Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!

"Linuxiac" "at yahoo.com " wrote in message
...
Serious snippage of previous text that was meaningless to this posting.


Hey, I grabbed this curbside donation Dell Dimension 4100, (933Mhz Pentium
with 512Mb RAM), pulled out the worthless Winmodem and Creative sound
blaster, and booted http://pclinuxos.com LiveCDrom and installed it.
Took about 35 minutes. Also stuck in a dual layer Pioneer DVR-111 and a
firewire card, new Crystal sound card, and it is running great.

Even gave Neal Boortz ( http://boortz.com ), the talk radio show host,
some LiveCDs of PCLinuxOS, and Simply Mepis. Linux LiveCDroms should be
in every satchel and 'tool' kit, because they work so well, give thousands
of great programs, and let the user actually 'own' the computer.

I always wipe out the prior OSes of donated computers, because that
protects me from lawsuits for using or making charitable contributions of
the proprietary leased code of Microsoft, Autodesk, Adobe, and others.
(anyone recall the Salvation Army lawsuit? BSA sued, so SA now runs
GNU/Linux!).

As for the TTF Fonts libraries, there is one available to all of the Open
Source community, that is legit and unfettered. search
http://google.com/linux for TTF Fonts.

Replacing Microsoft with a real working system, total freedom of choice,
that is upto 50X faster in most processes, performs concurrent
multi-tasking, and is immune to the "114,000 Microsoft Virus Definitions",
one new business and one new person per week, since 1997.

Life is too short to "Peel An Olive"

"Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User" wrote in
:


"arachnid" wrote in message
newsan.2007.02.22.20.20.55.607780@goawayspammers .com...
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:34:56 -0500, Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows
Shell/User wrote:

A few hundred apps and then a few hundred more? Amazed that you find
so many, and the time to use them all..

Combine 15,000 free applications with a childishly simple package
manager/installer and one tends to develop a very large toolbox. :-)


You need 15000 tools in your toolbox?

There's no point in rationing tools when they're free.

wrote in
oups.com:

Play with him all you like, but keep in mind that you're responding
to a completely fictitious story posted by some poor schmuck who has
had nothing better to do for the past decade. The guy is disturbed.

Sorry Joe User but you have no idea what you are talking about.
I had to do a little research but I am assuming you are talking about
some uber troll that has been loose in comp.os.linux.advocacy.

Well, thank god you have a long and distinguished usenet career that let's
us know you're not a troll.

Heaven forbid if the persona you're using had only existed since yesterday,
that would really have ruined your credibility.

Joe User wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:59:43 -0800, karla.bonerstein wrote:

I've spent the last 3 days

Flattie has once again been spending his life on the Internet looking for
whatever problems he can find that other people might have with Linux.
After he finds enough (or gets tired of looking), he puts them all
together into a little story about himself and what horrors he experienced
the other day when he tried to install this new OS he read about called
Linux, and then he chooses a new name for himself (for the past few
years, he has favored pretending to be female) and posts it to COLA and
half a dozen other groups.

People, he has been doing this for more than 10 years. I think it must be
the most important thing in his life. He never tires of it, and I really
don't think he ever will.

Play with him all you like, but keep in mind that you're responding to a
completely fictitious story posted by some poor schmuck who has had
nothing better to do for the past decade. The guy is disturbed.

Excellent post!

On Feb 22, 4:11 pm, "Gary VanderMolen" wrote:
"Dean G." wrote in legroups.com...
On Feb 22, 12:34 pm, wrote:
On Feb 22, 12:22 pm, "Brian W"
wrote:

"Alias" wrote in message

...

Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
www.ubuntu.comOrderthe6.06 CD. They send it to you free and pay the
postage.

That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my system

The problem with Linux is that while the postage may be free, the time
required to make Linux work is astronomical. Sure the Linux pundits
will cry "it works fine for me" and blame the user, but the internet
is chock full of Linux horror stories.

A quick Google search finds far more Windows horror stories, with far
worse results, particularly on the malware front.

Naturally so, since Windows has many more users, and the average
Windows user is not very computer savvy.
I have to side with the OP on this issue. I consider myself technically
competent, having started my personal computer acquaintance with
writing assembly language programs for the Timex Sinclair 1000 and
the Commodore 64 back in the early 80's.
About once a year I try installing a new Linux variant. Invariably
one or more of my computer system components are not supported.
Typically it will be the modem, or graphics card, or printer. Yes,
there are workarounds available, which involve much research and
hand-editing some very obscure settings file. I don't have the time
to do that! Windows XP just works, and if I need to change some
setting, there is an intuitive GUI available to do so.

Well, I also have quite a bit experience, starting with an Apple II+
instead of the Timex and Commodore. So let's keep the standard apples
to apples here. I just bought a new PC. The video card is a GeForce
8800GTS. Should I thus abandon Windows for a few more years just
because the video card doesn't work properly ? By your standard, I
should.

Back to Ubuntu, because it just works, and I don't have time to screw
with expensive software that doesn't work. Given the choice, I'll
always chose software like Ubuntu which is free and works, over MS
Windows, which is expensive, and doesn't. And I'll be damned before I
shell out a bundle on Office 2007. From what I've seen, the interface
is a mess. I much prefer the simplicity of Open Office, or even MS
Office 2003. I just don't have the time to learn a new interface every
time some publisher wants to put "new and improved" on their box.

And speaking of "intuitive" interfaces, Vista doesn't have it. Windows
95 had it, XP wasn't bad, but Vista really missed the target on this
one. It seem like MS is going backwards on the interface. Sure, the
graphics are pretty, but the actual interface is a disaster.

So for now, I'll use Ubuntu, and load XP when I need it for a certain
game (the ONLY reason I use Windows, BTW) and be happy. What's a
second hand Vista Upgrade worth ? I mean on the market, not in terms
of usablility. I already know that is zero.

Dean G.

Windows Vista : unworthy at any price

On Feb 22, 4:54 pm, wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:30 pm, DanS
wrote:





"Dean G." wrote ups.com:

I've always wondered what "works for me" actually means when spoken
by a Linux zealot.

Funny, I've always wondered what "works for me" meant what spoken by a
Windows user.

Does it mean the system boot (and reboots, and reboots, and
reboots...)

Does it mean it starts up and shows the desktop ?

Does it mean the Windows PC is turned into a zombie spewing spam to
clutter everyone's inbox ?
Does it mean it defrags the disk every month ?

Does it mean that Windows is a good platform for key-logging malware ?

Does it mean it functions just enough that the user doesn't have to
actually think, so everything must be OK ?

Does it mean it cam pre-installed, so the user will live with it
instead of considering other option ?

Does it mean complaining about Linux not having every driver, while
Vista is OK even though the driver support is even more marginal ?

It seems "it works" has an odd meaning for Windows users.

AND LINUX Users.

Maybe the Windows standard is so low exactly because it is pre-
installed, and thus many of the users know little if anything about
the alternatives.

Yeah, Grandma hasn't done her research on all of the computers they sell
at Walmart.

Maybe the Vista users will be happy with all the DRM
restrictions , constant running of security and maintenance programs,
and the constant nagging of the user controls ? Maybe they don't mind
that they are susceptible to malware. Maybe they just don't want to
admit that they spend so much for an OS that is worse than the free
alternatives. Denial is a very powerful thing.

Uncle George's O/S was pre-installed, therefore it was 'free'. Aunt
June's $300 Dell came pre-installed also. Very few people actually make
an effort to go out and buy an operating system to upgrade their home PC.
99.8% (minumum) of MS Non-server OS Sales are OEM pushed by
Dell/HP/Compaq, etc.

I recommend Linux to others, because the Windows users are always
calling me about some problem or another. If MS wanted to pay me for
each time I had to re-install Windows for one of their users, then I
might have a different view. If MS wanted to pay me for each time I
had to walk someone through booting into safe mode to remove some kind
of malware, then maybe I'd be more likely to have a "pro-Windows"
stance. But then it would be $elf-$erving, and certainly not an honest
opinion.

That may be your opinion of Windows XP, but not my personal experience
with it.

Of all the people you had recommeded Linux to, how many have actually
done it and have NOT called you for help ?

Meanwhile, I have better things to do than fix the constant problems
Windows users have.

Like spend your time teaching people how to install Linux ? How to search
for and find drivers for Linux ? Teaching them how to administer Linux...

Dean G.

Windows on your PC - it works better for the spammers than it does for
you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well here is just a snippet of what I had to go through to get my
Nvidia video card to function properly under Linux.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=81001

If you read through that link you will see how insane it is to get
Linux to work with common hardware like an Nvidia Fx5500 and a
widescreen LCD.

Maybe I should have kept my DEC orange screen monochrome CRT.
I'll bet Linux would work great with that one.

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.

Dean G.

"Dean G." wrote in message
ps.com...
The video card is a GeForce
8800GTS. Should I thus abandon Windows for a few more years just
because the video card doesn't work properly ? By your standard, I
should.
Well, that's a stupid comment. The card works very well with XP and works
with Vista.

Back to Ubuntu, because it just works, and I don't have time to screw
with expensive software that doesn't work. Given the choice, I'll
always chose software like Ubuntu which is free and works, over MS
Windows, which is expensive, and doesn't. And I'll be damned before I
Windows doesn't work? Who told you that? Don't spread lies.

Windows works
OSX works
Linux works

Why are there so many drama queen around lately?

And speaking of "intuitive" interfaces, Vista doesn't have it. Windows
95 had it, XP wasn't bad, but Vista really missed the target on this
one. It seem like MS is going backwards on the interface. Sure, the
graphics are pretty, but the actual interface is a disaster.
An opinion not shared by the majority. But noted.

This now makes three people here that had an absolute horrible time
installing a video card with Linux. After two hours of fighting with it I
finally gave up. So much for, "it just works".

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.
You go to the NVIDIA website, download the drivers and double click the
file. Done. Wow, how friggin' hard is that? It's so easy.....a caveman
can do it!

If you are wanting SLI with DX10 then you have to wait.



"Dean G." wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 22, 4:54 pm, wrote:
On Feb 22, 4:30 pm, DanS
wrote:





"Dean G." wrote
ups.com:

I've always wondered what "works for me" actually means when spoken
by a Linux zealot.

Funny, I've always wondered what "works for me" meant what spoken by
a
Windows user.

Does it mean the system boot (and reboots, and reboots, and
reboots...)

Does it mean it starts up and shows the desktop ?

Does it mean the Windows PC is turned into a zombie spewing spam to
clutter everyone's inbox ?
Does it mean it defrags the disk every month ?

Does it mean that Windows is a good platform for key-logging malware
?

Does it mean it functions just enough that the user doesn't have to
actually think, so everything must be OK ?

Does it mean it cam pre-installed, so the user will live with it
instead of considering other option ?

Does it mean complaining about Linux not having every driver, while
Vista is OK even though the driver support is even more marginal ?

It seems "it works" has an odd meaning for Windows users.

AND LINUX Users.

Maybe the Windows standard is so low exactly because it is pre-
installed, and thus many of the users know little if anything about
the alternatives.

Yeah, Grandma hasn't done her research on all of the computers they
sell
at Walmart.

Maybe the Vista users will be happy with all the DRM
restrictions , constant running of security and maintenance programs,
and the constant nagging of the user controls ? Maybe they don't mind
that they are susceptible to malware. Maybe they just don't want to
admit that they spend so much for an OS that is worse than the free
alternatives. Denial is a very powerful thing.

Uncle George's O/S was pre-installed, therefore it was 'free'. Aunt
June's $300 Dell came pre-installed also. Very few people actually make
an effort to go out and buy an operating system to upgrade their home
PC.
99.8% (minumum) of MS Non-server OS Sales are OEM pushed by
Dell/HP/Compaq, etc.

I recommend Linux to others, because the Windows users are always
calling me about some problem or another. If MS wanted to pay me for
each time I had to re-install Windows for one of their users, then I
might have a different view. If MS wanted to pay me for each time I
had to walk someone through booting into safe mode to remove some
kind
of malware, then maybe I'd be more likely to have a "pro-Windows"
stance. But then it would be $elf-$erving, and certainly not an
honest
opinion.

That may be your opinion of Windows XP, but not my personal experience
with it.

Of all the people you had recommeded Linux to, how many have actually
done it and have NOT called you for help ?

Meanwhile, I have better things to do than fix the constant problems
Windows users have.

Like spend your time teaching people how to install Linux ? How to
search
for and find drivers for Linux ? Teaching them how to administer
Linux...

Dean G.

Windows on your PC - it works better for the spammers than it does
for
you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well here is just a snippet of what I had to go through to get my
Nvidia video card to function properly under Linux.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=81001

If you read through that link you will see how insane it is to get
Linux to work with common hardware like an Nvidia Fx5500 and a
widescreen LCD.

Maybe I should have kept my DEC orange screen monochrome CRT.
I'll bet Linux would work great with that one.

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.

Dean G.

"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.

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.

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.

I wish Windows would install 2500+ applications for no good reason!

I MUST COLLECT THEM ALL!!!!!!!

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.

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.


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.


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.


I wish Windows would install 2500+ applications for no good reason!

I MUST COLLECT THEM ALL!!!!!!!

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.

Alias

"Dean G." wrote in message ps.com...
Back to Ubuntu, because it just works, and I don't have time to screw
with expensive software that doesn't work. Given the choice, I'll
always chose software like Ubuntu which is free and works, over MS
Windows, which is expensive, and doesn't.

The cost of the OS isn't really much of an issue. Most people
acquire the new OS as part of the bundle when they purchase
a new PC. For upgraders, I've seen generic OEM copies of Vista
go for as low as $50. I get mine free in return for being a
beta tester for MS.

Gary VanderMolen

Don't get your hopes up, I installed a new version on WLMd and haven't setup
the filters yet.

"Alias" wrote in message
...
No, installed, just not doing anything until you tell it to do something.
Same with Windows. EXEs just sit there until you run them. What's the
point?

Look at the screen shots at www.ubuntu.com and judge for yourself.
1. Those screens look amateurish at best.
2. I didn't see a screen shot of 2,500+ apps

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.
Who said they did? But since you brought up Photoshop...We receive projects
from customers that are specifically outputted (?) from apps such as
illustrator and quark. But please, enlighten me, point me to a Linux app
that can use these files to their FULLEST extent and I'll check it out.

Yeah, but you have had to buy a Ninja computer to do that.
WRONG! The machine mentioned:

Intel D875PBZ Socket 478
3.0GHz running at 533MHz
1GB 184-pin SDRAM DDR 333
Matrox Millennium G400
Common 7200 RPM drives

It was purchased early of '05.

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

-John O

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




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

-John O

"Dean G." wrote in message oups.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