pparks1
2nd May 2006, 03:20 AM
Thus far I have been holding off on FC5 because of a CIFS issue with reading data from a 2003 domain controller, but that was fixed with a recent kernel update. Therefore, I put a test hard drive in the computer in my signature block and the results are phenominal.
First, if you tried FC5 when it first came out and had some problems, you might want to take another look. I did a standard install with gnome, kde, development tools and samba. When I ran yum update it downloaded 153 updates at nearly 600MB, so there have been some significant changes.
I then followed the Stanton Finley FC5 install notes and without any problems at all, I had xine (for dvd movies), xmms and amarok (for MP3's), Java, Flash, my nvidia drivers, etc all working perfectly.
So, if you are looking for a budget box which will provide fantasitc Linux performance with FC5, i'd highly recommend my setup. It all worked flawlessly out of the box. I personally feel that performance under FC5 is greatly improved in terms of xwindows performance over FC4.
I plan to move to my 120GB hard drive later this week.
First, if you tried FC5 when it first came out and had some problems, you might want to take another look. I did a standard install with gnome, kde, development tools and samba. When I ran yum update it downloaded 153 updates at nearly 600MB, so there have been some significant changes.
I then followed the Stanton Finley FC5 install notes and without any problems at all, I had xine (for dvd movies), xmms and amarok (for MP3's), Java, Flash, my nvidia drivers, etc all working perfectly.
So, if you are looking for a budget box which will provide fantasitc Linux performance with FC5, i'd highly recommend my setup. It all worked flawlessly out of the box. I personally feel that performance under FC5 is greatly improved in terms of xwindows performance over FC4.
I plan to move to my 120GB hard drive later this week.