what about sound etc? Also the local tech where I studdy has this thing about having linux windows and dos on a removable hard disk. I have a windows machine, and I am trying to get a dos machine. But this linux on a removable hard disk, I get told that because it requires hardware drivers that it can't go on laptops or can only stay on one machine. Yet tech must have a way to move it around on a drive since people have to take it home. Unless we have a version installed there and a version installed here. But then why the removable hard drive. Its all confusing. At 04:19 a.m. 26/02/2005, you wrote: >At 10:15 AM 2/24/2005, Shaun Everiss wrote: >Is it therefore easier to have a seperate machine for dos or is the windows xp console suffishient, or > > >My opinion is that as a new user, it is best to have a seperate machine for linux. Something like fedora will install easily on a used computer, you'll be able to take all the defaults and have a working machine in short order. That will settle your boot loader question too because whatever linux distrabution you choose will have a default boot loader. > >Where I live, it is easy to acquire a computer to run linux because linux is far less demanding in it's hardware requirements than Windows. I got my linux machine for free from someone because they were going to just throw it out and they'd have had to pay the city $20 to dispose of it. I don't know what things are like where you are but my opinion is that you should try to find an inexpensive used machine on which to install linux. > >_______________________________________________ > >Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx >https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list _______________________________________________ Blinux-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/blinux-list