I got me a new "toy" today!

[datamonger128]

Microsoft Windows isn't the only one around here getting older computers.  Earlier today, I stopped by a computer shop that's at a local flea market (It's off Jefferson Avenue in Newport News if you want to venture there D-EJ915) to pick up a new hard drive for one of my new computers.  Before I know it, I'm walking out the store not with the hard drive I had originally intended to purchase, but with a Gateway "Professional" tower.  It cost me $20 and came with an 866MHz Pentium III, 320MB PC-133, a CD-ROM and CD-RW, floppy drive, and a dead 10GB HDD.  I swapped out the dead 10GB for a 7200RPM Maxtor 20GB and plan on using it as my Linux box.  For those of you who are wondering what distro I'll be using, it's Ubuntu.  I would like to try a different distro, but currently, I don't have any blank CDs and I don't know what distros are "user friendly" and what ones still require you to manually mount a CD and stuff of the sort.  I'll be posting pictures of it later though.....after I finish installing Ubuntu.

Also, I plan on installing my PCI GeForce 8400 GS sometime soon as well.  Yeah, it sucks, but it's better than the integrated Intel 810 junk.

[msiegel]

ha! i've met my match today
picked up a free power mac G4 / 733MHz / 384MB / 40GB from the curb and installed debian on it.
had to swap out a busted optical drive though.
... also erased the previous owner's data, which he forgot to erase XD

[datamonger128]

I'd have at least checked for non-DRM'd music to see if it was stuff I wanted to add to my existing library.

[Shawn Stanford]

I'd have checked for pr0n...

[microsoft windows]

How tall's the gateway?

[datamonger128]

About a foot and a half?  Somewhere around there.  Nowhere near as tall as the Gateway 2000 you got.

[kishy]

I kept trying to figure out why every time I see a post by you I get angry at something...it's the stupid Apple logo lol.

Linux box...sorry to be technical but that's not a use for the machine. A use for the machine would be one of "file server", "print server", "web server", "pr0n downloader", "classic game player", et cetera. "Linux", I'd say, is the method applied to the use.

So, that said, what's the fate of the poor machine?

[bigpook]

wow, I didn't know a machine could be dedicated to downloading pR0n.

[kishy]

wow, I didn't know a machine could be dedicated to downloading pR0n.

Neither did I, until I thought about it for the above post.

[HaaTa]

Eee 701's make good pr0n (rtorrent) downloaders once their SSDs die. Linux install on the SD card, and plugin an external. Even has a built-in UPS for whenever the power company decides to drop a cat into the neighbourhood transformer.

[ch_123]

Linux box...sorry to be technical but that's not a use for the machine. A use for the machine would be one of "file server", "print server", "web server", "pr0n downloader", "classic game player", et cetera. "Linux", I'd say, is the method applied to the use.

A lot of people (myself included) have this idea when starting off with Linux of having a 'linux machine' to test out Linux.

In reality, the only real way to see if you like Linux is to put it on your main PC and use it for the stuff you do on a regular basis. Otherwise is just a thing in the corner that has an odd interface.

[bigpook]

better yet, just download and burn a live cd. this way your windows partition is not touched and you get to see if linux will even run on the box properly BEFORE installing it.

It also depends on what you are wanting to test. Are you looking for a desktop? or are you looking for a server?

I don't think the interface is odd though; KDE looks a lot like windows and Gnome is fairly clean looking. Especially when compared to Vista. Then again if you are running a linux server headless, then I suppose a CLI would be odd.

[kriminal]

for the life of me i cant fathom putting Linux on my main computer. i installed linux and configured it on workstation on my job.. found that i had a liking for linux.. but nope.. not on my main rig at all...

as to acquiring antiques.... eewwww... i have access to some compaq ccj models if your interested XD.

heck on work one is still running win 95 non stop XD

[kishy]

A lot of people (myself included) have this idea when starting off with Linux of having a 'linux machine' to test out Linux.

In reality, the only real way to see if you like Linux is to put it on your main PC and use it for the stuff you do on a regular basis. Otherwise is just a thing in the corner that has an odd interface.

I had misread the OP's statement and thought he already had a 'Linux box' which this would replace...oops.

Yes, the best way to get accustomed to it and try it is to actually use it. I was simply saying though that Linux isn't something you use, neither is Windows...they are methods for doing other tasks, just like your web browser is a method for accessing Geekhack and your OS is your method for accessing your web browser.

[itlnstln]

If I get a netbook, I might put Ubuntu on it.  Thinking about it, I don't really need the apps I use at work on something like that.

[TexasFlood]

If I get a netbook, I might put Ubuntu on it.  Thinking about it, I don't really need the apps I use at work on something like that.

Yup, I got an old thinkpad and put Ubuntu on it. I'm up to  9.10 (Karmic Koala) and am happy with it.  It's got firefox, Open Office, GIMP, etc.  Sometimes I run into issues that are a little more frustrating to resolve than it probably would be on Windows but overall it's very friendly and easy to use.  Setting up a home box, for me it was between Ubuntu and Mandriva.  I will probably play with Mandriva as well once I get my VMWare workstation up but I was curious about Ubuntu so went that route on the thinkpad.

[bigpook]

switching operating systems isn't trivial. a person really has to have a legitimate reason to even switch. if windows is working for you and you are happy with it then outside of curiosity, it doesn't make sense to switch.
thats why its best to run a live cd or virtual machine first.
don't burn any bridges as you move forward as you may  quickly want to get back to what you had...

[itlnstln]

I would just be checking e-mail and browsing the web on a netbook.  That, and I have used Ubuntu before, so it wouldn't be too big of a deal, for me anyway.

[kishy]

ripster, I like the old Apple logo with multiple colours...but solid colour ones look somewhat defective, as are the computers they come attached to and the ideals they represent.

[bhtooefr]

Myself, I have quite a lot of computers that have no defined role.

My ThinkPad is my main machine, my netbook is my portable and backup machine, my Dell P3 desktop is my server (it's actually my most reliable machine,) and my Sun Ultra 1 is a heater and MP3 player.

The RiscPC, Sun Blade 2500, RDI PowerLite, and Apple IIGS are just playthings (really, the Ultra 1 is, too, and it'll probably get sold eventually, and the Blade 2500 moved into its place. It's a better heater (and a better computer - faster than the netbook on anything that isn't OpenGL, even,) and the RiscPC is a better MP3 player. And, the IIGS would be usable again if I moved the Blade 2500.)

[datamonger128]

Ok, as for the specific use for the Gateway, I don't know what I will do with it exactly.  It kind of sits there playing music for now.  I've used Ubuntu before and basically installed it just to make the computer usable.  I just don't know what to do with it yet.

On another note, I got my projector hooked up again.  Now I can watch anime on my wall!

[ricercar]

Logo shmogo. Logos have nothing to do with company ideals. Bill Gate's is cool and Steve Jobs is as rude as Gray Davis is as rude as Michael Dell, but their corporate mission are not matched with personal ideals. Microsoft wants to be everywhere: they are. Apple wants to be classy: they are. Dell wants to survive: they do.

I don't mind any specific logo on my hardware, but it MUST do what I want, and that's at least 50% determined by the application, not the OS.

[kishy]

Logo shmogo. Logos have nothing to do with company ideals. Bill Gate's is cool and Steve Jobs is as rude as Gray Davis is as rude as Michael Dell, but their corporate mission are not matched with personal ideals. Microsoft wants to be everywhere: they are. Apple wants to be classy: they are. Dell wants to survive: they do.

I don't mind any specific logo on my hardware, but it MUST do what I want, and that's at least 50% determined by the application, not the OS.

Well, any Apple logo represents Apple which represents...Apple.

Apple's hardware (and in many ways software) was still interesting when the logo was multicolour, so I guess that's why I prefer that logo instead.

[itlnstln]

Logo shmogo. Logos have nothing to do with company ideals. Bill Gate's is cool and Steve Jobs is as rude as Gray Davis is as rude as Michael Dell, but their corporate mission are not matched with personal ideals. Microsoft wants to be everywhere: they are. Apple wants to be classy: they are. Dell wants to survive: they do.
 
I don't mind any specific logo on my hardware, but it MUST do what I want, and that's at least 50% determined by the application, not the OS.

Well said.  All of it.

[bhtooefr]

Meh, Apple started going downhill when they changed their corporate font from Motter Tektura to Apple Garamond.

[microsoft windows]

Windows XP runs much better than Ubuntu. I tried them both.

[HaaTa]

I'll have to agree with you there. Ubuntu holds your hand too much.

[ricercar]

Meh, Apple started going downhill when they changed their corporate font from Motter Tektura to Apple Garamond.

1983? Apple Garamond was on all the Macintosh collateral I've seen.

[hyperlinked]

Apple's hardware (and in many ways software) was still interesting when the logo was multicolour, so I guess that's why I prefer that logo instead.

Ugh, you can't be serious. That was back when they were severely overpriced and had all custom peripherals. Then starting around OS9, they lagged badly in software and OS9 was a super efficient crash test dummy.

In the pre-OS9 part of the rainbow years, they had good stuff though and I liked how the earlier Macs seemed to have more "personality." I mean that they often weren't very sleek looking, but there was something kinda goofy and fun about them.

[kishy]

Ugh, you can't be serious. That was back when they were severely overpriced and had all custom peripherals. Then starting around OS9, they lagged badly in software and OS9 was a super efficient crash test dummy.

In the pre-OS9 part of the rainbow years, they had good stuff though and I liked how the earlier Macs seemed to have more "personality." I mean that they often weren't very sleek looking, but there was something kinda goofy and fun about them.

Quite serious. M68K (primarily the architecture I mean when I say "macs with the multi colour logo") was a somewhat curious architecture, proven by the fact it failed.

"Think Different" is their slogan but they don't do anything remotely close to that now. Funky architectures, adventurous new ideas, changing the way the computing world did things...old Macs were influential, if ugly, little machines. There's nothing interesting or appealing about modern Mac systems or OS X anything in my opinion; they're just stealing from the Linux world.

[microsoft windows]

I remember the Apple computers from the turn of the millenium. They were so junky and behind PC's it wasn't even funny.

[bhtooefr]

Apple today stands against everything they stood for in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. For that matter, even some of the 2000s.

Apple today stands for being a good little consumer of your content from the iTunes store, and don't question anything.

Apple in the early 2000s... see the 1990s.

Apple in the 1990s stood for making your own content, and questioning the status quo (of only big companies making media.) It was what creative types used.

Apple in the 1980s, as much as I don't like the various attempts to kill the Apple II line, and dislike the Mac, stood for innovation, and trying new things, and questioning the status quo (of computers being hard to use.)

Apple in the 1970s stood for making your own programs and hardware, and questioning the status quo (of computers being for big business, being very expensive, and something multiple people shared, you couldn't have your own.) You could even buy a kit Apple ][ when it launched - that is, a bare PCB, and a bag-o'-parts to solder in yourself. And, Apple IIs had prototyping areas on the motherboard for quite a long time.

Note the common thread through the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. Even if their hardware sucked, even if their OSes sucked, even if they were closed systems, they still let you do STUFF, rather than consume stuff, and even promoted that. (Although, I dislike the original Macs for the same reason I dislike the iPhone and iPad today - closed systems.) Note the difference today.

[rdjack21]

could not agree with you more bhtooefr

[bhtooefr]

Oh, and as for the fonts... Apple Garamond was the font used with the launch of the Mac.

Motter Tektura was the font used from the launch of the Apple ][ up until that point. (And, quite a few //es made it out the door well after that, with Motter Tektura on them.)

[Hubbert]

I haven't tried it yet, but I think the best way to learn Linux is to use a distribution like Arch Linux. Having used Ubuntu a little, I find it to be an imitation of Windows to the point of being "more Catholic than the Pope" (or in this case, more graphic).

For example, I wanted to burn a LiveUSB under Ubuntu. I spent a long time searching Ubuntu forums and Google, and found recommendations use one of several GUI apps that weren't installed on my system. Eventually, I found that the command to do that is "dd if= of=": Simple, unchanged for the last 30 years, and universal knowledge that I can take with me and use for the rest of my life. And, although the dd syntax is un-Unixy (because it's an imitation of a command from IBM's JCL), it reinforced for me the key Unix concept that "everything is a file" because I had to find what "file" represents your USB drive.

Ubuntu really keeps you locked into a GUI paradigm (and locked out of the power of classic Unix). And I think it teaches you more about the Gnome Desktop Environment and Metacity Window Manager than about "Linux" per se.

Ubuntu does work well out of the box, so it's useful for system diagnostics. I pre-installed it for my stereotypical mother when I sent her a replacement hard drive (which would have been difficult due to Windows' copy protection). So I think it has achieved its goals, but those goals are definitely not "help people become Unix/Linux power users."

[bigpook]

ubuntu doesn't keep you locked into the gui. open up a terminal and you will have all of the CLI goodness you could possibly want.

becoming a 'real' unix power user takes a conscious decision on the part of the user as the learning curve will be quite steep, but once again,  the terminal is there for those that are wanting to take that step.

there is a wealth of packages available if you want to go the 'server' route.

[TexasFlood]

For the most part I consider distros like Ubuntu and Mandriva the best of both worlds.  Its got GUIness for when I'm stupid, lazy or in a hurry.  And the terminal window is always a click away if I need CLIness.  There are more than enough distributions out there to fit any need, but seemingly per distrowatch, the most popular ones are GUI based.

[microsoft windows]

I used Ubuntu and hate it. It's slow as moleasses.

[TexasFlood]

I used Ubuntu and hate it. It's slow as moleasses.

I'm using it right now.  I wouldn't say it's fast, but this is an old laptop and Windows wasn't snappy on it either so I can't really complain.

[kishy]

Ubuntu is slow as molasses...until you install it.

Then it (as with just about all current Linux distros) will run approximately the same as Windows XP* on any particular hardware configuration.

* The Windows XP installation used for comparison can't be bloated with...ahem...Layer 8-introduced technical issues.

[Computer-Lab in Basement]

I ran Ubuntu on my Micron Transport GX+, and it ran like crap.  So I just reformatted it and put Win2k on it.  Then earlier today I installed Microsoft Neptune on it and it runs great.  Suprisingly Neptune hasn't crashed yet, I guess I have a good install of it on here.

[datamonger128]

I've never had any problems with Ubuntu being slow.  But then again, I don't exactly use Ubuntu as my main OS either.

[ricercar]

SuSe was slow. RHEL was fast. At least this was true in 2004.

[datamonger128]

Well, with any luck, I may be getting yet another new "toy" soon.  A few hours ago, I bid on an old Dell Latitude XPi CD.  I'll be about 30 minutes into my shift tomorrow evening when the auction ends, but hopefully somebody doesn't outbid me.

This computer may not be useful for much, but it's the same model as my first laptop, so there is some sentimental value to it for me.  Maybe I'll put a bunch of ROMs on it and use it as an emulation machine.  That's about all I used my original one for anyway.  That thing got me through many days of high school.....

[MoB]

You don't have to use Gnome in Ubuntu. You can always uninstall it and use something smaller like xfce, IceWm, fluxbox, openbox, wmii, awesome, ratpoison etc.

[ch_123]

I used Ubuntu and hate it. It's slow as moleasses.

Well, if you want Linux for older PCs, try Damn Small Linux or the like. Just have fun with the learning curve...

Ubuntu is pretty second rate though compared with some of the faster, albeit harder to set up Linuxes out there.

[kishy]

Well, if you want Linux for older PCs, try Damn Small Linux or the like. Just have fun with the learning curve...

Ubuntu is pretty second rate though compared with some of the faster, albeit harder to set up Linuxes out there.

DSL, ha.

They claim it'll run on a 486, but it feels like utter death on a Pentium MMX 233 with 128MB of RAM? Come on.

Shouldn't claim it'll run...should claim it will "run like utter crap."

[ch_123]

If you need to liberate something that old, you're probably better off with something like NetBSD.

Then again, unless the machine has some special significance, resurrecting hardware that old is about as productive as slamming your balls in a drawer. With the amount of high-end Pentium III and Pentium 4 systems you can haul out of the trash, there's no point with playing with the likes of Pentium IIs or 486s unless you want a dedicated DOS box/firewall/media server etc. In these cases, you don't need a GUI.

[kishy]

If you need to liberate something that old, you're probably better off with something like NetBSD.

Then again, unless the machine has some special significance, resurrecting hardware that old is about as productive as slamming your balls in a drawer. With the amount of high-end Pentium III and Pentium 4 systems you can haul out of the trash, there's no point with playing with the likes of Pentium IIs or 486s unless you want a dedicated DOS box/firewall/media server etc. In these cases, you don't need a GUI.

Well...resurrecting my 286 was substantially more productive than slamming my balls in a drawer (though I won't try the latter for comparison, thanks).

Seems it was also more productive than resurrecting a 486 or P1 would be.

[microsoft windows]

You can't emulate firing up the old Gateway2000, dealing with Scandisk for 15 minutes, and then dialing up to the Internet.