Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alias
  • Start date Start date
While your unrelated crap posting is better?

You are an idiot! How many times must I tell you that to get it through your
thick stupid bonehead?


"Frank" <fb@sto.clm> wrote in message
news:4846c977$0$4264$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Alias wrote:
> > My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it and it
> > took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and install 124
> > updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz Fusion to my liking.
> >
> > Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to finish.
> >
> > Alias
>
> Well goody for you!
> So why are you posting linux crap in a Vista ng (remember, you don't
> have Vista)?
> Frank
 
"vishhiita prime" <vee@shhhita.ch> wrote in message
news:4846ee32@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> While your unrelated crap posting is better?
>
> You are an idiot! How many times must I tell you that to get it through
> your
> thick stupid bonehead?
>

You are the retard here. Do you really think anyone is going to listen to a
putz like yourself? You are the thick one. Now go seek out Alias and play
with Ubuntu
>
> "Frank" <fb@sto.clm> wrote in message
> news:4846c977$0$4264$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Alias wrote:
>> > My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it and
>> > it
>> > took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and install 124
>> > updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz Fusion to my
>> > liking.
>> >
>> > Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to finish.
>> >
>> > Alias
>>
>> Well goody for you!
>> So why are you posting linux crap in a Vista ng (remember, you don't
>> have Vista)?
>> Frank
>
>
 
Re: Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows - NOT

In article <g26nig$bb6$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <g26l7c$24a$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
> > says...
> >> Leythos wrote:
> >>> In article <g26gd5$f9t$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
> >>> says...
> >>>> My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it and it
> >>>> took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and install 124
> >>>> updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz Fusion to my liking.
> >>>>
> >>>> Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to finish.
> >>> Then you didn't know what you were doing.
> >> And then Leythos proves he doesn't know what he's doing:
> >>> Vista Business - 38 minutes to install because I wasn't paying attention
> >>> to prompts.
> >> Note, I said XP, not Vista Business. Nonetheless, 38 minutes is a lie.
> >
> > Nope, you posted to a Vista group, not an XP group,
>
> I know.
>
> > so you were confused
> > and trolling
>
> I wasn't.
>
> > - my times are completely accurate.
>
> Liar.
>
> >
> >>> MS Office 2007 Prof - 12 minutes to install.
> >> That's the only program you use? You just activate both Vista and Office
> >> upon install or aren't you counting that? I wait a few days before
> >> activating XP or Office 2003 in case something went awry during the install.
> >
> > Activation took seconds, always has. No reason to wait, activation works
> > fine, no reason to delay.
>
> Is Office the only program you use?
>
> >
> >>> Worked with system while it downloaded updates in the background - 0 min
> >>>
> >>> Let it install updates when I was done - 0 min
> >> Pretty stupid of you to do the above but, hey, it's your computer.
> >
> > Why, you blindly install Ubuntu updates and I've had that crash Ubuntu
> > more than once, so what's the difference. It's worked on more than 50
> > computers I've done so far. Ubuntu has a less spectacular record in my
> > experience.
>
> I wasn't referring to which updates to download but the way you were
> installing updates is stupid. I've never had Ubuntu crash.
>
> >
> >>> Less than half of Ubuntu - thanks for making the point Alias.
> >> Liar.
> >
> > You can't do basic addition very well.
>
> Oh, I can. I just don't believe your figures.
>
> >
> >>> Oh, no searching for drivers, no anything, all my printers, drives,
> >>> screens, devices just worked as soon as I connected them.
> >> You didn't have to install your video drivers? Sound drivers? You didn't
> >> have to install Java, Flash, an AV, anti malware app, or any other program?
> >>
> >> Lies don't cut it, Leythos, and you're obviously lying and know nothing
> >> about how to install Vista or XP properly, much less Ubuntu.
> >
> > You posted to an Vista group, this is not an XP group, and you didn't
> > state what apps you installed, I did, and the times are accurate.
>
> You said the only app you installed was Office and I don't believe you.
> I installed about 25 programs in Ubuntu.
>
> > You don't even own Vista or office 2007, at least according to you, so
> > you don't have a clue.
>
> I do own Vista and Office 03. I have no interest in Office 2007.
>
> >
> > I didn't have to install any drivers, it worked out of the box.
>
> So your printer had no software to install? And your camera and scanner
> didn't either? So you didn't have to install Java, Flash, an AV, anti
> malware app or any other programs besides Office? Yasee, this is the
> kind of thing that makes people believe your LYING.

Again, I've stated my times and apps, that I didn't need any manual
installation of drivers, it was all done automatically for me, quickly,
easily, worked out of the box as it's suppose to work.

You have a bias against MS, I have no such bias against any platform,
using them all myself, and find that each has the same problems.

You post from anger, I post from relaxed testing and working with them.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
Re: Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows - NOT

In article <g26occ$dla$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <g26l7c$24a$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
> > says...
> >> Leythos wrote:
> >>> In article <g26gd5$f9t$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
> >>> says...
> >>>> My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it and it
> >>>> took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and install 124
> >>>> updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz Fusion to my liking.
> >>>>
> >>>> Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to finish.
> >>> Then you didn't know what you were doing.
> >> And then Leythos proves he doesn't know what he's doing:
> >>> Vista Business - 38 minutes to install because I wasn't paying attention
> >>> to prompts.
> >> Note, I said XP, not Vista Business. Nonetheless, 38 minutes is a lie.
> >
> > Nope, you posted to a Vista group, not an XP group, so you were confused
> > and trolling - my times are completely accurate.
> >
> >>> MS Office 2007 Prof - 12 minutes to install.
> >> That's the only program you use? You just activate both Vista and Office
> >> upon install or aren't you counting that? I wait a few days before
> >> activating XP or Office 2003 in case something went awry during the install.
> >
> > Activation took seconds, always has. No reason to wait, activation works
> > fine, no reason to delay.
> >
> >>> Worked with system while it downloaded updates in the background - 0 min
> >>>
> >>> Let it install updates when I was done - 0 min
> >> Pretty stupid of you to do the above but, hey, it's your computer.
> >
> > Why, you blindly install Ubuntu updates and I've had that crash Ubuntu
> > more than once, so what's the difference. It's worked on more than 50
> > computers I've done so far. Ubuntu has a less spectacular record in my
> > experience.
> >
> >>> Less than half of Ubuntu - thanks for making the point Alias.
> >> Liar.
> >
> > You can't do basic addition very well.
> >
> >>> Oh, no searching for drivers, no anything, all my printers, drives,
> >>> screens, devices just worked as soon as I connected them.
> >> You didn't have to install your video drivers? Sound drivers? You didn't
> >> have to install Java, Flash, an AV, anti malware app, or any other program?
> >>
> >> Lies don't cut it, Leythos, and you're obviously lying and know nothing
> >> about how to install Vista or XP properly, much less Ubuntu.
> >
> > You posted to an Vista group, this is not an XP group, and you didn't
> > state what apps you installed, I did, and the times are accurate.
> >
> > You don't even own Vista or office 2007, at least according to you, so
> > you don't have a clue.
> >
> > I didn't have to install any drivers, it worked out of the box.
> >
>
> Oh, and you didn't count the time it takes to download and install
> Updates and I did for both XP and Ubuntu. If I don't count those, Ubuntu
> took a half an hour.
>
> Checkmate, game.

Wrong, I didn't have to tell it to download, didn't have to tell it to
search for updates, etc... You did, that's why I don't count it.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
Re: Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows - NOT

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:43:43 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>You have a bias against MS, I have no such bias against any platform,
>using them all myself, and find that each has the same problems.

>You post from anger, I post from relaxed testing and working with them.

It is damn funny that every last fanboy claims those that don't
worship Microsoft have a bias toward them while it is crystal clear
the fanboy crowd get their shorts all bunched up at the mere mention
of any Vista issue proving once again it is the fanboy crowd that's
uptight, anal and quick to anger.

I find the show very entertaining to watch. Like a non ending parade.
If people only knew how much I laugh at all the nonsense that goes on
here.
 
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:45:40 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <g26pjb$iiq$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
>says...
>>
>> When I said days, I really meant about a total of four hours.
>
>Why can't you post honest statements instead of having to go back and
>correct your lies when you are exposed for them?

See what I mean by fanboys getting uptight and bent out of shape?

ROTFLMAO!

If you're so concerned about lies, why haven't you called out Frank?
EVERYTHING he posts is a lie and everyone knows it.
 
Re: Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows - NOT

On Jun 4, 1:58 pm, Adam Albright <A...@ABC.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 16:43:43 -0400, Leythos <v...@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> >You have a bias against MS, I have no such bias against any platform,
> >using them all myself, and find that each has the same problems.
> >You post from anger, I post from relaxed testing and working with them.
>
> It is damn funny that every last fanboy claims those that don't
> worship Microsoft have a bias toward them while it is crystal clear
> the fanboy crowd get their shorts all bunched up at the mere mention
> of any Vista issue proving once again it is the fanboy crowd that's
> uptight, anal and quick to anger.
>
> I find the show very entertaining to watch. Like a non ending parade.
> If people only knew how much I laugh at all the nonsense that goes on
> here.

It isn't laughing you are doing. It's drooling. Spit is coming out
of your mouth because of no motor skills in your face. Due to years of
heavy drinking and abuse. Hurry and get help as soon as you can.
With help, you can enjoy the parade. The nurses can help push your
wheelchair to the curb. With luck, they will push you in front of an
oncoming car!
 
Dont worry After Frank who is the king of all dorks, then comes you and
spanky as runner ups....

Losers with a big capital L!


"Bill Yanaire" <bill@yanaire.com> wrote in message
news:Ofn7w1nxIHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> "vishhiita prime" <vee@shhhita.ch> wrote in message
> news:4846ee32@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> > While your unrelated crap posting is better?
> >
> > You are an idiot! How many times must I tell you that to get it through
> > your
> > thick stupid bonehead?
> >
>
> You are the retard here. Do you really think anyone is going to listen to
a
> putz like yourself? You are the thick one. Now go seek out Alias and
play
> with Ubuntu
> >
> > "Frank" <fb@sto.clm> wrote in message
> > news:4846c977$0$4264$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >> Alias wrote:
> >> > My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it and
> >> > it
> >> > took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and install 124
> >> > updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz Fusion to my
> >> > liking.
> >> >
> >> > Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to finish.
> >> >
> >> > Alias
> >>
> >> Well goody for you!
> >> So why are you posting linux crap in a Vista ng (remember, you don't
> >> have Vista)?
> >> Frank
> >
> >
>
>
 
Alias wrote:
> My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it and it
> took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and install 124
> updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz Fusion to my liking.
>
> Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to finish.
>
> Alias

Have to say, my install of ubuntu took longer than XP and Vista combined.

Try installing ubuntu on a software RAID array.
Then try Vista or XP.

Never did find a ubuntu driver for my usb wireless connection.
Face it, ubuntu isn't a real OS yet ... for many people anyhow.
 
C.B. wrote:
> "Frank" <fb@sto.clm> wrote in message
> news:4846c977$0$4264$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> Alias wrote:
>>> My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it
>>> and it took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and
>>> install 124 updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz
>>> Fusion to my liking. Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to
>>> finish.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>> Well goody for you!
>> So why are you posting linux crap in a Vista ng (remember, you don't
>> have Vista)?
>> Frank


I installed a new alternator in my car. Took about four hours. Installing a
new oil filter only took about ten minutes.

On the other hand, it took two of us about five hours to install a new
200-amp circuit-breaker distribution box.

Oh, and it only took about fifteen seconds to install new batteries in my
flashlight.

As long as people are reporting on the installation of things that are
nowhere germane to this newsgroup...
 
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 00:35:19 +0300, "vishhiita prime" <vee@shhhita.ch>
wrote:

>Dont worry After Frank who is the king of all dorks, then comes you and
>spanky as runner ups....
>
>Losers with a big capital L!

I agree with your assessment. However it makes you wonder why this
Bill Yanaire idiot keeps crawling after Frank trying to kiss his ass.
He's the only one here dumb enough to do that. Between them their IQ's
don't equal 100.

In my travels through Usenet I've seen a lot of dummies, but Frank and
Bill take the prize as number one and two top buffoons of all time.
They contribute nothing of substance at all, they've formed a mutual
admiration society of two where they constantly complement each other
"clever' comments and they're both one trick ponies totally incapable
of anything original only repeating the same recycled slop over and
over like two six year old that just started to learn their ABC's.

Two words is all you need to describe them both. Sad and pathetic.
Just losers.
 
Re: Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows - NOT

Leythos wrote:
> In article <g26nig$bb6$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <g26l7c$24a$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
>>> says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <g26gd5$f9t$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
>>>>> says...
>>>>>> My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it and it
>>>>>> took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and install 124
>>>>>> updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz Fusion to my liking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to finish.
>>>>> Then you didn't know what you were doing.
>>>> And then Leythos proves he doesn't know what he's doing:
>>>>> Vista Business - 38 minutes to install because I wasn't paying attention
>>>>> to prompts.
>>>> Note, I said XP, not Vista Business. Nonetheless, 38 minutes is a lie.
>>> Nope, you posted to a Vista group, not an XP group,
>> I know.
>>
>>> so you were confused
>>> and trolling
>> I wasn't.
>>
>>> - my times are completely accurate.
>> Liar.
>>
>>>>> MS Office 2007 Prof - 12 minutes to install.
>>>> That's the only program you use? You just activate both Vista and Office
>>>> upon install or aren't you counting that? I wait a few days before
>>>> activating XP or Office 2003 in case something went awry during the install.
>>> Activation took seconds, always has. No reason to wait, activation works
>>> fine, no reason to delay.
>> Is Office the only program you use?
>>
>>>>> Worked with system while it downloaded updates in the background - 0 min
>>>>>
>>>>> Let it install updates when I was done - 0 min
>>>> Pretty stupid of you to do the above but, hey, it's your computer.
>>> Why, you blindly install Ubuntu updates and I've had that crash Ubuntu
>>> more than once, so what's the difference. It's worked on more than 50
>>> computers I've done so far. Ubuntu has a less spectacular record in my
>>> experience.
>> I wasn't referring to which updates to download but the way you were
>> installing updates is stupid. I've never had Ubuntu crash.
>>
>>>>> Less than half of Ubuntu - thanks for making the point Alias.
>>>> Liar.
>>> You can't do basic addition very well.
>> Oh, I can. I just don't believe your figures.
>>
>>>>> Oh, no searching for drivers, no anything, all my printers, drives,
>>>>> screens, devices just worked as soon as I connected them.
>>>> You didn't have to install your video drivers? Sound drivers? You didn't
>>>> have to install Java, Flash, an AV, anti malware app, or any other program?
>>>>
>>>> Lies don't cut it, Leythos, and you're obviously lying and know nothing
>>>> about how to install Vista or XP properly, much less Ubuntu.
>>> You posted to an Vista group, this is not an XP group, and you didn't
>>> state what apps you installed, I did, and the times are accurate.
>> You said the only app you installed was Office and I don't believe you.
>> I installed about 25 programs in Ubuntu.
>>
>>> You don't even own Vista or office 2007, at least according to you, so
>>> you don't have a clue.
>> I do own Vista and Office 03. I have no interest in Office 2007.
>>
>>> I didn't have to install any drivers, it worked out of the box.
>> So your printer had no software to install? And your camera and scanner
>> didn't either? So you didn't have to install Java, Flash, an AV, anti
>> malware app or any other programs besides Office? Yasee, this is the
>> kind of thing that makes people believe your LYING.
>
> Again, I've stated my times and apps, that I didn't need any manual
> installation of drivers, it was all done automatically for me, quickly,
> easily, worked out of the box as it's suppose to work.
>
> You have a bias against MS, I have no such bias against any platform,
> using them all myself, and find that each has the same problems.
>
> You post from anger, I post from relaxed testing and working with them.
>

No, I post from empirical evidence. You post from some fantasy land.

Alias
 
Re: Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows - NOT

Leythos wrote:
> In article <g26occ$dla$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <g26l7c$24a$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
>>> says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <g26gd5$f9t$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
>>>>> says...
>>>>>> My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it and it
>>>>>> took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and install 124
>>>>>> updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz Fusion to my liking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to finish.
>>>>> Then you didn't know what you were doing.
>>>> And then Leythos proves he doesn't know what he's doing:
>>>>> Vista Business - 38 minutes to install because I wasn't paying attention
>>>>> to prompts.
>>>> Note, I said XP, not Vista Business. Nonetheless, 38 minutes is a lie.
>>> Nope, you posted to a Vista group, not an XP group, so you were confused
>>> and trolling - my times are completely accurate.
>>>
>>>>> MS Office 2007 Prof - 12 minutes to install.
>>>> That's the only program you use? You just activate both Vista and Office
>>>> upon install or aren't you counting that? I wait a few days before
>>>> activating XP or Office 2003 in case something went awry during the install.
>>> Activation took seconds, always has. No reason to wait, activation works
>>> fine, no reason to delay.
>>>
>>>>> Worked with system while it downloaded updates in the background - 0 min
>>>>>
>>>>> Let it install updates when I was done - 0 min
>>>> Pretty stupid of you to do the above but, hey, it's your computer.
>>> Why, you blindly install Ubuntu updates and I've had that crash Ubuntu
>>> more than once, so what's the difference. It's worked on more than 50
>>> computers I've done so far. Ubuntu has a less spectacular record in my
>>> experience.
>>>
>>>>> Less than half of Ubuntu - thanks for making the point Alias.
>>>> Liar.
>>> You can't do basic addition very well.
>>>
>>>>> Oh, no searching for drivers, no anything, all my printers, drives,
>>>>> screens, devices just worked as soon as I connected them.
>>>> You didn't have to install your video drivers? Sound drivers? You didn't
>>>> have to install Java, Flash, an AV, anti malware app, or any other program?
>>>>
>>>> Lies don't cut it, Leythos, and you're obviously lying and know nothing
>>>> about how to install Vista or XP properly, much less Ubuntu.
>>> You posted to an Vista group, this is not an XP group, and you didn't
>>> state what apps you installed, I did, and the times are accurate.
>>>
>>> You don't even own Vista or office 2007, at least according to you, so
>>> you don't have a clue.
>>>
>>> I didn't have to install any drivers, it worked out of the box.
>>>
>> Oh, and you didn't count the time it takes to download and install
>> Updates and I did for both XP and Ubuntu. If I don't count those, Ubuntu
>> took a half an hour.
>>
>> Checkmate, game.
>
> Wrong, I didn't have to tell it to download, didn't have to tell it to
> search for updates, etc... You did, that's why I don't count it.
>

It's still part of the install, your squirming notwithstanding.
Checkmate, game.

Alias
 
vishhiita prime wrote:

---------------------------------------
Way to go capin' crunch...you've got mr drunken pig agreeing with
you!...LOL!
Get a room together to celebrate maybe?...hahaha!
Frank
 
HeyBub wrote:
> C.B. wrote:
>> "Frank" <fb@sto.clm> wrote in message
>> news:4846c977$0$4264$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it
>>>> and it took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and
>>>> install 124 updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz
>>>> Fusion to my liking. Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to
>>>> finish.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>> Well goody for you!
>>> So why are you posting linux crap in a Vista ng (remember, you don't
>>> have Vista)?
>>> Frank
>
>
> I installed a new alternator in my car. Took about four hours. Installing a
> new oil filter only took about ten minutes.
>
> On the other hand, it took two of us about five hours to install a new
> 200-amp circuit-breaker distribution box.
>
> Oh, and it only took about fifteen seconds to install new batteries in my
> flashlight.
>
> As long as people are reporting on the installation of things that are
> nowhere germane to this newsgroup...
>
>

Yawn, what a putz. The fact that Ubuntu is easier and quicker to install
than anything Windows is germane to this newsgroup. Your inane posts
never are.

Alias
 
Leythos wrote:
> In article <g26pjb$iiq$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
> says...
>> When I said days, I really meant about a total of four hours.
>
> Why can't you post honest statements instead of having to go back and
> correct your lies when you are exposed for them?
>

Not a lie, the four hours were spread over three days.

Alias
 
Hobbes wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it and
>> it took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and install 124
>> updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz Fusion to my liking.
>>
>> Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to finish.
>>
>> Alias
>
> Have to say, my install of ubuntu took longer than XP and Vista combined.
>
> Try installing ubuntu on a software RAID array.
> Then try Vista or XP.
>
> Never did find a ubuntu driver for my usb wireless connection.
> Face it, ubuntu isn't a real OS yet ... for many people anyhow.

If you go out of your way to screw up an install and do no research
beforehand, you're doomed to failure. Is that the lesson you're teaching?

Alias
 
Alias wrote:
> Hobbes wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>>> My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it and
>>> it took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and install 124
>>> updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz Fusion to my liking.
>>>
>>> Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to finish.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>> Have to say, my install of ubuntu took longer than XP and Vista combined.
>>
>> Try installing ubuntu on a software RAID array.
>> Then try Vista or XP.
>>
>> Never did find a ubuntu driver for my usb wireless connection.
>> Face it, ubuntu isn't a real OS yet ... for many people anyhow.
>
> If you go out of your way to screw up an install and do no research
> beforehand, you're doomed to failure. Is that the lesson you're teaching?
>
> Alias

No, I'm saying for ME , Vista and XP installed faster than Ubuntu.
Can't you read?

What research ?
That ubuntu is lame with drivers ?
I was aware of that, but gave it a shot anyway.

I imagine Windows is popular for a reason.
I imagine Linux is where it is for a reason(I mean, come on, its FREE
and still used by hardly anyone).

Funny how Vista and XP worked without any research
 
Hobbes wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> Hobbes wrote:
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> My hard drive went south so I had to reinstall Ubuntu. I timed it
>>>> and it took exactly one hour to install Ubuntu, download and install
>>>> 124 updates, all the programs I use and tweaking Compiz Fusion to my
>>>> liking.
>>>>
>>>> Windows XP, OTOH, on the same drive, took DAYS to finish.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>> Have to say, my install of ubuntu took longer than XP and Vista
>>> combined.
>>>
>>> Try installing ubuntu on a software RAID array.
>>> Then try Vista or XP.
>>>
>>> Never did find a ubuntu driver for my usb wireless connection.
>>> Face it, ubuntu isn't a real OS yet ... for many people anyhow.
>>
>> If you go out of your way to screw up an install and do no research
>> beforehand, you're doomed to failure. Is that the lesson you're teaching?
>>
>> Alias
>
> No, I'm saying for ME , Vista and XP installed faster than Ubuntu.
> Can't you read?

You're one of the few.

>
> What research ?

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

> That ubuntu is lame with drivers ?

No, some hardware manufacturer's are. Lexmark, for example, won't work
with Ubuntu but HP is a dream.

> I was aware of that, but gave it a shot anyway.

"Giving it a shot" isn't really trying, sorry.

>
> I imagine Windows is popular for a reason.

Many reasons, most of them are not pretty.

> I imagine Linux is where it is for a reason(I mean, come on, its FREE
> and still used by hardly anyone).

It doesn't have the monopoly or advertising power but, nonetheless, is
now in the news and a lot of people are trying it and using it.

> Funny how Vista and XP worked without any research

Of course, the hardware folks can't afford to mess up even if HP did
with SP3 on some of their AMD computers. It didn't work for them.

Alias
 
Back
Top