On Monday 23 June 2003 08:35, John Sunderhaus wrote: > On Sat, 2003-06-21 at 15:30, cr wrote: > > On Sunday 22 June 2003 01:39, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:07:21AM +1200, cr wrote: > > > > > And, just so I can join in the foray of the auto-detect flame-fest > > > > > here, if a user doesn't know his hardware well enough to be able to > > > > > pick it from a list he shouldn't be installing an OS in the first > > > > > place. > > > > > > > > Errr, *wrong*. Much of my gear is second-hand, and of course the > > > > first thing the original owners invariably do is lose the manuals. > > > > > > > > :( My current motherboard is the first one I've ever had a manual > > > > > > > > for, ditto my S3 VGA card, and I've *never* owned any monitor of a > > > > brand that's been listed in the 'X' config options. > > > > > > Actually, he's right. It's 2003 and people still don't know about > > > Google? > > > > You think I didn't *try* that? ;) > > Short of taking the monitor apart and looking for some name on the > > chassis inside, I could find nothing. > > And that does presuppose one has a spare working PC with an Internet > > connection handy. > > > > > > Yet, both RedHat and Mandrake's graphical installers and Debian's > > > > penguin logo display fine with *whatever* card I'm running - what is > > > > it the installers know that they won't tell X config ? :( > > > > > > X is not the framebuffer. > > > > I don't know the technicalities, it still seems odd to me that the > > installers can display a graphical image perfectly while they're > > installing, yet when they reach the point of setting up X, she don't > > work. Not to mention, frustrating. > > > > cr > > My two cents... > > First, cr, you hit the nail on the head re: your observations on RedHat > and beancounters. I could not have stated it better.
Unfortunately, that usually favours Micro$oft. > However, trying to get any Linux distro to perform better than Windoze > on inadequate equipment is like trying to pull an 18 wheeler with a VW. > There is no magic in the world that can be applied to that VW to pull an > eighteen wheeler. I once tow-started a Jaguar Mk 2 with my Lotus Elan - does that count? OK, I know, OT ;) I do agree, that all OS's perform better with heaps of processor speed/memory. > First, I am very happy to inform the world (outside of Debian world) > that Debian Linux *is ready* for the desktop. The caveat is this: While > Windoze seems to work OK on PCs with 32Mb to 64Mb of RAM, there is *no > way* Linux can compete on that equipment. In order to graphically see > that Linux *looks better* and *performs better* than Windoze, you *must* > have the following: > > Tons of memory - I'd say at the very minimum, 256MB. > A graphics card that can do a color depth of 24bpp or better > A monitor (CRT) that can do 30-95 HZ horizontally and 50-160 HZ > vertically. > > As far as I am concerned, if your equipment can't do the above, then > getting a Linux desktop running X to outperform Windoze is an impossible > mission - and a waste of time. You are better off running Windoze. Well, there I'd disagree, when I first started running Linux (RH5.2) it was on a 75MHz AMD K5 with, IIRC, 48Meg of RAM. And it worked fine so long as I didn't try to load too many apps at once. But, in case I gave the wrong impression, I currently have a K6/2 350, 384MB RAM, and (if I'm running RH) 4MB on my S3V graphics card. Since I'm running Debian, I'm using the on-board SIS630 which, I suspect, borrows as much RAM as it wants but I'm *not* an expert on that! Anyway, I'd say my machine was adequate. > However, on equipment that meets the above criteria, I am quite pleased > to see that in very many ways, Linux, qualitatively speaking, > outperforms Windoze. Not only does my desktop implementation *look MUCH > better*, I have many, many more choices than Windoze. Not only do I > have more choices - those different choices don't cost me a dime. Down > the road, I don't see how MS is going to compete. Now *that's* why I like Linux. I love having lots of stuff to choose from. Though it is *possible* in Windoze, for example there seem to be third-party apps for most functions, much though M$ would like everyone to use theirs. Not always free, though. > I just don't see how its physically possible to install Linux on a > machine with less than 256MB and a nameless monitor and find happiness - > unless you like working at the command prompt. > > And thats my two cents... > > jsunderhaus Respectfully, I disagree. There's often a problem of setting XF86config for a monitor which there is no info for, but once that's solved, it works fine. cr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
