On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 15:42 +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > If flash is important to you then I'd suggest you run windows firefox
> > under wine. Native Adobe Flash support is apparently working again in
>
> isn't better to run windows ?
That'd be debatable, wouldn't it?
_
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 14:22 +, RW wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:54:38 -0800
> "Harry Veltman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Which version and GUI will work best on the internet with my AT
> > Pentium II 350MHz x86-based PC? Some web sites require Flash Player
> > 8 or higher,
>
> If f
Oldie @ 1 GHz? You must be joking. I'd bite my hand off for
such hardware. :-)
No need. Get a job at a computer service store, like my fiancee. You will get
orphans donated in the 2-3Ghz range "just as long as my data is transfered to
the new computer". ;)
looks like such services on your area
If flash is important to you then I'd suggest you run windows firefox
under wine. Native Adobe Flash support is apparently working again in
isn't better to run windows ?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/l
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:54:38 -0800
"Harry Veltman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which version and GUI will work best on the internet with my AT
> Pentium II 350MHz x86-based PC? Some web sites require Flash Player
> 8 or higher,
If flash is important to you then I'd suggest you run windows fire
too... my absolute favorite and it boosted my productivity (after 2
weeks of configuring&customizing) to a level no other GUI in this world
no other you tried.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fre
hi...
> Which version and GUI will work best on the internet with my AT
> Pentium II 350MHz x86-based PC? Some web sites require Flash Player 8
> or higher, and some require 128-bit encryption I think, but doesn't
> 40-bit encryption process data 3 times faster? How many bit
> encryption is the
On Monday 01 December 2008 12:11:13 Polytropon wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:53:11 +0100, Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > We have a few oldies, just installed KDE 3.5 on a:
> > CPU: VIA Nehemiah (997.17-MHz 686-class CPU)
> > Origin = "CentaurHauls" Id = 0x698 Stepping = 8
>
> Oldie @ 1 GH
since OP already stated to want flash 8 with highbit encryption, you will
need firefox and bunch of gstreamer-*/gnome stuff or linux emulation and a
lot of good fortune when going with pluginwrapper.
but not KDE and Gnome desktop running. firefox is quite fast compared to
it
__
On Monday 01 December 2008 12:19:50 Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > We have a few oldies, just installed KDE 3.5 on a:
> > CPU: VIA Nehemiah (997.17-MHz 686-class CPU)
> > Origin = "CentaurHauls" Id = 0x698 Stepping = 8
> >
> > That's pretty much as low as I'd go for normal desktop usage. The machine
On Monday 01 December 2008 02:11:13 Polytropon wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:53:11 +0100, Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > We have a few oldies, just installed KDE 3.5 on a:
> > CPU: VIA Nehemiah (997.17-MHz 686-class CPU)
> > Origin = "CentaurHauls" Id = 0x698 Stepping = 8
>
> Oldie @ 1 GH
We have a few oldies, just installed KDE 3.5 on a:
CPU: VIA Nehemiah (997.17-MHz 686-class CPU)
Origin = "CentaurHauls" Id = 0x698 Stepping = 8
That's pretty much as low as I'd go for normal desktop usage. The machine
you're describing, still makes for a good router or LAN resolver with low
We have a few oldies, just installed KDE 3.5 on a:
CPU: VIA Nehemiah (997.17-MHz 686-class CPU)
Origin = "CentaurHauls" Id = 0x698 Stepping = 8
Oldie @ 1 GHz? You must be joking. I'd bite my hand off for
such hardware. :-)
well most of machines i use are <1Ghz and <512MB RAM.
no need for
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:53:11 +0100, Mel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a few oldies, just installed KDE 3.5 on a:
> CPU: VIA Nehemiah (997.17-MHz 686-class CPU)
> Origin = "CentaurHauls" Id = 0x698 Stepping = 8
Oldie @ 1 GHz? You must be joking. I'd bite my hand off for
such hardware. :-)
On Monday 01 December 2008 11:36:58 Polytropon wrote:
> I can't answer your question regarding "Flash" and encryption;
> sadly, I never saw any need for this.
Even if you get the software to work (which is a project in itself),
performance will be very very bad.
My parents have a similar machine
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:54:38 -0800, "Harry Veltman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which version and GUI will work best on the internet with my
> AT Pentium II 350MHz x86-based PC?
Allthough the FreeBSD base system gets better and faster in each
version, the additional software and the GUI toolkits
Which version and GUI will work best on the internet with my AT Pentium II
350MHz x86-based PC? Some web sites require Flash Player 8 or higher, and some
require 128-bit encryption I think, but doesn't 40-bit encryption process data
3 times faster? How many bit encryption is the various versio
17 matches
Mail list logo