Linux-Advocacy Digest #670, Volume #30 Tue, 5 Dec 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awful (Jerry Peters)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Vann")
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Vann")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:09:07 -0000
>However...Microsoft REFUSES to even allow this as an option.
>
>Why is that?
>
Because this would be true inovation and not just stealing or buying
someone else's ideas so why would MS do this.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:15:42 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Damn straight.
>
> MS claims to make "modern" operating systems...built on a foundation
> using 1960's-style drive letters.
Ah yes, that's why I can type dir \\server\share\file, yes, of course!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Jerry Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 22:19:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:LEyW5.2831$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Kenny Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > Eric Meyer wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > >They should really try doing a Windows install before
> complaining.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing Office (or
>> > the
>> >> > like),
>> >> > > > but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Em
>> >> > >
>> >> > > RedHat installation is really easy... at least as easy as win95/98
>> >> > > installation... I've never installed any other distros...
>> >> >
>> >> > Redhat custom install can be hard, because you need to repartition
> your
>> > HD.
>> >> > Server install should be avoided at all cost, RedHat somehow figured
> out
>> > if
>> >> > I choose to install a server, I have no need for information on my
> HDs.
>> > And
>> >> > so it deletes them happily without even asking my opinion about it.
>> >> > Never installed a workstation RH, can't say anything about it.
>> >>
>> >> Just read the guides first.
>>
>> > I know that it is in the docs, the reason I've problems with it is that
>> > Redhat neglected to put a simple warning box through the installation.
>> > You may disagree, but on every other possibly distructive action, you
> get a
>> > warning saying this may be dangerous. Why not on one of the most
> dangerous
>> > thing that you can do to your computer?
>>
>> Reminds me of Windows, "are you sure ... " etc on every stupid thing.
>> Now even xcopy whines when you copy over a file. But, just double
>> click on a .reg file and it merges it into the registry! No questions
>> asked. I remember reading of someone that did this on a .reg file from
>> NT on W9x (or maybe vice versa) and destroyed his system.
> No, if you double click a reg file, it tell you "Are you sure you want to
> add the information in <file name> to the registry?"
No, it doesn't, it just blithely merges it into the registry.
Jerry
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:22:57 +0000
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> As usual, you are very wrong.
> Not only it's an option, but windows will detect the safe refresh rates
> for your resultion and recommend to you that you would only use those.
Ah, but can you get it to keep that refresh rate? I had a TNT card and I
set the refresh rate to 75Hz. Worked just fine. Except... every so often
I'd switch it on and it was 60Hz! Somehow it would lose the setting. Then
I'd go to the adapter page in display and the refresn rate just wasn't
there! Took me a while to realise it had somehow "lost" my Plug'n'play
monitor and thought I had a _default_ 1024x768 monitor!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:26:27 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> FontDrake (or rather drakfont) doesn't exist on my 7.2 install. I do see
> conf files, but a locate doesn't find it.
Does on mine, sounds like you didn't install it.
I say "you" but what I really mean is Linux Mandrake 7.2 chose not to
install it based on the options you selected.
Somehow it always installs the SQL servers but not Kppp. Bizarre!
> I did find it in the RPM's on the CD though.
Did you install it then?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:28:08 +0000
WorLord wrote:
> Uh, *yes*, it *is.*
>
> I've installed it on 20 different machines now. Twenty. Two-oh. And
> *every single time*, there is a little star called "use hard drive
> optimizations". And a DMESG shows that they are, in fact, being used.
Yep, it's on mine too. He's right there.
There's also a warning it may not work too.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 22:27:19 GMT
In article <DFXW5.1311$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:O2WW5.586$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Worse yet, I have just found out that Linux-Mandrake ships with all
>> > hard drive optimizations turned off. You have to fiddle with the
>> > hdparm program to get dma and multisector reads turned on. Then
>> > figure out how to make it permanent ;)
>>
>> I can't control myself, heh. hdparm is your friend. For Mandrake,
>> which does have the hard drive optimization option on install ( For 7.0
>> and up )
>
> No, they removed it from 7.2. In fact, you no longer even have the
> option of putting the opti command on the boot parameters (it does
> nothing).
>
>> I believe, but may be wrong, that you just set HDPARM to 1 in
>> /etc/sysconfig/system That is, change the line HDPARM=0 to HDPARM=1 Or,
>
> No. In fact, a grep of the /etc directory for HDPARM returns nothing,
> nor does a grep for hdparm. It seems to be completely removed from the
> setup
> (though I did a server configuration, so maybe that's different).
>
>> you could just add the line: hdparm -q -d1 -q -c1 -q -A1 -q -m16
>> /dev/hda Add another line like that for each hard drive you want
>> optimizations for.
>> You can remove the -A1 and -m16 if you want, and see what that does
>> for
> you.
>
> Yes, I already did that (you forgot -X66 for Ultra DMA) and -A is on by
> default, so is -m16. Also, you don't need a seperate line for each
> drive, you can list all drives right there on the single line (unless
> the other drives need different parameters).
>
> The trick though, is figuring out where you're supposed to add stuff.
> rc.local is always a good default choice, but i've found that you're
> supposed to add hdparm to /etc/rc.d/init.d/mandrake_everytime.
Sound like I'm behind the times. I wonder why they would remove the hdd
optimizations, unless it's only in 'expert' mode. Oh well, I never used
-X because it is too risky for me, and most IDE drives select the fastest
PIO mode when you turn the power on anyhow. I meant to say add them to
/etc/rc.d/rc.local, but mandrake_everytime is fine, too. I forgot that
mandrake used it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 22:22:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How come Dell bundles Windows with every PC?
> Why can't I buy a machine without having to pay extra for Windows?
I don't know. My former boss asked them but they refused to give
an explaination. I have often wondered if forcing you to buy an
OS was legal. But you are better off just to avoid them anyway.
Dell's are typicaly bottomfeeder machines. They come with limited
bio's and you can't always turn off onboard devices (Well the bios
says you can but the device will still use that address space).
The other thing is they use propritary componets like sound cards
and even adaptec scsi cards. They are fine for the just starting out
home user/AOL generation but if you are pushing linux you are looking at
market that knows hardware and Dell "ain't" going to cut it with them.
I have had the best luck with ASUS. I have been using them both
personally and professionaly for 5 years now. I read once that they
spend R&D on pefecting their bios and it shows. You can build them
yourself or get them ready to go from many small venders. Nothing
wrong with dealing with small vendors. I have found that they often
give much better service than places like Dell. They have to do
something to differentiate themselves and add value.
> Same goes for all the other manufacturers.
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:26:17 -0000
>The UMSDOS setup actually installs linux in a big file on
>the FAT file system. It works but is very slow. You
>can just mount a separate FAT partition if you want one
>but the filename restrictions will be annoying.
>
The big file on FAT option is not UMSDOS but an ext2fs
filesystem using the loopback filesysyem options (where
any filesystem can exist as a file on any other filesystem).
True UMSDOS stores the filesystem as individual files
with each file converted to a unique 8.3 filename starting
with first few characters of real filename. There is an
additional hidden file in each directory which contains
the real filenames as well as the file permissions for
each file in the directory. File access is slower than
real linux as everytime a file is opened the lookup file
is read first to get permissions and the short name.
Because of dos slackspace and the small size of
a lot of linux files a lot of disk space is wasted so
this is why the loopback ext2fs is now used instead.
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 22:46:29 GMT
In article <mt6X5.2408$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:eXVW5.4689$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <a3EW5.9418$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> <snip my post>
>> >
>> > Or you can just get a real OS with a real windowing and display
>> > system that support advanced font rendering, color correction,
>> > aliasing or anti-, etc.
>> >
>> > -Chad
>> It infuriates me when I try to help a person and I receive a slap in
>> the face for it. You sir, disgust me.
>
> You weren't helping me. It appeared that someone was cracking on Linux's
> poor display system and you, perhaps naievly, begain detailing the
> laborious process of attempting to get Linux to be a modern
> display-oriented OS.
>
> If you were sincerely trying to help him, then I apologize. However, if
> you were really trying to help him get a better display, you would've
> told him to get a Mac or a Windows PC because Linux is years from having
> a serious system for professional display and color correction.
>
> -Chad
Please don't put thought into my head. I am not one to question why he
was using linux. Maybe he likes being able to hack around with the
kernel. But, it is neither my position, nor yours, to claim he is making
a mistake. The choice of what OS to use is an intimate one - one you will
have to deal with every second the computer is used. If I demanded you
always buy a chevrolet instead of a ford because a chevrolet is
"technically superior", you'd probably chose to ignore me.
Personal computers are called such for a reason, you know.
--Vann, the more than slightly vexed robot.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:55:16 +0200
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Bd8X5.4365$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snips]
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90hs0t$14d3r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > It's beyond my understanding how MS, a billion+ dollar
> > > > > > company, can ship an OS with such a shit default text
> > > > > > editor. With all their massive resources, they still
> > > > > > haven't ever provided the user with basic text editor
> > > > > > fuctionality.
>
> > what basic functionality is notepad missing?
>
> Apparently, the ability to edit text - that would, after all, be "basic
text
> editor functionality". From this we can conclude that notepad is really a
> text _viewer_, and does not incorporate editing functions. Yeah, that's
the
> ticket. :)
It can most certainly edit text.
Why do you claim that it can't edit text?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:58:11 +0200
"Scott Swarthout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Adam Short" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:5mMW5.42$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I wonder why they are so lazy that they can't put a simple warning
box.
> > >
> > > Do Microsoft warn you that installing Windows will overwrite the MBR,
> > making
> > > Windows the only bootable OS? Do they hell! Plus the Windows setup
routine
> > > doesn't even ask about partitions. Unless you've used fdisk yourself
> > > beforehand to sort out the partitioning, Windows will just sprawl into
all
> > > available space. No warnings about that one either. Just a little
message
> > > that helpfully tells you that the hard drive is being formatted for
your
> > > pleasure and delectation.
> >
> > No windows installation will repartition/format your HD.
> > The closest thing to this is NT converting the FS you install it on to
NTFS
> > if you ask it too, and give you the option to convert or format to NTFS.
And
> > you are *asked* about it.
> > Overwriting the MBR is indeed bad, but it cause no loss of data and is
> > largely an annoiance.
>
> Annoyance?! that's an understatement. Yes, I have lost data through
> Winblows over-writing my MBR, after spending a fair amount of time
> getting LILO to do all sorts of tasks, it got erased, I had to
> re-install and re-program. That's a bit more than an annoyance.
The lilo conigurations are placed in the linux partition, all it takes is a
LILO disket, and you put LILO back in the MBR, no data loss whatsoever.
Do you want to compare that to a dozen of GBs of data that vanish in thin
air because of RH install?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:00:10 +0200
"Scott Swarthout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 06:31:57 +0200,
> > > Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:15:03 +0200,
> > > >> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"I R A Darth Aggie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:45:33 +0200,
> > > >> >> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
> > > >> >> <90ftn4$qoko$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> >> +
> > > >> >> + "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> >> + news:sqDW5.29923$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> >> + >
> > > >> >> + > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> >> + > news:90ebn3$smj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> >> + > >
> > > >> >> + > >
> > > >> >> + > > > Just read the guides first.
> > > >> >> + > >
> > > >> >> + > > I know that it is in the docs, the reason I've problems
with
> > it
> > > >is
> > > >> >that
> > > >> >> + > > Redhat neglected to put a simple warning box through the
> > > >> >installation.
> > > >> >> + > > You may disagree, but on every other possibly distructive
> > action,
> > > >> >you
> > > >> >> + get
> > > >> >> + > a
> > > >> >> + > > warning saying this may be dangerous. Why not on one of
the
> > most
> > > >> >> + dangerous
> > > >> >> + > > thing that you can do to your computer?
> > > >> >> + >
> > > >> >> + > Are you sure about that? I can't remember exactly which
steps I
> > > >used
> > > >> >> + > on which distribution, but I am sure that I went through a
> > > >workstation
> > > >> >> + > and server install to see what you get and before it changed
the
> > > >> >> + partitions
> > > >> >> + > it issued a warning about losing all contents on the hard
disks.
> > > >> >That
> > > >> >> + > could have been Mandrake, or perhaps you used some unusual
modes
> > > >> >> + > expert/text, etc. that exposed a bug.
> > > >> >> +
> > > >> >> + Yes, I'm sure of it.
> > > >> >> + A Server Installation in RedHat will wipe out every last bit
of
> > data
> > > >> >you've
> > > >> >> + on your system and will take it, without a *single warning*.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Perhaps the warning came before you expected it. I can't speak
to
> > > >> >> RedHat, but I know Debian puts up a warning of "you should back
up
> > > >> >> your data first, installing this software could wipe out
everything
> > > >> >> you've" very, very early on.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >No warning whatsoever during the installation of redhat server.
> > > >> >Not early on or during the parts where you choose
> > > >server/workstation/custom.
> > > >> >None at all.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I think you will find that even RedHat has printed in their
> > > >> install manual this information. But you must be able to read.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >So must you, "No warning whatsoever *during the installation* of
redhat
> > > >server"
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you read the manual you will see how to avoid this.
> > >
> > > It would just appear you have to.
> >
> > I'm not coplaining about the lack of this information in the manual. In
> > fact, I qouted from the manual some time ago, exactly about this part.
> > I'm complaining that the *installation* doesn't warn you before it erase
all
> > the contents of your HDs.
> > It has nothing to do with this appearing in the manual or not.
> > It has everything to do with taking the five second coding to ask the
user
> > whatever they are aware this will erase all the contents of their HDs.
>
> But why would you try installing an OS with out reading the Manual
> first? Unless you are quite experienced... and know all the pit falls
> already.
I'd the experiance of installing other dist, it never crossed my mind that
they wouldn't even put a warning box on such a destructive action
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:02:59 +0200
"scatterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gRaX5.19203$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Linux may have flaws but Jesus have you used Millennium yet? My machine
> needs to be restarted at least 4 times a day. I just installed Linux a
few
> days ago and have yet to see "An error has occurred in module blah, blah,
> blah", then the Kernel begins to crash "over and over" time to reboot
> "again".
There is a reason why ME sales are so slow, it *sucks*.
It incorporate all the weakness of the Win9x line, plus a lot new weaknesses
that have been added just for fun.
If you want a stable windows OS, drop the win9x line.
2000 Pro make a good desktop.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:04:43 +0200
"Veloct" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wn7X5.48047$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Wow, lot of rudes comments on this thread. I notice there is a lot of
folks
> that have this windows "bigotry". I run both win98 and linux and I can
run
> either one for weeks without a reboot. I agree windows software is as
good
> as a McDonald's burger but geez, if you know what to do with either OS
it'll
> run like a charm.
Win98? Weeks at a time?
I'm impressed.
Do call Guniess, you are a first.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:10:41 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2i9X5.674$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90itsd$1badi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > How about setting your monitor refresh rate?
> > >
> > >
> > > Not even an option under MS LoseDOS, so why are you bringing this up?
> >
> > As usual, you are very wrong.
> > Not only it's an option, but windows will detect the safe refresh rates
> for
> > your resultion and recommend to you that you would only use those.
>
> And this depends on the video and monitor driver combination.... Sometimes
> you are only given two options, optimal and adaptor default. This can be a
> pain in the ass if you, in my case, like to back the refresh down a few
> notches to eek out better 3D hardware rendering performance in a game.
> (Backing your refresh down from, say 120Hz to 60 Hz can give a noticable
> improvement by easing the display adaptor's workload).
Control Panel > Display > Settings > Advance > Monitor > Refresh Frequency
Uncheck "Hide modes that this monitor cannot display" in order to get access
to all the refresh rates supported by your monitor.
As you mentioned, it's important not to use general drivers here, because
they go to the defaults, which is safest, which is also the worst display
possible. (as this is support by every monitor/display adapter)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:44:45 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dyaX5.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Francois Labreque wrote:
> > > Depends on your video drivers and monitor drivers. Bash Windows all
you
> > > want, but keep it to the things you are sure of.
> >
> > With the same equipment, I have the option under Linux, but not under
> LoseDOS.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> Probably because you didn't install the monitor drivers, or turn on
> auto-detect.
Probably because he doesn't know where to look, and know practically nothing
about Windows anyway.
Control Panel > Display > Settings > Advance > Monitor > Refresh Frequency
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
