Alias wrote:

 

 

> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> --

 

>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>

 

>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>

 

>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>

 

>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>

 

>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs

 

>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>

 

>>> --

 

>>> Alias

 

>>

 

>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>> anytime soon.

 

>

 

> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine, chum.\

 

>

 

 

 

No it ain't, ubuntard.

 

Linux growth isn't on the consumer end.

 

Sorry, nobody but your drug-dealing buddies want it.

 

 

 

 

>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>> Take more drugs.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>

 

 

 

It's buried in the Dell website...and if you select one, a warning that

 

"This isn't Windows...beware".

 

Yeah, Dell is really pushing 'em.

 

They yanked them from cataloges long ago...maybe a 3 month stay.

 

Really popular.

 

Lots of returns...businesses luv that.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Alias wrote:

 

 

> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> --

 

>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>

 

>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>

 

>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>

 

>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>

 

>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs

 

>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>

 

>>> --

 

>>> Alias

 

>>

 

>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>> anytime soon.

 

>

 

> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine, chum.\

 

>

 

 

 

No it ain't, ubuntard.

 

Linux growth isn't on the consumer end.

 

Sorry, nobody but your drug-dealing buddies want it.

 

 

 

 

>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>> Take more drugs.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>

 

 

 

It's buried in the Dell website...and if you select one, a warning that

 

"This isn't Windows...beware".

 

Yeah, Dell is really pushing 'em.

 

They yanked them from cataloges long ago...maybe a 3 month stay.

 

Really popular.

 

Lots of returns...businesses luv that.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Alias wrote:

 

 

> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files

 

>>>>>>>>> disk

 

>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

 

>>>>>>>> to run

 

>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs

 

>>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> --

 

>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>

 

>>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

>>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>>>> anytime soon.

 

>>>

 

>>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

 

>>> chum.\

 

>>>

 

>>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>>>> Take more drugs.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

>>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>>>

 

>>> --

 

>>> Alias

 

>>

 

>> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

 

>> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Over 12 million

 

> happy users says you're full of shit. How many NEW Windows users have

 

> bought Windows 7 without it being preinstalled on a computer? Two?

 

>

 

 

 

How many NEW ubuntu users?

 

No idea.

 

It's the same 10,000 ppl downloading it over, and over, and over.

 

Giving it to a friend, whom as soon as you leave they shitcan it.

 

 

 

Two retail 7's live in this house.

 

That's 2 ... purchased by a consumer, you know, people who pay for

 

goods, not barter for a bowl.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Alias wrote:

 

 

> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files

 

>>>>>>>>> disk

 

>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

 

>>>>>>>> to run

 

>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs

 

>>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> --

 

>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>

 

>>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

>>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>>>> anytime soon.

 

>>>

 

>>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

 

>>> chum.\

 

>>>

 

>>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>>>> Take more drugs.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

>>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>>>

 

>>> --

 

>>> Alias

 

>>

 

>> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

 

>> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Over 12 million

 

> happy users says you're full of shit. How many NEW Windows users have

 

> bought Windows 7 without it being preinstalled on a computer? Two?

 

>

 

 

 

How many NEW ubuntu users?

 

No idea.

 

It's the same 10,000 ppl downloading it over, and over, and over.

 

Giving it to a friend, whom as soon as you leave they shitcan it.

 

 

 

Two retail 7's live in this house.

 

That's 2 ... purchased by a consumer, you know, people who pay for

 

goods, not barter for a bowl.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Alias wrote:

 

 

> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>> news:hub77o$l4q$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files

 

>>>>>>>>>>> disk

 

>>>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and

 

>>>>>>>>>>> they all

 

>>>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

 

>>>>>>>>>> to run

 

>>>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone

 

>>>>>>>> ditch

 

>>>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying

 

>>>>>>>> files may

 

>>>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>>>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>>>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns

 

>>>>>>> CDs

 

>>>>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>>>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

>>>>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>>>>>> anytime soon.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

 

>>>>> chum.\

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>>>>>> Take more drugs.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

>>>>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> --

 

>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>

 

>>>> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

 

>>>> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Over 12 million

 

>>> happy users says you're full of shit. How many NEW Windows users have

 

>>> bought Windows 7 without it being preinstalled on a computer? Two?

 

>>>

 

>>> --

 

>>> Alias

 

>>

 

>> There you go again with that magical 12 million users. You have no way

 

>> of knowing how many saps use that shitty OS. Just because 12 million

 

>> were unfortunate to download that dribble, doesn't mean 12 million are

 

>> stuck using that OS. That is your big lie.

 

>

 

> Wrong. The figure is based on updates, not ISO downloads.

 

>

 

 

 

So when you are sniffing off of someones wireless, you became two users.

 

 

>>

 

>> I know lots of people who purchased Windows 7 without it being

 

>> preinstalled. So If know quite a few, then there are millions of others.

 

>> Oops.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> Note I wrote, and I quote, "NEW Windows users". How many NEW Windows

 

> users are there that didn't buy Windows with it preinstalled? Two? None?

 

>

 

 

 

52,000,963 ... exactly.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Alias wrote:

 

 

> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>> news:hub77o$l4q$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files

 

>>>>>>>>>>> disk

 

>>>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and

 

>>>>>>>>>>> they all

 

>>>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

 

>>>>>>>>>> to run

 

>>>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone

 

>>>>>>>> ditch

 

>>>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying

 

>>>>>>>> files may

 

>>>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>>>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>>>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns

 

>>>>>>> CDs

 

>>>>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>>>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

>>>>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>>>>>> anytime soon.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

 

>>>>> chum.\

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>>>>>> Take more drugs.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

>>>>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> --

 

>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>

 

>>>> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

 

>>>> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Over 12 million

 

>>> happy users says you're full of shit. How many NEW Windows users have

 

>>> bought Windows 7 without it being preinstalled on a computer? Two?

 

>>>

 

>>> --

 

>>> Alias

 

>>

 

>> There you go again with that magical 12 million users. You have no way

 

>> of knowing how many saps use that shitty OS. Just because 12 million

 

>> were unfortunate to download that dribble, doesn't mean 12 million are

 

>> stuck using that OS. That is your big lie.

 

>

 

> Wrong. The figure is based on updates, not ISO downloads.

 

>

 

 

 

So when you are sniffing off of someones wireless, you became two users.

 

 

>>

 

>> I know lots of people who purchased Windows 7 without it being

 

>> preinstalled. So If know quite a few, then there are millions of others.

 

>> Oops.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> Note I wrote, and I quote, "NEW Windows users". How many NEW Windows

 

> users are there that didn't buy Windows with it preinstalled? Two? None?

 

>

 

 

 

52,000,963 ... exactly.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Alias wrote:

 

 

> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>> news:hubaau$2kh$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>> news:hub77o$l4q$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15,000

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> files

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> disk

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> they all

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> to run

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone

 

>>>>>>>>>> ditch

 

>>>>>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying

 

>>>>>>>>>> files may

 

>>>>>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with

 

>>>>>>>>> Linux.

 

>>>>>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot

 

>>>>>>>>> time

 

>>>>>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>>>>>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>>>>>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns

 

>>>>>>>>> CDs

 

>>>>>>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>>>>>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and

 

>>>>>>>> moving

 

>>>>>>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>>>>>>>> anytime soon.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

 

>>>>>>> chum.\

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>>>>>>>> Take more drugs.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

>>>>>>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

 

>>>>>> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Over 12 million

 

>>>>> happy users says you're full of shit. How many NEW Windows users have

 

>>>>> bought Windows 7 without it being preinstalled on a computer? Two?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> --

 

>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>

 

>>>> There you go again with that magical 12 million users. You have no way

 

>>>> of knowing how many saps use that shitty OS. Just because 12 million

 

>>>> were unfortunate to download that dribble, doesn't mean 12 million are

 

>>>> stuck using that OS. That is your big lie.

 

>>>

 

>>> Wrong. The figure is based on updates, not ISO downloads.

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> I know lots of people who purchased Windows 7 without it being

 

>>>> preinstalled. So If know quite a few, then there are millions of others.

 

>>>> Oops.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Note I wrote, and I quote, "NEW Windows users". How many NEW Windows

 

>>> users are there that didn't buy Windows with it preinstalled? Two? None?

 

>>>

 

>>> --

 

>>> Alias

 

>>

 

>> Does it really matter?

 

>

 

> Of course it does. You're just too stupid to understand it.

 

>

 

 

 

Unless that is published, who would know?

 

Win7 DVDs disappear from the shelves...someone's buying them.

 

I got 2.

 

 

>>What matters is that Windows 7 is selling

 

>> millions and millions of copies.

 

>

 

> Not a whole lot of copies to people who've never used Windows. Ubuntu,

 

> OTOH, is being used by former Windows users. See the trend?

 

>

 

 

 

So, no one using Debian migrated to ubuntu?

 

Pretty bold, dumbass statement.

 

How many ubuntards dual boot?

 

That keeps them as Windows users...so MS lost nothing, except phone

 

calls from dumbasses that corrupted the mbr.

 

 

>> Ubuntu is free yet most reject it.

 

>

 

> A lie.

 

>

 

 

 

I reject it.

 

I bet a million bucks ubuntu will never be on a PC I can get my hands

 

on.

 

 

>> Ubuntu is on less than one percent of the desktops.

 

>

 

> Yet there are millions and millions of new desktops so the real number

 

> is different than you would like to mislead people to believe.

 

>

 

 

 

Millions of old desktops destined for the dump.

 

Ubuntards can have that distinction.

 

 

 

 

>> It doesn't matter

 

>> how many updates there are, the fact of the matter is, Ubuntu can't even

 

>> give itself away. Nothing else really matters in your quest as the

 

>> Ubuntu Marketing Department.

 

>

 

> Another lie.

 

>

 

 

 

Do you know what a lie is?

 

 

>>

 

>> They (Ubuntu wanks) get what they pay for! LOL!

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> Do you really think your lies are funny?

 

>

 

 

 

Seems to match reality.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

Alias wrote:

 

 

> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>> news:hubaau$2kh$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>> news:hub77o$l4q$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15,000

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> files

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> disk

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> they all

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> to run

 

>>>>>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone

 

>>>>>>>>>> ditch

 

>>>>>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying

 

>>>>>>>>>> files may

 

>>>>>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with

 

>>>>>>>>> Linux.

 

>>>>>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot

 

>>>>>>>>> time

 

>>>>>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>>>>>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>>>>>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns

 

>>>>>>>>> CDs

 

>>>>>>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>>>>>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and

 

>>>>>>>> moving

 

>>>>>>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>>>>>>>> anytime soon.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

 

>>>>>>> chum.\

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>>>>>>>> Take more drugs.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

>>>>>>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

 

>>>>>> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Over 12 million

 

>>>>> happy users says you're full of shit. How many NEW Windows users have

 

>>>>> bought Windows 7 without it being preinstalled on a computer? Two?

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> --

 

>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>

 

>>>> There you go again with that magical 12 million users. You have no way

 

>>>> of knowing how many saps use that shitty OS. Just because 12 million

 

>>>> were unfortunate to download that dribble, doesn't mean 12 million are

 

>>>> stuck using that OS. That is your big lie.

 

>>>

 

>>> Wrong. The figure is based on updates, not ISO downloads.

 

>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> I know lots of people who purchased Windows 7 without it being

 

>>>> preinstalled. So If know quite a few, then there are millions of others.

 

>>>> Oops.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> Note I wrote, and I quote, "NEW Windows users". How many NEW Windows

 

>>> users are there that didn't buy Windows with it preinstalled? Two? None?

 

>>>

 

>>> --

 

>>> Alias

 

>>

 

>> Does it really matter?

 

>

 

> Of course it does. You're just too stupid to understand it.

 

>

 

 

 

Unless that is published, who would know?

 

Win7 DVDs disappear from the shelves...someone's buying them.

 

I got 2.

 

 

>>What matters is that Windows 7 is selling

 

>> millions and millions of copies.

 

>

 

> Not a whole lot of copies to people who've never used Windows. Ubuntu,

 

> OTOH, is being used by former Windows users. See the trend?

 

>

 

 

 

So, no one using Debian migrated to ubuntu?

 

Pretty bold, dumbass statement.

 

How many ubuntards dual boot?

 

That keeps them as Windows users...so MS lost nothing, except phone

 

calls from dumbasses that corrupted the mbr.

 

 

>> Ubuntu is free yet most reject it.

 

>

 

> A lie.

 

>

 

 

 

I reject it.

 

I bet a million bucks ubuntu will never be on a PC I can get my hands

 

on.

 

 

>> Ubuntu is on less than one percent of the desktops.

 

>

 

> Yet there are millions and millions of new desktops so the real number

 

> is different than you would like to mislead people to believe.

 

>

 

 

 

Millions of old desktops destined for the dump.

 

Ubuntards can have that distinction.

 

 

 

 

>> It doesn't matter

 

>> how many updates there are, the fact of the matter is, Ubuntu can't even

 

>> give itself away. Nothing else really matters in your quest as the

 

>> Ubuntu Marketing Department.

 

>

 

> Another lie.

 

>

 

 

 

Do you know what a lie is?

 

 

>>

 

>> They (Ubuntu wanks) get what they pay for! LOL!

 

>>

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

> Do you really think your lies are funny?

 

>

 

 

 

Seems to match reality.

 

 

 

--

 

Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,

 

Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

On 03/06/2010 9:15 AM, Thomas wrote:

 

> I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or access to

 

> the read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64 bit

 

> machine. I have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor. I

 

> don't understand a whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I

 

> have seen seem to be missing or just not available. The drives are both

 

> 7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary) and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a

 

> method of speeding up the access/read/write of these drives?

 

 

 

I have spent many hours trying to improve it, to no avail. But if

 

running Linux or Solaris in a VM or native out of another partition it

 

copies much faster, go figure. Seems like Win7/Vista is just hog slow

 

at file copy.

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 03/06/2010 9:15 AM, Thomas wrote:

 

> I read in another post something about speeding up hard drives, or access to

 

> the read write cycles. I have 2 drives installed on My Windows 7 64 bit

 

> machine. I have a Gigabyte MB with a dual core Intel 3 gig processor. I

 

> don't understand a whole lot about IEDE modes and some of the settings I

 

> have seen seem to be missing or just not available. The drives are both

 

> 7200 RPM, one is a 500 Gig (Primary) and the other is a 1 TB. Is there a

 

> method of speeding up the access/read/write of these drives?

 

 

 

I have spent many hours trying to improve it, to no avail. But if

 

running Linux or Solaris in a VM or native out of another partition it

 

copies much faster, go figure. Seems like Win7/Vista is just hog slow

 

at file copy.

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 7:16 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:05:45 -0600, Canuck57

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>> Thomas

 

>>>

 

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

 

>> disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>

 

>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>

 

>

 

> I tried this with a 2.66 processor Dual core (4 processors) chip, 4

 

> gig memory. Fedora 12 and Gnome 2.28.2.

 

>

 

> Copying a 1,569,816 byte file from file to file on the same disk and

 

> in the same partition took 13.12 seconds with Linux and 30.91 with

 

> Windows 7 - hand timed.

 

>

 

> Not quite 3 times but close enough.

 

>

 

> .

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Not much different than mine but my file sizes were 4.7 to 5.2 gb.

 

 

 

I also tried in Virtual Box and with the OS in another partition.

 

Surprisingly in Virtual Box the Linux and Solaris were also still much

 

faster than the host. I am sure the issue in in the OS ocpy functions,

 

maybe a brain dead QOS??

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 7:16 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

 

> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:05:45 -0600, Canuck57

 

> wrote:

 

>

 

>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>> Thomas

 

>>>

 

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk to

 

>> disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>

 

>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>

 

>

 

> I tried this with a 2.66 processor Dual core (4 processors) chip, 4

 

> gig memory. Fedora 12 and Gnome 2.28.2.

 

>

 

> Copying a 1,569,816 byte file from file to file on the same disk and

 

> in the same partition took 13.12 seconds with Linux and 30.91 with

 

> Windows 7 - hand timed.

 

>

 

> Not quite 3 times but close enough.

 

>

 

> .

 

> John B. Slocomb

 

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

 

 

Not much different than mine but my file sizes were 4.7 to 5.2 gb.

 

 

 

I also tried in Virtual Box and with the OS in another partition.

 

Surprisingly in Virtual Box the Linux and Solaris were also still much

 

faster than the host. I am sure the issue in in the OS ocpy functions,

 

maybe a brain dead QOS??

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 11:58 AM, Leythos wrote:

 

> In article,

 

> johnbslocomb@invalid.com says...

 

>> I tried this with a 2.66 processor Dual core (4 processors) chip, 4

 

>> gig memory. Fedora 12 and Gnome 2.28.2.

 

>>

 

>> Copying a 1,569,816 byte file from file to file on the same disk and

 

>> in the same partition took 13.12 seconds with Linux and 30.91 with

 

>> Windows 7 - hand timed.

 

>>

 

>

 

> First, to ensure that you're actually testing the difference in each OS

 

> and File structure, you must ensure that the drives are not going to

 

> fragment the test files used.

 

 

 

This should not make any difference unless you deliberatly run the tests

 

over a defrag period I did not run copy while defraging. In fact I

 

quit about as much as I could, unloading gtalk etc.

 

 

> Second, you should do this under as close to the same conditions as

 

> possible for each OS - meaning that you either don't use Antivirus and

 

> other scanners during the test or you use the same vendors AV/Scanners

 

> on both platforms.

 

 

 

Agreed, but it isn't as hard to do as you think. When I did my run, AV

 

was not running because it wasn't even or ever installed. I didn't even

 

own it when I ran my tests. But do grant, Vista gets slower with AV a

 

running.

 

 

> When testing with Windows, don't drag/drop the file using Explorer, use

 

> RoboCopy and it will provide the actual timing values for you.

 

 

 

Funny, this is unfair. I bet I could write a large file copy program

 

for Linux and UNIX that would be even 10 tiems faster. Go direct disk

 

to DMA...

 

 

 

It is fair to use CMD.EXE copy and File Explorer. Even tried pscp on

 

the network comparing it to OpenSSH scp. Even tinkered with the

 

compression, Vista was hopeless slowwww..

 

 

 

I also noticed push/pull speeds different. 2 Vista boxen. Push being

 

copy to the other share, pull being getting from the remote share. They

 

were not similar in times and also slow like a slug. The network

 

analizer showed neiter system used more than 25% of the available bandwidth.

 

 

 

I briefly upgraded to Win7, didn't rerun all the tests but the ones I

 

ran showed no difference with vista.

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 11:58 AM, Leythos wrote:

 

> In article,

 

> johnbslocomb@invalid.com says...

 

>> I tried this with a 2.66 processor Dual core (4 processors) chip, 4

 

>> gig memory. Fedora 12 and Gnome 2.28.2.

 

>>

 

>> Copying a 1,569,816 byte file from file to file on the same disk and

 

>> in the same partition took 13.12 seconds with Linux and 30.91 with

 

>> Windows 7 - hand timed.

 

>>

 

>

 

> First, to ensure that you're actually testing the difference in each OS

 

> and File structure, you must ensure that the drives are not going to

 

> fragment the test files used.

 

 

 

This should not make any difference unless you deliberatly run the tests

 

over a defrag period I did not run copy while defraging. In fact I

 

quit about as much as I could, unloading gtalk etc.

 

 

> Second, you should do this under as close to the same conditions as

 

> possible for each OS - meaning that you either don't use Antivirus and

 

> other scanners during the test or you use the same vendors AV/Scanners

 

> on both platforms.

 

 

 

Agreed, but it isn't as hard to do as you think. When I did my run, AV

 

was not running because it wasn't even or ever installed. I didn't even

 

own it when I ran my tests. But do grant, Vista gets slower with AV a

 

running.

 

 

> When testing with Windows, don't drag/drop the file using Explorer, use

 

> RoboCopy and it will provide the actual timing values for you.

 

 

 

Funny, this is unfair. I bet I could write a large file copy program

 

for Linux and UNIX that would be even 10 tiems faster. Go direct disk

 

to DMA...

 

 

 

It is fair to use CMD.EXE copy and File Explorer. Even tried pscp on

 

the network comparing it to OpenSSH scp. Even tinkered with the

 

compression, Vista was hopeless slowwww..

 

 

 

I also noticed push/pull speeds different. 2 Vista boxen. Push being

 

copy to the other share, pull being getting from the remote share. They

 

were not similar in times and also slow like a slug. The network

 

analizer showed neiter system used more than 25% of the available bandwidth.

 

 

 

I briefly upgraded to Win7, didn't rerun all the tests but the ones I

 

ran showed no difference with vista.

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>> Thomas

 

>>>

 

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>

 

>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>

 

> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

 

 

I use Linux and Solaris as my servers as they are rock solid and faster

 

as servers even though they use slightly older hardware. Give me no

 

troubles either.

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 8:35 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>> Thomas

 

>>>

 

>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>

 

>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>

 

> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

 

 

I use Linux and Solaris as my servers as they are rock solid and faster

 

as servers even though they use slightly older hardware. Give me no

 

troubles either.

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 9:31 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>

 

>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Alias

 

>

 

> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

> Windows and move to Linux? I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

 

 

Bundling and for large business, lobster dinners and closed minds.

 

Makes the boss feel good that the screens look similar.

 

 

 

But in large business, I have installed a lot of UNIX and Linux over the

 

years. I couldn't for the life of me tell you how many. I know I have

 

installed almost 80 in one day. A DR rcovery excercise and netbooted

 

them all into recovery. Actually had to slow down at times as he NFS

 

server was 100%. A combination of AIX makesysb and Solaris.

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 9:31 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard drive

 

>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000 RPM or

 

>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>

 

>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Alias

 

>

 

> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

> Windows and move to Linux? I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

 

 

Bundling and for large business, lobster dinners and closed minds.

 

Makes the boss feel good that the screens look similar.

 

 

 

But in large business, I have installed a lot of UNIX and Linux over the

 

years. I couldn't for the life of me tell you how many. I know I have

 

installed almost 80 in one day. A DR rcovery excercise and netbooted

 

them all into recovery. Actually had to slow down at times as he NFS

 

server was 100%. A combination of AIX makesysb and Solaris.

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 9:40 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> --

 

>>>> Alias

 

>>>

 

>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>

 

>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>

 

>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>

 

>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs

 

>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Alias

 

>

 

> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

> anytime soon. Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

> Take more drugs.

 

 

 

Many are ditching MS Windows for OSX and iPads.

 

 

 

There was a time MS only had a 12% market share.

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 9:40 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files disk

 

>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want to run

 

>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> --

 

>>>> Alias

 

>>>

 

>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>

 

>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>

 

>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>

 

>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs

 

>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Alias

 

>

 

> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

> anytime soon. Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

> Take more drugs.

 

 

 

Many are ditching MS Windows for OSX and iPads.

 

 

 

There was a time MS only had a 12% market share.

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 9:45 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files

 

>>>>>>>> disk

 

>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

 

>>>>>>> to run

 

>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs

 

>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> --

 

>>>> Alias

 

>>>

 

>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>>> anytime soon.

 

>>

 

>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

 

>> chum.\

 

>>

 

>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>>> Take more drugs.

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Alias

 

>

 

> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

 

> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

 

 

 

You means MS Windows is bundled with millions. Microsoft actually sells

 

very few copies of the OS, it is vendor bundled.

 

 

 

We are moving into a new age of appliances, Microsoft is going to get

 

creamed.

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 9:45 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files

 

>>>>>>>> disk

 

>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and they all

 

>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

 

>>>>>>> to run

 

>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone ditch

 

>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying files may

 

>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns CDs

 

>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> --

 

>>>> Alias

 

>>>

 

>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>>> anytime soon.

 

>>

 

>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

 

>> chum.\

 

>>

 

>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>>> Take more drugs.

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Alias

 

>

 

> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

 

> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

 

 

 

You means MS Windows is bundled with millions. Microsoft actually sells

 

very few copies of the OS, it is vendor bundled.

 

 

 

We are moving into a new age of appliances, Microsoft is going to get

 

creamed.

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 10:37 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hub77o$l4q$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files

 

>>>>>>>>>> disk

 

>>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and

 

>>>>>>>>>> they all

 

>>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

 

>>>>>>>>> to run

 

>>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone

 

>>>>>>> ditch

 

>>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying

 

>>>>>>> files may

 

>>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns

 

>>>>>> CDs

 

>>>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

>>>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>>>>> anytime soon.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

 

>>>> chum.\

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>>>>> Take more drugs.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

>>>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> --

 

>>>> Alias

 

>>>

 

>>> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

 

>>> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Over 12 million

 

>> happy users says you're full of shit. How many NEW Windows users have

 

>> bought Windows 7 without it being preinstalled on a computer? Two?

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Alias

 

>

 

> There you go again with that magical 12 million users. You have no way

 

> of knowing how many saps use that shitty OS. Just because 12 million

 

> were unfortunate to download that dribble, doesn't mean 12 million are

 

> stuck using that OS. That is your big lie.

 

>

 

> I know lots of people who purchased Windows 7 without it being

 

> preinstalled. So If know quite a few, then there are millions of others.

 

> Oops.

 

 

 

Funny, while I know of very few. You can even go to Best Buy locally

 

and see the dust ont he "Ultimate" and Business editions.

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 10:37 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hub77o$l4q$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>> news:hub6tf$j6j$4@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>> news:hub6ml$j6j$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>> Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>> news:hub63o$gkk$2@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2010 04:35 PM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> "Canuck57" wrote in message

 

>>>>>>>>> news:KjYNn.39687$Ak3.26286@newsfe16.iad...

 

>>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2010 1:19 PM, Peter Foldes wrote:

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Thomas

 

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>> Doing that is playing with fire. Leave it be. Of you want a hard

 

>>>>>>>>>>> drive

 

>>>>>>>>>>> that is fast then next time purchase one that can run at 15,000

 

>>>>>>>>>>> RPM or

 

>>>>>>>>>>> plus. Costly but extremely fast

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Actually, Vista/Win7 is the slowest OSes out there to copy files

 

>>>>>>>>>> disk

 

>>>>>>>>>> to disk or disk to net or net to disk.

 

>>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>> Run Solaris, Linux (any version), Open/Free or Net-BSD and

 

>>>>>>>>>> they all

 

>>>>>>>>>> consistantly run 3 to 10 times faster than Vista/Win7 for copy

 

>>>>>>>>>> operations, especially on large files such as 4gb media files.

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>> If you already have Windows 7 or Vista, who the hell would want

 

>>>>>>>>> to run

 

>>>>>>>>> that crappy Linux just to copy files? LOL!

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> It's just another example of how Linux is superior to Windows but

 

>>>>>>>> you're too fucking stupid to see that.

 

>>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> So if Linux is so superior to Windows then why doesn't everyone

 

>>>>>>> ditch

 

>>>>>>> Windows and move to Linux?

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> Because most people believe the FUD. You're a prime example.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>>> I'll tell you why. You are lying again. Linux

 

>>>>>>> is NOT superior and never will be superior. Granted, copying

 

>>>>>>> files may

 

>>>>>>> be faster but that isn't why people use their computers. Ooooops.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> It's one of the reasons and, unlike Windows, Linux tells you the

 

>>>>>> transfer speed. Another is surfing the web which is safer with Linux.

 

>>>>>> Yet another is email which is safer with Linux. Another is boot time

 

>>>>>> which is much quicker with Linux. Another is cost which is far less

 

>>>>>> with Linux. Another is the fact that you can have multiple desktops

 

>>>>>> with Linux and you can't with Windows. Another is that Linux burns

 

>>>>>> CDs

 

>>>>>> and DVDs much quicker and better than Windows. About the only thing

 

>>>>>> Windows has going for it is using it for gaming.

 

>>>>>>

 

>>>>>> --

 

>>>>>> Alias

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>> If that's the case, then everyone would be ditching Windows and moving

 

>>>>> to Linux. Guess what hotshit? It isn't happening and will not happen

 

>>>>> anytime soon.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Oh, yes it is. You don't like it but that's your red wagon, not mine,

 

>>>> chum.\

 

>>>>

 

>>>>> Get over it. Find something else to do with your time.

 

>>>>> Take more drugs.

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>>

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Three years ago, no Ubuntu anywhere. Now it's in the stores and on

 

>>>> Dell's web site. You're wrong, plain and simple.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> --

 

>>>> Alias

 

>>>

 

>>> BFD. Very few people use Ubuntu. Windows 7 is selling millions while

 

>>> Ubuntu can't even give itself away! LOL!

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Over 12 million

 

>> happy users says you're full of shit. How many NEW Windows users have

 

>> bought Windows 7 without it being preinstalled on a computer? Two?

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Alias

 

>

 

> There you go again with that magical 12 million users. You have no way

 

> of knowing how many saps use that shitty OS. Just because 12 million

 

> were unfortunate to download that dribble, doesn't mean 12 million are

 

> stuck using that OS. That is your big lie.

 

>

 

> I know lots of people who purchased Windows 7 without it being

 

> preinstalled. So If know quite a few, then there are millions of others.

 

> Oops.

 

 

 

Funny, while I know of very few. You can even go to Best Buy locally

 

and see the dust ont he "Ultimate" and Business editions.

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.

On 04/06/2010 11:44 AM, Epsom F. Shagnasty wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> "Alias" wrote in message

 

> news:hubdjh$gna$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>>> Does it really matter?

 

>>

 

>> Of course it does. You're just too stupid to understand it.

 

>>

 

>>> What matters is that Windows 7 is selling

 

>>> millions and millions of copies.

 

>>

 

>> Not a whole lot of copies to people who've never used Windows. Ubuntu,

 

>> OTOH, is being used by former Windows users. See the trend?

 

>>

 

>>> Ubuntu is free yet most reject it.

 

>>

 

>> A lie.

 

>>

 

>>> Ubuntu is on less than one percent of the desktops.

 

>>

 

>> Yet there are millions and millions of new desktops so the real number

 

>> is different than you would like to mislead people to believe.

 

>>

 

>>> It doesn't matter

 

>>> how many updates there are, the fact of the matter is, Ubuntu can't even

 

>>> give itself away. Nothing else really matters in your quest as the

 

>>> Ubuntu Marketing Department.

 

>>

 

>> Another lie.

 

>>

 

>>>

 

>>> They (Ubuntu wanks) get what they pay for! LOL!

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>>

 

>>

 

>> Do you really think your lies are funny?

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Alias

 

>

 

> First of all, the statements are not lies. Second of all, they pay

 

> nothing for the software and what they use is worth exactly that: NOTHING.

 

>

 

> No magic there.

 

 

 

Yes they are. They were bundled sales, not sales of the product itself.

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

This depression is about liberal magots running debt liberally.