Shopsmith Forums

I got so tired of seeing updates are available that I shut down all updates. It seemed like it was wanting to update 2 or 3 times a day. My laptop has not stopped running yet. How much room does all those updates take up?

joedw00 wrote:I got so tired of seeing updates are available that I shut down all updates. It seemed like it was wanting to update 2 or 3 times a day. My laptop has not stopped running yet. How much room does all those updates take up?

The updates replace existing stuff.


Nothing like riding in a vehicle constantly changing direction!:D






i.e. Worked yesterday, . . .

I can't speak to all of the Linux distributions but Ubuntu 12.04 running Unity Desktop (looks a lot like OS-X on my old iMAC) pops up an update manager icon in the launcher bar that tells me how many updates are waiting and I can click on it anytime to see what it wants to do and decide if I want to run it now or let it sit until I'm not going to be busy. It won't do anything until I click "Install updates". Most of the time I don't need to do anything and most updates do not require a reboot. If one does it tells me and I have to click a button to reboot it.

I am considering re-installing Windows XP on one desktop box with a dual boot (Windows / Linux option) just for a very few cases where I might prefer a Windows version of some program. Even that has become less important than it was because more and more stuff is available on-line especially games and those on-line versions "just run" on a Linux box.Cloud stuff doesn't care what you use for an operating system.
I have a copy of XP on a hard drive from a defunct computer I hope I can use OK because I don't intend to have to pay for a copy. The XP would get very little use because Linux would be the every day OS. So many problems just went away when I switched. Of course Linux isn't perfect but it works a hundred times better for me and it is free... Why would I want to pay out good $$$ for something that gave me so much grief??? Makes no sense at all.
If for some reason I run into some sort of problem with the copy of XP I have I won't pay Microsoft for a copy, I can buy used computers with it installed all day long for $20 to $25.
One of our daughters is an example of people forced to stay with Windows. They have a good sized property maintenance business with half a dozen employees and quite a few sub-contractors working in several states and doing all sorts of odd stuff from changing light bulbs to sub-contracted work on the new Interstate 69 being built through southern Indiana. Their accountant "demands" that they use Quicken. That one program keeps a lot of folks from switching completely to Linux. It "can" be run on Linux but you have to be a bit of a geek. There are Linux equivalents but accountants want everything they work with exactly the same (understandable).



.

robinson46176 wrote:If for some reason I run into some sort of problem with the copy of XP I have I won't pay Microsoft for a copy, I can buy used computers with it installed all day long for $20 to $25..

Just FYI - If those copies have OEM copies of windows on them, then installing that copy on a different computer is violating the license agreement last I checked. OEM copies are tied to the hardware (ie: I am buying a computer that happens to have winXP on it). When the hardware dies, the license dies with it. Buying a $25 computer to get a license key to move to another computer is not within the terms.

Eh, I guess it only matters if you care about the licensing terms or not.

damagi wrote:Just FYI - If those copies have OEM copies of windows on them, then installing that copy on a different computer is violating the license agreement last I checked. OEM copies are tied to the hardware (ie: I am buying a computer that happens to have winXP on it). When the hardware dies, the license dies with it. Buying a $25 computer to get a license key to move to another computer is not within the terms.

Eh, I guess it only matters if you care about the licensing terms or not.

I don't have a particular box I want to put it on. I just this month scrapped about half a dozen old systems that had sneaked into storage. I would not have considered any of those suitable for the use I have in mind. If I do end up buying a box with XP installed I would be just using it and adding Linux as a dual boot option.

Another thing I want to try is just booting another computer I have (maybe an older IBM Think-pad) from the hard drive I have with XP on it. I have had it mounted in a small case as a USB portable hard drive for some time. I mostly have a bunch of pictures stored on it right now but in my mind that original laptop still exists as that hard drive. Others might disagree but that is my mind-set.
It may not even work but I have to try it. I "think" that IBM can be sat to boot from USB in set-up.

I actually only have one piece of Windows software I own that I want to be able use (family tree related) and even that use may only be a few times a year.

With the huge switch from desktop computers to laptops, net-books, tablets and even to smart phones as an only computer, prices on used desktop boxes have really gone down.

I mentioned smart phones... I know of several people who's only computer use is the Internet and their phone is their only access.

Dang... Rambling again...


.

Another option for folks wanting to try Linux before committing to a dual boot arrange, is to install Oracle VirtualBox on the Windows machine (host), and then install Linux as a guest operating system. So then you simply start the virtual machine (Linux) by starting the VirtualBox application, and selecting the Linux machine. Choose the menu choice to start it, and away you go. Both operating systems are running, but you can then use Linux to do pretty much whatever you need to do. Then if for some reason you don't like that Linux installation, you can simply delete that guest machine. The VirtualBox app treats each guest OS you install (you can have many) as a file having its own sandbox. It's isolated from the other machines. It's a little more complicated than that, but it is very straightforward to do--and there are a number of YouTube videos you can watch to see how to do it. You can also PM me or hit my on Skye, and I will help as well. It isn't hard.

The reason I bring this up is that in a dual-boot situation, you need to use a boot manager to select the OS you want to load at start-up. So if you install Linux from *inside* Windows, then you are using the Windows boot manager...which is MUCH easier to deal with, should you ever want to remove that Linux installation. However if you install Linux cold (from an .iso disk you burned) during the boot, you will likely end up with the GRUB or LILO boot manager. Ubuntu used GRUB, and it works very well. But the problem is that if you ever want to get rid of that particular Linux installation, you'll break your boot manager if you simply delete the Linux partition. Then you have to use another computer and try to figure out how to fix the Windows master boot record and get your machine running again. Ask me how I know this, LOL...

The moral of the story here is two-fold: First, if you aren't certain that you really want to commit to Linux, install Oracle VirtualBox and then install Linux as a guest OS inside that. Then Windows is still in control, and it's simply a matter of deleting a file if you want to remove Linux. Second, if you do decide to commit to a full dual-boot arrangement, give some thought to what boot manager you want to use. Unless you are certain you want GRUB, I *strongly* recommend you install Ubuntu from inside of Windows. Simply start Windows and then, after it's all booted and running normally, insert the Linux .iso CD you made, and let Windows manage the installation. Then you use the Windows boot manager by default, and if you ever want to get rid of Linux, you simply uninstall it from the Control Panel like any other application. It is MUCH easier to do it this way, in my experience.

Just some thoughts for those considering Linux. It's a great kernel, and there are a number of very nice Linux distributions you can try...like Ubuntu.

More and more of the programs I use are dropping support of XP in fact two of my most used will not install their latest and greatest on XP.

I have looked as Windows 8 and shook my head.

I also have issues with the update, first it takes tons or resources to check to see if updates are needed and then there seems to be tons of updates.

I turned off updates. I'm not happy running that way but I was left with little choice. Now windows 8

Apple is looking better and better all the time.

Yea Ed... If you don't want to mess around with anything, and if you just "want it to work" whenever you need it to, spend some money and buy an Apple. It is a VERY smooth OS (based on Unix), and Apple fully controls the hardware and the operating system to run it. Sure there are some third-party hardware issue sometimes, but the average user isn't really going to be affected by any of that. And if you need to, you can get a version of the main Windows apps on the Mac. Of course Apple often has a better alternative, and they'll usually open files created on a Windows machine (like Word, PowerPoint, Excel, etc).

The Mac OS and Apple's machines tend to be pretty rock solid. This is not to say that they can't have their problems, because they can. However the incidence of problems on my Windows machines is about 50x higher than our three Macbook Pro laptops.

The last thing is that although the initial cost of an Apple machine is indeed higher than the comparable Windows machine, you will likely recover that cost on the back-end. By that I mean that not only will it be a more stable platform and cost you less in maintenance, recovery and upgrades, but if you should ever want to sell an Apple machine, they tend to hold their value pretty well. But also remember that Apple tends to support their hardware (through OS upgrades) for several years. So if you buy an Apple machine now, you can plan on using it for 5, 6 or 7 years or longer. Try that with a Windows machi....oops, you already did!

[quote="tcbetka"]Yea Ed... If you don't want to mess around with anything, and if you just "want it to work" whenever you need it to, spend some money and buy an Apple. It is a VERY smooth OS (based on Unix), and Apple fully controls the hardware and the operating system to run it. Sure there are some third-party hardware issue sometimes, but the average user isn't really going to be affected by any of that. And if you need to, you can get a version of the main Windows apps on the Mac. Of course Apple often has a better alternative, and they'll usually open files created on a Windows machine (like Word, PowerPoint, Excel, etc).

The Mac OS and Apple's machines tend to be pretty rock solid. This is not to say that they can't have their problems, because they can. However the incidence of problems on my Windows machines is about 50x higher than our three Macbook Pro laptops.

The last thing is that although the initial cost of an Apple machine is indeed higher than the comparable Windows machine, you will likely recover that cost on the back-end. By that I mean that not only will it be a more stable platform and cost you less in maintenance, recovery and upgrades, but if you should ever want to sell an Apple machine, they tend to hold their value pretty well. But also remember that Apple tends to support their hardware (through OS upgrades) for several years. So if you buy an Apple machine now, you can plan on using it for 5, 6 or 7 years or longer. Try that with a Windows machi....oops, you already did!

]

Not to turn this into an Apple Versus PC thread much of the difference in cost between an Apple and PC is the difference in quality of the components. I have a buddy that builds QUALITY PC's and in almost every case if they match by performance they also match by cost. Of course he can build the same performance using lower quality components and beat Apple's cost by almost twice.

That said I do remember hearing some MAC users complain because their Apple was not upward compatible with one of the Lion operating systems. So both MAC and PC do not have perpetual upgradability.

I've built several machines (many, actually), and can tell you that in my experience, to buy high-quality hardware and build a machine, it is MUCH CHEAPER than to buy a Mac with comparable hardware.

For instance, I built a Hackintosh machine earlier this year. I loaded it with 16GB RAM, a fast i7 Sandy Bridge CPU and a number of other goodies (including two solid-state hard drives). It cost me $1600. I then paid for a Lion and downloaded it from the Apple online store, and loaded it onto the machine. It FLIES. It is smoking fast. Blazing... To buy a comparable machine from Apple would have cost well over twice that. Go price one out on their store--the RAM alone will blow you away!

The problem with comparing stuff like your buddy does, is that in one case you are running an efficient, fast, smooth and stable OS. In the other case, you're running Windows. It's bloated, inefficient and sucks resources. So in order to get the same level of performance on a Windows machine, you have to buy the very highest-end components you can find: And in that case, your friend is likely right. But to get hardware that performs on par with Apple's stuff, while running Apple's OS...you don't need to get that expensive. Just because Apple sells it, doesn't mean it is "uber-quality." They use the same RAM you can buy at newegg.com or tigerdirect.com! They just charge 5-10x as much for it. Ask them...they'll tell you. It's the same with hard drives and video cards, for the most part.

Go research it and you'll see. Check out YouTube videos doing A:B comparisons, it's pretty straightforward.