OT: Windows is too expensive

[geoschmo]

Just a min-rant. Windows is too expensive. My nieces computer blew up last week and I'm trying to be a nice guy and help her out by putting another computer together for her. Nothing fancy, she just mainly uses it to web surf and chat with her friends. But it costs so much to get a copy of windows anymore you can't even afford to build a PC yourself. Even an upgrade version is 100 bucks and for that you've got to have a hardrive with an OS on it already. A full version of XP Home is almost 200 bucks. It's getting to where the OS is most of the cost of a computer.

[Suicide Junkie]

The computer blew up?
Well, just keep using your existing license on the new PC.

[Fyron]

If all she uses it for is web surfing and chat, you could consider Ubuntu...

[Baron Grazic]

Your complaining about the price of XP.
I hope you don't look at the Vista prices. ;-)

[geoschmo]

Suicide Junkie said:
The computer blew up?
Well, just keep using your existing license on the new PC.

Yah, that would work if she had a disk or a license number. It was a hand me down computer from my brother in law. I'm not sure where the original OS came from. It might have been an OEM way back. Either way we don't have anything I could use as documentation to get another license. I don't think if I call Microsoft up and explain the situation they would give me another license do you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[geoschmo]

Imperator Fyron said:
If all she uses it for is web surfing and chat, you could consider Ubuntu...

I was hesitant to try something in the Linux universe since she's just a teen and isn't really a computer geek like her uncles. But looking at their website it actually looks pretty user-friendly. I might give it a shot and see if she likes it.

[Atrocities]

I would see what your local PC shop has in the way of affordable OS. I have an old copy of 95 someplace that could give you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[Will]

If it is just mainly for websurfing and chatting, then I would say definitely go with Ubuntu. Non-technical users can get by just fine with it, never need to touch the command line or anything, and Firefox and gAIM work just as well as (some would even dare say better than) IE and MSN/Y!IM/AIM/etc. The Ubuntu people have done some really good work on bringing the distro together and making it user-friendly.

[AgentZero]

Windoze XP Home Edition (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832116056) for under $100 as long as you keep your receipts for mother board, hard drive, RAM and a CPU. But as it's been said already, if all she does is light internet use Ubuntu's probably the way to go, especially if she's got a savvy uncle to set the whole thing up for her.
I would say though, that it'd probably be a good idea to have her make a list of the applications she can't live without in case there's anything on there without a Linux equivalent.

[Ed Kolis]

You could always call them up and say "Hey you, your exorbitant prices just cost you another customer, I'm switching to Ubuntu" and go on and on about the joys of free software http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
It won't get you a free copy of Windows, but it will make you feel good, and maybe if enough people get fed up with Microsoft then they will change their business practices -
ya know, kinda like voting for a third-party candidate, how it won't get you anything in the short run but in the long run it tells the major parties where to align themselves to garner more votes? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[geoschmo]

So I'm having a fit trying to download this Ubuntu iso. Tried twice just a straight download and it crapped out after an hour or so and said the file was corrupt. I tried the Bit Torrent thingy and had the same problem. Got almost done downloading and then said it was corrupted and I had to restart. I thought one of the advantages of bit Torrent was it would pick up where you left off? Why is it wanting to start downloading again from the beginning? I must be doing something wrong. This is the first time I've tried using BitTorrent for anything.

[Fyron]

Which bit torrent client are you using? uTorrent (http://www.utorrent.com/) usually works well. Which torrent are you using? The i386 (http://releases.ubuntu.com/6.10/ubuntu-6.10-desktop-i386.iso.torrent) desktop is probably what you want, right? Unless you are building a 64bit AMD system, though its not strictly necessary to use the AMD64 version. I've queued up the i386 ISO to see how it goes.

[geoschmo]

I was using Bit Tornado, but I downloaded uTorrent and am giving it a try. The Utorrent client seems a bit more familier to me than the Tornado one. We'll see if it does a better job.

I think mabe the reason it didn't pick up where it left off before was I hadn't saved the .torrent file, just clicked and opened it. If I understand it correctly now saving the torrent file to your pc is what allows you to resume a download after restarting? Or maybe not. I guess I'll see.

Yes, I am downloading the x86 iso, not the 64 Bit.

[capnq]

I couldn't get uTorrent to run on my antiquated system. I had to use Azureus to get the all-versions patch for SE IV.

[AgentZero]

capnq said:
I couldn't get uTorrent to run on my antiquated system. I had to use Azureus to get the all-versions patch for SE IV.



That's odd. I started using uTorrent because it used less resources than Azureus. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

Computers make no sense!

[Fyron]

Geo:
Were you trying to resume a broken download from IE/FF? If so, that might not work, because they tend to delete failed download files. If a partial .iso existed somewhere on disk, you should be able to point the torrent at it and get the client to keep whatever pieces of that file pass the hash checks, thus reduce the amount it has to download from the swarm.

You don't necessarily need to save the .torrent file to disk before opening it in a torrent client. You can redownload and restart the same .torrent and resume a partial torrent download (or reseed a completed download), so long as you point it at the existing .iso file (or whatever the torrent contained). Note that most clients save a copy of the .torrent files for future references.

AZ:
Its not so much about resources, as about win32 APIs. If a program is only designed to work with win2k/xp, it probably won't be able to run on win9x no matter what type of system is running the OS. win2k/xp have a lot of system APIs available that were not present in win9x.

[Suicide Junkie]

uTorrent runs just fine on 98se for me.

[Baron Munchausen]

I use utorrent on Win 98 myself (not even 'SE'!) It works great.

[Kamog]

What happened to OS/2? A long time ago when I was in university, some of my friends used OS/2 instead of Windows and thought it was great. It looked pretty good but I never used it. Then gradually I stopped hearing much about it and it somehow disappeared.

[Fyron]

Development of it stopped some time around the turn of the century.

[capnq]

According to this history (http://www.millennium-technology.com/HistoryOfOS2.html), OS/2 forked in 1990, and the branch that Microsoft controlled eventually became Windows NT. That page says the other branch had a new release coming in 1999.

[Fyron]

AgentZero said:
"Windoze XP Home Edition (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16832116056) for under $100 as long as you keep your receipts for mother board, hard drive, RAM and a CPU."

For reference, you only need that information to get a free (plus S.H.) upgrade to Vista from Microsoft, as part of their "don't hate us cause we released a month after Christmas" campaign. You don't need to actually buy such hardware; you can enter whatever serial numbers you like (even 0), apparently, and still get the free upgrade.

[geoschmo]

To get an upgrade I have to have a working OS of version 98 or later. I might be able to scrounge up a 98 install disk, but I don't have one handy at the moment.

If Microsoft was smart they'd stop making people jump through all the hoops and price their OS reasonably. I think a brand new full install of Vista might be worth 100. And maybe start discounting the older versions accordingly. If I could get a full version XP for 75-80 bucks I'd probably buy it. But for that price I only get an upgrade, and I have to have bought some hardware? That's stupid.

I got this Ubuntu downloaded and installed. I'm playing aroudn with it now. First impressions are very positive. It's pretty slick and easy to use. I haven't done a whole lot yet, but what I've done seems to work pretty well.

Have to show it to my niece and see if it meets all her needs though. Not sure if there are any apps she might want that I can't get for Linux. I might have to play around with Wine or Cedega or something before it's over. That will be another learning experience for me.

Geoschmo

[Fyron]

That's not what this is; it is an OEM copy of XP. It is not an upgrade copy, it is a full installer. You don't need to provide anyone any information to install or activate it. The "OEM" version simply means that its activation is tied to a motherboard, and you can't transfer the license to a new machine (like you can with a Retail full edition). When you buy the thing AZ linked to, you get a full, working copy of XP that is installed from a clean slate, not linked to upgrading any previous edition of Windows.

Where the upgrade comes into play is with Vista. In order to pacify customer complaints about Vista being delayed past the Christmas season, MS has offered discounted (or free, depending on what you have) upgrades to Vista for recently purchased OEM systems. They apparently also let system builders do it too, if they purchase an OEM (rather than retail) copy of XP. What Newegg is doing is simply providing you with information on this potential upgrade path.

==0==

When the time comes, post about any software she needs and we can probably provide a Linux alternative (unless it is a win32 only game, then you really need Wine/Cedega).

[GuyOfDoom]

The problem with Microsoft is they don't have to be nice or reasonable because everyone at this point needs there OS for some reason or another.

[geoschmo]

Imperator Fyron said:
That's not what this is; it is an OEM copy of XP. It is not an upgrade copy, it is a full installer. You don't need to provide anyone any information to install or activate it. The "OEM" version simply means that its activation is tied to a motherboard, and you can't transfer the license to a new machine (like you can with a Retail full edition). When you buy the thing AZ linked to, you get a full, working copy of XP that is installed from a clean slate, not linked to upgrading any previous edition of Windows.


That sounds better, but I'm curious how that works. Do I have to show proof of purchase to NewEgg(Or whoever I buy the OEM version from). How does one do that for an online purchase? Do have to fax it or something? I still think it's a stupid hoop to have to jump through. Why not simply say, "$90 bucks for a single use license." and only let you register it once. The same thing is accomplished without forcing someone to buy new hardware and turn in receipts. Hardware that isn't even being purchased from Microsoft. I must be missing something because it doesn't make sense to me.

[Fyron]

No, you don't have to give Newegg anything (other than money and a shipping address). You just buy it, they ship it, you install it. Nothing more. Noone is forced to buy new hardware or turn in any receipts. There are no hoops anywhere in the process (other than the Windows product activation, but that is just a trivial, automated step in the installation process).

AFAIK, the _only_ difference between purchasing an OEM copy of Windows and a Retail copy is that MS will not let you transfer the license to a new machine (defined by motherboard) down the line. With a Retail copy, you can generally get it to activate on a new machine by calling MS customer service and having them activate it over the phone.

The receipts bit is _only_ related to getting the discounted/free upgrade of Vista from Microsoft for buying an OEM PC (or being a system builder buying an OEM license) between 10/26/06 and 3/15/07. It is not the normal way to use an upgrade copy of Windows, which normally has no forms to fill out at all. That does not involve Newegg in any way. After getting the OEM copy of XP, you can apparently apply for the discounted Vista upgrade by just entering whatever serial numbers you like for the hardware, not having purchased any hardware at all, and MS will still ship you the Vista upgrade. Note that this is done on MS' web site, and is not any part of the XP installation or activation process.

[AgentZero]

Heh, sorry about the confusion, Geo. When I saw the disclaimer I jumped to the conclusion that they wanted receipts before they'd sell you an OEM copy, since nowhere does it say anything about a Vista upgrade. Thank goodness we have Fyron around to slap Newegg CS about and find out what they're really on about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[capnq]

geoschmo said: If Microsoft was smart they'd stop making people jump through all the hoops and price their OS reasonably.

Replace "smart" with "ethical", and I'd agree with you.

(My first two home computers were Amigas. I'm not allowed to have a rational opinion of Microsoft. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif)

[geoschmo]

Well, in a suposedly free-market economy like we have I wouldn't say charging too much for software would be an issue of ethics. It's not as if there aren't alternatives, and even if their weren't it's not a neccesary item, it's a luxury. It's not like I'm starving and they are gouging me cause they are the only source of food.

It just doesn't seem all that rational. Their pricing and other business practices are doing more towards strengthening their competitors then anything else. I guess when companies get on top they lose the long term view that allowed them to get where they are in the first place.

[Captain Kwok]

I'm not a software expert or anything, but I figure that if a PC game costs about $50 or so - then it's not so far fetched to believe an OS might cost a couple times more than that? After all, I'm sure it's a resource intensive project to co-ordinate and program etc... and it's not like their programmers are working for free.

[Jack Simth]

geoschmo said:
Well, in a suposedly free-market economy like we have I wouldn't say charging too much for software would be an issue of ethics. It's not as if there aren't alternatives, and even if their weren't it's not a neccesary item, it's a luxury. It's not like I'm starving and they are gouging me cause they are the only source of food.

It just doesn't seem all that rational. Their pricing and other business practices are doing more towards strengthening their competitors then anything else. I guess when companies get on top they lose the long term view that allowed them to get where they are in the first place.

Corporations are curious things.

They're legally required to make as much money as possible. If one of their investors finds out that a decision maker wasted money (whether that was by buying a company helicopter and hiring a pilot for his exclusive use so he can go island-hopping in the Bahamas or passing up a lucrative business opportunity) the investor can, no joke, sue the decision maker for the difference it was thought to have made in the investor's portfolio (there's some caveats, check with a lawyer if you're interested, but essentially, that's what can happen). Successfully, even, either collectively or individually.

This is part of the reason a lot of corporations are going private, nowadays.

So suppose we have a corporation - Macrohard, say - that has a very large portion of the market. Macrohard makes stuff - an operating system, call it Doors; and a document suite, call it Business. Macrohard has a huge market share. They dominate. Because they are so large and ingrained, they can do things nobody else can, that make them money faster.

Suppose, for instance, you're a business trying to avoid Macrohard's stuff. You've got a problem; most, if not all, of your suppliers and clients are using Business. You need to be able to successfully read the documents your suppliers and clients send you, and you need to be able to send your clients and suppliers documents that they can read. If all Business files are in a proprietary Macrohard format, you pretty much need something from Macrohard to read it. They distribute a free reader program to be in compliance with Fair Use, but it only runs on one of the last X versions of Doors, and it will not permit you to write documents in Business format to distribute. In order to communicate effectively with your suppliers and clients, you're kinda forced to get a version of Doors and Business; you're either in Business, or you're out of business in short order.

Now, suppose, a new version of Business comes out. It comes bundled with most new computers, and some of your suppliers and customers upgrade as they are getting new machines anyway. Macrohard has inserted some new features, though, and Business 2.0 files can't be read by Business 1.0 software (without your clients and suppliers going through a few hoops; Business 2.0 can write Business 1.0 files if you remember to tell it to do so, although it will goof the formatting every here and there, leading to miscommunications at times). Business 2.0 will usually read Business 1.0 files successfully... but it will get the formatting wrong every here and there, leading to miscommunications at times. As your suppliers and customers are now using Business 2.0 format, after a while, you find that in order to communicate effectively with your clients and suppliers, you need Business 2.0... or you're out of business. Macrohard has the capacity to very nearly force you to upgrade every so often, without breaking any laws at all. Every time you upgrade, you have to pay Macrohard a fee for the new licenses.

As Macrohard is a corporation, the decision-makers can be sued if they don't make as much money as they can. As most of the Macrohard decision-makers are also major investors, and making as much money as they can not only makes them money, but prevents them from being sued, what do you think they are going to do?

[GuyOfDoom]

The moral of the story is Corporations are evil.

[Fyron]

Which, of course, is inherently wrong. There is nothing intrinsically evil about corporations. Most businesses in the US are, in fact, corporations (particularly of the LLC variety). So unless you want to say every small business is evil...

[Jack Simth]

GuyOfDoom said:
The moral of the story is Corporations are evil.

No. But the rules of the game are set up to push them in that direction. Probably not deliberately.

[GuyOfDoom]

Jack Simth said:

GuyOfDoom said:
The moral of the story is Corporations are evil.

No. But the rules of the game are set up to push them in that direction. Probably not deliberately.



Capitalism is based on the fact that consumers can control businesses by a feedback loop in purchasing. The problem is most of the larger corporations now days can control that feedback loop by limiting or eliminating the flow of the key information which would affect that feedback loop. Capitalism is the "best" economic model out there right now, but it's flawed to it's very core.

[Renegade 13]

Any economic system is subject to being manipulated by those with greater power than the majority. This will be true as long as people are motivated by personal gain rather than the good of the many (ie: forever).

[AgentZero]

Of course, if we were all CEOs, we'd see no problem with this model whatsoever. Or would we? There's only one way to find out. We must all be made CEOs as part of a great social experiment! And of course we'd have to be allowed to keep all the money we embez- er... invest. It's only fair.

[Baron Munchausen]

AgentZero said:
Heh, sorry about the confusion, Geo. When I saw the disclaimer I jumped to the conclusion that they wanted receipts before they'd sell you an OEM copy, since nowhere does it say anything about a Vista upgrade. Thank goodness we have Fyron around to slap Newegg CS about and find out what they're really on about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif



Now if he'd just slap MS around and make them give us better license terms...

[geoschmo]

Well, I will say this about Linux. It may be that there are comparable programs out there for everyhting I need, but it's not always the easiest thing to get them loaded and running.

I sure am spoiled by Windows. You find a program, install it and it runs. I'm a moderatly techie individual and I'm findign it diffecult to get thigs setup in Ubuntu. Everything's got six lines of commands you have to type into the command line terminal, and even then maybe it won't work. I've been working on getting a wireless adapter setup for a few hours now and it's just not flying. I've found instructions in several places on the web, all of them with minor differences, and none of them seem to work.

I know the same thing would happen if I tried to plug non-supported hardware with windows, but it's still frusterating. The biggest problem I seem to be running into is there is just so much information out there it's tough to filter out those that know what they are talking about.

[Fyron]

For software installation, just use Synaptics. Its often as easy as Windows, cause you can get almost all software you'd need in one integrated package management application.

Network configuration is loads of fun... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

[Baron Munchausen]

That has been the standing complaint about Linux, recognized even by the geeks who are boosting it, for some years now. Linux is still not being adopted, despite being better at nearly everything. Linux has native security and has had for years. Windows is still a bug-riddled trojan that lets all the organized crime syndicates who have now entered into cyber crime do whatever they please with your machine. Apache on Linux is vastly more secure and more stable as a web server than Windows and IIS, and it can carry a much heavier load on the same hardware. Open Office has almost every single feature that MS Office has, and it is more backwards compatible than Office itself -- yes, a third party program is better at loading old Word or Excel files than brand-name MS Office! Games is where Windows still has the undisputed advantage. Everyone has gotten used to using Direct-X and it's hard to make the effort to independently learn how to program graphical hardware. But because it's still so hard to use -- the learning curve is just too steep for anyone but a tech geek -- almost no but but the geeks are using it. So it remains a niche product or a server OS at best while Windows continues to rule the desktop.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[Will]

For getting the wireless adapter to work, your best bet is probably to do a walkthrough on installing ndiswrapper, and wrapping the windows driver that came with the wireless card. There are a few wireless devices that are part of the kernel that will Just Work, but for the most part you need to get the Windows driver loaded into Linux.

[geoschmo]

Will said:
For getting the wireless adapter to work, your best bet is probably to do a walkthrough on installing ndiswrapper, and wrapping the windows driver that came with the wireless card. There are a few wireless devices that are part of the kernel that will Just Work, but for the most part you need to get the Windows driver loaded into Linux.

That sounds exactly like what I did, but it doesn't seem to see the adapter. I installed the driver, but I don't see where to go to get it to connect to my wireless network.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Market forces. If Linux becomes easier to use, more people will use it.

[parabolize]

Wireless is a pain in the butt with any OS besides windows. Don't jump on ndiswrapper right away; I have seen wireless cards not show up because /etc/network/interfaces has a typo or doesn't have wep set or the module hasn't been added to the repositories. With that said whats the hardware? This will display all your "pci" devices (actually a lot more but...):
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>lspci -v | less</pre><hr />
If its usb:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>lsusb -v | less</pre><hr />

It would help if you would post your /etc/network/interfaces and what you have done.

[geoschmo]

parabolize said:
With that said whats the hardware?



It's a Trendnet TEW424UB v2.0 which according to everything I've read is not supported natively by Ubuntu. That seems to be confirmed by the fact that when I plug it in it doesn't "just work". According to the info I could find it uses a driver sis163u.inf driver. I loaded that driver using the GUI driver interface thingy and it seems to work there, but it doesn't appear to find the hardware. I did notive when I do the command "ndiswrapper -l" it shows the driver as loaded but out to the right says "invalid driver!" so maybe I've got the wrong one somehow.

I'll play with it some more tonight and try your commands para.

On the bright side I have managed to load the flash and adobe plugins for firefox so at least browsing seems to work pretty well at this point. Using an ethernet cable was totally painless. Didn't have to do anything at all to get it to work except plug the cable into the NIC port. I'd just like to move off the floor next to my router and on to the desk, so I'd like to get that wireless working. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Anybody have any experience getting VNC to work? I want to load VNC server on the Ubuntu pc and use my windows laptop with the vnc client to control it. That should work, right? Or do I have to have the same OS on both machines to use VNC?

Geoschmo

[Fyron]

You can use VNC across OSes.

[parabolize]

Nevermind

[geoschmo]

How do I tell what version of ndiswrapper I have? This doc you linked to was one I found, but it's for Ubuntu 5.10 and I have 6.10. I assumed that page was out of date and that probably the ndiswrapper I had was actually the latest one.

Geoschmo

[parabolize]

5.10, 6.10 its close! You should have 1.18 which is a bit newer. You can check in synaptic with a search for ndiswrapper. Sorry about that.

[geoschmo]

Para, why did you edit out your post? I found the link, but you had some other stuff there. The ndiswrapper I have is 1.18, but according to this link the version I want is 1.5. Unless that's a misprint and they meant 1.05 or something, that's sounds newer than what I have.

Geoschmo

[parabolize]

Version 1.5 is from 2005-10-30 and 1.18 is 2006-06-22. After looking a while whoever made the ubuntu 6.10 ndiswrapper-utils also had trouble with looking at version numbers. XD
Did you install ndiswrapper-utils or ndiswrapper-utils-1.8?
bug (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ndiswrapper/+bug/59983)

[geoschmo]

I have:
ndiswrapper-common .............1.18-lubuntu2
ndiswrapper-utils .............1.1-5
ndiswrapper-utils-1.1 ..........1.1-5

[parabolize]

Yeah you want the 1.8 utils
run
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
sudo apt-get install ndiswrapper-utils-1.8
sudo ndiswrapper-1.8 -i /path/to/inf/SiS163u.INF
sudo modprobe ndiswrapper
</pre><hr />

[geoschmo]

Ok, I didn't do that yet, but I've made some progress. I found a post one place stating the XP driver may not work and to try the other versions. I got the driver to install with no errors by using the Win2K driver instead of the XP driver. Here's what I get now...

lsusb
Bus 001 Device 002: ID 0457:0163 Silicon Integrated Systems Corp.
Bus 001 Device 001: ID 0000:0000
ndiswrapper -l
Installed drivers:
sis163u driver installed, hardware present


It looks like progress to me, but I still cant' seem to figure out how to get the device to connect to my wireless network. And the led on the adapter isn't on. Any ideas?

Geoschmo

[parabolize]

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
sudo depmod -a
sudo modprobe ndiswrapper
</pre><hr />
Then look at the end of /var/log/messages for errors. Then go into System - Administration - Networking and set stuff up. If all works run this to load the mod at startup:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
sudo ndiswrapper -m
</pre><hr />

[geoschmo]

Ok, didn't see any errors in the log file. But when I do this...
sudo ndiswrapper -m

I get this...
modprobe config already contains alias directive

[parabolize]

Look for ndiswrapper in the list
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>gedit /etc/modules</pre><hr />

[geoschmo]

parabolize said:
Look for ndiswrapper in the list
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>gedit /etc/modules</pre><hr />



# /etc/modules: kernel modules to load at boot time.
#
# This file contains the names of kernel modules that should be loaded
# at boot time, one per line. Lines beginning with "#" are ignored.

lp


That's all. Don't see ndiswrapper in it.

[parabolize]

Open it again this time as super user:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>sudo gedit /etc/modules</pre><hr />
Add it at the bottom of the list and save like so:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
# /etc/modules: kernel modules to load at boot time.
#
# This file contains the names of kernel modules that should be loaded
# at boot time, one per line. Lines beginning with "#" are ignored.

lp
ndiswrapper
</pre><hr />

edit: Why o why has it taken to double spacing stuff inside code tags? It wasn't a few posts ago...

[geoschmo]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Para, I owe you a beer. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Wireless is workign great now. Thanks for all the help.

Geoschmo

[parabolize]

No problem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[TurinTurambar]

Wish I'd opened this last week; I have a brand new OEM copy of XP:Pro, still in the cellophane wrapper.

Oops,
TT

[Baron Munchausen]

What? You could have used Linux instead? Or you would have bought a retail copy of XP at the higher price instead?

I'll take the XP package if you don't want to use it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Windows still has its uses. For a while, anyway.

[Arralen]

Baron Munchausen said:
Windows still has its uses. For a while, anyway.



Until April, 2014:
End of extended support for XP prof and home ... .

Lets hope Reactos and/or Linux are really usuable by then!

(and if anyone else has a wrapped version of XP prof lying around - I would be glad to help him getting rid of it ;-) )

[AgentZero]

Heh, by 2014 we'll have mobile phones that can run XP fer cryin out loud, and a Vista machine would cost less than a grand. Still, I'm all in favour of the user-friendly Linux idea. That'd be sweet.

[Fyron]

A "vista machine" only costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 US, including the ability to run Aero.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Aero? Oreo? what do cookies have to do with vista?

[Santiago]

Give Microsoft Oreos and get Vista Aero

[frightlever]

If you're ever thinking of experimenting with Ubuntu again there are usually three versions on the go. I think the current 6.10 (Feisty Fawn?) is the latest stable version. There may be an unstable beta and there's the first time installers friend 6.06LTS - the ultra stable version. The LTS is for long term support, which is to say they'll support the OS repositories not that you have to buy a support package off them. I never had a problem with 6.06 but 6.10 eventually got kicked off my second machine.

[parabolize]

Arralen said:
Lets hope Reactos and/or Linux are really usuable by then!



Thats a rather silly general statement isn't it? With all the computers between us (routers, modems, dns, shrapnel...) I'm guessing your computer is the only one running windows and at least one of them is running Linux.

I think what you're talking about is games. ReactOS, Wine and Cedega will always have trouble with newer Windows games. Not only is there a delay from waiting for the OS and game to be released before the work on compatibility can start but it takes longer to create that compatibility than the OS and game. A better solution is to make cross-platform software. Sadly cross-platform software is often avoided by developers because they see no immediate benefit because the small market. Users don't use alternative operating systems because their games won't run.

If the gaming communities only hope for another OS instead of contributing to one they will never have one.

[parabolize]

AgentZero said:
Heh, by 2014 we'll have mobile phones that can run XP.



I'm not seeing the advantage to running XP over the faster, more specialized operating systems phones use now.

[AgentZero]

parabolize said:
I'm not seeing the advantage to running XP over the faster, more specialized operating systems phones use now.



I never said there'd be any advantage, only that it'd be possible.

[Phoenix-D]

Games is one issue, but Linux is simply a pain in the ***. The UI works all right, but it doesn't cover most essential functions, leaving only the command prompt and manually editing control files. Not a good thing. I shouldn't have to do that for basic tasks like installing drivers on a fresh machine..

[Renegade 13]

Personally, I don't understand what everyone's problem with XP is. I've never had any major difficulties with it that weren't my own fault for messing around with stuff I didn't understand at the time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif No viruses, trojans, etc, no instability, nothing. Been a smooth ride for me ever since my first computer with Win 95 on it.

*(Now will probably have a rash of problems, after making the above statement!)*

[parabolize]

Phoenix-D said:
Games is one issue, but Linux is simply a pain in the ***. The UI works all right, but it doesn't cover most essential functions, leaving only the command prompt and manually editing control files. Not a good thing. I shouldn't have to do that for basic tasks like installing drivers on a fresh machine..


Everything Geo did can be done from one GUI or another that is installed by default. The command line is a very useful tool in getting people to do exactly what you want because the commands can be copy/pasted.
You should also keep in mind windows often looks to the manufacturer for drivers. If Trendnet would have made a driver for Linux and not Windows anyone using Windows with that hardware would be out of luck.

[geoschmo]

Renegade 13 said:
Personally, I don't understand what everyone's problem with XP is. I've never had any major difficulties with it that weren't my own fault for messing around with stuff I didn't understand at the time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

XP has been quiet stable and decent for me as well. My only complaint is, as the thread title says, it's too expensive. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[geoschmo]

parabolize said:
Everything Geo did can be done from one GUI or another that is installed by default.

To be completely honest though I tried doing it using the GUI tools and it didn't work. Whether that is Linux's fault or my own I can't say, but it certainly wasn't as plug-and-play easy as XP.

Of course XP wouldn't be that plug-and-play easy if the hardware manufacturer hadn't spent the time and money to write a basically self-installing driver and included it in a CD with the adapter. And Linux could be if they would do the same for it. It's not an advantage of the OS per se as much as it is the fact that the hardware mfg did all the work for me.

[Phoenix-D]

Everything Geo did can be done from one GUI or another that is installed by default. The command line is a very useful tool in getting people to do exactly what you want because the commands can be copy/pasted.
You should also keep in mind windows often looks to the manufacturer for drivers. If Trendnet would have made a driver for Linux and not Windows anyone using Windows with that hardware would be out of luck.



Not talking about this specific case, just in general. Take the NVIDIA drivers, for example. Windows is download, double click. Linux is a hell of a lot more complicated.

[parabolize]

Linux:
System -&gt; Administration -&gt; Synaptic Package Manager
Settings -&gt; Repositories
Select Proprietary drivers for devices (restricted) and close the Repositories menu
Edit Menu -&gt; Reload Package Information
Edit Menu -&gt; Mark All Upgrades... -&gt; Default Upgrade
Edit Menu -&gt; Apply Marked Changes
Edit Menu -&gt; Search nvidia
Select nvidia-glx, nvidia-kernel-common
Package Menu -&gt; Mark for Installation
Edit Menu -&gt; Apply Marked Changes
Exit Synaptic
Run gksudo nvidia-xconfig from the run dialog (alt-F2) or terminal (Applications -&gt; Accesories -&gt; Terminal)
Restart Gnome (Press 'Ctrl + Alt + Backspace' or sudo /etc/init.d/gdm restart from a terminal or System -&gt; Quit -&gt; Reboot)

Windows:
Open nvidia.com in your browser.
Goto DOWNLOAD DRIVERS.
Select Graphics Driver -&gt; Hope you know what your hardware is -&gt; Windows XP/2000 -&gt; Go!
Select a mirror and download to somewhere
Turn off AV (God knows where to do this its different for each one).
Start Menu &gt; Windows Control Panel &gt; Add/Remove Programs and search for "NVIDIA Windows Display Drivers" or "NVIDIA Display Drivers" and select remove.
Select the driver if you remembered where you downloaded it you impulsive fool.
Walk though the install (select next and accept a bunch of times).
Start -&gt; Turn Off Computer -&gt; Restart
Turn on AV.

I don't see one being much easier then the other.

[capnq]

Renegade 13 said: Personally, I don't understand what everyone's problem with XP is.

From what I've read about them, XP and Vista both include a number of "features" and deliberate design decisions which IMO are Bad Ideas. (Mostly involving security and DRM issues, which I'd rather not get into a lengthy discussion of.)

I'm hoping to buy a used system in the near future, which is probably going to have XP already installed. I don't intend to connect it to the net until I've done some research on what settings I have to change to ameliorate the security problems.

[Baron Munchausen]

geoschmo said:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Para, I owe you a beer. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Wireless is working great now. Thanks for all the help.

Geoschmo



OK, now that you've struggled through a Linux install maybe you can answer some questions. I am about to buy some new HDs and try to setup a dual boot system. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Does Linux still need a dedicated 'swap partition'? I'd like to know before I put the install disk in whether I should have reserved a few gigs for swap. And did you need to reconfigure and recompile the kernel to make it work or is this just an option? (How much of the stuff on the disk comes with source code? Basically everything? Or just the kernel and the little Gnu utilities?)

[parabolize]

Yes you want a swap partition. How large depends on how much ram you got and how much processing power. You usually want twice your ram.
You usually don't need to recompile the kernel though adding non-free graphics modules is pretty normal (aka nvidia driver).
Almost none of a debian (ubuntu) install is source though all the packages have source available in the repositories. Other distributions are called source based and install/compile everything from source like Gentoo.

[Baron Munchausen]

Yeah, I'm still up in the air about which distro to use. Novell is in trouble with the OSS community, or I'd go with their very 'Windows friendly' package. Fedora is another possibility. I've heard both good and bad things about Ubuntu. The effort to make it 'easy' like Windows has apparently cut some corners.

[Fyron]

bah @ fedora. If you are concerned about Ubuntu, you could always go with Debian. Don't think you have to pick a distro and be stuck with it; play around for a while, see if it is for you, then decide whether to keep it or install something else. You can keep your /home partition separate so you don't lose some settings and such.

[parabolize]

Yeah, if you have the bandwidth download a few livecds and see which ones you like. Out of the ones you like do some research on their installer and package manager.

Also keep in mind what the distribution has installed by default isn't set in stone. I'm still running Ubuntu when I am using very little of gnome. If I was to reinstall I would probably do a custom net install from the Debian unstable repositories but my environment is far from user friendly or commonly preferd.

[Fyron]

And keep in mind that Fedora/Red Hat has a really lousy package management system. Not even a decent Debian-like central repository. :-\

[Baron Munchausen]

Hmm, isn't Novell using SUSE Linux? What's the difference between Novell's branded version and SUSE 10.2 (which is the latest, I believe)? Being on dialup, I'm not going to download a bunch of .ISO images. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I'll be going to a good source like cheapbytes.com and ordering CDs.

[parabolize]

SLE (http://www.novell.com/linux/) is aimed for businesses (lots of server support), openSUSE (http://en.opensuse.org) is aimed for everybody else. They both use YAST Package Manager which uses RPM (RedHat Package Managment) which most people agree stinks (certainly Debian users). They also can use Debian's APT (Advanced Package Tool - built off of dpkg) but don't do so for the default install.

[Baron Munchausen]

So you have to buy some 'derivative' distro to get the APT versions?

[parabolize]

Huh? With Ubuntu/Debian (free distros) its installed and used by default. SUSE can install it but it isn't there by default: howto (http://en.opensuse.org/APT)

[Baron Munchausen]

Well, a 'package' has to be prepared in advance. So, it seems likely you'd need to have a distribution prepared with the different package manager. It sounds like you're talking about something other than the storage format for the applications.

[Fyron]

Just some background info before I get to Suse..

A package manager is how you download and install software packages when you do not want to manually locate the source code on the net, compile it, then place the files in the necessary locations as per your distribution's file system scheme (which is somewhat standardized, but each distro has its own little tweaks). Most use of a package manager involves getting binaries directly, though it is possible to download things as source and still compile them yourself. The package will generally have a modified makefile with appropriate changes for the distribution, so it is still more automated than manual compiling.

In the Debian-based world, the fundamental package manager is apt (there are various GUI apps built off of it, but apt is the core). There are online package repositories available for each major apt-using distribution. These tend to have nearly every piece of linux software under the sun available and ready to install into the distribution. You use apt-search to look for packages, then apt-get to download and install them. You can also use apt to install a package you manually downloaded from some web site.

Then you have something like Red Hat's (or Fedora) RPM package manager, which (last I checked) only has the function to install package files you manually find on the net. There is not much in the way of a central online repository for competent ease of use.

For Suse, they seem to maintain their own package repositories already. OpenSuse 10.0 is already "prepared" to use apt. You do not need a "derivative" distribution of Suse to use it, you just need to install their version of apt and their sources file. You can just get OpenSuse 10.0 and download apt via YasT (as per the instructions on the site Parabolize linked). I have no idea how Suse' package repository compares to Debian or Ubuntu, though.

[geoschmo]

I believe Ubuntu uses Debian's apt, so technically those aren't separate items when discussing the package managers. That's my understanding anyway.

[Fyron]

I believe that Ubuntu has its own package repositories.

[parabolize]

I'm lost, what are we arguing about? Package managers and package repositories are related to each other (both having to do with software packages) but aren't the same thing. Both Debian and Ubuntu use apt as the package manager and both have their own repositories.
I'm not sure about apt being a fundamental or core package manager though. Wouldn't dpkg be the core package manager for Debian based distros?

[Fyron]

I wasn't aware that we were arguing; I thought we were just answering BM's questions?

apt, dpkg, whatever. I was just thinking in terms of aptitude and synaptics building off of apt.

[capnq]

FWIW, my techie girlfriend recommended Ubuntu over Suse when I mentioned an interest in trying Linux. She didn't really elaborate on what she disliked about Suse; I got the impression that she mostly disliked the attitude of the people who put together the Suse distribution.

[Baron Munchausen]

Heh...

Yes, Ubuntu is the 'vogue' right now because it's so much easier to install and use than many other distributions. But I am a techie myself, if a bit out of practice, and I want the extra widgets that come with the older distributions. Like source code. I'd probably go for Debian if it weren't so huge and covered so many CDs. I'll be trying to recompile Seamonkey with some advanced instructions (MMX for example) at the very least. Probably will go for a kernel recompile, too -- After I gain some confidence with the system.

[parabolize]

Ubuntu has all you need to compile seamonkey in the build-essential meta package though there isn't packages for seamonkey itself yet (you have to grab the source from mozilla.org for now). Its going to be hard to find a distribution that won't let you build and use a custom kernel though I'm not sure why you want to. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Baron Munchausen]

I am presuming that the kernel in nearly all distributions is also compiled for vanilla 'Pentium' rather than using any exotic instruction that risk compatibility. Many Linux installations are on very old hardware that doesn't have any other uses. I'd like to actually use the fancy capabilities of my hardware. The MMX instructions are now something close to 15 years old. Even SSE is about a decade old now. (And then there is SSE2 and SSE3, but I don't have any processors that handle those... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif ) Also, there might be some services included in the kernel by default that I don't need and don't want for security reasons. It's been a few years but I did tinker with Linux a bit back in the 1.x kernel days. Then, you had to recompile to change quite a few options. Maybe that has been fixed? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[parabolize]

For the most part yes the default kernel for a distribution is generic usually coming in 386, 686, k7, 64bit and what have you. I have never seen much improvement in making hardware specific kernels or software in general though many people still do it. If you think compiling for days just to get mild performance increases is what you want to do there are many distributions made around that ideology. I would suggest Gentoo.

One thing is for sure, configuring the kernel is a butt load easier then what you remember. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Here is a quick run through: Gentoo Handbook (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&amp;chap=7#doc_chap3)

[Baron Munchausen]

Days!? When I had Linux 1.x running on a 40 Mhz 386 it only took an hour and a half or so to recompile the kernel. Has it grown that much that it now needs days to recompile on modern hardware? Or has the optimization performed by the compiler become that arcane and complex?

Anyway, the kernel and the windowing system (when in use) underly all other programs running on the machine. I would expect any improved use of hardware features to have a noticeable effect on system performance.

[parabolize]

No, compiling the kernel itself is quite fast. But a stage 1 Gentoo install does often take days. Luckily it looks like the handbook is pushing a stage 3 these days.

[Baron Munchausen]

OK, every day I'm getting closer to actually swapping drives &amp; starting to install things. But I am trying to get everything in order. Since I don't have broadband, I need to know "How do you setup a modem in Linux?" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[parabolize]

This help? https://help.ubuntu.com/community/DialupModemHowto

[Baron Munchausen]

Well, here I am getting used to Windows XP -- only 6 years after everyone else! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif I finally got tired of 'preparing' and just made the switch last night. Any 'personal computer' is a moving target of course. You can never have everything just right. But thanks to all the preparation I am getting programs and data moved over very quickly. But it did keep me up into the wee hours.

In a few more days I expect to finally install Linux on the reserved partition.

[Ironmanbc]

I used Win 98se up to 2002 then I got Win XP pro, I haven't when back /threads/images/Graemlins/MusicalNote.gif

[Baron Munchausen]

Since I am trying to get XP settled before going on to Linux I'll ask some Windows questions here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

1) Does it do any 'good' to have IE 7 installed -- other than the obvious benefits of (supposedly) better security while browsing? I don't use IE but since it is so highly integrated into the main OS I am wondering if it gives some security benefits in other respects.

2) Exactly what is .NET good for? My copy of Win Xp Home came with .NET 1.1 and I am guessing it was installed by default (How do you tell what version of .NET is installed?) but I don't know what it means for how I use my computer.

3) Why do my XP video drivers offer fewer display modes than the Win98 drivers for the exact same video card?

4) Why is Win98 able to recognize and use an external modem turned on after it boots but XP cannot? I literally had to reboot just to be able to dial out. Deh!

[Fyron]

IE7 is a more secure platform than IE6. You can just block iexplore.exe from accessing the net with a software firewall if you want. That way, it won't actually be vulnerable to much.

.NET is good for the same things any language runtime is good for, running applications written for it. As Microsoft continues to push it as the default application environment in Vista going forward, it will become a more ubiquitous platform, akin to Java.

If you are lamenting the lack of 640x480, XP does not support that resolution for the desktop (which is for the best). Anything else would be the fault of the video driver writers, not XP. XP is capable of supporting a greater range of resolution than 98. As with any OS, it lists what the drivers tell it to. There are third party tools available that will let you specify nearly any arbitrary resolution, provided your video card and monitor are capable of rendering and displaying them. I don't recall their names off-hand, but surely google can unearth them.

How is the external modem connected? If its USB, I would suspect poor driver support and/or a faulty device. USB specifies hot plug swap-ability. If its connected to a MIDI port or something, I have no idea. Does it do it every time you try to run it, or was it only after the first use?

[aegisx]

IE 7 is pretty nice. It uses security model which is improved over IE 6. It has tabbed browsing and an Anti-phishing filter However IE7 is still the biggest target out of the browsers since it is used a lot.

[Baron Munchausen]

Ugh! I can't stand anything smaller than 1024X768 anymore. No, what I am missing is 1280X960. They have 1280X1024 (not the long standard aspect ratio of nearly all computer monitors) but not 1280X960??? Weird.

The external modem is on a serial port. It's a plain old USR Sportster. And unless it is ON when XP boots so it can detect it, I don't have the ability to use it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Also, one other nit I noticed. Why isn't there a 'most recently used documents' feature on the XP start menu? Was that too good an idea to carry over? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

[Captain Kwok]

Under Start Menu properties click on customize and you can choose which items you want in the start list, such as recent documents etc. I also switch to classic view because I like the traditional windows UI a bit more than the XP one.

[Fyron]

Baron Munchausen said:
"No, what I am missing is 1280X960. They have 1280X1024 (not the long standard aspect ratio of nearly all computer monitors) but not 1280X960??? Weird."

That would be a driver issue. XP has no qualms about displaying 1280x960 if the drivers say it is supported. But if the drivers don't tell it that they can support a resolution, XP will hide it. Try going under the Advanced display properties and clicking on List All Modes. Does it list 1280x960 modes? If not, hunt down a resolution tweaking tool and force it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Renegade 13]

Captain Kwok said:
I also switch to classic view because I like the traditional windows UI a bit more than the XP one.

I highly recommend switching to classic view as well; the default XP UI is way too flashy and colorful, with not nearly enough function to back it up.

[Baron Grazic]

Baron Munchausen said:
2) Exactly what is .NET good for? My copy of Win Xp Home came with .NET 1.1 and I am guessing it was installed by default (How do you tell what version of .NET is installed?) but I don't know what it means for how I use my computer.



Hi Baron.
To determine your .net version, check out the %systemroot%\Microsoft.NET\Framework directory. This will contain all installed versions.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/318785

[Baron Munchausen]

Ah... I keep forgetting that every single component or peripheral might need a manufacturer supplied driver. This despite the several thousand drivers included in Windows XP. Install driver for my monitor, then remove and re-install video card driver. Now it is properly recognized and I have zillions of video modes available again. Phew... What a pain in the arse it is to setup a computer.

[Baron Munchausen]

OK, with all the difficulties of setting up a new OS I am afraid to do the XP computer first. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif So I am planning to install Linux on a secondary system I have to learn how it goes. Questions:

1) If you want to run WINE is it required to have at least one partition with a Windows compatible file system on the machine or does WINE 'mask' the actual file system from Windows programs that you run?

2) This is an old system -- k6-2 -- what programs are 'lighter' on the CPU and would run better. XFce is supposed to be a light and fast windowing environment, for example. Does it lack a lot of functionality?

[Fyron]

Xfce lacks no functionality per se; what it lacks is resource-heavy apps and widgets shoehorned into KDE/Gnome. Another lightweight option is IceWM, which resembles Windows 95's look.

[parabolize]

1. Not only does WINE not need a windows partition I wouldn't recommend using one. Make sure WINE runs the applications you want though.

2. Yeah, Xfce4 will work fine. IceWM is a OK if old window manager but isn't a full desktop environment.

[Baron Munchausen]

What a day... it took a good five hours for SUSE 10.2 to install on the spare box. I sure hope that's because it's an older system (socket 7 MB with a K6-2) and doesn't indicate how long it will take on my main system. And even when I got it installed I had to putter around to figure out why it couldn't recognize the modem (forgot to disable the integrated com ports when putting the card in the machine) and then had to install kinternet manually because it wasn't installed initially.

In other news, there is apparently a bug in this kernel that prevents dialup from working. Connects fine, but then when I start to download something it always disconnects. I've Googled the log messages, and it seems there is a kernel bug that makes it barf on PPP compression. I need to figure out how to disable 'deflate' compression in the ppp daemon. Until I can figure out how and where to set the 'nodeflate' command for the ppp daemon, the box can't connect and get the updated kernel.

P.S. "APT" is not present in the SUSE 10.2 install. Guess I'll have to get it from the repository when I figure out the connection bug.

[Baron Munchausen]

Well, at least I found where to set the 'nodeflate' option and now my SUSE box can connect to the ISP and actually do something. Weirdly, there are no patches available even though 10.2 is more than six months old. Haven't there been quite a few iterations of the kernel by now?

APT is not available. XFce is not available. Both will have to be acquired from a 'third party' I guess. I expected to have to download Seamonkey directly. It's not 'official' anymore, but if XFce is not part of the SUSE package system, it might be a bit of a problem to maintain properly in the long run. ICEwm is there, however.

If I wanted to switch to ICEwm, how would I do that?

Also, if I wanted to try to shrink KDE a bit, where is there a guide to various things that can be disabled to make KDE less of a resource hog? I've reduced the fancy widgets in desktop settings, but there are probably a lot of other options that I won't figure out for some time. A guide to pruning/slimming KDE would be very useful.

[Fyron]

You'd install IceWM, and it should appear as a choice in KDM at login automatically (via proper configuration changes made by the package installer).

[Baron Munchausen]

Well, I had set 'automatic login' during setup so I didn't know it was possible to choose session type at login. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Anyway, after turning off automatic login I tried ICEwm and found it rather pathetic. A klunky interface was not what I wanted. (Maybe there is a way to configure it better?) A less burdensome window manager was what I wanted. What I'd like to do is reduce the system load of KDE. FVWM seems to be the main cause of KDE bloat. Is it possible to make KDE use a different window manager like ICEwm or WindowMaker? Or would these not support the functions that FVWM does?

Weirdly, though, many programs which were not listed in the KDE menus are listed in the ICEwm menus. Now why would a program be installed and not listed in the menus?

Also, how do I go about installing a manufacturer's video driver? The default driver for my Matrox video card doesn't support 3D functions. I have the Matrox driver(s) in a .tar archive but don't know how I'd install them.

And one other annoyance, my CD drive is constantly blinking! I remember this from Windows. There is some sort of autodetect that checks for a disk every few seconds. I was able to turn it off in Windows but haven't figured out how to turn it off in SUSE Linux yet. There must be a setting somewhere, just like in Windows?

Also, I found that I cannot uninstall Firefox despite it's being a supposed 'third party' application. When I try I get a bunch of dependency warning about X11 -- So apparently I'd damage or disable X11 by removing it. This smacks of Microsoft tactics. Why would they put something essential to the windowing system into an application library?

[Fyron]

Less burdensome? Try openbox. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

KDE and Gnome are not window managers themselves; they contain a window manager (metacity for Gnome, and I forget what KDE uses). You can replace it, but I forget how. Google knows. Openbox might be a nice solution to try.

"Weirdly, though, many programs which were not listed in the KDE menus are listed in the ICEwm menus. Now why would a program be installed and not listed in the menus?"

Because it isn't Windows or Mac OS X, and each DE and WM has its own menu system. Some of them try to share some info with each other, but they all maintain separate lists.

"Also, I found that I cannot uninstall Firefox despite it's being a supposed 'third party' application. When I try I get a bunch of dependency warning about X11 -- So apparently I'd damage or disable X11 by removing it. This smacks of Microsoft tactics. Why would they put something essential to the windowing system into an application library?"

They don't, and you can successfully remove FF without damaging X11 (X11 and Gecko have nothing to do with each other, unlike IE and Explorer's window managing bits). The most likely explanation is that the package manager is erroneously detecting some X-related libraries as no longer being dependencies of anything, and thus marking them as safe for removal. Its most likely a bug/configuration error in the package manager.

[Baron Munchausen]

There is an option under Yast -&gt; System -&gt; System settings to set the 'default window manager' but I'm not sure if that would keep the KDE desktop on top of the new manager or just switch to a different environment... like Windowmaker.

Now there is a cool desktop. I really like the 'look and feel' and it's noticably quicker and smoother than KDE. The problem is, it doesn't have a 'taskbar' like KDE or ICEwm and I can't figure out how to manage the applets that are normally parked in the tray. Starting any app creates a 'box' on the desktop, but then what? Right-clicking doesn't bring up the menu like it does in KDE. How do you make Kinternet dialout if you can get the context menu? So I can't figure out how to activate them.

And it looks like the "beagle" desktop search utility is dependent on Firefox so I can't remove it until I find a different desktop search program. It's very useful to be able to do brute force searches for things in those zillions of directories that *ix systems use.

[Fyron]

If its within KDE's config apps, I would assume it applies to the window manager KDE uses. You can always set it back if it isn't, right?

You can do brute force searches with the "find" utility...