Hey all,
I just ordered a Dell Inspiron laptop and it is due to arrive tomorrow...and I had a quick question:
I hate all the crap they pre-install on the machines and was wondering...if I reinstall windows xp upon receiving my laptop, would it purge the laptop of all the superfluous programs or would it reinstall it with windows?
Thanks in advance!
-influxer.
Please note that cherryos is a blatent and immoral rip off of a GPL'd MAC emulator.
Myself, I'd install a real OS, like a BSD or Linux distro.
the install CD they have may very well restore some of the superflous software.... make sure its an install CD not a system restore cd 
I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't come with a CD anymore. Most of the big companies stopped shipping CDs some time ago.
Originally posted by Sxooter
I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't come with a CD anymore. Most of the big companies stopped shipping CDs some time ago.
Like i said, System Restores (Dell does give these with new purchases)
I do have a copy of WinXP Pro from Dell that isnt a restore CD.... (atleast I dont think... I havent seen in in a few months so I'd have to double check when I get back to the states)
Use a true Win XP cd and you'll be golden
I have a Dell D800, and dell don't tend to pre-install crap on their machines.
They put on the OS then all the specialist driver programs for the hardware. Possibly a norton on there to p*ss you off.
the OS CD they ship with, though is just the OS and then they have separate driver and utility CDs.
Personally i blew XP away in favour of 2k and a dual boot linux, but whatever you fancy
Originally posted by Huuggee
I have a Dell D800, and dell don't tend to pre-install crap on their machines.
Depends on your definition.
They put on the OS then all the specialist driver programs for the hardware. Possibly a norton on there to p*ss you off.
McAfee is standard, IIRC, and Norton is an upgrade, methinks. Not sure if it qualifies in my book, though 
the OS CD they ship with, though is just the OS and then they have separate driver and utility CDs.
That sounds about right from my recollection, but I'm not sure about the exact content of the "OS CD". tekky might be right though, that it gives you more than just a vanilla XP install. Certainly most other vendors do it that way, and have for years. HP/Compaq as a blantaHHHHHHobvious example...
Personally i blew XP away in favour of 2k and a dual boot linux, but whatever you fancy
I'd fancy FreeBSD, as many folks know. 'Course Dell's not gonna give you any help if you break something though. I guess you could install XP and replace "explorer" with something like "litestep", which might be a cool mod and would probably destabilize things a lot less. However, I notice litestep.org doesn't seem to be "up" for the last couple days. Maybe they run their site on Windoze?
Originally posted by Sxooter
Please note that cherryos is a blatent and immoral rip off of a GPL'd MAC emulator.
Myself, I'd install a real OS, like a BSD or Linux distro.
I know! I knew somebody would call me on that but I was being lazy and didn't want to look up the PearPC thing at that moment.
It was more of a subtle hint at a way to solve any and all PC/MS problems.
However, I'm pretty sure that OSX is a real OS.
OSX is close, but it's got some seriously brain dead bugs in it. Fer instance, the only way to increase shared memory segments is to set it at boot time. Once set, it can't be changed. In order to do this, you have to put the change in the rc directory where, on the next update, it will be overwritten.
There are also many known memory leaks (read the postgresql hackers mailing list for a laundry list of issues.
Still, it's predictable buggy, so it's a better devil to bargain with than the unpredictably buggy third cousin of VMS twice removed from redmon.
Do you happen to know, or even have any opines, what might be up with those sorts of issues?
Is it because they had to freeze a FreeBSD system to write their GUI on top of, and had to do it long enough ago that they used 4.X (.8, wasn't it?) I like FBSD, but the basic design of 4.X dates back a few years, unless I'm quite mistaken.
Jus' curious....
I think the problem is that Apple is focused on the desk top much more so than the server market, so the decisions made reflect that attitude. I.e. no one is there saying "yeah, but how's that gonna affect a server with 16 gigs of ram and a SCSI RAID array" when they are making architectural decisions.
Originally posted by Sxooter
OSX is close, but it's got some seriously brain dead bugs in it. Fer instance, the only way to increase shared memory segments is to set it at boot time. Once set, it can't be changed. In order to do this, you have to put the change in the rc directory where, on the next update, it will be overwritten.
There are also many known memory leaks (read the postgresql hackers mailing list for a laundry list of issues.
Still, it's predictable buggy, so it's a better devil to bargain with than the unpredictably buggy third cousin of VMS twice removed from redmon.
I sort of get what you are saying, but this it's pretty much over my head.
However, while I had some crashes probably two years ago, OSX doesn't crash. In fact, my old g4 is running faster than with os9.
Tiger will be out on April 15th - and then the widget/dashboard fest will begin. I hope I have time to tinker with that real soon.
As a client OS, OSX is quite nice. It's problems really only show up when you try to run a server on it.
Originally posted by Sxooter
I think the problem is that Apple is focused on the desk top much more so than the server market, so the decisions made reflect that attitude. I.e. no one is there saying "yeah, but how's that gonna affect a server with 16 gigs of ram and a SCSI RAID array" when they are making architectural decisions.
I think there was also some barrow-pushing with regards to getting NeXTStep to drive the GUI, and grafting Mac's previous GUI manager onto it.
speaking of litestep... I might have to look into running that again... if the site comes back up...
Oh yeah, that's definitely part of it, but this whole thing with shared mem settings just cropped up in the last couple of versions. I.e. it shows that apple is just not focusing on the needs of people using OSX on a server, but instead on easy upgrades of desktops.
Is there any way it could be related to rumored (although it's basically a fact now since IBM keeps talking about it publicly) quad (4) processor machine?
