Excuse my poor paint drawing:
Installed it under a VM. Ignoring the "look" as clearly aero/glass whatever wasn't working, I am kind of ambivilent about it. Don't see much to excite me apart from the fact that despite only allocating half my RAM space to the OS in the VM, and not being able to get it to recognise my graphics card or the correct NIC (a result of the VM environment), it seems to be quite a lot quicker than Vista at doing things like installs. Quite wierd really considering its theoretically running on a slower machine than my full Vista install is.
So if there is that much of a performance increase over Vista I would be insterested in the final release version, despite initial impressions that the GUI has taken as step backwards in terms of finish, (can anyone else see yet another step towards making it look like Linux with the taskbar?
), but that could just well be the downgraded card it's using in the VM environment.
So if there is that much of a performance increase over Vista I would be insterested in the final release version, despite initial impressions that the GUI has taken as step backwards in terms of finish, (can anyone else see yet another step towards making it look like Linux with the taskbar?
), but that could just well be the downgraded card it's using in the VM environment.When you originally tried the installation are you sure it wasn't telling you that it was going to install the root to 100% of the partition? I seem to recall a warning along those lines if you don't create swap and et3 partitions too. Installing Linux on to just a root partition isn't the recommended way, hence the warning IIRC.
As John says, you really need to have a basic understanding of partitions, (which you obviously do as you've managed to partition your windows drive), then upon install of Linux you will need to allocate space from your unallocated partition space to / "root" /swap and /ext3 for the rest. There is a drop down list where you can choose the partition types in the install wizard under manual.
I've always chosen 2-4GB for the root partition and made the swap partiton the 1.5x to 2x my physical memory and filled the remaining with the file system.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Hmm I wouldn't go that route.. I've tried it a couple of times and it's always been problematic for me. I'd go the clean install route, especially as Linux is so damn quick to install compared to Windows.
If you're really used to Windows layout etc. I would suggest Kubuntu, it's the same as ubuntu but with a KDE desktop which is very similar to Windows, (but obviously different too).
Xubuntu, Ubuntu, Kubuntu are all exactly the same operating system, the only difference between them being the choice of desktop and applications loaded with the distro, (a lot of which are tied to the desktop chosen).
I have to say that is one thing I find incredibly annoying with Windows. The damn OS keeps interupting what I am doing by bringing tasks that I've got working in the background in to the foreground whenever they finish. I lost count decades ago at the number of times I've clicked on something that was in the background when I've been trying to type an email or document or something in the foreground and Windows forces the background task in to my face ! I HATE IT !! MS Please if you change one thing about your OS change that .. it drives me up the wall !!!
I wasn't aware of that. In that case, like you said I wouldn't chance it.
Everything is just that bit more manic in the FOX vs FBM. It has a lot more grip but you have to be much more careful with the throttle. You need to be a better driver to get the best times out of the FOX vs the FBM. That's pretty much why FBM is more popular.
Replacing FBM with FOX in SS1 would be a nightmare IMO. SS1 is enough of a crash fest as it is at times. God knows what it would be like with all the extras spining going on in a FOX.
Replacing FBM with FOX in SS1 would be a nightmare IMO. SS1 is enough of a crash fest as it is at times. God knows what it would be like with all the extras spining going on in a FOX.
If you're running Vista you can use the built in disc management to repartition your existing drive and create a new partition where you can install a second OS. Not sure how happy Windows 7 will be to co-exist with Vista it might mess up Vistas version of the MBR (called something else but I forget what) and you might have trouble if/when you want to remove Windows 7 from your machine.
Otherwise if you have XP you'll need a copy of a partitioning software to safely partition your exising hard drive.
Punk Rock died in 1978. Any band since doesn't have any valid claim on the Genre.
Yeah, who are we to dare to think for ourselves !
They should, should they? why exactly??
All I know is that if I could ever afford a new Boxster S, I'd be pretty damn happy I could. IF I were the kind of person that worried about the car that get's parked next to mine, (and I'm not and never have been), I'd be a lot more worried about how I'd look when somebody parked their 911 next to my secondhand Focus.
But as I said, I'm not concerned about such things, because I don't define or value myself according to the things I own. What would be the point? There is always going to be someone richer than you, with a flashier more expensive car than you. Worrying/caring about it is pretty pathetic if you ask me.
Be prepared to be disapointed then, MS has a habit of releasing final versions that bear little relation in terms of functionality and performance to their beta software.
As for Linux, I tried Kubuntu a year or so ago (7.1 IIRC) and whilst I quite liked it in many ways I found it frustratingly lacking in surprising ways.
For example:
a) It didn't have a video player that supported many windows media files built in. Getting one installed that did was no easy point n click job, requiring compiling etc to get working.
b) Despite all my efforts I just couldn't get a webcam to work reliably, and webcam support was generally not well dealt with.
c) Certain things that are native in Windows drivers, (such as 3D graphic support), require complicated installation techniques that should rightly remain the purview of software developers not desktop OS users.
It's for c) alone that Linux will never truely challenge Windows for desktop OS market share. It's also something that will never be resolved in Linux until the decision is made to choose a single distro to champion the Linux cause.
Nothing new sadly. But if you can handle foreign language films here's a few I'd recommend (If you haven't seen them already):
Maria full of grace
Cidade de Deus
Central do Brasil
Old Boy
Them (2007 - also known as Ils)
and a film I literally couldn't watch in some parts (and I'm a horror fan !):
Dans ma Peau
Not that great acting, but really wierd and sick in places.
Pretty much all MS products are predominantly just a visual make over of their previous product with maybe one or two small tweaks underneath sold as major product changes for a shed load of extra cash to "upgrade". At least that has been my experience.
Huh? you honestly think that ads version is better than the original?
Oh dear
PSML.. yeah like you wouldn't love to be able to afford one??
I laugh every time I hear this statement. I'm sure all the people with £40k burning their pocket give a damn about what people who have to scrape up for a second hand Focus think.
Mine has both, (I believe - though I could be wrong), as do most/all VAG Turbo engines.
Not an issue with the mixture so much as the absolute amount of fuel. Swap out a recirculating DV with an atmospheric one and you "loose" the mass of air that should have been redirected back to the inlet, therefore you have less air/fuel mix entering the engine and a subsequent drop in power. You pretty much wont find anyone recommending using an atmospheric DV on a car designed with a recirc one, (except those people that think its more important to sound cool than have performance :shrug
. Certainly no reputable tuner of turbocharged VAG engines will anyway.Why on earth would anyone want their car to sound like a bus/lorry anyway? never mind the mating call of a frog/duck
Only review I can find of that particular model isn't particularly glowing:
http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/tele ... ,39030218,49298952,00.htm
Also take a look at the Samsung owners thread below, (covers the model in question), seems Samsung have had some quality issues. I'd be cautious personally.
http://www.avforums.com/forums ... -558-s-owners-thread.html
Much as I hate getting in to stupid internet arguements, above is the claim you made. None of the other posters have substantiated your claim that ALL TVs are made by either LG or Samsung. None of them have even substantiated your claim that ALL LCD panels are made by one or other of those manufacturers, in fact they've refuted it by naming one other manufacturer.
IF you have evidence to the contrary, provide it. I know for a fact for example that Panasonic make Plasma panels as did, up until very recently, Pioneer. So that's a further two TV manufactuers that prove your statement to be wrong.
Also, just because the panels are made by the same company does in no way mean that the TVs they are used in are of the same final quality. This is especially true of digital TVs where the associated circutry and processing has a huge impact on the quality of the picture. So even if LG did make all flat screen panels that wouldn't automatically mean that LG made the best flat screen TVs, which was the premis of your argument.
Take a look here:
http://www.hdtvorg.co.uk/best_buy/lcd/best_buy_lcd.htm
http://www.hdtvorg.co.uk/best_buy/plasma/best_buy_plasma.htm
Should help you choose.
Last edited by gezmoor, .
Each to their own really, the choice between LCD and Plasma really comes down to what size you're going to get, (Can't get plasmas under 37" anyway), and what you intend to use it for and the environment you'll have it in. Personaly I love films, and I watch them in a relatively low light environment and it's placement dictates a max of 37". So I went for a plasma as IMO, (and empirical testing shows), LCDs just didn't have black enough blacks, dark scenes always looked dark grey at best on all the LCDs I saw, (and that was in a bright shop environment!). In fact, I think even the blacks on plasmas aren't that great if you want to watch a film in a very low light level. But on the flip side if you prefer gaming/sports or have the lights on or in daylight, then LCDs extra brightness is a strength and you wouldn't ever notice their poor black performance.
Oh I have my facts ok. Seems obvious that you don't.
You never actually specified LCD TVs, you said ALL TVs. Which makes your fact not a fact at all.
As for Plasmas being crap, keep believing it if it makes you feel happy. Empirical measurements against broadcast and film industry standards say otherwise, but don't let facts get in the way of your bias.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG