[aclug-L] Re: Linux as an alternative to a Windows desktop

[jeffrey l koehn <caveman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday 12 December 2002 10:28 pm, you wrote:
> This week at work my Windows box died, so I decided I'd use the
> opporitunity to install Linux (most likely against company
> policy... but who cares, right?).
>
> At any rate... here's the basic setup:
>
>
> Pentium III 500Mhz
> 128mb RAM
> 20gb HD
>
> Standard install is Windows 95 OSR2, Office 97, IE5.0, and lots
> of other junk nobody uses.
>
> Alternate install is Windows 2000, Office 2000, IE6, and lots of
> other junk nobody uses.
>
> As there are literally hunderds of identical machines there that
> I work on daily, I've come to know the performance of Win95 and
> Win2k on these systems.
>
> When I installed Linux, I intentionally loaded lots of "bulk"...
> stuff I never use.  I installed all of gnome, Enlightenment,
> Mozilla, and OpenOffice.org, and several other things.
>
> Most impressively, Linux boots in about 60 seconds to the GDM
> login screen, and about 20 seconds to log in and bring up the WM.
>
> Win95 takes 3-5 minutes to boot and another 3-5 minutes to log in
> to the Novell and NT networks.
>
> Win2k takes about 2-3 minutes to boot and another 2-4 minutes to
> log in.
>
> Aside from the fact that OpenOffice crashes 90% of the time when
> I open it (apparantly a known bug with OO.o + gnome, that may
> have been fixed in later releases--I'll see yet), I'm happy to
> say that Linux thus far seems much nicer than Windows on that
> hardware.
>
> I still hold to my earlier statements that Windows is better on
> limited hardware, though. :)
>
> And I still think Windows is better for uneducated computer
> users.

Tell That to uneducated retired people. They will laugh in your 
face.
Your not keeping up with the times.

>
> -- Jonathan
-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi