If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
"Dean G." wrote in message
s.com... On Feb 22, 12:34 pm, wrote: A quick Google search finds far more Windows horror stories, with far worse results, particularly on the malware front. A quick look at statistics showing how many windows installs there are per linux installs quickly debunks this comment. Aside from the malware part. No denying that |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
On Feb 22, 1:11 pm, "Gary" wrote:
Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you to get it to work that really counts. Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years. Ubuntu worked fine for me right after the install. The last version I had that took more than a few hours was Slackware 3.0, but that was a long time ago, and the then current Windows version (95) took longer to set up even with the vaunted "plug and play", which didn't really work. Also, Linux does far more out of the box. People like to compare a full distro of Linux to a bare OS install of Linux. Yes, maybe Windows is installed and "working", but you still can't do anything. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is ready to go with applications. You "working" Windows box still needs more work. It takes far longer to install Windows AND the equivalent applications. Hopefully Vista will do away with the Windows Multiple Reboot Boogie, but I wouldn't count on it. Dean G. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
On Feb 22, 1:33 pm, Alias wrote:
Gary wrote: Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you to get it to work that really counts. Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years. LOL! Mine was ready to go right away. Alias "Dean G." wrote in message oups.com... 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.comOrderthe 6.06 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 So you have no OS ? I know of no recent OS that takes less than 30 minutes to install on a PC. When you consider that Linux also installs many applications, which require a separate and also long installation on other OS's. Thus you are saying that the fastest installing OS is too slow for you, so you are going to use a slower one. Not only that, but if you go with a pre-installed OS, then you are likely going to end up re-installing the OS several times, as even the experts who promote that OS suggest an re-install at least annually, and perhaps more often for power users. Abort, Retry, Fail, Reboot, Reinstall, Remit all of your money to Redmond. Smile, you are one of those people Stalin called "useful". Dean G.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - So was mine. Ready to go into the dustbin of course. I just wasn't smart enough to toss it after the first set of problems. Linux is a waste of time. A HUGE waste of time. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
wrote in message oups.com... I've spent the last 3 days attempting to upgrade 4 Windows-XP systems to Vista and have had various problems with software compatability. I've spent countless hours on the phone and technical support websites and finally after 3 days I have everything working. This fiasco has left me with some doubt as to whether or not Microsoft has the ability to maintain it's position as the defacto standard in operating systems. After reading about Linux I decided to give it a try on another system which is an older P4 2.4G system based around an Asus board. I downloaded Fedora and attempted to install. First problem, my SATA drives were not found. Google time 2 hours later I found the solution which was a Custom Install Option. (After a few cryptic questions and a partition manager that was convoluted and potentially very dangerous in the hands of a new user, Fedora was installed) Second Problem, the system would not boot after install. I got a Grub Error 15 message. Google Time 5 Hours Later .. Oh boy I found lots of information on this puppy. About 5 hours later I fixed the problem which involved copying a know working Grub configuration file from some kind soul on the net, modifying it for my particular system and replacing the one already installed. I did this with a Knoppix LiveCD. So now I can boot the system, but my display image is shifted way off the screen and too low to click on anything. Google Time 2 hours later Ok I learned how to boot to a command line and edit the Xorg file to fix the entries that were incorrect for my common Nvidia card. So now I could see my desktop, but it was at 1024x768 and what appeared to be 16 colors. Google Time 3 hours later I discovered that there is no apparent way to get 32bpp, 3D acceleration, 85hz and 1280x1024 all at the same time like I have with Windows. Bummer. I settled for 1280x1024 24bpp and no 3d because I don't use it and Linux doesn't appear to have any games written for Linux anyhow. So now I have the system up, am surfing the net and things look pretty good. Time to add a printer. I go to the control panel and click on printers and peruse the list but I don't see my Lexmark Multifunction listed? I do see a similar model however so I decide to try this. It installs easy enough, but when I go to print I get one line of gibberish on the top of the page, the page ejects and the next page does the same thing over and over and over again. Rebooting the system does no good because the printer, like a mad beast, starts right up again wasting my paper. Finally I turn the damm thing off while I..................... Google Time 4 hours I discover Print Ques, printer names and the wonderful account called root. I finally figure out how to purge this thing and with some trepidation I turn the printer on and thankfully it behaves. Oh well, I don't need to print right now anyhow so on to my network. The problem is, I can't see my other 3 Windows Vista machines. And now it's......... you guessed it! GOOGLE TIME infinite I discover something called Samba, but I also learn that Microsoft Vista and Samba are not friends but only after a day and a hlf of playing with a smb.conf file and reading maybe a hundred web pages devoted to helping people get Samba working, and this is with Windows XP which supposedly plays nicely with Samba. I wouldn't know know, I never got Samba working. At this point, I took the Linux CD's, all 6 of them including the rescue CD which seems useless BTW and tossed them, violently I might add, into the dustbin. I have wasted far too much time with this Linux crap and I don't intend to waste another millisecond trying to shoehorn this pile of garbage into my systems. I can see why Linux is free. It doesn't work! I can also see why it is not even making the slightest ding in Microsoft's armour: It, Linux, doesn't work. I'm not sure, but if the Linux users expect people, ordinary people, to spend their lives Googling in order to make Linux work, they are daft. Maybe in 10 years Linux might be able to install and work properly, but for now Linux is too difficult and too buggy for the average user. Karla Karla... Thanks for your post. I found it to be very informative. Unfortunately, you have posted something that will cause all the penguin heads to go nuts. Guess I'll have to not visit this newsgroup for a month or two while all of the *nix zealots hemorrhage all over this newsgroup. Enjoy |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
On Feb 22, 1:58 pm, "Dean G." wrote:
On Feb 22, 1:11 pm, "Gary" wrote: Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you to get it to work that really counts. Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years. Ubuntu worked fine for me right after the install. The last version I had that took more than a few hours was Slackware 3.0, but that was a long time ago, and the then current Windows version (95) took longer to set up even with the vaunted "plug and play", which didn't really work. Also, Linux does far more out of the box. People like to compare a full distro of Linux to a bare OS install of Linux. Yes, maybe Windows is installed and "working", but you still can't do anything. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is ready to go with applications. You "working" Windows box still needs more work. It takes far longer to install Windows AND the equivalent applications. Hopefully Vista will do away with the Windows Multiple Reboot Boogie, but I wouldn't count on it. Dean G. So what you are saying is that I used the wrong version of Linux? Tell me, what is the right version of Linux? There seem to be so many different versions and I figured since Fedora is associated with Redhat, it must be a well developed version of Linux. I was wrong. As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true. However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of applications. Linux is so pitiful and I got frustrated, after days of mucking with Linux BTW, that I tossed it and I don't intend to try it again until it reaches the point where it is installable and usable on common hardware. I just don't have the time to spend futzing with an operating system and I doubt other common users do either. Maybe it is a hobby for some, but not me. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:06:49 +0100, Alias wrote:
Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu. www.ubuntu.com Order the 6.06 CD. They send it to you free and pay the postage. Alias Hello? McFly? Troll! Hello?? -- JDS | | http://www.newtnotes.com DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:58:45 -0800, Dean G. wrote:
On Feb 22, 1:11 pm, "Gary" wrote: Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you to get it to work that really counts. Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years. Ubuntu worked fine for me right after the install. The last version I had that took more than a few hours was Slackware 3.0, but that was a long time ago, and the then current Windows version (95) took longer to set up even with the vaunted "plug and play", which didn't really work. Also, Linux does far more out of the box. People like to compare a full distro of Linux to a bare OS install of Linux. I bet you meant to say, "...to a bare OS install of Windows". Yes, maybe Windows is installed and "working", but you still can't do anything. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is ready to go with applications. You "working" Windows box still needs more work. It takes far longer to install Windows AND the equivalent applications. Hopefully Vista will do away with the Windows Multiple Reboot Boogie, but I wouldn't count on it. My new 160G laptop HD arrived a few days ago. Two hours after it arrived I'd installed Ubuntu + the hundreds of applications that are part of the default install + a few hundred more of my own favorite apps + did a full update of the OS and all applications + had the system fully and completely configured to my liking. Windows isn't even in the ballpark anymore. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
A few hundred apps and then a few hundred more? Amazed that you find so
many, and the time to use them all.. "arachnid" wrote in message newsan.2007.02.22.19.21.05.279191@goawayspammers .com... On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:58:45 -0800, Dean G. wrote: On Feb 22, 1:11 pm, "Gary" wrote: Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you to get it to work that really counts. Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years. Ubuntu worked fine for me right after the install. The last version I had that took more than a few hours was Slackware 3.0, but that was a long time ago, and the then current Windows version (95) took longer to set up even with the vaunted "plug and play", which didn't really work. Also, Linux does far more out of the box. People like to compare a full distro of Linux to a bare OS install of Linux. I bet you meant to say, "...to a bare OS install of Windows". Yes, maybe Windows is installed and "working", but you still can't do anything. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is ready to go with applications. You "working" Windows box still needs more work. It takes far longer to install Windows AND the equivalent applications. Hopefully Vista will do away with the Windows Multiple Reboot Boogie, but I wouldn't count on it. My new 160G laptop HD arrived a few days ago. Two hours after it arrived I'd installed Ubuntu + the hundreds of applications that are part of the default install + a few hundred more of my own favorite apps + did a full update of the OS and all applications + had the system fully and completely configured to my liking. Windows isn't even in the ballpark anymore. -- Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
On Feb 22, 2:46 pm, "Paul-B" wrote:
wrote: As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true. However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of applications. 1. Download the Ubuntu .iso image 15 minutes 2. Burn to disk 4 minutes 3. Boot from cd into Ubuntu 2 minutes 4. Select install to hard drive option 5 seconds 5. Install routine starts and finishes 20 minutes 6. Remove disk, boot PC to desktop 1 minute 7. Set up sharing, connect to other PC's on (wireless) network 10 minutes 8. Set up local and network laser printers using cups 10 minutes That's about how long it took me. Cost? Nothing! No time looking for drivers, no time installing applications, which were all bundled with the o/s, no need for virus-checkers or spyware checkers. Paul-B That's all very nice but I have one question? How many months did you spend researching and hunting down hardware that would work with Linux? How many other versions of Linux did you try before you finally found one that worked? I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with Linux and each one said the same thing. "Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with your carefully chosen hardware". Stray far from that tennant and Linux becomes a nightmare. So how long did you spend doing the research? Or did you just happen to *get lucky* ? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
Alias is posting? Oh brother! Be like me and block that fool!
He's been caught lying so many times I've lost count. "Dustbin" wrote in message .. . Dean G. 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.comOrder the 6.06 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 So you have no OS ? I know of no recent OS that takes less than 30 minutes to install on a PC. We thought "Alias" was probably lying, you confirmed it. "linux makes you stupid... and now, makes you a liar too." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
Few X 2? So you have at least 600 apps on your machine?
I call BS on that one! "arachnid" wrote in message newsan.2007.02.22.19.21.05.279191@goawayspammers .com... On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:58:45 -0800, Dean G. wrote: On Feb 22, 1:11 pm, "Gary" wrote: Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you to get it to work that really counts. Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years. Ubuntu worked fine for me right after the install. The last version I had that took more than a few hours was Slackware 3.0, but that was a long time ago, and the then current Windows version (95) took longer to set up even with the vaunted "plug and play", which didn't really work. Also, Linux does far more out of the box. People like to compare a full distro of Linux to a bare OS install of Linux. I bet you meant to say, "...to a bare OS install of Windows". Yes, maybe Windows is installed and "working", but you still can't do anything. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is ready to go with applications. You "working" Windows box still needs more work. It takes far longer to install Windows AND the equivalent applications. Hopefully Vista will do away with the Windows Multiple Reboot Boogie, but I wouldn't count on it. My new 160G laptop HD arrived a few days ago. Two hours after it arrived I'd installed Ubuntu + the hundreds of applications that are part of the default install + a few hundred more of my own favorite apps + did a full update of the OS and all applications + had the system fully and completely configured to my liking. Windows isn't even in the ballpark anymore. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
"Hertz_Donut" wrote in message
... Unfortunately, you have posted something that will cause all the penguin heads to go nuts. Guess I'll have to not visit this newsgroup for a month or two while all of the *nix zealots hemorrhage all over this newsgroup. Good one! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|