JAD wrote:
> "Claude Hopper (11) 5. ?" <boobooililililil@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
> news:482b959a$0$3395$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Mac Cool wrote:
>>> I understand that for some reason it will only recognize about 3.5GB but I've read
>>> different explanations as to why. According to MS website, XP will use 4 GB. So what's
>>> the deal, should I go with 4GB? It's only $30 more than 2GB. When I use the memory
>>> configurator doohickies they only find compatible memory up to 2GB for my ECS 6100SM
>>> but maybe that doesn't mean anything.
>> Get 4 gig. It will come in handy when you convert to Linux and a dual boot machine.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Claude Hopper
>>
>> ? ? ¥
>
> My car wont start and my wheelchair has a flat. Will Linux fix that too?
>
>
If you know how.
>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I already
>> have with XP?
>
> You're kidding, right?
Why would I be kidding. XP is a 100% stable OS with far more functionality
and compatibility than any linux distro. There are several times as much
software available for XP, it has better hardware compatibility, requires
less work to make work and has better support by huge margin. And when I
said it only persists to give nerds a reason to avoid the sun and their
neighbors, I wasn't kidding about that either.
Mac Cool wrote:
> I understand that for some reason it will only recognize about 3.5GB but
> I've read different explanations as to why. According to MS website, XP
> will use 4 GB. So what's the deal, should I go with 4GB? It's only $30
> more than 2GB.
You are afraid of being unable to use $7.50 worth of memory?
> When I use the memory configurator doohickies they only
> find compatible memory up to 2GB for my ECS 6100SM but maybe that doesn't
> mean anything.
Mac Cool wrote:
> Claude Hopper (11) 5. ?:
>
>> Your thinking is old hat.
>
> I take that to mean you can't refute it.
I have a laptop that came with Windows XP media center. I shrunk the
partition and loaded Opensuse 10.3 Linux. Opensuse automatically
created a dual boot menu so I can use either operating system. I always
use Opensuse. It never breaks or hangs on me and I don't have to reboot
it fifty times to do upgrades. You never have to reboot it for installs
and upgrades unless it's a kernel upgrade which are not often.
Everytime you have to pass gas you have to reboot Windows XP.
Mac Cool wrote:
> class_a:
>
>>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I already
>>> have with XP?
>> You're kidding, right?
>
> Why would I be kidding. XP is a 100% stable OS with far more functionality
> and compatibility than any linux distro. There are several times as much
> software available for XP, it has better hardware compatibility, requires
> less work to make work and has better support by huge margin. And when I
> said it only persists to give nerds a reason to avoid the sun and their
> neighbors, I wasn't kidding about that either.
IF it was such a "100% stable" (??) opsys, why do I have to reboot my
work machine daily (or more) just to be able to print MS Word docs?
"nobody >" <usenetharvested@aol.com> wrote in message
news:wYmdnYEsqchxDLHVnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@supernews.co m...
> Mac Cool wrote:
>> class_a:
>>
>>>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I already
>>>> have with XP?
>>> You're kidding, right?
>>
>> Why would I be kidding. XP is a 100% stable OS with far more
>> functionality and compatibility than any linux distro. There are several
>> times as much software available for XP, it has better hardware
>> compatibility, requires less work to make work and has better support by
>> huge margin. And when I said it only persists to give nerds a reason to
>> avoid the sun and their neighbors, I wasn't kidding about that either.
>
> IF it was such a "100% stable" (??) opsys, why do I have to reboot my work
> machine daily (or more) just to be able to print MS Word docs?
My XP box (that I built from scratch) runs 12 hrs/day. I regularly print
from Word and Excel, Firefox & IE, and Adobe (pdfs). I can't remember the
last time I had to reboot. I have no need that I can think of to use Linux
either.
Mac Cool wrote:
> class_a:
>
>>> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I already
>>> have with XP?
>> You're kidding, right?
>
> Why would I be kidding. XP is a 100% stable OS with far more functionality
> and compatibility than any linux distro.
Sorry, but XP is most certainly not a 100% stable OS. I use XP in work
(in a 24/7 environment) and each work station has to be rebooted once or
twice a week due to various problems that constantly crop up and which
never give enough information in the error messages to fix. OTOH, I use
linux at home (heavily, running more apps than the XP boxes in work) and
I have had uptimes in the 100+days range, which would have been longer
only I did a kernel upgrade that necessitated a reboot.
> There are several times as much software available for XP,
That I don't buy at all. Have you heard of Sourceforge? More linux
based software there than you'd know what to do with, and it's free!
Name me an application, any application, and I should be able to find a
FREE linux alternative that will do the same thing as an expensive
Windoze version.
> it has better hardware compatibility,
Really? Have you tried some older hardware on XP? Some of it doesn't
work (due to a lack of XP drivers), but does in the latest linux distro
as it is supported at kernel level!
> requires less work to make work
Now I know you are kidding (or a troll). XP needs a HUGE amount more
work to keep running when compared to linux.
> and has better support by huge margin.
Again, don't make me laugh. How long does it take M$ to release a patch
when a serious security flaw is discovered? A day, a week, a month, or
the next service pack? Usually one of the latter two. Linux? It's
usually patched the same day the flaw is discovered. Tell me, do you
run anti-virus software? Yes? Why is that? I don't because I don't
need to. There has never been a successful linux virus that was able to
replicate widely, unlike Windoze which is riddled with viruses due to a
major flaw in the security structure of the OS at the most basic level.
> And when I
> said it only persists to give nerds a reason to avoid the sun and their
> neighbors, I wasn't kidding about that either.
I guess that shows how little you know. Because my linux box is more
stable and thus requires less work, and is faster(!) due to a more
efficient OS, I have MORE time to get out in the sun and to meet my
neighbors.
Mac Cool wrote:
> Claude Hopper (11) 5. ?:
>
>> Get 4 gig. It will come in handy when you convert to Linux and a dual
>> boot machine.
>
> Why would I want less functionality and stability than I already have with
> XP? The only thing I get with linux is nerd cred and headaches. No thanks.
> The only reason linux continues is that it gives nerds an excuse to avoid
> the sun and their neighbors.
Linux continues nowadays for at least two reasons:
1) It satisfies people who want a rationally and tastefully designed OS,
including those who grew up on Unix. This you call nerd cred, I guess.
2) It brings large savings to those who need a lot of copies:
government, point-of-sale, schools, supercomputers.
Those are footholds from which Linux will not be dislodged.
Windows is at the top of the hill. Its position is formidable, but not
as secure and being slowly but continually weakened.
Re: Is it worth buying 4GB RAM for an XP machine? 
Linear Mode
