Re: Replacement for Netscape
phew what a thread we got going here... my only addition to this is to say that
one of the reasons i prefer linux over windows is that you don't NEED
excessively fast or "modern" hardware to run linux efficiently.
one of my many complaints about windows in general as an OS is that in order to
run it fairly decently you need increasingly more speed in your hardware...
more memory, faster processors.. what is the world coming to when a single OS
defines what the "standard" for hardware in a PC should be?
personally i never plan on spending tons of money to update my computer simply
so i can use windows. i run linux and x on 16 ram and a pentium 120, and i do
just fine. some things are a little slow but it is a hell of a lot better than
having to reboot every hour or so. <grin>
On Wed, 26 May
1999, Kent West wrote: > Lazarus Long wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, May 26,
1999 at 15:12:52 -0500, Kent West wrote: > > > M> >
> > On Wednesday, May 26, 1999 at 15:12:52 -0500, Kent West wrote:
> > > Message-ID: <[🔎] Pine.BSI.4.05L.9905261509120.24704-100000@nicanor.acu.edu>
> > > X-UIDL: 4fd6d8ff3805df00b5ee9a38be13cbf6
> >
> > > > > Ya know, we really oughtta quit advertising the idea that Linux runs well
etc etc...
> > Linux is an affordable workstation, as compared to other OS's.
> >
>
> Oh definitely! And I am philosophically in favor of OSS (and opposed
> particularly to Microsoft), and do not mean to imply that Windows is
> better (not by a LONG shot).
>
> But before I ever downloaded my first base14-1.bin image or read my
> first HowTo, I had read in several places that Linux works well on older
> hardware. Not realizing that the authors presumably meant as servers, I
> was disappointed with my first go-round of Linux as a desktop OS on an
> old 486 with 16MB RAM. Windows and Netscape were functional on such a
> machine; Linux was just barely so. It may have been inadequate tuning on
> my part, but remember, I was brand new to Linux and didn't know an
> exim.conf file from an XF86Setup program.
>
> So in summary, I'm not saying we shouldn't advertise Linux as running
> well on older slower machines; I am saying that we should qualify that
> claim to the effect that the average newbie can't expect the same
> performance they're used to if they try to do the same types of things
> they've been doing with Windows on an older slower machine.
>
----------------------
add|ct|on
slaythe@innocent.com
http://e0i-cyberpimps.virtualave.net
Debian 2.1 (potato) Linux 2.3.2
Reply to: