Good News for Windows XP Users...

On 07/09/2014 08:40 AM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/9/2014 6:54 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 5:11 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How did
you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours learning
*nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

Bwahahahaha
$400 to get Linux?
mug!
It's open source, and that's FREE

It cost me $250 for the Asus EeePC (running Ubuntu, it used to have
Xandros) and $150 for the Gateway M465 (running Ubuntu and Puppy). So
how did you get your Linux Machine(s) for free? That is $400 I invested
into Linux that would have been better spent on Windows.


You spent that on the machines not Linux.

--
Caver1

On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 06:42:48 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How did
you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours learning
*nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

For my first encounter with Linux I installed Ubuntu as a second boot
on a computer I already had, so it cost me nothing at all.

That's provided, of course, that you don't count the cost of a
writeable DVD - perhaps 25p - and the electricity the computer used
during the half hour or so that it took me to install it. I don't
count my time, as the purpose of spending it was to satisfy my own
curiosity, something I've always been happy to do.

It doesn't seem fair in any case to count the cost of a computer when
comparing the costs of operating systems, as you'd need a computer
anyway. Some operating systems cost money, and some are free, and the
cost of the computer is not part of that comparison.

And as for the "hundreds of hours learning *nix", it only took me a
few minutes to work out how to run basic programs such as web browsers
and wordprocessors and download and install more, and to discover that
Linux applications could quite happily read the files on the Windows
partition with nothing more than a double-click, as usual.

Windows, on the other hand, can't even see the Linux partitions.

You seem to think it's more complicated than it really is. It's only a
little bit different, and easy to learn as long as you don't convince
yourself that you can't do it before you even start.

Rod.

BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 6:54 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 5:11 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How
did you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours
learning *nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

Bwahahahaha $400 to get Linux?
mug!
It's open source, and that's FREE

It cost me $250 for the Asus EeePC (running Ubuntu, it used to have
Xandros) and $150 for the Gateway M465 (running Ubuntu and Puppy). So
how did you get your Linux Machine(s) for free? That is $400 I invested
into Linux that would have been better spent on Windows.

So, you spent nothing on Linux, but a lad of cash on unnecessary tech to
run it.

You don't need expensive stuff for Linux, use your kids cast off machines
or better still cobble a load of old trash together from your local PC
repair shop's bins, it'll easily run linux...

On 7/9/2014 9:53 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 6:54 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 5:11 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How
did you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours
learning *nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

Bwahahahaha $400 to get Linux?
mug!
It's open source, and that's FREE

It cost me $250 for the Asus EeePC (running Ubuntu, it used to have
Xandros) and $150 for the Gateway M465 (running Ubuntu and Puppy). So
how did you get your Linux Machine(s) for free? That is $400 I invested
into Linux that would have been better spent on Windows.

So, you spent nothing on Linux, but a lad of cash on unnecessary tech to
run it.

Wow! You can use Linux without hardware? You're a wizard. ;-)

You don't need expensive stuff for Linux, use your kids cast off machines
or better still cobble a load of old trash together from your local PC
repair shop's bins, it'll easily run linux...

Same is true of virtually any OS, including Windows. By the way, the
only way to get Linux on a netbook back in 2008 was to buy one. Another
example is Android OS is free too, but you still need a machine that
will run it. I heard that an EeePC will.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 7/9/2014 7:58 AM, Caver1 wrote:
On 07/09/2014 08:40 AM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/9/2014 6:54 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 5:11 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How
did
you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours learning
*nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

Bwahahahaha
$400 to get Linux?
mug!
It's open source, and that's FREE

It cost me $250 for the Asus EeePC (running Ubuntu, it used to have
Xandros) and $150 for the Gateway M465 (running Ubuntu and Puppy). So
how did you get your Linux Machine(s) for free? That is $400 I invested
into Linux that would have been better spent on Windows.

You spent that on the machines not Linux.

Yeah... I am not good enough yet to hold up the CD to my forehead and to
run it that way. I still need the hardware to run Linux. Same is true of
Android too, the OS is free but the machine will cost you. Commodore did
that with their 8 bit machines too. As Commodore made the OS available
for free. But it wouldn't get you too far without a machine that will
run it.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 07/09/2014 11:22 AM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/9/2014 9:53 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 6:54 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 5:11 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How
did you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours
learning *nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

Bwahahahaha $400 to get Linux?
mug!
It's open source, and that's FREE

It cost me $250 for the Asus EeePC (running Ubuntu, it used to have
Xandros) and $150 for the Gateway M465 (running Ubuntu and Puppy). So
how did you get your Linux Machine(s) for free? That is $400 I invested
into Linux that would have been better spent on Windows.

So, you spent nothing on Linux, but a lad of cash on unnecessary tech to
run it.

Wow! You can use Linux without hardware? You're a wizard. ;-)

You don't need expensive stuff for Linux, use your kids cast off machines
or better still cobble a load of old trash together from your local PC
repair shop's bins, it'll easily run linux...

Same is true of virtually any OS, including Windows. By the way, the
only way to get Linux on a netbook back in 2008 was to buy one. Another
example is Android OS is free too, but you still need a machine that
will run it. I heard that an EeePC will.


My Dell laptop and HP notebook both run android. Along with Linux.

--
Caver1

BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 9:53 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 6:54 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 5:11 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50"
wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How
did you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours
learning *nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

Bwahahahaha $400 to get Linux? mug!
It's open source, and that's FREE

It cost me $250 for the Asus EeePC (running Ubuntu, it used to have
Xandros) and $150 for the Gateway M465 (running Ubuntu and Puppy). So
how did you get your Linux Machine(s) for free? That is $400 I
invested into Linux that would have been better spent on Windows.

So, you spent nothing on Linux, but a lad of cash on unnecessary tech
to run it.

Wow! You can use Linux without hardware? You're a wizard. ;-)

Hehe, I guess I phrased that wrong :-)

You don't need expensive stuff for Linux, use your kids cast off
machines or better still cobble a load of old trash together from your
local PC repair shop's bins, it'll easily run linux...

Same is true of virtually any OS, including Windows. By the way, the
only way to get Linux on a netbook back in 2008 was to buy one. Another
example is Android OS is free too, but you still need a machine that
will run it. I heard that an EeePC will.

In 2006 I downloaded Ubuntu 6.10 (Edgy) and burned a CD, then installed
it on my Compaq Presario...

I have a three year old top-o-the range Toshiba A300 Satellite laptop
running Windows Vista that falls over with Win8, It cost me £897 ($1536)!

On 07/09/2014 11:22 AM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/9/2014 9:53 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 6:54 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus

On 7/9/2014 5:11 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:44:52 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How
did you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours
learning *nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

Bwahahahaha $400 to get Linux?
mug!
It's open source, and that's FREE

It cost me $250 for the Asus EeePC (running Ubuntu, it used to have
Xandros) and $150 for the Gateway M465 (running Ubuntu and Puppy). So
how did you get your Linux Machine(s) for free? That is $400 I invested
into Linux that would have been better spent on Windows.

So, you spent nothing on Linux, but a lad of cash on unnecessary tech to
run it.

Wow! You can use Linux without hardware? You're a wizard. ;-)

You don't need expensive stuff for Linux, use your kids cast off machines
or better still cobble a load of old trash together from your local PC
repair shop's bins, it'll easily run linux...

Same is true of virtually any OS, including Windows. By the way, the
only way to get Linux on a netbook back in 2008 was to buy one. Another
example is Android OS is free too, but you still need a machine that
will run it. I heard that an EeePC will.


Why do you keep talking about the past. Capabilities of all OSs are
better now than in the past.

--
Caver1

On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:22:58 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

By the way, the
only way to get Linux on a netbook back in 2008 was to buy one.

Nonsense. You could download it and install it, either on its own or
as dual boot with Windows, just as you always could and still can.

Rod.

On 7/9/2014 9:43 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 06:42:48 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How did
you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours learning
*nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

For my first encounter with Linux I installed Ubuntu as a second boot
on a computer I already had, so it cost me nothing at all.

Yeah that is the way I did it first. Drove me nuts! Shutdown Windows and
boot up Linux. Shutdown Linux and boot up Windows. Doing that 12+ times
a day gets old very fast.

That's provided, of course, that you don't count the cost of a
writeable DVD - perhaps 25p - and the electricity the computer used
during the half hour or so that it took me to install it. I don't
count my time, as the purpose of spending it was to satisfy my own
curiosity, something I've always been happy to do.

It doesn't seem fair in any case to count the cost of a computer when
comparing the costs of operating systems, as you'd need a computer
anyway. Some operating systems cost money, and some are free, and the
cost of the computer is not part of that comparison.

Why not? You need both the OS and the hardware. Without one, the other
is useless. Computer manufactures has been giving either one for free
since the beginning, even Windows.

And as for the "hundreds of hours learning *nix", it only took me a
few minutes to work out how to run basic programs such as web browsers
and wordprocessors and download and install more, and to discover that
Linux applications could quite happily read the files on the Windows
partition with nothing more than a double-click, as usual.

Wait till you need to change Xandros easy mode to advanced mode. Lots of
typing in terminal mode there. Some installs and updates, again terminal
mode. Root access, terminal mode. There is a lot of reasons to use
terminal mode. And if you don't know *nix, you better start learning.

Windows, on the other hand, can't even see the Linux partitions.

You seem to think it's more complicated than it really is. It's only a
little bit different, and easy to learn as long as you don't convince
yourself that you can't do it before you even start.

It isn't complicated at all. An OS without hardware is worthless and
hardware without an OS is worthless. Nothing hard about it at all.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
/

On 7/9/2014 10:44 AM, Caver1 wrote:
On 07/09/2014 11:22 AM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/9/2014 9:53 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus
Same is true of virtually any OS, including Windows. By the way, the
only way to get Linux on a netbook back in 2008 was to buy one. Another
example is Android OS is free too, but you still need a machine that
will run it. I heard that an EeePC will.

My Dell laptop and HP notebook both run android. Along with Linux.

Yes, I have heard there are Android for varies PC machines. I guess all
you need is the right drivers. Have you found that many Android Apps
don't play well with the mouse too?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 7/9/2014 11:05 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:22:58 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

By the way, the
only way to get Linux on a netbook back in 2008 was to buy one.

Nonsense. You could download it and install it, either on its own

Same is true of Windows. Paul can even quote you were you can find the
ISO files for Windows.

or as dual boot with Windows, just as you always could and still
can.

That drove me nuts! Can't access Linux if Windows is running and can't
access Windows if Linux is running. No-no, that won't cut it with me. If
that works for you then great.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

BillW50 wrote:
On 7/9/2014 11:05 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:22:58 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

By the way, the
only way to get Linux on a netbook back in 2008 was to buy one.

Nonsense. You could download it and install it, either on its own

Same is true of Windows. Paul can even quote you were you can find the
ISO files for Windows.

or as dual boot with Windows, just as you always could and still
can.

That drove me nuts! Can't access Linux if Windows is running and can't
access Windows if Linux is running. No-no, that won't cut it with me. If
that works for you then great.


Yeah, but you have 30+ machines so, as usual, you're full of ****.

--
Alias

On 07/09/2014 12:25 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/9/2014 9:43 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 06:42:48 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

it is better to spend money on Windows than Linux.

You don't need to spend any money on Linux. It's free.

Still, it's your money...

Really? I had to spend $400 on my machines to put Linux on them. How did
you get yours for free? Plus there is the hundreds of hours learning
*nix too. In my book, that isn't free either.

For my first encounter with Linux I installed Ubuntu as a second boot
on a computer I already had, so it cost me nothing at all.

Yeah that is the way I did it first. Drove me nuts! Shutdown Windows and
boot up Linux. Shutdown Linux and boot up Windows. Doing that 12+ times
a day gets old very fast.

That's provided, of course, that you don't count the cost of a
writeable DVD - perhaps 25p - and the electricity the computer used
during the half hour or so that it took me to install it. I don't
count my time, as the purpose of spending it was to satisfy my own
curiosity, something I've always been happy to do.

It doesn't seem fair in any case to count the cost of a computer when
comparing the costs of operating systems, as you'd need a computer
anyway. Some operating systems cost money, and some are free, and the
cost of the computer is not part of that comparison.

Why not? You need both the OS and the hardware. Without one, the other
is useless. Computer manufactures has been giving either one for free
since the beginning, even Windows.

And as for the "hundreds of hours learning *nix", it only took me a
few minutes to work out how to run basic programs such as web browsers
and wordprocessors and download and install more, and to discover that
Linux applications could quite happily read the files on the Windows
partition with nothing more than a double-click, as usual.

Wait till you need to change Xandros easy mode to advanced mode. Lots of
typing in terminal mode there. Some installs and updates, again terminal
mode. Root access, terminal mode. There is a lot of reasons to use
terminal mode. And if you don't know *nix, you better start learning.

Who uses Xandros? Xandros is dead, old, defunct.
There are are Linux distros that you don't need to use the terminal if
you don't want to.

Windows, on the other hand, can't even see the Linux partitions.

You seem to think it's more complicated than it really is. It's only a
little bit different, and easy to learn as long as you don't convince
yourself that you can't do it before you even start.

It isn't complicated at all. An OS without hardware is worthless and
hardware without an OS is worthless. Nothing hard about it at all.



--
Caver1

On 07/09/2014 12:28 PM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/9/2014 10:44 AM, Caver1 wrote:
On 07/09/2014 11:22 AM, BillW50 wrote:
On 7/9/2014 9:53 AM, tigger wrote:
BillW50 writted thus
Same is true of virtually any OS, including Windows. By the way, the
only way to get Linux on a netbook back in 2008 was to buy one. Another
example is Android OS is free too, but you still need a machine that
will run it. I heard that an EeePC will.

My Dell laptop and HP notebook both run android. Along with Linux.

Yes, I have heard there are Android for varies PC machines. I guess all
you need is the right drivers. Have you found that many Android Apps
don't play well with the mouse too?


I can run the Android versions for phones and tablets. That's all I've run.
No problem with using the mouse.
--
Caver1