im on XP now and love it, there is no rage for microsoft.. there is rage
over Vista
that is a pile of crap that would put mount everest to shame!
"forty-nine" <110001@49.xyz> wrote in message news:flr84q$nah$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
> news:xqydnVTwyvjpgBzanZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:15:10 -0500, forty-nine wrote:
>>
>>> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message
>>> news:xqydnVvwyvj6ixzanZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:25:23 -0500, forty-nine wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Then there is something wrong with your PC...more likely a defect with
>>>>> the operator.
>>>>> I have ubuntu, XP, and Vista.
>>>>> Vista is the most stable of the 3, then XP, then ubuntu (but I am new
>>>>> at ubuntu, playing with Xsettings)
>>>>> ubuntu is skimpy with the memory....it's never used more than 240MB,
>>>>> never even touched the swap partition. ubuntu also seems to put
>>>>> resourses to "sleep" until needed. If your PC has 2GB of RAM....why
>>>>> not use it?
>>>>
>>>> Actually it does, but you won't see that reflected in used memory. If
>>>> you really wanna see the actual memory usage including system cache,
>>>> add the system monitor applet to your top panel. Simply right click it,
>>>> select "Add to Panel", and then go find System Monitor.
>>>>
>>>> You should then see a little small black window in the top bar. By
>>>> default I think it only shows CPU but you can access it's property and
>>>> add memory usage.
>>>>
>>>> It will then show user memory (the 240mb you are referring to) as dark
>>>> green and it'll show the cache memory as light green. Both combined
>>>> will usually, over time, fill up nearly all available memory.
>>>>
>>>> Since cache memory though does not take away from available memory for
>>>> applications, it is not reported as memory that is in-use.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stephan
>>>> 2003 Yamaha R6
>>>>
>>>> ??????????????? ?????????????
>>>
>>> I've used process monitor before...use the internet connection section
>>> as a small panel (or applet ?) in the taskbar. I personally have yet to
>>> see any vast improvement speed wise on any "normal use" of the PC.
>>> Vista runs quite well on my PC.
>>> But with the graphic effects I have enabled on the Ubuntu desktop... I
>>> use the Cube, true glass themes ( It's pretty cool that I can see
>>> completely thru a terminal window)....it handles all those effects with
>>> no problem...so ubuntu is no slouch either.
>>> But the "one" is no better than the "other".
>>
>> Well Ubuntu isn't going to magically make the PC run faster, that is
>> ridiculous. Though for me it does have a few distinct advantages over
>> Vista.
>>
>> One *major* problem I would have under Vista is that I watch DVDs from
>> multiple regions. This is a problem because the software I used under XP
>> to turn my PC into a region-free player does not have Vista support. I
>> can't say for a fact but I do suspect Vista's DRM technologies make this
>> impossible effectively rendering Vista useless to me to watch my DVDs.
>> Reason being, it's been a year now and that software still isn't
>> supported under Vista, there has to be a specific reason. I have a Plasma
>> TV connected to the video card for that purpose. Don't have that problem
>> under XP or Linux.
>>
>> The other major advantage Linux offers me is for my software Development
>> when it comes to writing software for devices running linux. The
>> interfacing the device with my PC is absolutely seamless as I can just
>> use NFS shares to do so. Much easier than what I had to deal with under
>> Windows with WinCE.
>>
>> Plus you know, the usual things...no Activation and genuine disadvantage
>> hassles. =)
>>
>> But yea, I do agree that which one is "better" than the other is largely
>> going to depend on the user far more than anything else. That ultimately
>> is going to determine which is better. I do find that Linux scales much
>> better and adapts better to the hardware it runs on. I mean the linux
>> device I'm working on, 300MHz ARM based CPU, runs almost the same Kernel
>> my PC does. 2.6 series, just a few months older version. In that regard,
>> Microsoft has absolutely nothing comparable.
>>
>> But still, the ultimate deciding factor is the user and the needs of that
>> user with some personal preference sprinkled on top.
>>
>> --
>> Stephan
>> 2003 Yamaha R6
>>
>> ???????????????
>> ?????????????
>
> Absolutely....You have an actual reason to prefer Linux over Windows...not
> just some insane, demented rage aimed at Microsoft.
> I used to hate Linux...because I could never get it installed on enough
> hardware to give it a reasonable try.
> Ubuntu gave me some initial trouble...mostly due to my lake of knowledge
> with the linux terminal, and understanding permissions and device setup.
> But it is the first, successful Linux install ever for me...and its now on
> 2 PC's.
> So, you gotta give applause to the Ubuntu people for getting a decent OS
> for newbie's .
> My wife is using it quite a bit...and for 4 days it was all I used.
> It's always good to have options.