>> Ouch! 95+Office+486?
>Honestly, it runs along at a nice pace! Keep in mind, I;ve used high-end
>Power Macs, Suns, Pentium IIs and while it can't compare to those systems,
>it runs nicely. Especially for simple tasks like Microsoft Office. I do
>have 28 megs of RAM but even under 16 it wasn't bad.
Run 'nicely' is not something I would describe of
any version of Windows. They're far too bloated
for too little actual functionality. Until I switched
to Linux, I was constantly contemplating an ST
emulator so that I could run more efficient (yet
That fixation is gone. (although STonX is still
>> The major linux vendors distribute it (like Redhat or Caldera)
>> and you can find it in places like *linuxmall*. For games that
>> have been 'un'released, you can just pick up the game at CompUsa
>> and download the Linux version of the executable (QII, UO).
>I have seen Redhat at Electronics Boutique. The problem I might have with
>Linux is that I only have a 500 meg hard drive.... Are these commercial
>versions easy-to setup as, say, other major OSes? Like a nice setup
Yup. Hardware configuration is more Win 3.1ish. There is
some plug-n-pray but that's primarily with PCI devices.
Whether or not this is a good thing tends to correlate
to one's Win95 experiences (good or bad). For LInux,
500 may be a bit tight. I would expect it to be tight
for Win95 as well. If you dont have any intention of
using the linux dev tools are some of the more *
unix utilities (like tex) you should be fine.
>> There's also a 'freeware' ST emulator called STonX that
>> you might want to try out. You'll have to provide ROM
>> images however (not hard to find on the web).
>I have heard good things about it. Does it allow different resolutions
>other than the three standard ST ones?
Yes, but it only runs in 256 color mode.
>> Linux will likely run more responsively on the hardware
>> you're using now. Although, unless you have lots of ram,
>> I would not expect much out of either '95 or linux.
>> Although Linux is a lot easier to trim and tune.
>If by t* and tuning I have to wade through tons of configuration
>files, I am not sure I want to. Are many packages for Linux "complete" or
>do you have to compile most packages yourself? Sorry I am so clueless on
Yes, there is configuration overhead. Unix is a system
where you boss around the OS, instead of vice-versa.
>> I never found the performance of M$ OSes to my liking.
>> I also found the registry and plug-n-pray quite annoying
>> as well.
>The registry is fairly easy to configure, IMHO. Also, for some odd reason
>(I know I am in the minority), Plug-n-Play has worked flawlessly for me.
>Windows detected all of my components and I had no conflicts. Strange ;-)
Win95 did detect my 2nd CDROM drive, my tape drive & still
doesn't have a proper driver for it, didn't have a useful
monitor type for my monitor & misconfigured my ethernet
card disabling my modem in the process. Yes YMMV.
The registry is too prone to corruption & not a help to me
as I would be directly modifying it anyways to bend the
machine to suit me.