Good Linux alternative for Windows 9x/ME era computers.

[No Alternative]

This is a version of linux called u-lite. It is based on ubuntu, so it is
completely updatable, and uses the latest programs and browsers easily.
It can use the latest youtube and other flash video sites, for instance,
because it uses a recent version of adobe flashplayer with a modern gecko
based browser, like firefox and kazehakase. Win9x won't do this without
some major hacking.

It uses the lxde desktop so it runs on very low resource computers. You
just need about 32mb of ram, and anything over 486dx with some swap space.
That's all.

I dual booted Windows 98 with various linux for a long time, but I stuck
with mainly Win98 for as long as possible, because many of the linuxes I
used just operated too sluggishly. Unfortunately Win98 got hosed at some
point. I couldn't reinstall it from my oem compaq restore disk because I
had upgraded the hard drive and it would only install on the original
owing to some copywrite protection code. I had to resort to linux. This
caused me to hunt for lighter versions of linux. U-lite thus far is the
best one I have used.

Now some info about linux in general. Like alot of people who resort to
old versons of windows, I don't have alot of money, and linux gives me
access to thousands of good free opensource programs at the end of my
fingertips through synaptic. There are equivalents to most of the
programs I used on Win98, and when it isn't available I can generally run
my old windows 98 programs through a program called wine. I use wine
mostly for my old games.

http://u-lite.org

I am sure there are others. Anyone else had some good experiences
recently with a version Linux?

[philo]

Post by No Alternative
This is a version of linux called u-lite. It is based on ubuntu, so it is
completely updatable, and uses the latest programs and browsers easily.
It can use the latest youtube and other flash video sites, for instance,
because it uses a recent version of adobe flashplayer with a modern gecko
based browser, like firefox and kazehakase. Win9x won't do this without
some major hacking.
It uses the lxde desktop so it runs on very low resource computers. You
just need about 32mb of ram, and anything over 486dx with some swap space.
That's all.
I dual booted Windows 98 with various linux for a long time, but I stuck
with mainly Win98 for as long as possible, because many of the linuxes I
used just operated too sluggishly. Unfortunately Win98 got hosed at some
point. I couldn't reinstall it from my oem compaq restore disk because I
had upgraded the hard drive and it would only install on the original
owing to some copywrite protection code. I had to resort to linux. This
caused me to hunt for lighter versions of linux. U-lite thus far is the
best one I have used.
Now some info about linux in general. Like alot of people who resort to
old versons of windows, I don't have alot of money, and linux gives me
access to thousands of good free opensource programs at the end of my
fingertips through synaptic. There are equivalents to most of the
programs I used on Win98, and when it isn't available I can generally run
my old windows 98 programs through a program called wine. I use wine
mostly for my old games.
http://u-lite.org
I am sure there are others. Anyone else had some good experiences
recently with a version Linux?

Though I imagine Linux is a bit O.T. here I'm responding
simply because Linux is a good alternative for keeping an older machine
useful. I am sure there are plenty of folks with win98 machines that
would like to keep on using them if possible.

Though I have never used U-lite I've gotten plenty of P-1's "revived"
by installing either Puppy Linux or Damn Small Linux. I even installed
Damn Small Linux on a 486-66 and it worked fine.


The only possible problem with Linux is that "Win-modems" are generally
not supported...but considering that DSL service now costs about the
same as dial-up , I don't know how many people use a dial-up connection
anymore...so that issue may not come into play .

[No Alternative]

Though I have never used U-lite I've gotten plenty of P-1's "revived" by
installing either Puppy Linux or Damn Small Linux. I even installed Damn
Small Linux on a 486-66 and it worked fine.

Thanks, I didn't mean to offend anyone with an o/t post, but I thought
maybe another important issue for the win9x users is that their computers
are often older, and unfortunately microsoft no longer supports these
computers, so more and more people are posting on issues of compatibility
with contemporary browsers and things like flash video.

["MEB" @here>]

Now in Linux mode again... and outside of win98.gen forum standards:

The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using older
machines will likely be the display used [almost everything else is
supported natively or via readily downloaded support files, e.g., sound
cards, scanners, cameras, USB devices, printers, etc.].
The defaults now generally found in Linux use EDID and DDC to find the
display/monitor. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked
into 640x480 or 800x600.

Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the messa
driver package which includes most of the older display models in its data
base.
A work-around to manually editing the xorg.conf is to install the COMPLETE
messa package [the default installations generally include just a base
installation], use it to create the xorg.conf by setting up your older
display, and then IF NECESSARY install the video adapter specific files
[like for nVidia]. The drivers will use the settings placed by the messa
package related to your display, to setup your older display with the device
specific driver. Workarounds have been found to do such things as install
DirectX and several other issues that Windows users might be familiar with,
or find they need.
IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf files
{configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode or
MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].

Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE,
Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require at
least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a configured
installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are not an issue
in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.

There are now several other packages available to run Windows within Linux,
beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux into a
virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks" [CD/DVD] of
Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find out what Linux has
now become.
--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

Post by No Alternative
This is a version of linux called u-lite. It is based on ubuntu, so it is
completely updatable, and uses the latest programs and browsers easily.
It can use the latest youtube and other flash video sites, for instance,
because it uses a recent version of adobe flashplayer with a modern gecko
based browser, like firefox and kazehakase. Win9x won't do this without
some major hacking.
It uses the lxde desktop so it runs on very low resource computers. You
just need about 32mb of ram, and anything over 486dx with some swap space.
That's all.
I dual booted Windows 98 with various linux for a long time, but I stuck
with mainly Win98 for as long as possible, because many of the linuxes I
used just operated too sluggishly. Unfortunately Win98 got hosed at some
point. I couldn't reinstall it from my oem compaq restore disk because I
had upgraded the hard drive and it would only install on the original
owing to some copywrite protection code. I had to resort to linux. This
caused me to hunt for lighter versions of linux. U-lite thus far is the
best one I have used.
Now some info about linux in general. Like alot of people who resort to
old versons of windows, I don't have alot of money, and linux gives me
access to thousands of good free opensource programs at the end of my
fingertips through synaptic. There are equivalents to most of the
programs I used on Win98, and when it isn't available I can generally run
my old windows 98 programs through a program called wine. I use wine
mostly for my old games.
http://u-lite.org
I am sure there are others. Anyone else had some good experiences
recently with a version Linux?

[philo]

Post by "MEB" @here>
The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using older
machines will likely be the display used [almost everything else is
supported natively or via readily downloaded support files, e.g., sound
cards, scanners, cameras, USB devices, printers, etc.].
The defaults now generally found in Linux use EDID and DDC to find the
display/monitor. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked
into 640x480 or 800x600.
Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the messa
driver package which includes most of the older display models in its data
base.
A work-around to manually editing the xorg.conf is to install the COMPLETE
messa package [the default installations generally include just a base
installation], use it to create the xorg.conf by setting up your older
display, and then IF NECESSARY install the video adapter specific files
[like for nVidia]. The drivers will use the settings placed by the messa
package related to your display, to setup your older display with the device
specific driver. Workarounds have been found to do such things as install
DirectX and several other issues that Windows users might be familiar with,
or find they need.
IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf files
{configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode or
MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].
Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE,
Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require at
least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a configured
installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are not an issue
in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.
There are now several other packages available to run Windows within Linux,
beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux into a
virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks" [CD/DVD] of
Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find out what Linux has
now become.

Yep . I've switched over to Linux also (at least 95%)

I have found that most old machines that had win9x on them will run

either Puppy Linux or Dam_ Small Linux quite well

[No Alternative]

Post by philo

Post by "MEB" @here>
The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using older
machines will likely be the display used [almost everything else is
supported natively or via readily downloaded support files, e.g., sound
cards, scanners, cameras, USB devices, printers, etc.].
The defaults now generally found in Linux use EDID and DDC to find the
display/monitor. Older monitors will not be found and you will be
locked into 640x480 or 800x600.
Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the
messa driver package which includes most of the older display models in
its data base.
A work-around to manually editing the xorg.conf is to install the
COMPLETE messa package [the default installations generally include
just a base installation], use it to create the xorg.conf by setting up
your older display, and then IF NECESSARY install the video adapter
specific files [like for nVidia]. The drivers will use the settings
placed by the messa package related to your display, to setup your
older display with the device specific driver. Workarounds have been
found to do such things as install DirectX and several other issues
that Windows users might be familiar with, or find they need.
IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf files
{configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS
Mode or MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].
Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE,
Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require
at least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a
configured installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs
are not an issue in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.
There are now several other packages available to run Windows within Linux,
beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux
into a virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks"
[CD/DVD] of Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find
out what Linux has now become.

Yep . I've switched over to Linux also (at least 95%)
I have found that most old machines that had win9x on them will run
either Puppy Linux or Dam_ Small Linux quite well

darn-small linux runs good, but is a little too feature-lite for me to be
interested in it. Puppy runs great but I didn't think program repository
selection was very good.

[MEB]

Post by No Alternative

Post by philo

Post by "MEB" @here>
The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using

[]

Post by No Alternative

Post by philo
either Puppy Linux or Dam_ Small Linux quite well

darn-small linux runs good, but is a little too feature-lite for me to be
interested in it. Puppy runs great but I didn't think program repository
selection was very good.

What confuses we outsiders (one of the many things) is that there seem
to be so many different Linuces, without it being at all obvious what
the differences are - at least in terms we can understand. I gather one
of the main differences is what GUI they use - there seem to be gnome
and KDE - but for practical purposes, these are both GUIs.
I know there are multiple versions of Windows - Home, Pro, and so on -
but I get the impression that unless you are a business, there is little
difference between them: certainly they are all similar to _use_, there
are just some things the more expensive ones can do that the cheaper
ones either can't or have to jump through hoops to. And we didn't have
this with '98 - there was only FE and SE, really, and again they _look_
the same.

Yeah, that is another issue to Windows users.

Here's how this works.

The KERNEL and base compilation are used throughout the "Linux"
versions. This would be the underlying "DOS" aspect Windows users would
be familiar with. The *commands* used in this base environment remain
basically the same as when the first "Linux" appeared. Changes in this
part of "*nix" are generally made to ENHANCE command variables, or take
care of flaws or security issues.

The "GUI" aspect is what makes the "*nix" environments unique from all
the pre-configured *mass-market* commercial products such as OSX,
Windows [any flavour], etc...
With Linux, the *INDIVIDUAL* picks the desktop environment that suits
their purpose [meaning came pre-configured with the most things they
liked] or pleases their eye. One can stay within that desktop
compilation if one wishes, which would mimic the FORCED aspect of
Windows. The commends and tools would remain basically the same, until
modified either by the individual, or the parties who created that
particular compilation [as in Microsoft's changes].
.
They [Linux users] are NOT, however, constrained to even just that
GUI/desktop, they CAN bring parts of other "GUI" compilations into the
one they chose as the base desktop. Meaning here is that one can choose
[for example]; Gnome as the base, yet run either parts [or tools
associated with that desktop/GUI] of KDE, XFce, EDU, or any of the other
*WITHIN* the base GUI, OR add one of the desktop "changers" and actually
run separate, distinct GUIs WITH completely unique settings PER that
desktop environment[yet still with the same basic "root" {DOS/CMD like}
commands].
Also, within these desktop environments, you will find there are
"windowed environments" or individual desktops. So one can have the base
desktop environment as "window1", with "window2" containing a root
terminal environment [think CMD or DOS PROMPT in 9X], "window3" running
one of the other desktop environments or one of the tools thereof,
"window4" connected to the Internet or compiling some new program you
just created, etc...

UNLIKE Windows which forces the user into just that desktop and base
system, "*nux/nix" offers numerous alternatives.
Most now come with an automatic updater [which was chosen by the
master compilers of that particular desktop environment such as Gnome or
KDE, or such as via Fedora or Debian] yet even here the individual is
NOT constrained or forced to use just that updater [packager]. One can
either install one of the many other packagers, or configure the one
included to use other packager sites, even to the point of using CPAN,
sourceforge, or some other, in addition to the base packager [or in
place of the prior packager]. Here the ability is to switch between .rpm
[RedHat/SUSE/etc], to .deb [Debian based], to some "source code" or
special application/control/whatever found somewhere.
This ability comes from the universal and inherent base kernel and its
numerous "hooks" [pre-compiled abilities] {the root system}, and the
ability to add "libraries", C support files [the familiar coding
environment associated with Windows], Python, perl, SOAP, .NET, various
scripting environments, in addition to "*nix/*nux" specific codes,
source, and coding environments.

*So the "trade off" when comparing "*nix/*nux" to Windows is your
individuality and personal control.*
*MS Windows* decides FOR YOU what you need and should do verses YOU
deciding what you want, how much control you need, how secure you wish
to be, how the system is updated, what the desktop/GUI is and what that
contains, etc..

For present MS Windows users, their trade-off is the comfort they have
come to know over *numerous years of using a system they did not
control* [and regardless of the command variables associated with any MS
OS the individual can NOT control every aspect of the OS], for one which
they might have to spend a short time learning (though most commands are
similar) some basic commands [though one CAN use one of the Linux
compilations and never need any command-line control knowledge or change
anything]. Stay within that one desktop/GUI and you will find the
familiar "from one version to the other" of Windows. Its a matter of
*your personal choice* which one YOU choose to use.

The second trade-off is that Windows users have come to expect being
REQUIRED to buy new peripherals and computers to even install or
properly use Microsoft's newest OS [as displayed throughout its
history]. Windows users may complain a lot about this necessity, but
they still do the upgrades [and waste money in the process].
For instance, I just short tested the previously mentioned Linux
compilations [the newest - including the new downloaded kernel updates]
on machines which would BARELY have passed as XP capable or could NOT be
used, and for which I had NO official support for my scanner [due to a
refusal by the manufacturer to provide a driver for XP]. In Linux, all
my old peripherals were supported NATIVELY or by a downloadable support
package. Think of that,,, got some old printer or scanner you couldn't
use because it was not supported by Windows or the manufacturer,,, Linux
likely supports it natively or there is some package available, unlike
Windows which dropped support and the manufacturers are REFUSING to
supply support and a driver to FORCE you to buy new.
-------


____ So what is it that *YOU WANT*? _____


Did you just buy a spankin new "screamin" motherboard or device?
Within a month or so Linux will likely have the necessary libraries
and other necessary for support, *and you can use your OLD peripherals
with it* [as long as the board still has supporting connections]. If you
still can't find what you need, post a request in any of the numerous
coding or Linux compilation groups and they will likely work something
up for your specific needs. Post whatever information pursuant the
issue/device/motherboard and give it a few days.
--------

Is it that you want the ability to work with NTFS OSs?
Not a problem with Linux, there is now read/write/create support.
Reiser? HFS? other?
Linux supplies support.
--------

Is it that you want inter-operability with other OSs?
For the most part Linux also supplies that support [qualified because
Microsoft apparently attempts to make that difficult when offering a new
OS or even at times when "updating" some segment of an existing OS]. You
have to remember Microsoft is in business to make money,,, and is
generally not very open about what it changes...
-----

Is it that you want a specific type of server [firewall, web, file
server, DNS, mail, whatever]?
Linux supplies that type of support to create whatever you need for FREE.
-------

Freedom of choice?
Linux provides that.
-------

Comfort?
That can be found in Linux and Windows.
-------

Are these going to be the same type of *comfort*?
Sure, the same base/root commands I used in the 80s/90s still work,
for the most part [some have been changed or removed, generally replaced
by *enhanced* commands].
--------

Need help?
Numerous communities supply that support; there are downloadable or
already installed help files; you can always "man whatever" or "whatever
--?" [and/or some other choices depending upon what you're searching for
or attempting to use] for documentation/command help.
----------

Is it easy to dual boot/install?
YEAH, installing Linux on a system with another OS will install a boot
loader [Grub or other} allowing you to choose between the OSs.

*A WARNING:* Make sure you check what the intended changes to your
disks are BEFORE you click to install Linux. It MAY think you want to
use ALL available hard drive space [remove and clean the disk(s) prior
to installation]. Most/all presently used GUI partitioning tools allow
you to check before changes are made. MAKE SURE YOU DO!

Most GUIed installers also allow you to modify the amount of space
[they will look for free space/un-used space] and where to place Linux
[don't try manually setting up the actual physical partitioning UNLESS
you know the relationship to Linux and what is required].

*SECOND WARNING:*
The NTs and OS2 have special installation requirements, not to worry
though, the HOW TOs on the Internet are readily available.

*THIRD WARNING:*
Make sure you scan and defrag the present partitions BEFORE attempting
to install one of the Linux compilations. I recommend disabling virtual
control [9X], re-starting in Safe Mode [to remove the swap file], and
scanning and defragging there [whatever drive/partition you intend to
use] prior to installing Linux. This allows compacting the Win9X file
system to its smallest footprint and clears the hard drive of spurious
file parts scattered all over the partition/disk.
Re-enable virtual control in Windows AFTER installing. Make sure you
at least allow sufficient space for the Windows new swap file when you
re-partition for Linux.
IF hard drive space is of that much concern, it might be advisable to
just use one of the available Live CDs of Linux.
------

Can I revert back to my old comfortable Windows 9X OS?
Easily done with 9X. Use one of the partition "editors" [like BootitNG
or other] to remove the Linux partition(s), check that your old/original
boot partition is set ACTIVE, use something to re-install the standard
MBR code. Your basically done.
Use the disk maintenance tools [like scandisk and defrag, or other
disk maintenance tools] to check the original partition(s). After
checking the original partition(s) use a partitioning tool [like
BootitNG] to assign the previous Linux partition(s)/empty/free space.
Now you are done.
--------

Will I be able to transfer and/or use files from other OSs?
All present filing systems are supported. You can "auto-mount" any
filing system [or do so manually - mount means access BTW] -
fat/vfat/reiser/NTFS/HFS/etc. and assign "privileges/permissions"
[read/write/create/delete/execute] to supported filing systems. This
may, however, require that you "authorize" this type of activity [may
require you to install permission granting tools and/or file system
support files {NTFS is now supported via ntfs3g}].
Using other OS files/applications can be achieved via either emulators
[OS or processor/environment - which even includes the old CM-C/PM,
Amiga, or something specific like Commador] or using a virtual environment.
------

How much hard drive space will I need?
Hmm, a personal choice.. I would recommend nothing less than 8 or 9
gigs, though if you're just testing, a couple gigs (2) can be used and
would still provide everything you might need to test the OS [or
potentially use forever, that's actually a lot of space to a base Linux
installation] like Internet, mail, newsreader, chat, file tools, GUI,
etc.. using/installing one of the free Office apps though [like Open
Office, KOffice or other] will require more space over time.

REFERENCES:
Don't get lost in this stuff, there is a lot of "old information" not
applicable to the newer file/partition formats. You should look for
ext3/ext4 filing/partitioning and LVM for recent developments.

INFO:
http://www.debian.org/releases/3.0/i386/ch-partitioning.en.html

Red Hat Linux 9: Red Hat Linux x86 Installation Guide:
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Manual/install-guide/ch-partitions.html

1.5. Which Installation Class is Best For You?
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Manual/install-guide/s1-steps-type.html

2.2. Recording Your System's Hardware
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/linux/RHL-9-Manual/install-guide/s1-x86-table-sysreq.html
-----

Can I use large drives?
Sure if the motherboard or adapter supports them OR you use a
secondary attachment [like USB or other]. You have a few choices for a
*standard base file system* - ext2, ext3, ext4.

Do you have MASSIVE hard drive space to deal with?
Use LVM [logical volume management]. You also might also want to setup
a file server or other servers. I mean really, think about it,,, just
what the heck do you need 500+ gigs of Windows or Linux DESKTOP space
for. Got massive hard drive space, multi-core processor(s), and gigs of
memory, why not use them for what they are actually there for [and it
sure isn't JUST to run the desktop environment [unless you use Windows
that is].

Think NTFS style journaling is important [or even unique]?
See ext3 ext4
------

I have or want RAID support, does Linux supply support?
Support comes either from device specific support or from included
software support. Testing seems to indicate, depending upon what
device/chipset is involved, software may be quicker than hardware.
------

How about Flash, JAVA, PDFs, and other stuff?
Yes, you're not limited. The ports come fairly rapidly if not supplied
via the original creator.
-----

How about browsers, email clients, and stuff?
Yes, those are also generally included in these compilations [some
default is supplied, you can pick others], and generally use the most
recent versions. FireFox, yes; Thunderbird, yes; Seamonkey, yes; Opera,
yes; etc...
PLUS several other [from full blown, to limited or even text
only/command line] browsers, email, chat, and other Internet
tools/applications NOT available to Windows.
-------

Can I import my contacts and stuff from Windows into {whatever
comparable Linux program}?
Generally, yes. Export your info and import into the Linux
application. First check to see what the Linux app *can* import, then
use that format in the Windows app for export. OR as previously
mentioned, use a virtual environment to use Windows in Linux.
-------

Copyright 2009 Maurice Edward, Brahier - MB Enterprises - peoplescounsel

[l***@invalid.com]

I've wanted to try Linux for awhile because I know it will run on
older computers and had other benefits, besides getting off the MS
bandwagon where they keep requiring new hardware and making the older
hardware and software obsolete.

But reading this info makes me quivver. It seems Linux is developed
only for those who think in techie terms. Not all of us think that
way, and I know I am not one who can or does.

I did manage to boot to Linux from one of those bootable demo CDs, and
it looked ok, but actually installing it and using it seems like
something only possible for someone who works with computers for a
living and spends their whole life learning this stuff.

I guess I'll just stick with Win98 and Win2000, and when they get
obsolete, I will likely be too old to use a computer anymore. I know
for fact I will never go to Vista, when I cant even stand XP.

The fact that the user can configuer Linux for what the user wants is
great. MS seems to take more and more of that ability away in each
new version. I guess we're all stuck with either playing the MS
upgrade and obsolete game. or we have to spend all of our time in
front of a computer to use Linux. Maybe Macintosh has more to offer.
The last Mac I used was around 1992, so I'm sure they offer more now.
I guess if I was forced to get a new computer, I'd try Mac, but one of
the advantages of being elderly is that I can likely use Win98 for the
rest of my life.

Two things you mentioned puzzle me. You said Linux has DOS or similar
to Dos? It does ?????? I didn't know that. Does it use the same dos
commands?

Then you mentioned that the user can choose their desktop. What's
there to choose? In Win98 I can change my desktop appearance,
wallpaper, icons, font, size, etc. What else is there to change? I
recall reading a little about Linux awhile back, and after reading
this article it refreshed my memory about choosing gnome or kde. I
recall getting frustrated back then, over this matter. Why do I have
to choose one? Can't I just use the default desktop and modify the
wallpaper, icons, layout, font, etc just like in Win98? This alone if
very confusing.

One other thing, can Linux be installed on a Fat32 or NTFS partition?
If not, what is the Linux partition called?

I was also told that Linux can not run any Windows software. If this
is true, then I know Linux is not for me. Learning a new OS is tough
enough, but if I also have to relearn all the software (programs),
that is just far too much. I'm not ready or willing to go back to the
1980s and have to start all over again on the computer. Why cant
Linux make an OS that's compatible with Windows software? Somehow I
get the feeling Linux wants to be TOO different, and that is why it
has not become popular. It seems that half or more computer users are
dissatisfied with MS and want an alternative, yet from what I read,
the percentage of Linux users is under 1%. That says something in
itself..

LM

Post by MEB
Here's how this works.
The KERNEL and base compilation are used throughout the "Linux"
versions. This would be the underlying "DOS" aspect Windows users would
be familiar with. The *commands* used in this base environment remain
basically the same as when the first "Linux" appeared. Changes in this
part of "*nix" are generally made to ENHANCE command variables, or take
care of flaws or security issues.
The "GUI" aspect is what makes the "*nix" environments unique from all
the pre-configured *mass-market* commercial products such as OSX,
Windows [any flavour], etc...
With Linux, the *INDIVIDUAL* picks the desktop environment that suits
their purpose [meaning came pre-configured with the most things they
liked] or pleases their eye. One can stay within that desktop
compilation if one wishes, which would mimic the FORCED aspect of
Windows. The commends and tools would remain basically the same, until
modified either by the individual, or the parties who created that
particular compilation [as in Microsoft's changes].
.
They [Linux users] are NOT, however, constrained to even just that
GUI/desktop, they CAN bring parts of other "GUI" compilations into the
one they chose as the base desktop. Meaning here is that one can choose
[for example]; Gnome as the base, yet run either parts [or tools
associated with that desktop/GUI] of KDE, XFce, EDU, or any of the other
*WITHIN* the base GUI, OR add one of the desktop "changers" and actually
run separate, distinct GUIs WITH completely unique settings PER that
desktop environment[yet still with the same basic "root" {DOS/CMD like}
commands].

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by l***@invalid.com
I've wanted to try Linux for awhile because I know it will run on
older computers and had other benefits, besides getting off the MS
bandwagon where they keep requiring new hardware and making the older
hardware and software obsolete.

You and many of us.

Post by l***@invalid.com
But reading this info makes me quivver. It seems Linux is developed
only for those who think in techie terms. Not all of us think that
way, and I know I am not one who can or does.

Indeed. Despite what the *x enthusiasts insist, to actually get any
advantage from using it, you have to fiddle - if you just install and
use, it's like a Windows.
[]

Post by l***@invalid.com
I guess I'll just stick with Win98 and Win2000, and when they get
obsolete, I will likely be too old to use a computer anymore. I know

Aw!

The one thing that might force you is ISPs refusing to let you connect
to their system if you use xyz. I can't see it happening for some time
yet, but it could happen: they might insist [for their own protection,
in the case of some new security threat and/or legislation] on some sort
of authentication software that won't run on 98/2000, and which the
Linux community will get round, but the '98 may intrinsically not be
able to.

Post by l***@invalid.com
for fact I will never go to Vista, when I cant even stand XP.

XP now seems to be taking '98s position to a great extent - MS want to
close it, but lots of people are fighting a rearguard action (netbook
users for a start). You can make it _look_ like '98 pretty closely, and
it has now been around long enough that how to tweak most things is
"known".
[]

Post by l***@invalid.com
Two things you mentioned puzzle me. You said Linux has DOS or similar
to Dos? It does ?????? I didn't know that. Does it use the same dos
commands?

Linux grew out of Unix, which predates most OSs - it's a granddaddy of
OSs. (Well, it didn't grow out of it, it was completely rewritten by
Linus Torvalds, as Unix is a commercial product belonging to -
originally, don't know if still - Bell Lab.s.) The commands are similar
in some ways (and some of the DOS ones are recognised), though not
identical ("ls" rather than "dir" to get a list of filenames, for
example, though I think "dir" is recognised).

Post by l***@invalid.com
Then you mentioned that the user can choose their desktop. What's
there to choose? In Win98 I can change my desktop appearance,
wallpaper, icons, font, size, etc. What else is there to change? I

This is what puzzles me, too, about this much-touted aspect of Linux.
[]

Post by l***@invalid.com
One other thing, can Linux be installed on a Fat32 or NTFS partition?

Yes.
[]

Post by l***@invalid.com
I was also told that Linux can not run any Windows software. If this
is true, then I know Linux is not for me. Learning a new OS is tough
enough, but if I also have to relearn all the software (programs),
that is just far too much. I'm not ready or willing to go back to the

There is something called wine - Wine Is Not an Emulator - which will
run a _lot_ of Windows software. Leaving aside the jokes about "if you
try to run Windows software on a Linux system this w(h)ine starts", I
understand it's capable of running most things.

Post by l***@invalid.com
1980s and have to start all over again on the computer. Why cant
Linux make an OS that's compatible with Windows software? Somehow I
get the feeling Linux wants to be TOO different, and that is why it
has not become popular. It seems that half or more computer users are

I think you've got it - different for the sake of being different.

Post by l***@invalid.com
dissatisfied with MS and want an alternative, yet from what I read,
the percentage of Linux users is under 1%. That says something in
itself..

It's difficult to get exact figures. Certainly up to about a year ago
you couldn't buy a computer _in the high street_ (UK; I think the US
phrase is "on main street") with anything but Windows, but then the
netbooks started to appear. Most of the cheaper ones have Linux - but in
a form that is sufficiently locked down (of course, the Linux community
soon got under the bonnet) that the average _user_ wouldn't know (or
care, I suspect, in the original target market) what OS it was running.
[]

[No Alternative]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

1980s and have to start all over again on the computer. Why cant Linux
make an OS that's compatible with Windows software? Somehow I get the
feeling Linux wants to be TOO different, and that is why it has not
become popular. It seems that half or more computer users are

I think you've got it - different for the sake of being different.

Not different for different sake. It is just very hard to make a program
for both oses, if you don't have the source code for one of them. In
this case Windows. You have to do reverse engineering, which is what
wine has done, but wine is a work in progress that has already been in
the works for a decade.

[No Alternative]

I've wanted to try Linux for awhile because I know it will run on older
computers and had other benefits, besides getting off the MS bandwagon
where they keep requiring new hardware and making the older hardware and
software obsolete.
But reading this info makes me quivver. It seems Linux is developed
only for those who think in techie terms. Not all of us think that way,
and I know I am not one who can or does.

In older days, that was true. It is not true anymore.

I did manage to boot to Linux from one of those bootable demo CDs, and
it looked ok, but actually installing it and using it seems like
something only possible for someone who works with computers for a
living and spends their whole life learning this stuff.

It is fairly easy to install it now. Easier than installing Windows.

I guess I'll just stick with Win98 and Win2000, and when they get
obsolete, I will likely be too old to use a computer anymore. I know
for fact I will never go to Vista, when I cant even stand XP.

Well if your reasoning for sticking with windows is that you don't like
change, rather than money concerns perhaps Linux is not for you.

The fact that the user can configuer Linux for what the user wants is
great. MS seems to take more and more of that ability away in each new
version. I guess we're all stuck with either playing the MS upgrade and
obsolete game. or we have to spend all of our time in front of a
computer to use Linux. Maybe Macintosh has more to offer. The last Mac
I used was around 1992, so I'm sure they offer more now. I guess if I
was forced to get a new computer, I'd try Mac, but one of the advantages
of being elderly is that I can likely use Win98 for the rest of my life.

Unless you want to get on the internet. They don't make browsers for it
anymore.

Two things you mentioned puzzle me. You said Linux has DOS or similar
to Dos? It does ?????? I didn't know that. Does it use the same dos
commands?

The both have command lines. It is like the command line you get when you
log out of windows. They don't use identical commands.

Then you mentioned that the user can choose their desktop. What's there
to choose? In Win98 I can change my desktop appearance, wallpaper,
icons, font, size, etc. What else is there to change? I recall reading
a little about Linux awhile back, and after reading this article it
refreshed my memory about choosing gnome or kde. I recall getting
frustrated back then, over this matter. Why do I have to choose one?
Can't I just use the default desktop and modify the wallpaper, icons,
layout, font, etc just like in Win98? This alone if very confusing.

Most distros have default desktops, either gnome or kde, and in the case
of ulite lxde. Yes you can change the fonts the wallpaper, size etc... on
all of them.

One other thing, can Linux be installed on a Fat32 or NTFS partition? If
not, what is the Linux partition called?

yes.

I was also told that Linux can not run any Windows software. If this is
true, then I know Linux is not for me. Learning a new OS is tough
enough, but if I also have to relearn all the software (programs), that
is just far too much. I'm not ready or willing to go back to the 1980s
and have to start all over again on the computer.

You can run many windows programs on wine.

Why cant Linux make

an OS that's compatible with Windows software? Somehow I get the feeling
Linux wants to be TOO different, and that is why it has not become
popular.

It takes huge amounts money, to create programs that run on both systems,
because you have to reverse engineer windows, to do this. Windows doesn't
release the source code for their OS.

It seems that half or more computer users are

dissatisfied with MS and want an alternative, yet from what I read, the
percentage of Linux users is under 1%. That says something in itself..

This is slowly changing particularly with advent of netbooks. I would say
the percentage now is more around 4 percent, and rising.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <gu0r5b$top$***@news.motzarella.org>, No Alternative
<***@REMOVETHISSTUFFoperamail.com> writes:
[]

Post by No Alternative
It takes huge amounts money, to create programs that run on both systems,
because you have to reverse engineer windows, to do this. Windows doesn't
release the source code for their OS.

Why do you need the source code?
[]

[No Alternative]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)

Post by No Alternative
It takes huge amounts money, to create programs that run on both
systems, because you have to reverse engineer windows, to do this.
Windows doesn't release the source code for their OS.

Why do you need the source code?

You have to know how both oses work to create 1 program to run on both
oses. Though you can create windows and linux versions of the program,
but he is asking why he can't get quicken for windows to work on linux.
quicken could make a separate version for linux. The programmers of
quicken just choose not to. This has nothing to do with linux developers.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

[MEB]

Post by l***@invalid.com
I've wanted to try Linux for awhile because I know it will run on
older computers and had other benefits, besides getting off the MS
bandwagon where they keep requiring new hardware and making the older
hardware and software obsolete.
But reading this info makes me quivver. It seems Linux is developed
only for those who think in techie terms. Not all of us think that
way, and I know I am not one who can or does.

Ah, you apparently missed that you DON'T need to do the techie stuff.
just pick the desktop/GUI environment you like and do what you do in
Windows.

Post by l***@invalid.com
I did manage to boot to Linux from one of those bootable demo CDs, and
it looked ok, but actually installing it and using it seems like
something only possible for someone who works with computers for a
living and spends their whole life learning this stuff.

since you apparently do not use the command-line much, you would be a
prime candidate for Linux. The only thing that might puzzle you [and
apparently it still does] is that you CAN choose your desktop/GUI.

Post by l***@invalid.com
I guess I'll just stick with Win98 and Win2000, and when they get
obsolete, I will likely be too old to use a computer anymore. I know
for fact I will never go to Vista, when I cant even stand XP.
The fact that the user can configuer Linux for what the user wants is
great. MS seems to take more and more of that ability away in each
new version. I guess we're all stuck with either playing the MS
upgrade and obsolete game. or we have to spend all of our time in
front of a computer to use Linux. Maybe Macintosh has more to offer.
The last Mac I used was around 1992, so I'm sure they offer more now.
I guess if I was forced to get a new computer, I'd try Mac, but one of
the advantages of being elderly is that I can likely use Win98 for the
rest of my life.
Two things you mentioned puzzle me. You said Linux has DOS or similar
to Dos? It does ?????? I didn't know that. Does it use the same dos
commands?

Its the "root" system CALLED Linux. The same form of structure that
Windows uses. A base upon which some GUI is layered.

Not the exact commands, but similar. CD means the same, ls means dir
[but can be used for a lot more], etc... you need to remember that MSDOS
came from IBM, Windows came from posix [portable Unix]. Microsoft
changed things around and you ended up with a Windows user who thinks
they run something they actually don't.

Post by l***@invalid.com
Then you mentioned that the user can choose their desktop. What's
there to choose? In Win98 I can change my desktop appearance,
wallpaper, icons, font, size, etc. What else is there to change? I
recall reading a little about Linux awhile back, and after reading
this article it refreshed my memory about choosing gnome or kde. I
recall getting frustrated back then, over this matter. Why do I have
to choose one? Can't I just use the default desktop and modify the
wallpaper, icons, layout, font, etc just like in Win98? This alone if
very confusing.

Hey, try one of the compilations, don't like it, download another one
FOR FREE and try that one. Can you do those "Windows things", sure, why not.

There is no default desktop in Linux, is a command-line interface, the
DOS prompt of old.

Post by l***@invalid.com
One other thing, can Linux be installed on a Fat32 or NTFS partition?
If not, what is the Linux partition called?

Linux has its own format which has progressed ext4. Its generally
seen as "Linux Native" by partition tools that understand the format.
Linux isn't designed to run "on" fat32, though it could be done
previously. Ext is NOT visible to 9X. Fat32, on the other hand, can be
accessed, modified, and otherwise used by Linux.
Why can't Windows 9X see ext, because its based upon fat and can't see
anything else without outside help.
Why CAN Linux see Fat, vfat/Fat32, and the others?
Because it has support files for those formats.

Post by l***@invalid.com
I was also told that Linux can not run any Windows software. If this
is true, then I know Linux is not for me. Learning a new OS is tough
enough, but if I also have to relearn all the software (programs),
that is just far too much. I'm not ready or willing to go back to the
1980s and have to start all over again on the computer. Why cant
Linux make an OS that's compatible with Windows software? Somehow I
get the feeling Linux wants to be TOO different, and that is why it
has not become popular. It seems that half or more computer users are
dissatisfied with MS and want an alternative, yet from what I read,
the percentage of Linux users is under 1%. That says something in
itself..
LM

Gees,, and I even wrote about this twice already in this discussion...

You can use an emulator to run some Windows programs, you can dual
boot, or you can run Windows in a virtual machine. No one actually knows
the number of Linux users:

1. Its freely downloadable and no one keeps track of the number of
downloads. You can buy a copy, get one from a torrent, direct, from a
registered mirror, from a friend, from... you get the picture.

2. You can configure Linux to produce a fake OS presentation for any
on-line tools that would discover you're running Linux. So those tools
are essentially useless for discovering Linux users.

3. Linux comes from the public. It progresses as the people/coders
choose to take it.

4. Windows and Linux come from the same history - posix - one received a
heck of a lot of money for development, the other is supported by
donations, free activities, and inspiration. One created vast commercial
agreements with manufacturers, the other has to engineer much of the
device coding or Windows drivers just to see its coding and create support.

Why can't Linux create something like Windows?
Is that a real question?
Windows has patent and copyright to a large percentage of the "Windows"
style, look, and such. Haven't you ever noticed when Apple and Microsoft
get into a "cat fight" over some part of their respective OSs?

The ultimate question is WHY should Linux mimic Windows?
The compilations/GUIs have a Windows look, function in the same basic
fashion, can include the same base functions and applications of a
Windows installation.
But you want what, the same lettering and ICONS on the applications,,,
the same folder looks, the same commands, the same .. Linux ISN'T
Windows, its Linux... and guess what, most of those ARE in the GUIs for
Linux. The same root commands aren't because Microsoft coded them
differently. How about WHY isn't Microsoft more like Linux, which
maintains a closer relationship to its actual roots - Unix and posix.

So what is it that you actually want,,, you want 9X to be supported.
You want Microsoft to continue to supply a browser for you, you want
Microsoft to supply updates, you want,,, to be comfortable. There isn't
a good reason for you not to be...

[teebo]

I must say you have asked the exact same questions I have
about linux too, even though I have never thought them so clearly.
(Personally I like to fiddle around with computers and runs
both linux and win98 and lots of other systems but most people
don't want to waste all that time. they have other hobbies!)

Post by l***@invalid.com
I did manage to boot to Linux from one of those bootable demo CDs, and
it looked ok, but actually installing it and using it seems only possible
for someone who ... spends their whole life learning this stuff.

but actually, you should really try to forget you read MEB's long post.
too much technical information. you shoudn't need too.
And really, today it (allmost) as easy to install for example Ubuntu Linux
as it is to boot their livecd.

That isn't the real/big problem with linux.

(This screen is still too complicated though:
Loading Image...
I want to have both os side by side, using some of the free space of the WinXP-partition
but of course manually change the amount since I don't want to use all...)

Post by l***@invalid.com
The fact that the user can configuer Linux for what the user wants is great
MS seems to take more and more of that ability away in each new version.

yeah even though xp have colorsettings still, they are a little buggy now :-(

Post by l***@invalid.com
Maybe Macintosh has more to offer. The last Mac I used was around 1992,so I'm sure they offer more now. I guess if I was forced to get a new computer,

You wouldn't like Mac. everything is irritatingly different & backwards.
all things are made the opposite way. come to think of it,
it is quite like (gnome version of) Ubuntu....

Post by l***@invalid.com
but one of the advantages of being elderly is that I canlikely use Win98 for the rest of my life.

you don't have to be very old too like & use win98 :-)

And despite win98 is 11 years old (I wish I was 11 again...)
[98SE is 10, XP is 8, schvista is 3 to compare]
it is still supported by lots of people, I guess most actively
at www.msfn.org's two win98-forums. If you think about buying a
completely new computer and install win98se on that, you should
probably ask there first since it can be a problem finding
drivers for some stuff. Win98 with harddisks larger than 137GB
needs a patch. You might also need a patch or special settings
if you have more than 1GB memory. And you should probably avoid
graphic cards with more than 256MB graphic memory.

and yes. you can run firefox3 in win98 too.
(I stay with ff2 though because ff3 is ugly)

Post by l***@invalid.com
Then you mentioned that the user can choose their desktop.
What's there to choose? In Win98 I can change my desktop appearance,

Yeah besides builtin settings for colors,size,fonts etc for every little thing
(in win98 at least) there are lots of so called "skinning system" for windows
that lets you plaster bitmaps on everything to change it even more
(and XP have one builtin, you just need to unlock it) if you ever
feel the urge to. My brother liked that kind of things verry much
when he was 12 (with win3.11). He certainly did run 100 of cool extrabuttons
startbars, features, clocks, animations and soundclips on everything...
fun things for a kid.

Post by l***@invalid.com
about choosing gnome or kdeI recall getting frustrated back then, over this matter. Why do I have to choose one? Can't I just use the defaultThis alone if very confusing.

I really would like to say "you don't have to choose.
just take any of them and use that" but it isn't that simple
of course... how much/in wich ways do you want it to be different
from the os you are used to? not at all? I see...

Too bad lots of linux programmers is proudly believers of the
not-want-to-be-like-windows. "different for the sake of being different"
They don't understand that the big reason people want linux
is that they want to get rid of Microsoft. not change how their
application and operatingsystem-gui are.

Lots of people like new things, new look and new taste..
...when it comes to icecream. But not computerprograms.

Someone should make a linux-dist that is used like WindowsXP,
have windows and buttonbars and menus exactly the same etc,
with users files the same place, runs Windowsprograms the same way
(if the 100% hidden wine-system can make it). with the only change
from a user-perspective would be the little picture on the startmenu.

But remember that the open source programmers do the programs
for themself. what theyself like and want. So what is in it for them?
Simple: More users = More support from hardware vendors.
Even though we the hackers wouldn't use the
everything-by-default-looks-and-behaves-like-windows -linuxdistribution
we need it. because we want the drivers and to have versions
of AutoCad and 3dsMax etc etc and perhaps all the games too for linux).

Post by l***@invalid.com
One other thing, can Linux be installed on a Fat32 or NTFS partition?

Yes I believe it actually can. (or at least could earlier
with some distribution?) I would like that too. Can some help us out here?
I don't feel the need for ext3. on the other hand I don't need the
"features" of NTFS either. (*especially* not the fucking thing that
prevents wrong user on my mothers computer to open files downloaded
to c:\2009\ with firefox. grrrr.....)
If the linux-installer could convert my XP-installation to use FAT32(+)
too when it is at it, it would be wonderful!

But sure yes. it whould be nice to have a linux put in the same filesystem
as windows. if linux really need its extra fileattributes/groups/owners/facl
for some of its operatingsystem files, it could store that metadata in some
datafile somewhere, right? having the linux-applications use C: for /
and D: as /D:/ shouldn't be too hard I think.

Post by l***@invalid.com
I was also told that Linux can not run any Windows software.

yes it can run them (using a support-thing called Wine). but not *all* though.
just like you can't run *all* winXP-only programs with KernelEx in win98.
the most common should not be any problem with today I've heard.
Those programs that can't, must be run in a virtualmachine instead
(that is you running the Windows operatingsystem inside linux, only slower)
But that is the same thing as with Windows nowadays I guess...
the next version of DRMVista aka "Windows 7" will have a WindowsXP-emulator
builtin since it is so bad at supporting older windowsprograms.

Post by l***@invalid.com
Learning a new OS is tough enough,but if I also have to relearn all the software (programs),
that is just far too much.

And this is the main point! (you should have skipped reading before here :-)

My mom couldn't care less about what software drives the machinery behind
(all those booring stuff about drivers and multitasking and memmory-handling and
filsystems and programming-API's and mumbojumbo....)
What is important is that there is no button or menu-choice in the os
and applications that is moved or changed. a different working filemanager
would be a very bad idea. a wordprocessor that have margin-settings
somewhere else *IS* horrible. (and no that is not the only reason
why everybody hates latest MS Office - it plain sucks too...)

All we want is old-bugs-out, all new feautures *optional*,
and no GUI details changed.


...I guess the only way we can lure more users to use linux is
to make sure the everybody uses only open source programs in windows first.
and make damn sure they work identical in linux.
(hear me: Settings should NOT be in different menus!)

Post by l***@invalid.com
Somehow I get the feeling Linux wants to be TOO different,and that is why it has not become popular.

Perhaps (besides that it's less cooool to make something that
looks like something evil M$ allready have copied), they are afraid
of "doing an OS/2" (a now 100% dead os that claimed to be as
good as windows)... but that was a different time. back then
microsoft was still good guys, and IBM "BIG BLUE" was more
the dudes to avoid... and there was no real reason to stop
using windows, ms hadn't screwed up so much yet (or we wasn't
aware yet because the botnets and things' came later)
and neither of them was open source.

Post by l***@invalid.com
It seems that half or more computer users are dissatisfied with MSand want an alternative, yet from what I read,the percentage of Linux users is under 1%. That says something in itself..

1% is still lots of people though :-)
win98 is only used by 0.5% these days. it is still good anyway!

Post by l***@invalid.com
reading all this info makes me quivver.

yes I'm sorry.. my post is also way too long. but I'm too lazy to shorten it. :-/
(but yes. there is too much developers that thinks that have to read
howto-texts, faq's and long readme-files is a natural thing to do.
Hell no! noone want to read manuals and such. and shoudn't have to)

Post by l***@invalid.com
It seems Linux is developed only for those who think in techie terms. Not all of us think that way, and I know I am not one who can or does.

but acctually it is more like the developers don't know that they think in techie terms.

[No Alternative]

On Mon, 04 May 2009 14:44:05 -0400, MEB wrote:
. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked

Post by "MEB" @here>
into 640x480 or 800x600.

I have more issues finding drivers for newer lcd displays than older ones.

Post by "MEB" @here>
Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the
messa driver package which includes most of the older display models in
its data base.
IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf files
{configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode
or MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].

this worked for me with my newer lcd displays, yes. My old display on
the windows 98 machine, just defaulted to 1028x768 fine.

Post by "MEB" @here>
Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE,
Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require
at least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a
configured installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are
not an issue in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.

this version doesn't uses gnome or kde so it runs with much lower system
specs.

Post by "MEB" @here>
There are now several other packages available to run Windows within Linux,
beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux
into a virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks"
[CD/DVD] of Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find
out what Linux has now become.

If you have windows, you can do this yes. I run win3x in a vmware. wine
doesn't run windows as it is a windows emulator for running windows
applications.

Post by "MEB" @here>
--
~
--

[MEB]

.. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked

Post by "MEB" @here>
into 640x480 or 800x600.

I have more issues finding drivers for newer lcd displays than older ones.

Yeah, that appears at times, though with the numerous
newsgroups/forums/etc.. one can generally find SOMEONE who has already
worked out the necessary generic settings.

Post by "MEB" @here>
Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the
messa driver package which includes most of the older display models in
its data base.
IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf files
{configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode
or MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].

this worked for me with my newer lcd displays, yes. My old display on
the windows 98 machine, just defaulted to 1028x768 fine.

The defaults for these [on the test machines with the mentioned
compilations] turned out to be 800x600 with only 640x480 as an option
until running the messa config.

The idea for the original comment was for the many Windows converts
who end up complaining about no support for their older CRTs or screens,
going the various support forums or otherwise and being told how to
MANUALLY edit the xorg.conf.
The messa utility gives them the more comfortable and familiar "pick
from the list" they had with Windows.

Post by "MEB" @here>
Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE,
Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require
at least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a
configured installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are
not an issue in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.

this version doesn't uses gnome or kde so it runs with much lower system
specs.

Right. There are numerous compilations with plainer GUI interfaces.
I suppose that is the hardest for many to understand, the ability to
download one GUIed version and install another GUI while having the
ability to switch back and forth, or mix and match among the various
offerings related to the GUIs...

Post by "MEB" @here>
There are now several other packages available to run Windows within Linux,
beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux
into a virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks"
[CD/DVD] of Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find
out what Linux has now become.

If you have windows, you can do this yes. I run win3x in a vmware. wine
doesn't run windows as it is a windows emulator for running windows
applications.

I suppose what I originally wrote was somewhat misleading.. the idea
is to note the ability to use their familiar "Windows" [which is really
based more upon familiar applications than the actual OS]. Between the
emulators and the virtual machines, they need not leave their
comfortable Windows, yet they don't NEED the newest computer to *use*
another Microsoft OS ... and yet still be able to progress to a newer OS
in which they can do the things they now can't in Windows 9X.. using
such things as Open Office, Kommander or Gnome Commander [based upon
their favourite file managers] or staying with the pre-configured
Nautilus {like Explorer}, and other like/similar applications.

[Jimw]

I'd avoid using Linux. Linux makes people go insane. First they cut
off all contact with actual people, and spend every waking hour trying
to make the thing run. Then they lose interest in everything except
their computer because they have to try every distro and version of
linux in existance, and spend all their time deleting and reinstalling
the latest linux distro .

Soon they can no longer speak english, or spanish, or whatever they
originally spoke, and can only speak in programming code and they
begin using fantasy words like gnome and troll, and words with no
meaning at all, such as gnu.

It's not long after they begin worshipping linux as their god, and
stop attending church. That's when the linux god takes complete
control of their mind. It's this point where they become dangerous to
others around them. If they are in the midst of setting up the latest
distro, and their mother walks into the room to ask them what they
want for dinner, they often murder their mother because she
interrupted their linux trance.

Finally comes the addicted linux-drug pusher state. They begin
installing linux on everyone elses computers. They begin bashing and
trashing Microsoft, Macintosh, and any other computer operating
system. They become very demanding and crude about it. Anyone using
any non-linux OS is a target to abuse. Worse yet, anyone else who is
using linux MUST be as knowledgable as them, or they call the person
all sorts of names and makes sure to demean any other linux user who
is not as superior as them. They brag about their computer knowledge
and defame anyone who is not as great as they are. Their whole
personality and purpose in life evolves around which Linux distro they
use.

The final phase is when they become violent because linux has
destroyed their minds. Their brain cells are all bleeding from techie
geek overload. They now believe they have become part of linux and
will try things like locking themselves inside their computer case, or
connecting their power supply to their bodies, or even going so far to
attempt to replace their heart with an intel quad core processor.

This is often where they stop sleeping, stop eating, and cut off
contact with all persons. This is the point where they often smash
their computers because the computer would not boot or refused to
recognise their mouse. Once the computer is destroyed, they normally
commit suicide or go on a murdering rampage, killing large numbers of
people in computer stores, schools, churches, malls, or theaters with
a handgun. They do this while imagining they are playing dungeous and
dragons or another violent computer game. Those who survive end up in
prison or mental institutions for the duration of their lives, where
they sit babbling random programming code to themselves until their
death.


Do you really want to mess with their evil satanic operating system?

I sure hope not, but if you do, remember, no one will pray for you.
The day you load your first Linux distro is the day your spirit dies
and satan enters your mind and soul for eternity.


------------------------

Post by "MEB" @here>
The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using older
machines will likely be the display used [almost everything else is
supported natively or via readily downloaded support files, e.g., sound
cards, scanners, cameras, USB devices, printers, etc.].
The defaults now generally found in Linux use EDID and DDC to find the
display/monitor. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked
into 640x480 or 800x600.
Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the messa
driver package which includes most of the older display models in its data
base.
A work-around to manually editing the xorg.conf is to install the COMPLETE
messa package [the default installations generally include just a base
installation], use it to create the xorg.conf by setting up your older
display, and then IF NECESSARY install the video adapter specific files
[like for nVidia]. The drivers will use the settings placed by the messa
package related to your display, to setup your older display with the device
specific driver. Workarounds have been found to do such things as install
DirectX and several other issues that Windows users might be familiar with,
or find they need.
IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf files
{configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode or
MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].
Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE,
Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require at
least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a configured
installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are not an issue
in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.
There are now several other packages available to run Windows within Linux,
beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux into a
virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks" [CD/DVD] of
Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find out what Linux has
now become.
--
~

[No Alternative]

I sure hope not, but if you do, remember, no one will pray for you. The
day you load your first Linux distro is the day your spirit dies and
satan enters your mind and soul for eternity.

ok lol!

http://english-158465906205.spampoison.com
http://u-lite.org

["MEB" @here>]

Glad you pointed that out, ,,, dang for all these years I thought that was
what Microsoft Windows did... and to now know its all GOD's plan, what a
refreshing realization... oh how sneaky that devil guy is...

So when were you to take your last medication, apparently you forgot...
?X~Q
--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

Post by Jimw
I'd avoid using Linux. Linux makes people go insane. First they cut
off all contact with actual people, and spend every waking hour trying
to make the thing run. Then they lose interest in everything except
their computer because they have to try every distro and version of
linux in existance, and spend all their time deleting and reinstalling
the latest linux distro .
Soon they can no longer speak english, or spanish, or whatever they
originally spoke, and can only speak in programming code and they
begin using fantasy words like gnome and troll, and words with no
meaning at all, such as gnu.
It's not long after they begin worshipping linux as their god, and
stop attending church. That's when the linux god takes complete
control of their mind. It's this point where they become dangerous to
others around them. If they are in the midst of setting up the latest
distro, and their mother walks into the room to ask them what they
want for dinner, they often murder their mother because she
interrupted their linux trance.
Finally comes the addicted linux-drug pusher state. They begin
installing linux on everyone elses computers. They begin bashing and
trashing Microsoft, Macintosh, and any other computer operating
system. They become very demanding and crude about it. Anyone using
any non-linux OS is a target to abuse. Worse yet, anyone else who is
using linux MUST be as knowledgable as them, or they call the person
all sorts of names and makes sure to demean any other linux user who
is not as superior as them. They brag about their computer knowledge
and defame anyone who is not as great as they are. Their whole
personality and purpose in life evolves around which Linux distro they
use.
The final phase is when they become violent because linux has
destroyed their minds. Their brain cells are all bleeding from techie
geek overload. They now believe they have become part of linux and
will try things like locking themselves inside their computer case, or
connecting their power supply to their bodies, or even going so far to
attempt to replace their heart with an intel quad core processor.
This is often where they stop sleeping, stop eating, and cut off
contact with all persons. This is the point where they often smash
their computers because the computer would not boot or refused to
recognise their mouse. Once the computer is destroyed, they normally
commit suicide or go on a murdering rampage, killing large numbers of
people in computer stores, schools, churches, malls, or theaters with
a handgun. They do this while imagining they are playing dungeous and
dragons or another violent computer game. Those who survive end up in
prison or mental institutions for the duration of their lives, where
they sit babbling random programming code to themselves until their
death.
Do you really want to mess with their evil satanic operating system?
I sure hope not, but if you do, remember, no one will pray for you.
The day you load your first Linux distro is the day your spirit dies
and satan enters your mind and soul for eternity.
------------------------

Post by "MEB" @here>
The major issue associated with newer Linux compilations when using older
machines will likely be the display used [almost everything else is
supported natively or via readily downloaded support files, e.g., sound
cards, scanners, cameras, USB devices, printers, etc.].
The defaults now generally found in Linux use EDID and DDC to find the
display/monitor. Older monitors will not be found and you will be locked
into 640x480 or 800x600.
Two choices can be used to work around the issue.
Manually editing the xorg.conf file [not for beginners] or using the messa
driver package which includes most of the older display models in its data
base.
A work-around to manually editing the xorg.conf is to install the COMPLETE
messa package [the default installations generally include just a base
installation], use it to create the xorg.conf by setting up your older
display, and then IF NECESSARY install the video adapter specific files
[like for nVidia]. The drivers will use the settings placed by the messa
package related to your display, to setup your older display with the device
specific driver. Workarounds have been found to do such things as install
DirectX and several other issues that Windows users might be familiar with,
or find they need.
IF you want or need to manually setup the xorg.conf [or other conf files
{configuration files}and settings], *make sure* to first install and/or
setup your ability to become "root" in terminal [kind of like MSDOS Mode or
MSDOS Prompt, or CMD].
Presently I have run short term tests on Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE,
Fedora, Simply Mepis, and Debian [gnome and KDE]. These seem to require at
least 384 megs memory and a 500+ Mhz. CPU to run adequately in a configured
installation. More memory, bigger drives, and faster CPUs are not an issue
in Linux and will make the experience more enjoyable.
There are now several other packages available to run Windows within Linux,
beyond Wine [including VMWare]. Windows users can also install Linux into a
virtual machine in Windows, or create or download "Live disks" [CD/DVD] of
Linux not requiring installation should they wish to find out what Linux has
now become.
--
~

[No Alternative]

Post by "MEB" @here>
Glad you pointed that out, ,,, dang for all these years I thought that
was what Microsoft Windows did... and to now know its all GOD's plan,
what a refreshing realization... oh how sneaky that devil guy is...
So when were you to take your last medication, apparently you forgot...
?X~Q

Wait a second! Just because he's paranoid doesn't mean I'm not out to get him! Hail Satan!

[Space Cowboy]

No Alternative <***@REMOVETHISSTUFFoperamail.com> wrote in news:gts7uq$4c9$***@news.motzarella.org:

N A .........
Their stock is gettin low but get rid of that Dell restore disk
and get a first edition CD, which you can build up with utilities and
packs from www.majorgeeks.com

http://www.9software.com/Microsoft_Windows_98_Software_s/19.htm

[Space Cowboy]

Post by Space Cowboy
N A .........
Their stock is gettin low but get rid of that Dell restore disk
and get a first edition CD, which you can build up with utilities
and packs from www.majorgeeks.com
http://www.9software.com/Microsoft_Windows_98_Software_s/19.htm

and for fixes updates etc
go to

www.majorgeeks.com
there are sources for both official and unofficial
service packs...
indeed one will get you IE6 without trying to locate it at microslop,
indeed, cart and horse thing..you need IE6 even if you don't use it ..
for reading some d/l'd HTML files you may aquire in your travels.

[Robert James]

Me? I say run for the hills when it comes to Linux. BSD all the way.

Post by No Alternative
This is a version of linux called u-lite. It is based on ubuntu, so it is
completely updatable, and uses the latest programs and browsers easily.
It can use the latest youtube and other flash video sites, for instance,
because it uses a recent version of adobe flashplayer with a modern gecko
based browser, like firefox and kazehakase. Win9x won't do this without
some major hacking.
It uses the lxde desktop so it runs on very low resource computers. You
just need about 32mb of ram, and anything over 486dx with some swap space.
That's all.
I dual booted Windows 98 with various linux for a long time, but I stuck
with mainly Win98 for as long as possible, because many of the linuxes I
used just operated too sluggishly. Unfortunately Win98 got hosed at some
point. I couldn't reinstall it from my oem compaq restore disk because I
had upgraded the hard drive and it would only install on the original
owing to some copywrite protection code. I had to resort to linux. This
caused me to hunt for lighter versions of linux. U-lite thus far is the
best one I have used.
Now some info about linux in general. Like alot of people who resort to
old versons of windows, I don't have alot of money, and linux gives me
access to thousands of good free opensource programs at the end of my
fingertips through synaptic. There are equivalents to most of the
programs I used on Win98, and when it isn't available I can generally run
my old windows 98 programs through a program called wine. I use wine
mostly for my old games.
http://u-lite.org
I am sure there are others. Anyone else had some good experiences
recently with a version Linux?