On Sunday, 8 September 2019 16:01:57 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

And he may well, until something goes wrong, then who is he going to
turn to, *friendly* Linux fanboys like you?

If you can't answer that you really don't have many clues about linux. Your views so far don't contradict that.


Or what of those Windows only apps that he might just like, let alone
need / prefer to run ... make things even more complicated by add WINE
or VM's to the mix?

I run spice in wine (now waiting for the punch line). It doesn't make it any more complicated.


NT

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 16:26:06 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I wonder what it is that makes people like you ignore things like 80%
of the desktop using market are perfectly happy using Windows

they aren't. They get loads of malware, they get to pay techs to fix problems, and pay every time they get a new machine. Feel free to go out & ask people if those are features they want in a computer.


NT

On 08/09/2019 19:53, wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 16:01:57 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

And he may well, until something goes wrong, then who is he going to
turn to, *friendly* Linux fanboys like you?

If you can't answer that you really don't have many clues about linux. Your views so far don't contradict that.

Tim seems unable to accept that not everyone agrees with him. The OP
specifically asked about installing Linux.

Tim wades in and tells him about HIS failures with installing Linux to
meet the needs of others. He ignores the fact countless people install
and use Linux.

What ever you do, don't get him onto the subject of the gunge you can
squirt into car tyres.....

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:53:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 16:01:57 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

And he may well, until something goes wrong, then who is he going to
turn to, *friendly* Linux fanboys like you?

If you can't answer that you really don't have many clues about linux.

I think my abilities with Linux are better than your English
comprehension skills. Might just be your left brain showing through.
;-(

Your views so far don't contradict that.

Like you have any real understanding of 'my views'.


Or what of those Windows only apps that he might just like, let alone
need / prefer to run ... make things even more complicated by add WINE
or VM's to the mix?

I run spice in wine (now waiting for the punch line).

Good for you?

It doesn't make it any more complicated.

Of course it does, unless someone else installed WINE and installed
Spice in WINE for you? And why happens if WINE goes wrong (you know,
that extra complicating layer), will Spice still run ok?

Again, nice try but no cigar. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 20:10:02 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

On 08/09/2019 19:53, wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 16:01:57 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

And he may well, until something goes wrong, then who is he going to
turn to, *friendly* Linux fanboys like you?

If you can't answer that you really don't have many clues about linux. Your views so far don't contradict that.

Tim seems unable to accept that not everyone agrees with him. The OP
specifically asked about installing Linux.

Oh the irony!

Tim wades in and tells him about HIS failures with installing Linux to
meet the needs of others.

Cite?

He ignores the fact countless people install
and use Linux.

And? I 'install and use Linux'. Your point again?

What ever you do, don't get him onto the subject of the gunge you can
squirt into car tyres.....

Why, something else you still don't understand? (Oh, that's another
rhetorical question you Left brainers don't get so please don't bother
trying to answer).

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:47:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

snip

another post that's more bs thn the last one

No initial capitalisation, no final full stop and has a spelling
mistake in such a short sentence?

Was it the red mist that stopped you from spotting them or fingers
slipping on the drool on your keyboard? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 23:48:36 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:53:23 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 16:01:57 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

And he may well, until something goes wrong, then who is he going to
turn to, *friendly* Linux fanboys like you?

If you can't answer that you really don't have many clues about linux.

I think my abilities with Linux are better than your English
comprehension skills. Might just be your left brain showing through.
;-(

Your views so far don't contradict that.

Like you have any real understanding of 'my views'.


Or what of those Windows only apps that he might just like, let alone
need / prefer to run ... make things even more complicated by add WINE
or VM's to the mix?

I run spice in wine (now waiting for the punch line).

Good for you?

It doesn't make it any more complicated.

Of course it does, unless someone else installed WINE and installed
Spice in WINE for you? And why happens if WINE goes wrong (you know,
that extra complicating layer), will Spice still run ok?

Again, nice try but no cigar. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

ah, more bs. Good night.

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:55:45 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 16:26:06 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I wonder what it is that makes people like you ignore things like 80%
of the desktop using market are perfectly happy using Windows

they aren't.

Strange they aren't all looking for a replacement then? Why are Apple
not selling more machines (than the 10% they have been stuck on for
years) or Linux doing better than 5% (again, for years)?

And pLease don't give me all that conspiracy theory bs.

https://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

They get loads of malware,

'They'? I haven't, the Mrs hasn't, daughter hasn't, in fact, millions
of people haven't.

they get to pay techs to fix problems,

But at least they have the option. Again, how many people have access
to the kid next door to fix their Linux machines ... compared with
Windows ones?

and pay every time they get a new machine.

Because it's often a new version. And exactly how much do they pay for
it? How much cheaper can you get a PC for without Windows installed?
Answer, even the Linux user-admins know it makes sense to buy a
Windows PC and install Linux dual boot.

Feel free to go out & ask people if those are features they want in a computer.

Bwhaha ... only if you offer to install Linux for them free and pay me
£10 when they want Windows back on again!

I have *never* said Windows is perfect or that I'm particularly
interested in any OS, it's just that after installing and maintaining
OS's for nearly 40 years, I have a reasonable idea of what works for
'most people' and Linux REALLY isn't it.

Well, it's fine in their phone, TV, doorbell, STB, just not on their
desktop. Strangely, Linus himself agrees with me ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8oeN9AF4G8

And again ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFKxlYNfT_o


Cheers, T i m

On 08/09/2019 20:10, Brian Reay wrote:
On 08/09/2019 19:53, wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 16:01:57 UTC+1, T i mÂ* wrote:

And he may well, until something goes wrong, then who is he going to
turn to, *friendly* Linux fanboys like you?

If you can't answer that you really don't have many clues about linux.
Your views so far don't contradict that.

Tim seems unable to accept that not everyone agrees with him. The OP
specifically asked about installing Linux.

Tim wades in and tells him about HIS failures with installing Linux to
meet the needs of others. He ignores the fact countless people install
and use Linux.

What ever you do, don't get him onto the subject of the gunge you can
squirt into car tyres.....


Just inject three or four points of sanity into the confusion.
- You can still get 32 bit linux in latest releases.
- linux + desktop will just about run in 256Mytes RAM, is usable at
512MBytes and starts to be friendly at 1GB.
- Linux itself is not the problem nor yet is the desktop. Its the apps
themselves. Thunderbird here is taking 256Mbyte RAM ON ITS OWN. Libre
office calc is around 50-100MB. Firefox is around 200Mbyte. On this
freshly booted desktop I am using 1.8GB or RAM for the linux + those
apps plus skype plus a reasinable amount of widgets. . Dumping all but
thunderbird nets me a shade over 1GB.
- the key elemnst to useabiklity IME are RAM, CPU power, Graphics
acceleration and disk speed. You cant do much with a lappie about CPU
and graphics - either they will allow you to watch a Flash video (the
biggest chewer of CPU+GPU I have encountered outside of real time games)
or they wont. RAM should be increase to bet the nmachine can get if you
have any spare compatibles lying around,. Often very cheap or free on
old machines. SSD disk will make a massive difference and the good news
is that you dont need much and it can always be taken out and used in
another machine.
- SSD disk is not only very fast to boot, and load programs but more
importantly itst very fast to SWAP in and out of - ten times faster than
ordinary disk. So a machine equippeed with it that is swapping is far
and away more usable than one without.
- Rarhertrhan argue on line, burning the latest 32 bit MInt Mate onto a
DVD and booting from it will reveal exactly how fast it will run firefox
and Flash, It its unusable, you have lost nothing but a couple of hours
and a burnable DVD. If it is usable even with current disk abd RAM, why
not install it.






--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On Monday, 9 September 2019 00:28:54 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:55:45 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 16:26:06 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I wonder what it is that makes people like you ignore things like 80%
of the desktop using market are perfectly happy using Windows

they aren't.

Strange they aren't all looking for a replacement then? Why are Apple
not selling more machines (than the 10% they have been stuck on for
years) or Linux doing better than 5% (again, for years)?

And pLease don't give me all that conspiracy theory bs.

https://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

They get loads of malware,

'They'? I haven't, the Mrs hasn't, daughter hasn't, in fact, millions
of people haven't.

they get to pay techs to fix problems,

But at least they have the option. Again, how many people have access
to the kid next door to fix their Linux machines ... compared with
Windows ones?

and pay every time they get a new machine.

Because it's often a new version. And exactly how much do they pay for
it? How much cheaper can you get a PC for without Windows installed?
Answer, even the Linux user-admins know it makes sense to buy a
Windows PC and install Linux dual boot.

Feel free to go out & ask people if those are features they want in a computer.

Bwhaha ... only if you offer to install Linux for them free and pay me
£10 when they want Windows back on again!

I have *never* said Windows is perfect or that I'm particularly
interested in any OS, it's just that after installing and maintaining
OS's for nearly 40 years, I have a reasonable idea of what works for
'most people' and Linux REALLY isn't it.

Well, it's fine in their phone, TV, doorbell, STB, just not on their
desktop. Strangely, Linus himself agrees with me ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8oeN9AF4G8

And again ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFKxlYNfT_o


Cheers, T i m

so many electrons but you still haven't managed a reply worth spending any time on.

In message , Adrian Caspersz
writes

The OP, if he is still about, might want to chip in here and let us
know which direction he could be taking this.

The OP is still here :-)

Unfortunately, any thread that dares to mention Linux quickly develops
into a Linux v Windows war, swiftly crashing into a general Linux war of
versions, programs and more, with doubtless knowledgeable and
experienced users all having their say, but leaving the newbies far
behind.

TBH, this seems to be a useful, summary, by TNP, in that I understand
what is being suggested and, perhaps more importantly, why :

quote

Just inject three or four points of sanity into the confusion.

- You can still get 32 bit Linux in latest releases.

- Linux + desktop will just about run in 256Mytes RAM, is usable at
512MBytes and starts to be friendly at 1GB.

- Linux itself is not the problem nor yet is the desktop. Its the apps
themselves. Thunderbird here is taking 256Mbyte RAM ON ITS OWN. Libre
office calc is around 50-100MB. Firefox is around 200Mbyte. On this
freshly booted desktop I am using 1.8GB or RAM for the Linux + those
apps plus Skype plus a reasonable amount of widgets. Dumping all but
thunderbird nets me a shade over 1GB.

- the key element to usability IME are RAM, CPU power, Graphics
acceleration and disk speed. You can't do much with a lappie about CPU
and graphics - either they will allow you to watch a Flash video (the
biggest chewer of CPU+GPU I have encountered outside of real time games)
or they wont. RAM should be increase to bet the machine can get if you
have any spare compatibles lying around,. Often very cheap or free on
old machines. SSD disk will make a massive difference and the good news
is that you don't need much and it can always be taken out and used in
another machine.

- SSD disk is not only very fast to boot, and load programs but more
importantly its very fast to SWAP in and out of - ten times faster than
ordinary disk. So a machine equipped with it that is swapping is far and
away more usable than one without.

- Rather than argue on line, burning the latest 32 bit Mint Mate onto a
DVD and booting from it will reveal exactly how fast it will run Firefox
and Flash, if its unusable, you have lost nothing but a couple of hours
and a burnable DVD. If it is usable even with current disk and RAM, why
not install it.

unquote


--
Graeme

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 16:00:51 UTC+1, Graeme wrote:
In message , Adrian Caspersz
writes

The OP, if he is still about, might want to chip in here and let us
know which direction he could be taking this.

The OP is still here :-)

Unfortunately, any thread that dares to mention Linux quickly develops
into a Linux v Windows war, swiftly crashing into a general Linux war of
versions, programs and more, with doubtless knowledgeable and
experienced users all having their say, but leaving the newbies far
behind.

TBH, this seems to be a useful, summary, by TNP, in that I understand
what is being suggested and, perhaps more importantly, why :

quote

Just inject three or four points of sanity into the confusion.

- You can still get 32 bit Linux in latest releases.

- Linux + desktop will just about run in 256Mytes RAM, is usable at
512MBytes and starts to be friendly at 1GB.

- Linux itself is not the problem nor yet is the desktop. Its the apps
themselves. Thunderbird here is taking 256Mbyte RAM ON ITS OWN. Libre
office calc is around 50-100MB. Firefox is around 200Mbyte. On this
freshly booted desktop I am using 1.8GB or RAM for the Linux + those
apps plus Skype plus a reasonable amount of widgets. Dumping all but
thunderbird nets me a shade over 1GB.

- the key element to usability IME are RAM, CPU power, Graphics
acceleration and disk speed. You can't do much with a lappie about CPU
and graphics - either they will allow you to watch a Flash video (the
biggest chewer of CPU+GPU I have encountered outside of real time games)
or they wont. RAM should be increase to bet the machine can get if you
have any spare compatibles lying around,. Often very cheap or free on
old machines. SSD disk will make a massive difference and the good news
is that you don't need much and it can always be taken out and used in
another machine.

- SSD disk is not only very fast to boot, and load programs but more
importantly its very fast to SWAP in and out of - ten times faster than
ordinary disk. So a machine equipped with it that is swapping is far and
away more usable than one without.

- Rather than argue on line, burning the latest 32 bit Mint Mate onto a
DVD and booting from it will reveal exactly how fast it will run Firefox
and Flash, if its unusable, you have lost nothing but a couple of hours
and a burnable DVD. If it is usable even with current disk and RAM, why
not install it.

Get yourself something lighter than Mint, eg puppylinux, copy to usb stick, boot from it. See if you like it. If so, install. If not, nothing lost, think again.

Or hey, if you want modernish hardware to run at lightning speed under windows, you can always install win98 It does require major-ish patching to run on today's kit, but damn it's fast.


NT

On 08/09/2019 16:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/09/2019 13:53, Brian Reay wrote:
On 08/09/2019 13:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/09/2019 10:53, Brian Reay wrote:
T i m wrote:
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 00:03:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

snip

You fanboys are such hard work aren't you. ;-)


just not worth replying to is it.

Well, not for you it isn't because you say anything to 'win' (as has
been pointed out elsewhere with your Gimp reply).

I have installed Linux for probably 20+ people now and only two of
them are still using it (and only one 'only' using Linux, the other
dual boots with Windows).


Perhaps you need to learn how to do it properly then. It isnt
difficult.

Installing linux isn't the problem.
Its that the people don't want the linux apps.


Whether someone likes a particular 'app' is a matter of choice/taste.
Some 'swear by' MS Office, others by Libre Office, some by the Mac
Office Suite etc.

The OP wanted to run a browser and open spreadsheets. He could do that
with Linux using a browser of his choice and Libre Office.

And there's a choice oif 3 browsers at least - chromium,Â* firefox and
Opera...plus some others less well known.

OOI, did Opera work for your Barclays investment issue?


And open office or libre office.

On 11/09/2019 06:04, Richard wrote:
On 08/09/2019 16:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/09/2019 13:53, Brian Reay wrote:
On 08/09/2019 13:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/09/2019 10:53, Brian Reay wrote:
T i m wrote:
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 00:03:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

snip

You fanboys are such hard work aren't you. ;-)


just not worth replying to is it.

Well, not for you it isn't because you say anything to 'win' (as has
been pointed out elsewhere with your Gimp reply).

I have installed Linux for probably 20+ people now and only two of
them are still using it (and only one 'only' using Linux, the other
dual boots with Windows).


Perhaps you need to learn how to do it properly then. It isnt
difficult.

Installing linux isn't the problem.
Its that the people don't want the linux apps.


Whether someone likes a particular 'app' is a matter of choice/taste.
Some 'swear by' MS Office, others by Libre Office, some by the Mac
Office Suite etc.

The OP wanted to run a browser and open spreadsheets. He could do
that with Linux using a browser of his choice and Libre Office.

And there's a choice oif 3 browsers at least - chromium,Â* firefox and
Opera...plus some others less well known.

OOI, did Opera work for your Barclays investment issue?

no.
If its linux the site barfs, I suspect some toolkit they built it with
probes the OS and is only geared to windows and OSX.




And open office or libre office.




--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/09/2019 20:10, Brian Reay wrote:
On 08/09/2019 19:53, wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 16:01:57 UTC+1, T i mÂ* wrote:

And he may well, until something goes wrong, then who is he going to
turn to, *friendly* Linux fanboys like you?

If you can't answer that you really don't have many clues about linux.
Your views so far don't contradict that.

Tim seems unable to accept that not everyone agrees with him. The OP
specifically asked about installing Linux.

Tim wades in and tells him about HIS failures with installing Linux to
meet the needs of others. He ignores the fact countless people install
and use Linux.

What ever you do, don't get him onto the subject of the gunge you can
squirt into car tyres.....


Just inject three or four points of sanity into the confusion.
- You can still get 32 bit linux in latest releases.
- linux + desktop will just about run in 256Mytes RAM, is usable at
512MBytes and starts to be friendly at 1GB.
- Linux itself is not the problem nor yet is the desktop. Its the apps
themselves. Thunderbird here is taking 256Mbyte RAM ON ITS OWN. Libre
office calc is around 50-100MB. Firefox is around 200Mbyte. On this
freshly booted desktop I am using 1.8GB or RAM for the linux + those
apps plus skype plus a reasinable amount of widgets. . Dumping all but
thunderbird nets me a shade over 1GB.
- the key elemnst to useabiklity IME are RAM, CPU power, Graphics
acceleration and disk speed. You cant do much with a lappie about CPU
and graphics - either they will allow you to watch a Flash video (the
biggest chewer of CPU+GPU I have encountered outside of real time games)
or they wont. RAM should be increase to bet the nmachine can get if you
have any spare compatibles lying around,. Often very cheap or free on
old machines. SSD disk will make a massive difference and the good news
is that you dont need much and it can always be taken out and used in
another machine.



- SSD disk is not only very fast to boot, and load programs but more
importantly itst very fast to SWAP in and out of - ten times faster than
ordinary disk. So a machine equippeed with it that is swapping is far
and away more usable than one without.
- Rarhertrhan argue on line, burning the latest 32 bit MInt Mate onto a
DVD and booting from it will reveal exactly how fast it will run firefox
and Flash, It its unusable, you have lost nothing but a couple of hours
and a burnable DVD. If it is usable even with current disk abd RAM, why
not install it.




The OP has an old machine he wants to use for basic functions.

He doesnt need to install an SSD etc to do that.

Just a basic Linux which will run fine, be faster that XP, he doesnt need
to worry about XP no longer being supported etc...

Just because YOU cant make Linux work, dont assume others cant.

On 11/09/2019 07:57, Brian Reay wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/09/2019 20:10, Brian Reay wrote:
On 08/09/2019 19:53, wrote:
On Sunday, 8 September 2019 16:01:57 UTC+1, T i mÂ* wrote:

And he may well, until something goes wrong, then who is he going to
turn to, *friendly* Linux fanboys like you?

If you can't answer that you really don't have many clues about linux.
Your views so far don't contradict that.

Tim seems unable to accept that not everyone agrees with him. The OP
specifically asked about installing Linux.

Tim wades in and tells him about HIS failures with installing Linux to
meet the needs of others. He ignores the fact countless people install
and use Linux.

What ever you do, don't get him onto the subject of the gunge you can
squirt into car tyres.....


Just inject three or four points of sanity into the confusion.
- You can still get 32 bit linux in latest releases.
- linux + desktop will just about run in 256Mytes RAM, is usable at
512MBytes and starts to be friendly at 1GB.
- Linux itself is not the problem nor yet is the desktop. Its the apps
themselves. Thunderbird here is taking 256Mbyte RAM ON ITS OWN. Libre
office calc is around 50-100MB. Firefox is around 200Mbyte. On this
freshly booted desktop I am using 1.8GB or RAM for the linux + those
apps plus skype plus a reasinable amount of widgets. . Dumping all but
thunderbird nets me a shade over 1GB.
- the key elemnst to useabiklity IME are RAM, CPU power, Graphics
acceleration and disk speed. You cant do much with a lappie about CPU
and graphics - either they will allow you to watch a Flash video (the
biggest chewer of CPU+GPU I have encountered outside of real time games)
or they wont. RAM should be increase to bet the nmachine can get if you
have any spare compatibles lying around,. Often very cheap or free on
old machines. SSD disk will make a massive difference and the good news
is that you dont need much and it can always be taken out and used in
another machine.



- SSD disk is not only very fast to boot, and load programs but more
importantly itst very fast to SWAP in and out of - ten times faster than
ordinary disk. So a machine equippeed with it that is swapping is far
and away more usable than one without.
- Rarhertrhan argue on line, burning the latest 32 bit MInt Mate onto a
DVD and booting from it will reveal exactly how fast it will run firefox
and Flash, It its unusable, you have lost nothing but a couple of hours
and a burnable DVD. If it is usable even with current disk abd RAM, why
not install it.




The OP has an old machine he wants to use for basic functions.
I know that.

He doesnt need to install an SSD etc to do that.
I know that


Just a basic Linux which will run fine, be faster that XP, he doesnt need
to worry about XP no longer being supported etc...

I know that.
Just because YOU cant make Linux work, dont assume others cant.

I am probably one of the most konledgaable pole on here wrt to Linux and
Unix - my first unix experience was back in around 1986

What in my post makes you consider that I 'couldnt make it work?'

Or are you just being a random ****?










--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.