Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alias
  • Start date Start date
Re: Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows - NOT

Alias wrote:

> 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.


hehehe...you're a known and admitted liar. Who the fukk do you think
you're fooling this late in the game. GD!
You most certainly must be as dumb as you appear to be!...LOL!
Frank
 
Re: Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows - NOT

In article <g27adt$jeg$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
says...
> No, I post from empirical evidence. You post from some fantasy land.


Why is it when you're wrong or someone has a factual different
experience than you, that you always resort to that crap and claim the
are wrong?

I told you my install times, period, my experience, period.

--
- 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)
 
In article <g27aj5$jeg$4@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <g26pjb$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.


Nope, you were caught again, you say Days, you did not say 4 hours over
x days....

Face it, you're busted by your own statements again - back in the KF for
you.

--
- 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

Alias wrote:

> 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


hehehe...hahaha...oh, that's just too pathetically funny to even try and
respond to!...LOL!
You're beyond desperate.
Frank
 
Alias wrote:

> 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


You're clueless...totally clueless.
Frank
 
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:56:56 -0400, 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.


I'd rather not install anything on a software RAID array. To me, the
whole purpose of having a raid array is negated if it's done in software.

On the other hand, Ubuntu installed perfectly smoothly on my dual quad-
core server with a hardware raid 6 array. Absolutely zero issues and it
runs smooth as silk.

>
> Never did find a ubuntu driver for my usb wireless connection. Face it,
> ubuntu isn't a real OS yet ... for many people anyhow.


What manufacturer is your wireless card made by?

--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT
1992 Suzuki Kan-o-tuna ('till I can get my R1)

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
Leythos wrote:
> In article <g27aj5$jeg$4@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <g26pjb$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.

>
> Nope, you were caught again, you say Days, you did not say 4 hours over
> x days....
>
> Face it, you're busted by your own statements again - back in the KF for
> you.
>


Leythos loses the debate so he takes his ball and goes home in a huff.
How typical.

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

Leythos wrote:
> In article <g27adt$jeg$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
> says...
>> No, I post from empirical evidence. You post from some fantasy land.

>
> Why is it when you're wrong or someone has a factual different
> experience than you, that you always resort to that crap and claim the
> are wrong?
>
> I told you my install times, period, my experience, period.
>


And you lied about it.

Alias
 
In article <VsWdnby58546w9rVnZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@giganews.com>,
Stephan Rose <nospam@spammer.com> wrote:
>
>whole purpose of having a raid array is negated if it's done in software.
>


No wonder Veritas went out of business in 1982.
 
Leythos wrote:
> In article <g27aj5$jeg$4@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <g26pjb$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.

>
> Nope, you were caught again, you say Days, you did not say 4 hours over
> x days....
>
> Face it, you're busted by your own statements again - back in the KF for
> you.
>


FACT: an Ubuntu install is quicker and easier than either XP or Vista.

Game, set, match.

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

Leythos wrote:
> In article <g27adt$jeg$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
> says...
>> No, I post from empirical evidence. You post from some fantasy land.

>
> Why is it when you're wrong or someone has a factual different
> experience than you, that you always resort to that crap and claim the
> are wrong?
>
> I told you my install times, period, my experience, period.
>


Yeah, and in so doing, you proved my point that Ubuntu is easier and
quicker to install than either XP or Vista.

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

Alias wrote:

> Leythos wrote:
>
>> In article <g27adt$jeg$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
>> says...
>>
>>> No, I post from empirical evidence. You post from some fantasy land.

>>
>>
>> Why is it when you're wrong or someone has a factual different
>> experience than you, that you always resort to that crap and claim the
>> are wrong?
>>
>> I told you my install times, period, my experience, period.
>>

>
> And you lied about it.
>
> Alias

You are the known and admitted liar!
Frank
 
"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:g28lde$dct$1@aioe.org...
> Leythos wrote:
>> In article <g27aj5$jeg$4@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
>> says...
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>> In article <g26pjb$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.

>>
>> Nope, you were caught again, you say Days, you did not say 4 hours over x
>> days....
>>
>> Face it, you're busted by your own statements again - back in the KF for
>> you.
>>

>
> FACT: an Ubuntu install is quicker and easier than either XP or Vista.
>
> Game, set, match.
>
> Alias


What the hell are you talking about? It might be easier to install Ubuntu
but try runnning anything. You will be saying, "Wow, what a piece of crap
this OS is. It just can't do what I need" Users who download and install
Ubuntu can figure out within hours or even a day or so, how crippled Ubuntu
really is. They uninstall Ubuntu and go back to either XP or Vista.

Get it through your thick skull. Ubuntu is crap. Ubuntu is Free and nobody
wants it.
 
Re: Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows - NOT

Alias wrote:

> Leythos wrote:
>
>> In article <g27adt$jeg$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
>> says...
>>
>>> No, I post from empirical evidence. You post from some fantasy land.

>>
>>
>> Why is it when you're wrong or someone has a factual different
>> experience than you, that you always resort to that crap and claim the
>> are wrong?
>>
>> I told you my install times, period, my experience, period.
>>

>
> Yeah, and in so doing, you proved my point that Ubuntu is easier and
> quicker to install than either XP or Vista.
>
> Alias


You are a known and admitted liar. No one here believes one word you
say. We all know you're lying cause your mouth is open.
Frank
 
Alias wrote:

> Leythos wrote:
>
>> In article <g27aj5$jeg$4@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
>> says...
>>
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <g26pjb$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.

>>
>>
>> Nope, you were caught again, you say Days, you did not say 4 hours
>> over x days....
>>
>> Face it, you're busted by your own statements again - back in the KF
>> for you.
>>

>
> Leythos loses the debate so he takes his ball and goes home in a huff.
> How typical.
>
> Alias


You think debating is lying.
Why are you here mr troll?
Get lost. Stop make a fool out of yourself.
Frank
 
Alias wrote:

> Leythos wrote:
>
>> In article <g27aj5$jeg$4@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
>> says...
>>
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <g26pjb$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.

>>
>>
>> Nope, you were caught again, you say Days, you did not say 4 hours
>> over x days....
>>
>> Face it, you're busted by your own statements again - back in the KF
>> for you.
>>

>
> FACT: an Ubuntu install is quicker and easier than either XP or Vista.
>
> Game, set, match.
>
> Alias


FACT: You're a known and admitted liar.
Game, set, match.
Frank
 
Bill Yanaire wrote:
> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:g28lde$dct$1@aioe.org...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <g27aj5$jeg$4@aioe.org>, iamalias@NOSPAMPLEASEgmail.com
>>> says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <g26pjb$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.
>>> Nope, you were caught again, you say Days, you did not say 4 hours over x
>>> days....
>>>
>>> Face it, you're busted by your own statements again - back in the KF for
>>> you.
>>>

>> FACT: an Ubuntu install is quicker and easier than either XP or Vista.
>>
>> Game, set, match.
>>
>> Alias

>
> What the hell are you talking about?


The facts, something you are very unfamiliar with.

> It might be easier to install Ubuntu
> but try runnning anything.


Um, try learning to spell and maybe *running* things would be easier.

> You will be saying, "Wow, what a piece of crap
> this OS is. It just can't do what I need"


False.

> Users who download and install
> Ubuntu can figure out within hours or even a day or so, how crippled Ubuntu
> really is.


False.

> They uninstall Ubuntu and go back to either XP or Vista.


False.

>
> Get it through your thick skull. Ubuntu is crap. Ubuntu is Free and nobody
> wants it.


No, you're too stupid to install it or Windows for that matter and
harbor sour grapes.

Alias
 
Stephan Rose wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:56:56 -0400, 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.

>
> I'd rather not install anything on a software RAID array. To me, the
> whole purpose of having a raid array is negated if it's done in software.
>
> On the other hand, Ubuntu installed perfectly smoothly on my dual quad-
> core server with a hardware raid 6 array. Absolutely zero issues and it
> runs smooth as silk.
>
>> Never did find a ubuntu driver for my usb wireless connection. Face it,
>> ubuntu isn't a real OS yet ... for many people anyhow.

>
> What manufacturer is your wireless card made by?
>


I use a software RAID 0 for the performance gain, and since it came
available on my PC, I use it. It's a small performance gain, but every
little bit counts ...My Vista HD score goes from a 5.3 to a 5.9.

I could install a RAID controller, but I've never had an issue with my
setup.

The wireless card is netopia
 
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:00:58 -0400, Hobbes <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote:

> I use a software RAID 0 for the performance gain, and since it came
> available on my PC, I use it. It's a small performance gain, but every
> little bit counts ...My Vista HD score goes from a 5.3 to a 5.9.



My view is that the "Windows Experience Index" means very little. Far
more important than such a score is whether you can actually discern
any improvement in performance. My personal experience with RAID 0
(and that was hardware RAID) is that I could discern no improvement at
all, and performance was identical with or without RAID 0. For that
reason I stopped using it. Despite your score improvement, my guess is
that you see no real improvement either.

Moreover, RAID 0 increases the risk to your data. Since everything is
spread over all the drives in the array, a loss of any drive means the
loss of everything on all drives. My view is that, given that any
performance increase is somewhere between zero and negligible, it's
just not worth any increased risk.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
 
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:00:58 -0400, Hobbes <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote:
>
>> I use a software RAID 0 for the performance gain, and since it came
>> available on my PC, I use it. It's a small performance gain, but every
>> little bit counts ...My Vista HD score goes from a 5.3 to a 5.9.

>
>
> My view is that the "Windows Experience Index" means very little. Far
> more important than such a score is whether you can actually discern
> any improvement in performance. My personal experience with RAID 0
> (and that was hardware RAID) is that I could discern no improvement at
> all, and performance was identical with or without RAID 0. For that
> reason I stopped using it. Despite your score improvement, my guess is
> that you see no real improvement either.
>
> Moreover, RAID 0 increases the risk to your data. Since everything is
> spread over all the drives in the array, a loss of any drive means the
> loss of everything on all drives. My view is that, given that any
> performance increase is somewhere between zero and negligible, it's
> just not worth any increased risk.
>
>


Ghost Recon loads 10 sec faster.
So yes, I can discern an increase in performance.
 
Back
Top