moondancer55 wrote:Let me add something here. I wanted to install this on a friend's computer that runs Windows XP and is incredibly slow, so much so that as a new computer user, he has just about given up in frustration.
I am using computers from the "Windows XP: The NEWEST Shiny Thing" era. I suggest that you install the Xfce version of Mint, it seems to use low amounts of available resources (RAM, CPU) and everything seemed faster after I switched to it.
moondancer55 wrote:However if there is a problem with this version that my boyfriend installed on my computer, I DO NOT want to install it on my friend's computer.
Respectfully, please do not blame the OS for the user's (or, possibly, her boyfriend's) errors.
moondancer55 wrote:There are 2 user accounts on this OS...standard user and administrator. Am I making sense about any of this?
Uhh... So by "administrator," you are not talking about root (which is the actual
administrator, lol), but instead just another user account.
It just occurred to me that if "standard user" was the account that was created during the install process - and if your boyfriend did not change things afterwards - then it probably had sudo priveleges. And... possibly still does.
Still trying to understand why you would need a separate account named "administrator." Unless your boyfriend shares your computer and has his own account - and decided to name it "administrator," for whatever reason. But, other than that, the user account created during the installation process can do 99.9(99999999+)% of the things that would be required, such as installing apps, removing them, doing the update process, et cetera. You would just be asked for your password to proceed (aka "sudo access"). In a business or even a family computer where it will be used by multiple people, it makes sense to not give them all this ability, but since the installation process only creates one user, I wouldn't think things would be any different in practice.
Kind of confused,