Pete's QBASIC Site

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:42 pm**

There are already several 64-bit linux distro's just see for your self!!

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2005 4:57 pm**

Well DUH!!!

I am asking a linux person to recommend a good one for a newbie.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:24 am**

SUSE works fairly well... Wait... recent checks show that Fedora's distro is even better...

good luck

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:43 pm**

Oh, no. The beast got sparked again. I thought someone had wrote

TOPIC CODE:

Code: Select all

END

Must be an error in the compiler... I'll check it out

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:52 pm**

Nathan1993 wrote:Also, is it possible to dual boot with 98SE on one hard drive and (insert linux distribution here) on another hard drive?

I think it's possible. Assuming you're using LILO, Fedora, and Windows 98SE...

1. Install Windows 98SE on your primary hard drive (usually C:/ or /dev/hda1 in Linux)
2. Install Fedora on your second hard drive.
3. Set up LILO to use /dev/hda1 as WINDOWS98SE and /dev/hdb2 as FEDORA(Linux)

Although, being ~6 years old, WINDOWS 98SE won't use the 64-bit, but will refer to the processor as a normal 32-bit processor. This will not effect your operating evironment.

This has been tested with LINSPIRE and GRUB, but not with FEDORA and LILO. (I like LILO better

)

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:54 pm**

Fedora Core v4 for 64-bit PCs
http://iso.linuxquestions.org/version.p ... 155#x86_64

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:36 pm**

about that guess, again, I figured NO DUH! I also plan to put MSDOS 6.22 on it... then I will have a 16 bit, 32 bit, AND 64 bit operating system on my computer!

Now I just need to find an 8 bit and 4 bit OS... that would be a cool project for someone...

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:51 pm**

There would be no way. 8 bit OSes were ingrained into a ROM chip(and some 16 bit ones such as GEM and TOS). Same goes for 4 bit computers. You would need emulators such as these. You also need ROM images for ST emulation(not required by 8 bit emulators). Also, DO NOT get the Apple Emulators, Basilisk II is much better when installing and operating...

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:10 pm**

Heh... thats funny... still, that would be a cool project for someone to make a 2, 4 and 8 bit operating system just for the hell of it.

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:14 pm**

You do realise that a 2 bit operating system would have only 4 instructions, one of which would be an NOP?

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:18 pm**

I wonder how much 'operating' it would really do

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:53 pm**

Heh, probably very little. PUSH, POP, ADD and NOP, and that's your lot

Posted: **Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:16 pm**

Rather pointless since it wouldn't be able to interface with the user in any way... You would still be doing math trying to figure out what you put in the AX register to come up with an answer to the problem you seek to answer...

Posted: **Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:45 pm**

Ha... I just had to say that for ~the last month I had a WIN98SE and Ubuntu dual boot system working. Just recently (like... 5 minutes ago...) I was *finally* able to configure a non-$4 USD wireless network card that my cheap-ass dad got me for Christmas. So I am running I wireless network in Linux AND Windows on the same computer, and I gotta say... I love linux...

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:56 pm**

I like eCS better.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:25 pm**

Just so everyone knows...
A. I feel really bad for starting this...
B. I didn't revive it.

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:27 pm**

Lol & PQBC... I just wanted to say that I got it working and I didn't do what Nek said...

Posted: **Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:37 pm**

Nekrophidius wrote:There's a phrase for this kind of thing, although I'm not sure what it's called...but basically, what you're just gone through is what 99% of every other Linux zealot hopeful goes through..."ZOMG LINUX IS TEH L33TS0ZZ ZOMG ZOMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111" then shortly later..."ZOMG LINUX IS TEH SUX0RZ I WANT MY WINDBLOZE BAX0R!". Welcome to Linux...and one of several hundred reasons why I don't use it.

That was because I was pissed cuz I was poor and my laptop broke. Now that I have it 100% working I am in love with it... no crashing, no blue screen of death, 100% stable, easy package managing, easy network setup, great support, multiple workspaces...

Posted: **Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:19 pm**

About the only downfall I can find to Linux is the fact that most programs don't run under Linux. WINE is still unstable software and, therefore, does not run every Windows program as flawlessly as possible. However, WINE does do a pretty good job though

Posted: **Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:32 am**

Patz QuickBASIC Creations wrote:most programs don't run under Linux.

mmm...you mean windows programs wont run?
I mean after 6 months in linux only havent got any problems to find suitable program for my use.

Pete's QBASIC Site

Join the Linux Revolution!