On Tue, 2006-14-02 at 19:45 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > Don Bedsole wrote: > > Hi to all, > > Just something to think about. If MS Windows came with the software included > > with a typical Linux distribution, how much would it cost? If your computer > > comes preloaded with Windows XP, you probably save some money over buying the > > boxed version (I guess, haven't really investigated). With Windows you end of > > having to buy a lot of add on products (Unless you just want to browse the > > net, send e-mail, play Solitare, and use Microsoft Works... if Works came > > with your computerr). Once you add a more capable firewall, Office software, > > Cd burning software, etc., how much have the cost of a Windows computer gone > > up? If you just want to do something as simple as take a screenshot, you > > have to download something else. But to be fair to Microsoft, if they were > > to include everything you need, they probably would never quit being > > investigated for antitrust violations :) > > My machine came with WinXP pre-installed. I cut back the size, and > made it dual boot to Linux. What I write here is in reference to > what the machine can do when booted under WinXP. > > Don't need a "more capable firewall", I got that with my router, which > Linux also needed IMO. > Mine came with MsOffice. > The CD burning software came with the machine. > My machine is capable of doing a screen shot. > > So, then answer is: Nothing more. > > > Another issue. What are people using Windows 98 doing for security updates > > right now? It is no longer supported...right? Do people using older Windows > > version realize that they will probably end up having to buy a new computer > > soon if they want to keep using Windows? I'm pretty sure Windows Vista won't > > run very well on a Windows 98 box. > > This same argument works for Linux, I'm afraid. Try to get a security > update for Red Hat Linux 6.0. Just try. > > And I don't *need* any security updates for either of my Win98 machines. > They aren't connected to anything external to the box but > > power > display > keyboard > mouse > > Nope, not even speakers. > > I don't put CDROMS or floppies in those machines to load any software, > as they have what they need on them already. > > > In my opinion, Windows XP is a pretty good OS. I've never really had any > > Yes, it is a nice OS, just being NT in disguise. > > > problems with it. But then again, money is a consideration for me. I really > > want to be able to make my present computer last for a while. True, it only > > has a 1.5 gig processor, but I can only type and think so fast anyway (that's > > a joke :) I can see me using this computer much longer with Linux than > > Windows. > > Eh? I have four machines that still run MSDOS 6.0, andother with Win95, > and two that run Win98. None of them is inadequate to do what I use > them for. > > But, Linux won't run on three of the MSDOS machines for sure (one is > an 8088 10MHz, another is a 80286 laptop, and one is a 80386DX with 1MB > of RAM), and it likely won't run on the other one (16MB of RAM, and only > about 20MB of free disc, but it's remotely possible it could run, I > suppose). I once booted Knoppix on one of the Win98 machines, but it > took 30 minutes to boot. It barely runs on the other Win98 machine, > only taking about 10 mins to boot. (The former is a 90MHz Pentium > with 32MB of RAM, the latter is a 400MHz Pentium, possibly a II, > with 256MB of RAM.) > > It looks to me like MicroSoft products are much better able to keep > older hardware going than Linux. Not if you compare apples and oranges. Knoppix is no older than XP, can you run XP on those machines... I didn't think so. Have you tried a really old version of SlackWare from around 1995 to see which machines it would run on? I didn't think so. Have you ever tried LRP? The last version of LRP that I used had a 1.3.?? kernel, and the whole system fit on a single 1.4 or 1.2 MB Floppy, but required about 8 MB of ram, because it ran from a ram disk, no hd required. 16MB of Ram and 20MB of disk would be lots for a 1.3 kernel, and I used to run the LRP software on old 386sx 12 MHz machines with 8MB of ram. I even had and old version of RedHat on one with a 127MB HD that I used as a network sniffer, until I needed 100Mbps. The reason I had a bunch of those machines kicking around, was they were not suitable for Windows 95. Do you have any version of windows that will run on an 8088 or 80286? The 8088 does not have a protected mode and is not suitable for true multitasking. The 80286 had a broken protected mode that was fixed in the 80386, but was still capable of limited protected mode operation and was minimally suitable to true multitasking. I had Windows 286, for my 16MHz 80286 and it was only a slight improvement over dosshell, I prefered Xtree gold over both. As far as I know, the 80386 was the first processor supported by Linux, or BSD but I don't know. Back in those days, I worked with UNIX and VMS on DEC running PDP's or Alpha's and Sun running Sparc's or Motorola 680X0's. I did write some applications for DOS, but mostly worked on stuff for Sun. I didn't take interest in Linux until 1995, but have been using it in projects since then.
