Windows doesn't "just work"

Hammyman

Mr_Oink wrote: »

Really? A lot of embedded devices, routers and home gateways {that is USEFUL devices that run Linux} seem to contradict this - but if you don't want to count web gui's there are several on this list:

And which of those are operating systems with a fully fledged GUI? None. They are however serving web pages which are not the same thing.

And I know all about those stripped out distros running desktop managers like Xfe but they are nowhere near relevant as they are all stripped out desktop and windows managers designed to run on low resource systems HOWEVER even they can't run on 4MB of RAM which Windows 95 managed quite fine. Show me where you can find a current Gnome or KDE based distro that has even 128MB as minimum requirements and I'll be convinced.

Mr_Oink

Hammyman wrote: »

And which of those are operating systems with a fully fledged GUI? None. They are however serving web pages which are not the same thing..

Which is why I provided you with a link to a list of them - did you miss that bit or chose to ignore it?

Here it is again Son.....
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Minimal_Linux_distros

Hammyman wrote: »

And I know all about those stripped out distros running desktop managers like Xfe

So a fully featured operating system with a GUI and applications - your point is what exactly?

If you install XP into your magical 64mb you'll get a slow dog of an operating system with a basic GUI, a notepad and a couple of games. I don't know how much memory will be eaten up by the time you start running your anti-virus and firewall applications.

If you install a small Linux distribution into the same 64mb you'll get that plus a full word processor, choice of browsers, communications applications et al - to name but a few .... oh, and it will have a nice, pretty gui too.

The OP seems to have upset you, but perhaps it is *you* that is incompetent? He has just made a few observational remarks about a netbook being easier to get running with a recent lubuntu distribution than it was XP. I guess you have Linux envy - it tends to scare some people. Let us know if you need the grown ups to help you with a proper operating system when you've learnt enough to work one

23n1th

Hammyman wrote: »

Indeed there are however I actually said fully fledged GUI and not a stripped down one like DSL which is basically nothing more than the Linux equivalent to Windows 1.0.

I suppose that depends on your opinion. What do you mean by fully fledged??? It either has a GUI or doesn't. Basically you've been proven wrong, accept it. DSL btw isn't the only one.

The millions of posts in Linux support forums prove otherwise.

Well in this case linux did the job, go figure. Windows was found wanting.

Who said it was working? I just said you're incompetent and I stand by that.

I said it was working... in the post you quoted :undecided, ie, when I said "its working".

And the post you quoted was my reply to you saying: "They'd be better off if they take it somewhere else."

Ultimately since you don't know what you're talking about your opinion on my competence means absolutely nothing. Although that's not taking into account that is takes one to know one so in that respect you might actually be right.

Hammyman wrote: »

And which of those are operating systems with a fully fledged GUI? None. They are however serving web pages which are not the same thing.

And I know all about those stripped out distros running desktop managers like Xfe but they are nowhere near relevant as they are all stripped out desktop and windows managers designed to run on low resource systems HOWEVER even they can't run on 4MB of RAM which Windows 95 managed quite fine. Show me where you can find a current Gnome or KDE based distro that has even 128MB as minimum requirements and I'll be convinced.

Again with your "fully fledged" thing which means nothing. By your own definition win 95, 98 and XP don't count as fully fledged, so you show me a "fully fledged" windows desktop that will run on 4mb of ram or even 64mb? Oh and its xfce not xfe.

Lokolo

23n1th wrote: »

Why exactly!

Just like when you don't read the original post of a thread (which in this case if you're wondering doesn't say anything about having installed linux on anything!) and make random comments that then don't make sense. Why?

Sorry you misunderstood. I wasn't commenting on what you've done, but what you are saying you might do.

23n1th wrote: »

Now I'm tempted to install Lubuntu and say I couldn't salvage XP for them. They'd be better off for it.

KillerWatt

I wish my only problem in life was whether to use a variant of *nix or Windows.

Hammyman

23n1th wrote: »

Again with your "fully fledged" thing which means nothing. By your own definition win 95, 98 and XP don't count as fully fledged, so you show me a "fully fledged" windows desktop that will run on 4mb of ram or even 64mb? Oh and its xfce not xfe.

Windows 95 and Windows 98 are fully fledged as is XP meaning that no functionality was lost to take into account the low memory requirements whereas with light windows and desktop managers in *nix you lose a lot. Maybe you're not actually old enough to remember what Windows 95 was whereas I'd been in IT for over a decade by then. And I made a typo so sue me you incompetent !!!!!.

Its interesting that you claim to be an expert on operating systems but are so sodding clueless you can't even install XP without a drama or coming on to whinge about what the rest of the world already knows.

You can run Windows 95 on 4MB of RAM. X needs at least 24MB therefore there are no distros in your petty list of stripped out barely usable rubbish that will run on anything less than 24MB. And the one with the lowest memory requirements on that page is IPCop which doesn't even have its own window or desktop manager but instead uses webpages which you have to access via another computer or OS installation. Even IPCop needs FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF RAM THAT WINDOWS95 DID just to provide firewall functionality.

debitcardmayhem

I used to have a Fujistu B110 "laptop" smaller than a netbook , and it ran very well using whichever version of Linux i tried back then, can't really remember now altough I still have it but it won't work I dropped it and fubarred the screen. Sweet little thing it was (I remember running it with W95 + linux...perhaps redhat pre corporate money grabbing redhat) It was 8.4" screen and cost more than £1600 i.e. a Netbook :rotfl:. Mind you that was in 2000 , so now the screen should be 2.2" + 0.005 grams total weight and battery life of 20,000 days. But it worked very well with 95 and the linux too, and it had 64Mb of ram and a external CD and external Floppy Drive.

KillerWatt

/me makes mental note to ask the old lady to get me a family size bag of popcorn for my day out at the hossy tomorrow :rotfl:

23n1th

Hammyman wrote: »

Windows 95 and Windows 98 are fully fledged as is XP. Maybe you're not actually old enough to remember what Windows 95 was whereas I'd been in IT for over a decade by then. And I made a typo so sue me you incompetent !!!!!.

It that case so are DSL, Puppy, Slitaz, etc, fully fledged.

No need to get your knickers in a twist, and I commiserate that you've spent most of your life (or lack thereof) in IT, you have my sympathy.

I'm loving the irony of your last sentence, very good!:rotfl:

Its interesting that you claim to be an expert on operating systems but are so sodding clueless you can't even install XP without a drama or coming on to !!!!! about what the rest of the world already knows.

No exactly clear on when I claimed to be an expert, can you please base your hissy-fit around reality rather than making stuff up.

You can run Windows 95 on 4MB of RAM. X needs at least 32MB therefore there are no distros in your petty list of stripped out barely usable rubbish that will run on anything less than 32MB.

The 1995 version of X didn't need 32mbs. 1995 versions of linux will also work with 4mb of ram btw, not that its anymore relevant than your obsession with win 95 and 98.

Its also not my list, its a list from a wiki kindly posted by Mr_Oink for your benefit since you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Now calm down, take a few breaths, act you age and we might be able to have a proper conversation.

23n1th

Hammyman wrote: »

You can run Windows 95 on 4MB of RAM. X needs at least 24MB therefore there are no distros in your petty list of stripped out barely usable rubbish that will run on anything less than 24MB. And the one with the lowest memory requirements on that page is IPCop which doesn't even have its own window or desktop manager but instead uses webpages which you have to access via another computer or OS installation. Even IPCop needs FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF RAM THAT WINDOWS95 DID just to provide firewall functionality.

Opps looks like I started to reply before you'd corrected yourself, sorry. Come on hammy get it together!