Your best bet would be to order the CD's from one of the many places on
the net that you can get them at a real cheap price.
There's a guy on the Newbie list that is selling them for $6.50 for the
set and you can get them at Cheapbytes also. I bought the install
& extension CD's for #3.99. Seven days later I was installing them on my
system.
Here's the URL for Cheapbytes: http://www.cheapbytes.com
--
Mark
I love my Linux Box...
REASON # 2 ...X-windows is just a suedonym.
Registered Linux user # 182496
On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Gil Baron W0MN wrote:
> You are lucky if that is all you have.
> I cannot install because it does not find xfree86 RPM. I amusing the
> downloaded iso images and that is what I get and I am then dead, no xfree86,
> no install.
> Anybody have a solution?
>
> You are totally correct about Windows install being VASTLY better!
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Puff@NLE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 9:38 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [expert] MaximumLinux Magazine CD version of 7.1
> >
> >
> > Hello Dennis,
> >
> > > No. Our beta-testing period for 7.1 was 3-4 x longer than for 7.0, and
> > > there was nothing even near to "abrupt cesation" of testing.
> > There were 3
> > > public betas, and we did not receive any "critical bug reports" for the
> > > third one, so we had all the reason to beleive that 7.1 will be a good
> > > product (and it is).
> > > but none are really "show stoppers" (workarounds exist), and I
> > still think
> > > that overal quality of 7.1 is miles better than 7.0, or any previous
> > > Mandrake release:
> >
> > Well, as someone who had a little experience with 6.1, and
> > recently did several installs of 7.1 (never tried 7.0), I would
> > beg to differ with you big time. There are some significant bugs
> > dealing mostly with the install that I have posted here, but no
> > one has responded. And yes, they will keep 7.1 from installing!
> > Let me see if I can recall these:
> >
> > 1. The CDROM bug: once you get to where it wants disk #2, the
> > cdrom drive will not eject a disk. No way whatsoever to change
> > disks. (I did manage to change the disk by powering down the
> > CDROM drive, but then Linux wouldn't recognize it. Happened with
> > two out of four computers.
> >
> > 2. The way to start the install program from a DOS prompt is
> > broken - doesn't work at all.
> >
> > 3. The install program starts up running in high resolution, if
> > it sees you have a card that can do it. Unfortunately, it
> > doesn't ask if your monitor can support it, and thus my screen
> > turned to hash, and I was unable to install the program.
> > (Thankfully I had a multisync monitor on another system that I
> > robbed long enough to do the install.) THis should default to
> > 640x480, and ask / let you try higher rez if you want.
> >
> > 4. Setup properly detected my 3com 509 network card, then set up
> > the wrong drivers for it! (Had to change from whatever it had to
> > the 3com 509 driver, what a concept.)
> >
> > 5. Setup did not install the 75dpi or 100dpi fonts, which gave me
> > all sorts of error messages when X tried to start.
> >
> > 6. My monitor type and card must have been screwed up somewhere
> > in the detection, as I couldn't even get 256 colors at 640x480
> > working on one system. When I tried running the XF86setup, it
> > core dumps when you tell it to list devices.
> >
> > 7. "Automatic setup" is definitely not what anyone should use.
> > It skips many important steps. Also installs junk packages, and
> > doesn't install ones that should be installed by default (IMHO).
> >
> > 8. The KDE/X stuff looks like it was pre-configured for 1024x768
> > rez. WHen you're in 640x480, some things are off the screen, and
> > other boxes are so large you can't even get to an OK or CANCEL
> > button! Even in Win95, it defaults to the lowest common
> > denominator, and every window is accessible.
> >
> > I think that any of these things would cause a newbie to give up,
> > if they didn't have persistence. I am not a Win95 (or microsoft)
> > fan, but for the average user, their setup works a whole lot
> > better. From reading the comments here, it seems that 7.0 didn't
> > have some of the big nasty bugs that 7.1 has.
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
>
