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/

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/

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?

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?

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/

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/

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)

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/

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)

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/