KittenKoder
Senior Member
and yet people still TRIED to use 7.1, didn't they? So much for that big bad, impervious and STABLE OS!
Hell, what end user DOESNT WANT to keep reinstalling the latest FIXED OS version?
Um ... have you tried to run the Live CD of Windoze XP on a laptop that old? As I said, the Ubuntu users already pointed out how the dumbass fucked up, I know because I was one of them. If there is less memory than required for install of any OS it fucks up your hard drive, hell, I managed to fuck up a laptop hard drive with a Windoze 98 install because I wasn't paying attention.
The OS is sound, solid, and secure, even 7.10, but 9.10 has a smaller live version than 7.10, even then you still need enough RAM for it.
oh NOW it's the OLE HARDWARE, eh?
excuses excuses.
Holy shit, are you really this stupid in real life? You can't be, either you're brainwashed, own stock and fear the reaper, or just trolling ... yes, it's a hardware problem. My laptop from 2000 had to be partitioned with a Linux swap before installing AND I had to use a USB flash drive for extra RAM because it only has 32 Meg RAM. It's not rocket science to know you need RAM to run programs, even installs. There is a fancy way to avoid it using a boot floppy though ... but he felt the need to not show you that because like you the person who made the video just wanted to make what he doesn't like look worse than it is. If you want I can find hundreds of vids showing the same thing with Windoze, a few hundred more showing the blue screen of death from simple errors (which Linux barely hiccups over), etc.. But of course you would still ignore them. Answer this: Why did it take Windoze 5 years longer to add the same desktop effects that Ubuntu has?