The Energon Pub

Tekka wrote:Making sure you have all the correct drivers for your graphics card can help with the performance of games under WINE.

Of course, having a good graphics card helps too.

Yeah in lies the problem, my laptop has a old crappy card, i think its starting to play up.

Thought I would give the KDE graphics a go, just downloading it now.

Geekee1 wrote:OS X Tiger, haven't upgraded to Leopard yet.

WooHoo! High Five dude!
Mac is where its at!
MY desktop is a Power Mac G4 OSX 10.4.11 and my laptop is iBook G4 OSX 10.4.10 both with Tiger.
I want Leopard really bad though.

Powersurge wrote:I've never used a Mac before, and this is the first time I've really used a computer OS thats not Windows, so I'm still trying to get used to how a Linux based OS works, I'm loving the command line though, its great just to copy and paste commands into it from the net and just sit back as the program you want installs

And its nice not to worry bout virus's and stuff like that too much, though i do believe there are some Linux virus's out there.

AMEN!

Powersurge wrote:I've never used a Mac before, and this is the first time I've really used a computer OS thats not Windows, so I'm still trying to get used to how a Linux based OS works, I'm loving the command line though, its great just to copy and paste commands into it from the net and just sit back as the program you want installs

And its nice not to worry bout virus's and stuff like that too much, though i do believe there are some Linux virus's out there.

Wait...you put in commands, and cause a file to download, and then the .exe file runs itself? Sounds like TortoiseSVN, but bad.

I much prefer the Windows method: Clicking the download link, choosing where it goes, then beginning the installation LATER, at my own leisure, after I've done extra research on what I'm getting.

And yeah, Apple's claim about being virus free is only half-true. The reason there are more viruses for Windows is because there are more USERS for Windows.

Mac has a smaller userbase, so Virusmakers tend to avoid them, and go for the Big Fish, Windows. For such a small outcome, the effort put into the viruses is usually not worth it.

EDIT: And just because this is the only place for this: The "Time Machine" feature on Macs. Why do the ads feel the need to brag about that? It's Recycle Bin and System Restore! Windows has had the same abilities since forever.

Shadowman wrote:

Powersurge wrote:I've never used a Mac before, and this is the first time I've really used a computer OS thats not Windows, so I'm still trying to get used to how a Linux based OS works, I'm loving the command line though, its great just to copy and paste commands into it from the net and just sit back as the program you want installs

And its nice not to worry bout virus's and stuff like that too much, though i do believe there are some Linux virus's out there.

Wait...you put in commands, and cause a file to download, and then the .exe file runs itself? Sounds like TortoiseSVN, but bad.

I much prefer the Windows method: Clicking the download link, choosing where it goes, then beginning the installation LATER, at my own leisure, after I've done extra research on what I'm getting......

Well you can install a file via the command line, or use the inbuilt package manager, but you don't need to find the executable file (Linux doesn't use .exe files), it will ether be in the main menu, or you just type the name of the program into the command line to run it, so to start a virus scan i just type avast hit enter, and it runs.

Powersurge wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Powersurge wrote:I've never used a Mac before, and this is the first time I've really used a computer OS thats not Windows, so I'm still trying to get used to how a Linux based OS works, I'm loving the command line though, its great just to copy and paste commands into it from the net and just sit back as the program you want installs

And its nice not to worry bout virus's and stuff like that too much, though i do believe there are some Linux virus's out there.

Wait...you put in commands, and cause a file to download, and then the .exe file runs itself? Sounds like TortoiseSVN, but bad.

I much prefer the Windows method: Clicking the download link, choosing where it goes, then beginning the installation LATER, at my own leisure, after I've done extra research on what I'm getting......

Well you can install a file via the command line, or use the inbuilt package manager, but you don't need to find the executable file (Linux doesn't use .exe files), it will ether be in the main menu, or you just type the name of the program into the command line to run it, so to start a virus scan i just type avast hit enter, and it runs.

uh...huh...What if there's two programs with the same designation, in different directories?

Hm. Anyway, XP and Vista have a Searchbar function. Just as good, if not better.

I've had no probs with how Ubuntu deals with the storing and running of programs, mind you I probably didn't explain it too well, i have a very limited understanding of how things work in Linux

Powersurge wrote:Well you can install a file via the command line, or use the inbuilt package manager, but you don't need to find the executable file (Linux doesn't use .exe files), it will ether be in the main menu, or you just type the name of the program into the command line to run it, so to start a virus scan i just type avast hit enter, and it runs.

Linux may not use .exe files as such, but it does use executables. But in this case it doesn't matter what the file extension is, it doesn't even have to have one.

The package system is also not the only way to install programs. You can also download the packages without installing them, you may archive them and pass them to the package manager at your leisure.

You also have the luxury of downloading precompiled binaries for anything that supplies them in the same way you do with windows.

And finally you can download the source code of any program you wish to run and compile it yourself at you leisure.

At no time are you ever forced to download and install something immediately and against your will.

Shadowman wrote:What if there's two programs with the same designation, in different directories?

It's very easy. Back in the days of DOS it was common to have this line in your autoexec.bat

SET PATH=C:\ or SET PATH=C:\DOS\

Wherever you kept your dos tools. That way if you ever needed to run them you would just type the program name rather than going through the trouble of changing directories.

Modern Windows Run works in the same way, looking for programs in C:\Windows\, C:\Windows\System32 etc if no path is specified.

Anyhoo, if you have an executable you wish to run that is already in your "set path", we'll call it "paint" you simply use your terminal to navigate to it's directory.

If I were to type just "paint", it would launch the program that is already in the "set path", this I believe is a good choice to help prevent launching unwanted executables, rather than Windows/DOS' choice of launching whatever is in the current path by default.

To run the paint program in the current directory that doesn't normally run I would just add "./" to the front of it.

"./paint" would launch the second executable instead of the default.

It's all fun stuff, and I'm still a relative newb to linux myself. But I am learning so much every day.

Win XP on all the PCs at home. Not 100% sure if Vista would run nicely on them anyway.

Win XP on all the PCs at home. Not 100% sure if Vista would run nicely on them anyway.

I have two laptops at home and they are both running on Win XP.

Vista on a Quad core and I love it