If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
eatnofat wrote:
Actually, without any technical data to back it up, I've enjoyed using both Intel and AMD chips running XP Pro - both seem to be up to the task and I like the idea of competition - monopoly is so boring and the lack of choice is the lack of freedom. This is why you need to drop crappy Microsoft Windows and run a GNU based system. I regret selling a DIY computer that I built using a Cyrix processor during the days of Windows 95-98. I like Cyrix processors. It was quite stable on those OS versions. What do you call "stable"? After extensive testing I found that a machine running Microsoft Windows '95 will typically run for about 20 minutes before crashing. The same machine running Microsoft Windows '98 will crash within 4 days. http://markhobley.yi.org/mswin/hastalavista/crash.html Mark. -- Mark Hobley Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/ |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
eatnofat wrote:
I'm concerned that I'd have to spend a lot of time at the command line getting a Linux system to work with various types of hardware and download missing drivers - at least that's what I've heard. Hardware support is getting a lot better. Many systems just work. It really does depend on your hardware though. Try a live Ubuntu disk in the machine first, and check that the hardware works, before migration. I have always standardized on hardware as much as possible, and I always check for open source compatibility before purchasing, so that has helped me greatly. If I am given a machine with incompatible cards, I tend to just dump them, give them away, or bounce them off ebay, and buy replacements. For 3d games, always ensure that your graphics cards or chipsets are made by ATI or Intel. Mark. -- Mark Hobley Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/ |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
In article ,
Mark Hobley wrote: What do you call "stable"? After extensive testing I found that a machine running Microsoft Windows '95 will typically run for about 20 minutes before crashing. The same machine running Microsoft Windows '98 will crash within 4 days. On substandard hardware, no OS will be stable. Given properly-functioning hardware, if you could only get Win95 to run right for 20 minutes, you're doing it wrong. Windows had (and has) its problems, but there's no need to exaggerate. _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting! \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
In article ,
Mark Hobley wrote: For 3d games, always ensure that your graphics cards or chipsets are made by ATI or Intel. By "ATI or Intel," you meant "nVidia," right? ATI drivers on Linux have been of variable quality, and Intel's 3D performance has tended to significantly lag behind both nVidia and ATI. IME, nVidia has usually been easiest to get running at optimal performance. (Between this and your earlier post on Win9x stability, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm being trolled.) _/_ / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail) (IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting! \_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden What's the most annoying thing on Usenet? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
Scott Alfter wrote:
By "ATI or Intel," you meant "nVidia," right? No. Nvidia cards do not work properly with open source drivers. I really do mean ATI or Intel. Mark. -- Mark Hobley Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
Scott Alfter wrote:
On substandard hardware, no OS will be stable. Given properly-functioning hardware, if you could only get Win95 to run right for 20 minutes, you're doing it wrong. The hardware is fine. It never used to crash under Microsoft Windows 3.11 and it now runs fine with Linux. This was definitely a problem with Microsoft Windows '95. Mark. -- Mark Hobley Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/ |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
Mark Hobley wrote:
Scott Alfter wrote: On substandard hardware, no OS will be stable. Given properly-functioning hardware, if you could only get Win95 to run right for 20 minutes, you're doing it wrong. The hardware is fine. It never used to crash under Microsoft Windows 3.11 and it now runs fine with Linux. ROTFL! Oh, this is so through hardware test!? Not! This was definitely a problem with Microsoft Windows '95. Nope. Win 95 was crap but it was running on stable hardware for ~49.5 days (only then it died unconditionally due to tick counter overflowing) It could be simply the fact Win95 allocates memory from top. It could so happened that failing memory area or failed functionality is not used under Linux. \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels) |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote:
It could be simply the fact Win95 allocates memory from top. It could so happened that failing memory area or failed functionality is not used under Linux. I still have the hardware, and my machines have removable bays, so tests can be conducted. I know for sure that there are no hardware faults on these machines. Mark. -- Mark Hobley Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
Mark Hobley wrote:
Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote: It could be simply the fact Win95 allocates memory from top. It could so happened that failing memory area or failed functionality is not used under Linux. I still have the hardware, and my machines have removable bays, so tests can be conducted. I know for sure that there are no hardware faults on these machines. How? That Linux boots is not a proof. One need to run proper hardware stress tester. \SK -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels) |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
I once actually learned something from this group
Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote:
How? By sticking in a hard drive with Windows '95 installed, and running some applications, you will see the computer crash within a short space of time. Do the same thing using Linux, and the computer will not crash. That Linux boots is not a proof. One need to run proper hardware stress tester. Yeah. I have done that too. Some of these machines have been used in industrial and commercial environments. I know that they are not faulty. I am a field engineer and I have seen many problems on many machines. I know for sure that the bugs are in the software. Mark. -- Mark Hobley Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Learned sumthin' new | AJ[_2_] | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | July 3rd 07 07:58 PM |
box killing drives?-What I've learned | Rod Speed | Storage (alternative) | 0 | September 23rd 05 03:22 AM |
Lessons learned: Proliant Memory | VinceV | Compaq Servers | 0 | December 14th 04 05:48 PM |
Learned a hard lesson a few days ago | Fred Smith | Asus Motherboards | 14 | August 2nd 04 04:20 PM |