Linux thread.

[scates_80]

Post your setup and OS.
Desktop: Compaq desktop - 3ghz hyperthreaded pentium 4, 512mb ddr2, 80gb serial ata w/ two dual layer dvd burners, floppy, and ati 128 standard video.
Laptop: Dell Inspiron 1525 - 2ghz celeron, 2gb ddr2, 120gb serial ata w/ dual layer dvd burner. intel standard video.

OS: Both are running identical Arch setups, user enviroment is Wmii 3.6

Where my linux blades at?

EDIT: Screenshots are a bonus.

[ipack]

HP DV6700 laptop

AMD Turion X2 mobile 1.6GHz
3GB DDR2 RAM
250GB HDD
256 GeForce

Ubuntu 9.04
Compiz Fusion with Emerald

[Nonexistium]

The efficiency award goes to...

Dell Optiplex GX150 PIII 1.0GHz 384 MB 133MHz Ram, ATI geforce 5200 fx graphics, 20GB OS/boot drive, 320 GB media drive
Dual booting Ubuntu Jaunty and xp black.

[ihugtrees]

i dont know how to use linux and my roommate runs it on the ps3. how the fuck do i change it back to the normal ps3? it just restarts in linux

yellow dog 6.1 i think

[subeo]

I'm running Slackware 13 on this older sony vaio laptop I've got.. I'll throw a screen shot up when I get to class
Slackers unite!

[rsw]

Nice screens everyone, here's my desktop:

Crunchbang Linux
Openbox window manager
Thunar file manager
Xchat irc client
Docker + Tint2 make the panel

[mimomontalvo]

Originally Posted by rsw

Nice screens everyone, here's my desktop:

Crunchbang Linux
Openbox window manager
Thunar file manager
Xchat irc client
Docker + Tint2 make the panel

thats a pretty clean desktop, you mind posting your pc specs. Im running mint, considering a change.
Intel celeron d 356 3.33 ghz
512 mb dd2
120 gb hdd

[rsw]

Originally Posted by mimomontalvo

thats a pretty clean desktop, you mind posting your pc specs. Im running mint, considering a change.
Intel celeron d 356 3.33 ghz
512 mb dd2
120 gb hdd

I'm running it on a 2.4 ghz P4 with 1.5gb ram and a 128mb Ti4200 video card. Only a 40gb hard drive, but hey... I built this rig back in '03 when I thought 40 would be plenty LOL. I also run this same setup on my netbook and plan to do the same on my nettop that'll be replacing this computer (whenever I get that put together).

[Gamadius]

Originally Posted by rsw

I'm running it on a 2.4 ghz P4 with 1.5gb ram and a 128mb Ti4200 video card. Only a 40gb hard drive, but hey... I built this rig back in '03 when I thought 40 would be plenty LOL. I also run this same setup on my netbook and plan to do the same on my nettop that'll be replacing this computer (whenever I get that put together).

I used to have a Ti4200 back in the day as well, but it was a 64MB one. And hey, the biggest hard drives in 2003 were about 120GB anyway so don't feel too bad. I had an 80GB drive then and thought that was a big deal (which it was..everyone else had 15-30GB drives pretty much.) And I'm guessing you only had a third of that RAM or less in there when you first built it in 03.

Let's bump this thread in 2015 and laugh at ourselves for having 1TB HDDs and 4GBs of RAM!

[sikander]

I got Ubuntu Jaunty on the desktop, which is an aging e-mail machine/fileserver with thoroughly unimpressive specs so I won't mention them.

Then I got Karmic on the early 2008 Macbook, which I'm going to replace with the F12 Beta which is due to be released tomorrow. The way it looks like things are going I'm just going to be preferring Fedora in the future (personal preference only, no pent-up rants on this front).

[TravisH997]

Originally Posted by scates_80

Post your setup and OS.
Desktop: Compaq desktop - 3ghz hyperthreaded pentium 4, 512mb ddr2, 80gb serial ata w/ two dual layer dvd burners, floppy, and ati 128 standard video.
Laptop: Dell Inspiron 1525 - 2ghz celeron, 2gb ddr2, 120gb serial ata w/ dual layer dvd burner. intel standard video.

OS: Both are running identical Arch setups, user enviroment is Wmii 3.6

Where my linux blades at?

EDIT: Screenshots are a bonus.

May I ask why you are wasting those specs on Linux? And an ugly distro at that? I mean, the specs aren't great but you could run Windows more than good on those.

[sikander]

Originally Posted by TravisH997

May I ask why you are wasting those specs on Linux? And an ugly distro at that? I mean, the specs aren't great but you could run Windows more than good on those.

Some people actually prefer Linux. I did for a while because Free Software was meeting my needs more than adequately and Windows pissed me off way more. (My need for MS Office compatibility and lack of trust in WINE pushed me to sell my soul to Steve Jobs. But hey, now I can run OS X, Linux, and even Windows if I was masochistic enough!)

And what's "ugly" about Arch? It's just another distro. The only real downside is that it takes a little more time to set up than other ones.

[scates_80]

Ah man everyone has individual needs! I think for the average person that dosen't care about their computer, Micro$oft is fine.. People are lazy so they just use what comes with it, check their email, play solitare, listen to some mp3's, and it works for them. But some people need a little more control over their precious machines, and want to use it more efficiently and more intelligently than Windows users. I transfer large files over networks, code a few programs, maybe some graphic design or surf the internet. Otherwise I do a lot of things better and faster than I could with Windows. Period.

[rsw]

Originally Posted by TravisH997

May I ask why you are wasting those specs on Linux? And an ugly distro at that? I mean, the specs aren't great but you could run Windows more than good on those.

While I fully understand where you're coming from with this post based on the appearance of his screenshot, I have to disagree with the idea that machines with good specs should run resource-intensive operating systems.

The window manager he is running isn't designed for looks, it's made for minimalism and efficiency. It's one for folks who like their user-interface to stay out of the way while they use their computer. It doesn't make his computer less powerful, as a matter of fact it frees up power making the computer run applications even better. For example, if he went to launch a very demanding video game it would run smoother and better under his WM than under your Windows 7 interface with all of its widgets, animations, thumbnails and other such features running in the background.

It doesn't matter what kind of specs a computer I get has, I'll always run *nix on it exclusively unless there's a damn good reason. Once you learn how to work it total control is a pretty killer feature. There are many, many Linux desktops out there that look much nicer than any Windows or OS X interface.

[TravisH997]

Originally Posted by rsw

While I fully understand where you're coming from with this post based on the appearance of his screenshot, I have to disagree with the idea that machines with good specs should run resource-intensive operating systems.

The window manager he is running isn't designed for looks, it's made for minimalism and efficiency. It's one for folks who like their user-interface to stay out of the way while they use their computer. It doesn't make his computer less powerful, as a matter of fact it frees up power making the computer run applications even better. For example, if he went to launch a very demanding video game it would run smoother and better under his WM than under your Windows 7 interface with all of its widgets, animations, thumbnails and other such features running in the background.

It doesn't matter what kind of specs a computer I get has, I'll always run *nix on it exclusively unless there's a damn good reason. Once you learn how to work it total control is a pretty killer feature. There are many, many Linux desktops out there that look much nicer than any Windows or OS X interface.

Well yea I understand that, it's just for me. If I can run an eye-candy OS, I'm going to. The Linux is for low end PC's and for cleanup.