We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Operating System
Topic Started: Apr 11 2005, 11:36 PM (2,759 Views)
Jimi Apr 18 2005, 05:22 PM Post #76
Member Avatar
LOST
[ * * * * * ]
 I was thinking about installing some form of Linix on my old computer, i need help tho... i dont know what im doing... :unsure:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nemesis Apr 18 2005, 06:03 PM Post #77
+o0 1337 |=0|- j00
[ * * * * ]
Seth
April 17, 2005 11:26 PM
And obviously, you haven't used Fedora core 3.
1) I have a 128MB card overclocked to 500 MHz. But anyways.

2)Windows XP is based on a new version of the NT/2000 kernelhttp://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/windowsxp.asp
How about I tone down my arrogance and you stop trying to pretend like you know what you're talking about.

3) I don't care if you like SuSE, and never said that. It is a distro with which I have experience, as is Fedora; I gave you my comments on both. I've run Fedora Cores 1-3. My CS prof still runs Core 3, and my laptop boots up about twice as fast as his running Ubuntu :P

Still haven't answered my questions yet. If XP is *exactly* the same core as 2K, why does it have so many more flaws?

Ok you have a 500MHz grahics card. I have a 6600GT @ 1100MHz.

Anyways, sure I was partially wrong about 2K & XP's cores, but why does XP seem to have more trouble then?

And maybe your laptop has better hardware than your professor's laptop, maybe that's why Fedora is slower. Plus, Fedora is much more stable than SuSE anyway.

Oh forgot to ask, what graphics card do you have?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Captain Kam Apr 18 2005, 06:49 PM Post #78
Custom member title
[ * * * * * ]
Cool Dude 2k
April 17, 2005 08:28 PM
Das Ein
April 17, 2005 11:24 PM
Dark Kam
April 17, 2005 08:16 PM
I'm one of the 15.28% using windows 98, sadly. Everyone else is using all these cool technological marvals such as Windows XP and 2,000, and have more than 12gb Hard drives. =\

:lol: I have a 80gig :lol:

My Cumputer has 55.8 GB >_<
And my Removable Hard Drive Has 74.5 GB. ^_^

I envy you. :/

That's like... over 120 gb's. I only have a Removable HD and it has like 12 gb. But I'm getting windows 2000 sooner or later with a 40gb hard drive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nemesis Apr 18 2005, 07:15 PM Post #79
+o0 1337 |=0|- j00
[ * * * * ]
 I have total: 2x80GB's (western digital) in RAID0, and another by itself a 20GB Maxtor.

Wish I had 2 74GB Raptors in RAID0. 10,000RPM is fast as heck. :w00t: :wub:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tropicaldawn (CC) Apr 19 2005, 05:37 PM Post #80
Member
[ * ]
 yeah u can run the first IE that came with win 95.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zach Apr 19 2005, 05:47 PM Post #81
Member Avatar
Missjayness
[ * * * * * ]
 Update with my vote:

dual boot: Ubuntu/WinXP
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Das Apr 19 2005, 11:59 PM Post #82
Member Avatar
Smells of rich mahogany
[ * * * * * * * ]
deat
April 19, 2005 01:47 PM
Update with my vote:

dual boot: Ubuntu/WinXP

Mine too! :D :D :D :D :D :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bandit210571 Apr 20 2005, 07:12 AM Post #83
The Bunnikins Killer!
[ * * ]
 I'm another XP Pro user...

Brilliant system!! Hardly ever crashes.....:)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LancerZero Apr 20 2005, 01:59 PM Post #84
Member
[ * ]
 I have an old PII 266MHz w/64MB RAM running WinDOZE '98SE (I don't care much for it, can you tell?). I've also got a 2GHz machine running dual-boot SuSE Linux 9.1 and Windows XP. XP's a decent system, but when you've got a whole family using it, it quickly gets bogged down. We run Spybot S&D, Ad-Aware, MS Anti-Spyware, and Norton AV regularly but it STILL runs like molasses in XP. The only reason I ever use XP is because none of my games run on Linux. :no:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
talha Apr 20 2005, 02:07 PM Post #85
Member
[ * ]
 :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Let Your Head Go Apr 20 2005, 02:13 PM Post #86
Rachel Stevens | I Said Never Again
[ * * * ]
 XP
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ummer Apr 20 2005, 02:19 PM Post #87
Member Avatar
Member
[ * * ]
 XP :yes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tropicaldawn (CC) Apr 20 2005, 02:52 PM Post #88
Member
[ * ]
 Am I the only one on 3.1?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dinoguy1000 Apr 22 2005, 01:17 PM Post #89
Member Avatar
Member
[ * ]
ASDF123
April 18, 2005 05:03 PM
Anyways, sure I was partially wrong about 2K & XP's cores, but why does XP seem to have more trouble then?

not that I'm an expert on it, or even know that much (and I'm not claiming either...), but it would seem to me that XP was/is much more widely distributed and used than 2k, and thus, more bugs would rise to the surface. As to why Microsoft wouldn't offer versions of patches of those problems for 2k users, why patch a problem that no one is complaining about (unless, of course, it's a security danger)?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
number1cubfan-ZNS Apr 22 2005, 10:06 PM Post #90
Why does everyone talk about NEXT YEAR at the end of the season?
[ * ]
 XP Pro on both my computers
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply