Yahoo says this.
I have dabbled on and off with various incarnations of Linux over the years and have always had to return to Windoze owing to unavailability of suitable Linux alternatives to some of my applications. M$ Access was my killer, but I have decided to write my own database front end using MYSQL from scratch so that was one barrier removed. My latest foray into all things Linux was with Linux Mint. It seemed to be a very good, and relatively mature product. However..... I cannot seem to convince it to run my two monitors at their native resolutions. One an HP 17" 4:3 and the other an Acer 23" at 16:9 The best I can achieve is Both running a 4:3 and much lower resolutions on both, unless, I want both displays as mirrors of one another which rather negates the purpose of dual displays.
I haven't even gotten to the stage of getting my Winfast DTV Dongle Gold working or testing the alternatives to Sketchup, let alone my aforementioned project. Maybe I should just remain with windoze which, despite all the brickbats, generally works out of the box.
Has anyone here experience with various flavours of linux? Care to offer suggestions as to which package may serve my purposes better?
Look Here -> |
Yahoo says this.
Time to edit xorg.conf:
Last edited by shred; 18-09-14 at 04:27 PM.
I love Linux. I've probably been using it now for at least 10 years. I started on Mandrake, went to Debian, then Gentoo, Arch and finally settled on Sabayon. I've played with Mint and it is an excellent distribution for beginners and experts alike. But with Linux you do need to be prepared to put some time into setting it up and learning it and maintaining it. Unfortunately there are still far too many hardware providers who not only fail to provide Linux drivers for their products, but also fail to provide the information required for the Linux community to do so. This is why problems like this are so common. If you are prepared to spend a little time online you can usually find a solution. There are usually plenty of people prepared to help.
Do you have any compelling reason(s) for wanting to get away from Windows? Windows 7 is actually quite a good Operating System.
Last edited by DB44; 18-09-14 at 06:45 PM.
What amuses me about that Linux experiment link is that they are using an nVidea card which, in the past, has caused me all sorts of grief on a Linux box and one of the primary reasons I have stayed away. I found myself with a couple of spare ATI cards so I thought I'd try it again.
As you have stated, DB44, Windoze 7 is quite a good OS but you need licenses for each of your machines, I have at least 4 machines and only 2 licenses, so only two are running 7. I have XP licenses hanging out my ears which I can/do use. My latest foray into Linux was because an ACER machine I was attempting to set up could not seem to find appropriate drivers for the network card for one for XP. (I went to the Acer site and none of their drivers appear to be appropriate for XP even though this machine has an XP license sticker on it.) I also like the additional security of a Linux box, if I can get one to work as I want it. My main problem being the time needed to get it going.
Both Linux and Windows (2000, NT, XP, Vista,7/8.x) are operating systems (OS). Linux was inspired from Unix, while Windows was inspired from Virtual Memory System (VMS), introduced 1977 by DEC. While no single company "owns" Linux, Windows is owned by Microsoft. Various distributions (often referred to as "distros") of Linux come from different companies (e.g. Red Hat, Novell SuSE, Mandrake etc.), while all Windows flavors (95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8.x) come from Microsoft. Both Linux and Windows come in Desktop and Server editions. Linux is fast catching up and is evolving from an original server operating system to a desktop operating system.
Cost:
As far as cost is concerned, Linux is very cheap or free. I used the word "very cheap" for enterprise users. While anybody can download, install and use Linux, the distribution companies usually charge for technical support.
Windows is expensive. You first pay for the copy of the software and then again for the technical support if you ever want it.
There is another catch though; Windows enforces you to use a single copy on a single computer. This is not the case with Linux though, once you purchase Linux, you can run it on an unlimited number of computers.
GUI:
Both Windows and Linux are GUI based operating systems.
I'm afraid but, Windows has better GUI than Linux and it will get far better with the upcoming Windows 9 release. Linux has two GUIs: Gnome and KDE.
Command Line:
Both Windows and Linux comes with command line interface. Windows calls it the "DOS prompt", while Linux refers to it as the "shell". Linux's shell is far more superior than Window's DOS prompt. It can do a whole lot of things that are not possible in Windows. Linux support various command line shells such as BASH, Bourne, Korn, C shell and many other.
Third Party Application Software Availability:
Both Windows and Linux run third-party applications. Windows, compared to Linux, has far greater number of third party applications available for use. A program written for Windows will not run under Linux (although it can be made to emulate, but it will be very annoying and hence not recommended).
Linux's application base is, however, increasing threefold. On a more close examination, the average computer user uses the following applications 90% of the time: Word Processor (Office suite), E-mail client, Web browser, Media software, and Instant Messenger. Linux has all these applications and in fact has many flavors for each.
Like Linux, all third party applications are very cheap or free. Whereas, Windows applications can cost a leg and a limb.
Security:
Simply put it this way, Windows prior to Windows 8.x 64-Bit is not secure. If you are not using Windows 8.x 64-Bit and don't have Antivirus, Anti Spyware, and firewall (memory and resource eating applications), your computer can get affected by a virus in less than 10 minutes.
Microsoft Windows come with Firewall and Anti Spyware / Anti Malware programs pre-installed, but these programs run in the background and eat up your computer's precious memory.
Linux, on the other hand, doesn't have these issues. I'm not aware of any spywares for Linux. One can safely run a Linux distro without ever worrying about installing Anti-Virus or Anti-Spywares.
Windows also has more security flaws than Linux. By security flaw, I mean a hacker can compromise the Windows operating system and break into your machine and destroy your files. But, flaws on Windows are quickly fixed and patches are often made available almost instantly after the flaw is reported.
Supported Hardware:
Windows was originally designed for Intel based machines. Earlier version of Windows NT also ran on RISC and Alpha architectures, but not anymore.
Linux run on a wide variety of hardware. And can support some very old legacy hardware. I've seen a Linux distro running on a 486 based machine.
Diver Availability:
As one author once said, "Windows is a bag of drivers". I think that is quite true. Installing a new hardware device is a piece of cake in Windows, whereas it can be a nuisance on Linux especially for Joe Average. I can't in my wildest dreams imagine my wife installing a sound card successfully in Linux.
Things however will not stay the same for long. Manufacturers are also offering Linux drivers for their hardware, which will simplify the process.
Network Support:
Linux beats Windows bad in this area. Windows was never designed for the Internet. Unix, on which Linux is based, was designed for Internet (or Network) and is far more efficient compared to Windows. A senior Network Administrator recently pointed out that if he monitors the traffic between exchange Windows based Exchange Server and Client, he can see that hundreds of packets are going to and from even when both are idle. He said that such is not the case with Linux.
However, Joe Average will never see or feel any difference. Windows Internet is good enough for him.
File System:
Since Windows Vista a new file system called WinFS is used. Earlier version used FAT (FAT16 and FAT32) and NTFS file systems, with NTFS being the preferred choice. Linux supports ext2 and ext3 file systems.
FAT file systems were mediocre, but NTFS can be compared with the Linux file systems.
Both file systems allows us to create directories, sub directories and file. Linux file systems are case-sensitive whereas, NTFS is not.
Normally, Linux systems cannot access NTFS file systems, but with the help of add-on software, it can.
Help and Documentation:
Linux help and documentation is quite good, accurate and to the point compared.
I've been using Windows for well over 15 years now. Frankly speaking, I hardly ever checked the accompanying documentation or the help file because everything is so simple that nobody needs to venture in the help file.
What should I use/buy?
If you are Joe Average, that extra $300 on Windows 8.x 64-Bit for your desktop PC are worth spending. If you are looking an OS for your (home) server, never even think about Windows. Use/buy Linux.
ol' boy (19-09-14)
What version Mint ?
Drivers are included in all kernel versions since ver 2.6.28 for the Winfast dongle.
For Graphics card's you should be able to find drivers for both ATI and Nvidia.
Have a look in Administration then Driver Manager if your graphics cards are recent you should be able to install proprietary drivers. If not have a look in Package Manager and search Nvidia or ATI depending on your card.
Come on, Gnome and KDE aren't the only GUI's available.
By default most Linux Distro's use EXT4. Also most Linux Distro's can access NTFS without any added software.
Last edited by mickstv; 19-09-14 at 08:00 PM.
@mick Latest version of mint, (17 IIRC Quiana?) I've done the driver search and the ATI drivers recommended will not load. As for the Winfast card, when I can convince the video to work properly, I shall play with that.
Whats the model number of the graphics card ?
Is your mint 32bit or 64bit ?
Its an old X300 Radeon card AMD offer drivers for linux, but they do not appear to be suitable for my kernel.
I get the message:
"Error: ./default_policy.sh does not support version
default:v2:x86_64:lib32::none:3.13.0-24-generic; make sure that the version is being
correctly set by --iscurrentdistro
Removing temporary directory: fglrx-install.OobRkt"
when I attempt to install the download from AMD so it looks like I might be stuffed. I have loaded 64 bit, and the drivers from AMD seem to be generic for either 32 or 64bit.
mickstv (21-09-14)
I'd be embarrassed to pass off a chunk of text with so many basic errors as my own.
Basic errors?
Security for a start. Now no one is claiming Windows is a bastion of impregnability but Linux isn't all that flash either. I supposed one must consider what is Linux and what is Windows. If we assume everything that comes on the Windows DVD is 'Windows' (ie IIS etc) then it's reasonable to assume that everything that comes on a 'Linux DVD' is Linux. So what about heartbleed, that little SSL problem that recently sent the computing world into a spin. How about that privilege elevation issue recently found in X ... that lay undiscovered *yeah right* for about 25 years.
File systems? WinFS. It doesn't even exist. Not in Vista. No Windows 7, not Windows 8. Microsoft stuck with NTFS since it was more than flexible enough and could be easily extended to do everything, and now more, than was proposed with WinFS.
Network support: Geez. This entire section is so broken it's hard to know where to start. The number of packets exchanged between programs has nothing to do with the OS!
mickstv (21-09-14)
I remember some time back jwoegerbauer gave me a bagging because I posted some content from another site without any link. Funny thing was my post did contain a link to the website.
Hmmm interesting.
warbo (21-09-14)
lsemmens, I went for a scrounge in the shed today and found an X1300 and a HD2400 PRO, both worked at max resolution without any added drivers on Mint 17.
Open a terminal and type in.....
sudo lshw
Then hit enter, after a short time it will list all attributes of the system, scroll down and see if the X300 is listed.
marty 17 (21-09-14)
I saw your post on the Mint forums. Did you try the suggestion in the last posts by hinto and PatH57, which is to install fglrx-updates from synaptic?
lsemmens (22-09-14)
Haven't been in there for a couple of days, so I will check it out, thanks.
Bookmarks