Linux with Windows

Unidentified Assilant · Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:47 am

I have just downloaded Monkey Linux, does anybody know how I can use it as well as Windows ME?

Post by **SpongeBuell** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:01 am

you can't do it at the same time, but the dual boot setup should be done automatically. It depends on your distrobution, though.

Post by **Sparkfist** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:37 am

There are two bootloaders that are talked about the most; Grub and Lilo. Both have a bunch of documentation, so finding a guide shouldnt be a problem. There are two ways to install bootloaders. One is to have the bootloader overwrite the MBR (master boot record), however dont do this if you want to clear the second hard drive and make it a slave under the other OS. The other option is to have it installed on the second hard drive in the first section(s).

Also so you know bootloaders usually have a timer set so it loads the defalt OS if you dont make a selection after X seconds.

Enjoy.

P.S. You might want to look into something better than ME. Its been considered worse than 98.

sam · Post by **sam** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:30 pm

95 rules. Period, end of story, I use XP though, BUT STILL 95 never had one problem ever,

SgtBowhack · Post by **SgtBowhack** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:23 am

sam: You are insane. And... that's all I have to say about that. Admittedly, 95 crashed about 1/10th as much as 3.1, but that doesn't say much for it either.

XP and 2000 (preferably 2000 IMO) are far better OSes than 95.

makuraken · Post by **makuraken** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:50 am

I dunno, that 3.1 kicked ass majorly. Never had a problem, 3.1 with like the first celeron (could barely run windows) and maybe 16mb ram max. I remember getting the internet on that computer. my first 14.4k modem with download speeds of SLOW AS HELL.
But I had that for the longest time (until I was 14-ish) then we got a new Pentium II (WAHOO) and that was allright with 95. The only reason I liked 95 is that it could play STARCRAFT, the game of my life.
Anyway, I want to get Linux for my laptop, is that a good choice and would I be able to keep all my files and information (downloaded junk and games) and be able to completely take out Windows? Just wondering.

Unidentified Assilant · Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:54 am

I have used most windowses, and here is my guide to them.

3.1: Not bad, doesn't crash much, but has low compatiblity with games.
95: Very good, high compablity but it doesn't have big hard-drives.
98: Sucks, too slow and sloppy.
98+: Never used it, can't be much better than 98
2000: Not as good as XP.
ME: Basically the same as 95 but not as slow and sloppy.
XP: Crap

JackFrost22 · Post by **JackFrost22** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:59 am

Unidentified Assilant wrote:I have used most windowses, and here is my guide to them.

3.1: Not bad, doesn't crash much, but has low compatiblity with games.
95: Very good, high compablity but it doesn't have big hard-drives.
98: Sucks, too slow and sloppy.
98+: Never used it, can't be much better than 98
2000: Not as good as XP.
ME: Basically the same as 95 but not as slow and sloppy.
XP: Crap

What about Windows NT. he only windows I use onw. Its the crap!

Unidentified Assilant · Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:01 am

Sorry, I forgot NT, and its crap

My post got edited! oh well, I now know why it keeps saying Shaving Cream on peoples post, Ben has a strange sence of humor...

JackFrost22 · Post by **JackFrost22** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:07 am

NT office or NT home. Cause NT office is awesome

Post by **SpongeBuell** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:41 pm

Unidentified Assilant wrote:Ben has a strange sence of humor...

That would be our Six of Black, actually

Windows 2000 and XP are all right, in my opinion. Once they switched to the NT kernel it improved quite a bit. I still prefer Linux, though.

MM007 · Post by **MM007** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:16 pm

98 SE is better than 98. Trust me, I've used both.

Besides, how could a Celeron NOT run 9X? Look at he minimum specs for 95, 98, 2000, and XP.

95: 386DX-20 (Bios must support it, though) , 75-120 MB HDD space, 4MB RAM, 8 recommended.

98: 486DX-2 66MHz, 175-225MB, 16MB RAM, 32 recommended. I have run one of these systems(on 16 MB), and the 486's stability actually made it so Win 98 wouldn't even crash on me. Imagine what it'd be like on a DX-4...

2000: Pentium 133, aprox 500MB(not sure there), and 32MB RAM, 64MB recommended.

XP: Pentium 166MMX, approx 1GB(not sure there either), and 64MB RAM, 128MB recommanded.

At these speeds, with enough RAM and hardrrive space, the OSes should run reliably. For YEARS I ran Windows 98 off of a Pentium 133 on 24MB!!!

XP may be a little slow running applications of your Celeron, but at LEAST get 95....

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:03 pm

Win95 runs on those old AST Premium Exec 386SX notebooks, with a 40mb drive and 5mb of ram. There are no BIOS issues with it, nor do you need a DX processor (it just makes it slightly less sluggish).

Oh, and running XP on 64mb of ram is like putting a Ferrari body kit on your Geo Metro. It looks prettier, but its still damn slow.

HK-47 · Post by **HK-47** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:48 pm

makuraken wrote:I dunno, that 3.1 kicked ass majorly. Never had a problem, 3.1 with like the first celeron (could barely run windows) and maybe 16mb ram max. I remember getting the internet on that computer. my first 14.4k modem with download speeds of SLOW AS HELL.
But I had that for the longest time (until I was 14-ish) then we got a new Pentium II (WAHOO) and that was allright with 95. The only reason I liked 95 is that it could play STARCRAFT, the game of my life.
Anyway, I want to get Linux for my laptop, is that a good choice and would I be able to keep all my files and information (downloaded junk and games) and be able to completely take out Windows? Just wondering.

Two words: Dual boot.

Post by **Sparkfist** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:15 pm

Just to clearify things Windows for the most part has three types of kernals; 9x, and ME; XP; and NT

2000 uses the NT kernal, as you know. The thing is its nothing more then a NT business windows has has the title home edtion on it.

XP has its own kernal, thats why things are not 100% compatable with 2000 or 9x.

As for the best. 3.1 was little more than a GUI addon to DOS. 95 an attempt as making Windows a stand alone OS, 98 just added packages to make that better, ME was the sam way. XP is revampted everything including a new command line. 2000/NT well server OS repackaged to run and sell in the home user market.