Shark

Member
  • Content Count

    166
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Shark

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I don't know what grub is... I've installed Mandrake a couple of times, and it puts LILO in place by default. As I've said, though... I have no control over it!
  2. Sounds like you're confirming that my estimates are correct for partition size... Remember that I will be installing apps and storing data on the remaining space... This has worked fine for me with XP and 9x in the past. Again, I'm a Linux noob, but I wouldn't expect it to have trouble running programs or accessing data from a separate FAT32 partition.
  3. Why does one "need" a 405hp Corvette Z06? Partly I want 98 just to make the project more interesting, but also there are a few programs I run that simply perform fastest in 9x. Windows 95 is actually the fastest, but support has died there. ME is a piece of junk, IMO, and that leave 98SE as my choice for speed. So, what about a boot manager? Bad idea?
  4. Shark

    Can/should I get an LCD display?

    Indeed, sound advice.
  5. I've got a laptop with a 20GB hard drive. I'd like to install Windows 98, XP, and Linux on the laptop. Here is my tentative partition layout: 3GB Windows XP (NTFS) 2.5GB Linux .5GB Linux swap 2GB Windows 98 (Fat32) remaining space as "large" FAT32 partition for programs/data Question #1: Any problems forseen with this arrangement? It should be noted that I'm a newbie to both Linux and multi-boot. I've toyed with both only briefly. I'm thinking I should get some boot manager utility (has to be freeware) that is not OS specific. Question 2: Any suggestions for a freeware boot manager, or is that not recommended at all? Finally, question 3: Is there a particular order or procedure anyone recommends for accomplishing my goal? I am concerned because when I tried it initially, I ended up with LILO going first, and a "Windows" option within there. When I selected Windows, I then got ANOTHER boot manager (MS) to select from 98 or XP. I think LILO would be fine except that I'm such a Linux idiot that I don't know how to configure it. I managed to get a terminal in Linux, navigate to the /etc folder, and then did "vim lilo.conf" and changed the default to windows, but when I tried to save the file, I couldn't due to it being read only. I tried :wq and :wq! without success. Bottom line is I'm not comfortable/knowledgeable enough with Linux yet, and that is why I want an OS independant boot manager. I share that story so you'll understand that I do not want the OS's "fighting" over boot management, and I'm willing to install in any particular order to avoid it. My original configuration came by installing 98 first, XP next, and then Mandrake, and as I said, I didn't like the way that affected the boot menus (it was functional but a tad cumbersome). Sorry I'm so verbose.
  6. A desktop P4 vs mobile P4 will be very similar in performance, if the bus speed is the same. Not for sure on this, but I think all the mobile P4 systems use "400MHz" FSB.
  7. If I were buying a laptop today, most definitely I would go with the Pentium-M. It's a great chip, engineered for long battery life. With a choice between Intel "extreme" graphics vs a Radeon chip... No comparison... the guy above really hammered home on the difference between their memory architectures, and several have mentioned the 2D quality difference as well...
  8. Since you're saying Winbench 99 is not a valid tool for this decision, by extension you are saying the U5 is the superior choice? Or are you just expressing dislike for Winbench 99? I have no preference for any benchmark, this was just one that I could easily get running to test the drives. Still, I would think that it gives some indication of relative performance???
  9. I'd settle for just being able to edit my posts!
  10. Answering my own question? I hooked each drive up as a master (no slave present) on my old righ: Celeron 366 @ 550, 256MB RAM, Windows 2000... Did a quick format of each drive, followed by Winbench 99 Business and Highend Disk tests. The 34GXP scored: 6180 and 16300, respectively The U5 scored: 4720 and 13600, respectively This looks good for the GXP. I'm assuming that Winbench 99's disk tests are a valid tool for making this decision... after all, SR wouldn't keep using them for this long if they weren't useful, right? I can't say I'm shocked that the 34GXP won the comparison, but I'm a bit surprised at the 30% and 20% margins of "victory"; I expected a much closer race.
  11. Shark

    Doom3 minimum Requirements

    Even if it's 640x480 with all in-game details maxed, as well as 4XAA and 8XAF? I'm more interested in running D3 and HL2 with ALL the eye candy on than at ultra high-resolutions. I'm hoping to get 1024x768 out of it, though...
  12. Shark

    Doom3 minimum Requirements

    I doubt the difference between the Barton 2500+ and 3000+ would be that big of a deal--especially if you don't mind overclocking a bit... The video card and RAM upgrade will probably be quite worthwhile, though. Can't fault the hdd...
  13. Shark

    Doom3 minimum Requirements

    My personal rig is an original nForce with an Athlon MP 1900+ mildly overclocked, 512MB RAM, and a 128MB GF4 Ti4400. I plan on upgrading JUST for Doom III and Half Life 2. I don't think they will run like they were meant to with even the system I've got now.
  14. IBM 34GXP: 2MB buffer, 7200 rpm, 6.8GB per platter, 9.0ms seek Seagate U Series 5: 512KB buffer, 5400 rpm, 20GB per platter, 8.9ms seek For overall performance, which is better? I just happen to have both sitting around, and I personally have never used the U5 but I've never been too impressed with Seagate ATA performance. Meanwhile the IBM drive, though it has superior buffer size and spindle speed, is pretty "long in the tooth". The closest I could come to a comparison via SR database was a review on the 34GXP, run on "Testbed 1", while "Testbed 2" ran some of the same tests on a U5. I don't feel this is a valid comparison, but we'll note that: High-End Disk WinMark 99: 34GXP scored 13267 for NTFS (NT 4.0) and 13800 for FAT32 (95 OSR 2.1). The U5 scored 12300 (Win2K NTFS). Business Disk WinMark 99: 34GXP scored 4253 for NTFS (NT 4.0) and 3980 for FAT32 (95 OSR 2.1). The U5 scored 5487 (Win2K NTFS). These are on totally different systems, but I lean towards the IBM for the fact that it managed to beat the U5 scores in the high-end mark despite being run on a PII 266, LX chipset, with 64MB RAM... Whereas the U5 had the advantage of a PIII 700, BX chipset, and 128MB RAM. Still, it's very difficult for *me* to draw any useful conclusions based on that data--just too many variables for me to sort out. So, I'm looking for the ultimate expertise: feedback from knowledgeable users.