People who give up on windows can't stand being around one of their forums to post that, it seems. They hang around Linux boards helping newbies get set up.

I'm not "going back" to Windows, and I am sticking with Linux. But I can understand newbies frustration.

You have to admit, some of the propaganda surrounding Linux is pretty evangelical !. It is easy for someone, would problably wouldn't even tweak windows too much to get entinced to try a Linux powered PC, but when they want to install new software, they find that there is virtually nothing in the shops, there's eight million version of Linux etc etc.

If Linux is going to seriously compete with Windows for the general publics' attention (i.e. money), then it'll have to get a lot more user friendly.

I have used several Linux powered PCs which have been set up puuuurfectly & if I was just looking at the desktop issue, I couldn't see any advantages/disadavntages of Linux over Windows. Until it's time to install something...

Anyway, I'm still bashing away at it !

Hi Alloydog, you mentioned having trouble finding a disto that would run properly on your 333 MHz AMD K6-2 with 64 MB of RAM. Below are some minimum hardware requirements. Any version of Linux is most likely to support hardware manufactured at least several months before it was released but not too many years older. Of course not all hardware will work with Linux. I hope you find something that will work on your old computer. I only listed figures for versions of distros where I already had the information handy.

Red Hat 7.2:
200MHz
32MB text mode, 64MB graphical (96MB recommended)

Red Hat 7.3:
200MHz for text-mode, 400MHz for graphical mode
32MB for text-mode, 64MB graphical (192 recommended)

Red Hat 8.0:
200MHz for text-mode, 400MHz for graphical mode
64MB for text-mode, 128MB graphical (192 recommended)

Mandrake 9.1:
32MB for text-mode, 64MB graphical

Slackware 7.1:
An Intel 80386 or better processor
8MB for text-mode, at least 16MB for graphical
Note: that would probably depend on which kernel you
choose to intall. Slakware has you choose one of may.

Slackware 9.0:
16MB for text-mode, 64MB graphical
Note: that might depend on which kernel you choose to use.
Slackware makes you choose which kernel to install.

Windows NT 4.0:
66MHz
16MB or possibly 24MB

For me, all versions of Windows from Win 9x thru ME started out stable but withing 6 months would be locking up up on me at least once per day. I did better with Win NT 4.0 except that not all my hardware would work. Win NT 4.0 reminds me of Linux in that drivers were not available for all hardware. Installing NT 4.0 Service Pack 4.0 it rendered it un-bootable. Performing upgrades from one version of Windows to another usually resulted in a copy of Windows that would not boot up. Installing the correct drivers for new hardware sometimes caused Windows to only boot-up into the safe mode. Windows 2000 and XP are probably finally more reliable, however I recently spent 2 days trying to get the installation program on my Win 2000 upgrade disk to run and more or less install properly. I expect an operating system such as Linux or Unix to be capable of going for months or years at a time without needing to be re-booted. I have had various poorly written applications die on me but they almost never caused Linux itself to crash. I suppose someone more knowlegeable could have kept Windows working better. I had once taken a 3 credit Windows NT 4.0 course but did not know enough to keep Windows running properly. I probably need to learn more about editing the Windows regisitry and that type of thing.

On my newer computer I had to try several distros before I found one that supported some of the motherboards unusual new components. All distros that I tried worked on my old computer.

P.S. for those who have forgotten who Alloydog the above message is addressed to was, he had left a post on page 2. He was not the one who started this thread, that was Hampter. They are different people.

Hey come on guys take easy. Linux is not for everybody neither for all computers .

I'm happy with Linux in somes of my 5 boxes. Only one of them doesn't work as it should (my newest one). So I've set up Windows 2k in there, which I use mostly for games... The other computers that I use for Internet and downloading stuff has Linux . Maybe Linux just was not easy or suitable to his configuration... no OS is perfect

The desktop issue?

All I'm saying is I don't sympathize with the quitters and I don't want to hear about how Linux failed them. Most of them become so frustrated that they say that Linux is stupid and its not their fault that they couldn't figure out how it works.

What about those who believe that they can take linux and make it "for them" themselves? Are we stuck up too?

All kidding aside, I mostly agree with you, Linux isn't windows...its got a bewildering array of choice, technical detail and power...

Personally, to me, that means I can make my linux distro be everything I need it to be (well mostly anyway)..its just so customizable in every way...so in essence, it's made "for me" the difference is that I made it, not someone else...

(I haven't made an actual distro yet...I'm talking about customizing a distro you already have....but I'm gonna try LFS pretty soon)

Linux runs on all computers, believe it or not.
It's not because Mandy X or RedHat Y can't detect your hardware it doesn't run on your computer.
Linux can be or do whatever you want, the question is just how much do you want it.

Oh no, we can't lose another one!!! (sarcasm)

Just in case anyone cares, I have decided to give up pepsi and go back to coke..
Just figured I would add to the irrelevence of this fine thread...

No please, give pepsi another try

Finally someone who agrees with me.

Well, Linux may run on all computers, but some not supported hardware are a pain. Linux for example does not like my printer, scanner, joystick port and network card. They all are actually pretty good . If i've to switch all hardware to get it up and running, would be cheaper to get a Win2k instead and way painless . And I cannot live without games and, before anyone says... no, WineX does not work well. Most of the games my friends and I could run were previously installed at the win partition and then called with Wine... I just see no use for WineX. Linux is not a replacement for Windows, but an alternative . In one of my boxes, it just does not fit...

Please do not give up on Linux...

1: I find Linux better than Windoze for many things.
2: Windoze is not free.
3: Pallidium SUCKS.. (Pallidium is going to let others control how you use your data, and that is not cool.)

I am just curious. Is the noob still checking this thread to see what he/she stirred up?

Funny joke, Let's keep it going.

I wonder, should we give him/her the honor of continuing this?

Why not?

This is kinda fun.

I'm sure that he/she is back clicking away and dealing with Blue Screens Of Death in Windows. No more time for us silly Linux users.