Ubuntu is MUCH Easier to Install than Windows

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alias
  • Start date Start date
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?
>


Back in the good old days it was always the manufacturer's fault that
"Drivers" didn't work or could not be installed... ie most problems were
somebody else's fault not Vista's - now however all problems are
Ubuntu's fault.
 
"Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message news:g29k5r$34u$1@aioe.org...
> 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


I was getting 5.6 with an single 80gb IDE HDD. I still get 5.6 with a SATA
160 and the old 80gb..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:gbog44hscj181pp2djm7iv1htf6vo6tgd8@4ax.com...
> 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


There maybe an imperceptible gain in real terms, but consider the gain in
bragging rights.. :-)


--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
Charlie Tame wrote:
> 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?
>>
>
>
> Back in the good old days it was always the manufacturer's fault that
> "Drivers" didn't work or could not be installed... ie most problems were
> somebody else's fault not Vista's - now however all problems are
> Ubuntu's fault.

Regardless of fault, the ease or speed of an install of Vista, XP, or
ubuntu will have a lot to do with the hardware the OS is being installed
on, and the familiarity of the user with the OS.

Alias' original statement will not be correct for many users...me being
the only one I can speak for , and the only one I am concerned with.
 
"Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message news:g29s5m$3g5$1@aioe.org...
> Charlie Tame wrote:
>> 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?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Back in the good old days it was always the manufacturer's fault that
>> "Drivers" didn't work or could not be installed... ie most problems were
>> somebody else's fault not Vista's - now however all problems are Ubuntu's
>> fault.
>
> Regardless of fault, the ease or speed of an install of Vista, XP, or
> ubuntu will have a lot to do with the hardware the OS is being installed
> on, and the familiarity of the user with the OS.
>
> Alias' original statement will not be correct for many users...me being
> the only one I can speak for , and the only one I am concerned with.

Not sure about that.

If I gave you (or I) a full version of Vista Ultimate, full version of XP or
a full (and only) version of Ubuntu, there is no difference at all on what
it takes to install it. Absolutely none.

Users who get "bundled" Vista jammed up their butts have the driver
integration done for them. That is it. If I install Vista crapware on a
new PC with a new chipset, I have to go out and install chipset drivers post
basic install. How the hell does that differ in installing drivers for a
video card in Ubuntu to get Compiz?

Hint, no freaking difference at all. In fact, I might say Ubuntu native
install comes with fewer driver issues on 1-8 year old hardware than does
Vista crapware.

OEM is what this assertion is made, nothing else.
 
Canuck57 wrote:
> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message news:g29s5m$3g5$1@aioe.org...
>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Back in the good old days it was always the manufacturer's fault that
>>> "Drivers" didn't work or could not be installed... ie most problems were
>>> somebody else's fault not Vista's - now however all problems are Ubuntu's
>>> fault.
>> Regardless of fault, the ease or speed of an install of Vista, XP, or
>> ubuntu will have a lot to do with the hardware the OS is being installed
>> on, and the familiarity of the user with the OS.
>>
>> Alias' original statement will not be correct for many users...me being
>> the only one I can speak for , and the only one I am concerned with.
>
> Not sure about that.
>
> If I gave you (or I) a full version of Vista Ultimate, full version of XP or
> a full (and only) version of Ubuntu, there is no difference at all on what
> it takes to install it. Absolutely none.
>
> Users who get "bundled" Vista jammed up their butts have the driver
> integration done for them. That is it. If I install Vista crapware on a
> new PC with a new chipset, I have to go out and install chipset drivers post
> basic install. How the hell does that differ in installing drivers for a
> video card in Ubuntu to get Compiz?
>
> Hint, no freaking difference at all. In fact, I might say Ubuntu native
> install comes with fewer driver issues on 1-8 year old hardware than does
> Vista crapware.
>
> OEM is what this assertion is made, nothing else.
>
>

Don't get angry.
Ubuntu does not work with MY hardware.
Period.
I have no ax to grind, it simply didn't meet my expectations.
Period.

You ubuntu/linux fans are assigning attributes to your preferred OS that
simply don't exist.
 
"Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message news:g29vt5$gbm$1@aioe.org...
> Canuck57 wrote:
>> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
>> news:g29s5m$3g5$1@aioe.org...
>>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Back in the good old days it was always the manufacturer's fault that
>>>> "Drivers" didn't work or could not be installed... ie most problems
>>>> were somebody else's fault not Vista's - now however all problems are
>>>> Ubuntu's fault.
>>> Regardless of fault, the ease or speed of an install of Vista, XP, or
>>> ubuntu will have a lot to do with the hardware the OS is being installed
>>> on, and the familiarity of the user with the OS.
>>>
>>> Alias' original statement will not be correct for many users...me being
>>> the only one I can speak for , and the only one I am concerned with.
>>
>> Not sure about that.
>>
>> If I gave you (or I) a full version of Vista Ultimate, full version of XP
>> or a full (and only) version of Ubuntu, there is no difference at all on
>> what it takes to install it. Absolutely none.
>>
>> Users who get "bundled" Vista jammed up their butts have the driver
>> integration done for them. That is it. If I install Vista crapware on a
>> new PC with a new chipset, I have to go out and install chipset drivers
>> post basic install. How the hell does that differ in installing drivers
>> for a video card in Ubuntu to get Compiz?
>>
>> Hint, no freaking difference at all. In fact, I might say Ubuntu native
>> install comes with fewer driver issues on 1-8 year old hardware than does
>> Vista crapware.
>>
>> OEM is what this assertion is made, nothing else.
>
> Don't get angry.
> Ubuntu does not work with MY hardware.
> Period.
> I have no ax to grind, it simply didn't meet my expectations.
> Period.
>
> You ubuntu/linux fans are assigning attributes to your preferred OS that
> simply don't exist.

Ubuntu and Fedora worked with mine right off. Just had to load a driver for
Compiz.

Axe to grind, probably. I hate getting stiffed on a commodity OS like Vista
crapware and not a slot boy. Vendors should just say here is the hardware,
OS extra. Let Microsoft sell on it's own merits instead of the Microsoft
tax of today.

Don't give me that feltercarb of XP, Linux and no OS PCs, home users don't
go to over priced and low feature Dell PCs for solutions. Does not sell
here.

My next home PC will either be an Apple or a Eee PC (Linux). I am done
messing with Vista. My XP machine even got a reprieve... I usually delegate
the old PCs to Linux or Solaris x86 and run real applications and
backup/storage on them. Most alternative OSes run quite well on older
equipment (user bias aside).
 
Canuck57 wrote:
> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message news:g29vt5$gbm$1@aioe.org...
>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
>>> news:g29s5m$3g5$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Back in the good old days it was always the manufacturer's fault that
>>>>> "Drivers" didn't work or could not be installed... ie most problems
>>>>> were somebody else's fault not Vista's - now however all problems are
>>>>> Ubuntu's fault.
>>>> Regardless of fault, the ease or speed of an install of Vista, XP, or
>>>> ubuntu will have a lot to do with the hardware the OS is being installed
>>>> on, and the familiarity of the user with the OS.
>>>>
>>>> Alias' original statement will not be correct for many users...me being
>>>> the only one I can speak for , and the only one I am concerned with.
>>> Not sure about that.
>>>
>>> If I gave you (or I) a full version of Vista Ultimate, full version of XP
>>> or a full (and only) version of Ubuntu, there is no difference at all on
>>> what it takes to install it. Absolutely none.
>>>
>>> Users who get "bundled" Vista jammed up their butts have the driver
>>> integration done for them. That is it. If I install Vista crapware on a
>>> new PC with a new chipset, I have to go out and install chipset drivers
>>> post basic install. How the hell does that differ in installing drivers
>>> for a video card in Ubuntu to get Compiz?
>>>
>>> Hint, no freaking difference at all. In fact, I might say Ubuntu native
>>> install comes with fewer driver issues on 1-8 year old hardware than does
>>> Vista crapware.
>>>
>>> OEM is what this assertion is made, nothing else.
>> Don't get angry.
>> Ubuntu does not work with MY hardware.
>> Period.
>> I have no ax to grind, it simply didn't meet my expectations.
>> Period.
>>
>> You ubuntu/linux fans are assigning attributes to your preferred OS that
>> simply don't exist.
>
> Ubuntu and Fedora worked with mine right off. Just had to load a driver for
> Compiz.
>
> Axe to grind, probably. I hate getting stiffed on a commodity OS like Vista
> crapware and not a slot boy. Vendors should just say here is the hardware,
> OS extra. Let Microsoft sell on it's own merits instead of the Microsoft
> tax of today.
>
> Don't give me that feltercarb of XP, Linux and no OS PCs, home users don't
> go to over priced and low feature Dell PCs for solutions. Does not sell
> here.
>
> My next home PC will either be an Apple or a Eee PC (Linux). I am done
> messing with Vista. My XP machine even got a reprieve... I usually delegate
> the old PCs to Linux or Solaris x86 and run real applications and
> backup/storage on them. Most alternative OSes run quite well on older
> equipment (user bias aside).
>
>

No idea what you ranting about....but have a good day !
 
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
news:6Y%1k.9365$C12.12@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
> news:g29vt5$gbm$1@aioe.org...
>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
>>> news:g29s5m$3g5$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Back in the good old days it was always the manufacturer's fault that
>>>>> "Drivers" didn't work or could not be installed... ie most problems
>>>>> were somebody else's fault not Vista's - now however all problems are
>>>>> Ubuntu's fault.
>>>> Regardless of fault, the ease or speed of an install of Vista, XP, or
>>>> ubuntu will have a lot to do with the hardware the OS is being
>>>> installed on, and the familiarity of the user with the OS.
>>>>
>>>> Alias' original statement will not be correct for many users...me being
>>>> the only one I can speak for , and the only one I am concerned with.
>>>
>>> Not sure about that.
>>>
>>> If I gave you (or I) a full version of Vista Ultimate, full version of
>>> XP or a full (and only) version of Ubuntu, there is no difference at all
>>> on what it takes to install it. Absolutely none.
>>>
>>> Users who get "bundled" Vista jammed up their butts have the driver
>>> integration done for them. That is it. If I install Vista crapware on
>>> a new PC with a new chipset, I have to go out and install chipset
>>> drivers post basic install. How the hell does that differ in installing
>>> drivers for a video card in Ubuntu to get Compiz?
>>>
>>> Hint, no freaking difference at all. In fact, I might say Ubuntu native
>>> install comes with fewer driver issues on 1-8 year old hardware than
>>> does Vista crapware.
>>>
>>> OEM is what this assertion is made, nothing else.
>>
>> Don't get angry.
>> Ubuntu does not work with MY hardware.
>> Period.
>> I have no ax to grind, it simply didn't meet my expectations.
>> Period.
>>
>> You ubuntu/linux fans are assigning attributes to your preferred OS that
>> simply don't exist.
>
> Ubuntu and Fedora worked with mine right off. Just had to load a driver
> for Compiz.
>
> Axe to grind, probably. I hate getting stiffed on a commodity OS like
> Vista crapware and not a slot boy. Vendors should just say here is the
> hardware, OS extra. Let Microsoft sell on it's own merits instead of the
> Microsoft tax of today.
>
> Don't give me that feltercarb of XP, Linux and no OS PCs, home users don't
> go to over priced and low feature Dell PCs for solutions. Does not sell
> here.
>
> My next home PC will either be an Apple or a Eee PC (Linux). I am done
> messing with Vista. My XP machine even got a reprieve... I usually
> delegate the old PCs to Linux or Solaris x86 and run real applications and
> backup/storage on them. Most alternative OSes run quite well on older
> equipment (user bias aside).
>


What 'real' applications? A word processor is a 'real' application..



--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
Hobbes wrote:

> Canuck57 wrote:
>
>> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
>> news:g29vt5$gbm$1@aioe.org...
>>
>>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
>>>> news:g29s5m$3g5$1@aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back in the good old days it was always the manufacturer's fault
>>>>>> that "Drivers" didn't work or could not be installed... ie most
>>>>>> problems were somebody else's fault not Vista's - now however all
>>>>>> problems are Ubuntu's fault.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless of fault, the ease or speed of an install of Vista, XP,
>>>>> or ubuntu will have a lot to do with the hardware the OS is being
>>>>> installed on, and the familiarity of the user with the OS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alias' original statement will not be correct for many users...me
>>>>> being the only one I can speak for , and the only one I am
>>>>> concerned with.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure about that.
>>>>
>>>> If I gave you (or I) a full version of Vista Ultimate, full version
>>>> of XP or a full (and only) version of Ubuntu, there is no difference
>>>> at all on what it takes to install it. Absolutely none.
>>>>
>>>> Users who get "bundled" Vista jammed up their butts have the driver
>>>> integration done for them. That is it. If I install Vista crapware
>>>> on a new PC with a new chipset, I have to go out and install chipset
>>>> drivers post basic install. How the hell does that differ in
>>>> installing drivers for a video card in Ubuntu to get Compiz?
>>>>
>>>> Hint, no freaking difference at all. In fact, I might say Ubuntu
>>>> native install comes with fewer driver issues on 1-8 year old
>>>> hardware than does Vista crapware.
>>>>
>>>> OEM is what this assertion is made, nothing else.
>>>
>>> Don't get angry.
>>> Ubuntu does not work with MY hardware.
>>> Period.
>>> I have no ax to grind, it simply didn't meet my expectations.
>>> Period.
>>>
>>> You ubuntu/linux fans are assigning attributes to your preferred OS
>>> that simply don't exist.
>>
>>
>> Ubuntu and Fedora worked with mine right off. Just had to load a
>> driver for Compiz.
>>
>> Axe to grind, probably. I hate getting stiffed on a commodity OS like
>> Vista crapware and not a slot boy. Vendors should just say here is
>> the hardware, OS extra. Let Microsoft sell on it's own merits instead
>> of the Microsoft tax of today.
>>
>> Don't give me that feltercarb of XP, Linux and no OS PCs, home users
>> don't go to over priced and low feature Dell PCs for solutions. Does
>> not sell here.
>>
>> My next home PC will either be an Apple or a Eee PC (Linux). I am done
>> messing with Vista. My XP machine even got a reprieve... I usually
>> delegate the old PCs to Linux or Solaris x86 and run real applications
>> and backup/storage on them. Most alternative OSes run quite well on
>> older equipment (user bias aside).
>>
>
> No idea what you ranting about....but have a good day !

mr canadian bacon is a wannabe IT (Idiot in Training) who can't seem to
get his wifes Vista installed and configured to run properly. So she has
sent him to the dog house. Now all he can do is whine, rant and FUD
MS/Vista.
He cannot conquer Vista cause it has conquered him...and so has his
wife!...LOL!
Just another loser!
Frank
 
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:16:21 -0700, 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.

That's why I run RAID 6 on my server. Gives me most of the performance
benefits of RAID 0 while being able to sustain up to two simultaneous
drive failures.

I agree though that on anything outside a server, a RAID setup is
probably primarily only good for bragging rights and probably not all
that much in performance gains. Yes raw read / write speeds will be
better boosting the Vista performance thing but unless someone actually
*does* anything that requires such a high HD throughput, it's not going
to speed things up.

There still also is the issue that something needs to actually process
all the data. Just because the data can be read faster from the HD does
not mean the CPU can actually process it all that fast.

On a really high-end desktop system it can be beneficial and could
probably warrant a hardware controller. I may give it a shot on my next
desktop system I build.

But on a low-end or mid-range system? I'd consider any raid setup to just
be a waste of time and money and too much of a risk to bother with.

--
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‚‰
 
> Not sure about that.
>
> If I gave you (or I) a full version of Vista Ultimate, full version of XP
> or a full (and only) version of Ubuntu, there is no difference at all on
> what it takes to install it. Absolutely none.
>
> Users who get "bundled" Vista jammed up their butts have the driver
> integration done for them. That is it. If I install Vista crapware on a
> new PC with a new chipset, I have to go out and install chipset drivers
> post basic install. How the hell does that differ in installing drivers
> for a video card in Ubuntu to get Compiz?
>
> Hint, no freaking difference at all. In fact, I might say Ubuntu native
> install comes with fewer driver issues on 1-8 year old hardware than does
> Vista crapware.

Believe me, I'm not a big fan of Vista but it has never forced me to
rebuild my kernel.

FWIW my experience with Ubuntu has not been very good but
I don't find Fedora much different than installing Windows. I think that
it depends a lot on what you're used to.
 
"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
news:eZ0qGO3xIHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
> news:6Y%1k.9365$C12.12@pd7urf3no...
>>
>> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
>> news:g29vt5$gbm$1@aioe.org...
>>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>>> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
>>>> news:g29s5m$3g5$1@aioe.org...
>>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back in the good old days it was always the manufacturer's fault that
>>>>>> "Drivers" didn't work or could not be installed... ie most problems
>>>>>> were somebody else's fault not Vista's - now however all problems are
>>>>>> Ubuntu's fault.
>>>>> Regardless of fault, the ease or speed of an install of Vista, XP, or
>>>>> ubuntu will have a lot to do with the hardware the OS is being
>>>>> installed on, and the familiarity of the user with the OS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alias' original statement will not be correct for many users...me
>>>>> being the only one I can speak for , and the only one I am concerned
>>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure about that.
>>>>
>>>> If I gave you (or I) a full version of Vista Ultimate, full version of
>>>> XP or a full (and only) version of Ubuntu, there is no difference at
>>>> all on what it takes to install it. Absolutely none.
>>>>
>>>> Users who get "bundled" Vista jammed up their butts have the driver
>>>> integration done for them. That is it. If I install Vista crapware on
>>>> a new PC with a new chipset, I have to go out and install chipset
>>>> drivers post basic install. How the hell does that differ in
>>>> installing drivers for a video card in Ubuntu to get Compiz?
>>>>
>>>> Hint, no freaking difference at all. In fact, I might say Ubuntu
>>>> native install comes with fewer driver issues on 1-8 year old hardware
>>>> than does Vista crapware.
>>>>
>>>> OEM is what this assertion is made, nothing else.
>>>
>>> Don't get angry.
>>> Ubuntu does not work with MY hardware.
>>> Period.
>>> I have no ax to grind, it simply didn't meet my expectations.
>>> Period.
>>>
>>> You ubuntu/linux fans are assigning attributes to your preferred OS that
>>> simply don't exist.
>>
>> Ubuntu and Fedora worked with mine right off. Just had to load a driver
>> for Compiz.
>>
>> Axe to grind, probably. I hate getting stiffed on a commodity OS like
>> Vista crapware and not a slot boy. Vendors should just say here is the
>> hardware, OS extra. Let Microsoft sell on it's own merits instead of the
>> Microsoft tax of today.
>>
>> Don't give me that feltercarb of XP, Linux and no OS PCs, home users
>> don't go to over priced and low feature Dell PCs for solutions. Does not
>> sell here.
>>
>> My next home PC will either be an Apple or a Eee PC (Linux). I am done
>> messing with Vista. My XP machine even got a reprieve... I usually
>> delegate the old PCs to Linux or Solaris x86 and run real applications
>> and backup/storage on them. Most alternative OSes run quite well on
>> older equipment (user bias aside).
>
> What 'real' applications? A word processor is a 'real' application..

Apache/tomcat. web mail, mail (IMAP), postgresql, mysql, firewall, IPSec,
and a whole bunch of others that run very stable on UNIX/Linux. I didn't
even get to IPSec on Vista, does it even work with non-MS IPSec machines
yet? XP, it was broken on the send, get the IPSec receive working though.
But half a connection in TCP/IP is useless.
 
If you really wanted to sell ubuntu, you might mention the similarities to the
Amiga OS.
I'm using ubuntu this moment, but since it won't work with my TV, it's strictly
a backup OS for what it's defined as best for, and that's web activity.

Not being a target, for virus, makes it ideal for web surfing and email.
--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
 
measekite wrote:
>
>
> Canuck57 wrote:
>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
>> news:eZ0qGO3xIHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
>>> news:6Y%1k.9365$C12.12@pd7urf3no...
>>>
>>>> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
>>>> news:g29vt5$gbm$1@aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:g29s5m$3g5$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Back in the good old days it was always the manufacturer's fault
>>>>>>>> that "Drivers" didn't work or could not be installed... ie most
>>>>>>>> problems were somebody else's fault not Vista's - now however
>>>>>>>> all problems are Ubuntu's fault.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regardless of fault, the ease or speed of an install of Vista,
>>>>>>> XP, or ubuntu will have a lot to do with the hardware the OS is
>>>>>>> being installed on, and the familiarity of the user with the OS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alias' original statement will not be correct for many users...me
>>>>>>> being the only one I can speak for , and the only one I am
>>>>>>> concerned with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure about that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I gave you (or I) a full version of Vista Ultimate, full
>>>>>> version of XP or a full (and only) version of Ubuntu, there is no
>>>>>> difference at all on what it takes to install it. Absolutely none.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Users who get "bundled" Vista jammed up their butts have the
>>>>>> driver integration done for them. That is it. If I install Vista
>>>>>> crapware on a new PC with a new chipset, I have to go out and
>>>>>> install chipset drivers post basic install. How the hell does
>>>>>> that differ in installing drivers for a video card in Ubuntu to
>>>>>> get Compiz?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hint, no freaking difference at all. In fact, I might say Ubuntu
>>>>>> native install comes with fewer driver issues on 1-8 year old
>>>>>> hardware than does Vista crapware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OEM is what this assertion is made, nothing else.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Don't get angry.
>>>>> Ubuntu does not work with MY hardware.
>>>>> Period.
>>>>> I have no ax to grind, it simply didn't meet my expectations.
>>>>> Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> You ubuntu/linux fans are assigning attributes to your preferred OS
>>>>> that simply don't exist.
>>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu and Fedora worked with mine right off. Just had to load a
>>>> driver for Compiz.
>>>>
>>>> Axe to grind, probably. I hate getting stiffed on a commodity OS
>>>> like Vista crapware and not a slot boy. Vendors should just say
>>>> here is the hardware, OS extra. Let Microsoft sell on it's own
>>>> merits instead of the Microsoft tax of today.
>>>>
>>>> Don't give me that feltercarb of XP, Linux and no OS PCs, home users
>>>> don't go to over priced and low feature Dell PCs for solutions.
>>>> Does not sell here.
>>>>
>>>> My next home PC will either be an Apple or a Eee PC (Linux). I am
>>>> done messing with Vista. My XP machine even got a reprieve... I
>>>> usually delegate the old PCs to Linux or Solaris x86 and run real
>>>> applications and backup/storage on them. Most alternative OSes run
>>>> quite well on older equipment (user bias aside).
>>>>
>>> What 'real' applications? A word processor is a 'real' application..
>>>
>>
>> Apache/tomcat. web mail, mail (IMAP), postgresql, mysql, firewall,
>> IPSec, and a whole bunch of others that run very stable on UNIX/Linux.
> I know. I am not saying it is real easy but as you know more than half
> the internet runs on Linux and Apache server. Not a whole lot of sites
> use Windows Server and MS Internet Server outside of some Corporate
> sites married to MS.
>> I didn't even get to IPSec on Vista, does it even work with non-MS
>> IPSec machines yet? XP, it was broken on the send, get the IPSec
>> receive working though. But half a connection in TCP/IP is useless.
>>
>>

Why wouldn't half the internet run on linux servers ?
Servers need bare bones, no fun OS's ... that's Linux's niche.
Try ubuntu's GNUchess to see what a barebones, free OS provides !
Then try installing ubuntu drivers .... what a joke !

Hey , thanks ubuntu, I'll quit my job for 9 weeks just to get you up and
running !
 
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:12:03 -0400, Hobbes <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote:

>Why wouldn't half the internet run on linux servers ?
>Servers need bare bones, no fun OS's ... that's Linux's niche.
>Try ubuntu's GNUchess to see what a barebones, free OS provides !
>Then try installing ubuntu drivers .... what a joke !
>
>Hey , thanks ubuntu, I'll quit my job for 9 weeks just to get you up and
> running !

Actually, I just got done running ubuntu in the CD drive option only. Lots of
good things about it.
But for some reason, it took over an hour to get back to windows after I quit,
and removed the DVD from the drive.

So that pretty much kills it for me for now. 1 hour to switch OS, not a good
thing.

It won't run my TV, and my TV has no forecast for ever porting it to linux, or
apple.

But it did make me a stronger believer in HP. Ubuntu did something. Something
it claimed it WOULDN'T do [modify my boot system].
HP saw something was up, gave me 2 options
1 boot repair
2 boot normal

I went with 2. If that works, don't need 1..
It didn't work.
boot with repair.
more than an hour to repair and reboot. + a 2nd boot to make updated changes.
I don't think I have any more room for plusses for HP. They sent me a FREE
replacement for an ALL-IN-ONE that I more or less threw from 4 ft. Even with me
telling them that's what happened. It was still under warranty far as they were
concerned. Their chat, they seem to actually have tech's that know something. I
haven't found even one tech at windows yet that knows anything.
one whole day on 1 program. And that was the FREE help. Oh yeah I'll pay
$40.00+ for that level of expertise in the future.

Not really a day I care to repeat EVERY day, just to use the linux OS.
As for the un installation of Linux ubuntu. Took no time at all to remove it
from the DVD tray. Removing whatever it did, that it said it wasn't going to,
more than an hour.
--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
 
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:12:03 -0400, Hobbes wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eZ0qGO3xIHA.5472@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> "Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:6Y%1k.9365$C12.12@pd7urf3no...
>>>>
>>>>> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
>>>>> news:g29vt5$gbm$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Canuck57 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Hobbes" <Hobbes@Calvins.lol> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:g29s5m$3g5$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Charlie Tame wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Back in the good old days it was always the manufacturer's fault
>>>>>>>>> that "Drivers" didn't work or could not be installed... ie most
>>>>>>>>> problems were somebody else's fault not Vista's - now however
>>>>>>>>> all problems are Ubuntu's fault.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regardless of fault, the ease or speed of an install of Vista,
>>>>>>>> XP, or ubuntu will have a lot to do with the hardware the OS is
>>>>>>>> being installed on, and the familiarity of the user with the OS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alias' original statement will not be correct for many users...me
>>>>>>>> being the only one I can speak for , and the only one I am
>>>>>>>> concerned with.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure about that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I gave you (or I) a full version of Vista Ultimate, full
>>>>>>> version of XP or a full (and only) version of Ubuntu, there is no
>>>>>>> difference at all on what it takes to install it. Absolutely
>>>>>>> none.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Users who get "bundled" Vista jammed up their butts have the
>>>>>>> driver integration done for them. That is it. If I install Vista
>>>>>>> crapware on a new PC with a new chipset, I have to go out and
>>>>>>> install chipset drivers post basic install. How the hell does
>>>>>>> that differ in installing drivers for a video card in Ubuntu to
>>>>>>> get Compiz?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hint, no freaking difference at all. In fact, I might say Ubuntu
>>>>>>> native install comes with fewer driver issues on 1-8 year old
>>>>>>> hardware than does Vista crapware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OEM is what this assertion is made, nothing else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't get angry.
>>>>>> Ubuntu does not work with MY hardware. Period.
>>>>>> I have no ax to grind, it simply didn't meet my expectations.
>>>>>> Period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You ubuntu/linux fans are assigning attributes to your preferred OS
>>>>>> that simply don't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ubuntu and Fedora worked with mine right off. Just had to load a
>>>>> driver for Compiz.
>>>>>
>>>>> Axe to grind, probably. I hate getting stiffed on a commodity OS
>>>>> like Vista crapware and not a slot boy. Vendors should just say
>>>>> here is the hardware, OS extra. Let Microsoft sell on it's own
>>>>> merits instead of the Microsoft tax of today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't give me that feltercarb of XP, Linux and no OS PCs, home users
>>>>> don't go to over priced and low feature Dell PCs for solutions. Does
>>>>> not sell here.
>>>>>
>>>>> My next home PC will either be an Apple or a Eee PC (Linux). I am
>>>>> done messing with Vista. My XP machine even got a reprieve... I
>>>>> usually delegate the old PCs to Linux or Solaris x86 and run real
>>>>> applications and backup/storage on them. Most alternative OSes run
>>>>> quite well on older equipment (user bias aside).
>>>>>
>>>> What 'real' applications? A word processor is a 'real' application..
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Apache/tomcat. web mail, mail (IMAP), postgresql, mysql, firewall,
>>> IPSec, and a whole bunch of others that run very stable on UNIX/Linux.
>> I know. I am not saying it is real easy but as you know more than half
>> the internet runs on Linux and Apache server. Not a whole lot of sites
>> use Windows Server and MS Internet Server outside of some Corporate
>> sites married to MS.
>>> I didn't even get to IPSec on Vista, does it even work with non-MS
>>> IPSec machines yet? XP, it was broken on the send, get the IPSec
>>> receive working though. But half a connection in TCP/IP is useless.
>>>
>>>
>>>
> Why wouldn't half the internet run on linux servers ? Servers need bare
> bones, no fun OS's ... that's Linux's niche. Try ubuntu's GNUchess to
> see what a barebones, free OS provides ! Then try installing ubuntu
> drivers .... what a joke !

Try Vista's Chess! Err...wait...you can't, it doesn't come with one.

--
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‚‰
 
Back
Top