Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:55:30 +0100, Alias wrote:

Justin wrote:
"arachnid" wrote in message
newsan.2007.02.23.02.31.07.846553@goawayspammers .com...
Um, no, Linux applications don't hog anything but drive space until you
use them. They don't take up memory, they don't kill the "registry",
and they don't cause the OS to crash just by having been installed.
So then they're not installed. You have a bunch of zipped up files on
your HDD not doing anything. Wow.

No, installed, just not doing anything until you tell it to do something.

Justin's reading comprehension is abominable.



They don't even hog much that much drivespace. The /usr/bin directory I
listed contains 2031 programs but only requires about 180 megabytes of
HD space.
And I'm sure those are wonderful looking apps at that.

Look at the screen shots at www.ubuntu.com and judge for yourself.

Linux had Compiz/Beryl before MS had Aero. Nyaaaaaah! P

You can get a fair idea of how Linux bloat compares to Windows bloat by
looking at the installation CD's. With Ubuntu the installation CD
contains a Live filesystem plus several hundred top GUI applications
(I'm ignoring the extra 500 or so CLI applications) on a single 700M
CD. With Vista you need a DVD to hold just the OS installer.
That's right. It takes a DVD to hold an OS that the average consumer
can actually use productively as well as an OS that countless businesses
use to drive their...everything. Well, not yet. Currently it only
takes a CD to do that with windows.

Office, photoshop, anti this anti that come with Windows? I don't think
so. The programs come with Ubuntu and there are other programs you can
download to download and install more. They just don't run in the
background like many programs do in Windows.

Nor do they bloat the "registry", interfere with other programs'
configurations, tie up memory by being "pre-loaded" to skew benchmarks, or
leave the system unstable.

"arachnid" wrote in message
newsan.2007.02.23.19.54.32.742447@goawayspammers .com...
Justin's reading comprehension is abominable.
Then answer the question:

"Same with Windows. EXEs just sit there until you run them. What's the
point?"

A program just takes up HDD space until you run it.

Linux had Compiz/Beryl before MS had Aero. Nyaaaaaah! P
And Ford had steering wheels before Kia. Again, what's your point? You
want a cookie or something?

Nor do they bloat the "registry", interfere with other programs'
configurations, tie up memory by being "pre-loaded" to skew benchmarks, or
leave the system unstable.

1. True, the registry needs work.
2. I don't have any programs that interfere with other programs. You must
be talking about garbage programs that shouldn't used in the first place.
Bad devs are no one else's problem.
3. Tie up memory? What the hell are you talking about? The fact that Vista
keeps more memory used up? If any other app requires that memory BAM! It's
available. Oh the drama!!!
4. Unstable? I don't have any unstable windows machines. You must really
suck when it comes to system building. Oh the drama!!!

Do windows users have problems? Yes.
Do linux users have problems? Yes.
Do OSX users have problems? Yes.

Anything else you'd like to BS about?

Wait, hold on....are you trying to tell us..."it just works?"

:-)

I've got XP Pro running at home on an old Vaio, 500 MHz Athlon (or
something) with 256 MB RAM. Not speedy, but it runs iTunes and gets online
for my daughter. I didn't have to load *any* extra drivers...it was all on
the XP CD.

It can't get any simpler than that.

-John O

On Feb 23, 2:16 pm, "Gary VanderMolen" wrote:
"Dean G." wrote in ooglegroups.com...
Having just bought a PC with a GeForce 8800GTS, I feel your pain, but
not your hypocrisy.

I'd like to post a snippet of what it takes to get it working under
Vista, but, AFAIK, there isn't a way to do it yet. Half-assed
functioning doesn't count by your own standard. Maybe I need to go
back to MS-DOS and a Hercules card. I'll bet MS has finally got that
to work right.

Since you bought that PC recently, it should have come with a
guarantee to work properly with Vista. As a last resort you should
be able to get your money back. It is highly unusual for a device to
*not* work under Windows since the major peripheral makers know
where their bread and butter is coming from (something you can't
say for Linux).

I'm not using Vista, so I don't really care. The point was "karla"(-
fish?) ranting about how some things didn't work completely under
Linux due to driver issues, while Vista has far more dirver related
issues at the moment. Both will be resolved in time, but some people's
hyprocrisy will never end.

Dean G.

On Feb 23, 2:16 pm, "Gary VanderMolen" wrote:
"Dean G." wrote in ooglegroups.com...
Having just bought a PC with a GeForce 8800GTS, I feel your pain, but
not your hypocrisy.

I'd like to post a snippet of what it takes to get it working under
Vista, but, AFAIK, there isn't a way to do it yet. Half-assed
functioning doesn't count by your own standard. Maybe I need to go
back to MS-DOS and a Hercules card. I'll bet MS has finally got that
to work right.

Since you bought that PC recently, it should have come with a
guarantee to work properly with Vista. As a last resort you should
be able to get your money back. It is highly unusual for a device to
*not* work under Windows since the major peripheral makers know
where their bread and butter is coming from (something you can't
say for Linux).

Gary VanderMolen

Another thing, maybe you should tell Intel and Nvidia that their
butter is coming from a Linux user in my case. Linux, Core 2, and
GF8800. No Vista.

Dean G.

"Dean G." wrote in message
s.com...
Another thing, maybe you should tell Intel and Nvidia that their
butter is coming from a Linux user in my case. Linux, Core 2, and
GF8800. No Vista.
Butter? More like a teeny tiny little spec of a crumb ;p

Justin wrote:
"Dean G." wrote in message
s.com...
Another thing, maybe you should tell Intel and Nvidia that their
butter is coming from a Linux user in my case. Linux, Core 2, and
GF8800. No Vista.
Butter? More like a teeny tiny little spec of a crumb ;p

AMD and ATI is getting it from me.

Now, majority vs. minority.

Most people used to think the world was flat.

Most people used to think that the sun revolved around the earth.

Most people still think there is a god.

I'll listen to the minorities, thank you very much.

Alias

"Dean G." writes:

On Feb 23, 2:16 pm, "Gary VanderMolen" wrote:
"Dean G." wrote in ooglegroups.com...
Having just bought a PC with a GeForce 8800GTS, I feel your pain, but
not your hypocrisy.

I'd like to post a snippet of what it takes to get it working under
Vista, but, AFAIK, there isn't a way to do it yet. Half-assed
functioning doesn't count by your own standard. Maybe I need to go
back to MS-DOS and a Hercules card. I'll bet MS has finally got that
to work right.

Since you bought that PC recently, it should have come with a
guarantee to work properly with Vista. As a last resort you should
be able to get your money back. It is highly unusual for a device to
*not* work under Windows since the major peripheral makers know
where their bread and butter is coming from (something you can't
say for Linux).

I'm not using Vista, so I don't really care. The point was "karla"(-
fish?) ranting about how some things didn't work completely under
Linux due to driver issues, while Vista has far more dirver related
issues at the moment. Both will be resolved in time, but some people's
hyprocrisy will never end.

Vista is new. Linux is years old.

That has to be the most absurd comparison I've seen to date.

.....and utterly out of scope.



"Alias" wrote in message
...
Justin wrote:
"Dean G." wrote in message
s.com...
Another thing, maybe you should tell Intel and Nvidia that their
butter is coming from a Linux user in my case. Linux, Core 2, and
GF8800. No Vista.
Butter? More like a teeny tiny little spec of a crumb ;p

AMD and ATI is getting it from me.

Now, majority vs. minority.

Most people used to think the world was flat.

Most people used to think that the sun revolved around the earth.

Most people still think there is a god.

I'll listen to the minorities, thank you very much.

Alias

Justin wrote:
That has to be the most absurd comparison I've seen to date.

....and utterly out of scope.

Once again, Justin comes up with the usual insults and cannot reply to
content. As predictable as the tide.

Did you also use AOL back in the days?

Alias



"Alias" wrote in message
...
Justin wrote:
"Dean G." wrote in message
s.com...
Another thing, maybe you should tell Intel and Nvidia that their
butter is coming from a Linux user in my case. Linux, Core 2, and
GF8800. No Vista.
Butter? More like a teeny tiny little spec of a crumb ;p

AMD and ATI is getting it from me.

Now, majority vs. minority.

Most people used to think the world was flat.

Most people used to think that the sun revolved around the earth.

Most people still think there is a god.

I'll listen to the minorities, thank you very much.

Alias

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:35:08 -0800, Justin wrote:

"arachnid" wrote in message
newsan.2007.02.23.19.54.32.742447@goawayspammers .com...
Justin's reading comprehension is abominable.
Then answer the question:

"Same with Windows. EXEs just sit there until you run them. What's the
point?"

A program just takes up HDD space until you run it.

Unfortunately, some of that HDD space they take up was formerly occupied
by a system DLL or config info for another program or for the OS itself...

Linux had Compiz/Beryl before MS had Aero. Nyaaaaaah! P
And Ford had steering wheels before Kia. Again, what's your point? You
want a cookie or something?

No, I just enjoy rubbing it in.

Nor do they bloat the "registry", interfere with other programs'
configurations, tie up memory by being "pre-loaded" to skew benchmarks,
or leave the system unstable.

1. True, the registry needs work.

The Windows registry is one of the worst software ideas I've ever seen.

2. I don't have any programs that interfere with other programs. You must
be talking about garbage programs that shouldn't used in the first place.
Bad devs are no one else's problem.

Garbage userland programs shouldn't be *able* to bring the OS down or
damage other programs or their configuration settings.

3. Tie up memory? What the hell are you talking about? The fact that
Vista keeps more memory used up? If any other app requires that memory
BAM! It's available. Oh the drama!!!

Yeah, sure, that's why Vista requires a gig of RAM whereas I can run a
perfectly usable Linux GUI in 128 megabytes.

4. Unstable? I don't have any unstable windows machines.

Then you don't have any Windows machines.

You must really suck when it comes to system building. Oh the drama!!!

How strange. I can install Linux and FreeBSD on hardware that was
designed strictly for Windows and they're rock-solid even with thousands
of apps (I once installed 8,000 apps on FreeBSD just for fun), but
apparently one must be a skilled system builder to make Windows stable on
that very same made-for-Windows hardware.

Do windows users have problems? Yes. Do linux users have problems? Yes.
Do OSX users have problems? Yes.

But Linux gives me far fewer problems than Windows, which is why I
switched in the first place. Well, that and WPA. I saw WGA and SPP comiing
when WPA was first introduced but of course the MS shills denied that any
such thing would ever happen. The rubes believed them and shouted people
like me down. Guess who's laughing now?

Anything else you'd like to BS about?

Nope. OS wars suit me fine.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:14:55 -0500, JohnO wrote:

I doubt you'll get past 50 before Windows starts to crawl and gasp.
Around
100 it'll probably go comatose.
I have 249 applications in my Add or Remove Programs list and that
doesn't even count all the apps Windows installs itself. My system
runs just fine. So, NO.

Yeah, but you have had to buy a Ninja computer to do that.


FWIW I've got just over 100 apps installed (same criteria as above) and 54
processes currently active on this Dell Latitude D600

That kind of reliability wasn't my experience with XP. That's one of
the top reasons I switched to Linux. Even now, after MS has had 5 years to
fix it, most of the home users I know with XP have to do periodic
reinstalls to restore stability and speed.

Vista hasn't been out long enough to know about yet, but Microsoft's past
track record doesn't inspire confidence.

...not exactly a powerhouse. That includes a complete Adobe CS2 Suite,
Office Pro, and lots more. 1.4 GHz and 512 MB....runs great.

I can run a quite usable Linux GUI on a fifth the CPU speed and a fourth
the RAM.

"arachnid" wrote in message
newsan.2007.02.23.21.54.40.805930@goawayspammers .com...
Unfortunately, some of that HDD space they take up was formerly occupied
by a system DLL or config info for another program or for the OS itself...
That's nonsense. Now your typing just to hear your keyboard.

No, I just enjoy rubbing it in.
Rubbing what in? Someone has to care in order for you to rub.

The Windows registry is one of the worst software ideas I've ever seen.
Really? You must not have been around long. There's been MUCH worse on the
table then the windows registry.

Garbage userland programs shouldn't be *able* to bring the OS down or
damage other programs or their configuration settings.
Oh really? So there's NOTHING I can do to a Linux installation to bring it
down? Don't be stupid.

Yeah, sure, that's why Vista requires a gig of RAM whereas I can run a
perfectly usable Linux GUI in 128 megabytes.
Yeah and it looks like crap and can't get our jobs done. Wow! What a
wonderful OS. Put it on a web server where I don't have to look at it
and...ok.

Then you don't have any Windows machines.
Damn! You got me! You're just too damn clever.

How strange. I can install Linux and FreeBSD on hardware that was
designed strictly for Windows and they're rock-solid even with thousands
of apps (I once installed 8,000 apps on FreeBSD just for fun), but
apparently one must be a skilled system builder to make Windows stable on
that very same made-for-Windows hardware.
Really? Then why can't you build a decent windows machine? Something is
fishy here and it's coming from under your desk!

But Linux gives me far fewer problems than Windows, which is why I
switched in the first place. Well, that and WPA. I saw WGA and SPP comiing
when WPA was first introduced but of course the MS shills denied that any
such thing would ever happen. The rubes believed them and shouted people
like me down. Guess who's laughing now?
It also gives you FAR FEWER options. But if you don't need a machine that
can do "real" things that the average person does then good for you.

"Dean G." wrote in message s.com...
On Feb 23, 2:16 pm, "Gary VanderMolen" wrote:
Since you bought that PC recently, it should have come with a
guarantee to work properly with Vista. As a last resort you should
be able to get your money back. It is highly unusual for a device to
*not* work under Windows since the major peripheral makers know
where their bread and butter is coming from (something you can't
say for Linux).

Gary VanderMolen

Another thing, maybe you should tell Intel and Nvidia that their
butter is coming from a Linux user in my case.

Uhhh, you and the other 0.5% of personal computer users?
That ought to draw the attention of Intel and Nvidia. Not!

Gary VanderMolen

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron Quark

wrote
on Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:38:38 +0100
:
"Dean G." writes:

On Feb 23, 2:16 pm, "Gary VanderMolen" wrote:
"Dean G." wrote in ooglegroups.com...
Having just bought a PC with a GeForce 8800GTS, I feel your pain, but
not your hypocrisy.

I'd like to post a snippet of what it takes to get it working under
Vista, but, AFAIK, there isn't a way to do it yet. Half-assed
functioning doesn't count by your own standard. Maybe I need to go
back to MS-DOS and a Hercules card. I'll bet MS has finally got that
to work right.

Since you bought that PC recently, it should have come with a
guarantee to work properly with Vista. As a last resort you should
be able to get your money back. It is highly unusual for a device to
*not* work under Windows since the major peripheral makers know
where their bread and butter is coming from (something you can't
say for Linux).

I'm not using Vista, so I don't really care. The point was "karla"(-
fish?) ranting about how some things didn't work completely under
Linux due to driver issues, while Vista has far more dirver related
issues at the moment. Both will be resolved in time, but some people's
hyprocrisy will never end.

Vista is new. Linux is years old.

Oh come now. Linux has only been around since 1991.
Of course it's also based on technology (Unix) that was
old in the early 1970's.

If you're going to troll, troll properly. :-P (Besides,
that argument is quite dead; Unix in particular didn't
have GUIs, DLLs, or networking in the 1970's.)

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com