is there a guide for how to use an ereader in linux?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rcentros

My opinion (and choice) is to not run Windows. So, even if running Alf's Tools are a bit more of a challenge under Linux, it's a one time deal and once done, it's no harder at all to run Calibre and these tools under Linux.

Non-problem solved.

We'll have to agree to disagree. But one thing I will not disagree about is that Gregg needs to upgrade his computer. If he does so by buying a new computer, it will most likely come with Windows 8.1 and I suggest staying with it.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

WRONG! Windows 7 & Windows 8 are both faster then Windows XP. Windows XP is slow.

You can't make a blanket comparison like that. Windows 7 and 8 are faster on new hardware because of how it handles resources. Simply put, you may see a speed bump since it makes better use of your computer's resources. Yet that assumes that those resources are available. If those resources aren't available, you're either going to see no effect or performance degrade because of the additional overhead. Caching is a classic example of this. Vista and later are much more aggressive about caching data than XP. This will result in a considerable increase in performance if you have a lot of RAM. If you don't have much RAM, XP may perform better because the higher memory use of the newer OS would result in less memory being available for the cache than you'd have in the older OS. Of course, there are a lot of other improvements in recent versions of Windows that will be of great value on computers that offer the features and resources. Yet they too have drawbacks on archaic machines.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We'll have to agree to disagree. But one thing I will not disagree about is that Gregg needs to upgrade his computer. If he does so by buying a new computer, it will most likely come with Windows 8.1 and I suggest staying with it.

It is really hard to make a good recommendation unless we know all of Gregg's reasons for using Linux. I have certainly worked in fields where it was impossible to use anything other than a Unix system (almost any flavour would do) professionally. In most cases it won't be so clear cut, it may simply be a matter of personal preference. Yet that personal preference may dictate that other factors take priority over the ability to use ADE.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Yes and he's hate every minute of it. 2gigs or ram is not enough to have Linux, the VM software and XP going all at the same time. Plus, the computer is just too old to do what needs to be done and needs to be replaced.

As an experiment, I just started Virtualbox with XP and Sigil and my total RAM usage is about 900MB. I'm running a few apps in my main system, too.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I'm none of those and I use Linux exclusively. I think you overstepped in your enthusiasm.

I think you have incorrectly interpreted my statement as to where Linux had a place of superiority as meaning that those were the only places it was used. You say you are not using Linux in one of those uses where it is superior which I take to mean you made an emotional rather than a objectively based decision to use it.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

...To give you an idea of what I mean, consider older hardware. You have some people using old machines because upgrading their computer is not a priority and other people are using old machines because they cannot afford to upgrade...

I think we are likely in agreement on your points. I stated that there are special reasons why someone may chose to use Linux and I consider those special reasons include cost, whether for the software or the platform it is to run on, being unaffordable (or limited discretionary income having more important uses).

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by rcentros

...As for "grossly glorifying" my Linux experience ... how would you have any kind of clue about my Linux experience?...

I assumed that your lengthy list of "problems" that you offered as afflicting Windows indicated that it was problematical but Linux was not so; and so a reasonable assumption on my part that you were glorifying Linux.

And as you have now confirmed that in your view Linux is at least close to being perfect in having few, if any, problems in comparison (for which I have provided universal statistics to demonstrate is totally incorrect, but which you confess you did not read before responding), I think my claim stands on very solid ground.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

We'll have to agree to disagree. But one thing I will not disagree about is that Gregg needs to upgrade his computer. If he does so by buying a new computer, it will most likely come with Windows 8.1 and I suggest staying with it.

I'm guessing (by what Gregg has written here) that his upgrade would not be a new computer from Best Buy. I know I wouldn't buy one from a retail store. I'm considering upgrading now -- it'll probably be an Optiplex 755 with a 2.6 or 2.8 Mhz Core 2 Duo CPU. I can pick one up (without a hard drive) for about $45 locally. I'd install Linux Mint 17 and be good to go through 2019 -- and beyond, but I would have to update the OS after April 2019.

But even if I was in the market for a brand-new computer, I wouldn't buy a retail one. I would buy one direct from Dell (an Optiplex, I like the build quality of their corporate computers) and specifically order Windows 7 instead of Windows 8.x. I can't stand the whole concept of big "children's block" tiles. Again, opinions vary, but that's my opinion.

I've always liked to see how much I can do with the least amount of hardware. There's some satisfaction in being able to use hardware that others would consider outdated -- and still get good performance. That's probably a big reason why I like Linux.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

As an experiment, I just started Virtualbox with XP and Sigil and my total RAM usage is about 900MB. I'm running a few apps in my main system, too.

For a while I ran Windows 2000 in Virtualbox under Linux with 1GB of memory. The performance seemed fine, but I found I just never used it. I mostly wanted it for one program (Movie Magic Screenwriter) and my need for that program waned. Now I just use software "built" for native Linux (Trelby). I also used DOS programs (like WordStar 7 and dBASE 5) which I now use in DOSBox under Linux.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I assumed that your lengthy list of "problems" that you offered as afflicting Windows indicated that it was problematical but Linux was not so; and so a reasonable assumption on my part that you were glorifying Linux.

And as you have now confirmed that in your view Linux is at least close to being perfect in having few, if any, problems in comparison (for which I have provided universal statistics to demonstrate is totally incorrect, but which you confess you did not read before responding), I think my claim stands on very solid ground.

Seeing as though the biggest problem (with slow-downs and corruption in Windows systems) is the bloated and "delicate" Registry file -- a file that doesn't exist in the Linux world, I think it would be safe to say that Linux does not suffer from that issue.

I never said Linux was perfect -- I just stated why I wouldn't use Windows. I was actually answering someone else's question. And whether you think I'm a "zealot" who is just "glorifying Linux" is beside the point. The FACT that these are the reasons why I left Windows is not. That was the point of my response why I left Windows and wouldn't go back. It was not my desire to get into a prolonged argument about the hypothetical issues with Linux vs. the real (and serious) issues with Windows.

Again, serious corruption issues with the Windows Registry file (and malware infestations) are not made up problems -- they exist in the real world, completely distinct from my alleged Linux "zealotry." I have personal experience supporting both Windows and Linux (in the real world of personal home use, not in the context of corporate firewalls and IT departments) -- I know which is more solid and stable. And it's not Windows.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

I think you have incorrectly interpreted my statement as to where Linux had a place of superiority as meaning that those were the only places it was used. You say you are not using Linux in one of those uses where it is superior which I take to mean you made an emotional rather than a objectively based decision to use it.

No. I meant I was none of the stereotypes you listed and I use Linux. I am not using Linux for any of the only reasons you said it is superior in your opinion and yet I am using it. Ergo, your analysis was wrong. As is your assumption about why I use Linux.

[PeterT]

Folks; I hate to say it but this thread has strayed DRAMATICALLY from the original intent. Might I suggest that if you want to continue debating Linux vs Windows that maybe a new, dedicated thread is called for.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

You can't make a blanket comparison like that. Windows 7 and 8 are faster on new hardware because of how it handles resources. Simply put, you may see a speed bump since it makes better use of your computer's resources. Yet that assumes that those resources are available. If those resources aren't available, you're either going to see no effect or performance degrade because of the additional overhead. Caching is a classic example of this. Vista and later are much more aggressive about caching data than XP. This will result in a considerable increase in performance if you have a lot of RAM. If you don't have much RAM, XP may perform better because the higher memory use of the newer OS would result in less memory being available for the cache than you'd have in the older OS. Of course, there are a lot of other improvements in recent versions of Windows that will be of great value on computers that offer the features and resources. Yet they too have drawbacks on archaic machines.

Trust me, I can say what I said. I had XP on my computer and now I have Windows 7. Same computer. So yes, Windows 7 is faster.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

It is really hard to make a good recommendation unless we know all of Gregg's reasons for using Linux. I have certainly worked in fields where it was impossible to use anything other than a Unix system (almost any flavour would do) professionally. In most cases it won't be so clear cut, it may simply be a matter of personal preference. Yet that personal preference may dictate that other factors take priority over the ability to use ADE.

I'm not talking about Linux. I'm saying his computer is too old to properly run current versions of Sigil and Calibre. If the hardware cannot run the software, t matters not what OS is in use.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rcentros

But even if I was in the market for a brand-new computer, I wouldn't buy a retail one. I would buy one direct from Dell (an Optiplex, I like the build quality of their corporate computers) and specifically order Windows 7 instead of Windows 8.x. I can't stand the whole concept of big "children's block" tiles. Again, opinions vary, but that's my opinion.

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote. I wrote to use Classic Start Menu with Windows 8.1 and then Gregg doesn't have to use the Metro interlace if he doesn't want to. He'll have a proper start menu. Windows 8.1 runs well with Classic Start Menu.

Dell is a retail brand.