StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Soon enough, I'm going to be buying a new desktop. This one, though it's served me well (and actually survived a heck of a lot more than current computers do now, including but not limited to things ramming into it, it falling from a desk, etc...) is indeed getting pretty dated.

I'm probably going to buy from either IBM or Dell, but that's beside the point. I already know the computer will come with XP Professional as the main OS. Now, this is the real question: is there a real point to dual-boot Windows with Linux?

I see alot of you people doing this, but I can't see why one would run Linux. I know that Linux is very stable compared to Windows, but the lack of applications/games sorta turns me off from it..

Dual-booting in general can be useful. If you want to run old games, you'd have a Win98/2000 or XP dual boot.


People have Linux boots cause they like the stability and security, among a few other things, that come with it. Just what you like or don't like.

Sorry, I sounded a bit ignorant in that first post.

I meant that Linux is stable and secure for most day-to-day activities, but there is still the lack of applications for it that repels me. Also should've stated the topic as "Dual booting with Linux" rather than just "Dual booting".

Dual-booting in general can be useful. If you want to run old games, you'd have a Win98/2000 or XP dual boot.

I still have MS-DOS/Win3.1...was thinking of setting aside a 2GB partition (I think that's the max FAT16 can hold) to run the various DOS games I still have. Trying to run Duke Nukem on WinXP proved to be an unsuccessful effort...

You dual boot your machine with Linux/Windows because you have a need or desire to learn both. For me it useful to have a dual boot system because sometimes customers have a Linux question I can't answer so I boot to Linux to see what they are talking about.

There's one very good reason to dual boot with Linux, and I was dang good I did it, even if I no longer use it every day.

My boot.ini got screwed up. If I didn't have Linux installed, I wouldn't have been able to fix it, or use it till I got it fixed.

Secondly, on my other computer (also Mandrake Linux dual booted), I got a Windows virus that wouldn't die.

So I booted in Linux until I figured out how to remove it, so it wouldn't spread.

GoldenFalcon wrote:Sorry, I sounded a bit ignorant in that first post.

I meant that Linux is stable and secure for most day-to-day activities, but there is still the lack of applications for it that repels me. Also should've stated the topic as "Dual booting with Linux" rather than just "Dual booting".

Dual-booting in general can be useful. If you want to run old games, you'd have a Win98/2000 or XP dual boot.

I still have MS-DOS/Win3.1...was thinking of setting aside a 2GB partition (I think that's the max FAT16 can hold) to run the various DOS games I still have. Trying to run Duke Nukem on WinXP proved to be an unsuccessful effort...

What lack of apps? Linux has the basic apps one needs (OpenOffice, Gimp, etc), so unless you NEED Photoshop (like doing actual print work rather than hacking together images for the web) or similar, Linux should fit your needs. Gaming is a weak point though, but stuff like UT2K4 or Doom III is/will be available. Some can be emulated at acceptable speeds.

Also, if you install Linux, you may be able to do away with a DOS/Win 3.x partition, since dosemu can run a version of dos inside it, and Windows 3.1 (for Windows, it's probably easier to emulate using qemu though). Dosemu works very well from what I've seen (I don't run DOS stuff much though, and the stuff I run also seems to work in the NT-based versions of windows- I've only run 688 and Liero).

I use it mostly for the infinite customizability and flexibility, the fact that I understand the details more than I do so with Windows, which seems overly complex and opaque, dev tools, stability, and security.

GoldenFalcon wrote:I meant that Linux is stable and secure for most day-to-day activities, but there is still the lack of applications for it that repels me.

I use Linux for three primary applications:

1. Website development. Linux is much better than Windows at this, with an array of tools that make it faster and easier. Windows users will boast about FrontPage, but trust me: FrontPage and "faster and easier" should never be spoken in the same sentence.
2. Hosting this webboard. People who run their own servers on Windows are insane.
3. Surfing the Web and reading my E-mail without fear.

I use Windows for gaming.

Darth Wong wrote:Surfing the Web and reading my E-mail without fear.

Oh come on, it's not like IE is the only choice in Windows. Mozilla Firefox is perfectly safe and is the browser of choice for many even under Linux.

True, but Windows itself still has some pretty horrific security holes.

Darth Wong wrote: I use Linux for three primary applications:

1. Website development. Linux is much better than Windows at this, with an array of tools that make it faster and easier. Windows users will boast about FrontPage, but trust me: FrontPage and "faster and easier" should never be spoken in the same sentence.

True, but what about Dreamweaver for Windows? It works perfectly.

[*]Hosting this webboard. People who run their own servers on Windows are insane.

*Cough* er...
I agree 100% that Linux and UNIX-based systems are FAR, FAR better hosts for web servers. They are more stable, don't have the security vulnerabilities, etc, etc. However, is it necessarily *insane* to run a low-traffic server on windows? I say this because I'm hosting my little web site (low traffic) on my Windows PC that I use every day. I run Apache (running IIS would be insane) with OpenSSL, PHP and Perl modules installed.
While Linux is way better at this, is it really insane? :/

[*]Surfing the Web and reading my E-mail without fear.[/list]
I use Windows for gaming.

agreed. If I get an email that I suspect has a virus, I either run and get my Mac or boot Linux and open it. Same with suspicious sites. It's a nice benefit.

The Kernel wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:Surfing the Web and reading my E-mail without fear.

Oh come on, it's not like IE is the only choice in Windows. Mozilla Firefox is perfectly safe and is the browser of choice for many even under Linux.

Sure, go download an email with a virus using FireFox and tell me you're safe...

Praxis wrote:

Darth Wong wrote: I use Linux for three primary applications:
Website development. Linux is much better than Windows at this, with an array of tools that make it faster and easier. Windows users will boast about FrontPage, but trust me: FrontPage and "faster and easier" should never be spoken in the same sentence.

True, but what about Dreamweaver for Windows? It works perfectly.

Why pay for Dreamweaver when you can get better apps for free?

Xisiqomelir wrote: Why pay for Dreamweaver when you can get better apps for free?

If you use the internet, you should realise why such a statement is a bit of a false dilemma.

I currently use a dual boot because I like tinkering around in linux with something better than a P1. However it should be noted that dosemu isn't the only way to play dos games. Dosbox is a good alternative and has a windows port if you really want it.
Also linux has a vibrant amount of applications. I have on my windows box and linux boxes pretty much the same applications (openoffice, mozilla, gaim) and linux also has a fair number of games to its name like any unreal tornament (although earlier ones require a free linux installer from off the web) and america's army (great fps distributed by the army). A dual boot however is not my preference (i have a tendency to just leave a boot on for weeks without switching because i hate restarting) but I've found that linux is far better for most things average users do (and some they don't do). As as grow more experienced in linux I find that I like it more and more for its stabality its multiple anti-crashes (i've found 3 levels of crash protection I can tell and only once did I have to use the bottem level which is restart the computer, a common accurance with my windows box). If you don't like the dual booting idea do what I'm doing, get the far more stable and dependable linux applications which have been ported to windows for your common stuff and leave only native windows games untouched.

Heck, there's even a Mac version of DOSBox (http://emulation.net/windoze/) that emulates a 386 or 286.

Terr Fangbite wrote:I currently use a dual boot because I like tinkering around in linux with something better than a P1. However it should be noted that dosemu isn't the only way to play dos games. Dosbox is a good alternative and has a windows port if you really want it.
Also linux has a vibrant amount of applications. I have on my windows box and linux boxes pretty much the same applications (openoffice, mozilla, gaim) and linux also has a fair number of games to its name like any unreal tornament (although earlier ones require a free linux installer from off the web) and america's army (great fps distributed by the army). A dual boot however is not my preference (i have a tendency to just leave a boot on for weeks without switching because i hate restarting) but I've found that linux is far better for most things average users do (and some they don't do). As as grow more experienced in linux I find that I like it more and more for its stabality its multiple anti-crashes (i've found 3 levels of crash protection I can tell and only once did I have to use the bottem level which is restart the computer, a common accurance with my windows box). If you don't like the dual booting idea do what I'm doing, get the far more stable and dependable linux applications which have been ported to windows for your common stuff and leave only native windows games untouched.

Dosbox is slow on a PII-450, and Dosemu is probably more compatible.

Pu-239 wrote:
Dosbox is slow on a PII-450, and Dosemu is probably more compatible.

Yes, and we know just how many of us on the gaming section of this forum are using Pentium 2's...

Praxis wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:
Dosbox is slow on a PII-450, and Dosemu is probably more compatible.

Yes, and we know just how many of us on the gaming section of this forum are using Pentium 2's...

I think it's 2. Me and Ein. Anyway the compatibility is still a plus, or if you need to run real dos under Mac, use qemu. Besides, I've heard people with fast computers complain about the speed.

Praxis wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:
Dosbox is slow on a PII-450, and Dosemu is probably more compatible.

Yes, and we know just how many of us on the gaming section of this forum are using Pentium 2's...

Not a few people are using relatively slow computers here.

Rye wrote:

Xisiqomelir wrote: Why pay for Dreamweaver when you can get better apps for free?

If you use the internet, you should realise why such a statement is a bit of a false dilemma.

Sorry, let me amend my statment:

"Why pay for Dreamweaver when you can LEGALLY get better apps for free?"

I like Dreamweaver

And when there's edu discount in play...

I think the reason why is because most people think for everything free there is a string attached. If you could get free elephant droppings would you? Also now-adays instead of having like only a part of the program until you pay up they have adware and spyware sent with free programs which turn your already nightmarish windows box into a living hell. Such people also subscribe to such things that free things are worthless since payment gives you a right to complain (i.e. how can you get your money's worth if you paid nothing to get it).

Handcoded HTML is better. And you can't make dynamic pages with DreamWeaver (or can you? )

Pu-239 wrote:Handcoded HTML is better. And you can't make dynamic pages with DreamWeaver (or can you? )

You can do DHTML, but if you're doing stuff like dynamically-generated pages you have to manually code it. However, tools like Dreamweaver let you work on the design without having to worry about the nitty gritty coding (and freeing up time for the hard stuff)