Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.laptops > #1086 > unrolled thread

scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.laptops

Contents

  scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-01-31 12:58 -0800
    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help retsuhcs@xinap.moc (Mike S.) - 2012-01-31 21:18 +0000
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-01-31 13:30 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-01-31 19:09 -0800
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-01-31 14:44 -0800
    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-01-31 15:33 -0600
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-01-31 16:07 -0600
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2012-02-01 14:45 +0100
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-01-31 23:55 +0100
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 04:17 -0800
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-01 17:08 -0600
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 18:33 -0800
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2012-02-06 12:07 +0000
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2012-02-06 11:29 +0000
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra <GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> - 2012-02-06 04:12 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2012-02-06 12:46 +0000
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 11:09 -0600
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 12:42 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 12:00 -0600
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2012-02-06 12:51 -0600
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 15:57 -0600
              Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 17:34 -0500
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 17:20 -0600
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 21:03 -0500
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 15:40 -0800
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Harry Vaderchi" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-23 09:08 +0000
              Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-07 01:38 +0100
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 17:34 -0600
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-07 19:10 -0500
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 18:26 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Alias <aka@maskedandanonymous.net.invlad> - 2012-02-08 01:30 +0100
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-07 16:59 -0800
                        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 19:49 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 06:38 +0100
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help FatBytestard <PhatBytestard@somewheronyourharddrive.org> - 2012-02-07 18:44 -0800
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 21:37 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-07 23:01 -0500
                        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 22:24 -0600
                          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-08 00:10 -0500
                          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@wizardstower> - 2012-02-08 00:20 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 06:44 +0100
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 06:35 +0100
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 20:42 -0600
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 06:57 +0100
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@wizardstower> - 2012-02-06 13:01 -0600
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> - 2012-02-06 23:18 +0000
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 17:39 -0600
              Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> - 2012-02-07 00:02 +0000
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 19:44 -0600
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> - 2012-02-07 02:31 +0000
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-02-06 23:46 -0500
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 17:10 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 07:05 +0100
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@wizardstower> - 2012-02-06 23:48 -0600
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 17:11 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra <GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> - 2012-02-07 18:35 -0800
                        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 22:25 -0600
                          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra <GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> - 2012-02-07 21:45 -0800
                          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@wizardstower> - 2012-02-08 00:21 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 07:10 +0100
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-07 09:26 +0100
              Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-07 01:46 +0100
              Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-02-06 23:43 -0500
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-07 09:40 +0100
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 17:11 -0600
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 07:34 +0100
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 06:15 -0800
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "olfart" <olfart65@excite.com> - 2012-02-12 10:17 -0500
                        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 07:34 -0800
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2012-02-08 17:18 +0000
    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help MarkA <someone@somewhere.invalid> - 2012-02-01 14:45 -0500
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-02-01 12:25 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-01 22:02 +0100
    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2012-02-01 22:06 +0000
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 17:57 -0500
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-02-01 15:12 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-01 18:55 -0600
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-02-01 17:08 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2012-02-06 12:08 +0000
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra <GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> - 2012-02-06 04:15 -0800
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-02-06 13:35 -0800

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#1119

On 2/6/2012 12:51 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2012-02-06, BillW50<BillW50@aol.kom>  wrote:
>> On 2/6/2012 5:29 AM, the wharf rat wrote:
>>> In article<jg9mms$e9m$1@dont-email.me>, BillW50<BillW50@aol.kom>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Adam. Linux is an amateurish OS built with amateurish drivers. And
>>>
>>> 	It's a poor workman who blames his tools.
>>>
>>
>> Is that what open source programmers use, poor tools? As that would
>> explain a lot. Like why Linux won't let me use a larger desktop than my
>> screen resolution, but Windows does. Linux won't let me compress the a
>
>      Sure it can. Although I am not sure how much interest there would be
> for such a thing these days.

The only way I ever got Linux to use a larger desktop than the screen 
resolution is with Xandros Linux (not free) by hooking up an external 
monitor. Then I can get the internal screen to scroll around the desktop 
like I can do with Windows.

So Linux can do this, but the option isn't there. And it should be. I 
don't think I ever got Ubuntu to do this even with an external monitor.

>> larger desktop into a smaller screen size like Windows does.
>
>      Windows doesn't either in my experience. Not only that, but when
> Windows can't cope with the situation it will scramble my icons too.
>
>      That's something that X does not do.

This feature is wonderful for viewing web pages that are set for larger 
displays on smaller resolution screens like for 800x480. And this always 
worked well for me under Windows. Although Linux doesn't have a clue how 
to do this.

>> Running Windows XP on a EeePC 701/2 with an external 1440x900 monitor,
>> it plays full screen videos and doesn't miss a beat. Trying Linux with
>> the same exact hardware and it plays the same videos one fricken frame
>> per 5 seconds. How wonderful! No video, just a slide show.
>>
>> And if you think that is bad, try using Linux as a game machine OS.
>> Oops, most serious gamers wouldn't even consider using Linux. How about
>> using Linux as a HTPC? Nope, it isn't very good multimedia department
>> either.
>
>      No. Linux is what you use when you want to rescue someone that's
> trying to use MacOS or Windows as an HTPC. It might be wholesale or
> just piecewise. However, it's still Free Software to the rescue.

Not for me. Linux is the last thing I use. To rescue Windows, I use 
BartPE or WinPE instead. I tried Ubuntu Live once and it screwed up the 
Windows install. After about 12 months of research it turns out that 
Ubuntu Live actually borrows the Windows swapfile for itself. Well this 
Windows install didn't use a swapfile and Ubuntu Live created its own on 
the Windows System drive. And when Windows booted, it had gotten 
confused and thought it was suppose to install something and didn't know 
what and locked up.

>      Troll harder.

Boy are you lost! "I never give them hell; I just tell them the truth 
and they think it's hell."

-- 
Bill
Alienware M9700 ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3
AMD Turion 64 ML44 2.4GHz - 2GB - Two GeForce Go 7900GS 512MB SLI

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1120

BillW50 wrote:

> This feature is wonderful for viewing web pages that are set for larger
> displays on smaller resolution screens like for 800x480. And this always
> worked well for me under Windows. Although Linux doesn't have a clue how
> to do this.

What? Do you mean when you have a small screen such as a netbook, to 
have the ability to enlarge the desktop to allow you to pan a larger 
virtual desktop? Sure you can. I did not like the netbook addition of 
Ubuntu so I have the standard GNOME 2. Even the the top and bottom panel 
auto-hiding sometimes the 1024x600 will not accommodate some dialogs. So 
I installed xrandr and created a small script with a button on my top 
panel so I can toggle 1024x600 to 1024x768 and back.

#!/bin/bash
#  panning.sh
#+ script that toggles panning mode for netbooks

DEFAULT=1024x600
EXPANDED=1024x768
QUIET=false

if ! XRANDR=`which xrandr`
then
   echo "ERROR: xrandr was not found and is required to run this script"
   exit
fi

ON=`${XRANDR} | grep -c "connected ${EXPANDED}"`

if [ "$1" == "-q" ]; then
   QUIET=true
fi

if [ "${ON}" -ne "0" ]; then
    if [ $QUIET == false ]; then
     echo "Panning currently on, tuning it off"
   fi
   ${XRANDR} --fb ${DEFAULT} --output LVDS1 --panning ${DEFAULT}
else
   if [ $QUIET == false ]; then
     echo "Panning currently off, turning it on"
   fi
   ${XRANDR} --fb ${EXPANDED} --output LVDS1 --panning ${EXPANDED}
fi

exit 0


-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1122

On 2/6/2012 4:34 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
>> This feature is wonderful for viewing web pages that are set for larger
>> displays on smaller resolution screens like for 800x480. And this always
>> worked well for me under Windows. Although Linux doesn't have a clue how
>> to do this.
>
> What? Do you mean when you have a small screen such as a netbook, to
> have the ability to enlarge the desktop to allow you to pan a larger
> virtual desktop? Sure you can.

Yes that is one and I want this too under Linux. But there is another 
mode that is sometimes known as compressed mode. And this mode is only 
available under some Windows video drivers (I know Intel 915GM can do 
this) that takes a larger resolution desktop and squeezes it down to a 
smaller one.

The hardware is all capable of doing this, but I never seen Linux to be 
able to do this yet. This takes lots of CPU power so don't expect to 
play a DVD movie or something to play fine under this compressed mode. 
But text like spreadsheets, web pages, etc. works really nice.

> I did not like the netbook addition of
> Ubuntu so I have the standard GNOME 2. Even the the top and bottom panel
> auto-hiding sometimes the 1024x600 will not accommodate some dialogs. So
> I installed xrandr and created a small script with a button on my top
> panel so I can toggle 1024x600 to 1024x768 and back.
>
> #!/bin/bash
> # panning.sh
> #+ script that toggles panning mode for netbooks
>
> DEFAULT=1024x600
> EXPANDED=1024x768
> QUIET=false
>
> if ! XRANDR=`which xrandr`
> then
> echo "ERROR: xrandr was not found and is required to run this script"
> exit
> fi
>
> ON=`${XRANDR} | grep -c "connected ${EXPANDED}"`
>
> if [ "$1" == "-q" ]; then
> QUIET=true
> fi
>
> if [ "${ON}" -ne "0" ]; then
> if [ $QUIET == false ]; then
> echo "Panning currently on, tuning it off"
> fi
> ${XRANDR} --fb ${DEFAULT} --output LVDS1 --panning ${DEFAULT}
> else
> if [ $QUIET == false ]; then
> echo "Panning currently off, turning it on"
> fi
> ${XRANDR} --fb ${EXPANDED} --output LVDS1 --panning ${EXPANDED}
> fi
>
> exit 0

Oh wow! When I was young I was very geeky and did lots of geeky things. 
But once OS got away from geeky and GUI could do the geeky things with a 
simple point and click, I like this so much better. This is the 21st 
Century after all. So put it into a drop down menu and I am good.

I know lots of people have tried to take the geekiness out of Linux (and 
I know there is another camp that thinks this is a huge mistake). But 
anyway, I've been using GUI OS for over 15 years and I am now spoiled by 
them. Maybe this is why the masses are not interested in Linux.

-- 
Bill
Alienware M9700 ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3
AMD Turion 64 ML44 2.4GHz - 2GB - Two GeForce Go 7900GS 512MB SLI

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1128

BillW50 wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 4:34 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> This feature is wonderful for viewing web pages that are set for larger
>>> displays on smaller resolution screens like for 800x480. And this always
>>> worked well for me under Windows. Although Linux doesn't have a clue how
>>> to do this.
>>
>> What? Do you mean when you have a small screen such as a netbook, to
>> have the ability to enlarge the desktop to allow you to pan a larger
>> virtual desktop? Sure you can.
>
> Yes that is one and I want this too under Linux. But there is another
> mode that is sometimes known as compressed mode. And this mode is only
> available under some Windows video drivers (I know Intel 915GM can do
> this) that takes a larger resolution desktop and squeezes it down to a
> smaller one.
>
> The hardware is all capable of doing this, but I never seen Linux to be
> able to do this yet. This takes lots of CPU power so don't expect to
> play a DVD movie or something to play fine under this compressed mode.
> But text like spreadsheets, web pages, etc. works really nice.

Well I don't know of a feature for the whole desktop, but chances are if 
there is a need someone somewhere has made it.

For individual apps like vlc or movie player you can zoom the video < 
100% and web browsers can also zoom too, but if a website is properly 
designed it should work on any screen size.

>
>> I did not like the netbook addition of
>> Ubuntu so I have the standard GNOME 2. Even the the top and bottom panel
>> auto-hiding sometimes the 1024x600 will not accommodate some dialogs. So
>> I installed xrandr and created a small script with a button on my top
>> panel so I can toggle 1024x600 to 1024x768 and back.
>>
>> #!/bin/bash
>> # panning.sh
>> #+ script that toggles panning mode for netbooks
>>
>> DEFAULT=1024x600
>> EXPANDED=1024x768
>> QUIET=false
>>
>> if ! XRANDR=`which xrandr`
>> then
>> echo "ERROR: xrandr was not found and is required to run this script"
>> exit
>> fi
>>
>> ON=`${XRANDR} | grep -c "connected ${EXPANDED}"`
>>
>> if [ "$1" == "-q" ]; then
>> QUIET=true
>> fi
>>
>> if [ "${ON}" -ne "0" ]; then
>> if [ $QUIET == false ]; then
>> echo "Panning currently on, tuning it off"
>> fi
>> ${XRANDR} --fb ${DEFAULT} --output LVDS1 --panning ${DEFAULT}
>> else
>> if [ $QUIET == false ]; then
>> echo "Panning currently off, turning it on"
>> fi
>> ${XRANDR} --fb ${EXPANDED} --output LVDS1 --panning ${EXPANDED}
>> fi
>>
>> exit 0
>
> Oh wow! When I was young I was very geeky and did lots of geeky things.
> But once OS got away from geeky and GUI could do the geeky things with a
> simple point and click, I like this so much better. This is the 21st
> Century after all. So put it into a drop down menu and I am good.

Well the script was simple to make, but as I said I invoke it with a 
button on my panel...click panning on...click panning off. All with your 
GUI-goodness.

>
> I know lots of people have tried to take the geekiness out of Linux (and
> I know there is another camp that thinks this is a huge mistake). But
> anyway, I've been using GUI OS for over 15 years and I am now spoiled by
> them. Maybe this is why the masses are not interested in Linux.
>


-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1133

On Feb 6, 5:20 pm, BillW50 <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:

>
> Oh wow! When I was young I was very geeky and did lots of geeky things.
> But once OS got away from geeky and GUI could do the geeky things with a
> simple point and click, I like this so much better. This is the 21st
> Century after all. So put it into a drop down menu and I am good.
>
> I know lots of people have tried to take the geekiness out of Linux (and
> I know there is another camp that thinks this is a huge mistake). But
> anyway, I've been using GUI OS for over 15 years and I am now spoiled by
> them. Maybe this is why the masses are not interested in Linux.
>
> --
> Bill
> Alienware M9700 ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3
> AMD Turion 64 ML44 2.4GHz - 2GB - Two GeForce Go 7900GS 512MB SLI

Too lazy and too stupid...I would have to count myself at the same
juncture. B^D

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1209

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:34:12 -0000, Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> BillW50 wrote:
>
>> This feature is wonderful for viewing web pages that are set for larger
>> displays on smaller resolution screens like for 800x480. And this always
>> worked well for me under Windows. Although Linux doesn't have a clue how
>> to do this.

Xandros has a screen panning program update.

>
> What? Do you mean when you have a small screen such as a netbook, to  
> have the ability to enlarge the desktop to allow you to pan a larger  
> virtual desktop? Sure you can. I did not like the netbook addition of  
> Ubuntu so I have the standard GNOME 2. Even the the top and bottom panel  
> auto-hiding sometimes the 1024x600 will not accommodate some dialogs. So  
> I installed xrandr and created a small script with a button on my top  
> panel so I can toggle 1024x600 to 1024x768 and back.
>
> #!/bin/bash
> #  panning.sh
> #+ script that toggles panning mode for netbooks
>
> DEFAULT=1024x600
> EXPANDED=1024x768
> QUIET=false
>
> if ! XRANDR=`which xrandr`
> then
>    echo "ERROR: xrandr was not found and is required to run this script"
>    exit
> fi
>
> ON=`${XRANDR} | grep -c "connected ${EXPANDED}"`
>
> if [ "$1" == "-q" ]; then
>    QUIET=true
> fi
>
> if [ "${ON}" -ne "0" ]; then
>     if [ $QUIET == false ]; then
>      echo "Panning currently on, tuning it off"
>    fi
>    ${XRANDR} --fb ${DEFAULT} --output LVDS1 --panning ${DEFAULT}
> else
>    if [ $QUIET == false ]; then
>      echo "Panning currently off, turning it on"
>    fi
>    ${XRANDR} --fb ${EXPANDED} --output LVDS1 --panning ${EXPANDED}
> fi
>
> exit 0
>
>

 from my ignorant furtling, it seems you also have to tell X about the  
screen virtual size.

-- 
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Albi CNU

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1125

On Monday 06 February 2012 22:57, BillW50 conveyed the following to 
alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> On 2/6/2012 12:51 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2012-02-06, BillW50<BillW50@aol.kom>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2012 5:29 AM, the wharf rat wrote:
>>>> In article<jg9mms$e9m$1@dont-email.me>, BillW50<BillW50@aol.kom>  
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux is an amateurish OS built with amateurish drivers.
>>>>
>>>> It's a poor workman who blames his tools.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that what open source programmers use, poor tools? As that would
>>> explain a lot. Like why Linux won't let me use a larger desktop than
>>> my screen resolution, but Windows does.
>>
>>      Sure it can. Although I am not sure how much interest there
>> would be for such a thing these days.
> 
> The only way I ever got Linux to use a larger desktop than the screen
> resolution is with Xandros Linux (not free) by hooking up an external
> monitor. Then I can get the internal screen to scroll around the
> desktop like I can do with Windows.

You can do that on GNU/Linux (or any other UNIX) as well.

         man xorg.conf

> So Linux can do this, but the option isn't there.

You do it by writing up an xorg.conf file, like the documentation says.

> And it should be.

It is.  It just doesn't happen to be selectable via a GUI tool in 
Ubuntu.

> I don't think I ever got Ubuntu to do this even with an external
> monitor.

That's because you're a pointy/clicky person, and you think that there 
is no life beyond the GUI.

> This feature is wonderful for viewing web pages that are set for
> larger displays on smaller resolution screens like for 800x480. And
> this always worked well for me under Windows. Although Linux doesn't
> have a clue how to do this.

No, it is _you_ who doesn't have a clue.  There is far more flexibility 
in a UNIX operating system than there ever was or ever will be in 
Microsoft Windows.

By the way, try KDE as a desktop environment, or the Compiz window 
manager.  They allow you to zoom in and zoom out.  Same result, but even 
more flexible and doesn't require any editing.

>>> Running Windows XP on a EeePC 701/2 with an external 1440x900
>>> monitor, it plays full screen videos and doesn't miss a beat. Trying
>>> Linux with the same exact hardware and it plays the same videos one
>>> fricken frame per 5 seconds. How wonderful! No video, just a slide
>>> show.
>>>
>>> And if you think that is bad, try using Linux as a game machine OS.
>>> Oops, most serious gamers wouldn't even consider using Linux. How
>>> about using Linux as a HTPC? Nope, it isn't very good multimedia
>>> department either.
>>
>>      No. Linux is what you use when you want to rescue someone that's
>> trying to use MacOS or Windows as an HTPC. It might be wholesale or
>> just piecewise. However, it's still Free Software to the rescue.
> 
> Not for me. Linux is the last thing I use.

That much is clear, but still it isn't GNU/Linux's fault.  You are 
blaming the operating system for your own intellectual shortcomings.

> To rescue Windows, I use BartPE or WinPE instead. I tried Ubuntu Live
> once and it screwed up the Windows install.

PEBKAC.

> After about 12 months of research it turns out that Ubuntu Live
> actually borrows the Windows swapfile for itself.

That would seriously surprise me, because unlike Microsoft Windows, 
GNU/Linux doesn't do anything that you don't explicitly tell it to do.  
So that's probably another PEBKAC situation.

Here's another clue.  GNU/Linux /can/ use swapfiles, but normally 
doesn't, because it prefers a swap _partition_ - which is an entirely 
different thing.

> Well this Windows install didn't use a swapfile and Ubuntu Live
> created its own on the Windows System drive.

That's a bold-faced lie.  A Live CD will never touch anything on a hard 
disk installation unless you tell it to.

> And when Windows booted, it had gotten confused and thought it was
> suppose to install something and didn't know what and locked up.

Windows locks up whenever it feels like it.  That's what you get with an 
operating system that ships to the customer with approximately 50'000 
fatal bugs still left in the kernel.

>>      Troll harder.
> 
> Boy are you lost! "I never give them hell; I just tell them the truth
> and they think it's hell."

You're the one who's lost.  You are overtly displaying a total lack of 
knowledge on how GNU/Linux works and just as overtly a lack of 
understanding of computer technology.  You are also stating that you 
prefer Microsoft Windows and that you barely use GNU/Linux.  And then 
you go and make up lies - which are refuted each and every time you post 
something here - to cover for your own intellectual inadequacies, and 
you post these lies here with an attitude towards those who try to 
rectify the misinformation you're spreading.

That makes you a troll, and if you don't want to be seen as one, then 
I'd suggest you start looking into the facts _before_ you decide to 
troll this newsgroup with your anti-GNU/Linux and pro-Microsoft 
propaganda.

We've already got plenty of trolls here.  We don't need any new ones.

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1140

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> Yes, I heard that lie too. But Ubuntu Live does use the Windows
>> swapfile. I have proved this time and time again.
> 
> No the live cd|usb does not alter your drive in anyway if you only use a 
> *live session*, i.e., "Try Ubuntu without making changes to your 
> computer" option . That is not the case a wubi install or if you click 
> "Install" within a live session,

That is not true at all! I did this three times because I believed the 
same as you do. But it isn't true! Ubuntu Live does scan the Windows 
partition and does grab the Windows swapfile for its own use. The first 
time it happened I thought it was some sort of fluke. The second time I 
had my doubts. The third time I was absolutely positive it was Ubuntu Live.

-- 
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix Linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1141

BillW50 wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> Yes, I heard that lie too. But Ubuntu Live does use the Windows
>>> swapfile. I have proved this time and time again.
>>
>> No the live cd|usb does not alter your drive in anyway if you only use
>> a *live session*, i.e., "Try Ubuntu without making changes to your
>> computer" option . That is not the case a wubi install or if you click
>> "Install" within a live session,
>
> That is not true at all! I did this three times because I believed the
> same as you do. But it isn't true! Ubuntu Live does scan the Windows
> partition and does grab the Windows swapfile for its own use. The first
> time it happened I thought it was some sort of fluke. The second time I
> had my doubts. The third time I was absolutely positive it was Ubuntu Live.
>

Listen you are absolutely misinformed and I can prove it.

Firstly, Linux does not use the same type of swap file as Windows.

Secondly, you can disconnect ALL your hard drives from your system and 
still boot and run a live session from the Live CD...no drives to swap 
from. The Live CD only uses a RAM drive. That is why there are higher 
memory requirements to use a Live CD vs the Alternate Install Disk.

-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1142

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>> Yes, I heard that lie too. But Ubuntu Live does use the Windows
>>>> swapfile. I have proved this time and time again.
>>>
>>> No the live cd|usb does not alter your drive in anyway if you only use
>>> a *live session*, i.e., "Try Ubuntu without making changes to your
>>> computer" option . That is not the case a wubi install or if you click
>>> "Install" within a live session,
>>
>> That is not true at all! I did this three times because I believed the
>> same as you do. But it isn't true! Ubuntu Live does scan the Windows
>> partition and does grab the Windows swapfile for its own use. The first
>> time it happened I thought it was some sort of fluke. The second time I
>> had my doubts. The third time I was absolutely positive it was Ubuntu 
>> Live.
>>
> 
> Listen you are absolutely misinformed and I can prove it.
> 
> Firstly, Linux does not use the same type of swap file as Windows.
> 
> Secondly, you can disconnect ALL your hard drives from your system and 
> still boot and run a live session from the Live CD...no drives to swap 
> from. The Live CD only uses a RAM drive. That is why there are higher 
> memory requirements to use a Live CD vs the Alternate Install Disk.

That is no proof! I too know you can remove all drives and Ubuntu Live 
will indeed run. I know this as a fact because I do this all of the 
time. I also know Ubuntu Live will scan all hard drives and will grab a 
Linux partition first to use for a swap file. If none is not found, it 
looks for a Windows one.

After a year of research why Ubuntu Live does this, I found out that it 
is an option when you compile Linux. So it is the guy that compiles 
Ubuntu Live that causes this problem. I also had Puppy Linux and tested 
this too. And no, it left the Windows partition alone. So not all 
distros are created equal.

-- 
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix Linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1143

On 02/08/2012 01:26 AM, BillW50 wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I heard that lie too. But Ubuntu Live does use the Windows
>>>>> swapfile. I have proved this time and time again.
>>>>
>>>> No the live cd|usb does not alter your drive in anyway if you only use
>>>> a *live session*, i.e., "Try Ubuntu without making changes to your
>>>> computer" option . That is not the case a wubi install or if you click
>>>> "Install" within a live session,
>>>
>>> That is not true at all! I did this three times because I believed the
>>> same as you do. But it isn't true! Ubuntu Live does scan the Windows
>>> partition and does grab the Windows swapfile for its own use. The first
>>> time it happened I thought it was some sort of fluke. The second time I
>>> had my doubts. The third time I was absolutely positive it was Ubuntu
>>> Live.
>>>
>>
>> Listen you are absolutely misinformed and I can prove it.
>>
>> Firstly, Linux does not use the same type of swap file as Windows.
>>
>> Secondly, you can disconnect ALL your hard drives from your system and
>> still boot and run a live session from the Live CD...no drives to swap
>> from. The Live CD only uses a RAM drive. That is why there are higher
>> memory requirements to use a Live CD vs the Alternate Install Disk.
>
> That is no proof! I too know you can remove all drives and Ubuntu Live
> will indeed run. I know this as a fact because I do this all of the
> time. I also know Ubuntu Live will scan all hard drives and will grab a
> Linux partition first to use for a swap file. If none is not found, it
> looks for a Windows one.
>
> After a year of research why Ubuntu Live does this, I found out that it
> is an option when you compile Linux. So it is the guy that compiles
> Ubuntu Live that causes this problem. I also had Puppy Linux and tested
> this too. And no, it left the Windows partition alone. So not all
> distros are created equal.
>

Ubuntu's history for PCs. It's for tablets and smart phones now. Linux 
Mint has taken over. Try to keep up-to-date, Mr. Computer.

Oh, and why are you here? Did you have an Ubuntu nightmare and need 
someone's shoulder to cry on or what?

-- 
Alias

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1144

On Feb 7, 6:26 pm, BillW50 <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:

> I know this as a fact because I do this all of the
> time.
>
> --
> Bill
> Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
> Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix Linux

If you were doing this "all of the time"...you wouldn't have time for
anything else!  (It's actually, "all the time". Because that is
logical.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1145

Bob_Villa wrote:
> On Feb 7, 6:26 pm, BillW50 <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:
> 
>> I know this as a fact because I do this all of the
>> time.
>> Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix Linux
> 
> If you were doing this "all of the time"...you wouldn't have time for
> anything else!  (It's actually, "all the time". Because that is
> logical.)

Never heard of a hyperbole, eh head in the sand Bob? It means I have 
done this dozens of times I know what the next time what will happen. 
You know like you. We know you will try to be the biggest ass on the 
Internet that you can be any chance you get. ;-)

-- 
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix Linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1155

On Wednesday 08 February 2012 01:26, BillW50 conveyed the following to 
alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I heard that lie too. But Ubuntu Live does use the Windows
>>>>> swapfile. I have proved this time and time again.
>>>>
>>>> No the live cd|usb does not alter your drive in anyway if you only
>>>> use a *live session*, i.e., "Try Ubuntu without making changes to
>>>> your computer" option . That is not the case a wubi install or if
>>>> you click "Install" within a live session,
>>>
>>> That is not true at all! I did this three times because I believed
>>> the same as you do. But it isn't true! Ubuntu Live does scan the
>>> Windows partition and does grab the Windows swapfile for its own
>>> use. The first time it happened I thought it was some sort of fluke.
>>> The second time I had my doubts. The third time I was absolutely
>>> positive it was Ubuntu Live.
>>>
>> 
>> Listen you are absolutely misinformed and I can prove it.
>> 
>> Firstly, Linux does not use the same type of swap file as Windows.
>> 
>> Secondly, you can disconnect ALL your hard drives from your system
>> and still boot and run a live session from the Live CD...no drives to
>> swap from. The Live CD only uses a RAM drive. That is why there are
>> higher memory requirements to use a Live CD vs the Alternate Install
>> Disk.
> 
> That is no proof! I too know you can remove all drives and Ubuntu Live
> will indeed run. I know this as a fact because I do this all of the
> time. I also know Ubuntu Live will scan all hard drives and will grab
> a Linux partition first to use for a swap file. If none is not found,
> it looks for a Windows one.

That's a lie.

> After a year of research why Ubuntu Live does this, I found out that
> it is an option when you compile Linux.

That's an even bigger lie.  Are you by any chance someone from a bad 
Hollywood movie about "hackers", where people type without pressing 
Enter or the space bar, and mainframes have GUIs which are entirely 
operated without ever touching a mouse?

> So it is the guy that compiles Ubuntu Live that causes this problem.

Bold faced lie.

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1148

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:34:06 -0600, BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> Yes, I heard that lie too. But Ubuntu Live does use the Windows
>>> swapfile. I have proved this time and time again.
>> 
>> No the live cd|usb does not alter your drive in anyway if you only use a 
>> *live session*, i.e., "Try Ubuntu without making changes to your 
>> computer" option . That is not the case a wubi install or if you click 
>> "Install" within a live session,
>
>That is not true at all! I did this three times because I believed the 
>same as you do. But it isn't true! Ubuntu Live does scan the Windows 
>partition and does grab the Windows swapfile for its own use. The first 
>time it happened I thought it was some sort of fluke. The second time I 
>had my doubts. The third time I was absolutely positive it was Ubuntu Live.

  Are you running it from within windows?  You should have read what he
wrote more carefully.

  Because if you BOOT the disk, it *will* use a valid Linux swap
partition OR a valid Linux swap file, which many live distros prompt you
for creating.  It does NOT use the Windows swap file.  It is 100%
incompatible.

  It absolutely does NOT use it, at all, whatsoever, UNLESS you start
your "live" session as virtual session from within Windows.  When that
happens, WINDOWS is what is using the swap file STILL.

 If *that* is how you are "running" it, you are NOT running from a Live
Machine BOOT.  Virtual machines do not count.  Period.  A shell from
within the Windows desktop operates from WITHIN Windows, and every
resource it "sees" is made available to it BY Windows.

  So, if you keep stamping your feet, you are telling me that you have,
in EVERY case, been running your Linux session from WITHIN a Windows
session.  That is NOT Linux using your Windows swap file, that is WINDOWS
using it.  Even though your "foreground" app "appears to be" Linux.

  Those are the rules.  NOBODY but BillyWare uses Billy's swap file.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149

FatBytestard wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:34:06 -0600, BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
> 
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>> Yes, I heard that lie too. But Ubuntu Live does use the Windows
>>>> swapfile. I have proved this time and time again.
>>> No the live cd|usb does not alter your drive in anyway if you only use a 
>>> *live session*, i.e., "Try Ubuntu without making changes to your 
>>> computer" option . That is not the case a wubi install or if you click 
>>> "Install" within a live session,
>> That is not true at all! I did this three times because I believed the 
>> same as you do. But it isn't true! Ubuntu Live does scan the Windows 
>> partition and does grab the Windows swapfile for its own use. The first 
>> time it happened I thought it was some sort of fluke. The second time I 
>> had my doubts. The third time I was absolutely positive it was Ubuntu Live.
> 
>   Are you running it from within windows?  You should have read what he
> wrote more carefully.
> 
>   Because if you BOOT the disk, it *will* use a valid Linux swap
> partition OR a valid Linux swap file, which many live distros prompt you
> for creating.  It does NOT use the Windows swap file.  It is 100%
> incompatible.
> 
>   It absolutely does NOT use it, at all, whatsoever, UNLESS you start
> your "live" session as virtual session from within Windows.  When that
> happens, WINDOWS is what is using the swap file STILL.
> 
>  If *that* is how you are "running" it, you are NOT running from a Live
> Machine BOOT.  Virtual machines do not count.  Period.  A shell from
> within the Windows desktop operates from WITHIN Windows, and every
> resource it "sees" is made available to it BY Windows.
> 
>   So, if you keep stamping your feet, you are telling me that you have,
> in EVERY case, been running your Linux session from WITHIN a Windows
> session.  That is NOT Linux using your Windows swap file, that is WINDOWS
> using it.  Even though your "foreground" app "appears to be" Linux.
> 
>   Those are the rules.  NOBODY but BillyWare uses Billy's swap file.

Pure bull! I booted Ubuntu Live from a flash drive (using a CD it 
doesn't matter) and Windows XP was installed om the drive with the 
swapfile turned off. I probably would have never noticed anything except 
I also had iBand (US Robotics) installed.

And after running Ubuntu Live that Windows would boot and hang with a 
window saying Windows Installer and that is it. Unbelievable! As I was 
told Ubuntu doesn't touch Windows. And I believed it. So I restored 
Windows from a recent backup and it was flawless.

So I ran Ubuntu Live once again and the same dang thing happened when I 
rebooted Windows. And I thought no way since bozos were telling me this 
doesn't happen. And I did it a third time and it did it again and I know 
for a fact Ubuntu Live screwed it up. So you can say all you want to and 
say it doesn't happen, but I know better. I can do this over and over 
again and have the same thing happen over and over again.

-- 
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix Linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1150

BillW50 wrote:
> FatBytestard wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:34:06 -0600, BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I heard that lie too. But Ubuntu Live does use the Windows
>>>>> swapfile. I have proved this time and time again.
>>>> No the live cd|usb does not alter your drive in anyway if you only
>>>> use a *live session*, i.e., "Try Ubuntu without making changes to
>>>> your computer" option . That is not the case a wubi install or if
>>>> you click "Install" within a live session,
>>> That is not true at all! I did this three times because I believed
>>> the same as you do. But it isn't true! Ubuntu Live does scan the
>>> Windows partition and does grab the Windows swapfile for its own use.
>>> The first time it happened I thought it was some sort of fluke. The
>>> second time I had my doubts. The third time I was absolutely positive
>>> it was Ubuntu Live.
>>
>> Are you running it from within windows? You should have read what he
>> wrote more carefully.
>>
>> Because if you BOOT the disk, it *will* use a valid Linux swap
>> partition OR a valid Linux swap file, which many live distros prompt you
>> for creating. It does NOT use the Windows swap file. It is 100%
>> incompatible.
>>
>> It absolutely does NOT use it, at all, whatsoever, UNLESS you start
>> your "live" session as virtual session from within Windows. When that
>> happens, WINDOWS is what is using the swap file STILL.
>>
>> If *that* is how you are "running" it, you are NOT running from a Live
>> Machine BOOT. Virtual machines do not count. Period. A shell from
>> within the Windows desktop operates from WITHIN Windows, and every
>> resource it "sees" is made available to it BY Windows.
>>
>> So, if you keep stamping your feet, you are telling me that you have,
>> in EVERY case, been running your Linux session from WITHIN a Windows
>> session. That is NOT Linux using your Windows swap file, that is WINDOWS
>> using it. Even though your "foreground" app "appears to be" Linux.
>>
>> Those are the rules. NOBODY but BillyWare uses Billy's swap file.
>
> Pure bull! I booted Ubuntu Live from a flash drive (using a CD it
> doesn't matter) and Windows XP was installed om the drive with the
> swapfile turned off. I probably would have never noticed anything except
> I also had iBand (US Robotics) installed.
>
> And after running Ubuntu Live that Windows would boot and hang with a
> window saying Windows Installer and that is it. Unbelievable! As I was
> told Ubuntu doesn't touch Windows. And I believed it. So I restored
> Windows from a recent backup and it was flawless.

You're talking about the *wubi* installer not a Live CD session that 
*only* uses a ram drive. Starting with I think Jaunty, Canonical started 
having an autorun linked to wubi and if you stuck the CD WHILE in 
Windows it would initialize wubi. Wubi was garbage IMO, and used to 
foul-up on me because of number of drives I had on the system and they 
was not continuous drive letters.

Now if you exited out of windows and then *booted* from the disk you 
could get the *true* Live CDs that does not run within Windows and 
absolutely do not use your Window's swap file.


-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1151

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> FatBytestard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:34:06 -0600, BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, I heard that lie too. But Ubuntu Live does use the Windows
>>>>>> swapfile. I have proved this time and time again.
>>>>> No the live cd|usb does not alter your drive in anyway if you only
>>>>> use a *live session*, i.e., "Try Ubuntu without making changes to
>>>>> your computer" option . That is not the case a wubi install or if
>>>>> you click "Install" within a live session,
>>>> That is not true at all! I did this three times because I believed
>>>> the same as you do. But it isn't true! Ubuntu Live does scan the
>>>> Windows partition and does grab the Windows swapfile for its own use.
>>>> The first time it happened I thought it was some sort of fluke. The
>>>> second time I had my doubts. The third time I was absolutely positive
>>>> it was Ubuntu Live.
>>>
>>> Are you running it from within windows? You should have read what he
>>> wrote more carefully.
>>>
>>> Because if you BOOT the disk, it *will* use a valid Linux swap
>>> partition OR a valid Linux swap file, which many live distros prompt you
>>> for creating. It does NOT use the Windows swap file. It is 100%
>>> incompatible.
>>>
>>> It absolutely does NOT use it, at all, whatsoever, UNLESS you start
>>> your "live" session as virtual session from within Windows. When that
>>> happens, WINDOWS is what is using the swap file STILL.
>>>
>>> If *that* is how you are "running" it, you are NOT running from a Live
>>> Machine BOOT. Virtual machines do not count. Period. A shell from
>>> within the Windows desktop operates from WITHIN Windows, and every
>>> resource it "sees" is made available to it BY Windows.
>>>
>>> So, if you keep stamping your feet, you are telling me that you have,
>>> in EVERY case, been running your Linux session from WITHIN a Windows
>>> session. That is NOT Linux using your Windows swap file, that is WINDOWS
>>> using it. Even though your "foreground" app "appears to be" Linux.
>>>
>>> Those are the rules. NOBODY but BillyWare uses Billy's swap file.
>>
>> Pure bull! I booted Ubuntu Live from a flash drive (using a CD it
>> doesn't matter) and Windows XP was installed om the drive with the
>> swapfile turned off. I probably would have never noticed anything except
>> I also had iBand (US Robotics) installed.
>>
>> And after running Ubuntu Live that Windows would boot and hang with a
>> window saying Windows Installer and that is it. Unbelievable! As I was
>> told Ubuntu doesn't touch Windows. And I believed it. So I restored
>> Windows from a recent backup and it was flawless.
> 
> You're talking about the *wubi* installer not a Live CD session that 
> *only* uses a ram drive. Starting with I think Jaunty, Canonical started 
> having an autorun linked to wubi and if you stuck the CD WHILE in 
> Windows it would initialize wubi. Wubi was garbage IMO, and used to 
> foul-up on me because of number of drives I had on the system and they 
> was not continuous drive letters.
> 
> Now if you exited out of windows and then *booted* from the disk you 
> could get the *true* Live CDs that does not run within Windows and 
> absolutely do not use your Window's swap file.

No! I booted Ubuntu Live and Windows didn't have a chance to do anything 
and was dead in the water. The only thing that could do anything was 
Ubuntu Live as that was the only thing that was running.

-- 
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix Linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1153

BillW50 wrote:

>
> No! I booted Ubuntu Live and Windows didn't have a chance to do anything
> and was dead in the water. The only thing that could do anything was
> Ubuntu Live as that was the only thing that was running.
>

You must have gotten the "special" disk.

-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1161

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:24:53 -0600
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

> I...was dead in the water.

<sigh>   Wishful thinking.

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Strength through Unity.
Unity through faith.
	Adam Sutler

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.laptops

csiph-web