(Geek Testing Forum)(50 posts)
i'm going to build a computer with your how-to guide. my neighbor gave me an 11 year old computer with a 4.3 gig hard drive and 64 mb of ram (2, 32mb sticks) i salvaged the box, which i'll paint. ivory isn't my color. there's not a dent or a scratch on it. i'm going to put ubuntu on it as the os. thanks for doing what you're doing.
i'm off to set up an account at tiger direct
my best is like 1.5 min but wow you got that one dialed lol but that was on a older machine running win xp though so i'm not sure what i could get mine too. i know that my laptop booting ubuntu is like 3 min counting logging in not sure what the boot would be without having to log in would be yet though but on my laptop with vista it's like 10 min to fully boot
You have got to be kidding me concerning your boot times ??
This is just an old Asus XP3 machine running with NO O/C on a Dual Core @ 3.00
Will admit I have networking addresses and mac pre-assigned plus never start any programs running in the background plus no login set and run in Pure Classic Mode but even excluding those items, boot times should never be over about 25-30 seconds. Ubuntu takes a little longer than XP does because of no raid but I still don't understand your long boot times ??
Rick P. ♣
I guess it is just the way I setup machines by habit and the tweaks I've leaned over the years. (MS) said somewhere that boot times for their O/Ses should never exceed 30 seconds but I can't remember when or where I read that so don't quote me as I don't have the MS reference.
Rick P. ♣
That is probably the best answer.
Also why I have said many times on the forum that "each is free to run their own machines as they wish".
The reason HW and SW is "FUN" is that there is a "Billion" ways to do things :))
Rick P. ♣
Wow . . . it works good. Just copy the direct url from photobucket and press that image button. There may be a script warning in IE7 . . . just OK it and then try again.
You done good, Geek . . . thanks.
Now I'm going to test that Link button:
Cool . . .
Again, about that script warning in IE. You may get that, and just allow scripts to run "temporarily" and then try again. Not sure why you have to go through the second iteration, but I guess that's just the way IE security settings are for me. Haven't tried it in FF yet.
I have to say that I'm a little surprised that some of you geeks don't know how to use the security zones in IE7. However, this just reinforces what I said in the thread about IE8 -- that they should have overhauled the security zone system. I said the only ones who understand it are geeks, but it seems that it's so convoluted that not even geeks bother to understand it. Here's the post and thread that I'm talking about:
I hope you're not mistaking me for a geek. While I may know my way a little bit around XP, I am at best a "student geek", and by no means am any benchmark for geekishness.
And thanks for the tip again whs. (And whs is a more likely victim for the geek label, but then he already knew much more about the use of security zones than I did).
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Considering that most I know are novices, they think I'm brilliant when it comes to computers. But compared to you guys on here, I'm certainly an amateur.
This is a good site to learn a lot on, and I have. Just makes me look more geeky to those novices ("blind" people when it comes to computers).
The guiding principle for me, even when troubleshooting a novice machine, is to always know what I don't know and never to fake it. Now and then when I readily admit to a novice that I just don't know, they get a surprised look on their face. That's flattering, and again . . . In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king . . . but I've seen too many people misguided by someone who can't say "I don't know".
As far as that goes, I don't know even half of what most of you guys have forgotten. So again, ScottW (and you are a real geek), don't make the error of judging my awareness for that of a geek. I suspect most geeks know all the ins and outs of IE security zones. "Student geeks" have to think about it (and when whs pointed that out, I had an "Oh yeah, that's right" moment. For a real geek, that sort of thing is second nature and routine.
I can only second what BobJam says. I think most of us (maybe with the exception of a few) are here to learn. The beauty of our community is, that everybody knows something in some areas and can teach that to others. Nobody, even the most hardened Geek, is supposed to be an expert in all fields of this vast knowledgebase. There is nothing wrong to admit, that one is caught short on this topic or another. But as a group, we grow in knowledge - and that's what counts.
Wow, that is a lot of replies about my previous post. I hope I did not come off as a know-it-all who was putting others down for not knowing some arcane knowledge. I am here to learn as well as teach -- I have said that before.
The point that I was trying to make is that the IE security zone system is so obscure that it's practically useless to the novice or casual user. Even people who are into computer tech and willing to learn seem to not understand the system. You could argue that it is so complex that it's not worth learning and you would get no argument from me. For all of the changes that could have gone into IE8, an overhaul of the security zone system would have been the most useful. It would prevent machines from getting infected and reduce the spread of malware. Shame on Microsoft!
@LH - thank you :) (and I agree with the shakiness of my 'iniation')
@ScottW - i agree entirely, the security system is very complicated, and some of it you really cannot get your head round as to why they have put certain measures in place.
As you may have seen in another of my posts regarding this it is slightly better in the BETA of IE8, so lets hope the full release irons out all of our qualms :)
no i just meant that he seems to know all of different things just read the articles that he writes and you will see and he fixes all/most of the problems on the forum. and thx to lighthouse/dad :D
A lot of forums will scale down an image that is too big, and give a message in a bar above the image like " This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized <inserts size>".
That's not for thumbnails either. It's for images in the body of the post.
Anyway, Geek, is that something you can code in to this board software??
This topic has been closed to new replies.