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

["Ironrose" <ironrose@xxxxxxx>]

I have to reluctantly agree with you.  After the experience with the guy
who wanted an OS in Spanish.  He has finally quit calling me.  

I like linux even though it has caused me to lose my religion several
times, it has proved to be a very valuable learning experience.  I need
to work on leaner installs and not install so many programs.  

Who has the linux firewalls in the group?  Would the individual email
me.  ~Anne

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jonathan Hall
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:28 PM
To: discussion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aclug-L] Linux as an alternative to a Windows desktop


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.

-- Jonathan


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



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