Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyhop
MOST linux distros are meant for servers though. People usually won't even use GUIs on the server versions. Hence, less resources required.
|
There are several Linux distros that are very easy to use, Ubuntu should not get all the credit as Fedora, Debian, Mandiva, and Freespire are other versions that are not that different from Ubuntu. Stop bashing every other Linux distro, although they can be used for servers (very well) it is like saying you can't use Windows Server 2003 because it is made for servers (I prefer it to Pro because it does not use as many resources)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyhop
Vista's differences become apparent with heavier use. There's more to it than just eye candy. (although the eye candy is nice). There's more to the OS than what you're saying. This is just lame bandwagon MS hating.
|
Yeah, the differences include much more DRM, Microsoft sold what was left of their soul for Hollywood money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spyhop
Another Vista myth. We had Vista running on a bench on a P4 2.8 and 512MB of ram and a mediocre video card. We were even playing WoW on it. Took a little longer for things to load, but it ran fine.
|
Oh, yeah, tell that to the dead burnt laptops I have seen, Vista uses more resources, it is a fact, and yes, Vista can run on that comp, but considering that XP or Linux would run with no slowdowns at all why would you. It is like the many retarded Computer "technicians" that I have seen that installed XP on a comp running with 128Mb of RAM and a Pentium II and say that the 15min it takes for the comp to start up is normal (NO it's not, it's paging the already old HDD to death!)
__________________
One civilized reader is worth a thousand boneheads - Smart Set magazine, 1914
CPU: AMD 4600+ 2.41Ghz
RAM: 2Gb of Corsair DDR2 4-4-4-12 800Mhz
Graphics Card: ATI X1900XT
OS: Windows XP SP2 FTW