I'm confused. Did you guys uninstall your IE? I'm wondering how to make it so that Foxfire is my default browser so that when I check my email through MSN Messenger, it will open with FF. Is there a way to do this?
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-07 0:23
i don't think so. i just check it in IE
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-08 23:50
in Firefox go to Tools->options->General->check default Borwser
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-17 15:27
get another msn client. msn messenger sucks.
I personnaly like mercury, but I don't have the IE problem because I use Linux and don't use a hotmail-email
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-18 11:36
UNINSTALL EVERYTHING AND USE LINUX. LINUX. FOR ALL YOUR PROBLEMS.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-18 11:51
Some newer versions of Windoze make it impossible to remove IE and Outlook completely, but you can make something else your default browser.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-18 18:08
"newer" being Windows 98 and later.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-18 20:48
the only reason i'm not switching from msnm is the neato handwriting plugin which is like a no-hassle whiteboard. if anything else accomplishes this well, i switch.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-21 8:52
While MSN Messenger opens links that have been sent to you by your chat buddies in your default browser, it always uses IE to open hotmail mails. There's no exceptions. Microsoft are crazy like that.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-21 10:29
stop running microsoft for anything but games
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-23 22:04
Why would I want to disable IE? I just set it to the minimum settings (to minimize bugs) and use Mozilla... I have nothing that opens IE, and if I do, it's uninstalled as soon as it does. I keep IE for those sucky old nonstandard sites I *have* to browse (like, for work).
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-02-24 8:46
>>10
I don't even use it for games. I take my games seriously; if people keep using Windows for games, producers will keep writing games for Windows. Luckily many newer games are released on Linux these days. If only Valve were as good as ID :(
Unfortunately, Linux still sucks for realtime multimedia applications. It has complicated, inconsistent, problematic sound, graphics, and input systems, and it tends to be more laggy and slower than Windows. Windows was designed to run on a single machine, X Windows' client-server architecture fucks everything up.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-24 16:30
Linux is awful for gaming, really. People who say its great for games are the sort of people who make a big deal out of it having gimp which is a shit photoshop clone or that it ALMOST WORKS the first time you install it. Linux is a joke for desktop systems.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-24 17:21
I'm afraid there's still a lot of work to do on Linux for it to be usable as a desktop OS. Sure, it's free. Sure, it has very, very nice console stuff. (99% of which Windows does too, and without Cygwin) Sure, it's not Microsoft (and believe me, this is my favorite thing of Linux). But I need to work fast and efficiently, and I grew tired of hand editing bizarre configuration files and stuff that ALMOST WORKS. Windows has its problems, but it's much more polished and offers better performance as for desktop, multimedia, video, and gaming applications.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-24 20:23
>>15
I'd agree with that pretty much. Its a shame because open source is a great idea, linux as a desktop or gaming environment just needs more a massive amount of more work.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-24 20:25
(apologies for bad english)
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-02-25 7:50
>> I'm afraid there's still a lot of work to do on Linux for it to be usable as a desktop OS
Ubuntu?
>> Windows... offers better performance as for desktop, multimedia, video, and gaming applications.
Not in my experience.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-25 10:02
desktops:
windows for games, everyrhting else is linux or bsd
>>24
ms-dos and windows95 are limited, linux and freebsd is only limited by the availibily of software designed for them, not an inherrent limitation such as ms-dos or windows95
companies could easily make 3dstudio run on linux, etc etc for any windows-influenced product you can name
its about windows exclusivity of software $$$, not the capabilities of the open source operating systems... in almost every other aspect besides skewed corporate development of software... the open source operating systems are far superior
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-26 11:37
>>21
gimp is pretty shit really, its poor software.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-26 11:38
>>25
Yeah like betamax was far superior to vhs. Who cares. I just want to play games not fuck around on it for eleven hours to get them to even load.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-28 16:40
the first step to improving the Linux desktop is making X suck less...a lot less.
then the desktop environment developers need to take lessons on UI design, and stop chasing behind the Windows/MacOS tail-lights.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-28 16:59
>>28
i guess i should re-evaluate my second statement. while I abhor the major DE's like GNOME and KDE, the E17 project has pretty much got it all right.
the only problem is that (outside of the obtuse text-file configuration) there are 0 native applications outside of the bare essentials (window manager, file manager, login manager, terminal emulator, application dock, etc), and it lacks any decent multimedia or networking framework. then again, i don't think Rasterman meant his project to be used outside of the "experimental sandbox" context.
another related problem is that with the foothold that GTK+ and Qt have gained since the inception of the Linux desktop, it's highly unlikely that EWL applications will enjoy the same widespread success as, say, Gaim or k3b.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-28 17:06
>>29
in addition, E17 is a fiercely exclusive project in the sense that the developers conscientiously refuse to cooperate with outside projects and standards on freedesktop.org and such. i'm also not sure how nicely it plays with internationalization standards such as i18n and UTF-8.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-28 19:59
>>14
Poor guy, I was a n00b when I installed it and I had no problems then and no problems now. I use it as my desktop, so I watch videos, play mp3s/oggs, and do whatever the hell I want. And I rarely find a program that I want without a distro related binary, dunno when you tried it.
i dont think anyone is arguing that linux is easier to use than windows or macs. if you want your games to Just Work, buy an xbox or a ps2.
as far as i can tell, linux (2.6 kernel) is a MUCH better desktop than windows. under load, it is still really responsive. windows gets hella slow with 100% cpu usage. the UI is much also more customizable and generally can be better designed than windows, especially in using the keyboard for basic navigation. terminals are also much easier to use on linux. they are such a pain on windows.
in my experience games have been at least as easy to install under linux as windows. they also install themselves nicely in a single folder and put their config files nicely in your home directory, instead of spewing random shit all over the place like they do in windows. they also run just as fast as on windows.
about linux having less apps than windows: yeah it does have less apps. many, many less. but the apps generally actually freaking work nicely and dont spew random shit all over the place. they dont take over your entire system and irreversably install themselves in every nook and crany and pop up all the freaking time trying to do everything for you. linux also has some nice apps not available on windows.
mplayer plays every video i have every tried to play with it just fine. it took me ages to set up all my codecs and crap under windows
gimp and gaim are both excellent apps and work better under linux than windows
updating linux (atleast with gentoo) is much easier than windows. no navigating stupid websites all the time, just type "emerge sync && emerge -uD world" and wait a little while...
in the same vein, installing progams is generally much easier. to install the gimp, for instance, just type "emerge gimp-2.0," no looking around for installers, downloading them, clicking through stupid wizards, etc.
anyway, i can do everything better under linux that i could under windows, and it doesnt constantly piss me off.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-28 21:23 (sage)
Ah, fuck. Another gentoo idiot. Please, please take your ignorant adolescent blather and go back to the gentoo forums. You guys are worse than Mac zealots; you're half as intelligent, and twice as loud.
Name:
Anonymous2005-02-28 21:46
>>34
Hey, don't shit on all us Gentoo users just because one of the blathering newbs decided to post here!
Name:
FREEBSD2005-02-28 22:05
lol gentoo sux
Name:
Schala2005-03-01 4:50
More people should Dual-boot Fedora and WinXP. it actually works quite nicely. i use mostly linux for what i do(web browsing and e-mail and chat), and i get more work done that way. (granted, its mostly because most of my favorite games dont work with linux, and im too lazy to reboot...)
but when i want to play a game, or watch anime, i have to switch to windows. why for videos, you ask? because i have 120 gigs of NTFS filestorage. and i cant access it in Fedora. :(
get fedora to 'play nice' with NTFS and i'll switch completely to linux.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-01 4:56
you can mount ntfs from linux
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-01 12:00
>>38
Yes, you can, but you better not write to it :)
but the project is still active, it will get better
can sure as hell playback anime from an ntfs drive tho
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-01 20:34
>>33
Delusional. If you're expecting to sell linux as a desktop environment on the merits of it having an aim clone, and really not a very interesting one at that, a poor photoshop clone, and a spartan media player... lol. Linux is an excellent os, but not an excellent desktop. It could be, eventually, but ignoring that there are massive issues with it in that role is plain dumb.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-01 20:47
>>41
Gaim works damn well, I don't see anything wrong with it, Gimp isn't really a clone, unless all other image editing tools are clones of PS, and there are some damn good media players that outtake windows players out there. Maybe you should look around more, and often. I've been using Linux(debian) for over a year now as a desktop and I have had no problem with doing the things I want to do and doing them with ease.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-02 6:05
I'm sure you're happy with Debian, >>42, but I think >>41 is right. Sure, linux as a desktop is livable, but most people are not going to substitute Windows for general desktop usage.
I've been using linux for seven years. I know it inside out. And I still feel like throwing the fucking thing out the window sometimes. Admit it, so do you. Everyone does. Desktop just isn't one of its strengths yet, even if this isn't entirely the fault of the software.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-02 6:18
>>43
i disagree entirely. linux runs perfectly as a desktop, just not as a gaming platform. very simple
Agreed. X sucks by design though, being so client-server oriented it's sloooooow, unresponsive, bloated, complex, and annoying. Besides, it has everything 10000 times (a gazillion window managers, a gazillion font servers, a gazillion servers, etc.), making it even more annoying and problematic, because Bub wrote software for Pops' environment but then you're running Marc's, and you end up having to recompile the frigging application if you want it to run decently, after making sure you've got glibthis 2.3.458.5, libcthat 14.69b second release, and homotoolkit build 174891 or higher. Anything besides what's on a good distribution like Suse is bound to be a hell to install, look like crap, mess with fonts and render ugly text, etc.
Admittedly, there's no way Linux can compete with Windows until a completely new GUI is developed - ONE GUI, not Bub's, Marc's, Tony's, and mine, just ONE GUI offering EVERYTHING from the graphic primitives to the desktop (i.e. not a Lego system, but a system), one that works, not like the "almost works" stuff of today.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-02 13:40
>>45
Freedom from Choice is what you want. How American.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-02 13:50 (sage)
>I still feel like throwing the fucking thing out the window sometimes. Admit it, so do you. Everyone does.
Stop trying to use a Unix system as if it was a Windows box. Duh.
(As a unix user for 16 years.. Can't say I've ever had the urge to throw it out. I love having a non-droolproof computer.)
open-source is a framework that usually leads to multiple projects for the same type of application, its not some totalitarian corporate regime where they can just force all the programmers to work on the same project and develop an integrated (highly-proprietary) GUI with single purpose...
open-source software generally requires configuration and recompilation for any application you wish to act in a specific non-default way... one should become familiar with the software they use anyway.
everything is custom.... so you are expected to customize. you must choose between the alternatives and implement your choice... this simple fact will force you to understand the program and the operating system, which is not a bad thing if you plan on using a computer for a few years. plus there are plenty of automatic dependency building structures like bsd's ports tree and the random linux distro tools... so you make it out to be more of a problem than it really is
the result of proper customization of your open-source operating system will do everything you want and nothing you don't want. most people on microsoft get screwed by something they don't use or even know exists-by-default on their system... pretty GUIs aren't the answer, understanding and hardening your system is the answer.. and its really not that hard.
for linux build a few lfs and read the description fields.. it will teach you how linux operates while building a very custom system. for bsd rtfm, web or get a book.. etc..
if you decide to build its visual appeal, there is no looking like crap and rendering ugly text with a properly built system
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-02 18:15
>>44
You just WANT it to work so much you convince yourself when you can't do something on X, you don't need to do it.
>>48
Sure, make everything complicated and waste your time. That totalitarian (lol computer politics) guy is more efficient, and I don't want to waste mine.
open-source software generally requires configuration and recompilation for any application you wish to act in a specific non-default way
The "default way" is one that ALMOST WORKS or plainly sucks. And recompilation is sad. Because of my work, and hobbies at home, I try all sorts of software and lots of it, and use the computer for a hundred purposes. Do you have an idea how many times more comfortable I found Windows to work on? Even when it screws up, it's much easier to fix and harder to seriously ruin the thing (unless you're a total luser and browse porn sites with MSIE).
which is not a bad thing if you plan on using a computer for a few years
Which is not the desktop scenario, where you do a lot of things and update very frequently. Recompiling every new version of Mozilla to install it would be a royal pain in the ass.
the result of proper customization of your open-source operating system will do everything you want and nothing you don't want
I could make the OS myself too, that way it'd be 100% custom and do absolutely everything I want and absolutely nothing I don't want. Only I'd take 25 years to get Mozilla running.
pretty GUIs aren't the answer, understanding and hardening your system is the answer.. and its really not that hard
I understand my pretty GUI, as well as the system. User friendliness is not opposite to programming or understanding. That's a Unix-derived misconception.
Mozilla compiles in no time on my 4ghz chip with 3gigs of ram... what are you so afraid of, it takes no time once you know how it works. Plus I usually just use the -current branch of Portage.
Also, it takes far less than 25 years to learn Linux or BSD and run it exactly to your specification. Windows isn't easy to "fix", they don't disclose how it operates... at most you can replace or reinstall components. Their patch releases are decrepitly slow and you must wait on them. They have a nice UI and have cornered the market on PC gaming companies as well as other software companies, but really that is nothing to be proud of.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-02 18:52
>>50
Lol, you have to resort to flames. Your fanboyism is amazing.
Name:
432005-03-02 18:56 (sage)
>>47
You realize you just restated what I said? Think about it.
Here's a clue you inane twat: the general populace doesn't want to compile Mozilla. Nor do they want to know about branches in portage, or spend several weeks relearning a new GUI and software. Holy shit, what a revelation!
Stupid pimply kid in a basement all proud over his 31337 comput3r skillz and no life. People like you give gentoo a bad name. Fuck off already. Or get a girlfriend.
Name:
ll learn them linuxfags2005-03-02 19:16
>>51
>>The "default way" is one that ALMOST WORKS or plainly sucks.
I'm the one who resorted to degenerate terms?
Besides the first and last sentence my entire post is objectively substantive.. unlike yours.
Let's talk about "fanboyism"... is that even a word?
You've got some crusading chip on your shoulder about this issue for some apparent reason, yet you offer no fact to back up this attitude. I believe this is when you "STFU". >>53
I dont use Gentoo Linux, fool.
And objective analysis of operating systems has zero to do with my girlfriend...
Funny when you have nothing left to ignorantly argue you resort to laughably stereotypical mockery. I am deeply hurt because you know me and my life. Thanks, now "GTFO".
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-02 19:30 (sage)
I dont use Gentoo Linux, fool.
o rly?
Plus I usually just use the -current branch of Portage.
lol
Name:
lol for real2005-03-02 19:36
>>55
HAY GENTOO INVENTED THE MECHANISM OF A PORTS TREE
Some interesting replies in this thread, I dual-boot and while I can see that linux is a more stable, powerful os than win2k/xp etc in a desktop role it really does need work.
It doesn't really make someone a better person to spend ages learning a bunch of nonintuitive complicated shit if they just want to do average desktop type stuff. Its a shame some linux zealots won't even recognise that there *are* any problems with it because they're really happy using it as an os.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-10 11:33
A lot of people are saying "Linux isn't a good gaming platform."
Better performance, better reliability... that's not good for gaming?
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-10 17:52 (sage)
The graphics cards you dense dolt. And better performance? Oh, please wise McJesus, show me the better performance in the only metric that matters: frames per second.
You're blind. I could bash some of the problems with linux, but I won't. Linux is not perfect, it's very far from it, and if you're truly a fan of it you only do it disservice by ignoring it's flaws. If all linux fans turn a blind eye, it'll never get any better.
Further, Windows XP is just as good as linux. If you put as much work into to setting up and tweaking a Windows box as you do Linux, I'd dare say it's better. That's the problem, Linux zealots bash windows for having a massive user base and being the most targeted OS. If Linux had 90% of the market, it'd have just as many virii and malware. And they also hold Windows to a double standard. Oh! Look! Windows doesn't work right out of the box with no firewall installed and no virus protection. How horrible!! And yet when people can't even get their new graphics card to work, or they have to go through all the work of compiling software, or they complain about not being able to use massive amounts of software, Linux people just blow it off and say that's expected and normal.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-11 15:38
>>62
>>show me the better performance in the only metric that matters: frames per second.
That's not determined by the OS so much as the graphics card (you dense dolt).
>>63
>>I could bash some of the problems with linux, but I won't. Linux is not perfect, it's very far from it, and if you're truly a fan of it you only do it disservice by ignoring it's flaws.
I don't recall claiming it to be perfect. I claimed it performs better. And it does.
>>Further, Windows XP is just as good as linux.
I loled!
>>Linux zealots bash windows for having a massive user base and being the most targeted OS. If Linux had 90% of the market, it'd have just as many virii and malware.
The classic "popularity = vulnerability" argument. You ignore the fact that open sauce results in massively parallel bugfixing. You ignore the example of Apache. It has a 66% market share of the web.
>>And yet when people can't even get their new graphics card to work...
On my system I type "emerge nvidia". That's tons easier than having to trawl websites for updates like I used to do on Windows.
>>or they have to go through all the work of compiling software...
It's hardly work and it's hardly mandatory. I choose to have my system compile everything for me for the added performance. If I didn't want to bother I could easily get the binaries. Choice is a beautiful thing.
>>or they complain about not being able to use massive amounts of software...
Well I don't know what your definition of "massive" is.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-11 18:21
Arguments about package management systems are insignificant when compared to the bloated, inefficient, and severely outdated designs of the current X11 implementations. Same goes for KDE and GNOME, but they're nowhere as ubiquitous as X.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-11 18:46
>>63 is probably right, but if you say "Properly set Windows can be as good as Linux" you're bound to be called this and that by Linux fanboys because saying Linux is better is the only acceptable opinion and it's easily proven an absolute truth (/sarcasm).
>>65 wins the thread for simplicity and effectiveness.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-12 22:51 (sage)
>>64
>That's not determined by the OS so much as the graphics card (you dense dolt).
Ah, how nice. Let's get back to reality please. The drivers that linux has to live with are generally more buggy and less optimized than their windows counterparts, despite coming from the same code trees. Look at any game that seriously stresses a GFX card, and even though it should be GPU bound you'll find linux takes a significant drop.
And what about all the games written for windows? Running them in WineX gives you poor performance (if they run at all).
So no, linux isn't a good game platform. It's good for servers, perhaps also big iron and embedded. What does it offer over 2k or XP for gaming though? Stability? None of my XP or 2k boxes has crashed in months. Faster performance? Obviously not for games. Better game support? As much as I like OpenGL, DirectX has cornered the whole 3d + input + audio + whatever market. OpenGL + OpenAL doesn't cut it. More games? No.
Fucking fanboy. I like *nix too, but religious faggots like you who see their 31337 world through rose-glasses piss me off. What are you going to do next? Claim linux is a better RTOS than QNX? That it's easier to use than a Mac? That it shows z/OS the way big iron should be run? That it's more secure than OpenVMS? Gah.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-14 9:48
>>The drivers that linux has to live with are generally more buggy and less optimized than their windows counterparts, despite coming from the same code trees
Clearly you've encountered ATI. Really the only ones who can take responsibility for ATI's so-called "drivers" are ATI.
>>Fucking fanboy. I like *nix too, but religious faggots like you who see their 31337 world through rose-glasses piss me off.
>>68
Applies to Nvidia too. Better than ATi, but still slower than in windows. QuakeIII does well on both platforms, but something like DoomIII murders linux with either ATi or Nvidia cards.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-14 18:54
That and the fact that X is not a good idea for desktop/workstation/gaming/performance graphic applications (even though I don't know to what extent will it affect a full screen OpenGL application).
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-14 20:21
I don't think it's a problem with X itself, although it might be a problem with XFree86/X.org. Let's not forget that SGI's boxen used to run X.
I do have hope for the future with X.org and Keith Packard working on his own little version.
Name:
Sweetie McCandycrotch2005-03-19 14:47
i like linux, but i'm careful to buy hardware with linux support. by far the worst linux experience i had was with an uber-cheap computer i built with no regard to what i was going to use on it. it eventually ran Windows 98 with some degree of success. it helps that i don't play many hardware-intensive games... i wouldn't choose linux for that.
back to the topic, i <i>did</i> try to "uninstall" Internet Explorer from Windows 2000 Service Pack 3. i <b>do not</b> recommend this technique whatsoever...
i opened my WINNT folder, found "inf", and inside were several .INF files that seemed to reference Internet Explorer. i opened each in Notepad and moved entries around from Add to Delete, AddFiles to DeleteFiles, and what have you. i did decide not to change the entries for files like mshtma.exe and mshtm.dll, as that would probably have broken everything. i right-clicked on each newly modified file and chose "Install". my desktop blinked, a progress bar flashed, and i was prompted to restart. after restarting, i could still access IE through Explorer, and my Dial-Up Networking folder stopped updating itself as my connection status changed. Add & Remove Programs stopped working, too.
Wow, it's nice to see that people can stay on topic. This was supposed to be about internet explorer and other web browsers, but now its a linux v. windows war. Take it to its own thread, not clog up ones that have differnt topics.
Name:
Anonymous2005-03-24 12:59
it's hard to install things in linux :(
tried to install turbopad, needed some package that also required a package. After installing both of those packages, it kept failing to detect them. Who knows what was wrong.
Name:
Christy McJesus!DcbLlAZi7U2005-03-24 13:29
>>77
Your package manager should handle dependencies for you.
I have also removed my IE before, but honestly I don't reccomend that at all, just leave it be.. and use another browser for web. removing IE causes more problems than it solves as it is used a lot in windows desktop... Unless ofcourse you use an alternate shell in which case it probably doesn't have as big impact but it might still not be worth removing, as it's only 10mb (15 if you count it's html renderer).
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-02 13:33
Way to resurrect a 5 month old thread.
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-05 7:15
lol
Name:
lol guy2005-09-05 7:19
my freind chizzy (famousish on /b/) simply de;eted the internet explorer folder. he doesnt recomend it though i would do it but im in fear of fucking this computer up ive got no back up cds and this komputa cost me $2000
Name:
Anonymous2005-09-06 1:02
I thought the only way to permanently remove IE was to remove Windows itself. I was happily computing IE-free for 20 years, then I was chained to IE for five years, and now I'm once again completely IE-free and have been for about three years now.
I still use IE and don't have a problem with it, thx tho.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-04 0:55 ID:8A5xEORT
Microsoft being the immortal geniuses that they are built explorer.exe and thus also IE into windows explorer. So, No you cannot uninstall IE> Just use firefox / opera / or other browser as your default and avoid ie at all costs.
I don't recommend uninstalling IE; just make sure FF is your default browser and that you avoid using Microsoft crap-apps ("crapps") that insist on using IE. Keep a core download of FF around in an archive; even if your FF gets hosed, you can just run the 5MB-or-so installer and be back up and running with some X.0.0.3-off version that will update anyway. Keep a list of your extensions, though; christ, we Firefoxfags really load up with those goddamn things.
Overall, IE is a great conspiracy against all that is right and decent in the world, and everyone should just stop using it since Gates and Ballmer clearly suck dicks. IE is just a nonstop series of serious security holes in a "crapp" that is 2 years behind on delivering what WE need as users. Codecocks like Gates and Ballmer don't give a rat's FUCK what we users need; they only want an Internet browser that the fucking corporate websites want to see. Well, FUCK THE CORPORATE WEBSITES. Firefox gave us tabbed browsing and many filtering options while Microshit's "Internet Exploder" was still chugging our RAM and crashing (taking all open browser windows with it -- hey, thanks for the hours of agony, Steve-Bill!).
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-04 1:03 ID:JP91TAAt
>>95
I'm sick of this "just get more ram!" bullshit. My 286 did almost as much functionality-wise as my current multi-ghz machine. Yeah, really. Sure, there was no multi-tasking, but I did the mostly the same things as I do today.
Hello, fuckers, just because you can eat ram doesn't mean you should. It costs money and also reduces the number of programs you can run.
I can see it now: in another ten years programs will have minimum footprint of 1GB, but they'll just do more of the same