Re: New users or troll?
- From: "Eddie Quist" <juan_corsair@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 May 2006 09:50:25 -0700
michelebargeman@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I was reading a post from an "allege" new user, who supposedly doesn't
have lot of patient when it comes to learning something new - à la
installing a new operating system - in his/her case on an allege older
system!
Maybe it is just me, but I would have thought that anyone who is using
computer - including Windows user would know that new operating sytem
don't work on an older system. Say Windows XP Professional + System
Pack II will not work properly on an older system - say Pentium II.
The alleged computer in question (Pentium II 450) is quite capable of
running Windows 2000 Professional and Server at base install, SP1, 2, 3
and 4. This comp was primarily used as a Windows 2000 file server,
practice AD server (while I was studying for certification) and backup
desktop before I decided to turn it into a linux desktop. I do not
know why you are claiming W2K will not run on a PII 450. The minimal
requirements for Windows 2000 Professional is a Pentium 133 with 128 MB
of RAM (obviously this is not an optimal choice by any stretch). I
have seen W2K installed on a 486 before with some tweaking done to
force the install (a friend of mine wanted to see if he could do it).
How is it that any computer user would expect brand new operating sytem
design to work on an older hardware? It would like hope for a bicycle
to keep up with a space rocket? Am I wrong?
Apparently. The only hardware Issues I have encountered with W2K was
with an old ISA network card and an HP 7200+ CDRW. Neither of these
would function properly within the Windows environment. However, with
the "linux runs on anything" mantra being touted in groups such as this
one, I assumed it's minimal requirements and HCL would be a lot broader
than Windows. From what you are saying, I can see that is a very large
misconception.
I will give you another example. I have more then one computer. In one
of my comptuer - Pentium 4. I have install an older video card - PCI
based with 16M. Since this computer was not built to do heavy duty
graphics stuff, I don't need to put nivida on it therefore I don't
expect to get much from - considering that most GUI are design for 50M
video cards. Nevertheless, it display KDE very nicly, even mplayer
display some xvid nicly. Still, I know it is an older card, and It is
not meant to be use with latest (2006) 3D Games - nor I ever tried to
do such foollish thing. It works nicly with KDE and even with mplayer -
I'm very happy.
I did not attempt to configure the linux box for any specific task. I
was curious to see what linux was like. Unfortunately, it will not
boot after installing either SuSE or Ubuntu.
What I don't understand is why would anyone expect a brand new
operating system to work on an older hardware? Pherhaps it would safe
to assume that such a person might be troll - specailly if he/she is
using profanity.
It works with Windows 2000. I assumed it would run linux. No trolling
involved, just a great deal of frustration.
BTW: I suggest you read up on W2K before bashing it in forums like
this. It is obvious by some of the claims you have made in this post
that you quite literally know very little about it. A PII 450 with 512
MB RAM is more than capable of running both Windows 2000 Professional
and Server.
Eddie
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: New users or troll?
- From: Kurt
- Re: New users or troll?
- From: JDS
- Re: New users or troll?
- References:
- New users or troll?
- From: michelebargeman
- New users or troll?
- Prev by Date: Re: New users or troll?
- Next by Date: Wireless Router Question
- Previous by thread: Re: New users or troll?
- Next by thread: Re: New users or troll?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
