The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm going to set up a wireless home network soon to share an ADSL connection: two desktops and two laptops. My plan is to have them all running XP (as a concession to the less tech-savvy members of the household). But I'm going to dual-boot my box with linux. The trouble is I'm not sure how simple that's going to be. I've only set-up a simple network before, all running Win 2000: has anyone done one using more than one OS? How willing is XP going to be to talk to Linux, and vice versa? I don't mind having to do a lot of fiddling about to get it working, but I'd rest easier knowing that someone else had done it.
Page:
Insomnia wrote:
> .. XP DOES crash as you know very well, whereas a 486 doesn't..
>
> Oh come on, you're comparing an /Operating System/ to a /Processor
> Design/.
>
> I'm off to bed.
You knew I meant a 486 running Linux, stop being pedantic.
> .. XP DOES crash as you know very well, whereas a 486 doesn't..
>
> Oh come on, you're comparing an /Operating System/ to a /Processor
> Design/.
>
> I'm off to bed.
You knew I meant a 486 running Linux, stop being pedantic.
Oh, and WindowsXP does have protected memory, as did Windows 2000.
No you don't, i win. XP is the best option for Unknown, like I said. It's really easy and he doesn't need any additional hardware, sorted.
I win in the long term.
Well, I'd say you have an interesting viewpoint, as XP does have a tendancy to break down over time, as does all Windows systems. It's very much dependant on the hardware it's running on. Don't forget - you could run Linux on anything - x86, Acorn (RISC), SPARC, PowerPC, Palms, Alpha, ia64 (whatever that is), etc.
Well, I'd say you have an interesting viewpoint, as XP does have a tendancy to break down over time, as does all Windows systems. It's very much dependant on the hardware it's running on. Don't forget - you could run Linux on anything - x86, Acorn (RISC), SPARC, PowerPC, Palms, Alpha, ia64 (whatever that is), etc.
Yay! I win :)
Well thanks for the advice/arguments on this: I've had a few beers so I'm not sure how cogent this reply this is going to be.
My current plan is to run the network through boxes I currently own: no cheap/free 486 among them at present. So for simplicity's sake the box with the net connection is going to be running XP. (I don't want to flip out the network by rebooting the only linux box in the setup.)
Having a dedicated net gateway does sound like a good idea, and is something I'll probably add later, but for now I'd rather not get into the hassle of (a) getting a mule box, and (b) explaining to others why it's necessary.
From what I've heard XP is fairly stable IF you don't change it too much. So the ADSL connection will probably run through the general use box, rather than my more experimental, and temperamental set-up. The fact is that Windows is quite well suited to mainstream users: a box running Office and IE isn't terribly unstable. It's only when you really start pushing your PC that problems occur. (I'm assuming that the terrible memory leakage of Win 9x has been fixed in XP: just something I've heard from quite a few people.)
That's my current plan, anyway. If anyone thinks it's suicidal (bearing in mind that I intend it to evolve towards a linux based set-up eventually) then do let me know.
My current plan is to run the network through boxes I currently own: no cheap/free 486 among them at present. So for simplicity's sake the box with the net connection is going to be running XP. (I don't want to flip out the network by rebooting the only linux box in the setup.)
Having a dedicated net gateway does sound like a good idea, and is something I'll probably add later, but for now I'd rather not get into the hassle of (a) getting a mule box, and (b) explaining to others why it's necessary.
From what I've heard XP is fairly stable IF you don't change it too much. So the ADSL connection will probably run through the general use box, rather than my more experimental, and temperamental set-up. The fact is that Windows is quite well suited to mainstream users: a box running Office and IE isn't terribly unstable. It's only when you really start pushing your PC that problems occur. (I'm assuming that the terrible memory leakage of Win 9x has been fixed in XP: just something I've heard from quite a few people.)
That's my current plan, anyway. If anyone thinks it's suicidal (bearing in mind that I intend it to evolve towards a linux based set-up eventually) then do let me know.
You can get 486s for free from many places, they'll be more stable, useful and XP DOES crash as you know very well, whereas a 486 doesn't. Hell, this is a 333mhz that's being used constantly for hundreds of CPU-raping tasks that's built with the World's Worst Hardware, and the only reason why my uptime ever gets reset is because my mum throws a fit and rips it out. My record is 24 days... would be about 3 months if it weren't for Mum. Grrr....
I still say XP and ICS is cheaper and simpler..
.. "you won't lose your connection every 30 minutes as XP crashes" ..
FUD. Sigh.
Bashing Microsoft is no longer a way to be cool. I think I grew out of it years ago.
You want a fairly common network setup. Broadband connected to one box, acting as the firewall/gateway. Personally, I'd run Linux on the box that's dedicated to that job, because you can run it happily on an old 486.
(That way you can have a 486 sitting in the corner keeping the net connection up, and actually use the rest of your boxen without worrying about connectivity failing when they falls apart. /tangent.)
If you just want to experiment with Linux on one of the internal boxes and don't feel comfortable setting it up for IP Masquerading ("Connection Sharing" in common terms), by all means use Windows' built in ICS as Andi suggested on the computer with the network connection. You can always change it later :-)
Hm.. where was I?
Oh.. I'm not sure, this has been sitting here unposted for the last five hours. Ah well, it'll have to do..
FUD. Sigh.
Bashing Microsoft is no longer a way to be cool. I think I grew out of it years ago.
You want a fairly common network setup. Broadband connected to one box, acting as the firewall/gateway. Personally, I'd run Linux on the box that's dedicated to that job, because you can run it happily on an old 486.
(That way you can have a 486 sitting in the corner keeping the net connection up, and actually use the rest of your boxen without worrying about connectivity failing when they falls apart. /tangent.)
If you just want to experiment with Linux on one of the internal boxes and don't feel comfortable setting it up for IP Masquerading ("Connection Sharing" in common terms), by all means use Windows' built in ICS as Andi suggested on the computer with the network connection. You can always change it later :-)
Hm.. where was I?
Oh.. I'm not sure, this has been sitting here unposted for the last five hours. Ah well, it'll have to do..
Page: