es330td******.com wrote:

>>LOL. Right. Bye, troll.
>>
>>--
>>"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
>
> Given that this *is* an unmoderated group I don't think you get to say
> "Bye" until I say I am leaving.

No, he can say "Bye" when he's leaving the discussion with you - that's
being polite from where I come.

....

> I admit that I am using slightly older hardware. Unfortunately for
> Linux, it doesn't get to choose what hardware people will attempt to
> run it on and it is the Linux community's own fault that it has been
> ported to everything this side of a Babbage mechanical computer.

It's also Microsoft's fault that Windwos won't run on the machines that I've
got and require an upgrade/replacement...

> Many
> people I know think that Linux can run on and support anything. It
> isn't my fault that the small footprint and lower resource
> requirements of Linux are trumpeted by the media and my 5 year old
> machine is the perfect candidate for a Linux system as it sure as hell
> won't run Vista.

Hmmm...my (about 2000 Gateway) machine downstairs running the same Mandriva
2008 as my notebook (1.6GHz Turion64x2 1G RAM) is...PIII/500, 630Mb, DVD;
screen runs at 1400x1050; duel (sic) boots with Win 98 (with which it
originally came). Originally had 128Mb RAM, but I upgraded it prior to
installing Linux - it generally uses about 30% of the RAM, often upto around
50%, occasionally maxing out at 60-70%.

Mefinx you have a problem with yourself.

PS That Gateway machine is probably no way able to run the latest Microsoft
Windwos, but it manages quite well with the latest Linux, albeit slowly for
a few functions, but those times are not that often enough (yet) to worry
about having to upgrade/replace.