Tursi Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 (I hear the 8.1 Update 1 is a manifestation of Microsoft's recent beating with a Clue Stick.) Yeah, but so little has changed the only reason they trumpeted it at all was so people would stop beating them up. They added a visible widget for the previously hidden button that represents what Start used to be, and all it does is take you to the Metro "Start Screen". That screen plus the fact that ads are a part of it are the reason I ditched 8 after trialling it for 6 months or so on my laptop (including 8,1 when the update was released), went back to 7. The first thing I'd usually do in 8 was run any non-Metro app so that the normal desktop would come up anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertLM78 Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Yeah, but so little has changed the only reason they trumpeted it at all was so people would stop beating them up. They added a visible widget for the previously hidden button that represents what Start used to be, and all it does is take you to the Metro "Start Screen". That screen plus the fact that ads are a part of it are the reason I ditched 8 after trialling it for 6 months or so on my laptop (including 8,1 when the update was released), went back to 7. The first thing I'd usually do in 8 was run any non-Metro app so that the normal desktop would come up anyway. Sounds like a nightmare - no wonder its been so slow on the uptake - I see another Vista for Microsoft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+hloberg Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 1. Yep 2. I use Mint - although I've used Ubuntu, Trisquel, TinyCore, OpenSUSE, and Xubuntu - to name a few. But I love my Mint . 3. I use MESS at the moment to emulate the TI. I would very much to get PC99, and I would use DOSbox to run it, like I do my other DOS programs . Does PC99 run well on DOSbox? PC99 runs really well under DOSbox. I use it all the time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sometimes99er Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) It feels as if I'm about the only one running Windows mainly around here. http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9&qpsp=172&qpnp=12&qptimeframe=M Edited April 10, 2014 by sometimes99er 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OLD CS1 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Nah, I run Windows 7 primarily. But I have my user agent set for Firefox 29 on AmigaOS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tursi Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) It feels as if I'm about the only one running Windows mainly around here. My main OS is Windows too. But I run Linux for my web services and backup, and work requires me to use a variety of Linuxes for various tasks. But I actually /like/ Windows, including developing for it. In fact the latter I like a lot more than for Linux! Edited April 10, 2014 by Tursi 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjduplooy Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share Posted April 10, 2014 Has anyone tried a source based Linux distro like Gento or its forks yet? (I use Calculate Linux which is a fork of Gentoo. There I have a choice of using precompiled apps, using the install scripts to compile the apps, or a mixture of both) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertLM78 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Has anyone tried a source based Linux distro like Gento or its forks yet? (I use Calculate Linux which is a fork of Gentoo. There I have a choice of using precompiled apps, using the install scripts to compile the apps, or a mixture of both) No, I haven't yet actually, but I find myself doing more and more compiling. It sounds like a cool idea . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrospect Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 Pretty soon I'm going to get one of my two Linux laptops reinstalled with Windows. I'm thinking of having the MSI fitted up with both Windows and Linux, as it's the newest machine I have, and it's got 320gb on the drive, otherwise I'd be splitting a partition of 40gb for each OS .... I'll let my friend do the dual-booting process, as I'm not actually that knowledgable of that. I want Linux for the internet mainly, it's damn safe to browse around compared to Windows, there are fewer virus risks. But, on the other hand, I want Windows so I can properly use Classic99, as that is my favourite emulator to work/play on, it's the one I sit comfortably with. I remember my previous MSI before the one I have now, had XP on it, and it ran sweet with Classic99, and that was using an Atom 1.6GHz single-core CPU which by todays standards is slow as molasses. I notice full-blown Ubuntu is getting quite bloated now, not running as fast as it used to? ... personally I use Xubuntu and Lubuntu and the latter is quite snappy. It's like Vorticon said though, a lot of people cross themselves when they hear the word Linux but i think that's got a lot to do with people following a trend for years, they get used to one mainstream thing, it's like having a Microcomputer with BASIC but then going to one with FORTH on the ROM instead - people are going to panic and want what they are familiar with. But the fault lies with the fact people are like sheep ... the follow one thing. I bet a lot of people don't realise Linux is a safer OS to have if you're just browsing the internet, using Facebook, etc etc ... and that you DON'T need Norton Anti-Virus chugging up your system..... I'd say 99 percent of the people I know only use a computer to do what they could use a tablet for, and that depresses me. They buy expensive computers with Windows on it, acutally PAY for Norton to screw they're system up, and sit playing Candy Crush Saga. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sometimes99er Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) I want Linux for the internet mainly, it's damn safe to browse around compared to Windows, there are fewer virus risks. I guess you're right. Same graph probably tells you the likelihood of suffering from an attack. They buy expensive computers with Windows on it, acutally PAY for Norton to screw they're system up, and sit playing Candy Crush Saga. Yep, I think that also. When dealers began to deliver with Linux, MS cut price on preinstalled Windows to almost nothing. Good move for MS, bad news for Linux. Quite a lot install Win7 over Win8. When people then turn on their Windows, it's trying to preload (processes), download (updates), update (scanners), scan (scanners) and defragment (OS) and sometimes almost at the same time. No wonder they think they've got a virus. Come on, when you turn on your computer, you want to do something, not wait around like forever. Edited April 10, 2014 by sometimes99er 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrospect Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 I guess you're right. Same graph probably tells you the likelihood of suffering from an attack. Yep, I think that also. When dealers began to deliver with Linux, MS cut price on preinstalled Windows to almost nothing. Good move for MS, bad news for Linux. When people then turn on their Windows, it's trying to download, update, scan and defragment all at the same time. No wonder they think they've got a virus. Come on, when you turn on your computer, you want to do something, not wait around like forever. Have to admit I turn it on, and go make myself a cup of damn good coffee. Hehe ,.... yes so do I when it is Windows, including waiting for the kettle to boil fully! Oh also - something else about Windows you might , or might not be aware of ..... This happens in the UK , I dunno about anywhere else ..... Bogus , dodgy people ring our landline telephones at random times during the day, and pretend to be from Microsoft. They say down the phone; "We noticed your computer is running slow, it has a virus, and if you let us have remote access, we will fix it for you" ...... fraudsters are actually counting on the fact that people have windows, and that because windows gets so bloated & heavy, it will be running slow (mainly due to Windows Vista or 7 Starter Pack being shipped with dog-slow netbooks) ..... I had a good laugh when they rang me one time ... I answered with , "I don't think so, mate, I'm using Linux" ... the phone went dead.... they actually try to gain remote access to your computer so they can PLANT a virus on it then demand money to take it off! Windows is so bad fraudsters are getting in on the act. Shame I still need windows for my emulators though, cos it IS good for that, so long as I don't go on the internet with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sometimes99er Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) When I get the time I'll try Virtual PC with Ubuntu. Then maybe dualboot. Maybe boot Linux from a stick. Edited April 10, 2014 by sometimes99er 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 I dual boot Win 7 and Linux, but Linux is what I mainly use. Win 7 is good for games, iTunes, and some apps for classic systems that don't like Linux. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omega-TI Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 I use Win7 on my main machine, but on my older laptop, which only gets rare use I have it setup as a dual boot with XP/Ubuntu. Linux was supposed to make the old computer seem faster, but I never noticed it. About the only benefit I've found from Ubuntu is that it never crashes like XP. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrospect Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 I use Win7 on my main machine, but on my older laptop, which only gets rare use I have it setup as a dual boot with XP/Ubuntu. Linux was supposed to make the old computer seem faster, but I never noticed it. About the only benefit I've found from Ubuntu is that it never crashes like XP. Maybe it's running on full-blown Ubuntu? ..... that OS is getting rather bloated now, so I've been hearing ..... I have Lubuntu on my MSI Wind and the boot-up time for that is around 15 secs, to fully boot up..... not bad going really. I compared times once, got two laptops out and switched both on, from cold. The Lubuntu had booted up, allowed me to download Classic99 and extract it, and shut it down in the same time as it took Windows XP to boot. Now, bare in mind that the Lubuntu was running a Cedar Trail chip and had 1gb ram, the XP machine was running on 2gb ram. However, it really is only Lubuntu that get's the faster times as it's not filled with the same apps that the others come with as stock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gemintronic Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 1. Do you use Linux? As a tool, yes. Primary operating system? Not if I can avoid it. Still isn't easy enough to configure for a mere mortal. Too much breakage when updating. 2. If you do, what distro? Xubuntu. Puppy Linux. Mint. 3. Do you emulate the TI under Linux? Nope. Just on my PSP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertLM78 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) I use Win7 on my main machine, but on my older laptop, which only gets rare use I have it setup as a dual boot with XP/Ubuntu. Linux was supposed to make the old computer seem faster, but I never noticed it. About the only benefit I've found from Ubuntu is that it never crashes like XP.You might try Mint - it's pretty snappy on my very old laptop (Dell Latitude D400 with an M processor). Xubuntu, Peppermint, or even Puppy might be a good choice as well . Maybe it's running on full-blown Ubuntu? ..... that OS is getting rather bloated now, so I've been hearing ..... I have Lubuntu on my MSI Wind and the boot-up time for that is around 15 secs, to fully boot up..... not bad going really. I compared times once, got two laptops out and switched both on, from cold. The Lubuntu had booted up, allowed me to download Classic99 and extract it, and shut it down in the same time as it took Windows XP to boot. Now, bare in mind that the Lubuntu was running a Cedar Trail chip and had 1gb ram, the XP machine was running on 2gb ram. However, it really is only Lubuntu that get's the faster times as it's not filled with the same apps that the others come with as stock Compiz is the real culprit with Ubuntu - it thrashes the CPU something fierce - I think newer machines can handle the load, but older machines struggle. Edited April 10, 2014 by RobertLM78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertLM78 Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 When I get the time I'll try Virtual PC with Ubuntu. Then maybe dualboot. Maybe boot Linux from a stick. I'm not sure any Linux distro will work very well on Virtual PC (which is by MS) - you'll need to get Virtualbox (by Oracle). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English Invader Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 I use Win7 on my main machine, but on my older laptop, which only gets rare use I have it setup as a dual boot with XP/Ubuntu. Linux was supposed to make the old computer seem faster, but I never noticed it. About the only benefit I've found from Ubuntu is that it never crashes like XP. Try LXLE. It's a low spec version of Lubuntu that's especially designed for legacy hardware: http://lxle.net/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asmusr Posted April 10, 2014 Share Posted April 10, 2014 1. No 2. No 3. No 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OLD CS1 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I'm not sure any Linux distro will work very well on Virtual PC (which is by MS) - you'll need to get Virtualbox (by Oracle). 32-bit Linux works fine in Virtual PC. Hell, even 32-bit Solaris runs fine in it. I have not been successful in getting a 64-bit OS running in Virtual PC due to some hardware issues, but VirtualBox does work very well for all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertLM78 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 32-bit Linux works fine in Virtual PC. Hell, even 32-bit Solaris runs fine in it. I have not been successful in getting a 64-bit OS running in Virtual PC due to some hardware issues, but VirtualBox does work very well for all. I've heard of people getting some Linux versions to work on Virtual PC, but I didn't know that it was to do with the architecture. Interesting. I just figured it was safest to just direct sometimes to the 'heavy artillery' . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OLD CS1 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 I've heard of people getting some Linux versions to work on Virtual PC, but I didn't know that it was to do with the architecture. Interesting. I just figured it was safest to just direct sometimes to the 'heavy artillery' . The problem with 64-bit guests is that on some systems, Windows 7 does not expose the underlying 64-bit processor capabilities. I am having that problem on two of my Dell laptops. But it is not limited to Virtual PC; it also affects VirtualBox and ESXi. Funny thing, everything works just fine in XP x64 on the same hardware (well, except VirtualPC which cannot do 64-bit in XP.) It is aggravating and weird. I need it to work, too. I just upgraded my laptop to 240GB SSD and 8GB of RAM -- but no 64-bit VMs. AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertLM78 Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 Wild - I guess come to think of it, I don't think I have tried running a 64-bit VM yet. I'll keep this in mind though in my future virtual machine activities . Thanks for the heads up buddy! I hope you can get things worked out on your laptop - 8GB of RAM is more than I have on my newest desktop! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tursi Posted April 11, 2014 Share Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) The problem with 64-bit guests is that on some systems, Windows 7 does not expose the underlying 64-bit processor capabilities. I am having that problem on two of my Dell laptops. But it is not limited to Virtual PC; it also affects VirtualBox and ESXi. Funny thing, everything works just fine in XP x64 on the same hardware (well, except VirtualPC which cannot do 64-bit in XP.) It is aggravating and weird. I need it to work, too. I just upgraded my laptop to 240GB SSD and 8GB of RAM -- but no 64-bit VMs. AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!! Is that true? VMWare runs 64-bit OS's fine on my Windows 7 machines.... I don't think it's Windows7 at fault there? VMWare Player is free - maybe give it a try and see if it's different? Sorry for all the edits, I did notice you said "on some systems" -- maybe check your BIOS? - some BIOSs disable virtualization by default! Edited April 11, 2014 by Tursi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.