Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dual CPU good for XP ?

Last response: in Systems
Share
January 22, 2005 3:09:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Can Windows XP makes use of both CPUs for faster processing when running
in a dual CPU PC ? I wish to run Windows Media Encoder for streaming,
but it seems only a few clients already overload my single P4 based PC !

More about : dual cpu good

Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2005 3:09:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <csr9fo$hfb2@imsp212.netvigator.com>, johnn says...
> Can Windows XP makes use of both CPUs for faster processing when running
> in a dual CPU PC ? I wish to run Windows Media Encoder for streaming,
> but it seems only a few clients already overload my single P4 based PC !
>
XP Home is single CPU only so you need Pro. Are you sure the clients
aren't overloading the network bandwidth?



--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2005 3:09:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.

--
DaveW



"johnn" <johnjohn9191@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:csr9fo$hfb2@imsp212.netvigator.com...
> Can Windows XP makes use of both CPUs for faster processing when running
> in a dual CPU PC ? I wish to run Windows Media Encoder for streaming, but
> it seems only a few clients already overload my single P4 based PC !
>
Related resources
January 22, 2005 2:08:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I demand that on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:27:41 -0800, DaveW may or may not
have written:

> Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
> Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.

Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out ;) 

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2005 2:55:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <pan.2005.01.22.10.08.11.838256@idontlike.spam>, jafar
says...
> I demand that on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:27:41 -0800, DaveW may or may not
> have written:
>
> > Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
> > Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.
>
> Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
> if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out ;) 
>
And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.



--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton
January 22, 2005 2:55:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

>>>Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
>>>Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.
>>
>>Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
>>if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out ;) 
>>
> And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
> spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.


Switch to Linux and you can run as many cpu's as you like, but the above
post is conservative about wasting half your time trying to get things
to work, it will consume the majority of your time.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2005 8:11:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

A few observations:
If Johnn is willing to go to a dual CPU system, is he really likely to worry
about the price of XP-Pro?
Will Linux run Windows Media Encoder, the app he wants the system for?
If Linux will run as many CPU's as you like, where do you get to odd off-the
shelf 4 CPU motherboard?

Hmmm... A 4 CPU AMD system, at least you wouldn't need to heat the house!

Ian

"Kram" <BB@King.com> wrote in message
news:D tidnfFptIpf7m_cRVn-jA@comcast.com...
>
>>>>Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
>>>>Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.
>>>
>>>Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
>>>if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out ;) 
>>>
>> And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
>> spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.
>
>
> Switch to Linux and you can run as many cpu's as you like, but the above
> post is conservative about wasting half your time trying to get things to
> work, it will consume the majority of your time.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 22, 2005 9:20:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:11:43 +0000 (UTC), "Ian Boys"
<TooMuchSpam@BTInternet.com> wrote:

>A few observations:
>If Johnn is willing to go to a dual CPU system, is he really likely to worry
>about the price of XP-Pro?

Who likes to waste money?
If he needs XP Pro, which he probably does, that's one
thing. Arguing to spend an extra $120 unnecessarily is a
different matter.


>Will Linux run Windows Media Encoder, the app he wants the system for?
>If Linux will run as many CPU's as you like, where do you get to odd off-the
>shelf 4 CPU motherboard?

So you claim it needs 4 CPUs?
Nobody else has mentioned this?


>
>Hmmm... A 4 CPU AMD system, at least you wouldn't need to heat the house!

You are aware that every AMD CPU after the old Palomino
core, has produced less heat than the contemporary P4
alternatives? If one chose a 4 CPU AMD box, there would be
enough idling that it probably wouldn't be much hotter than
2 x P4 Prescotts.
January 23, 2005 1:43:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I demand that on Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:39:46 -0600, Kram may or may not have
written:

>
>>>>Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
>>>>Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.
>>>
>>>Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
>>>if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out ;) 
>>>
>> And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
>> spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.
>
>
> Switch to Linux and you can run as many cpu's as you like, but the above
> post is conservative about wasting half your time trying to get things
> to work, it will consume the majority of your time.

If linux is good enough for major film studios like Pixar, then maybe
johnn has an option there. I was just making a helpful suggestion.
Naturally linux would require some setting up, but so would windows if you
want to do more than just play games ;) 

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 11:49:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
> spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.

That's not true, and let's not get this started again...


--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 12:19:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Kram wrote:

>> And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
>> spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.
>
>
> Switch to Linux and you can run as many cpu's as you like, but the above
> post is conservative about wasting half your time trying to get things
> to work, it will consume the majority of your time.

I'm trying to not get pulled into this, but this is absolutely false. I've
been running Linux on a computer right next to my Windows machine for about
5 years now, and I've never had such a misery installing it. Sure, if you
have hardware you have to have running, and your OEM doesn't support Linux
(it's the OEM's fault that Linux doesn't support it, since they chose not
to support Linux), or the their isn't enough Linux users demanding support
for it so that a couple of willing developers donate their precious time to
write drivers for it, despite no OEM support, then you might have a
problem. If you stick with common hardware that was released _before_ your
Linux distro, you should have no problems.

Secondly, when a problem with something does occur in Linux, I find it far
easier to fix. Usually, I just delete the irritant application's 'rc' file,
and it gets rebuilt by the application with default settings, and I'm back
to normal. No registry to deal with, and rc and config files are written in
almost spoken English and easy to decipher and change.

Lastly, I can install Linux, a bunch of applications, and all of my drivers
and have it setup and running properly in just about 2 hours. Windows, on
the otherhand, usually takes days to install everything one at a time after
the OS itself has been installed. Distros like Mandrake and SuSE just about
take care of themselves, and what isn't can be setup with very few steps.

Now, I don't want to get into debating Linux use on the desktop by normal,
average, everyday users, but this is the absolute truth. Anyone who wants
to find out how well Linux runs on their system can download Knoppix @
www.knoppix.com, Mandrake Move @ www.mandrakelinux.com/en/ftp.php3 (scroll
down to Mandrake Move Download Edition), or SuSE LiveCD @ ftp.suse.com
(they're rather busy lately) and see for themselves how easy it is to
install and use. These run off of the CD, so you aren't really installing
anything, despite something of an installation process. If you want to use
the CD over and over for occasional Linux use, some of them require you to
have a partition that isn't NTFS to save your preferences and stuff.

Also, these editions probably do not have any nVidia or ATi driver support
(only open source drivers that aren't as good for 3D use), and you probably
won't have RealPlayer, FlashPlayer, Java, or any other non-open source
software support. You will have an open source Acrobat reader, though. To
get that stuff, you must purchase a retail version. Mandrake has a retail
version of Move that still runs off of the CD and has all the proprietary
drivers and software. SuSE is currently offering a free ftp download of the
complete retail Professional version of SuSE Linux 9.2, but the ftp site
and mirrors are clogged with downloaders right now. Besides, ftp downloads
will work fine, but getting ISOs to burn your own CDs are much nicer
because you won't have to go through the trouble of downloading it again if
you screw something up and have to wipe it.

That aside, there's nothing wrong with wanting to run WindowsXP. If the user
isn't interested in trying Linux, then that's his prerogative. I'm not
advocating that he should, but just that it isn't has bad as people claim.


--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 1:50:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ian Boys wrote:
> A few observations:
> If Johnn is willing to go to a dual CPU system, is he really likely to worry
> about the price of XP-Pro?
> Will Linux run Windows Media Encoder, the app he wants the system for?
> If Linux will run as many CPU's as you like, where do you get to odd off-the
> shelf 4 CPU motherboard?
>
> Hmmm... A 4 CPU AMD system, at least you wouldn't need to heat the house!
>
> Ian
>
snip...
While finding a 4-processor motherboard isn't difficult, finding the
money to purchase one and then populate it properly certainly would be.
Even contemplating such numbers so early on a Sunday morning makes my
head hurt...

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/GC-...

--
John McGaw
[Knoxville, TN, USA]
http://johnmcgaw.com
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 2:09:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Nope, didn't claim anything regarding the number or CPU's needed. But, the
newsgroup is about "homebuilt" and I was just making the point that to find
a motherboard that takes more than 2 CPU's is a bit like finding hen's
teeth.

I wish I had the time to set up a Linux system and really get to know it.
I'm involved with some charity work in a 3rd world country where a good,
stable file server would be great. At the moment I've given them a NAS which
works well as a file server but is somewhat limited in anything else it can
do.

Ian

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:8465v0pmrnn03vd0lsb19md84ge0p87e0h@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:11:43 +0000 (UTC), "Ian Boys"
> <TooMuchSpam@BTInternet.com> wrote:
>
>>A few observations:
>>If Johnn is willing to go to a dual CPU system, is he really likely to
>>worry
>>about the price of XP-Pro?
>
> Who likes to waste money?
> If he needs XP Pro, which he probably does, that's one
> thing. Arguing to spend an extra $120 unnecessarily is a
> different matter.
>
>
>>Will Linux run Windows Media Encoder, the app he wants the system for?
>>If Linux will run as many CPU's as you like, where do you get to odd
>>off-the
>>shelf 4 CPU motherboard?
>
> So you claim it needs 4 CPUs?
> Nobody else has mentioned this?
>
>
>>
>>Hmmm... A 4 CPU AMD system, at least you wouldn't need to heat the house!
>
> You are aware that every AMD CPU after the old Palomino
> core, has produced less heat than the contemporary P4
> alternatives? If one chose a 4 CPU AMD box, there would be
> enough idling that it probably wouldn't be much hotter than
> 2 x P4 Prescotts.
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 5:16:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

John McGaw wrote:


> While finding a 4-processor motherboard isn't difficult, finding the
> money to purchase one and then populate it properly certainly would be.
> Even contemplating such numbers so early on a Sunday morning makes my
> head hurt...
>
> http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/GC-...

I like this one much better:

http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Sc...

$1700! That's just for the motherboard!


--

Registered Linux user #378193
January 23, 2005 8:05:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Yes, but Windows Media Encoder cannot run in Lunux !
:-(

Thanks to all have replied


jafar wrote:
> I demand that on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:27:41 -0800, DaveW may or may not
> have written:
>
>
>>Windows XP Home can only run ONE CPU.
>>Windows XP Pro can run TWO CPU's.
>
>
> Linux can run on as many CPU's as you like. That may be an option for you
> if the cost of XP Pro makes you freak out ;) 
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 9:38:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"johnn" <johnjohn9191@hotmail.com> wrote...
>> Can Windows XP makes use of both CPUs for faster processing when running in a
>> dual CPU PC ? I wish to run Windows Media Encoder for streaming, but it
>> seems only a few clients already overload my single P4 based PC !

Win XP Pro supports 2 CPUs. How much of a performance boost you get depends on
the SMP capabilities of the app you are running, though you will get some
performance regardless because of multiple OS threads allocated among the CPUs.

Bottom line is, a pair of Xeons will help a lot!
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 10:43:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <sVNId.3785$dm5.2642@fe37.usenetserver.com>, Ruel Smith
says...
> Conor wrote:
>
> > And even then, XP is far better if you wish to use your PC rather than
> > spend half your time trying to get stuff to work.
>
> That's not true, and let's not get this started again...
>
It is true and whats more, you know it is. Everything from having to
edit config files to add hdparm options to get DMA enabled on DVD ROMs
to the nightmare that CUPS can be when trying to install a printer.


--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 10:43:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> It is true and whats more, you know it is. Everything from having to
> edit config files to add hdparm options to get DMA enabled on DVD ROMs
> to the nightmare that CUPS can be when trying to install a printer.

Let's see: To install a new printer in Mandrake Linux, you go to
Kmenu->System->Configuration->Configure your computer. Now, you select
Hardware->Printers and it automatically detects your printer and sets it up
for you. If it does not, then you do it by clicking Add Printer from the
toolbar and following a simple littel wizard. That was just too difficult,
wasn't it? I know that SuSE has something very similar in their YaST
administration tool, that puts the Windows Control Panel to shame.

SuSE's YaST configuration/administration tool allows you to set DMA settings
by point and click. Yes, other Linux distros aren't so easy.

Now, let's get into editing config files. Here's a random sample of a config
file, specifically kdeglobals:

[DesktopIcons]
ActiveColor=169,156,255
ActiveEffect=togamma
ActiveSemiTransparent=false
ActiveValue=0.7
Animated=true
DefaultColor=144,128,248
DefaultEffect=none
DefaultSemiTransparent=false
DefaultValue=1
DisabledColor=34,202,0
DisabledEffect=togray
DisabledSemiTransparent=true
DisabledValue=1
DoublePixels=false
GridXSpacing=50
Size=32

[DirSelect Dialog]
DirSelectDialog Size=400,450
History Items=file:/home

[General]
TerminalApplication=konsole
fixed=Courier [ibm],10,-1,5,50,0,0,0,0,0
widgetStyle=thinkeramik

[Global Shortcuts]
Popup Launch Menu=default(Alt+F1)
Switch to Desktop 10=Ctrl+F10
Switch to Desktop 11=Ctrl+F11
Switch to Desktop 12=Ctrl+F12
Switch to Desktop 8=Ctrl+F8
Switch to Desktop 9=Ctrl+F9
Switch to Next Desktop=none
Switch to Previous Desktop=none
Window Maximize=none
Window Maximize Vertical=none
Window to Next Desktop=none
Window to Previous Desktop=none

[Icons]
Theme=crystalsvg

[KDE]
AutoSelectDelay=-1
DoubleClickInterval=400
EffectAnimateCombo=true
EffectAnimateMenu=false
EffectAnimateTooltip=false
EffectFadeMenu=false
EffectFadeTooltip=true
EffectNoTooltip=false
EffectsEnabled=true
InsertTearOffHandle=1
ShowIconsOnPushButtons=true
SingleClick=false
StartDragDist=4
StartDragTime=500
VisualActivate=1
WheelScrollLines=3
colorScheme=Galaxy.kcsrc
contrast=7
cursorTheme=whiteglass

....

Wow! That's absolute greek! A moron could edit this file. This file is
typical of a config file for Linux. It was located in my home directory (~)
at ~/.kde/share/config/kdeglobals. All user config files are located in
their home directory, and global config files are usually located in /etc
and are only editable with root permissions.

Let's look at a very commonly edited file in their, XF86Config:



--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 10:43:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

> It is true and whats more, you know it is. Everything from having to
> edit config files to add hdparm options to get DMA enabled on DVD ROMs
> to the nightmare that CUPS can be when trying to install a printer.

Let's see: To install a new printer in Mandrake Linux, you go to
Kmenu->System->Configuration->Configure your computer. Now, you select
Hardware->Printers and it automatically detects your printer and sets it up
for you. If it does not, then you do it by clicking Add Printer from the
toolbar and following a simple littel wizard. That was just too difficult,
wasn't it? I know that SuSE has something very similar in their YaST
administration tool, that puts the Windows Control Panel to shame.

SuSE's YaST configuration/administration tool allows you to set DMA settings
by point and click. Yes, other Linux distros aren't so easy. However, their
not all that difficult, either.

Now, let's get into editing config files. Here's a random sample of a config
file, specifically kdeglobals:

[DesktopIcons]
ActiveColor=169,156,255
ActiveEffect=togamma
ActiveSemiTransparent=false
ActiveValue=0.7
Animated=true
DefaultColor=144,128,248
DefaultEffect=none
DefaultSemiTransparent=false
DefaultValue=1
DisabledColor=34,202,0
DisabledEffect=togray
DisabledSemiTransparent=true
DisabledValue=1
DoublePixels=false
GridXSpacing=50
Size=32

[DirSelect Dialog]
DirSelectDialog Size=400,450
History Items=file:/home

[General]
TerminalApplication=konsole
fixed=Courier [ibm],10,-1,5,50,0,0,0,0,0
widgetStyle=thinkeramik

[Global Shortcuts]
Popup Launch Menu=default(Alt+F1)
Switch to Desktop 10=Ctrl+F10
Switch to Desktop 11=Ctrl+F11
Switch to Desktop 12=Ctrl+F12
Switch to Desktop 8=Ctrl+F8
Switch to Desktop 9=Ctrl+F9
Switch to Next Desktop=none
Switch to Previous Desktop=none
Window Maximize=none
Window Maximize Vertical=none
Window to Next Desktop=none
Window to Previous Desktop=none

[Icons]
Theme=crystalsvg

[KDE]
AutoSelectDelay=-1
DoubleClickInterval=400
EffectAnimateCombo=true
EffectAnimateMenu=false
EffectAnimateTooltip=false
EffectFadeMenu=false
EffectFadeTooltip=true
EffectNoTooltip=false
EffectsEnabled=true
InsertTearOffHandle=1
ShowIconsOnPushButtons=true
SingleClick=false
StartDragDist=4
StartDragTime=500
VisualActivate=1
WheelScrollLines=3
colorScheme=Galaxy.kcsrc
contrast=7
cursorTheme=whiteglass

....

Wow! That's absolute greek! A moron could edit this file. This file is
typical of a config file for Linux. It was located in my home directory (~)
at ~/.kde/share/config/kdeglobals. All user config files are located in
the home directory, and global config files are usually located in /etc
and are only editable with root permissions.

Let's look at a very commonly edited file in there, XF86Config:

Section "Files"
# Multiple FontPath entries are allowed (they are concatenated together)
# By default, Mandrake 6.0 and later now use a font server independent
of
# the X server to render fonts.
FontPath "unix/:-1"
EndSection

Section "ServerFlags"
#DontZap # disable <Crtl><Alt><BS> (server abort)
AllowMouseOpenFail # allows the server to start up even if the mouse
doesn't work
#DontZoom # disable <Crtl><Alt><KP_+>/<KP_-> (resolution switching)
EndSection

Section "Module"
Load "dbe" # Double-Buffering Extension
Load "v4l" # Video for Linux
Load "extmod"
Load "type1"
Load "freetype"
Load "dri" # direct rendering
Load "/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/extensions/libglx.a"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier "Keyboard1"
Driver "keyboard"
Option "XkbModel" "pc105"
Option "XkbLayout" "en_US"
Option "XkbOptions" ""
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"
Identifier "Mouse1"
Driver "mouse"
Option "Protocol" "ExplorerPS/2"
Option "Device" "/dev/mouse"
Option "ZAxisMapping" "6 7"
EndSection

....

Again, this is so simple a moron could edit it. What do you think Load
means? What about Option? It's almost spoken English!

Now, go open up RegEdit in WindowsXP and have a look around. Don't change
anything, or your system could lock up! Have a look at the Greek hexcode
and values that are set in that primitive database it uses for keeping all
of its system values.

I know Windows sets all of these things up in the registry for you, but it
gets corrupted, and many features aren't available without registry hacks.
You find them all the time on The Screen Savers, and in PC World magazine.
Hacking the registry is dangerous and not for the faint of heart.

However, screw up something in Linux and it can be fixed without even
rebooting. For most user config files, simply deleting them and letting the
offending app rebuild it from scratch with default settings fixes
everything. For system config files like XF86Config, they system saves a
backup, which is the last good file before it was changed, that just has to
be restored. Like magic, you're up and running again.

The info in the config files in Linux are set up for you by system utilities
too. If you use SuSE, it's doubtful that you'll ever have to touch a config
file manually. YaST is that good. However, even though some distros require
at least some manual tinkering, it's all easy, it's done everyday by users,
and help can be found at alt.os.linux.<distro name> or by going to
groups.google.com and doing a search.

To beat it all, I'm a rather novice Linux user and I can do all of this.
It's simple.


--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 10:43:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Sorry about the partial response, I was working on it when I accidentally
sent it...


--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 11:06:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:09:45 +0000 (UTC), "Ian Boys"
<TooMuchSpam@BTInternet.com> wrote:


>I wish I had the time to set up a Linux system and really get to know it.
>I'm involved with some charity work in a 3rd world country where a good,
>stable file server would be great. At the moment I've given them a NAS which
>works well as a file server but is somewhat limited in anything else it can
>do.
>
>Ian
>


Even those who might have trouble getting audio/video
working good in linux should be able to get a simple
fileserver going. There are even a few that run from floppy
(a fileserver really doesn't need a GUI) and need very
little if any modifications if you use a common, supported
network adapter. Google for 'em.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 23, 2005 11:08:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:05:53 +0800, johnn
<johnjohn9191@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Yes, but Windows Media Encoder cannot run in Lunux !
>:-(
>
>Thanks to all have replied
>
>

But is that necessarily a bad thing?
I'd only use Windows media if forced to.
January 23, 2005 11:27:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I'm top posting to avoid all the bs:

I'm a pretty typical moron, I've build my own windows box, reworked
macs, can get around in any macOS or windows (after 95), partitioned
hard drives, blah, blah. Raised with a mouse and haven't felt the need
to learn command lines. So what you posted below is jiberish to me.

Mac & windows have spoiled me with their gui interfaces.

Yes, I've loaded several linux distros on their own partitions to play
with, and Mandrake is very close to being a good gui distro. But
installing programs is still difficult for me. No, I don't want to
start using command lines.

Yes, Mandrake installs easy, picks up all my hardware and everything is
up and running and Internet hookup is a breeze, but installing software
by double clicking on an icon is pathetically simple, and that is what I
want, and speed, on my Athlon 2100 Mandrake 10.1 is still noticeably slower.

I'm sure it is all very simple for you, but not for me, and I think most
people are like me, when linux is as fast and everything can be done
with the click of a mouse, it is just a project, not useful.

I'll try Linux again when 10.2 Mandrake comes out for free. If I can
double click to install programs, then I'll use it more often, 10.1 I
deleted from my hard drive to make room for videos.

Mark
>>It is true and whats more, you know it is. Everything from having to
>>edit config files to add hdparm options to get DMA enabled on DVD ROMs
>>to the nightmare that CUPS can be when trying to install a printer.
>
>
> Let's see: To install a new printer in Mandrake Linux, you go to
> Kmenu->System->Configuration->Configure your computer. Now, you select
> Hardware->Printers and it automatically detects your printer and sets it up
> for you. If it does not, then you do it by clicking Add Printer from the
> toolbar and following a simple littel wizard. That was just too difficult,
> wasn't it? I know that SuSE has something very similar in their YaST
> administration tool, that puts the Windows Control Panel to shame.
>
> SuSE's YaST configuration/administration tool allows you to set DMA settings
> by point and click. Yes, other Linux distros aren't so easy. However, their
> not all that difficult, either.
>
> Now, let's get into editing config files. Here's a random sample of a config
> file, specifically kdeglobals:
>
> [DesktopIcons]
> ActiveColor=169,156,255
> ActiveEffect=togamma
> ActiveSemiTransparent=false
> ActiveValue=0.7
> Animated=true
> DefaultColor=144,128,248
> DefaultEffect=none
> DefaultSemiTransparent=false
> DefaultValue=1
> DisabledColor=34,202,0
> DisabledEffect=togray
> DisabledSemiTransparent=true
> DisabledValue=1
> DoublePixels=false
> GridXSpacing=50
> Size=32
>
> [DirSelect Dialog]
> DirSelectDialog Size=400,450
> History Items=file:/home
>
> [General]
> TerminalApplication=konsole
> fixed=Courier [ibm],10,-1,5,50,0,0,0,0,0
> widgetStyle=thinkeramik
>
> [Global Shortcuts]
> Popup Launch Menu=default(Alt+F1)
> Switch to Desktop 10=Ctrl+F10
> Switch to Desktop 11=Ctrl+F11
> Switch to Desktop 12=Ctrl+F12
> Switch to Desktop 8=Ctrl+F8
> Switch to Desktop 9=Ctrl+F9
> Switch to Next Desktop=none
> Switch to Previous Desktop=none
> Window Maximize=none
> Window Maximize Vertical=none
> Window to Next Desktop=none
> Window to Previous Desktop=none
>
> [Icons]
> Theme=crystalsvg
>
> [KDE]
> AutoSelectDelay=-1
> DoubleClickInterval=400
> EffectAnimateCombo=true
> EffectAnimateMenu=false
> EffectAnimateTooltip=false
> EffectFadeMenu=false
> EffectFadeTooltip=true
> EffectNoTooltip=false
> EffectsEnabled=true
> InsertTearOffHandle=1
> ShowIconsOnPushButtons=true
> SingleClick=false
> StartDragDist=4
> StartDragTime=500
> VisualActivate=1
> WheelScrollLines=3
> colorScheme=Galaxy.kcsrc
> contrast=7
> cursorTheme=whiteglass
>
> ...
>
> Wow! That's absolute greek! A moron could edit this file. This file is
> typical of a config file for Linux. It was located in my home directory (~)
> at ~/.kde/share/config/kdeglobals. All user config files are located in
> the home directory, and global config files are usually located in /etc
> and are only editable with root permissions.
>
> Let's look at a very commonly edited file in there, XF86Config:
>
> Section "Files"
> # Multiple FontPath entries are allowed (they are concatenated together)
> # By default, Mandrake 6.0 and later now use a font server independent
> of
> # the X server to render fonts.
> FontPath "unix/:-1"
> EndSection
>
> Section "ServerFlags"
> #DontZap # disable <Crtl><Alt><BS> (server abort)
> AllowMouseOpenFail # allows the server to start up even if the mouse
> doesn't work
> #DontZoom # disable <Crtl><Alt><KP_+>/<KP_-> (resolution switching)
> EndSection
>
> Section "Module"
> Load "dbe" # Double-Buffering Extension
> Load "v4l" # Video for Linux
> Load "extmod"
> Load "type1"
> Load "freetype"
> Load "dri" # direct rendering
> Load "/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/extensions/libglx.a"
> EndSection
>
> Section "InputDevice"
> Identifier "Keyboard1"
> Driver "keyboard"
> Option "XkbModel" "pc105"
> Option "XkbLayout" "en_US"
> Option "XkbOptions" ""
> EndSection
>
> Section "InputDevice"
> Identifier "Mouse1"
> Driver "mouse"
> Option "Protocol" "ExplorerPS/2"
> Option "Device" "/dev/mouse"
> Option "ZAxisMapping" "6 7"
> EndSection
>
> ...
>
> Again, this is so simple a moron could edit it. What do you think Load
> means? What about Option? It's almost spoken English!
>
> Now, go open up RegEdit in WindowsXP and have a look around. Don't change
> anything, or your system could lock up! Have a look at the Greek hexcode
> and values that are set in that primitive database it uses for keeping all
> of its system values.
>
> I know Windows sets all of these things up in the registry for you, but it
> gets corrupted, and many features aren't available without registry hacks.
> You find them all the time on The Screen Savers, and in PC World magazine.
> Hacking the registry is dangerous and not for the faint of heart.
>
> However, screw up something in Linux and it can be fixed without even
> rebooting. For most user config files, simply deleting them and letting the
> offending app rebuild it from scratch with default settings fixes
> everything. For system config files like XF86Config, they system saves a
> backup, which is the last good file before it was changed, that just has to
> be restored. Like magic, you're up and running again.
>
> The info in the config files in Linux are set up for you by system utilities
> too. If you use SuSE, it's doubtful that you'll ever have to touch a config
> file manually. YaST is that good. However, even though some distros require
> at least some manual tinkering, it's all easy, it's done everyday by users,
> and help can be found at alt.os.linux.<distro name> or by going to
> groups.google.com and doing a search.
>
> To beat it all, I'm a rather novice Linux user and I can do all of this.
> It's simple.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2005 5:14:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <hIWId.4237$dm5.2447@fe37.usenetserver.com>, Ruel Smith
says...

> Wow! That's absolute greek! A moron could edit this file. This file is
> typical of a config file for Linux. It was located in my home directory (~)
> at ~/.kde/share/config/kdeglobals. All user config files are located in
> their home directory, and global config files are usually located in /etc
> and are only editable with root permissions.
>
So you have to edit a config file in a HIDDEN directory? Of course
every new user to Linux is going to know that.


--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2005 5:16:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

In article <00XId.4239$dm5.3241@fe37.usenetserver.com>, Ruel Smith
says...
> Let's look at a very commonly edited file in there, XF86Config:
>
> Section "Files"
> # Multiple FontPath entries are allowed (they are concatenated together)
> # By default, Mandrake 6.0 and later now use a font server independent
> of
> # the X server to render fonts.
> FontPath "unix/:-1"
> EndSection
>
> Section "ServerFlags"
> #DontZap # disable <Crtl><Alt><BS> (server abort)
> AllowMouseOpenFail # allows the server to start up even if the mouse
> doesn't work
> #DontZoom # disable <Crtl><Alt><KP_+>/<KP_-> (resolution switching)
> EndSection
>
> Section "Module"
> Load "dbe" # Double-Buffering Extension
> Load "v4l" # Video for Linux
> Load "extmod"
> Load "type1"
> Load "freetype"
> Load "dri" # direct rendering
> Load "/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/extensions/libglx.a"
> EndSection
>
> Section "InputDevice"
> Identifier "Keyboard1"
> Driver "keyboard"
> Option "XkbModel" "pc105"
> Option "XkbLayout" "en_US"
> Option "XkbOptions" ""
> EndSection
>
> Section "InputDevice"
> Identifier "Mouse1"
> Driver "mouse"
> Option "Protocol" "ExplorerPS/2"
> Option "Device" "/dev/mouse"
> Option "ZAxisMapping" "6 7"
> EndSection
>
> ...
>
> Again, this is so simple a moron could edit it. What do you think Load
> means? What about Option? It's almost spoken English!
>
OK, print that off and show it to a Windows user. Explain to them thayt
you've got a PS2 wheelmouse that doesn't work. What should they alter
and what to?

--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 24, 2005 10:25:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:19:41 -0500, Ruel Smith <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote:

>Lastly, I can install Linux, a bunch of applications, and all of my drivers
>and have it setup and running properly in just about 2 hours. Windows, on
>the otherhand, usually takes days to install everything one at a time after
>the OS itself has been installed

False! I install win Xp on a pc with all the drivers in under an hour! That's
counting formatting the HD in the process.
January 24, 2005 3:07:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I demand that on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:05:53 +0800, johnn may or may not
have written:

> Yes, but Windows Media Encoder cannot run in Lunux !
> :-(
>
> Thanks to all have replied

I'm no expert in media encoding, but mencoder (part of mplayer) should be
able to encode video in windows media format as long as you have the codec
installed. You can also share the load of encoding over several machines
on a network too.

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
January 24, 2005 3:10:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I demand that on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:25:43 +0400, RayOfLight may or may
not have written:

> On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:19:41 -0500, Ruel Smith <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Lastly, I can install Linux, a bunch of applications, and all of my drivers
>>and have it setup and running properly in just about 2 hours. Windows, on
>>the otherhand, usually takes days to install everything one at a time after
>>the OS itself has been installed
>
> False! I install win Xp on a pc with all the drivers in under an hour! That's
> counting formatting the HD in the process.

You obviously don't have much hardware or software to install ;) 

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
January 24, 2005 3:15:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I demand that on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:50:07 -0500, John McGaw may or may
not have written:

> While finding a 4-processor motherboard isn't difficult, finding the
> money to purchase one and then populate it properly certainly would be.

Why the preoccupation with expensive multi-cpu motherboards? Why not set
up a beowulf cluster of X-box's? They are pretty cheap at the moment for
the hardware you get. :) 
http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2271

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2005 12:29:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Kram wrote:

> Yes, I've loaded several linux distros on their own partitions to play
> with, and Mandrake is very close to being a good gui distro.  But
> installing programs is still difficult for me.  No, I don't want to
> start using command lines.

Yes, you can double click on an icon in Mandrake and install software. It's
almost that easy. I say almost, because with rpm's there are dependencies.
You must setup URPMI to point it to sources to find those dependencies.
Once done, double click on an rpm, and your almost assured of that rpm
getting installed without a hitch. Now, if the dependencies are not met,
URPMI will fail and it will not install. You see, Windows and the Mac also
have dependencies, but since you're dealing with commercial software, they
package those dependencies neatly for you and they get installed by the
script that is executed when you install something. For instance, many
applications that rip a CD to mp3 files actually call Lame to rip it. They
only provide a frontend for Lame. The same goes for most Linux apps. K3b is
a frontend for many applications like cdrecord and other commandline tools
that actually do the work. Therefore, there are dependencies and they have
to be met.

I rarely use a commandline at all. Sure, there are time's that I have, but
it's either because I broke something and am fixing it from a commandline
(very nice option), or I'm invoking a command like 'uname' or 'uptime' that
tells me something about my system. Other than that, KDE does everything
for me.

> Yes, Mandrake installs easy, picks up all my hardware and everything is
> up and running and Internet hookup is a breeze, but installing software
> by double clicking on an icon is pathetically simple, and that is what I
> want, and speed, on my Athlon 2100 Mandrake 10.1 is still noticeably
> slower.

It was noticably faster on my P3 600 than either 98 or XP, but I've never
installed Windows on my new AthlonXP 2800+ machine, so I wouldn't know
about it. It seems very fast.

> I'm sure it is all very simple for you, but not for me, and I think most
> people are like me, when linux is as fast and everything can be done
> with the click of a mouse, it is just a project, not useful.

I was an Apple II user, then a Mac user, then a Windows user, now a Linux
user. It's nothing but learning a new way of doing something. It's not
hard. Somethings like

> I'll try Linux again when 10.2 Mandrake comes out for free.  If I can
> double click to install programs, then I'll use it more often, 10.1 I
> deleted from my hard drive to make room for videos.

Double clicking to install is kind of archaic compared to opening a properly
setup package manager and being able to just pick applications you want to
install from repositories. No need to go to Adobe's website for Acrobat
Reader, or Macromedia's site for FlashPlayer, or Sun's site for a Java VM.
It's all available by clicking on a checkbox in a package manager and all
dependencies are handled automatically. You can even choose how they're
listed where you can show what packages on your system there are upgrades
for, and download them all at once. Try that with either Mac or Windows.
It's far more powerful. Imagine getting upgrades for Adobe Photoshop
Elements, MS Office, Windows, Call of Duty, Mozilla Firefox, your printer
driver, your video card driver, and Quicktime all from one stop shopping.
It's that convenient.

You just don't seem to have the patience to learn something different.
You've chosen to take the path of least resistance. Hey, Linux isn't for
everyone. I'm not saying that it is. However, it's just not as brutal as
people claim. I swear that if someone is willing to spend the time to learn
about Linux, and you'll only have to learn a couple of commandline
techniques like typing 'mc' for Midnight Commander (indespensible tool!),
you'll discover a world so rich, you'll wonder why on earth other OS's
don't do things more like Linux.

I, too, struggled to learn my way around Linux for awhile. I didn't catch on
for a long time, but I kept at it. Problem is that you probably don't know
anyone that uses Linux, and can't turn to anyone for help. It's trial and
error and newsgroups for help. But, I've really been sold on Linux,
particularly in the past year. It's gotten really good and very useful.


--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2005 12:33:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

>> Section "InputDevice"
>> Identifier "Mouse1"
>> Driver "mouse"
>> Option "Protocol" "ExplorerPS/2"
>> Option "Device" "/dev/mouse"
>> Option "ZAxisMapping" "6 7"
>> EndSection
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Again, this is so simple a moron could edit it. What do you think Load
>> means? What about Option? It's almost spoken English!
>>
> OK, print that off and show it to a Windows user. Explain to them thayt
> you've got a PS2 wheelmouse that doesn't work. What should they alter
> and what to?

That's why there are tutorials, and you can figure them out in minutes. This
isn't rocket science. Modern Linux distros, like Mandrake and SuSE, have a
mouse configuration tool, just like Windows and the Mac.


--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2005 12:35:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Conor wrote:

>> Wow! That's absolute greek! A moron could edit this file. This file is
>> typical of a config file for Linux. It was located in my home directory
>> (~) at ~/.kde/share/config/kdeglobals. All user config files are located
>> in their home directory, and global config files are usually located in
>> /etc and are only editable with root permissions.
>>
> So you have to edit a config file in a HIDDEN directory? Of course
> every new user to Linux is going to know that.

No, you don't have to edit them at all. Someone made a point about how rough
it was to edit them. But, KDE sets that file up automatically for you based
on what you've chosen in the KDE Control Center. However, manually editing
it is an option.


--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2005 12:44:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

RayOfLight wrote:

>>Lastly, I can install Linux, a bunch of applications, and all of my
>>drivers and have it setup and running properly in just about 2 hours.
>>Windows, on the otherhand, usually takes days to install everything one at
>>a time after the OS itself has been installed
>
> False! I install win Xp on a pc with all the drivers in under an hour!
> That's counting formatting the HD in the process.

You did read that included all applications too, didn't you? In an hour, you
still haven't installed Office, your games, or anything else. You only have
Windows and your drivers.

Linux install the OS, drivers, and APPLICATIONS in about 2 hours including
all after installation configuration. I'm not just talking about a handful
of apps, either. I'm talking about a hundred applications ranging from
small commandline apps to large office suites. 2 hours...

My machine has 2 office suites - KOffice and OpenOffice, 2 personal
information suites, 3 browsers, 5 media players, sound editing software,
music composition software, a very nice image editor roughtly equivelent to
Photoshop, vector drawing software equivelent to Illustrator, quality 3D
rendering software, P2P software, CD/DVD burning software, mp3/Ogg
Vorbis/Flac ripping software, a very nice development environment with
complete RAD tools, and lots more. It was all installed during the initial
installation, in under 2 hours.

Thanks for trying...


--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2005 1:20:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:
> RayOfLight wrote:
>
>
>>>Lastly, I can install Linux, a bunch of applications, and all of my
>>>drivers and have it setup and running properly in just about 2 hours.
>>>Windows, on the otherhand, usually takes days to install everything one at
>>>a time after the OS itself has been installed
>>
>>False! I install win Xp on a pc with all the drivers in under an hour!
>>That's counting formatting the HD in the process.
>
>
> You did read that included all applications too, didn't you? In an hour, you
> still haven't installed Office, your games, or anything else. You only have
> Windows and your drivers.
>
> Linux install the OS, drivers, and APPLICATIONS in about 2 hours including
> all after installation configuration. I'm not just talking about a handful
> of apps, either. I'm talking about a hundred applications ranging from
> small commandline apps to large office suites. 2 hours...
>
> My machine has 2 office suites - KOffice and OpenOffice, 2 personal
> information suites, 3 browsers, 5 media players, sound editing software,
> music composition software, a very nice image editor roughtly equivelent to
> Photoshop, vector drawing software equivelent to Illustrator, quality 3D
> rendering software, P2P software, CD/DVD burning software, mp3/Ogg
> Vorbis/Flac ripping software, a very nice development environment with
> complete RAD tools, and lots more. It was all installed during the initial
> installation, in under 2 hours.
>
> Thanks for trying...
>
>

I use Linux too but pointing out all the neat things that do work doesn't
ameliorate the things that don't. They're not 'interchangeable', as if the
really nice 'free' office apps solve a non existent driver, or some other
problem

For example, I decided to try Mythtv; A really nice app, other than taking
two full days to get the base package running (go find this, find that,
wrong version, scan newsgroups for hours seeking similar
problems/solutions, compile), but the Linux capture drivers/apps (these are
all distribution 'out of the box' things) never scan the stations properly
so that I have to manually edit each and every one to get them on
frequency. And then the Linux ATI drivers don't support TV out, so I got
the ATI drivers; except they're now compiled for xorg 6.8 and mine is xorg
6.7, but ATI seems to feel that 'old' Linux drivers should vanish from the
face of the earth and so don't provide them. So I get xorg 6.8 and it won't
compile on my system for some reason. I am out of luck, and patience.

So, I'll put the XP hard drive back in that 1) took 2 hours to setup,
counting base install, drivers, apps and 2) works.

Having said that, Mandrake 10.1 and Suse 9.2 are dreams to install and as
long as you use apps available through their respective installers, a rich
source (although, lord only knows what 2/3d's of the alphabet soup of
listed apps are for), one should not have many problems. But, then, having
OpenOffice and KOffice freely available won't make my Radeon TV out work
nor put the station channels on frequency, even if they installed faster
than XP.
January 25, 2005 1:17:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I demand that on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:20:21 -0600, David Maynard may or may
not have written:

> For example, I decided to try Mythtv; A really nice app, other than taking
> two full days to get the base package running (go find this, find that,
> wrong version, scan newsgroups for hours seeking similar
> problems/solutions, compile), but the Linux capture drivers/apps (these are
> all distribution 'out of the box' things) never scan the stations properly
> so that I have to manually edit each and every one to get them on
> frequency.

I have MythTV running and I am blown away by it. Sure it takes a lot of
setting up (For me that was mostly getting MySQL to work), but now I know
how to work it, I'm sticking together some of my old hardware and building
a killer set-top box. My TV card is a standard BT848 chipset based card
and it tunes to the stations without needing adjustment. I'm using an old
GF4 card for TV out. Get rid of the ATI. Their windows drivers aren't much
better than their Linux ones. I know. I tried a Radeon once and took it
back.

--
Jafar Calley
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
d+ s-:+ a C++++ L++ E--- W++ N++ w-- PE- t* 5++ R+ !tv D+ G e* h---- x?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Registered Linux User #359623
http://fatcat.homelinux.org
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2005 9:11:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> I use Linux too but pointing out all the neat things that do work doesn't
> ameliorate the things that don't. They're not 'interchangeable', as if the
> really nice 'free' office apps solve a non existent driver, or some other
> problem

I did not refer to anything being free, nor did I advocate the use of Linux
on a basis that it's given away by some vendors. I didn't advocate the use
of Linux at all. I only responded to the notion that Linux was difficult to
install and use. It just simply isn't.

> For example, I decided to try Mythtv; A really nice app, other than taking
> two full days to get the base package running (go find this, find that,
> wrong version, scan newsgroups for hours seeking similar
> problems/solutions, compile), but the Linux capture drivers/apps (these
> are all distribution 'out of the box' things) never scan the stations
> properly so that I have to manually edit each and every one to get them on
> frequency. And then the Linux ATI drivers don't support TV out, so I got
> the ATI drivers; except they're now compiled for xorg 6.8 and mine is xorg
> 6.7, but ATI seems to feel that 'old' Linux drivers should vanish from the
> face of the earth and so don't provide them. So I get xorg 6.8 and it
> won't compile on my system for some reason. I am out of luck, and
> patience.
>
> So, I'll put the XP hard drive back in that 1) took 2 hours to setup,
> counting base install, drivers, apps and 2) works.

There is no way in hell, that you setup Windows XP with drivers and
applications numbering more than one or two, and got the whole thing
configured in 2 hours. It simply isn't true. If you have any 3rd party
drivers at all to install, it takes that long to get Windows itself up and
running. If you have an older machine, and don't mind the basic drivers
provided with XP, then, I can see getting it installed and setup, but not
with applications.

> Having said that, Mandrake 10.1 and Suse 9.2 are dreams to install and as
> long as you use apps available through their respective installers, a rich
> source (although, lord only knows what 2/3d's of the alphabet soup of
> listed apps are for), one should not have many problems. But, then, having
> OpenOffice and KOffice freely available won't make my Radeon TV out work
> nor put the station channels on frequency, even if they installed faster
> than XP.

Anything, I never promoted the use of any "free" sofware or, in particular,
office suites.

Secondly, many have gotten the software you mention to work, and I'm sorry
you haven't. That does not detract from my statements that Linux is both
easy to use, and install.

--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 25, 2005 11:00:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

jafar wrote:
> I demand that on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:20:21 -0600, David Maynard may or may
> not have written:
>
>
>>For example, I decided to try Mythtv; A really nice app, other than taking
>>two full days to get the base package running (go find this, find that,
>>wrong version, scan newsgroups for hours seeking similar
>>problems/solutions, compile), but the Linux capture drivers/apps (these are
>>all distribution 'out of the box' things) never scan the stations properly
>>so that I have to manually edit each and every one to get them on
>>frequency.
>
>
> I have MythTV running and I am blown away by it.

I said it was a nice app.

> Sure it takes a lot of
> setting up (For me that was mostly getting MySQL to work), but now I know
> how to work it,

Yep. Overkill for a set top box. Convenient for the networking though.

> I'm sticking together some of my old hardware and building
> a killer set-top box.

Good luck with the 'on hand' old hardware just naturally working.

> My TV card is a standard BT848 chipset based card

So's my ATI PCI Wonder.

> and it tunes to the stations without needing adjustment.

That all depends on what tuner the card has. Glad to hear yours is a lucky one.

> I'm using an old
> GF4 card for TV out.

My Geforce4 is dedicated to another box.

> Get rid of the ATI. Their windows drivers aren't much
> better than their Linux ones. I know. I tried a Radeon once and took it
> back.

I have multiple ATI cards (and nVidia too) of various types and while the
drivers can, sometimes, be obstinate about beginning with a generic vga
driver before installing they work fine in Windows, including TV out, so I
have no idea why you took yours back.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2005 12:02:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>I use Linux too but pointing out all the neat things that do work doesn't
>>ameliorate the things that don't. They're not 'interchangeable', as if the
>>really nice 'free' office apps solve a non existent driver, or some other
>>problem
>
>
> I did not refer to anything being free, nor did I advocate the use of Linux
> on a basis that it's given away by some vendors. I didn't advocate the use
> of Linux at all. I only responded to the notion that Linux was difficult to
> install and use. It just simply isn't.

Well, for whatever reason, the point is still the same. Office apps, or
whatever you're talking about, being 'easy' doesn't make the things that
don't work work or the things that are difficult any easier.

Linux is a lot like the girl with a curl. When she was good she was very
very good but when she's was bad she was a bitch and a half.


>>For example, I decided to try Mythtv; A really nice app, other than taking
>>two full days to get the base package running (go find this, find that,
>>wrong version, scan newsgroups for hours seeking similar
>>problems/solutions, compile), but the Linux capture drivers/apps (these
>>are all distribution 'out of the box' things) never scan the stations
>>properly so that I have to manually edit each and every one to get them on
>>frequency. And then the Linux ATI drivers don't support TV out, so I got
>>the ATI drivers; except they're now compiled for xorg 6.8 and mine is xorg
>>6.7, but ATI seems to feel that 'old' Linux drivers should vanish from the
>>face of the earth and so don't provide them. So I get xorg 6.8 and it
>>won't compile on my system for some reason. I am out of luck, and
>>patience.
>>
>>So, I'll put the XP hard drive back in that 1) took 2 hours to setup,
>>counting base install, drivers, apps and 2) works.
>
>
> There is no way in hell, that you setup Windows XP with drivers and
> applications numbering more than one or two, and got the whole thing
> configured in 2 hours. It simply isn't true. If you have any 3rd party
> drivers at all to install, it takes that long to get Windows itself up and
> running. If you have an older machine, and don't mind the basic drivers
> provided with XP, then, I can see getting it installed and setup, but not
> with applications.

I said I was building a HTPC box; both in Windows originally (the hard
drive I will 'put back in') and then in Linux using Mythtv. I don't need,
nor want, Office, 5 browsers, or whatever else in either the Windows box OR
the Linux box for that.

You keep trying to 'exchange' something you like in Linux (and that I agree
with) for the problems others have with what they're trying to accomplish
and it doesn't work that way. Linux just zippity do da installing 2 office
suites, 5 browsers, and whatever else is of absolutely no use to me in a
set top HTPC box and that installing a pile of unneeded software might be
faster in Linux than installing a pile of unneeded software in Windows is
not an 'advantage', in this case.

I hate to burst your bubble but it took well over an hour just to COMPILE
mythtv (not a real fast box). That doesn't count installing and setting up
SQL, finding lame et al, resolving version inconsistencies, configuring,
and all the rest.

The Windows app installed in 5 minutes. Throw in another 3 or 4 for a cable
channel scan, without needing to manually edit the entire channel frequency
list or spend hours trying to figure out which 'tuner type' to set in, and
we're watching TV. Being a fiddler we'll still fiddle with it, probably
forever, but, by golly, it works.

Mythtv is functionally superior to the Windows app (which is why I wanted
to try it) but, then, with no TV out that becomes a moot point, and the
issue was 'fast and easy' anyway.

Out of curiosity, what 'configuring' in Windows are you referring to that
supposedly takes so long?

>>Having said that, Mandrake 10.1 and Suse 9.2 are dreams to install and as
>>long as you use apps available through their respective installers, a rich
>>source (although, lord only knows what 2/3d's of the alphabet soup of
>>listed apps are for), one should not have many problems. But, then, having
>>OpenOffice and KOffice freely available won't make my Radeon TV out work
>>nor put the station channels on frequency, even if they installed faster
>>than XP.
>
>
> Anything, I never promoted the use of any "free" sofware or, in particular,
> office suites.

I have no idea what point you think you're making by 'disavowing' GNU and
the reason I mention the office suites is you made a point of them being
there from the base install (not necessarily true depending on what
packages one picked) vs having to spend 'extra time' installing them in
Windows.

>
> Secondly, many have gotten the software you mention to work,

Which software are you referring to? The ATI drivers?

> and I'm sorry
> you haven't. That does not detract from my statements that Linux is both
> easy to use, and install.

It detracts from precisely the point you're making. Others may very well,
indeed, have managed to make the ATI drivers work but I can attest to the
fact that it for bloody sure isn't 'easy'.

I'm just trying to get you to realize that just because Linux happened to
be 'fast and easy' for you doesn't mean it's a universal truth.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2005 12:13:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> I use Linux too but pointing out all the neat things that do work doesn't
> ameliorate the things that don't. They're not 'interchangeable', as if the
> really nice 'free' office apps solve a non existent driver, or some other
> problem
>
> For example, I decided to try Mythtv; A really nice app, other than taking
> two full days to get the base package running (go find this, find that,
> wrong version, scan newsgroups for hours seeking similar
> problems/solutions, compile), but the Linux capture drivers/apps (these
> are all distribution 'out of the box' things) never scan the stations
> properly so that I have to manually edit each and every one to get them on
> frequency. And then the Linux ATI drivers don't support TV out, so I got
> the ATI drivers; except they're now compiled for xorg 6.8 and mine is xorg
> 6.7, but ATI seems to feel that 'old' Linux drivers should vanish from the
> face of the earth and so don't provide them. So I get xorg 6.8 and it
> won't compile on my system for some reason. I am out of luck, and
> patience.
>
> So, I'll put the XP hard drive back in that 1) took 2 hours to setup,
> counting base install, drivers, apps and 2) works.
>
> Having said that, Mandrake 10.1 and Suse 9.2 are dreams to install and as
> long as you use apps available through their respective installers, a rich
> source (although, lord only knows what 2/3d's of the alphabet soup of
> listed apps are for), one should not have many problems. But, then, having
> OpenOffice and KOffice freely available won't make my Radeon TV out work
> nor put the station channels on frequency, even if they installed faster
> than XP.

I had to write another reply to this, because I wanted to ask you: If you
bought an new application for your Windows machine, and it crashed your
computer, didn't run as advertised, or was difficult to use or setup, would
you blame Windows and/or Microsoft? Why, then, do you blame Linux because a
particular application was difficult to get installed and setup? Why don't
you blame the developers of the application? The developers could make
installation of the application much better than they do. They could
provide links from their website to all the needed applications their
application depends on. They could provide rpm's and deb's for easy
installation. They could do a lot of things. Problem is, they didn't, but
you blamed an operating system for their failure.

Linux is actually nothing but a kernel, but let's call the entire OS Linux.
Just because distros bundle hundreds of applications with the OS, which
BTW, you can find out what each does during installation under the package
description and choose whether not not to install it, doesn't make those
applications part of Linux. Because of the bundling, many people
mistakently associate applications that run in Linux as being part of Linux
as a whole. They aren't. If you have problems with any application, blame
the developer. Do not flame Linux as a result.

This same mentality extends to drivers. If your hardware doesn't work in
Linux, blame the hardware manufacturer for not developing drivers for
Linux. Do not blame Linus Torvalds for it! Call, write, or email ATi and
tell them to develop better Linux drivers and apps, including ones that
allow the All-In-Wonder cards to fully function, and make those
drivers/apps easy to install and update. They can do it for Windows and
Mac, they can do it for Linux. Since they have written drivers for Mac OS
X, which is BSD Unix based, Linux drivers shouldn't take a whole lot of
development time/costs.


--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2005 5:14:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:11:28 -0500, Ruel Smith
<NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote:


>
>There is no way in hell, that you setup Windows XP with drivers and
>applications numbering more than one or two, and got the whole thing
>configured in 2 hours. It simply isn't true. If you have any 3rd party
>drivers at all to install, it takes that long to get Windows itself up and
>running. If you have an older machine, and don't mind the basic drivers
>provided with XP, then, I can see getting it installed and setup, but not
>with applications.
>

_Completely_ tweaked, maybe not, but it's entirely possible
to install XP, 3rd party drivers for everything, an office
suite and a couple other apps in less than 2 hours.
Installing from HDD rather than CD, it's probably possible
in 1 hour if one was really babysitting the box so they
could jump on every user prompt. Kinda irrelevant though,
the typical user will be faster at whatever OS they're more
familiar with unless they've a great deal of prior planning,
like having everything (apps/tweaks/etc) copied off to a DVD
ahead of time.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 26, 2005 6:52:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I can't personally vouch for it since I've never personally tried out
Myth TV, but KnoppMyth is an easy to use installer which
people seem to have a lot of success with:

http://www.mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html

Apparently you can go from inserting the disc into a computer
to having a full Myth TV install up and running in as little as
10 minutes. That includes the Linux OS install, which is
fine if you want a set-top box, or if you don't mind starting off
more or less from scratch and then installing whatever other
software you want (it's Debian based, so you'd use apt-get
or synaptic or some other Debian package manager front
end you like).

Isaac Kuo
January 26, 2005 8:20:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

johnn wrote:
> Can Windows XP makes use of both CPUs for faster processing when running
> in a dual CPU PC ? I wish to run Windows Media Encoder for streaming,
> but it seems only a few clients already overload my single P4 based PC !
>
Pro is good for you, that O/S supports dual CPU's!
Graham A+
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 27, 2005 12:25:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

>> I did not refer to anything being free, nor did I advocate the use of
>> Linux on a basis that it's given away by some vendors. I didn't advocate
>> the use of Linux at all. I only responded to the notion that Linux was
>> difficult to install and use. It just simply isn't.
>
> Well, for whatever reason, the point is still the same. Office apps, or
> whatever you're talking about, being 'easy' doesn't make the things that
> don't work work or the things that are difficult any easier.

No, you're just getting off the subject because you have had problems with a
particular application and decide to blame Linux instead of the developers
of the application. Linux isn't causing you the headache. The developers of
the application could make it install easier and work better. However, they
haven't done so. Linux has nothing to do with that equation. That
application in question just happens to run in Linux, which you were
attempting to do.

> Linux is a lot like the girl with a curl. When she was good she was very
> very good but when she's was bad she was a bitch and a half.

No, you just have to learn to fix problems in the same way you learned to
fix them in Windows. Personally, I haven't found any problems I couldn't
fix by asking a few questions in some newsgroups and searching around the
'net. I have had problems that I haven't been able to fix, but I believe
they're problems with hardware itself.

> I hate to burst your bubble but it took well over an hour just to COMPILE
> mythtv (not a real fast box). That doesn't count installing and setting up
> SQL, finding lame et al, resolving version inconsistencies, configuring,
> and all the rest.

Again, what does this have to do with Linux itself? Nothing. It has to do
with the application in question. If that application was for the Windows
environment, and it gave you the same problems, would you then blame
Windows and Microsoft? Blame the developers.

> The Windows app installed in 5 minutes. Throw in another 3 or 4 for a
> cable channel scan, without needing to manually edit the entire channel
> frequency list or spend hours trying to figure out which 'tuner type' to
> set in, and we're watching TV. Being a fiddler we'll still fiddle with it,
> probably forever, but, by golly, it works.

Good for it, but that well mannered Windows app had nothing to do with the
fact it ran in Windows, but rather a commendable job of the developers of
the software. A similarly good job could be done for a Linux application,
but many authors just don't. They provide barebones tarballs with
configuration scripts and leave it to someone else to put the polish on it.
Again, that does not reflect on Linux, but rather the developers lack of
time putting the polish in the application by providing a good installation
procedure that makes it easy for the average user.

> Mythtv is functionally superior to the Windows app (which is why I wanted
> to try it) but, then, with no TV out that becomes a moot point, and the
> issue was 'fast and easy' anyway.
>
> Out of curiosity, what 'configuring' in Windows are you referring to that
> supposedly takes so long?

Not referring to configuring anything that takes so long. Just referring to
the lengthy task of installing the OS, 3rd party drivers, and all of your
applications one at a time.

>> and I'm sorry
>> you haven't. That does not detract from my statements that Linux is both
>> easy to use, and install.
>
> It detracts from precisely the point you're making. Others may very well,
> indeed, have managed to make the ATI drivers work but I can attest to the
> fact that it for bloody sure isn't 'easy'.
>
> I'm just trying to get you to realize that just because Linux happened to
> be 'fast and easy' for you doesn't mean it's a universal truth.

And I'm just trying to get you to realize that because you have trouble with
ATi's drivers, or a certain application, that does not represent anything
about Linux itself. You simply had problems with ATi's half-hearted support
for Linux, and a particular application that lacks much needed polish from
the developers. What does that have to do with Linux? The same poor job can
be done for any operating system. It has nothing to do with Linux.

The developers of OEM drivers and applications could do a better job. They
are at fault, and are to blame. Don't blame Linux because of it.


--

Registered Linux user #378193
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2005 4:05:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>I use Linux too but pointing out all the neat things that do work doesn't
>>ameliorate the things that don't. They're not 'interchangeable', as if the
>>really nice 'free' office apps solve a non existent driver, or some other
>>problem
>>
>>For example, I decided to try Mythtv; A really nice app, other than taking
>>two full days to get the base package running (go find this, find that,
>>wrong version, scan newsgroups for hours seeking similar
>>problems/solutions, compile), but the Linux capture drivers/apps (these
>>are all distribution 'out of the box' things) never scan the stations
>>properly so that I have to manually edit each and every one to get them on
>>frequency. And then the Linux ATI drivers don't support TV out, so I got
>>the ATI drivers; except they're now compiled for xorg 6.8 and mine is xorg
>>6.7, but ATI seems to feel that 'old' Linux drivers should vanish from the
>>face of the earth and so don't provide them. So I get xorg 6.8 and it
>>won't compile on my system for some reason. I am out of luck, and
>>patience.
>>
>>So, I'll put the XP hard drive back in that 1) took 2 hours to setup,
>>counting base install, drivers, apps and 2) works.
>>
>>Having said that, Mandrake 10.1 and Suse 9.2 are dreams to install and as
>>long as you use apps available through their respective installers, a rich
>>source (although, lord only knows what 2/3d's of the alphabet soup of
>>listed apps are for), one should not have many problems. But, then, having
>>OpenOffice and KOffice freely available won't make my Radeon TV out work
>>nor put the station channels on frequency, even if they installed faster
>>than XP.
>
>
> I had to write another reply to this, because I wanted to ask you: If you
> bought an new application for your Windows machine, and it crashed your
> computer, didn't run as advertised, or was difficult to use or setup, would
> you blame Windows and/or Microsoft?

In the first place, there was no issue with things 'crashing'.

As for the 'as advertised' part, the station scanner was one of those 'out
of the box' things you were extolling as such a 'fast and easy' feature of
Linux. I didn't pick it, the distribution did.

As for the 'difficulty, I'll answer in the next paragraph.

> Why, then, do you blame Linux because a
> particular application was difficult to get installed and setup?

Because it isn't anything to do with 'the application', per see, but the
'normal' Linux process. 'Installers' are the 'new thing' but expecting
people to compile programs and the kernel is 'SOP' for Linux. That has
certain advantages but 'fast and easy' sure as heck isn't one of them.

> Why don't
> you blame the developers of the application? The developers could make
> installation of the application much better than they do. They could
> provide links from their website to all the needed applications their
> application depends on.

That's just not 'The Linux Way'.

> They could provide rpm's and deb's for easy
> installation. They could do a lot of things. Problem is, they didn't, but
> you blamed an operating system for their failure.

Because the 'openness' and multiple version nature of Linux comes close to
precluding such things by default since, as you've noted, there is no
"Linux Operating System", per see, but, rather, a massive collection of
'bits and pieces' created by a gaggle of different people creatively
changing things as each sees fit.

That's a bit of an overstatement but the gist is valid enough in comparison
with the much more tightly controlled, hence consistent, Windows environment.

> Linux is actually nothing but a kernel, but let's call the entire OS Linux.
> Just because distros bundle hundreds of applications with the OS, which
> BTW, you can find out what each does during installation under the package
> description and choose whether not not to install it,

Suuuuure you can. If you understand the Linux version of techno babble.

> doesn't make those
> applications part of Linux.

I never said they were. You're the one who wanted to include their
installation as a 'feature' of Linux.

> Because of the bundling, many people
> mistakently associate applications that run in Linux as being part of Linux
> as a whole. They aren't. If you have problems with any application, blame
> the developer. Do not flame Linux as a result.

In the first place, I didn't flame 'Linux' for the problems in an 'app',
much less one that came with the distribution. Nor did I claim that the app
was 'Linux', or a part of it.

However, if you're going to jump up and down singing the praises of all
that stuff getting 'installed' so quickly and easily as a Linux 'feature'
then it's fair to complain when the 'feature' you tout isn't so wonderful.

Moot point, though, because I didn't make such a complaint.

> This same mentality extends to drivers. If your hardware doesn't work in
> Linux, blame the hardware manufacturer for not developing drivers for
> Linux.

They do have a driver for it. I just can't install it because the X Windows
version doesn't match and I can't get the new one to compile.

> Do not blame Linus Torvalds for it!

I didn't.

> Call, write, or email ATi and
> tell them to develop better Linux drivers and apps,

THEY HAVE ONE.

> including ones that
> allow the All-In-Wonder cards to fully function, and make those
> drivers/apps easy to install and update.

Unfortunately, ATI has no control over when the Linux distributions willy
nilly decide to make X-Windows changes that break drivers. Nor can they
force the various Linux distributions to even use the SAME X-Windows system.

> They can do it for Windows and
> Mac, they can do it for Linux.

The base OS in a MAC and Windows doesn't suddenly change every 3 months
breaking the blasted drivers. Nor do I have to compile them to take into
account which of the infinitely variable configurations the O.S. comes in.

> Since they have written drivers for Mac OS
> X, which is BSD Unix based, Linux drivers shouldn't take a whole lot of
> development time/costs.

'Linux drivers' for WHICH 'Linux'?

Anyway, you're jumping from side to side now; first extolling how 'fast and
easy' it is to install and use 'Linux' but now protesting that these things
are not 'Linux'. So let's just call it the 'Linux Environment' and note
that things in the 'Linux Environment' are not always as 'fast and easy' as
you suggest.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b à CPUs
February 14, 2005 3:16:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

The voices in the head of Ruel Smith <NoWay@NoWhere.com> caused Ruel
Smith to write in news:FkAJd.520$tD3.297@fe37.usenetserver.com:

>> So, I'll put the XP hard drive back in that 1) took 2 hours to setup,
>> counting base install, drivers, apps and 2) works.
>
> There is no way in hell, that you setup Windows XP with drivers and
> applications numbering more than one or two, and got the whole thing
> configured in 2 hours. It simply isn't true. If you have any 3rd party
> drivers at all to install, it takes that long to get Windows itself up
> and running. If you have an older machine, and don't mind the basic
> drivers provided with XP, then, I can see getting it installed and
> setup, but not with applications.

I'd have to disagree with you here. Granted that it will be close to 2
hours but I set up maybe a dozen per week, all well and truly under this
time, with all relevant drivers, a number of useful apps, anti-virus
installed, updated and scanned and ready to go out the door. Once you
know what you are looking for and how it goes on then any "gotchas" are a
snap.


--
This sig free text brought to you by the letters s, i & g
!