On Thursday 27 February 2003 09:34 pm, Carroll Grigsby wrote:
> On Thursday 27 February 2003 04:32 pm, Ronald J. Hall wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:56 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> > > Nobody would like to see winblows gone more than me, believe me.
> > > LX
> >
> > Or me!
>
> I disagree
On Thursday 27 February 2003 04:32 pm, Ronald J. Hall wrote:
> On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:56 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> > Nobody would like to see winblows gone more than me, believe me.
> > LX
>
> Or me!
I disagree. A dual boot system can have real value. For example, I've found
that whene
>
> That's strange, I have just the opposite experience.
>
> Agreeing with you that 7.2 was an exceptionally good release (and can
> hardly wait for 9.2 - it's the odd numbers I bet) I found that 8.2 and
> higher gave much better performance on low end P166's.
>
> AFAIK this was mostly due to Xfree
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vahur Lokk wrote on Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 10:00:15AM +0200 :
> No. The perfomance is not comparable even then. I write this mail on a
> 166Mhz/48MbRAM Compaq Deskpro that was capable of giving me snappy perfomance
> running MSO97 and Win95. It runs n
On Thursday 27 February 2003 21:45, logic7 wrote:
> I hold mdk7.2 as my personal benchmark for speed
> and stability and, IMO, no other version after that can stand up to it. I
> have noticed, tho, that this is not limited to just Mandrake. RedHat has
> the same problem, each successive version is
On Thursday 27 February 2003 20:40, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> WineX goes a long way to getting us users completely under Linux, and in
> the process saving the developers thousands of dollars of development time.
> It helps bridge the chasm between the win world and us, giving us even
> more opportuni
On Thursday 27 February 2003 02:40 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> Another thing is gaming. WineX has done invaluable and irreplaceable work
> when it comes to bringing Linux into the mainstream gaming world, but there
> is still a ways to go. Baldur's Gate 2 is a good example. In order to
> network a
James,
Thanks for the info on Linux memory usage- that's really good stuff to know.
And I do agree, Mandrake is very good right out of the box- it's definitely
the best distro I've used so far, and I find it ridiculous when people talk
about Mandrake's "bloated OS." Their kernel is certainly not
On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:56 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> Nobody would like to see winblows gone more than me, believe me.
> LX
Or me!
--
/\
--- tarvid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:56 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> > Nobody would like to see winblows gone more than me, believe me. But until
> > it does go, we've got to work with it and continue to use our collective
> > mental talents here to help replace it
> > One full minute? Are you sure you're not exaggerating a little bit? I
> > don't use OO but use Staroffice now and again and it is slow but it
> > certainly doesn't take a minute. I haven't timed it yet but I would be
> > suprised if it actually took more than 20 to 30 seconds tops.
> >
> > My
On Thursday 27 February 2003 12:56 pm, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> Nobody would like to see winblows gone more than me, believe me. But until
> it does go, we've got to work with it and continue to use our collective
> mental talents here to help replace it with (hopefully) Mandrake Linux. As
> we grea
--- flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 27 February 2003 11:44 am, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> >
> > Saddam Hussein is off topic. Discussions of winblows in conjunction or
> > comparison with Linux are not.
> >
> > LX
>
> LX,
> Point taken.
>
> I just thought it might not be appropria
On Thursday 27 February 2003 11:44 am, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
>
> Saddam Hussein is off topic. Discussions of winblows in conjunction or
> comparison with Linux are not.
>
> LX
LX,
Point taken.
I just thought it might not be appropriate to go into a long involved
discourse on tweaking windows her
--- flacycads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> et,
> Win 2k or XP should handle the extra ram OK, while ME or lower won't, and
> needs the file edits I mentioned to avoid boot problems. Those dual booting
> with Linux can find out more about windows registry hacks and system file
> edits by visitin
et,
Win 2k or XP should handle the extra ram OK, while ME or lower won't, and
needs the file edits I mentioned to avoid boot problems. Those dual booting
with Linux can find out more about windows registry hacks and system file
edits by visiting the great axcel216 website for in-depth info, and
On Thursday 27 February 2003 09:59 am, flacycads wrote:
> Since this little tibit of info in useful if you are dual booting with
> winME/98/95 and Linux with more than 512MB ram, I'll submit it. There is no
> problem with higher versions of windows.
>
> The thing to do is set the MaxFileCache setti
On Thursday 27 Feb 2003 1:50 pm, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:48 pm, Damian Gatabria wrote:
> [...]
>
> > OpenOffice.org 1.0 takes a full minute.
> >
> > Try it yourself. As you very correctly said, thare are some th
Since this little tibit of info in useful if you are dual booting with
winME/98/95 and Linux with more than 512MB ram, I'll submit it. There is no
problem with higher versions of windows.
The thing to do is set the MaxFileCache setting in System.ini to 512MB or
slightly less, and the Conservati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:48 pm, Damian Gatabria wrote:
[...]
> OpenOffice.org 1.0 takes a full minute.
>
> Try it yourself. As you very correctly said, thare are some things for
> which Linux is faster, and some things for which Windows is fast
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 27 February 2003 03:14 am, James Sparenberg wrote:
> it. Boot alone took 27 minutes! (with swap under 2 minutes) Says a lot
> about memory management.
>
> James
Any chance you guys could do some snipping in these long threads? Especia
>
> This is like saying that Linux is faster than Windows because Bluefish
> loads faster than DreamWeaver. Put OOo on windows and do that
> comparison.
I am not saying "windows is faster than Linux". I'm saying "MS Office is
faster then OpenOffice" and, yes, the Windows version of OO
behaves pre
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 18:53, you wrote:
> As I said, if you want to compare apples to apples, load OO ONCE on desktop
> 2 and switch to it--that is what Windows is doing with MSO, or the nearest
> achievable equivalent.
No. The perfomance is not comparable even then. I write this mail on a
>
> As I said, if you want to compare apples to apples, load OO ONCE on desktop
> 2 and switch to it--that is what Windows is doing with MSO, or the nearest
> achievable equivalent.
Civileme, there are few to none occasions in which i can disagree with you
or even judge your knowledge... you are s
> ehhh, no mater what, or so I have heard, win 9x to win me will NOT boot
> with more than 512 megs ram. I can say that for sure with winME.
> it is really the way the ram is used, as far as I know, that makes the
> differences, that and the way it is tested by the kernal developers to
> decide wh
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 12:13 pm, flacycads wrote:
> If you are referring to me, my /etc/hosts file is correct (not empty), and
> my hard drives are tweaked with hdparm, and have been since I started Linux
> about 9 months ago. I also only run the services I actually need, and
> compile lean
I was not speaking about anyone in particular
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 04:13 pm, flacycads wrote:
> If you are referring to me, my /etc/hosts file is correct (not empty), and
> my hard drives are tweaked with hdparm, and have been since I started Linux
> about 9 months ago. I also only run th
If you are referring to me, my /etc/hosts file is correct (not empty), and my
hard drives are tweaked with hdparm, and have been since I started Linux
about 9 months ago. I also only run the services I actually need, and compile
lean as possible kernels. However, I know I could use more ram on t
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:39 am, civileme wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 February 2003 09:17 pm, Jack Coates wrote:
> > Not to turn it into a WM flamewar, but are you using KDE or GNOME?
> > Either fullblown environment can make the experience a lot slower in my
> > experience.
> >
> > It's also pos
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 01:02 am, Vahur Lokk wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:39, you wrote:
> > And don't forget the obvious
> >
> > Office is like 95% loaded if you use windows... compare that to loading
> > ALL of OpenOffice.
>
> Yes here is the point. Especially when low spec box
Vahur Lokk wrote:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:39, you wrote:
And don't forget the obvious
Office is like 95% loaded if you use windows... compare that to
loading ALL
of OpenOffice.
Yes here is the point. Especially when low spec boxes come into play.
Old
Pentium running Win9x and MSO is
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 09:39, you wrote:
> And don't forget the obvious
>
> Office is like 95% loaded if you use windows... compare that to loading ALL
> of OpenOffice.
Yes here is the point. Especially when low spec boxes come into play. Old
Pentium running Win9x and MSO is absolutely vi
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 09:17 pm, Jack Coates wrote:
> Not to turn it into a WM flamewar, but are you using KDE or GNOME?
> Either fullblown environment can make the experience a lot slower in my
> experience.
>
> It's also possible and fun to throw Linux's performance down the stairs
> in ways
33 matches
Mail list logo
