View topic - August Desktops. - Windows, Apple, Application, Abandonware and Game Beta Downloads/Repository

expert01 · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:51 pm

It's my two monitor system (need to get an adapter to use monitor #3). I've got Ultramon for the second taskbar, DesktopEarth for the constantly updated image of earth, Skype (just spent 30 bucks and got unlimited phone and a phone number), uTorrent downloading files for my giant project, WinImage for my giant project, Task Monitor (because firefox likes to go out of control with the memory), and volume control (for those annoying flash ads that start playing music and talking to you).

compact-mac · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:57 pm

I would post a pic of my server but win2k paint cant save to PNG.

Rob Jansen · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:37 am

August:

Just had a computer crash. :cry:

So i was forced to go back to my old Pentium 3 500MHz with Windows 98 Second Edition.

Had to reinstall it because windows 98 give me nothing but BSOD's. :evil:

Just installed a fresh copy i hope it works.

ZSS9393 · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:13 am

I'd put Windows 2000 on that 500mhz :wink:

.

Andy · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:13 am

ZSS9393 wrote:

I'd put Windows 2000 on that 500mhz :wink:

.

XP would run happily on a 500MHz.

mdogg · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:37 am

Yes, but then there's the problem of the RAM.

Windows FLP maybe?

Andy · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sat Aug 04, 2007 8:57 am

mdogg wrote:

Yes, but then there's the problem of the RAM.

Windows FLP maybe?

XP will run happily on 64MB of RAM if you disable themes and other unnecessary services. Been there and done it (but this was on a 166MHz pc).

expert01 · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:16 pm

I ran XP when it first came out on a P1 233 with 64MB of RAM and it worked fine.

Rob Jansen · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:27 pm

Ok.

I wil put windows XP on it because i just have found another memorymodule.
It had 256MB ram, it now has 512MB Ram.

But i have checked the other computer that crashed and it was only my videocard who had died on me.

Just another €135 spend. :cry:

I am following a study at a school about computers (and otherthings if you choose the other cources, such as teacherassistent and so on) so i can fix about anything now.
But i had put windows 98 on it because it ran very well on there.

I will have my computer repaired by monday.

Bender · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:58 am

DjRob wrote:

Ok.

I wil put windows XP on it because i just have found another memorymodule.
It had 256MB ram, it now has 512MB Ram.

But i have checked the other computer that crashed and it was only my videocard who had died on me.

Just another €135 spend. :cry:

I am following a study at a school about computers (and otherthings if you choose the other cources, such as teacherassistent and so on) so i can fix about anything now.
But i had put windows 98 on it because it ran very well on there.

I will have my computer repaired by monday.

Windows 2000 or 98 would work fine, if it works for you.

anyway.

Systray icons: Steam and uTorrent

and the other Media center pc is just a standard xp desktop with luna, hooked to our TV

4tified · **Post subject:** My Desktop **Posted:** Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:06 am

Just keepin' it simple for now...I'll probably have to reinstall before the end of the month anyway.

compact-mac · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:12 am

OMG CAR!

Beta_Train · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:30 am

My FLP on my mini:

ZSS9393 · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:38 pm

Andy wrote:

mdogg wrote:

Yes, but then there's the problem of the RAM.

Windows FLP maybe?

XP will run happily on 64MB of RAM if you disable themes and other unnecessary services. Been there and done it (but this was on a 166MHz pc).

Windows 2000>Windows XP. I'm very partial to 2000, as it is as stable as XP, but is very similar to ME. I grew up with an ME powered Compaq, though it was unstable at times, I had fun.

empireum · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:41 pm

ZSS9393 wrote:

Andy wrote:

mdogg wrote:

Yes, but then there's the problem of the RAM.

Windows FLP maybe?

XP will run happily on 64MB of RAM if you disable themes and other unnecessary services. Been there and done it (but this was on a 166MHz pc).

Windows 2000>Windows XP. I'm very partial to 2000, as it is as stable as XP, but is very similar to ME. I grew up with an ME powered Compaq, though it was unstable at times, I had fun.

Please tell me, in which way is 2000 similar to ME? Apart from the look and feel which can also be enabled on XP? Other than that, I still prefer 2000 to XP as well.

ZSS9393 · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:41 pm

The UI was the same in 2000 as ME. And no, the XP "classic" UI is much different than 2000's default.
Also note, I have a legal Windows 2000 Professional CD. With Windows XP, I'm using the original release warez, sadly. That's half why I love 2000. Oh yeah, did I mention that everything that I had running 2000 felt faster than some systems running XP? Yeah, it's true.

Rob Jansen · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:17 pm

When all of your discussed with OS i had to use, i have my PC repaired and i was lucky i didn't have to reinstall everything.

So my new screenshot:

Andy · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Tue Aug 07, 2007 1:26 am

My desktop as it is now. Background is a picture of the BA server I took today. :-)

ppc_digger · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:17 pm

I decided Beryl's eye candy was interfering with my work, so I disabled it. I've enabled SuperKaramba (and disabled desktop icons), though:

AnDrEwP182 · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Thu Aug 09, 2007 12:20 pm

yes, beryl was nothing but some eyecandy to slow me down on my linux box.

thenico · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Thu Aug 09, 2007 7:02 pm

My workstation:

empireum · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Thu Aug 09, 2007 8:45 pm

AnDrEwP182 wrote:

yes, beryl was nothing but some eyecandy to slow me down on my linux box.

I've to admit I quite like it, miles better than Vista's eye candy, but if you exaggerate it, it becomes disturbing. And on one of my boxes, enabling the Composite extension which Beryl requires causes X to crash upon exiting. So I'm forced to disable it.

ppc_digger · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:01 am

empireum wrote:

AnDrEwP182 wrote:

yes, beryl was nothing but some eyecandy to slow me down on my linux box.

I've to admit I quite like it, miles better than Vista's eye candy, but if you exaggerate it, it becomes disturbing. And on one of my boxes, enabling the Composite extension which Beryl requires causes X to crash upon exiting. So I'm forced to disable it.

Let me guess: the GPL'd r300 driver?

empireum · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:38 am

ppc_digger wrote:

empireum wrote:

AnDrEwP182 wrote:

yes, beryl was nothing but some eyecandy to slow me down on my linux box.

I've to admit I quite like it, miles better than Vista's eye candy, but if you exaggerate it, it becomes disturbing. And on one of my boxes, enabling the Composite extension which Beryl requires causes X to crash upon exiting. So I'm forced to disable it.

Let me guess: the GPL'd r300 driver?

No, the "intel" driver on a GMA950. I still prefer to use this than the old i810/915resolution combo though, even if I have to sacrifice Beryl. It only happens occasionally though, not everytime (but fairly often I've to say).

mdogg · **Post subject:** **Posted:** Fri Aug 10, 2007 9:35 am

Sorry for the lateness.

Media PC:

Family PC:

August Desktops.

Who is online