alexmanners
Member
Hmm... I guess that's fine then . Maybe it was the windows version I was trying to install...
I took a class to get my A+ as well, and that is all Desktop configuration and hardware, as well as networking of computers. My CCNA class was focused on networking, and I learned windows is inferior through constantly facing problems originating from the Operating System and compatibility issues. Setting up servers on Linux boxes, be it FTP, DNS, DHCP, was in the long run easier to set up and maintain then the windows systems set up.
And congrats on the CCNA, good luck with the CCNP... So much to memorize:?.
For the most part, it just works. In odd cases you have to reconfigure xorg, or add support for trackpads, soundcards, etc but most stuff is pretty much working off install (The one thing that irks me is how certain Fans refuse to work properly even after pwmconfiging it).
But for the sake of the argument, I'll rephrase myself: If you can get Ubuntu installed by someone with some Linux know-how, it will just work and be a reliable machine for years.
True, but it gets better over time. Look at Hoary compared to IbexI have "linux know-how" and it doesn't stop it being any less of a pain though :/
It wasn't that O/S compatibility was effecting the network, but that windows server was just not worth the trouble and from what I experienced, unreliable. I didn't have any problems with Windows Server 2003 DHCP server, until it just stopped working one day (still don't know why...). I did have to configure some Cisco routers to do just that, pass the DHCP to the adjoining network, but I had some issues with the server in addition to that.I'm not sure what specific issues you're refering to with o/s compatability effecting the network, at a very basic network access level there is very little difference in how they operate. I don't have any issues with windows server DHCP or DNS service and I think that their DHCP server scales very well when used in combination with routers/switches that properally support DHCP forwarding (usually the issue rather than the actual server)
It took me an afternoon to make the switch.I've been meaning to upgrade to Vista.....but I'm really just too busy to actually do it. The hard part is that XP works so well for me, so I really don't see the need to take the plunge. However, if I could just flip a switch and it was done, I would do it. I just don't feel like reinstalling everything, etc.
It took me an afternoon to make the switch.
I was using Vista on my work machine early on, and it was an old dell with a P4, 2 GB of ram, IGP vid card etc etc, and it was slow as heck. It wasn't even running the regular shiny GUI (I apologize I don't know the name of it). I had to borrow my dad's leftover office computer (with XP pro on it) in order to continue working. I was hoping that once all the little faults are fixed and its more stable, that I would look into it.
So I assume after reading the thread, that it's good? . Quad core + 4 GB should be adequate right?
My SP2 disc defaults to NTFS (I wipe my C: and start over 1-2 times a year).
I've been meaning to upgrade to Vista.....but I'm really just too busy to actually do it. The hard part is that XP works so well for me, so I really don't see the need to take the plunge. However, if I could just flip a switch and it was done, I would do it. I just don't feel like reinstalling everything, etc.
I find it somewhat funny that everyone's gripes with Vista are the EXACT same gripes everyone has ever had with ANY new version of Windows that came out.
"It sucks big floppy donkey dick"
"It's a memory hog"
"It's slow on my computer that was built when the last version of windows came out"
"It doesn't run my games"
"It kicked my dog and drank all my beer"
And no, I'm not running Vista yet, because I know the limitations of my current system, but I will be switching when I upgrade my box later this summer.
My Ubuntu does the same thing on a 1.25 GB box (Linux always tried to use RAM more than swap as it is faster) but it is at about 50% most of the timeIt loads commonly used programs into RAM so when you start them, they start up faster. What is the point of having RAM if you don't use it? There's a reason webservers literally use 100% of their RAM.
See my comments in my previous post though. Vista works best on a new PC with lots of RAM.
My laptop is 2 years old, came with 512MB RAM originally..... In fact you will struggle to find an OEM box in the midrange from the past 2-3 years even that has 1GB or more. Even less chance if it's a laptop obviously.I mean, what computer made within the last 5 years (which is forever in computer terms) has less than a gig of RAM? And what are you doing trying to run Vista on such an old ass computer?
See the problem is that both OS X and Linux based OS's manage to put out new versions w/o making it an enourmous hardware hog. I have a friend who has a G5 laptop and it runs the latest OS X like a champ. Likewise the latest version of Ubuntu is no more power hungry than the previous.I find it somewhat funny that everyone's gripes with Vista are the EXACT same gripes everyone has ever had with ANY new version of Windows that came out.
"It sucks big floppy donkey dick"
"It's a memory hog"
"It's slow on my computer that was built when the last version of windows came out"
"It doesn't run my games"
"It kicked my dog and drank all my beer"
And no, I'm not running Vista yet, because I know the limitations of my current system, but I will be switching when I upgrade my box later this summer.
My bad was never big into Apple, just remember that it was the laptop before MacIntel came out.G4 laptop , never could make a G5 laptop due to cooling issues
Pretty sure that Aero Glass does the same thing.One thing Vista could have done to make their OS much faster is to employ a similar technique to what Apple used in Leopard. Each window is rendered in 3D so that GFX card is the one running it, not the CPU. Smarty!
In my own experience I was installing XP SP2 on my father's computer that was using a SATA II controller for HDDs and XP was not able to pick up the controller in native SATA mode only in IDE emulation mode. To make matters worse the ONLY way to load a driver at install time (aside from making a custom install disk that would require a working XP installation in the first place) would be through a floppy. No option for even a CD, technology that has been around for decades, much less USB key or network. Which as you can imagine was quite a bit of a PITA on a system that was never meant to have a floppy. So things aren't exactly peachy on that front either.
Case in point, I cannot stand OS X (sorry alex) because to me it is hard to use, there is only one menu, it is for all windows, the close/minimize buttons are on the wrong side and the mouse only has one button. Yet Apple is highly regarded as producer of the most intuitive interfaces in the world. The reason why I find OS X awkward is because I have come from years of using Windows and KDE/Gnome environments in Linux and I am used to the behavior of those OS's. Hell first time I used a mouse in 3.11 I thought it was the most idiotic invention on the planet and wanted my DOS shell back
prizrak said:In my own experience I was installing XP SP2 on my father's computer that was using a SATA II controller for HDDs and XP was not able to pick up the controller in native SATA mode only in IDE emulation mode. To make matters worse the ONLY way to load a driver at install time (aside from making a custom install disk that would require a working XP installation in the first place) would be through a floppy. No option for even a CD, technology that has been around for decades, much less USB key or network. Which as you can imagine was quite a bit of a PITA on a system that was never meant to have a floppy. So things aren't exactly peachy on that front either.
Gentoo hates me, was never able to get a successful install of it.Gentoo FTW.