I thought I'd ask around here since several here talk about how much they use Linux and like their setups.

Thanks to Free Geek, these days I have a notebook computer.

Naturally, it came with Ubuntu installed.

I've tried to use it how I would normally use a computer and such.

In the last few months, I've realized I really don't like Ubuntu, in part due to the same type (actally worse!) program bundling akin to Windows (y'know how it's extremely tough to remove Internet Explorer?). Many of these programs are just too bloated, or so "stupid-proof" that it annoys the heck out of me. Because they're bundled, there's practically no way of removing them.

I've played around with some Live CDs, and have actually liked some of them. Unfortunately, they're designed to be live CDs, not OS installs.

Which brings me to my other point... I had no clue that Ubuntu's repositiory was actually a subset of Debian's, so plenty of stuff that I've used before on some of the live CDs just isn't available for Ubuntu.

Anyone have any other OS suggestions? Especially if it's of the free kind in the form of another Linux disto or something along those lines? I'm about ready to bite the bullet and buy a couple copies of XP while I still can (yes, I said a couple, I'd upgrade my desktop computer as well).

Not sure what you mean about not being able to remove programs in Ubuntu? For example - ?

Is it just the Gnome window manager you dislike? You can also run KDE or xfce (plus some others) instead. That's what Kubuntu and Xubuntu (in essence) are - but you can install KDE from your current Ubuntu install if you want and switch between them.

What exactly do yo wish to install in Ubuntu that isn't available as a Debian package? Ubuntu has gotten so popular that I'd think demand for Debian packages nowadays would almost be more of a requirement than, say, RPM.

Andrew

I would spend some time learning about the different package managers. .deb repositories are easier for me than .rpm ones, for example.

Not sure what you mean about bundled. Which programs? Maybe you are talking about window managers, and that's true. However, you can add window managers a lot easier than you can remove them. I would suggest that as having more than one does you no real harm.

Lots to choose from there. Everything from the fairly mainstream Gnome / Kde, to exotic and retro managers. These can really impact your desktop experience. Do spend some time on these too.

You might try Kubuntu. It's a KDE specific build of Ubuntu, and it's got a distinctly different feel and functionality compared to Gnome, which I believe is the Ubuntu default.

Snagging a copy of XP is probably not a bad idea. From the looks of things, the Vista core is here to stay for a good long time. That sucks, but there is little to do. Once tied to the Microsoft chain, you will in the end, do what they want you to do.

I picked one up because I do some win32 stuff, and I really don't like the Vista OS and the extensive DRM that comes with it. XP will be a great hobby / home OS for a long time.

Linux does have a lot of potential to work different ways. Far more than other OSes do, at least the MAC OS and win32/64. The key to this really is some learning --the same kind of learning you had to do to get up to speed and comfy on win32 systems.

For me, I found the best approach to Linux was to start with a well supported and maintained distribution. Ubuntu is very good in this respect. Plenty of releases and it's still going strong. Others have been spotty. distrowatch.com is a great place to score some news on this kind of thing.

Then you take one thing at a time. The process is to understand that element, be it the window manager, sound system, graphics server, file system, etc...

Then look at all the competing software projects that fill that gap.

Finally, go do the work to find out how to incorporate that particular project into your distribution. Often there are packages for this. For core things like the file system and graphics server (X Window server), it's not always easy, and might require a few test installs.

Other, higher level things are more or less just loading software, using a package manager or not, and editing config files, or using graphical tools for configuration.

The first few times through are not pretty. I can't lie there. However, it does get easier as you begin to understand how the thing is put together and what depends on, or connects to what.

Back in 2000, I took the plunge with RedHat 5.2 That was rough Linux back then, but it did a lot, and was only a download away. It took about a year to really get settled where I could just build up the computer the way I wanted it.

These days, I think that process is quite a bit easier, and the state and robustness of software projects are way better too.

One way to look at this is like an investment. Each year a lot of us buy software and spend time learning about how to use it. The learning about how to use it does not go away, but it does diminish as we zero in on familiar software and only have to deal with minor league version changes.

Once in a blue moon, something somewhere changes a lot of things at once and we end up having to climb a learning curve for a while.

With Linux, that initial learning investment is higher, largely because many things are different. I don't think any one element of Linux is any harder than any one element of other OSes though.

It's the initial combination that really costs at first.

Anyway, if you make that investment, then you can look forward to a time where you don't really buy much software! For me, this ended up being about $500 / year, not counting dedicated software, like games. (I only buy those used now, and only for consoles, leaving the PC for everything else)

There is a growing hassle factor too. Closed software licenses are becoming increasingly onerous! These limit your options, and are a general PITA, usually costing you time.

On the open stuff, there isn't any of that, so once you know how to use it, and what packages work best for you, that's time saved as well.

Either it's worth it, or it isn't then! You can figure backward and see if you have more time than dollars, and if so, open software makes a lot of sense. And you can start using it on whatever OS you are running right now, if you want to. Doing that can make the Linux jump easier as you are only learning about OSes, not applications so much.

On the other hand, perhaps you have more dollars! If it were me, then I would just load up XP and work with as much open code as I could to split the middle and be happy!

Right now, time for me has been short, so I do that for most of my computing needs. I've got one Kubuntu machine that I do stuff on, but I also don't customize it all that much. I load a few things I like, and the rest works well enough that it's not worth the hassle.

And that's the last trade-off really. The cost to have things exactly the way you want them is often higher than just dealing with what is there. I don't customize computers as much as I used to, despite the custom environment being faster and more comfortable.

I have found that just really understanding the default UI brings enough speed that I spend my time doing more things instead of doing fewer things in the best of ways!

YMMV.

Personally I like Mandriva, if only strictly for the reason that it is what I am most familiar with (because it's what I have been using the longest.) At the moment I am on Mandriva One Spring 2008.1, with KDE.

I haven't had too much success with Ubuntu, really. Thing is, I use it on a box that isn't on the Internet at all so it gets really frustrating when it comes time to try and install anything. (At least that's how it is in my case, your may be different.)

Gnome? Hah. Yeah right. ;o)

(Ya know how DOS users in the 80s complained how Macintosh--at that time the Latest Big Thing--was too "toy-like" in its interface, that it was like a "dumbed-down" PC? That's how I feel about Gnome. KDE's what I use, hands down, every time. I haven't tried KDE 4 yet [still on 3.5] and from what I have seen it appears kinda' bloated. The fact that there's reportedly a version of KDE 4 that can run under Win32 looks kinda' interesting tho.........)

In all reality, I mostly only use Win32 for recording sound any more. That's because all my sound programmes are written for Windows and I haven't (thus far) had much success getting them to work properly in Wine.

Earlier this year I snagged a copy of Suse 9 Professional (with everything--CDs & double-sided DVD disc, books and all) at Goodwill for $10, if only for the reasons that "they had it, and it was Linux". Yes, I know it's old and probably approaching "out of date" status. I haven't really played with it at all, but I probably will one of these nights.

SUSE 9 is pretty sweet. I set up a 64 bit machine to run high end CAD. 8GB RAM, nVidia GFX, the works. Loved that machine when I got done.

Would something like this be a good starting place to learn about Linux ?

http://www.amazon.com/Kubuntu-Ubuntu-Linux-Training-Library/dp/B001JSRWJO/ref=sr _1_2?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1226968892&sr=8-2

I am typing on a Linux computer right now (Asus Eee), It came equipped with a "bundle" of programs, including Firefox, Open office, audio and video players and a few games... very small and compact, boots fast and does a lot for a laptop with only 2GB of solid state "hard drive". However, "I know nothing !" about adding or deleting programs and making minor changes to the system. Perhaps this is good, as this thing never crashes, I should leave well enough alone, but that is no fun!

Any recommendations for books or other software? I would likely play with the above software on an old (former win 98) 400 mhz (AMD) box.

The only thing I'd dare run on an old 400MHZ AMD box would be Damn Small Linux. You could try Xubuntu (a stripped-down minimal resource version of Ubuntu with the xfce window manager) but even then, you'd want at least 256MB of RAM to make it useful. Honestly, you can find faster computers than your 400MHZ box for practically nothing anyway. I purchased a couple of old Dell 1GHZ boxes with 20GB hard drives and 256MB hard drives for $10 each at a warehouse close-out sale. (They are slow but actually not horribly slow with Ubuntu; a local political campaign used them for data entry this election season and never complained.) Sometimes people even give away computers of that speed - check Craigslist.

Andrew

Jr_tech, I've no idea!

If you need a structured tour, it's probably a good idea. Often it's nice to just have the guided learning, one thing at a time.

For me, it does not work all that well. I like to obtain some hardware, then make a goal, then just power through until it's done. I'll often then do it again, taking advantage of what I learned.

There is one upside to the older box and that is learning about optimizing Linux, and or running it headless.

An older box like that can be worth working with, if it's not doing the display of things. Frankly, that's the coolest thing about Linux. Running programs via the X window system is sweet. Basically, the box does compute and whatever you've connected with does the display heavy lifting.

I had an older 600mhz pentium something running that way for quite a while. Was decent. I would double the RAM to half gig if you can do it. On slower machines, lots of RAM can make up for a lot. The thing you don't want is the disk I/O bottle neck.

Then you strip down the startup services to the bare nubs, and that's fun learning. When you get done, the machine will boot with no graphics attached, network running, text mode, if you do connect a display, and it will be running just the minimum services.

I think books are a good idea. I'm not all that hot on software. Probably just me. However, it is worth noting that Linux is open software, so you can look at it, read the documentation on it, and drill all the way down to the code, if you want to.

IMHO, a good way to start, and the way I started, was to get a book on UNIX or Linux fundementals. Get a nice higher-level one so you can grok the lay of the land, what the components are, etc...

From there, work your way through the boot process, starting with the hard disk layout, partitions, master boot record (if you are on a PC). The kernel loads, then init runs, and init then fires off all sorts of stuff that's controlled by various scripts. This varies by distribution, or flavor of Linux. Once you've worked through one, the rest are pretty easy.

That should take you all the way to the user land stuff, like logon, desktop, etc...

At that point, you should have a really solid idea of how it's all put together, then you can play!

Package managers, desktop window managers, X server, sound, sound server (if the thing has one), and all the programs that make use of those things.

The UNIX / LINUX book is important for the core OS concepts. In UNIX / LINUX, everything is a file. Devices are files, files are files, hardware looks like files, it's all just files!

Sounds goofy, but is quite powerful.

It's also important for understanding what is the Linux (Kernel) and all the other stuff (GNU), other programs.

When somebody talks about running Linux, what they really mean is they are running a distribution of Linux that includes a bunch of other open stuff. The init program, startup scripts, userland utilities (ls, cat, grep), X window server, device drivers, window manager, and programs all are things that run on top of Linux, and a core set of common libraries.

It's understanding these layers of software that is key. Once you get past that, you will have a good time. Don't like your window manager, insert your own. System startup too slow, change how it starts, or omit things from startup.

This post is long, sorry!

This post is long, sorry!
Actually, your last post is the type of stuff I'm looking for. Specifically, the comment on the "layers." I figured there's a Linux equivalent to autoexec.bat and config.sys, I just never heard of a listing of which ones they were.

Stuff like Firefox, Open Office, Evolution, etc., being "bundled" into Ubuntu is what my main complaint is. Even if I open up apt and want to remove them, it says that I have to also remove the main "Ubuntu" package, which from what I've heard everywhere I don't want to do!

BTW, Damn Small Linux is the very first Linux distributions I ever tried, after someone on another message board introduced everyone on it to operating systems on CD. At the time, DSL was on version 0.4.x-something, and I didn't really understand much of what I was doing, but I did learn how to do stuff like mount/unmount drives and such. This got me intrigued enough to want to learn more and try more (even though I'm on dial-up).

Another one I happen to like right now is SliTaz (http://slitaz.org/en/, mostly due to the 25 MB size. No dial-up modules though (darn!).

I wouldn't want something as small-time as that as an hard drive install, though. And even current versions of DSL has things I don't like about it.

My guess is the more I think about it, the more likely someone's going to tell me that if I'm not happy with the end-user-oriented distros that are already out there that I should stick to Windows (especially since I hate Open Office... seems people don't even want to hear that I actually like AbiWord over some of the others, and I really don't use most of the other office-type stuff... why do I want to have what seems like 100+ MB of stuff I don't need/want, which is what Open Office is?).

Newflyer, have you tried Xubuntu? It's intended to be a stripped-down version of Ubuntu. It does not seem to come with Open Office prepackaged, only Abiword. Firefox is in there, though, but I'm really surprised you can't remove it...

Andrew

Me too.

I'll betcha it can be removed. Can't imagine not being able to.

Actually, it *can* be removed, it's just a matter of how easy that is. This is one of the differentiators about Linux. Windows boot processes and integrated programs are done at a binary level.

It's one big ass BLOB. Well, more like a big closed blob, broken into little blobs, or DLL.

A DLL is a dynamically linked library. This means it's got defined entry points and data structures, such that other programs can be built against it. Good for Microsoft, not so good for everybody else.

All of these closed windows libraries have behavior that you can't change. The core of windows just does what it does too, looking at the disk for simple stuff, but the real nuts and bolts are hard coded in.

By the way, a statically linked library, is one where the whole darn library is compiled into the program, not one where the program calls the library and expects it to be there.

Don't see too much of that on windows, and it's why we sometimes have DLL hell.

On Linux, these two things work the same. Most of the system libraries are of the dynamic kind, and most programs operate assuming they are there, just like a windows machine does.

Because the code is open, we can often get statically linked things too! This is handy for building programs that will run on lots of linuxes, where the libraries may or may not be there, or might be older, or something.

Handy stuff.

Anyway, the implications on the boot behavior are stark!

In Linux, the kernel runs init, which then runs a shell and a lot of scripts. The shell is basically BASH, and it's like the cmd.exe found in windows, only a lot more flexible and powerful, IMHO.

If you don't like the init that comes with your system, you can edit the scripts it reads, insert your own init, write your own, or modify the one that's there! This is because we get to see nearly all the source code for the system.

There was one distribution that literally compiled itself on your own box. Took about a day or two to complete. I did it once, just to check that process out. Andrew will probably remember the name quicker than I will...

Because you can see the code, really the system is a lot more self-documenting than your typical windows one is. If you can read a script, or look at some program code, you can literally see what the machine is going to do and why.

This is true for all but the few binary only proprietary bits found in most Linux distributions.

Add to your list, understanding shells and scripts and perl. Don't have to know enough to write code. Only enough to see the structure and kind of grok what's doing what.

Also this is not something you need at first. It can wait for now. Just know that if you really, really want to know, you go to the code and look at it, and you then know all.

I kind of like Damn Small Linux for getting started. There are some books on it, that include it, and it's tiny and not complex. Very good stuff for understanding the layers, boot process, init, X window system, etc...

You could do a whole lot worse, and if you want to, you can run statically linked versions of stuff on that Linux, even though you don't have all the supporting crap.

Sometimes these can be found for smaller distributions.

I suppose one other thing to toss in there is the concept of make files. A make file is a file that details how a particular body of code gets compiled, against what libraries, and such.

Let's say you want to run something, and it's in code form. For a whole lot of things, you can just go and get the code, and verify the libraries are either on your machine, or are in code form also.

From there, you literally run make to 'make' the program, and it gets compiled on your machine, with your options, if you want to.

This is what makes Open Source software potent. For a long time I liked to run SGI machines. Lots of programs were not built for SGI, so I made a bunch of them and learned about that process some. Started with little things, and got up to the point where I've built big stuff like the Arcade Machine Emulator. MAME that one takes a few hours or so to build.

Was a lot of fun to run Asteroids on the SGI, BTW.

So that's kind of another look at things. On Linux you don't have to buy anything to build things. All the dev tools and libraries you are likely to need are in code form, and included with most all distributions.

Just run your package manager and select the development packages.

If you do some digging around, you can still find my CAD file viewer written in OpenGL. I wrote that from the documentation that came with Linux, and on the SGI machines and a book on C. Self documenting in that I could see the code, read the book, download other bits of code that did stuff, weave that into mine and get things done. Cost was $0.

It's hard to even write a tiny, simple program on a windows machine without buying something, or being locked into this environment or that one.

Kind of cool to just tell the computer to do stuff, that's all.

Again, long, but I thought I would highlight the other learning path I took.

There is computing, and then there are computing environments. It's really difficult to differentiate the two, until one has worked on different machines. Windows MAC kind of does this. Linux will hammer it home for sure.

Have fun!

Heck, if you don't like a distro, you can either try a different one, or build your own, or hack one of the ones that are already there!

KNOPPIX is good for this. It's a live CD distribution that can install onto your computer. It comes with re-mastering tools so you can build your own dedicated KNOPPIX CD. Many have done this for music, graphics, routers, god knows what.

Finally, the best approach I've taken is to just add the goodies you want to a given Linux and call it good. With disks as cheap as they are, and code as free as it is in Linux, who really cares what's on the box?

Once you know how to use a given program, maybe compile it, or configure it / integrate it, you are golden. Choose a Linux, take the default installation, build your user account, hook in the goodies you like to your .login file, and it's just the way you like it, while if somebody else logs on, they might not even know you've changed it.

This is more the UNIX way, IMHO.

I wouldn't spend a lot of time ripping out stuff, when it's far easier to just hook in the stuff you want and leave the rest of it alone.

"This post is long, sorry!"

"Actually, your last post is the type of stuff I'm looking for."

Indeed! thank you very much!

Newflyer, have you tried Xubuntu? It's intended to be a stripped-down version of Ubuntu. It does not seem to come with Open Office prepackaged, only Abiword.
Thanks, I'll give it a look. At 589 MB, it looks like it'll have to wait until I have the time to download it. And, I realized it has Gnumeric, which I've tried before on the Austrumi live CD... didn't really have the chance to get into it much, but it "felt" right when I used it (ever used a computer program once or twice and realized you either like it or hate it? That type of thing). Haven't tried XFCE before, but I'm up for giving it a try.

Thought I'd bump this thread because I have another question...
namely, has anyone else heard of the Portland Linux/Unix Users Group? Or are there any other local organizations that deal with Linux noobs and try to get things working out?

The reason I ask is I'm this close (holds thumb and forefinger about half an inch apart) to taking the plunge and upgrading to Windows XP. Then I realized that if I'm willing to shell out $100+ for each copy of Windows (unless there's a way individuals can purchase one disc and get additional licenses at discount), then maybe some of these outfits that advertise on Distrowatch that offer to ship Linux CDs for extremely low cost ($2~$50, depending on the distribution and number of discs) might be more worth it.

As for requesting CDs from Canonical directly (thinking of doing that for Xubuntu, if it's something that might be worth it)... has anyone else ever done that, and does it really take months?

Yes, I've heard of PLUG. No, I haven't been there. But Portland is a haven for the Open Source movement and is extremely Linux-friendly. I'd be surprised if PLUG didn't have lots of helpful, friendly folks eager to help you take the plunge deeper into the Linux world. :-) And you might even walk way with a free CD of whatever distro you prefer...

Your original post mentioned a laptop with Ubuntu on it. Now you mention needing multiple licenses of XP - ? Did I miss something? Do you have multiple computers? You should be able to purchase a copy of XP Home for under $100 (maybe $80-ish at Fry's) or even cheaper online.

You can get Linux CDs (maybe just Ubuntu, maybe others like Xubuntu) at Free Geek. Not sure about getting them direct from Canonical. I've heard it takes a few weeks. If you're so desperate for one and cannot obtain one easily otherwise, I'd be happy to burn one for you and mail it to you...

Andrew

All I can say if you're gonna get Windows XP, make sure its upgraded to at least SP2 because if you get a virus and you only have SP1 you'll be in deep doo doo.

viruses, especially malware, will disable XP automatic updates and prevent many virus scanners from doing their job -- if you can't download the update you can't scan for viruses. A solution is this:
http://www.kaspersky.com/kos/eng/partner/default/languages/english/check.html?n= 1227263532015

If by chance you get XP SP1, you can probably skip SP1 and go right to SP3. I'd download SP3 first and install it directly from the EXE file rather than going through Windows update.

You can still get Malware even with SP3. I'd stick to Firefox as a browser or at least Internet Explorer 7 or anything with a pop-up blocker.

Andrew

I'd stick to Firefox as a browser or at least Internet Explorer 7

IE was the last thing that got cleared up! I always use Firefox, but until most recently, some apps didn't work as well with Firefox as IE.

BTW, if someone is stumped, go here:

http://www.malwareremoval.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=11

Microsoft apparently has staff members at the site helping people out as well. Yup, free.

ps: the OS I depend on for income is a Mac!

Your original post mentioned a laptop with Ubuntu on it. Now you mention needing multiple licenses of XP - ? Did I miss something? Do you have multiple computers?

Actually, I'm probably doing a poor job of communicating the situation.

The following is a list of the computers I have, with the basic form of the computer and the current OS.

Computer 1:
desktop, Windows 98SE

Computer 2:
desktop, Old version of Ubuntu

Computer 3:
notebook, Ubuntu

Situation:
98SE was a great OS, but because the rest of the world thinks its "too old," its time to move on. The other desktop was a freebie from Free Geek (after completing their Build Program, but heck I still volunteer there ), and the third is a notebook I purchased from there. When I brought home the second computer, family said 'why do you need a newer computer?,' tried it and announced that they absolutely hated the OS, and put it somewhere where I was unable to use it and/or do anything with it, all the while they were complaining about the 98SE computer being "too old."

I bought the notebook because I wanted some on-the-go power, and thought Ubuntu would probably work for what I alone need to use a computer for. No dice after all. I find it extremely annoying.

I was about ready to consider forgetting about it and buying Windows XP (I'm 100% sure that each computer can run XP), but instead realized that even if I have to pay a couple of bucks for a Linux CD, that's a lot cheaper than buying XP for each system.
What I need, though, is a "ready-out-of-the-box" comprehensive/expandable/actively maintained Linux distribution that:
1. Doesn't complain that "no network connection is available," even when I'm dialed in on dial-up.
2. Doesn't require that Open Office and a bunch of other software I'm not going to use be installed.
3. To please other people, has an interface with similar functionality as Windows.

I would personally dump any computer that is running Windows 98, because it is probably too slow to run XP effectively. I'm guessing it's about a 300MHZ Pentium II? Just not worth it. I'm sure the Free Geek box you got is faster. So, I'd either keep the Win98 box around as a souvenir or recycle it. You can always yank your hard drive out of it if you want to keep the files.

And I'd seriously consider upgrading the other desktop too. Probably mentioned this before, but it's fairly cheap to upgrade nowadays to really, really fast hardware. Fry's has had some amazing blow-out sales on CPU + motherboard combos. $79.99 recently for a Pentium Dual Core + motherboard that would be about 50X faster than anything you are running now. You would probably need RAM and a power supply for it but you might squeeze it into your old case. And you can find the components cheap too. Over Black Friday I saw things like power supplies that are free (after rebate), really cheap DDR2 desktop RAM, etc.

You don't need a huge hard drive to run XP - 20GB will work. And Free Geek had a bunch of those in the thrift store last week for cheap - cheaper if you are a volunteer no doubt. Anyway, I'm sure you can build a much faster desktop PC from new and used parts, really...

But I digress.

If the family won't accept Linux, just buy XP and be done with it. Look for the best deal on XP Home you can find. Perhaps as cheap as $50 for a legit copy. Fry's had XP Pro for $109 just this weekend.

Andrew

"I would personally dump any computer that is running Windows 98, because it is probably too slow to run XP effectively. I'm guessing it's about a 300MHZ Pentium II? Just not worth it. I'm sure the Free Geek box you got is faster. So, I'd either keep the Win98 box around as a souvenir or recycle it...."

Not necessarilly. One of my machines has a Pentium 4, 2.97 GHz, that I run 98SE on almost a daily basis. On average, it takes about +-30sec. to fully boot up.

(Yup, same box that I also run Mandrake on.......)

[Edit: deleted the rest because upon review, it seemed irrelevant.]

A 3GHZ Pentium 4 machine came out way after XP came out. I'd guess your machine is from 2004-ish. A typical machine running Win98 would be much slower than that. (I recently found it on a 200MHZ Pentium Pro with 32MB of RAM.) Clearly, you installed an old copy of Windows 98 on this hardware.

If you stick with Windows 98, you are going to be stuck with obsolete, insecure web browsers; Firefox and Internet Explorer stopped supporting Win98 a whole version (or more) ago. I refuse to work on any more Win98 (or WinME) machines; they are easy to mess up by installing the wrong software or drivers, and they are extremely annoying to work on. Change almost any setting and you need to reboot the thing. No thanks.

Andrew

"Clearly, you installed an old copy of Windows 98 on this hardware."

I did indeed.

Also the web browser security thing is a non-issue to me--my 98 box isn't on a network. I built the computer in early 2007, the motherboard was part of another system donated from a neighbour who told me it was a 2006. (There was also a "3 JAN 2006" OEM datestamp/barcode attached to the board's face.)

He had a copy of XP installed on its hard drive but I erased it (he also had a bunch of his "personal data" on it) and repurposed it as an external drive. I upgraded the hard drive, then, to a 300GB one because the previous one was only 20GB.

I'm guessing it's about a 300MHZ Pentium II?
It's actually a 1GHz P3. I've personally upgraded the memory to 1GB (the highest it will go). Still perfect for their use (going online to pay bills and playing solitaire). They will get this, as well as a new OS, as a "bill payment computer," so they don't have to keep bugging me whenever they need to do something online. (We'll still have dial-up, but I'll think of some sort of connection scheme. Probably something along the lines of connecting the external modem to both computers.)

If you stick with Windows 98, you are going to be stuck with obsolete, insecure web browsers; Firefox and Internet Explorer stopped supporting Win98 a whole version (or more) ago.
That's the other thing that concerns me. I'm using SeaMonkey (successor to Netscape Suite and Mozilla Suite), which is dropping 98 Support with the 2.0 edition. There are also very few security softwares still available that support 98 as well, and the number keeps shrinking. My complaint isn't against Linux in general. It's specifically that Ubuntu doesn't work as well as I'd like.

Newflyer writes:
It's actually a 1GHz P3. I've personally upgraded the memory to 1GB (the highest it will go).

That's marginal but usable with 1GB, you're right - just a tad slow. I have a couple of those (not so much RAM) that have Ubuntu on them and I'm going to donate them to someone. Actually one is a 733MHZ P3. I'm giving one of them to the guy I know with the PPro 200MHZ machine which is slow as a dog...

My complaint isn't against Linux in general. It's specifically that Ubuntu doesn't work as well as I'd like.

Right, you but you said the fam' isn't so hot on Linux, and I suspect that will be true of any distro.

But if you want me to burn a copy of Xubuntu for you and mail it to you or otherwise get it to you I'd be happy to do so. You can email me via my website at PortlandBridges.com .

Andrew

My Xp computer has only 256 mb of ram!
Xp runs fine, Ubuntu has a big long lag.
Until i get a new pc, i have to stay with Xp.

I always thought that 1 GB ram was max for Windows 98, but some 98 fans appear to be getting past that limit:

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?s=1813e94fad918442b7b6ce23539495e7&showtopic =118097