Reasons to hate linux and love microsoft...

sniper_spike · Post by **sniper_spike** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:55 pm

It's not that big of a deal... your system isn't much higher than mid-range anymore.

totokan · Post by **totokan** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:57 pm

My system has 0% more than half of the time...

cowsgoquack101 · Post by **cowsgoquack101** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:27 pm

Mine runs at 0% about 80% of the time. It's a celeron 2.4 ghz, ATI radeon 9250, 512mb of ram and it plays Doom 3!

Post by **Skyone** » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:52 pm

Mine is always running at 0% unless I start a HUGE program (IE: A Game.)

2GB RAM, 3.2GHz, 256MB Graphics Card, 500GB HDD Space.

harad · Post by **harad** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:33 am

Reasons to hate linux and love microsoft:

first of all - Windows 2003!
then a few apps you won't get to play on linux (natively):

foobar2000
media player classic
games
utorrent

hell... a lot of other apps... linux got a big progress last years (2.6 is amazing kernel) - but it's not so well streamlined. windows 2k/xp/2k3 is also really fast compared to gnome and kde.

most people say that windows suck, etc. let's put it stright - microsoft made amazing releases recently, which share with the past only the 'Windows' name. in the windows nt 4.0 times you had to reset every few weeks. now we have windows 2003 which is keen to be rock-solid server and many people can understand how microsoft can make good operating system.

forget the past - even the biggest corporations learn.

MM007 · Post by **MM007** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:07 am

Windows and Linux both have their pros and cons.

I've already installed XP to a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM...I wonder how I can go less like these guys. XD

I man...I know about Win 9X's A:\SETUP /nm, but I don't know the equivalent command for a "no minimums" install of XP.

Still...getting it to run on an ISA bus speed...that's just crazy.

harad · Post by **harad** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:24 pm

you can make an unattended installation (for ex. with nlite) and disable >=64 ram requirement.

collingall2005 · Post by **collingall2005** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:55 pm

to see what would happen i installed windows 3.11 on a 2.5ghz celeron processer and it accually worked although windows was unable to determine the clock speed, the size of the partition, and the ammount of ram, it ran faster than it was designed to. Has anyone else tried this, or something like it?
it is weird to load windows in less than it takes to for the bios to load up.