type in..

ps -ef  | more

It will show you exactly what your process table looks like.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Sallow said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can turn off the services on Laptop 3. You probably aren't using a good many of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely....it has to be the most overdone OS on the planet...even more than Windows. I installed it for the helluvit a few months back...wow...whoever designed the themes is either a flaming shemale or designed it while on LSD.
> I can't remember now - but the memory it eats while just sitting still is amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can open up a terminal session and type in..
> 
> ps -ef  | more
> 
> It will show you exactly what your process table looks like.
Click to expand...


Ever notice how much memory Firefox hogs? 
I like my firefox...but it uses way too much resources.


----------



## ekrem

Sallow said:


> Remote file saving? You can use all sorts of methods to do that..from ftp, nfs, nis, and scp to name a few.
> 
> What are you trying to do?



FTP requires  FTP to be installed on Server and running it as a service, so I can connect to it.
NFS doesn't have secure encryption like sftp (3des encryption).

Look, this is the window-header of *every* Text-Editor except Kwrite/Kate






It opens and saves the file on local machine instead of remote machine.
Only if I close the Text-Editor and switch to Filebrowser (Dolphin/Konqueror) then the Filebrowser offers to upload the file on remote machine.

If I mount the remote-machine with sshfs, all Text-Editors behave as they should (direct saving on remote machine).
But it is too slow (directory browsing), even if I change encryption of ssh to something which needs less computing like arcfour and disable compression.
I have some folders on Server which have lots of files within them, so directory browsing is very slow with this solution.

I also created a new user on remote-machine, the same as on local machine and established connection over this new account and chowned all files which I edit, but still the same behavior.


----------



## Sallow

iamwhatiseem said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely....it has to be the most overdone OS on the planet...even more than Windows. I installed it for the helluvit a few months back...wow...whoever designed the themes is either a flaming shemale or designed it while on LSD.
> I can't remember now - but the memory it eats while just sitting still is amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can open up a terminal session and type in..
> 
> ps -ef  | more
> 
> It will show you exactly what your process table looks like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever notice how much memory Firefox hogs?
> I like my firefox...but it uses way too much resources.
Click to expand...


All internet browsers are memory hogs.


----------



## Sallow

ekrem said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remote file saving? You can use all sorts of methods to do that..from ftp, nfs, nis, and scp to name a few.
> 
> What are you trying to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FTP requires  FTP to be installed on Server and running it as a service, so I can connect to it.
> NFS doesn't have secure encryption like sftp (3des encryption).
> 
> Look, this is the window-header of *every* Text-Editor except Kwrite/Kate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It opens and saves the file on local machine instead of remote machine.
> Only if I close the Text-Editor and switch to Filebrowser (Dolphin/Konqueror) then the Filebrowser offers to upload the file on remote machine.
> 
> If I mount the remote-machine with sshfs, all Text-Editors behave as they should (direct saving on remote machine).
> But it is too slow (directory browsing), even if I change encryption of ssh to something which needs less computing like arcfour and disable compression.
> I have some folders on Server which have lots of files within them, so directory browsing is very slow with this solution.
> 
> I also created a new user on remote-machine, the same as on local machine and established connection over this new account and chowned all files which I edit, but still the same behavior.
Click to expand...


Try using scp.

scp - Linux command line tool to copy files over ssh

I used it all the time in shell scripts.

Great tool.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Sallow said:


> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remote file saving? You can use all sorts of methods to do that..from ftp, nfs, nis, and scp to name a few.
> 
> What are you trying to do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FTP requires  FTP to be installed on Server and running it as a service, so I can connect to it.
> NFS doesn't have secure encryption like sftp (3des encryption).
> 
> Look, this is the window-header of *every* Text-Editor except Kwrite/Kate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It opens and saves the file on local machine instead of remote machine.
> Only if I close the Text-Editor and switch to Filebrowser (Dolphin/Konqueror) then the Filebrowser offers to upload the file on remote machine.
> 
> If I mount the remote-machine with sshfs, all Text-Editors behave as they should (direct saving on remote machine).
> But it is too slow (directory browsing), even if I change encryption of ssh to something which needs less computing like arcfour and disable compression.
> I have some folders on Server which have lots of files within them, so directory browsing is very slow with this solution.
> 
> I also created a new user on remote-machine, the same as on local machine and established connection over this new account and chowned all files which I edit, but still the same behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try using scp.
> 
> scp - Linux command line tool to copy files over ssh
> 
> I used it all the time in shell scripts.
> 
> Great tool.
Click to expand...


Sooo...what the heck do you do?
You in IT?


----------



## Ringel05

iamwhatiseem said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> 
> FTP requires  FTP to be installed on Server and running it as a service, so I can connect to it.
> NFS doesn't have secure encryption like sftp (3des encryption).
> 
> Look, this is the window-header of *every* Text-Editor except Kwrite/Kate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It opens and saves the file on local machine instead of remote machine.
> Only if I close the Text-Editor and switch to Filebrowser (Dolphin/Konqueror) then the Filebrowser offers to upload the file on remote machine.
> 
> If I mount the remote-machine with sshfs, all Text-Editors behave as they should (direct saving on remote machine).
> But it is too slow (directory browsing), even if I change encryption of ssh to something which needs less computing like arcfour and disable compression.
> I have some folders on Server which have lots of files within them, so directory browsing is very slow with this solution.
> 
> I also created a new user on remote-machine, the same as on local machine and established connection over this new account and chowned all files which I edit, but still the same behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try using scp.
> 
> scp - Linux command line tool to copy files over ssh
> 
> I used it all the time in shell scripts.
> 
> Great tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sooo...what the heck do you do?
> *You in IT*?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes he is........


----------



## Wumplestiltskin

iamwhatiseem said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely....it has to be the most overdone OS on the planet...even more than Windows. I installed it for the helluvit a few months back...wow...whoever designed the themes is either a flaming shemale or designed it while on LSD.
> I can't remember now - but the memory it eats while just sitting still is amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can open up a terminal session and type in..
> 
> ps -ef  | more
> 
> It will show you exactly what your process table looks like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever notice how much memory Firefox hogs?
> I like my firefox...but it uses way too much resources.
Click to expand...

Seven is a tad better.Still not as good as Chrome.


----------



## Wumplestiltskin

Sallow said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can open up a terminal session and type in..
> 
> ps -ef  | more
> 
> It will show you exactly what your process table looks like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever notice how much memory Firefox hogs?
> I like my firefox...but it uses way too much resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All internet browsers are memory hogs.
Click to expand...

With the price of memory these days, who cares ?


----------



## ekrem

Sallow said:


> (...)



Sallow, I can not create tmpfs mounts on my Webserver, "permission denied".
So I try to save some files into /dev/shm. How I understand it, this location is shared memory folder, and my shared memory is 4GB with the company where I host my Websites.
But, when I save some files to this location the df command keeps increasing the used disk-space. 

I'd like to save my Website for logged-out users into cached files, and this functions already. 
But I'd like to save those files into RAM. I can install memcached or redis which provide exactly this option, but they unnecessarily run services and are just a go-between between my Website and Linux-Ram. 
I'd like to save those files into RAM without a go-between as I think, that is faster. 

You know about Linux, and you mentioned that you use it for work. Maybe you know a little bit about /dev/shm or Shared Memory and you have time to explain that.
Thank you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

I use Kubuntu 11.04.

I've always preferred KDE to GNU.


----------



## Ringel05

Just (re)loaded Mint 12 the first edition with an all Gnome 3 interface.  Why reloaded?  Well I loaded it and being the,  'I like the old fashioned, familiar things' I was unfamiliar with the interface and changes so I decided to try other distributions (most were current releases).  First off I tried Kubuntu, but the interface was much like the new Gnome 3 besides Gnome has hundreds more applications to chose from.  
Next I decided to go back to Ubuntu 11.04 then Mint 11.04 but suddenly they seemed old and unpolished so I decided to try Ubuntu 12 again since I had found work arounds to disable and uninstall Unity but that left the interface looking like the old Gnome 2 but without the full usability of the 11.4 desktops.
I've tried Fedora, RedHat, OpenSUSE, Linux Pup and Xfce versions and I keep coming back to Mint.  So now I have Mint 12 loaded and I start doing the same thing when I loaded my first Linux distribution and that is explore, read and use.  Other than some things I'm still learning and some simple functions that are no longer there I'm starting to enjoy this new interface.  Clean, crisp and modern and while it took a little time to get used to the Gnome Shell, which kept popping up when I accidentally moused over it, I'm starting to find it very useful.
For me the only drawback is I'm a gamer, I like my video games and since Linux is open source the big name game developers won't write games for it....... yet........
One definite positive is the system I'm running it on is an old Dell 5440, Pentium 4 with 1 gig of RAM and a NVidia 1/2 a gig graphics card and it's just as fast (if not faster) then the Windows XP that was originally on it.


----------



## Douger

My main rig is SalineOS 1.5. It's the most stable and fast thing I've used since the Xandros days.XFCE but based on squeeze so K DE wouldn't be any problem to install .
My GF's rig is Puppy Lucid 5.2.8 dual booted with Vector 7.
Lucid pup is Ubuntu compatible and the newest, Slax Pup, is Slackware compatible but Vector, also pure Slackware, is better.
Keep in mind I'm an XFCE guy.

Every time i've run KDE I keep looking around me expecting a guy in a mouse suit to show up selling caramel corn.


----------



## Ringel05

Douger said:


> My main rig is SalineOS 1.5. It's the most stable and fast thing I've used since the Xandros days.XFCE but based on squeeze so K DE wouldn't be any problem to install .
> My GF's rig is Puppy Lucid 5.2.8 dual booted with Vector 7.
> Lucid pup is Ubuntu compatible and the newest, Slax Pup, is Slackware compatible but Vector, also pure Slackware, is better.
> Keep in mind I'm an XFCE guy.
> 
> Every time i've run KDE I keep looking around me expecting a guy in a mouse suit to show up selling caramel corn.



All good distros, again based on one's knowledge and preferences not for everybody.  I found this list from 2002.  I wonder how many are still around and how many new ones have been added. 

LWN Distributions List


----------



## Ringel05

I almost forgot, Mint 12's default search engine is now DuckDuckGo but you still have the option of using the standard, Google, Chrome, etc.  The reason is it's a total open source search engine that does not track you, eliminates filter bubbling (designing search results based on your browsing habits) and when you use it to buy online Mint gets revenue from it, lots of revenue from it.


----------



## Douger

Innumerable versions have come and gone.
The key (my opinion) to choosing a distribution is to stay as close to the mothership as possible.
Debian, Gentoo, Fedora( Redhat), Slack, SUSE.
If your flavor vanishes ( they often do) you have the option of going back to the original.

My first love was Stormix ( Debian) then I was playing with Progeny being tweaked by Ian (as in Deb-Ian). He needed a real job and went to SunMicro so I jumped on Xandros, back to Debian proper, on to Ubuntu, on to Mint and now LinMintDE then Saline. You see the theme.
I'm a Debian guy with an interest in Slackware, which is the way to *really* understand how Linux works ( albeit a pain in the ass compared to Debian).
Slack is good. Real good. The average person had best avoid it and stick with the Debian based stuff--- specifically the offshoots that provide all of the "non-free" goodies that enable internet activity.
The Purists at Debian have a "contract" to use only " FREE" software.... as the great unwashed master, Richard Stallman, has declared as sanctified, making Debian pure still difficult fore those transitioning to a real operating system from perpetually broken Window$

The success of Ubuntu and Mint are simply due to the fact that their creators broke the "rules" making Debian available to anyone, hence their huge success.

I must give the Developers at Debian full credit. Even though I think the "contract" is stupid, without those guys and gals I'd likely be typing this from a Mac.... since only an idiot uses Windows ( unless forced to at-for work)


----------



## Douger

There's another kid in town. A browser called Midori. The current in Debian stable is shit(2.?). 
The one in testing ROCKS.
It's lined up likely as default in Saline2.0 when Debian freezes Squeeze and gets headed to put out 7.0
Personally, I think it's ready but Debian makes DAMN sure nothing is broken in new releases.


----------



## Ringel05

Douger said:


> Innumerable versions have come and gone.
> The key (my opinion) to choosing a distribution is to stay as close to the mothership as possible.
> Debian, Gentoo, Fedora( Redhat), Slack, SUSE.
> If your flavor vanishes ( they often do) you have the option of going back to the original.
> 
> My first love was Stormix ( Debian) then I was playing with Progeny being tweaked by Ian (as in Deb-Ian). He needed a real job and went to SunMicro so I jumped on Xandros, back to Debian proper, on to Ubuntu, on to Mint and now LinMintDE then Saline. You see the theme.
> I'm a Debian guy with an interest in Slackware, which is the way to *really* understand how Linux works ( albeit a pain in the ass compared to Debian).
> Slack is good. Real good. The average person had best avoid it and stick with the Debian based stuff--- specifically the offshoots that provide all of the "non-free" goodies that enable internet activity.
> The Purists at Debian have a "contract" to use only " FREE" software.... as the great unwashed master, Richard Stallman, has declared as sanctified, making Debian pure still difficult fore those transitioning to a real operating system from perpetually broken Window$
> 
> The success of Ubuntu and Mint are simply due to the fact that their creators broke the "rules" making Debian available to anyone, hence their huge success.
> 
> I must give the Developers at Debian full credit. Even though I think the "contract" is stupid, without those guys and gals I'd likely be typing this from a Mac.... since only an idiot uses Windows ( unless forced to at-for work)



Most are Windows point and click types, it's where I'm coming from which is why I prefer Mint.  I'm learning more about Linux because I want to, most have no such desire, they only want to know that it turns on (boots up) and when they click on something it works and all the magic happens.  
Purists are great for open source but they need to understand they are a very small minority and the great unwashed masses will never be them not do they want to be them. It's why I'm thankful for Ubuntu and Mint recognizing this reality and working towards making Linux distros as user friendly as the expensive big boys.  If the trend continues eventually there will be Linux distros that people will choose in quantities equal to Windows as well as still having distros designed specifically for the purists.


----------



## Douger

I agree with your statements. Anyone who cant handle using Ubuntu or Mint ( or SalineOS) really needs to be institutionalized at this point...............of course I've seen Window Washed idiots that came to my hotel and couldn't navigate a Macbook. ( free access laptop in the rooms)
Waaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. What's a FiyaFaux ? Doze i hafta go on a Safawee to get my Hotmail ? Wahhhhhhhhhhhh.  
I only used Exployyyah.
Fuck'em.

Hey. You didn't think I wasn't going to be *me* in a thread this large didja


----------



## Ringel05

Douger said:


> I agree with your statements. Anyone who cant handle using Ubuntu or Mint ( or SalineOS) really needs to be institutionalized at this point...............of course I've seen Window Washed idiots that came to my hotel and couldn't navigate a Macbook. ( free access laptop in the rooms)
> Waaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. What's a FiyaFaux ? Doze i hafta go on a Safawee to get my Hotmail ? Wahhhhhhhhhhhh.
> I only used Exployyyah.
> Fuck'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey. You didn't think I wasn't going to be *me*
> 
> 
> 
> in a thread this large didja
Click to expand...


No.....


----------



## Douger

Muchisimo gracias


----------



## Ringel05

Douger said:


> Muchisimo gracias



I'm just waiting for Pete to show up and tell everyone how terrible Linux is......... Still, he's no Shogun..........


----------



## iamwhatiseem

I just want the field to be leveled (Windows having serious competition)
It is never good when one maker has 90% of the marketplace in anything.
That is a guarantee for dying innovation and sloooow progress in technology...which is exactly what we have with Windows. 
Look what Firefox did - it forced M$ to finally upgrade their 90's era browser and enhance security - both of which would probably still not have been done if FF never came along.
I want Linux to become a bigger player for no other reason than it will hopefully spur innovation.
  Example - Just look at the changes in phones and the music industry - all spawned by Apple. The huge success in Apple's ideas forced everyone else to get better in a hurry or close their doors.
The same thing needs to happen in the television industry.


----------



## Douger

Television / You mean teleblinding, right ?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwiFrN-fZTg]All about Ubuntu TV - Interview - YouTube[/ame]

TV ?
Here.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jYj1gio7qE&feature=relmfu]CES 2012 - UbuntuTV First Look - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Ringel05

Douger said:


> Television / You mean teleblinding, right ?
> All about Ubuntu TV - Interview - YouTube
> 
> TV ?
> Here.
> CES 2012 - UbuntuTV First Look - YouTube



Now that looks cool, at least they understand what's happening in the usability/application diversity market.


----------



## Ringel05

I also just discovered something while reading about the differences between Unity Shell and Gnome Shell.  In Ubuntu 12 one can download Gnome Shell from the Software Manager reboot and select Gnome Shell at the login instead of Unity.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Douger said:


> Television / You mean teleblinding, right ?
> All about Ubuntu TV - Interview - YouTube
> 
> TV ?
> Here.
> CES 2012 - UbuntuTV First Look - YouTube



Nice isn't it?
Just like the music industry - television via "all or nothing" plans where you have to pay for 300 channels to get the 20 that you want is antiquated and encourages piracy. I am always surprised to see just how many people are using torrents and sites like "VEEHD" to watch TV episodes and movies for free.
Steve Jobs said it perfect - (not a direct quote) "Most people want to be legal, but when left with choosing between paying $16 to buy 10 songs to get the 2 they want - or go online and get it for free? - YOU encouraged them to commit piracy"
  The television industry needs to do the same or they too will face mass piracy in the next few years.


----------



## Uncensored2008

iamwhatiseem said:


> Nice isn't it?
> Just like the music industry - television via "all or nothing" plans where you have to pay for 300 channels to get the 20 that you want is antiquated and encourages piracy. I am always surprised to see just how many people are using torrents and sites like "VEEHD" to watch TV episodes and movies for free.
> Steve Jobs said it perfect - (not a direct quote) "Most people want to be legal, but when left with choosing between paying $16 to buy 10 songs to get the 2 they want - or go online and get it for free? - YOU encouraged them to commit piracy"
> The television industry needs to do the same or they too will face mass piracy in the next few years.



I think NetFlix has already pretty much changed the paradigm. I watch tons of TV series on NF and often wonder why I should bother with cable.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Uncensored2008 said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice isn't it?
> Just like the music industry - television via "all or nothing" plans where you have to pay for 300 channels to get the 20 that you want is antiquated and encourages piracy. I am always surprised to see just how many people are using torrents and sites like "VEEHD" to watch TV episodes and movies for free.
> Steve Jobs said it perfect - (not a direct quote) "Most people want to be legal, but when left with choosing between paying $16 to buy 10 songs to get the 2 they want - or go online and get it for free? - YOU encouraged them to commit piracy"
> The television industry needs to do the same or they too will face mass piracy in the next few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think NetFlix has already pretty much changed the paradigm. I watch tons of TV series on NF and often wonder why I should bother with cable.
Click to expand...


All I pay for is a local package at $9 per month...the rest I get from Amazon Prime and various others.
Screw them - i am not paying $100 a month for 290 worthless channels for the 10 I want.


----------



## Ringel05

Have an old computer you want to breath new life into?  SalineOS, MacPup and Lubuntu are Linux distributions great for older machines.
MacPup is based on PuppyLinux but with more 'splash', it works off a thumb drive or CD and loads on your RAM so if you have a bad hard drive you can potentially recover all or most of your data, even if it's Windows. 
SalineOS and Lubuntu are based on Xfce.  Both are light and fast but your software options are limited however if its productivity you're interested in they're perfect.  I did notice that SalineOS doesn't always work well with many of the newer machines, lack of hardware drivers is to blame. 
Lubuntu is a (soon to be certified) version of Canonicals Ubuntu distribution and has come out with the newest 11.10 version currently offered by Ubuntu and Mint so you won't have a problem with drivers.
As for the Ubuntu 12 and Mint 12, the Linux big dogs (so to speak), I wouldn't recommend putting them on a any system that isn't at least a Pentium 4 with 2 GBs of RAM if you want super fast speeds.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Honestly Ringle, I have Mint 12 on a Dell Mini-9 Netbook, with a single core Atom and 1GB of RAM, and it runs fine.


----------



## Ringel05

Uncensored2008 said:


> Honestly Ringle, I have Mint 12 on a Dell Mini-9 Netbook, with a single core Atom and 1GB of RAM, and it runs fine.



Didn't say it won't run fine but if you're used to speed, like I am, it's much better with a duo core and 2 gigs of RAM, super fast, much faster then Windows.  Hell It's on my "test" system, Dell 4550, (IDE) Pentium 4, 1 gig of RAM and a half a gig NVidia graphics card but it doesn't run nearly as well as the dual boot I have on my primary AMD Phenom II x2 (SATA 2) with 8 gigs of RAM and a one gig NVidia card..... obviously. 
The lightweight distros run as fast on the Dell as Mint 12 does on my primary home built. 
I also have a switch out hard drive with Win 7 on it that I run on the Dell, both it and the Mint 12 distro run at about the same speed.
Again notice I stipulated "super fast speed".


----------



## xotoxi

ekrem said:


> Which do you use?
> 
> I'm using Pardus, but I'm testing different versions at the moment, and maybe will make a permanent switch. Maybe.
> I've tested Debian Wheezy (Testing branch) the last days and I run Debian Lenny (Stable) in non-X environment on Servers.
> 
> I've never run Linux Mint, but they've released a version which has Debian Testing branch in its source, they call it "LMDE".
> Download - Linux Mint
> Has anyone tried this?
> It is similar to Debian Cut project (no release so far).
> 
> Another Linux Version I'll test is Aptosid, which has Debian Sid (Unstable) as its source.
> I have read only good things about it so far, and what they say is, that it is one of fastest KDE implementation.
> aptosid.com :: aptosid - Debian hot and spicy!
> 
> 
> At home I'm limited to KDE due to KDE's perfect and stable implementation of ssh/sftp (fish://) handling. Gnome, XFCE etc. all suck in this regard.
> The only thing I can not figure out is the behavour of remote file-saving. Only Kwrite/Kate will save the files immediately to remote machine.
> If I modify files with Geany (best Text-Editor) or Gedit, I first have to close Geany/Gedit and *only then* the Filebrowser asks if the modified file should be uploaded.
> It doesn't save the files immediately on remote machine, but makes a copy on local machine in /tmp/var/kde-cache. Be it with Pardus or Debian.
> 
> If I mount the remote machine with sshfs/fuse then I can instantly save the files from *all* Text-Editors. But sshfs is too slow with Directory-browsing within mount-point, it takes seconds to display contents within folders if there are more than 20 files or folders within a folder.



Please post in English, not Turkish.


----------



## Ringel05

xotoxi said:


> ekrem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which do you use?
> 
> I'm using Pardus, but I'm testing different versions at the moment, and maybe will make a permanent switch. Maybe.
> I've tested Debian Wheezy (Testing branch) the last days and I run Debian Lenny (Stable) in non-X environment on Servers.
> 
> I've never run Linux Mint, but they've released a version which has Debian Testing branch in its source, they call it "LMDE".
> Download - Linux Mint
> Has anyone tried this?
> It is similar to Debian Cut project (no release so far).
> 
> Another Linux Version I'll test is Aptosid, which has Debian Sid (Unstable) as its source.
> I have read only good things about it so far, and what they say is, that it is one of fastest KDE implementation.
> aptosid.com :: aptosid - Debian hot and spicy!
> 
> 
> At home I'm limited to KDE due to KDE's perfect and stable implementation of ssh/sftp (fish://) handling. Gnome, XFCE etc. all suck in this regard.
> The only thing I can not figure out is the behavour of remote file-saving. Only Kwrite/Kate will save the files immediately to remote machine.
> If I modify files with Geany (best Text-Editor) or Gedit, I first have to close Geany/Gedit and *only then* the Filebrowser asks if the modified file should be uploaded.
> It doesn't save the files immediately on remote machine, but makes a copy on local machine in /tmp/var/kde-cache. Be it with Pardus or Debian.
> 
> If I mount the remote machine with sshfs/fuse then I can instantly save the files from *all* Text-Editors. But sshfs is too slow with Directory-browsing within mount-point, it takes seconds to display contents within folders if there are more than 20 files or folders within a folder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please post in English, not Turkish.
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

xotoxi said:


> Please post in English, not Turkish.



That's not Turkish. Don't you recognize Geekish when you see it?


----------



## Ringel05

Uncensored2008 said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please post in English, not Turkish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not Turkish. Don't you recognize Geekish when you see it?
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ringel05 said:


> Didn't say it won't run fine but if you're used to speed, like I am, it's much better with a duo core and 2 gigs of RAM, super fast, much faster then Windows.  Hell It's on my "test" system, Dell 4550, (IDE) Pentium 4, 1 gig of RAM and a half a gig NVidia graphics card but it doesn't run nearly as well as the dual boot I have on my primary AMD Phenom II x2 (SATA 2) with 8 gigs of RAM and a one gig NVidia card..... obviously.
> The lightweight distros run as fast on the Dell as Mint 12 does on my primary home built.
> I also have a switch out hard drive with Win 7 on it that I run on the Dell, both it and the Mint 12 distro run at about the same speed.
> Again notice I stipulated "super fast speed".



I've noticed that with Linux in general, there is a diminishing return curve. Most of the distros will run on machines I wouldn't imaging putting Windows on. (Such as the Netbook.) BUT when you get into the top hardware, a 2600K with 8+ gigs of RAM, the Linux distros don't run any faster than Win-7. Microsoft completely distorts what the minimum requirements are - once you meet those, then the playing field is leveled.

I like Windows 7, a whole lot, but you have to throw a LOT of hardware at it for it to run well.


----------



## Ringel05

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say it won't run fine but if you're used to speed, like I am, it's much better with a duo core and 2 gigs of RAM, super fast, much faster then Windows.  Hell It's on my "test" system, Dell 4550, (IDE) Pentium 4, 1 gig of RAM and a half a gig NVidia graphics card but it doesn't run nearly as well as the dual boot I have on my primary AMD Phenom II x2 (SATA 2) with 8 gigs of RAM and a one gig NVidia card..... obviously.
> The lightweight distros run as fast on the Dell as Mint 12 does on my primary home built.
> I also have a switch out hard drive with Win 7 on it that I run on the Dell, both it and the Mint 12 distro run at about the same speed.
> Again notice I stipulated "super fast speed".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that with Linux in general, there is a diminishing return curve. Most of the distros will run on machines I wouldn't imaging putting Windows on. (Such as the Netbook.) BUT when you get into the top hardware, a 2600K with 8+ gigs of RAM, the Linux distros don't run any faster than Win-7. Microsoft completely distorts what the minimum requirements are - once you meet those, then the playing field is leveled.
> 
> I like Windows 7, a whole lot, but you have to throw a LOT of hardware at it for it to run well.
Click to expand...


My primary is fast with Win 7 on it (yeah, I don't have an issue with Win 7 either other then I think it's too expensive for what you get) but the dual booted Mint 12 runs like lightning on it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ringel05 said:


> My primary is fast with Win 7 on it (yeah, I don't have an issue with Win 7 either other then I think it's too expensive for what you get) but the dual booted Mint 12 runs like lightning on it.



On my home machine, an I7 2600K overclocked to 4.6, I have it set to duel boot to either Kubuntu or Windows 7, 64 bit.  I really don't see an advantage with either of them. They both respond instantly to any command. The Kubuntu is 32 bit, as the 64 never ran stable, so it runs out of memory on some Wine Apps (games.) You're right about cost, but MSDN means I never pay, so I don't pay a lot of attention to the cost.


----------



## Ringel05

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My primary is fast with Win 7 on it (yeah, I don't have an issue with Win 7 either other then I think it's too expensive for what you get) but the dual booted Mint 12 runs like lightning on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On my home machine, an I7 2600K overclocked to 4.6, I have it set to duel boot to either Kubuntu or Windows 7, 64 bit.  I really don't see an advantage with either of them. They both respond instantly to any command. The Kubuntu is 32 bit, as the 64 never ran stable, so it runs out of memory on some Wine Apps (games.) You're right about cost, but MSDN means I never pay, so I don't pay a lot of attention to the cost.
Click to expand...


Well my 2 core can't compete with your i7 so I have no basis for speed comparisons as far as that's concerned.
My next build will most likely use AMDs new Fusion LLano processor which has better graphics technology and reduced energy usage then Intels i chips at about half the cost.  Bulldozer looks really good if you're running servers but it's only marginal in the PC arena due to software application limitations.  They've gotten better at multi-threading multiple cores which is great for servers but most PC applications only use single threading one at a time which is why Intel uses the Sandy Bridge and soon to be released Ivy Bridge which gives it a slight edge in the PC processor market.


----------



## Ringel05

For anyone who's interested here's a video of the Linux Mint 12 operating system
(With Gnome shell)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU_VCWpfrsw]Linux Mint 12 Lisa - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ringle;

What do you think of Unity?

Also, what do you think of the benchmarks showing Windows 7 outperforming Ubuntu 11? (Overall, the results were mixed on a test by test basis.)

Ubuntu 11.10 Review: Benchmarked Against Windows 7 : Ubuntu 11.10 'Oneiric Ocelot', Reviewed


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ringle;
> 
> What do you think of Unity?
> 
> Also, what do you think of the benchmarks showing Windows 7 outperforming Ubuntu 11? (Overall, the results were mixed on a test by test basis.)
> 
> Ubuntu 11.10 Review: Benchmarked Against Windows 7 : Ubuntu 11.10 'Oneiric Ocelot', Reviewed



Ahh...but there is a little piece of information not listed here.
Ubuntu will run that fast on a system with half that memory...try Win7 on a machine with 1 GB ram.
I have no doubt Win7 is equally fast on a blazing system like this guy has - 8 GB of RAM????  Again do the test on a machine with 2 GB of RAM.


Edit: I am running Ubuntu Lucid....I have 1GB RAM and my startup is between 25-30 seconds....but then I have a lot of stuff installed.
Edit II: I can port 1080i HD video to a widescreen TV at the same time the video is still playing on the monitor as well...without the slightest chatter or flicker in the playback.
Again - try that with Win7 with 1GB RAM.


----------



## Ringel05

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ringle;
> 
> What do you think of Unity?
> 
> Also, what do you think of the benchmarks showing Windows 7 outperforming Ubuntu 11? (Overall, the results were mixed on a test by test basis.)
> 
> Ubuntu 11.10 Review: Benchmarked Against Windows 7 : Ubuntu 11.10 'Oneiric Ocelot', Reviewed



Personally I hated Unity, it's what made me switch over to Mint (which I had tried before).  It took me a little bit to get used to Gnome shell but now I prefer it to Gnome classic.  Who knows, I may give Unity another try when it matures a little more.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ringel05 said:


> Personally I hated Unity, it's what made me switch over to Mint (which I had tried before).  It took me a little bit to get used to Gnome shell but now I prefer it to Gnome classic.  Who knows, I may give Unity another try when it matures a little more.



Apparently that's a common position. 

I put Mint as the second boot on the Alienware - but I might play with the new Ubuntu to see if I can learn to like Unity.


----------



## Uncensored2008

iamwhatiseem said:


> Ahh...but there is a little piece of information not listed here.
> Ubuntu will run that fast on a system with half that memory...try Win7 on a machine with 1 GB ram.
> I have no doubt Win7 is equally fast on a blazing system like this guy has - 8 GB of RAM????  Again do the test on a machine with 2 GB of RAM.



No question about it. On lower end machines, Linux is the way to go.




> Edit: I am running Ubuntu Lucid....I have 1GB RAM and my startup is between 25-30 seconds....but then I have a lot of stuff installed.
> Edit II: I can port 1080i HD video to a widescreen TV at the same time the video is still playing on the monitor as well...without the slightest chatter or flicker in the playback.
> Again - try that with Win7 with 1GB RAM.



For Win7, I want 64 bit and at least 6GB of DDR3.


----------



## Ringel05

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I hated Unity, it's what made me switch over to Mint (which I had tried before).  It took me a little bit to get used to Gnome shell but now I prefer it to Gnome classic.  Who knows, I may give Unity another try when it matures a little more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently that's a common position.
> 
> I put Mint as the second boot on the Alienware - but I might play with the new Ubuntu to see if I can learn to like Unity.
Click to expand...


My first Linux distro was Ubuntu so it was always more of a sentimental preference until they made Unity the only interface.  I know you can choose now between Uinity and classic but I prefer Mint now over Ubuntu.


----------



## Ringel05

Here's the Ubuntu 11.10 with the Unity interface. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XPyUMLg2hY]Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot (w/ Unity 3D) - Final Version - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Ringel05

I decided to give Ubuntu another shot, an honest assessment, and in the meantime made a discovery.  Canonical, the Ubuntu developers developed the Unity interface with the idea of moving into the small format arena, phones and tablet touch screens.  We, their unwitting users were their beta testers.  
For those who like more customization capabilities the Unity interface, (desktop to you non-geeks), takes most of your options away though now you can run Ubuntu classic or the Gnome Shell interfaces by selecting which one you want at log in and get much of those customization features back.  
While I found the Unity interface much more stable then the first release and realized there were elements I liked, including being able to hide the Unity bar, I found it somewhat restrictive for my needs.  New users, specifically those migrating from Windows will find it much easier to learn then the old classic simply because most of the work is done for you.  
Ubuntu also has it's version of the Gnome Shell interface but again here I find Mint 12s Shell interface to be cleaner, more polished and more customizable because it can utilize many, if not all of Ubuntu's positive features while being saddled with none of it's negatives, after all it is built on Ubuntu.  
Essentially non-geek types, especially younger users who are all to familiar with small format interfaces will find Ubuntu almost familiar (particularly if you're coming from a Mac environment) and very easy to use.
Still if you prefer more customization ability and are not particularly familiar with Linux operating systems I still say you can't beat Linux Mint.


----------



## Ringel05

Also found a cool app, a CCleaner for Linux called BleachBit.

Just open Terminal and type (or cut and past from here):

sudo apt-get install bleachbit

It will install in "System Tools".


----------



## Uncensored2008

Hi Ringel,

I downloaded 11.10 last week and it seems to be a corrupted distro, it won't install on any of the three machines I've tried it on.  This was from the main Ubuntu site. I'm going to try a different download site and see if it works better.

Just a heads up.


----------



## Ringel05

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hi Ringel,
> 
> I downloaded 11.10 last week and it seems to be a corrupted distro, it won't install on any of the three machines I've tried it on.  This was from the main Ubuntu site. I'm going to try a different download site and see if it works better.
> 
> Just a heads up.



That's weird, I have yet to have a corrupted download from any of the distros I've tried.  Check your ISO burning software, the problem might be there. 
BTW What burning software are you using?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ringel05 said:


> That's weird, I have yet to have a corrupted download from any of the distros I've tried.  Check your ISO burning software, the problem might be there.
> BTW What burning software are you using?



Good point. I used Roxio on the new Alienware - first time I've used it.

I first thought that it just didn't understand my Raid 0 on the Alien. Then I tried my work desktop with a single SSD for a boot drive. Then I made a VM and tried that. All reacted the same, Linux boots but the shell fails to load. And I can't get root access from the command prompt.

Update: No go, I mounted the ISO as a drive for the VM, same reaction.


----------



## Ringel05

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's weird, I have yet to have a corrupted download from any of the distros I've tried.  Check your ISO burning software, the problem might be there.
> BTW What burning software are you using?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point. I used Roxio on the new Alienware - first time I've used it.
> 
> I first thought that it just didn't understand my Raid 0 on the Alien. Then I tried my work desktop with a single SSD for a boot drive. Then I made a VM and tried that. All reacted the same, Linux boots but the shell fails to load. And I can't get root access from the command prompt.
> 
> Update: No go, I mounted the ISO as a drive for the VM, same reaction.
Click to expand...


I hate Roxio...... 
I use Ashampoo Burning Studio 6 and have never had an issue buring an ISO.  I'm assuming you are telling Roxio to burn a bootable ISO, right? 
(With the Ashampoo, yes, I made sure I unselected the search engine option during the install.......)


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ringel05 said:


> I hate Roxio......
> I use Ashampoo Burning Studio 6 and have never had an issue buring an ISO.  I'm assuming you are telling Roxio to burn a bootable ISO, right?
> (With the Ashampoo, yes, I made sure I unselected the search engine option during the install.......)



It's not Roxio.

With VMWare, you have the option to mount an ISO as a DVD drive and boot off it. I tried that and got the same reaction. 

I just need to redownload from another site.


----------



## PeteEU

Uncensored2008 said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh...but there is a little piece of information not listed here.
> Ubuntu will run that fast on a system with half that memory...try Win7 on a machine with 1 GB ram.
> I have no doubt Win7 is equally fast on a blazing system like this guy has - 8 GB of RAM????  Again do the test on a machine with 2 GB of RAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No question about it. On lower end machines, Linux is the way to go.
Click to expand...


On machines with under 1 GB ram I would agree.. they are mostly half a decade old any ways. With a machine with 1 GB ram and over.. hell no. Windows 7 Starter works just fine with 1 GB ram.



> Edit: I am running Ubuntu Lucid....I have 1GB RAM and my startup is between 25-30 seconds....but then I have a lot of stuff installed.
> Edit II: I can port 1080i HD video to a widescreen TV at the same time the video is still playing on the monitor as well...without the slightest chatter or flicker in the playback.
> Again - try that with Win7 with 1GB RAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Win7, I want 64 bit and at least 6GB of DDR3.
Click to expand...


Seriously.. windows 7 64 bit runs just fine with 2 GB ram, and great with 4GB.. DDR2 ram that is.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PeteEU said:


> Seriously.. windows 7 64 bit runs just fine with 2 GB ram, and great with 4GB.. DDR2 ram that is.



It might, but RAM is cheap and one of the major advantages to a 64bit OS is the ability to address a lot of memory.


----------



## PeteEU

Uncensored2008 said:


> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously.. windows 7 64 bit runs just fine with 2 GB ram, and great with 4GB.. DDR2 ram that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might, but RAM is cheap and one of the major advantages to a 64bit OS is the ability to address a lot of memory.
Click to expand...


I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram. 

But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows


----------



## iamwhatiseem

PeteEU said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously.. windows 7 64 bit runs just fine with 2 GB ram, and great with 4GB.. DDR2 ram that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It might, but RAM is cheap and one of the major advantages to a 64bit OS is the ability to address a lot of memory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram.
> 
> But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows
Click to expand...


This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it. 
4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?


----------



## Uncensored2008

iamwhatiseem said:


> This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
> And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
> Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
> 4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
> Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?




32 bit Windows programs based on the Microsoft Foundation Class are only capable of addressing 2gb of memory. These will certainly run just fine on a 2gb machine.

Since I DO run Photoshop, SQL 2008R2 and other demanding applications, I care about RAM and I run a 64bit OS. 

Also, would you try to apply a deguas filter to a raw image in Gimp on a Mint machine with only a gig of ram? I sure wouldn't. The same rules apply for Linux.


----------



## Ringel05

iamwhatiseem said:


> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might, but RAM is cheap and one of the major advantages to a 64bit OS is the ability to address a lot of memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram.
> 
> But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
> And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
> Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
> 4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
> Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?
Click to expand...


As long as you use a 32 bit OS Win 7 works just as well as any of the not so lightweight Linux distros on a (relatively) low RAM machine.  My "test" machine is a Dell Inspiron 4550, Pentium 4, 2.66GHz with one GB of DDR ram with IDE drives.  I keep a copy of Win 7 Pro loaded on an extra hard drive and when I switch out the drives from my Linux loads the Win 7 works great...... all the features.


----------



## PeteEU

iamwhatiseem said:


> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It might, but RAM is cheap and one of the major advantages to a 64bit OS is the ability to address a lot of memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram.
> 
> But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
> And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
> Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
> 4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
> Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?
Click to expand...


Have you actually used Windows 7?

A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines. 

I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes. 

Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion. 

Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk... 

It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?

You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.


----------



## Ringel05

PeteEU said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram.
> 
> But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
> And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
> Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
> 4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
> Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you actually used Windows 7?
> 
> A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.
> 
> I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.
> 
> Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.
> 
> Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...
> 
> It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?
> 
> You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.
Click to expand...

Why does Open Office (now also Libre Office) not count?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

PeteEU said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, but saying you would not run Windows 7 64Bit with less than 6GB DDR3.. is a bit over the top. It runs just great with less ram.
> 
> But in the end, it will all depend on what you want to use the machine for of course.. linux or windows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
> And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
> Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
> 4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
> Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you actually used Windows 7?
> 
> A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.
> 
> I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.
> 
> Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.
> 
> Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...
> 
> It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?
> 
> You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.
Click to expand...


Yes unfortunately we have one 64 bit Win 7 machine at the office. Everything else is XP and two Macs.
I say unfortunate because the idiot in I.T. placed a 64bit machine in a multi-network production environment. Half the proprietary applications we use do not yet have 64 bit clients, also it does strange things with permissions across networks. So right now it is a high-powered email reader.  
Other than that - no, I do not have Win 7 experience. To be honest I am wary of minimal systems running Windows, when I buy a brand new PC it better be blazin'.


----------



## PeteEU

iamwhatiseem said:


> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
> And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
> Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
> 4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
> Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you actually used Windows 7?
> 
> A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.
> 
> I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.
> 
> Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.
> 
> Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...
> 
> It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?
> 
> You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes unfortunately we have one 64 bit Win 7 machine at the office. Everything else is XP and two Macs.
> I say unfortunate because the idiot in I.T. placed a 64bit machine in a multi-network production environment. Half the proprietary applications we use do not yet have 64 bit clients, also it does strange things with permissions across networks. So right now it is a high-powered email reader.
> Other than that - no, I do not have Win 7 experience. To be honest I am wary of minimal systems running Windows, when I buy a brand new PC it better be blazin'.
Click to expand...


So in other words, your office uses outdated technology with outdated software... good to know. 

And it aint Windows 7s fault that the software you use is made by morons who still have not made 64 bit versions. You do realise that you can run 32 bit software on Windows 7 64 bit right? Only problem is drivers but then again who would want to make new drivers for a 5 year old printer  /wave HP, Canon and so on.


----------



## PeteEU

Ringel05 said:


> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is only true if you are going to be a light user who uses very little software other than a browser.
> And a 1GB RAM box is not "7 years old" - you can buy brand new computers with 1GB Ram that are designed for Linux....why put the RAM in a computer and never use it?
> Win 7 Home Premium will not effectively run on 2GB. Sure it will boot up and such - but good luck actually doing anything with it.
> 4GB would be the minimum I would go with.
> Just the same as when Dell, HP etc. were selling XP machines with 512 RAM a few years back...that is a friggin joke. Who wants a brand new computer that is starving for memory with a few month of buying it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you actually used Windows 7?
> 
> A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.
> 
> I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.
> 
> Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.
> 
> Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...
> 
> It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?
> 
> You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does Open Office (now also Libre Office) not count?
Click to expand...


Because it is for "nerds" for the most part. Microsoft Office is the standard.

When people want to use a word processor they want Word, not some clone that does not look like what they are use too.

That is why one of the biggest questions form non-nerds about the iPad is... "does it run office?".

Like it or not most people would freak out if they were given open office as a word processor.. since it dont look like what they are use too.


----------



## Douger

PeteEU said:


> So in other words, your office uses outdated technology with outdated software... good to know.
> 
> And it aint Windows 7s fault that the software you use is made by morons who still have not made 64 bit versions. You do realise that you can run 32 bit software on Windows 7 64 bit right? Only problem is drivers but then again who would want to make new drivers for a 5 year old printer  /wave HP, Canon and so on.


That's why Linux is superior. People who use an expensive computer to play games are morons to begin with.

Who's using Debian?


----------



## Ringel05

PeteEU said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you actually used Windows 7?
> 
> A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.
> 
> I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.
> 
> Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.
> 
> Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...
> 
> It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?
> 
> You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Open Office (now also Libre Office) not count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it is for "nerds" for the most part. Microsoft Office is the standard.
> 
> When people want to use a word processor they want Word, not some clone that does not look like what they are use too.
> 
> That is why one of the biggest questions form non-nerds about the iPad is... "does it run office?".
> 
> Like it or not most people would freak out if they were given open office as a word processor.. since it dont look like what they are use too.
Click to expand...


Here's where I go, sure thing Skippy.......... not even a very good effort at minimizing a non-microsoft product's well documented usage.  I think you'd be surprised the number of (non-nerd) professionals and non-professionals who use Open Office, even for work related projects they have on their personal computers.


----------



## Ringel05

Douger said:


> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in other words, your office uses outdated technology with outdated software... good to know.
> 
> And it aint Windows 7s fault that the software you use is made by morons who still have not made 64 bit versions. You do realise that you can run 32 bit software on Windows 7 64 bit right? Only problem is drivers but then again who would want to make new drivers for a 5 year old printer  /wave HP, Canon and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why Linux is superior. People who use an expensive computer to play games are morons to begin with.
> 
> Who's using Debian?
Click to expand...


Good thing I build my own non expensive, high end gaming machines, eh Hugo?
Wouldn't want to be known as a moron...........


----------



## iamwhatiseem

PeteEU said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you actually used Windows 7?
> 
> A 1 GB ram machine is a netbook, they run Windows 7 just fine since they all come with it. It can run a browser, office and Skype without any problems at the same time. Would more ram be better? Of course it would, but saying that you cant run anything because of 1 GB ram only is simply just not true. And very very few computers come with less than 4 GB ram these days, with netbooks being the main source of sub 4 GB ram machines.
> 
> I run a Windows 7/XP/Linux machine on an old Athlon chip with 1 GB of ram.. it works like a charm for day to day usage on all the OSes.
> 
> Does Windows 7 run much better with 2 or 4 GB ram? Sure if you want AERO running, but without it then 1 GB is just fine. In fact I would say it runs better than Windows XP /shrug, but that is a personal opinion.
> 
> Does Linux run better with more than 1 GB of ram? Yea it does, for one it wont need a big swap disk...
> 
> It is just a fact of life, more ram = better running OS. And since ram is cheap, then why focus on how small a machine you can run an OS on? A new form of E-penis? Well I have an old laptop with 256 mb ram on, where I run Puppy Linux on. It works, it is slow, but it works. I can also run Windows XP on it.. and that too works, but it is slow. Do I win the e-penis war or do you have a linux distro running on a 128 mb machine?
> 
> You can promote Linux all you want, but as long as it cant run Office (and not Open Office dont count) or popular games then Linux will be a 3rd tier operating system world wide.. that is just a fact you have to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes unfortunately we have one 64 bit Win 7 machine at the office. Everything else is XP and two Macs.
> I say unfortunate because the idiot in I.T. placed a 64bit machine in a multi-network production environment. Half the proprietary applications we use do not yet have 64 bit clients, also it does strange things with permissions across networks. So right now it is a high-powered email reader.
> Other than that - no, I do not have Win 7 experience. To be honest I am wary of minimal systems running Windows, when I buy a brand new PC it better be blazin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words, your office uses outdated technology with outdated software... good to know.
> 
> And it aint Windows 7s fault that the software you use is made by morons who still have not made 64 bit versions. You do realise that you can run 32 bit software on Windows 7 64 bit right? Only problem is drivers but then again who would want to make new drivers for a 5 year old printer  /wave HP, Canon and so on.
Click to expand...


Those "Morons" are some of the biggest companies in America.
AGFA/FUJI/EFI/Kodak etc.
I don't have problems with printers, and our printers are probably newer than you have.
And running a client-side app is not the same as regular programs - you should know this.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PeteEU said:


> Because it is for "nerds" for the most part. Microsoft Office is the standard.
> 
> When people want to use a word processor they want Word, not some clone that does not look like what they are use too.



Shees - that sounds like when we "upgraded" from Office 2003 to 2007. It didn't look or act like the users were used too and was buggy as hell. 



> That is why one of the biggest questions form non-nerds about the iPad is... "does it run office?".



?



> Like it or not most people would freak out if they were given open office as a word processor.. since it dont look like what they are use too.



During the netbook craze, I had a couple dozen people bring in their barely functional netbooks. I'd format, put Jaunty Jackalope on and show them open office. The reaction was always the same: "It's free? It won't time out in 30 days? It will open all my files? Then why would I want to spend $300 on Office?"

I never had anyone turn their nose up at it.

Yeah, I'm not going to use it at work, but for the home user? Open office is great, and the price is perfect.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Douger said:


> That's why Linux is superior. People who use an expensive computer to play games are morons to begin with.



They should be like you, and stick to only surfing porn....



> Who's using Debian?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Uncensored2008 said:


> During the netbook craze, I had a couple dozen people bring in their barely functional netbooks. I'd format, put Jaunty Jackalope on and show them open office. The reaction was always the same: "It's free? It won't time out in 30 days? *It will open all my files? Then why would I want to spend $300 on Office?"*



(My emphasis)
This is exactly the same response I get when I turn people on to OpenOffice. "Why doesn't everyone use it?"
Microsoft has a wonderful gig in Office...give medium and large companies great deals on enterprise Office editions that they receive updated Office software as soon as it comes out.
Then these people start "polluting" the network with these brand new docs that others can't open unless they download a patch that they don't even know is out there...so they too go out and buy the "new" Office.
Adobe does the same damn thing with their products.

HOWEVER - their is a new guy in town - Google Docs. Google "office" enterprise is exactly half of the cost of MS Office enterprise. And companies are switching to Google cloud by the 1,000's. Our corporation did this year - the savings? - $78,000 annually.


----------



## Douger

If you walk into the board at MicroShit and scream CLOUD, they piss their pants and hide under a desk.


----------



## PeteEU

Uncensored2008 said:


> PeteEU said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is for "nerds" for the most part. Microsoft Office is the standard.
> 
> When people want to use a word processor they want Word, not some clone that does not look like what they are use too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shees - that sounds like when we "upgraded" from Office 2003 to 2007. It didn't look or act like the users were used too and was buggy as hell.
Click to expand...


I know what you are saying, but that is the fact of life. It is the very reason that the graphics industry does not dump Apple for Windows or Linux, and the reason that the corporate world does not dump Windows for Apple or Linux.... people freak out over new things. Not to mention the money it costs to re-educate someone in a new program/OS.



> That is why one of the biggest questions form non-nerds about the iPad is... "does it run office?".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


Yea you heard me. People ask if they can use Word on an iPad or Excel. It is especially the older generations. They expect the iPad to be a computer, and are very disappointed with they find out it is nothing but a glorified ebook reader with extra functions. 



> Like it or not most people would freak out if they were given open office as a word processor.. since it dont look like what they are use too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the netbook craze, I had a couple dozen people bring in their barely functional netbooks. I'd format, put Jaunty Jackalope on and show them open office. The reaction was always the same: "It's free? It won't time out in 30 days? It will open all my files? Then why would I want to spend $300 on Office?"
> 
> I never had anyone turn their nose up at it.
> 
> Yeah, I'm not going to use it at work, but for the home user? Open office is great, and the price is perfect.
Click to expand...


Now I admit I have not played with open office for the last year or so, but like it or not, open office when I was using it, was infuriatingly clumsy compared to Microsoft Office. Does it still ask you like Works if you want to start a new project, document and so on when you run one it? Most people I know, freaked out when they started it up and saw this. I stopped pushing Open office on people because of the time spent explaining them that it was like office even though it did not look like office or acted like office. Also the stigma of not being able to open office documents in Open Office still sticks out with many.

Oh and who pays for Office any ways?


----------



## Ringel05

Okay, let's get back on track. 
If you use Mint but like the huge selection in the Ubuntu Software Center then install the Ubuntu Software Center on your Mint machine.  

Install Ubuntu Software Center on Linux Mint 12 | LinuxTechCrunch University | Linux Software | Linux Software Download | Linux Tutorials


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Ringel05 said:


> Okay, let's get back on track.
> If you use Mint but like the huge selection in the Ubuntu Software Center then install the Ubuntu Software Center on your Mint machine.
> 
> Install Ubuntu Software Center on Linux Mint 12 | LinuxTechCrunch University | Linux Software | Linux Software Download | Linux Tutorials



well now...now there's a thought.


----------



## Uncensored2008

So I got the new Ubuntu to install. I downloaded another package and this one worked. I went with the recommended 32 bit version. It COULD well be that the reason the 32 bit is recommended is that the 64 bit simply doesn't work.

It was a LONG install, well over an hour. That seemed a bit odd, but everything went smoothly. Performance is sub-par in general. Boot time from the boot menu is a little over 2 minutes. Mint boots in about 45 seconds and Windows 7 in about 20 seconds. This machine is an I7 960 clocked to 3.7 - I may drop it to stock and see if Ubuntu performs better, native is 3.2 on this CPU.

First thing I did was look at the display properties to configure the duel display setup. It easily detected both monitors and allowed me to extend my desktop to both with different resolutions and aspect ratios for each. I noticed that it was using a default driver and had my Nvidia GTX-460 tagged as "unknown." Now Unity handled multiple displays with transparencies fully intact without the Nvidia driver, which is pretty impressive. 

So I went to the Nvidia site and downloaded the only Linux driver they bothered to supply. Went to the driver manage and tried to activate - driver failed. Hmm, this is obviously the same driver that works with Mint, given that it's the ONLY driver offered by Nvidia for Linux, on this card. Oh well, other than speed I'm not sure it does much.

Unity is a nice looking interface. I think it beats traditional Gnome. But it isn't in the same league as Aero-Glass, not that anything is. The designers opted for two docking bars, and did so because Unity lacks the Aero features of stacking, open many programs and the overly-large icons eat up the main dock. So they added a top dock (movable) to show tasks like mail and search. It shows the lack of elegance in the GUI that this is needed. Also missing is the peek feature of Aero. Hold your mouse over a dock icon in Aero and a preview of the program is displayed, put the mouse over the preview and the window is displayed. This is the type of interface functionality that makes Aero so much better than anything else on the market, Unity doesn't live up to this. Another irritation with the interface is the inclusion of a really nice workspace manager - that does nothing. Click on it and it shows all four workspaces in a grid. Cool, I'll drag this window to that workspace and... Wait, they won't drag... Shit, it just previews, I can't actually manage my workspaces with it.. WTF?

This is not the fault of Ubuntu, but Thunderbird is still crap and can't communicate with an encrypted Exchange 2010 server. So no email with Ubuntu - same with Mint. Good thing the OWA has gotten pretty good over the years.

The Citrix receiver worked flawlessly, as it does in Mint.

Over all, Ubuntu is quit sluggish, everything lags and tasks take far longer than they should on a relatively powerful machine. Some of this may be due to graphics drivers, but most of it isn't. 11.10 just isn't quick. Mint and Windows 7 are vastly more responsive on the same hardware. This leaves me to view Ubuntu 11.10 as "merely okay." Mint runs much better as a Linux distro, and Windows 7 still is light years ahead of both in interface and over all functionality.


----------



## Ringel05

That's interesting.  When I tested Ubuntu the lag time was only slightly more then Mint with certain packages (applications to you Windows types) and the boot time was about the same as Mint and Win7, maybe just a tad faster.  I clicked on the "additional driver" icon in the top bar after loading and selected 'activate driver', worked like a charm.  As for the initial installation, total time, around half an hour maybe a little longer.  As for the workspace manager mine wouldn't drag either, obviously a bug that still needs to be worked out.
As for Thunderbird it's what I use on all my systems and it works great though I doubt I use Exchange 2010 server since I have no idea what it is so I don't have the same issue you had. 
I find it interesting how both of our separate experiences were so different.  Weird.

Ubuntu and Mint now both come with OfficeLibre but you can load OpenOffice if you so wish.  One of the cool things is, for years now, I've been opening Word Documents in OpenOffice with ease, I'm sure that function is present in Officelibre.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Yeah...I experienced the same thing with Ubuntu 11...just slow.
I am still running 10.04 on the main desktop with a bazillion bells and whistles installed...I have compiz configured to the max...and the machine is still quite fast.
LinuxMint used to be slower than Ubuntu, especially the boot process...but not now.
I have mint 11x running on a 5 year old Dell and it is acceptably speedy...the boot up is about a minute and a half or so, but it is a 5 year old laptop with 512 RAM.


----------



## Ringel05

Whether you're Ubuntu11.10, Mint12 or any other current Linux operating system with Gnome Shell you'll definitely want the Gnome Tweak Tool.

All you do is open terminal and type (or copy and past from here)

sudo apt-get install gnome-tweak-tool

Hit enter, put in your password and hit enter again.  

It loads in Advanced Settings, allowing one to easily add more Themes and Shell Extensions.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Ringel05 said:


> Whether you're Ubuntu11.10, Mint12 or any other current Linux operating system with Gnome Shell you'll definitely want the Gnome Tweak Tool.
> 
> All you do is open terminal and type (or copy and past from here)
> 
> sudo apt-get install gnome-tweak-tool
> 
> Hit enter, put in your password and hit enter again.
> 
> It loads in Advanced Settings, allowing one to easily add more Themes and Shell Extensions.



Yup...it is an extremely easy and well laid out application that covers an amazing amount of stuff. For the gui - Compiz config is the bomb...everything else - tweak.


----------



## Douger

Uncensored2008 said:


> So I got the new Ubuntu to install. I downloaded another package and this one worked. I went with the recommended 32 bit version. It COULD well be that the reason the 32 bit is recommended is that the 64 bit simply doesn't work.
> 
> It was a LONG install, well over an hour. That seemed a bit odd, but everything went smoothly. Performance is sub-par in general. Boot time from the boot menu is a little over 2 minutes. Mint boots in about 45 seconds and Windows 7 in about 20 seconds. This machine is an I7 960 clocked to 3.7 - I may drop it to stock and see if Ubuntu performs better, native is 3.2 on this CPU.
> 
> First thing I did was look at the display properties to configure the duel display setup. It easily detected both monitors and allowed me to extend my desktop to both with different resolutions and aspect ratios for each. I noticed that it was using a default driver and had my Nvidia GTX-460 tagged as "unknown." Now Unity handled multiple displays with transparencies fully intact without the Nvidia driver, which is pretty impressive.
> 
> So I went to the Nvidia site and downloaded the only Linux driver they bothered to supply. Went to the driver manage and tried to activate - driver failed. Hmm, this is obviously the same driver that works with Mint, given that it's the ONLY driver offered by Nvidia for Linux, on this card. Oh well, other than speed I'm not sure it does much.
> 
> Unity is a nice looking interface. I think it beats traditional Gnome. But it isn't in the same league as Aero-Glass, not that anything is. The designers opted for two docking bars, and did so because Unity lacks the Aero features of stacking, open many programs and the overly-large icons eat up the main dock. So they added a top dock (movable) to show tasks like mail and search. It shows the lack of elegance in the GUI that this is needed. Also missing is the peek feature of Aero. Hold your mouse over a dock icon in Aero and a preview of the program is displayed, put the mouse over the preview and the window is displayed. This is the type of interface functionality that makes Aero so much better than anything else on the market, Unity doesn't live up to this. Another irritation with the interface is the inclusion of a really nice workspace manager - that does nothing. Click on it and it shows all four workspaces in a grid. Cool, I'll drag this window to that workspace and... Wait, they won't drag... Shit, it just previews, I can't actually manage my workspaces with it.. WTF?
> 
> This is not the fault of Ubuntu, but Thunderbird is still crap and can't communicate with an *encrypted Exchange 2010 server. So no email with Ubuntu - same with Mint. Good thing the OWA has gotten pretty good over the years.*
> 
> The Citrix receiver worked flawlessly, as it does in Mint.
> 
> Over all, Ubuntu is quit sluggish, everything lags and tasks take far longer than they should on a relatively powerful machine. Some of this may be due to graphics drivers, but most of it isn't. 11.10 just isn't quick. Mint and Windows 7 are vastly more responsive on the same hardware. This leaves me to view Ubuntu 11.10 as "merely okay." Mint runs much better as a Linux distro, and Windows 7 still is light years ahead of both in interface and over all functionality.


Try Sylpheed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Douger said:


> Try Sylpheed.



Thanks, I'll give it a try.

If Android can communicate, there has to be a Linux package that can.


----------



## Ringel05

Considering that I find Mint 12 slow on my old P4 Dell, in comparison with my fast home build.  Not to mention that fact that now, since the novelty of Gnome Shell has worn off and I find it less functional then the old Gnome 2 setup, I decided to retry Kubuntu, Lubuntu and Xubuntu 11.10 versions.  
While Kubuntu and Lubuntu are lightweight and fast I had issues with some apps not loading properly or freezing up not to mention update and download problems.
Finally I tried Xubuntu, tried it for a while then re installed Mint to give both a proper side by side comparison.
I've discovered I do indeed prefer Xubuntu, faster, no Gnome Shell interface and very configurable,  When installing, select the 'install updates' and 'install 3rd party software' boxes and you don't have to install the restricted files separately though there will be a ton of updates you'll still have to install after you first boot up, just like in Windows. 
The interface is still Gnome 3 but much closer to the old Gnome 2 look but you'll still have a sleight learning curve getting used to the layout. 
Xubuntu found and configured all my hardware without a hitch, recognized my graphics card and offered to let me download and install the proprietary drivers for it.
Xubuntu also comes with the Ubuntu Software Center with it's thousands of packages (apps to those familiar with Windows) to choose from.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Just nitpicking, but "Apps" is an iPhone thing.

Windows calls them "programs."


----------



## Douger

Uncensored2008 said:


> Just nitpicking, but "Apps" is an iPhone thing.
> 
> Windows calls them "programs."


This conversation leaves the Windoze at Homeless Despot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Douger said:


> This conversation leaves the Windoze at Homeless Despot.



Are you scraping the crack out of the bottom of the pipe again, Douger?


----------



## Douger

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdemM-ZW_Y&feature=relmfu]Saline OS 1.6.....All At Sea With XFCE - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Douger

Uncensored2008 said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conversation leaves the Windoze at Homeless Despot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you scraping the crack out of the bottom of the pipe again, Douger?
Click to expand...

Nah no crack. No pipe. I twist.
I'm not even stoned ! (damnit) I have 2 trucks coming to get terneros about 1.


----------



## Ringel05

Douger said:


> Saline OS 1.6.....All At Sea With XFCE - YouTube



Like I said much earlier, I tried Saline and didn't really like it that much, others might love it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

What I am excited about is;

{That's when Linus Torvalds, leader of the Linux kernel project, released a version of the operating system core that bridges between the two worlds. Version 3.3 of the Linux kernel is the beginning of the end of isolation between these two projects.

Down under the covers, every Android phone is a Linux phone. Although programmers writing Android apps generally use a Java-like interface, a Google-customized version of Linux handles underlying details such as keyboard input, multitasking among different chores, and keeping needed data readily at hand in memory. }
Linux and Android, together at last | Deep Tech - CNET News

Since I see Android as the future in mobility, this is good news.


----------



## Ringel05

I found this for the hard core types who might have "build my own OS" on their bucket list, LFS, or Linux From Scatch.

Welcome to Linux From Scratch!

And online distro building:

How to build your own Linux distro | TuxRadar Linux

Or just go to SUSE Studio.

Welcome &ndash; SUSE Studio


----------



## Ringel05

Okay, I decided to give Kubuntu another shot simply because I love the Plasma interface on the 11.10 version.  Did a little digging online and discovered fixes to the couple of issues it had.  The primary two being it would lock up halfway through the update and the Muon Software Center not loading.
For the software center issue, until Ubuntu fixes whatever they did on their end, simply use the Muon Package Manager to install packages.  As for the update freezing, open Terminal, type "sudo apt-get update" (without the quotations) and it will run to the freeze point then tell you which command to type (or copy and past) to fix it.  Type or copy and paste the command, enter, issue fixed, update completed and afterwards all updates can be performed in the usual way without Terminal.   

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98D59kLQmFo&feature=related]Kubuntu 11.10 - YouTube[/ame]

And some tweaks you can make as you become more comfortable with it:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZXI5DXCPuI]Kubuntu plasma desktop - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ringel05 said:


> I found this for the hard core types who might have "build my own OS" on their bucket list, LFS, or Linux From Scatch.
> 
> Welcome to Linux From Scratch!
> 
> And online distro building:
> 
> How to build your own Linux distro | TuxRadar Linux
> 
> Or just go to SUSE Studio.
> 
> Welcome &ndash; SUSE Studio



I wrote an OS from scratch in 6502 assembly back in 1981. It wasn't much, command line only - which everything was. I did it because the assembler for the Apple II was bloody awful and wouldn't allow labeling, only allowing direct memory input. This meant that any change meant reinputting all instructions past the insert point. I wrote the OS specifically to allow indirect reference of memory via labeling.  I would write code in my custom OS, then once the code was complete, reboot to ProDOS and run the program as normal. It only worked on the Apple II because I used BIOS calls that were specific to that machine for keyboard, disk, and display. I considered modifying it to run on Commodore, but never did.

B800 hex, start of the screen buffer for the Apple II... Nostalgia. 

I have no desire to ever write an OS again.


----------



## Ringel05

Found this free graphical interface, Linux based server software, Amahi.  

Amahi Home Server - Making Home Networking Simple

Apparently it can be used in place of Windows Server.  It works in conjunction with Fedora (version 14 is the best to use right now) and can be loaded when installing Fedora.

Fedora 14 install guide - Amahi


----------



## Ringel05

Maybe I'll build another medium range box, Kubuntu was a bust on the old Dell, too many issues.  I also tried Mint's KDE and OpenSUSE, Mint KDE had the same issues as Kubuntu and while openSUSE is an awesome distro, it also has issues with the Dell plus I'm still learning Gnome-terminal and openSUSE uses Konsole with different commands. 
Soooo, believe it or not, I reloaded Ubuntu 11.10 and log into the gnome shell instead of Unity at startup.  
The number of shell extensions are rapidly growing making the new Gnome interface more customizable via the Gnome Tweak Too.  You can even install and run Compiz Manager again but be careful, not all the setting play nice with Gnome 3 yet and some will even break Unity, messing up your entire desktop, I know, I found out the hard way.


----------



## Douger

I just dropped a new HDD in my gals box and installed Bodhi 1.4.Once you go through a couple of E17 totorials it's pretty nice. It didn't like Rythmbox for some reason so I installed " Clementine".I like it better than Rythmbox. I installed Chrome since Midori isn't quite ready for prime time yet.

Sorry about the dumbass, loudmouth murkin but his videos are decent.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sjy2WtMqcA&feature=related]Release: Bodhi Linux 1.4.0 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Ringel05

Just discovered a relatively new distro, the Korora Project.  It's built on Fedora, comes in KDE or Gnome and has 32 bit and 64 bit versions.  Supposedly it provides complete out of the box experience for newbies.  I'll check it out. 

https://kororaproject.org/


----------



## Bleipriester

*RED STAR OS 2*







Download:
https://mega.co.nz/#!2toz2JKI

Key:
Z4z8gie9i0UyL-yzLLHxXD4_-0cRyVY1bK-k_He3gBg

Name:
red_star_os.iso

Size:
 693.0 MB





			
				Bleipriester said:
			
		

> *How to install Red Star OS 2.0*
> 
> Caution:
> Do not install Red Star OS 2.0 on your primary machine, it will delete your Windows installation without prompt.
> 
> 
> 1. Download the iso file
> 2. An iso-file appears, burn it on a CD-R. It doesn´t work with Virtal PC 2007.
> 3. Boot the CD with a computer, which has at least 800 Mhz, 256 MB of ram and 3 GB diskspace.
> 4. If a menu appears, which offers to choose two points, choose the  first and click next by clicking the right button at the bottom.
> 5. Now choose the partition, you want to be the Red Star partition.
> 6. The next window (symbolized by a key) seems to be an account creation  menu, but it isn´t. Type redstar in both input fields and click next.
> 7. Red Star is being installed now.
> 8. Klick the button, when the installation is done.
> 9. Always log on with the password redstar.
> 
> 
> Handling:
> Red star is Korean. But most options a also symbolized by icons.
> 
> 
> Caution:
> Don´t copy any files onto a windows computer anyway. Windows has  problems to open them and even could not be able anymore to open the  folders and partitions, on which the files a stored until these files  are deleted. The wallpapers and desktop backgrounds I made for you  before are OK.
> 
> 
> Possible problems:
> 1. Sometimes, the mouse curser is not displayed, but it works. In that  case click the red star on the left bottom to open the start menu and  click the shut down button. Now press return. This will cause a log off  and the log on screen appaers. Then log on, this time the curser should  be displayed.
> 
> 2. Changing the resolution could cause a system halt. Press the reset  button. Red Star will reboot. The new resolution is activated now.
> 
> 
> About Red Star OS 2.0:
> Linux Kernel: 2.6.25-14
> Desktop: KDE 3.5.1
> Browser: Naenara (Firefox 2.0.0.8)
> Mediaplayer: Mplayer 1.0
> 
> Red Star comes with a second disk, on wich is:
> Open Office 3.0
> Gimp 2.2
> K3b1.1
> Bluemail
> Bluefax
> Wine
> Antivirus Woodpecker
> Firewall Stronghold Pyongyang
> 
> I don´t have the second disk.
> 
> If you have any problems downloading or installing Red Star, write me.
> 
> Bleipriester



Screenshot of the filemanager:





Some included Wallpapers 


























​


----------



## Ringel05

I think I'll pass on that one........  Thanks anyway.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Yeah...I think this one will not..uh...suit my needs.


----------



## Bleipriester

iamwhatiseem said:


> Yeah...I think this one will not..uh...suit my needs.


Really? Imagine a Juche calendar indication!


----------



## Ringel05

Okay, downloaded a burned different versions of Korora.  Can't get the live CD to work.  Tried it on a couple of computers, no luck.


----------



## Bleipriester

Now online with Kororoa (live). Using the Universal Netboot Installer to copy the image to a flash drive and boot from it works fine for me.


----------



## Bleipriester

Ringel05 said:


> Just discovered a relatively new distro, the Korora Project.  It's built on Fedora, comes in KDE or Gnome and has 32 bit and 64 bit versions.  Supposedly it provides complete out of the box experience for newbies.  I'll check it out.
> 
> https://kororaproject.org/


I give it a try. My Notebook will then be a XP x64, Korona x64 dual Boot system. Korona is a big one, 2,43 Gb, so it has a lot of things out of the box.
Thank you for your post.


----------



## Bleipriester

Bleipriester said:


> I give it a try. My Notebook will then be a XP x64, Korona x64 dual Boot system. Korona is a big one, 2,43 Gb, so it has a lot of things out of the box.
> Thank you for your post.


Removed...


----------



## Ringel05

Bleipriester said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give it a try. My Notebook will then be a XP x64, Korona x64 dual Boot system. Korona is a big one, 2,43 Gb, so it has a lot of things out of the box.
> Thank you for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> Removed...
Click to expand...


Didn't work for you either?


----------



## Bleipriester

Ringel05 said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give it a try. My Notebook will then be a XP x64, Korona x64 dual Boot system. Korona is a big one, 2,43 Gb, so it has a lot of things out of the box.
> Thank you for your post.
> 
> 
> 
> Removed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't work for you either?
Click to expand...

Yes it worked, but it was idly and I could not install my hardware properly.


----------



## Ringel05

Tried Fedora again, love the interface but it took forever for the live CD to load.  Also tried PCLinuxOS, (KDE), reported as being the most "Windows Like".  Live CD loaded fast and yup Windows users would have an easy time with it however I found it "cluttered".  Tons of preloaded package choices all through the menu selection and everything works right out of the box.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

What....no TinyCore?
With a 12MB installer....can't complain about the LiveCD!!


----------



## Ringel05

iamwhatiseem said:


> What....no TinyCore?
> With a 12MB installer....can't complain about the LiveCD!!



It took ten minutes for Fedora to load off the LiveCD, twice.  The third time it failed to load.  8 GB of RAM, did a memory test, working fine.  PCLinuxOS loaded in about 20 seconds.


----------



## Bleipriester

I tried aLinux, but after 10 minutes of bootscreen I aborted...


----------



## iamwhatiseem

You guys ever try the "Ultimate Ubuntu"?

  Freaking nuts. Basically Ubuntu with all kinds of graphic fluff pre-set and a dizzying number of pre-loaded software installed. I can't remember how many GB the installer was. I tried it once for the funofit...crazy system.


----------



## Ringel05

iamwhatiseem said:


> You guys ever try the "Ultimate Ubuntu"?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGM-31n9pIA
> 
> Freaking nuts. Basically Ubuntu with all kinds of graphic fluff pre-set and a dizzying number of pre-loaded software installed. I can't remember how many GB the installer was. I tried it once for the funofit...crazy system.



Supposedly in really it's UltaMint.    I noticed 4.0 has a gamers edition.


----------



## Bleipriester

Well, I decided to install Korora on my desktop PC.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Bleipriester said:


> Well, I decided to install Korora on my desktop PC.



RedHat was where I began with Linux. 
They were the first, IMO, who sought to make Linux an OS for everyone. 
RPM's were way ahead of everyone else, back then when you wanted to install something it was up to you to identify all of the dependencies - AND - the right release of those dependencies. It was a nightmare before RPM's.
RedHat was the first to take Linux Desktop seriously.


----------



## Bleipriester

iamwhatiseem said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I decided to install Korora on my desktop PC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RedHat was where I began with Linux.
> They were the first, IMO, who sought to make Linux an OS for everyone.
> RPM's were way ahead of everyone else, back then when you wanted to install something it was up to you to identify all of the dependencies - AND - the right release of those dependencies. It was a nightmare before RPM's.
> RedHat was the first to take Linux Desktop seriously.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me more about these dependencies?


----------



## Bleipriester

Now having a Windows 8.1/Korora 20 dual boot System. I would appreciate some help.
1. How can configure the bootloader? I want Windows 8.1 to start by default.
2. I have over 900 elements to update with "Apper". That´s a lot and it sticks at 10 % though blocking my internet connection (about 1,4 Megabyte/second).
3. Call me noob but I don´t find a Taskmanager.
4. How can I install the Nvidia driver. It is a .run file.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Bleipriester said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I decided to install Korora on my desktop PC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RedHat was where I began with Linux.
> They were the first, IMO, who sought to make Linux an OS for everyone.
> RPM's were way ahead of everyone else, back then when you wanted to install something it was up to you to identify all of the dependencies - AND - the right release of those dependencies. It was a nightmare before RPM's.
> RedHat was the first to take Linux Desktop seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you tell me more about these dependencies?
Click to expand...


Example:
An older music player was XMMS. (still exist actually)
The program itself does not contain all of the info needed to run on all of the various Linux systems and specific hardware. So you would download XMMS and compile it.
Generally done by the "make" command.  - Linux make Command Explained With Examples
  The makefile would, hopefully, tell you of any needed dependencies.
Doesn't sound so bad - well yes it was. Because you would have to hunt around on the net for those dependencies. And then many times, well most of the time, there would be other dependencies needed to for that dependency to work.
It could easily take 2 or 3 hours to get a program to work.
Until Redhat made "RPM" Which stood for "Redhat Package Manager"
Redhat place into the installer many dependencies for most systems, and had many others stored on mirror sites that the RPM knew to look for if it still needed one.


----------



## Bleipriester

Ok, this is how it works for me. I use the Windows 8 Bootmanager that is graphical and supports the Mouse.


----------



## Bleipriester

This one anybody?

Tails - Privacy for anyone anywhere


----------



## Likkmee

Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap---- Business cards.
First boot set MX18
Second Mint Debian 2
I was a friend of Ian Murdock and Debz. Used Linux exclusively since 1997


----------



## Bleipriester

Likkmee said:


> Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap---- Business cards.
> First boot set MX18
> Second Mint Debian 2
> I was a friend of Ian Murdock and Debz. Used Linux exclusively since 1997


I guess the latest Photoshop isn´t working on Win7.


----------



## Likkmee

Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap-one camera).
First boot set MX18 Continuum
Second Mint Debian 2


Bleipriester said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap---- Business cards.
> First boot set MX18
> Second Mint Debian 2
> I was a friend of Ian Murdock and Debz. Used Linux exclusively since 1997
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the latest Photoshop isn´t working on Win7.
Click to expand...

Not sure. I generally use Gimp. I just installed 7 with a bunch of bootlegs on this SSD so I'd have it, if needed, and then put the Linux on the other 2 partitions.( and one for data)
Nazi Windows, as you know, wont install on one partition, It wipes all drives
My wifeys laptop is W10 with MX 18 if(never) I need that


----------



## Bleipriester

Likkmee said:


> Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap-one camera).
> First boot set MX18 Continuum
> Second Mint Debian 2
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap---- Business cards.
> First boot set MX18
> Second Mint Debian 2
> I was a friend of Ian Murdock and Debz. Used Linux exclusively since 1997
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the latest Photoshop isn´t working on Win7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure. I generally use Gimp. I just installed 7 with a bunch of bootlegs on this SSD so I'd have it, if needed, and then put the Linux on the other 2 partitions.( and one for data)
> Nazi Windows, as you know, wont install on one partition, It wipes all drives
> My wifeys laptop is W10 with MX 18 if(never) I need that
Click to expand...

No, it doesn´t. It just puts the boot files on C: wherever you put the OS on. If your Linux isn´t completely deranged, it can handle this.


----------



## Likkmee

Bleipriester said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap-one camera).
> First boot set MX18 Continuum
> Second Mint Debian 2
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap---- Business cards.
> First boot set MX18
> Second Mint Debian 2
> I was a friend of Ian Murdock and Debz. Used Linux exclusively since 1997
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the latest Photoshop isn´t working on Win7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure. I generally use Gimp. I just installed 7 with a bunch of bootlegs on this SSD so I'd have it, if needed, and then put the Linux on the other 2 partitions.( and one for data)
> Nazi Windows, as you know, wont install on one partition, It wipes all drives
> My wifeys laptop is W10 with MX 18 if(never) I need that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn´t. It just puts the boot files on C: wherever you put the OS on. If your Linux isn´t completely deranged, it can handle this.
Click to expand...

You skewlin me that I could install 10 without molesting the other partitions and still using my bootloader ? Never heard that one ?


----------



## Bleipriester

Likkmee said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap-one camera).
> First boot set MX18 Continuum
> Second Mint Debian 2
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap---- Business cards.
> First boot set MX18
> Second Mint Debian 2
> I was a friend of Ian Murdock and Debz. Used Linux exclusively since 1997
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the latest Photoshop isn´t working on Win7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure. I generally use Gimp. I just installed 7 with a bunch of bootlegs on this SSD so I'd have it, if needed, and then put the Linux on the other 2 partitions.( and one for data)
> Nazi Windows, as you know, wont install on one partition, It wipes all drives
> My wifeys laptop is W10 with MX 18 if(never) I need that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn´t. It just puts the boot files on C: wherever you put the OS on. If your Linux isn´t completely deranged, it can handle this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You skewlin me that I could install 10 without molesting the other partitions and still using my bootloader ? Never heard that one ?
Click to expand...

Theoretically. But you have to overwrite the Windows 10 bootloader then. It is good while you use it as primary system but I guess you won´t. It loads half the OS before you are given the choice what to boot.
The best is to install Windows first and then Linux.


----------



## Likkmee

Bleipriester said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap-one camera).
> First boot set MX18 Continuum
> Second Mint Debian 2
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap---- Business cards.
> First boot set MX18
> Second Mint Debian 2
> I was a friend of Ian Murdock and Debz. Used Linux exclusively since 1997
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the latest Photoshop isn´t working on Win7.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure. I generally use Gimp. I just installed 7 with a bunch of bootlegs on this SSD so I'd have it, if needed, and then put the Linux on the other 2 partitions.( and one for data)
> Nazi Windows, as you know, wont install on one partition, It wipes all drives
> My wifeys laptop is W10 with MX 18 if(never) I need that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn´t. It just puts the boot files on C: wherever you put the OS on. If your Linux isn´t completely deranged, it can handle this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You skewlin me that I could install 10 without molesting the other partitions and still using my bootloader ? Never heard that one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theoretically. But you have to overwrite the Windows 10 bootloader then. It is good while you use it as primary system but I guess you won´t. It loads half the OS before you are given the choice what to boot.
> The best is to install Windows first and then Linux.
Click to expand...

Understood. That's the only way I've ever done it or thought was possible. Thanks


----------



## Bleipriester

Likkmee said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Triple boot Win7(Never use it----photoshop=Adobe crap-one camera).
> First boot set MX18 Continuum
> Second Mint Debian 2
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the latest Photoshop isn´t working on Win7.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure. I generally use Gimp. I just installed 7 with a bunch of bootlegs on this SSD so I'd have it, if needed, and then put the Linux on the other 2 partitions.( and one for data)
> Nazi Windows, as you know, wont install on one partition, It wipes all drives
> My wifeys laptop is W10 with MX 18 if(never) I need that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it doesn´t. It just puts the boot files on C: wherever you put the OS on. If your Linux isn´t completely deranged, it can handle this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You skewlin me that I could install 10 without molesting the other partitions and still using my bootloader ? Never heard that one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theoretically. But you have to overwrite the Windows 10 bootloader then. It is good while you use it as primary system but I guess you won´t. It loads half the OS before you are given the choice what to boot.
> The best is to install Windows first and then Linux.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understood. That's the only way I've ever done it or thought was possible. Thanks
Click to expand...

The best solution imo is to use separate drives. Disconnect all except one, install an OS, do the same with the other and now you can choose from the Bios quickboot menu if you need the secondary OS. So even if a bootloader breaks for a reason you can still boot from the other drive and they won´t come amiss.


----------



## Likkmee

MX Linux has a GRUB tool in it pkg. Pretty nice gui tool
Screen grab


----------



## iamwhatiseem

As far as I know you always need to install Windows first then Linux.
Linux looks for, and allows other OS's to exist and will create a loader to choose which OS you want to boot.
Windows, on the other hand, is typical Microsoft attitude: "Out of the way! Microsoft coming thru!!" 
Then, in my opinion, M$ worked with PC manufacturers to make it increasingly difficult to install another OS period. Your average user didn't have the knowledge or the confidence to make changes in the BIOS.


----------



## Likkmee

I pray daily that an asteroid strikes Bill Gates house


----------



## Tinhatter

Over the past couple years I tried over twenty distros, and only found four that met my minimum requirement (run as LiveCD, and connect to the internet automatically). Those were MX Linux, TAILS, Linux Mint and AntiX. Of those, MX Linux was my 'pick of the litter', for ease of use and intuitiveness of layout. TAILS was second place. Linux Mint and AntiX both tied for third (not so easy to use nor intuitive design, but okay). I have been running MX Linux in LiveCD mode a couple hours most days for about a year (using it to teach myself Linux), and ready to install it to my secondary HDD. For M$ expats, or just them wanting a backup OS, MX Linux is the choice.


----------



## Ringel05

Likkmee said:


> I pray daily that an asteroid strikes Bill Gates house


You should instead aim it at Satya Nadella's house.......


----------



## Likkmee

Ringel05 said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pray daily that an asteroid strikes Bill Gates house
> 
> 
> 
> You should instead aim it at Satya Nadella's house.......
Click to expand...

You always start at the source. When a cancer begins In the colon and spreads elsewhere it's still dealt with as colon cancer. Striaght from the shitter, just like Billies shitty OS's over the years.The only one that was remotely decent was 2000. Me and a group completely dissected the registry and replace most MS/BS with open source and had a real stable system going. Windows 2000 Lite. Enter XP to get all the idiots back on the MS proprietary garbage.
All downhill(of course) since then

*Windows OS Quick Links*

MS-DOS
Windows 1.0 - 2.0
Windows 3.0 – 3.1
Windows 95
Windows 98 lets not forget the S.E. disaster
Windows ME - Millennium Edition
Windows NT 31. - 4.0
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Windows 8
Windows 10 --updating now...come back in a month.Couldn't count to nine ?
Windows Server---like having a jewelry store in Harlem with no windows or doors.
Windows Home Server
Windows CE
Windows Mobile
Windows Phone 7-10


----------



## iamwhatiseem

It;s interesting.... I wonder what was the worst M$ distro of all time?
Most would probably say M.E.
I would say the much less distributed NT Workstation. It was an abdominal mess to the point of criminal neglect....seriously. It was so bad that businesses should have been able to sue M$ for loss productivity, and replacement of entire systems.


----------

