Only 11 More Days to Go!

"Robert Brereton" wrote in
:



"DanS" wrote
in message
. 97.131...
"Robert Brereton" wrote
in news


"Alias" wrote in
message ...
Heywood Jablowme wrote:

http://www.ubuntu.com/
You'll be glad you
did.

What can be done with Ubuntu:

Nothing of importance!

Translation: the nymshifter is too stupid to use Ubuntu
which is amazing when you consider how user friendly it
is. What's even more amazing is that he admits it daily
in almost every post!

--
Alias

OK Alias,

I have an old Toshiba laptop 997ghz, 512MB ram, 37 gb
HDD, DVD drive, FDD. I have tried several times to
install your 'flagship' OS and each time it failed with
errors, and when I finally got it to install it would not
give me resolutions greater that 800x600 and also would
not recognise any wireless network.

What happened when the live CD was run prior to installing
?

The live CD has the same problem.

Well at least that makes sense. If the Live CD worked fine, then you had
install errors that woul dbe something different.

The Wi-Fi is a Belkin
pcmcia network card. I also tried a Netgear USB dongle.
Neither was recognised. The resolution could not be
changed from 800x600 either with live CD or when installed
on the hard disk (dual boot).

The 800x600 thing is an ongoing issue for some. When I installed the
second-to-last Ubuntu release, I had the same issue, but fixed it in 5 minutes wioth
some help from the UbuuntuForums.

I had installed a couple Ububntu releases on a very old Toshiba Laptop,
a Satellite Pro 4260, with a low speed PIII and 256 Megs of RAM, which also had an
older PCMCIA card wirless that did work right out of the box. I was shocked. I don't
know if I'd try to use that again for any of the later releases, as they are requireing more
CPU juice with each release.


DSL or puppy Linux cds ran fine and allowed resolutions to
be manipulated. A work colleague who supports a few Linux
clients said Fedora was a much better bet as it supported
a bigger range of kit and that he would prefer to use
windows xp home over Ubuntu if this laptop was going to be
used for any productive purpose.

This is what I don't understand.....once installed, Linux distro's are pretty much the
same. You need to do the same troubleshooting, and operate the same way. GNOME
form distro x looks and oerates just like GNOME from distro y, and the same thing
with the KDE desktop. The KDE-centric apps however seem to much more polished
than the GNOME-centric apps.


I was hoping to get a Linux distro loaded on this machine
to at least get
some knowledge of its workings to be able to provide some
support to Linux users, but I guess Ubuntu is not fit for
this purpose and I will try Fedora or Suse instead, and
carry on with windows XP/7.

Ubuntu is based on the Debian unstable release, why, I don't know, but I'm sure that is
some of the reason.

Sorry Alias did not have the expertise to provide any help.

Nor could I. I would have pointed you towards the Ubuntu forums. As I've said before,
I don't have a whole lot of Linux knowledge because, for me anyway, just about
everything seems to work as advertised, and haven't had to troubleshoot anything
important.

If you try it, and don't like it after giving it a fair shot, so be it. At least you tried it, and
didn't just listen to some flunkie saying things that are completely innaccurate, or even
outright untrue. I don't care one way of the other who uses what. I'm just a fan of
accuracy.

I use whatever gets the job done.....(or whatever I'm booted into when I get back to the
PC).








Bob