In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

says...

> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

> machine.

>

> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

 

Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

 

A windows 2003/2008 terminal server can eliminate the issues with any

computer except in certain situations - Thin Client Terminals are about

$250 each.

 

--

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:22:57 -0400, the <the@the.com> wrote:

>

>> How many decades was IBM the top dog? Did the government step in then?

>> What happened to IBM was micro computer systems, client servers, and

>> personal computers. There was a technology change that took IBM down.

> Not sure where you're getting 'take IBM down'. They're far from down.

 

IBM doesn't control Information Technology as it once did for decades

once other players like MS, Apple, Dec, PDP, Altos and other such

vendors started using different technology for IT business solutions,

other than, mainframe technology -- IBM's bread and butter. The

technology that's being mentioned above, IBM missed the boat and ignored

it when they were right there to control it, in the 70's.

 

IBM viewed the technology as toy technology, didn't keep pace with it,

came very late to the table, and it was too late for IBM to maintain

dominance. I started in that era of IBM dominance and saw what was

happening, what eventually happened and knew that IBM mainframe

technology was going have its nitch market. But IBM would no longer have

world dominance with pc(s) micro computer systems or client servers,

like it once had with the mainframes, because they let the boat sale

right past them.

 

> The only reason you don't hear about IBM OS, and windows OS in the same breath,

> an IBM OS runs about $8000.00 compared to an entire machine with windows

> installed and other software for under $500.00

 

IBM missed the boat, and IBM doesn't have the absolute dominance in

vendor software or equipment distribution, the absolute dominance it

once had in the industry. Anyone starting in or came through the IBM

dominance era knows this. IBM missed the boat.

> A company that's 'down' wouldn't be trying to sell anything for $8000.00 a pop

> to remain in competition. They're so far past competing, the IBM name has much

> more credibility than windows. Windows is the blue collar OS for every one with

> a paycheck. ie: the Hula Hoop of the 50's is windows now.

 

IBM let the absolute dominance it once had slip away, when IBM

management failed to recognize the technological change that was taking

place. If IBM could have recognized what was going on and not just blow

the technology off, you would be talking about IBM not Microsoft.

>

>> It's not happening and all the players are doing the same thing with the

>> technology at hand. So MS is going to remain the top dog, until

>> technology changes to something else.

>

> Or the gov't brings in standards the same way they have with usage of other

> PUBLIC utilities.

 

It has not happened by now, then it's not going to happen, no matter how

much you wish for it. Too many people are riding the MS cash cow, and

they know what side the bread is buttered on

> ie: 110 60 cycle electric. You can plug your travel clock in to an outlet in

> Dollywood, Tennessee, as easily as you can in Sturgis, South Dakota.

 

But it took a technological change for that to happen, because before

that, they were burning wood in stoves and oil lamps, before Edison,

Westinghouse and Tesla stated changing technology.

> Standards.. There is no gov't. intervention with setting standards [yet] on

> computers. When they do, there'll probably be a huge software explosion to

> match the windows anomaly we've been stuck with since win 98.

 

I don't know where you're coming up with that when gasoline is setting

at $5.00 a gallon. You know there are lobbyist, right?

> ie: every machine produced, must come with a built in hard coded VIRUS

> preventive OS like the CBM 64-128, or amiga's had. And capable of interacting

> with ALL other machines built.

 

What happened to them? And programs running on machines do communicate

with other programs running on other machines through the use of XML and

across platforms. And government is not going to start dictating to

the private business sector, man comon.

> As it was before 98, and still is. If a company wanted to make some money,

> there was enough wrong.. scratch that.. different with their machines to FORCE

> you to buy ONLY from them. Even radio shack couldn't keep up with all the

> differences in the different machines being produced.

> So they made their own machines and OS. But I don't think you can get a TRS-80

> today. You definitely can't get software for them anymore.

 

Business is business, and only the strongest survive. If IBM would have

done what it should have done at the moment IBM had absolute dominance,

IBM would have choked out everything, and it would all be mostly IBM blue.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

> says...

>> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

>> machine.

>>

>> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>

> Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

 

Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I have

Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP is so-so and

Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker jack

box or is Frank your consultant?

 

Alias

Alias wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>

>

>>In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>>says...

>>

>>>Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>>>replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

>>>machine.

>>>

>>>So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>>

>>Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>

>

> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista.

 

Liar!

 

I have

> Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

> video card.

 

Good for surfing the web and email. Which is all you know how to do.

 

Vista would not even crawl on this machine.

 

XP is so-so and

> Ubuntu flies.

 

Surfing the web and doing email.

 

Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker jack

> box or is Frank your consultant?

 

Oh I do own your pathetically weak ass little man. I bet that irritates

the hell out of you.

Oh and one other thing, you're stupid and easy!...LOL!

In article <g5bho8$sff$4@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>

> > In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

> > says...

> >> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

> >> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

> >> machine.

> >>

> >> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

> >

> > Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>

> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I have

> Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

> video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP is so-so and

> Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker jack

> box or is Frank your consultant?

 

Nice to see that your limited experience has worked well for you, but

your LIMITED experience shows little about the real world.

 

Ubuntu is slow, as slow as anything else.

 

I get my information from actual real-world testing on many platforms.

 

Fedora is leaps and bounds better than Ubunto and Fedora is more on par

with XP than Ubuntu will every be as far as support and compatibility.

 

--

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

"Alias" <fbis@troll.grade.sch> wrote in message

news:g5bho8$sff$4@aioe.org...

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>

>> In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>> says...

>>> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>>> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

>>> machine.

>>>

>>> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>>

>> Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>

> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I have

> Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

> video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP is so-so and

> Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker jack

> box or is Frank your consultant?

>

> Alias

>

 

AGP ?

Ever heard of PCI-e ?

Stick with ubuntu.

Bet your system is slow 'cause you got it all screwy.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:06:10 -0400, the <the@the.com> wrote:

>keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:

>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:22:57 -0400, the <the@the.com> wrote:

>>

>>> How many decades was IBM the top dog? Did the government step in then?

>>> What happened to IBM was micro computer systems, client servers, and

>>> personal computers. There was a technology change that took IBM down.

>> Not sure where you're getting 'take IBM down'. They're far from down.

>

>IBM doesn't control Information Technology as it once did for decades

>once other players like MS, Apple, Dec, PDP, Altos and other such

>vendors started using different technology for IT business solutions,

>other than, mainframe technology -- IBM's bread and butter. The

>technology that's being mentioned above, IBM missed the boat and ignored

>it when they were right there to control it, in the 70's.

>

>IBM viewed the technology as toy technology, didn't keep pace with it,

I'll have to agree with that statement. I've always viewed what they've done

with computing as toy tech. Outside of what IBM has done.

 

For a real computer, IBM IS the Only name and Only software worth considering.

>came very late to the table, and it was too late for IBM to maintain

>dominance. I started in that era of IBM dominance and saw what was

Two different categories. Apples and oranges... There's no comparison between

IBM and windows other than the fact they share the titles of computing

machines.

You aren't going to find a windows OS running a bank mainframe.

Windows won't find the cure for cancer. It'll be an IBM mainframe operating at

teraflops, not a windows machine operating at ghz.

They're not even in the same category, so any comparison to their OS or place

in the SAME market has no relevance. Windows has their customers, IBM has

theirs. IBM has the Royalty of big business. Windows has the redneck and blue

collar niche.

>happening, what eventually happened and knew that IBM mainframe

>technology was going have its nitch market. But IBM would no longer have

>world dominance with pc(s) micro computer systems or client servers,

>like it once had with the mainframes, because they let the boat sale

>right past them.

Probably because trying to make affordable machines to stick their software on

was a waste of resources. The technology didn't exist in the public sector to

run the advanced software IBM had created. Windows was and still is toy

technology when you compare the two.

FWIW: There were some IBM Big Blue desktops created. But cost was sky high.

>> The only reason you don't hear about IBM OS, and windows OS in the same breath,

>> an IBM OS runs about $8000.00 compared to an entire machine with windows

>> installed and other software for under $500.00

>

>IBM missed the boat, and IBM doesn't have the absolute dominance in

>vendor software or equipment distribution, the absolute dominance it

>once had in the industry. Anyone starting in or came through the IBM

>dominance era knows this. IBM missed the boat.

It's not killing IBM.. Gov't's don't buy toys to run their critical databases.

Our own gov't [u.S.] as an example. There's no way the U.S. could tolerate such

a buggy worthless OS. When they need a printout, they need it now and not when

the next OS update happens.

Yeah within some offices, you can find the windows OS. But not for base, or

world connections to the data.

>> A company that's 'down' wouldn't be trying to sell anything for $8000.00 a pop

>> to remain in competition. They're so far past competing, the IBM name has much

>> more credibility than windows. Windows is the blue collar OS for every one with

>> a paycheck. ie: the Hula Hoop of the 50's is windows now.

>

>IBM let the absolute dominance it once had slip away, when IBM

>management failed to recognize the technological change that was taking

>place. If IBM could have recognized what was going on and not just blow

>the technology off, you would be talking about IBM not Microsoft.

You don't think I'd rather have an IBM ? Actually I'd rather have my old Amiga.

It was years ahead of Windows, even now.

I would say for public use an IBM desktop computer is overkill.

>>> It's not happening and all the players are doing the same thing with the

>>> technology at hand. So MS is going to remain the top dog, until

>>> technology changes to something else.

yeah CB radio, Hula Hoops, Pet rocks, etc..

>> Or the gov't brings in standards the same way they have with usage of other

>> PUBLIC utilities.

>

>It has not happened by now, then it's not going to happen, no matter how

>much you wish for it. Too many people are riding the MS cash cow, and

>they know what side the bread is buttered on

 

I don't know why you'd say that. airbags are mandated by the gov't for EVERY

vehicle produced for PUBLIC transportation with very few exceptions, school

busses. Autos have been around for 100 years. Actually it's the 100th birthday

of the model T this year. No air bags, no seat belts, no safety glass. All

changes brought about by gov't. creating standards that MUST be met for the

PUBLIC.

There's no reason to believe the gov't won't step in to take advantage of this

technology and make it so that ALL companies will have a blue print to work

from. Instead of everyone trying to keep up with M$ whims. Take the term 'if it

isn't broken, don't fix it' yet that's exactly what M$ did for $$$$$$$$$

reasons by releasing Vista. Almost a dead ringer for XP. Hardly worth the

expenses incurred to scrap XP and switch to Vista.

There are definite laws regarding monopolies, and M$ has been hit several times

already on this exact thing.

If my XP machine had not blown up just when Vista came out, My OS [XP] would

now be obsolete because windows doesn't feel there's any money in supporting a

12 year old OS. Could you see the gov't. going along with this reasoning if an

auto maker said no support after 12 years for your xxxx auto ?

The public would shop elsewhere in a heart beat.

There is no elsewhere currently with the M$ machine. Yeah yeah, Linux, Ubuntu,

both smaller less supported TOY OS'. No reason to believe that gov't's WON'T

step in and create standards that ALL software writers and hardware

manufacturers must meet. They're already working out the Virus free OS in

Kirtland AFB new Mexico. It exists now.

You'll probably see when this happens, that IBM will be tasked with the job of

creating these standards, making windows play catch up.

>> ie: 110 60 cycle electric. You can plug your travel clock in to an outlet in

>> Dollywood, Tennessee, as easily as you can in Sturgis, South Dakota.

>

>But it took a technological change for that to happen, because before

>that, they were burning wood in stoves and oil lamps, before Edison,

>Westinghouse and Tesla stated changing technology.

 

my example was electric. About STANDARDS, not oil vs coal or wood. If it isn't

110 - 220 60 cycle it's not approved for U.S. public use.

>> Standards.. There is no gov't. intervention with setting standards [yet] on

>> computers. When they do, there'll probably be a huge software explosion to

>> match the windows anomaly we've been stuck with since win 98.

>

>I don't know where you're coming up with that when gasoline is setting

>at $5.00 a gallon. You know there are lobbyist, right?

huh ?

You were claiming a technology change took IBM down.

I'm just saying IBM & windows aren't even in the same race. IBM is far from

down.

 

I'm saying that setting standards on computing machines will make drastic and

good changes to allow all companies to work with the same blue print instead of

being at M$ whims.

 

No idea what that has to do with the price of gas. And I haven't heard of $5.00

gallons in the U.S. yet. $4.00 yes..

>

>> ie: every machine produced, must come with a built in hard coded VIRUS

>> preventive OS like the CBM 64-128, or amiga's had. And capable of interacting

>> with ALL other machines built.

>

>What happened to them?

It exists at Kirtland AFB new Mexico now.

>And programs running on machines do communicate

>with other programs running on other machines through the use of XML and

> across platforms. And government is not going to start dictating to

>the private business sector, man comon.

to some degree. There's still people crying about Yenc [Free PD program] but M$

won't use it or integrate it into their outdated email programs.

Realplayer had to take M$ to court to get things fixed. Don't remember what

browser it was that took M$ to court about IE being hard coded as the ONLY

browser working seamlessly with the M$ OS. That problem is still not fixed.

There's a long history of companies taking M$ to court because of their

stranglehold on the public wallet.

 

Companies shouldn't have to fight tooth and nail in the courts for free

unrestrained access to the public $.

>> As it was before 98, and still is. If a company wanted to make some money,

>> there was enough wrong.. scratch that.. different with their machines to FORCE

>> you to buy ONLY from them. Even radio shack couldn't keep up with all the

>> differences in the different machines being produced.

>> So they made their own machines and OS. But I don't think you can get a TRS-80

>> today. You definitely can't get software for them anymore.

>

>Business is business, and only the strongest survive. If IBM would have

>done what it should have done at the moment IBM had absolute dominance,

>IBM would have choked out everything, and it would all be mostly IBM blue.

That's where competition comes in. The other companies never had a chance with

M$. I'd still be using an Amiga, [Disney too, it was the machine of choice for

the Imagineers ] if Amiga had a chance. Ask 10 people on the street what they

thought of Amiga vs windows, and 6 out of 10 reply, huh Amiga ?

They had no advertising budget to compete with M$, but they had a better

product even 10 years after the amiga died. The entire windows concept came

from CBM. I'd say M$ succeeded primarily on public ignorance. There were plenty

of machines better than anything windows was producing. Even the lowly timex

1000 had it all over windows. But that's just my opinion with Timex.

As for IBM, they knew they couldn't produce something affordable to their

QUALITY standards. M$ didn't have those standards. That's what M$'s

inaccessible, incompetent tech support is for.

 

As for why someone would buy more than Vista basic. I got Vista HP because

I needed more than 512 meg ram. I needed more than 1 100 GB hard drive. I can't

recall all the stuff wrong on the HP Vista Basic machines I saw at Walmart, but

they didn't meet my needs. They weren't Amiga for starters, but once I got past

that, it boiled down to which was the lesser evil.

Vista basic was the smallest toy, and required the most cash to move it out of

toy status, and it couldn't be done. Not enough open bays, or USB hubs.

And HP brilliantly didn't come with more expensive installations of Vista pre

installed on the HP's. So the selection for Vista HP was really a no brainer.

It was then just a choice of which HP Vista HP machine had the most guts.

--

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Alias wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>

>> In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>> says...

>>> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>>> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

>>> machine.

>>>

>>> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>> Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>

> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I have

> Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

> video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP is so-so and

> Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker jack

> box or is Frank your consultant?

>

 

You have destroyed yourself, and no one cares what you are talking about.

 

However, what you are talking about makes no difference on a thin client

machine that's not running anything on the client. All solutions are

running on a terminal server or terminal server farm with the thin

client in communications with the terminal server where the applications

run, which was the point of topic between the two participants. Speed is

not a factor in that situation with the client machine.

 

And on top of that, you have manipulated this to fit your needs, so that

you could go on the attack for no apparent reasons whatsoever, which is

disgraceful behavior on your part, disgraceful, when you try to hold

others accountable to a higher standard for his or her actions, whne you

can't even do it yourself. You are a hypocrite.

 

Alias, you are absolutely a devious, deceitful and a low-life person

that shouldn't be trusted. You are garbage, you have no class -- none

and you have <snapped>.

Because Windows Vista Home Basic Does Not Include Both Windows Media Center

Software, And It Also Does Not Include Support 4 A Blue Ray DVD Drive, Just

FYI. Ultimate Edition Is The Way 2 Go.

 

"Alias" <fbis@troll.grade.sch> wrote in message

news:g5bho8$sff$4@aioe.org...

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>

>> In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>> says...

>>> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>>> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

>>> machine.

>>>

>>> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>>

>> Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>

> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I have

> Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

> video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP is so-so and

> Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker jack

> box or is Frank your consultant?

>

> Alias

>

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:53:01 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <g5bho8$sff$4@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>>

>> > In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>> > says...

>> >> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>> >> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

>> >> machine.

>> >>

>> >> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>> >

>> > Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>>

>> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I have

>> Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

>> video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP is so-so and

>> Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker jack

>> box or is Frank your consultant?

>

>Nice to see that your limited experience has worked well for you, but

>your LIMITED experience shows little about the real world.

 

Say Leythos, you have a license to run your mouth 24/7 crowing how

clever you are? You got to be one of the biggest, most pompous no

nothing wannabe "experts" I ever came across in almost 30 years of

reading newsgroups and mailing lists.

>

>Ubuntu is slow, as slow as anything else.

>

>I get my information from actual real-world testing on many platforms.

 

Sure you do. Same place Frank runs his business, in Fantasy Land.

Ringmaster wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:53:01 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>

>

>>In article <g5bho8$sff$4@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

>>

>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>>In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>>>>says...

>>>>

>>>>>Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>>>>>replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

>>>>>machine.

>>>>>

>>>>>So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>>>>

>>>>Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>>>

>>>Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I have

>>>Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

>>>video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP is so-so and

>>>Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker jack

>>>box or is Frank your consultant?

>>

>>Nice to see that your limited experience has worked well for you, but

>>your LIMITED experience shows little about the real world.

>

>

> Say Leythos, you have a license to run your mouth 24/7 crowing how

> clever you are? You got to be one of the biggest, most pompous no

> nothing wannabe "experts" I ever came across in almost 30 years of

> reading newsgroups and mailing lists.

>

>>Ubuntu is slow, as slow as anything else.

>>

>>I get my information from actual real-world testing on many platforms.

>

>

> Sure you do. Same place Frank runs his business, in Fantasy Land.

 

mr drunken lying pig speaks...his usual lunatic diatribe rants.

keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:06:10 -0400, the <the@the.com> wrote:

>

>> keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:

>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:22:57 -0400, the <the@the.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> How many decades was IBM the top dog? Did the government step in then?

>>>> What happened to IBM was micro computer systems, client servers, and

>>>> personal computers. There was a technology change that took IBM down.

>>> Not sure where you're getting 'take IBM down'. They're far from down.

>> IBM doesn't control Information Technology as it once did for decades

>> once other players like MS, Apple, Dec, PDP, Altos and other such

>> vendors started using different technology for IT business solutions,

>> other than, mainframe technology -- IBM's bread and butter. The

>> technology that's being mentioned above, IBM missed the boat and ignored

>> it when they were right there to control it, in the 70's.

>>

>> IBM viewed the technology as toy technology, didn't keep pace with it,

> I'll have to agree with that statement. I've always viewed what they've done

> with computing as toy tech. Outside of what IBM has done.

 

Who is they?

>

> For a real computer, IBM IS the Only name and Only software worth considering.

 

You have your own opinions that obviously most others don't agree with.

>

>> came very late to the table, and it was too late for IBM to maintain

>> dominance. I started in that era of IBM dominance and saw what was

> Two different categories. Apples and oranges... There's no comparison between

> IBM and windows other than the fact they share the titles of computing

> machines.

> You aren't going to find a windows OS running a bank mainframe.

 

Come on man, MS is not in the bussines of making O/S(s) for mainframes.

This is total nonsense coming from you.

 

What you will find is middle tier technology that sits between the

client side technology and the mainframe side technology with solutions

such as a MS Biztalk sever, relegating the mainframe to a back-end

transaction processor.

> Windows won't find the cure for cancer. It'll be an IBM mainframe operating at

> teraflops, not a windows machine operating at ghz.

 

IBM mainframes have their nitch in Information Technology, they have not

gone anywhere, but mainframe technology is no longer the focal point, as

solutions are being migrated off of mainframe technology.

> They're not even in the same category, so any comparison to their OS or place

> in the SAME market has no relevance. Windows has their customers, IBM has

> theirs. IBM has the Royalty of big business. Windows has the redneck and blue

> collar niche.

 

You are wrong and I am beginning to think that there is something wrong

with you, as you are making no sense now.

 

There are many, many, many, many companies they rely on client/server

technology to conduct day to day business activities and they are in big

business situations as solutions as well, in communications with an IBM

mainframe as a back-end transaction processor in a big business company.

>

>> happening, what eventually happened and knew that IBM mainframe

>> technology was going have its nitch market. But IBM would no longer have

>> world dominance with pc(s) micro computer systems or client servers,

>> like it once had with the mainframes, because they let the boat sale

>> right past them.

> Probably because trying to make affordable machines to stick their software on

> was a waste of resources. The technology didn't exist in the public sector to

> run the advanced software IBM had created. Windows was and still is toy

> technology when you compare the two.

 

This is some kind of a joke right when IBM did just that with AS400(s)

and System3(s)? AS400(s) are still running in companies that couldn't

afford the big IBM mainframe technology to this day.

 

And IBM certainly tried to get into the PC market with the IBM Personal

System 3 back in the 80's, which IBM couldn't achieve, because they had

already been passed by, with Apple, Altos, IBC and others leaving them

out in the cold.

 

Look man, I have done IBM 360/370 Assembler Language programming, Cobol

Mantis, PL1 etc. etc on the IBM's for many years. CICS, IMS TSO/SPF

programming for many years as well, using VSAM and many database

technologies that run on the mainframes, which are still viable

solutions to this day and are still being used. I have also been on the

client server side programming for many years, Web server, NT Service,

Console application and Desktop application technology programming for

many years.

 

What you are talking about in the compassions between mainframe and

client/server technology is absolute nonsense -- absolute nonsense, as

the technology on the client/server has out paced the IBM technology in

many areas from a software standpoint. But of course, the speed on a

mainframe cannot be matched when it comes to processing transactions.

> FWIW: There were some IBM Big Blue desktops created. But cost was sky high.

 

Man, I was there, and you're not telling me anything I don't know. Where

is it now?

>

>>> The only reason you don't hear about IBM OS, and windows OS in the same breath,

>>> an IBM OS runs about $8000.00 compared to an entire machine with windows

>>> installed and other software for under $500.00

>> IBM missed the boat, and IBM doesn't have the absolute dominance in

>> vendor software or equipment distribution, the absolute dominance it

>> once had in the industry. Anyone starting in or came through the IBM

>> dominance era knows this. IBM missed the boat.

> It's not killing IBM.. Gov't's don't buy toys to run their critical databases.

> Our own gov't [u.S.] as an example. There's no way the U.S. could tolerate such

> a buggy worthless OS. When they need a printout, they need it now and not when

> the next OS update happens.

 

But in the mean time. I have been contacted as a consultant to create

..Net solutions in the city of Washington DC for the government that

uses the MS platform, so I don't even know where you're coming up with

such nonsense.

 

And besides, what does the government and the usage of an IBM mainframe

have to do with the origins on the subject of the OP's post, which you

felt the need to voice your opinion?

> Yeah within some offices, you can find the windows OS. But not for base, or

> world connections to the data.

 

So? Like I said, mainframes are great back-end transaction processors.

>

>>> A company that's 'down' wouldn't be trying to sell anything for $8000.00 a pop

>>> to remain in competition. They're so far past competing, the IBM name has much

>>> more credibility than windows. Windows is the blue collar OS for every one with

>>> a paycheck. ie: the Hula Hoop of the 50's is windows now.

>> IBM let the absolute dominance it once had slip away, when IBM

>> management failed to recognize the technological change that was taking

>> place. If IBM could have recognized what was going on and not just blow

>> the technology off, you would be talking about IBM not Microsoft.

> You don't think I'd rather have an IBM ? Actually I'd rather have my old Amiga.

> It was years ahead of Windows, even now.

 

Where is it now is the bottom line?

> I would say for public use an IBM desktop computer is overkill.

>

>>>> It's not happening and all the players are doing the same thing with the

>>>> technology at hand. So MS is going to remain the top dog, until

>>>> technology changes to something else.

> yeah CB radio, Hula Hoops, Pet rocks, etc..

 

This is more nonsense from you, and you have total missed the point as

to why no one is knocking MS out of the box in your lifetime.

>

>>> Or the gov't brings in standards the same way they have with usage of other

>>> PUBLIC utilities.

>> It has not happened by now, then it's not going to happen, no matter how

>> much you wish for it. Too many people are riding the MS cash cow, and

>> they know what side the bread is buttered on

>

> I don't know why you'd say that. airbags are mandated by the gov't for EVERY

> vehicle produced for PUBLIC transportation with very few exceptions, school

> busses. Autos have been around for 100 years. Actually it's the 100th birthday

> of the model T this year. No air bags, no seat belts, no safety glass. All

> changes brought about by gov't. creating standards that MUST be met for the

> PUBLIC.

 

Man, that's transportation safety issues, which the government should

mandate a little bit snice it concerns life, death and personal injury.

> There's no reason to believe the gov't won't step in to take advantage of this

> technology and make it so that ALL companies will have a blue print to work

> from.

 

The government can barely run the government. Have the government

straighten out health insurance, Social Security that I am not going to

see very little of, medicate, terrorism, HDTV payout coupons to people

like my mom with her TV and the national debit etc, etc. The government

needs to be doing more on other things instead wondering about what MS

is doing based on your opinion.

> Instead of everyone trying to keep up with M$ whims. Take the term 'if it

> isn't broken, don't fix it' yet that's exactly what M$ did for $$$$$$$$$

> reasons by releasing Vista.

 

That's your opinion and you know what they say about opinions. Everyone

has got one and they are a dime a dozen.

> Almost a dead ringer for XP. Hardly worth the

> expenses incurred to scrap XP and switch to Vista.

 

You have not gone under the hood of Vista or XP to even know the

differences. And I am not going to go there with you either.

 

> There are definite laws regarding monopolies, and M$ has been hit several times

> already on this exact thing.

 

MS is still standing and they are not going anywhere. It's called the

cost to operate. And MS is no where in the ball park compared to the

billions and billions and billions more billions than can be counted,

the supermarket to the world company, which is still in control of

everything you eat even after the government stepped in. I use to work

for that compnay. I suggest you look up the book "Rats in the Grain". MS

is nowhere in the ballpark compared to that company.

 

<snipped>

 

The rest of this I am just tired of it and you. I am not going to allow

you to go off on me like you're some kind of a manic on a soapbox.

 

You have gone totally out of control.

 

MS is not going away in your lifetime. And you need some kind of a

reality check.

 

The Mississippi river is between the two of us. I have been on both

banks of the river. I don't know about you, but we're never going to

meet in the middle.

 

Therefore, please man please drop this, because anything you have to

say, you will be making moot points to me.

Ringmaster wrote:

 

<the rant specialist>

 

How would one know that you would bring your lame ranting self to the

scene tying to protect Alias? You are both low-life's and worthless.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:49:55 -0700, FB wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>>

>>

>>>In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>>>says...

>>>

>>>>Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>>>>replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

>>>>machine.

>>>>

>>>>So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>>>

>>>Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>>

>>

>> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista.

>

> Liar!

>

> I have

>> Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

>> video card.

>

> Good for surfing the web and email. Which is all you know how to do.

>

> Vista would not even crawl on this machine.

>

> XP is so-so and

>> Ubuntu flies.

>

> Surfing the web and doing email.

>

> Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker jack

>> box or is Frank your consultant?

>

> Oh I do own your pathetically weak ass little man. I bet that irritates

> the hell out of you.

> Oh and one other thing, you're stupid and easy!...LOL!

 

Lying and acting the fool provides you with ownership of the title of the

idiot of the newsgroup. Keep it up and you might become an MVP.

 

Alias

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:02:23 -0400, Hobbes wrote:

> "Alias" <fbis@troll.grade.sch> wrote in message

> news:g5bho8$sff$4@aioe.org...

>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>>

>>> In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>>> says...

>>>> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>>>> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

>>>> machine.

>>>>

>>>> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>>>

>>> Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>>

>> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I have

>> Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

>> video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP is so-so and

>> Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker

>> jack box or is Frank your consultant?

>>

>> Alias

>>

>>

> AGP ?

 

Yes.

> Ever heard of PCI-e ?

 

Yes.

> Stick with ubuntu.

> Bet your system is slow 'cause you got it all screwy.

 

You'd lose the bet.

 

Alias

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:53:01 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> In article <g5bho8$sff$4@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>>

>> > In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>> > says...

>> >> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>> >> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a

>> >> Linux machine.

>> >>

>> >> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>> >

>> > Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>>

>> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I have

>> Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

>> video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP is so-so and

>> Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker

>> jack box or is Frank your consultant?

>

> Nice to see that your limited experience has worked well for you, but

> your LIMITED experience shows little about the real world.

 

Do you think you could be more condescending?

>

> Ubuntu is slow, as slow as anything else.

 

Maybe for you it is.

>

> I get my information from actual real-world testing on many platforms.

 

So did I.

>

> Fedora is leaps and bounds better than Ubunto and Fedora is more on par

> with XP than Ubuntu will every be as far as support and compatibility.

 

Maybe I'll check Fedora out. I have no experience with it. I have both

Ubuntu and XP on this machine and Ubuntu is much faster for Internet

speed and opening programs.

 

Alias

In article <g5clsc$4jp$4@aioe.org>, fbis@wankerin.grade.sch says...

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:53:01 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>

> > In article <g5bho8$sff$4@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

> >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> >>

> >> > In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

> >> > says...

> >> >> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

> >> >> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a

> >> >> Linux machine.

> >> >>

> >> >> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

> >> >

> >> > Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

> >>

> >> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I have

> >> Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

> >> video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP is so-so and

> >> Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker

> >> jack box or is Frank your consultant?

> >

> > Nice to see that your limited experience has worked well for you, but

> > your LIMITED experience shows little about the real world.

>

> Do you think you could be more condescending?

 

I was certainly nicer than you are in most of your posts. You've told

about your experience level and even how you had not installed Vista

before you started claiming Ubuntu was better from your own experience.

 

Do you think you could admit that you just don't have a lot of

experience, that your experience is limited to your own personal

computer, and that you have could not give a true review because of your

hate for Microsoft?

> > Ubuntu is slow, as slow as anything else.

>

> Maybe for you it is.

 

As well as many others, on many platforms, on many processors, with many

amounts of RAM.

> > I get my information from actual real-world testing on many platforms.

>

> So did I.

 

And how many machines did you test Ubuntu on, specifically, and what

were their spec's Alias?

> > Fedora is leaps and bounds better than Ubunto and Fedora is more on par

> > with XP than Ubuntu will every be as far as support and compatibility.

>

> Maybe I'll check Fedora out. I have no experience with it. I have both

> Ubuntu and XP on this machine and Ubuntu is much faster for Internet

> speed and opening programs.

 

Once you start using Linux instead of Ubuntu branded Linux, you will see

an entire world that you've missed because of your hate. Fedora is what

Linux should be, in my opinion, and Ubuntu is just a toy directed at

trying to get ignorant masses on something other than Windows.

 

 

--

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:52:53 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> In article <g5clsc$4jp$4@aioe.org>, fbis@wankerin.grade.sch says...

>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:53:01 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>>

>> > In article <g5bho8$sff$4@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

>> >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>> >>

>> >> > In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,

>> >> > charlie@tames.net says...

>> >> >> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>> >> >> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a

>> >> >> Linux machine.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>> >> >

>> >> > Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>> >>

>> >> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I

>> >> have Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR

>> >> nVida AGP video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP

>> >> is so-so and Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information

>> >> from, a cracker jack box or is Frank your consultant?

>> >

>> > Nice to see that your limited experience has worked well for you, but

>> > your LIMITED experience shows little about the real world.

>>

>> Do you think you could be more condescending?

>

> I was certainly nicer than you are in most of your posts. You've told

> about your experience level and even how you had not installed Vista

> before you started claiming Ubuntu was better from your own experience.

>

> Do you think you could admit that you just don't have a lot of

> experience, that your experience is limited to your own personal

> computer, and that you have could not give a true review because of your

> hate for Microsoft?

>

>> > Ubuntu is slow, as slow as anything else.

>>

>> Maybe for you it is.

>

> As well as many others, on many platforms, on many processors, with many

> amounts of RAM.

>

>> > I get my information from actual real-world testing on many

>> > platforms.

>>

>> So did I.

>

> And how many machines did you test Ubuntu on, specifically, and what

> were their spec's Alias?

>

>> > Fedora is leaps and bounds better than Ubunto and Fedora is more on

>> > par with XP than Ubuntu will every be as far as support and

>> > compatibility.

>>

>> Maybe I'll check Fedora out. I have no experience with it. I have both

>> Ubuntu and XP on this machine and Ubuntu is much faster for Internet

>> speed and opening programs.

>

> Once you start using Linux instead of Ubuntu branded Linux, you will see

> an entire world that you've missed because of your hate. Fedora is what

> Linux should be, in my opinion, and Ubuntu is just a toy directed at

> trying to get ignorant masses on something other than Windows.

 

I don't hate anything except hatred. The rest of your condescending post

is not worthy of a reply as is usually the case with you.

 

Alias

In article <g5d146$d8r$2@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:52:53 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>

> > In article <g5clsc$4jp$4@aioe.org>, fbis@wankerin.grade.sch says...

> >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:53:01 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> >>

> >> > In article <g5bho8$sff$4@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

> >> >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> >> >>

> >> >> > In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,

> >> >> > charlie@tames.net says...

> >> >> >> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

> >> >> >> replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a

> >> >> >> Linux machine.

> >> >> >>

> >> >> >> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

> >> >> >

> >> >> > Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

> >> >>

> >> >> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista. I

> >> >> have Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR

> >> >> nVida AGP video card. Vista would not even crawl on this machine. XP

> >> >> is so-so and Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech information

> >> >> from, a cracker jack box or is Frank your consultant?

> >> >

> >> > Nice to see that your limited experience has worked well for you, but

> >> > your LIMITED experience shows little about the real world.

> >>

> >> Do you think you could be more condescending?

> >

> > I was certainly nicer than you are in most of your posts. You've told

> > about your experience level and even how you had not installed Vista

> > before you started claiming Ubuntu was better from your own experience.

> >

> > Do you think you could admit that you just don't have a lot of

> > experience, that your experience is limited to your own personal

> > computer, and that you have could not give a true review because of your

> > hate for Microsoft?

> >

> >> > Ubuntu is slow, as slow as anything else.

> >>

> >> Maybe for you it is.

> >

> > As well as many others, on many platforms, on many processors, with many

> > amounts of RAM.

> >

> >> > I get my information from actual real-world testing on many

> >> > platforms.

> >>

> >> So did I.

> >

> > And how many machines did you test Ubuntu on, specifically, and what

> > were their spec's Alias?

> >

> >> > Fedora is leaps and bounds better than Ubunto and Fedora is more on

> >> > par with XP than Ubuntu will every be as far as support and

> >> > compatibility.

> >>

> >> Maybe I'll check Fedora out. I have no experience with it. I have both

> >> Ubuntu and XP on this machine and Ubuntu is much faster for Internet

> >> speed and opening programs.

> >

> > Once you start using Linux instead of Ubuntu branded Linux, you will see

> > an entire world that you've missed because of your hate. Fedora is what

> > Linux should be, in my opinion, and Ubuntu is just a toy directed at

> > trying to get ignorant masses on something other than Windows.

>

> I don't hate anything except hatred. The rest of your condescending post

> is not worthy of a reply as is usually the case with you.

 

As is your typical response when you're shown to have limited experience

and that you actually were claiming things about Vista before you had

even installed it.

 

You've been caught in your own lies so many times it's not funny Alias.

 

You DO have limited experience with computers and Vista, Windows,

Ubuntu, your sample is very small, limited to your own stated few

computers.

 

I can see how someone like you would feel insulted, but you should be

insulted by yourself - it's your own statements that show your

experience is very, very, very, very limited.

 

--

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:54:34 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> In article <g5d146$d8r$2@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:52:53 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>>

>> > In article <g5clsc$4jp$4@aioe.org>, fbis@wankerin.grade.sch says...

>> >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:53:01 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>> >>

>> >> > In article <g5bho8$sff$4@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

>> >> >> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>> >> >>

>> >> >> > In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,

>> >> >> > charlie@tames.net says...

>> >> >> >> Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that

>> >> >> >> could replace almost every XP machine with either a thin

>> >> >> >> clients or a Linux machine.

>> >> >> >>

>> >> >> >> So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for

>> >> >> >> Vista?

>> >> >> >

>> >> >> > Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista.

>> >> >> I have Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256

>> >> >> DDR nVida AGP video card. Vista would not even crawl on this

>> >> >> machine. XP is so-so and Ubuntu flies. Where do you get your tech

>> >> >> information from, a cracker jack box or is Frank your consultant?

>> >> >

>> >> > Nice to see that your limited experience has worked well for you,

>> >> > but your LIMITED experience shows little about the real world.

>> >>

>> >> Do you think you could be more condescending?

>> >

>> > I was certainly nicer than you are in most of your posts. You've told

>> > about your experience level and even how you had not installed Vista

>> > before you started claiming Ubuntu was better from your own

>> > experience.

>> >

>> > Do you think you could admit that you just don't have a lot of

>> > experience, that your experience is limited to your own personal

>> > computer, and that you have could not give a true review because of

>> > your hate for Microsoft?

>> >

>> >> > Ubuntu is slow, as slow as anything else.

>> >>

>> >> Maybe for you it is.

>> >

>> > As well as many others, on many platforms, on many processors, with

>> > many amounts of RAM.

>> >

>> >> > I get my information from actual real-world testing on many

>> >> > platforms.

>> >>

>> >> So did I.

>> >

>> > And how many machines did you test Ubuntu on, specifically, and what

>> > were their spec's Alias?

>> >

>> >> > Fedora is leaps and bounds better than Ubunto and Fedora is more

>> >> > on par with XP than Ubuntu will every be as far as support and

>> >> > compatibility.

>> >>

>> >> Maybe I'll check Fedora out. I have no experience with it. I have

>> >> both Ubuntu and XP on this machine and Ubuntu is much faster for

>> >> Internet speed and opening programs.

>> >

>> > Once you start using Linux instead of Ubuntu branded Linux, you will

>> > see an entire world that you've missed because of your hate. Fedora

>> > is what Linux should be, in my opinion, and Ubuntu is just a toy

>> > directed at trying to get ignorant masses on something other than

>> > Windows.

>>

>> I don't hate anything except hatred. The rest of your condescending

>> post is not worthy of a reply as is usually the case with you.

>

> As is your typical response when you're shown to have limited experience

> and that you actually were claiming things about Vista before you had

> even installed it.

 

Yawn. I know that on the same machine, Ubuntu is faster -- in every

respect -- than XP. If that isn't good enough for you, tough titties.

>

> You've been caught in your own lies so many times it's not funny Alias.

 

Name one. You can't.

>

> You DO have limited experience with computers and Vista, Windows,

> Ubuntu, your sample is very small, limited to your own stated few

> computers.

 

I've never claimed to be an expert. Do you claim to be an expert?

>

> I can see how someone like you would feel insulted, but you should be

> insulted by yourself - it's your own statements that show your

> experience is very, very, very, very limited.

 

Yeah, I've only been into computers since 84 so what would I know. Of

course, you claiming to be an expert is pretty funny and thanks for the

laugh.

 

Alias

In article <g5d1t0$hbl$1@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

> > As is your typical response when you're shown to have limited experience

> > and that you actually were claiming things about Vista before you had

> > even installed it.

>

> Yawn. I know that on the same machine, Ubuntu is faster -- in every

> respect -- than XP. If that isn't good enough for you, tough titties.

>

> >

> > You've been caught in your own lies so many times it's not funny Alias.

>

> Name one. You can't.

>

> >

> > You DO have limited experience with computers and Vista, Windows,

> > Ubuntu, your sample is very small, limited to your own stated few

> > computers.

>

> I've never claimed to be an expert. Do you claim to be an expert?

>

> >

> > I can see how someone like you would feel insulted, but you should be

> > insulted by yourself - it's your own statements that show your

> > experience is very, very, very, very limited.

>

> Yeah, I've only been into computers since 84 so what would I know. Of

> course, you claiming to be an expert is pretty funny and thanks for the

> laugh.

 

I see that you diverted from the truth again Alias.

 

You made several claims about Vista as your own experience while later

claiming that you had not even installed it and it wasn't running on any

computer you own.

 

Your own statement in the above "I know that on the same machine, Ubuntu

is faster" and that seems to indicate your lack of experience, as I've

seen many instances where Ubuntu was slower and didn't even support

basic video on older Dell computers that was supported by XP....

 

So, we're back to your limited scope of experience and how you're not

ethical enough to admit that people with more experience than your very

small scope of experience are seeing honest differences than you do.

 

--

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:27:55 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> In article <g5d1t0$hbl$1@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

>> > As is your typical response when you're shown to have limited

>> > experience and that you actually were claiming things about Vista

>> > before you had even installed it.

>>

>> Yawn. I know that on the same machine, Ubuntu is faster -- in every

>> respect -- than XP. If that isn't good enough for you, tough titties.

>>

>>

>> > You've been caught in your own lies so many times it's not funny

>> > Alias.

>>

>> Name one. You can't.

>>

>>

>> > You DO have limited experience with computers and Vista, Windows,

>> > Ubuntu, your sample is very small, limited to your own stated few

>> > computers.

>>

>> I've never claimed to be an expert. Do you claim to be an expert?

>>

>>

>> > I can see how someone like you would feel insulted, but you should be

>> > insulted by yourself - it's your own statements that show your

>> > experience is very, very, very, very limited.

>>

>> Yeah, I've only been into computers since 84 so what would I know. Of

>> course, you claiming to be an expert is pretty funny and thanks for the

>> laugh.

>

> I see that you diverted from the truth again Alias.

>

> You made several claims about Vista as your own experience while later

> claiming that you had not even installed it and it wasn't running on any

> computer you own.

>

> Your own statement in the above "I know that on the same machine, Ubuntu

> is faster" and that seems to indicate your lack of experience, as I've

> seen many instances where Ubuntu was slower and didn't even support

> basic video on older Dell computers that was supported by XP....

>

> So, we're back to your limited scope of experience and how you're not

> ethical enough to admit that people with more experience than your very

> small scope of experience are seeing honest differences than you do.

 

I have installed Ubuntu on dozens of machines of all types and all of

them ran faster than they did with XP. End of story, your supercilious

and condescending drivel notwithstanding.

 

I have Vista Ultimate and I have installed it. I ran it for awhile

didn't like it, and wiped the disk and replaced it with a dual boot XP/

Ubuntu. XP for gaming and Ubuntu for my kid's school work.

 

Alias

FB wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:17:52 -0700, FB wrote:

>>

>>

>>> /Alias** wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>> Frank wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> Ringmaster wrote:

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

>>>>>

>>>>> Tell us adam albright, in which mental institution did you spent the

>>>>> last 20 yrs. Cause only someone who was/has been committed for a

>>>>> lengthly stay would know that much about mental illnesses. How many of

>>>>> those did you suffer from? We know the ones you currently have!...LOL!

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Once again, Frank uses his trusty "I know you are but what am I" grade

>>>> school retort.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>> I own your pathetic weak ass don't I loser?...LOL!

>>

>>

>> Once again, Franks uses his trusty chest beating drivel. You don't own

>> your mind, much less anyone else.

>>

>> Alias

>

> Thanks for proving my point you weak little sheep-fukkin POS!

 

Thanks for admitting you don't even own your own mind. recognizing the

problem is the first step to recovery.

 

Alias

In article <g5d92u$bv9$1@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:27:55 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>

> > In article <g5d1t0$hbl$1@aioe.org>, fbis@troll.grade.sch says...

> >> > As is your typical response when you're shown to have limited

> >> > experience and that you actually were claiming things about Vista

> >> > before you had even installed it.

> >>

> >> Yawn. I know that on the same machine, Ubuntu is faster -- in every

> >> respect -- than XP. If that isn't good enough for you, tough titties.

> >>

> >>

> >> > You've been caught in your own lies so many times it's not funny

> >> > Alias.

> >>

> >> Name one. You can't.

> >>

> >>

> >> > You DO have limited experience with computers and Vista, Windows,

> >> > Ubuntu, your sample is very small, limited to your own stated few

> >> > computers.

> >>

> >> I've never claimed to be an expert. Do you claim to be an expert?

> >>

> >>

> >> > I can see how someone like you would feel insulted, but you should be

> >> > insulted by yourself - it's your own statements that show your

> >> > experience is very, very, very, very limited.

> >>

> >> Yeah, I've only been into computers since 84 so what would I know. Of

> >> course, you claiming to be an expert is pretty funny and thanks for the

> >> laugh.

> >

> > I see that you diverted from the truth again Alias.

> >

> > You made several claims about Vista as your own experience while later

> > claiming that you had not even installed it and it wasn't running on any

> > computer you own.

> >

> > Your own statement in the above "I know that on the same machine, Ubuntu

> > is faster" and that seems to indicate your lack of experience, as I've

> > seen many instances where Ubuntu was slower and didn't even support

> > basic video on older Dell computers that was supported by XP....

> >

> > So, we're back to your limited scope of experience and how you're not

> > ethical enough to admit that people with more experience than your very

> > small scope of experience are seeing honest differences than you do.

>

> I have installed Ubuntu on dozens of machines of all types and all of

> them ran faster than they did with XP. End of story, your supercilious

> and condescending drivel notwithstanding.

 

It's not the end of the story sonny, it's a small amount of experience

that is contradicted by others experiences.

 

So, to be fair, we can say that you've seen Ubuntu run faster on some

machines and I've seen it run slower on a LOT of machines.

> I have Vista Ultimate and I have installed it. I ran it for awhile

> didn't like it, and wiped the disk and replaced it with a dual boot XP/

> Ubuntu. XP for gaming and Ubuntu for my kid's school work.

 

And yet, your history shows that you claimed many things about Vista

before you even installed it or had any experience with it.

 

--

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Alias wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:49:55 -0700, FB wrote:

>

>

>>Alias wrote:

>>

>>

>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:49:38 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>>In article <OYeQP$$4IHA.4352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>>>>says...

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>>Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could

>>>>>replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux

>>>>>machine.

>>>>>

>>>>>So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

>>>>

>>>>Ubunto is just as slow as vista, if not slower in many cases.

>>>

>>>

>>>Maybe "Ubunto" is slow but *Ubuntu* is faster than XP and Vista.

>>

>>Liar!

>>

>> I have

>>

>>>Ubuntu on an AMD XP 2200+ with one gig of RAM and a 256 DDR nVida AGP

>>>video card.

>>

>>Good for surfing the web and email. Which is all you know how to do.

>>

>> Vista would not even crawl on this machine.

>>

>> XP is so-so and

>>

>>>Ubuntu flies.

>>

>>Surfing the web and doing email.

>>

>> Where do you get your tech information from, a cracker jack

>>

>>>box or is Frank your consultant?

>>

>>Oh I do own your pathetically weak ass little man. I bet that irritates

>>the hell out of you.

>>Oh and one other thing, you're stupid and easy!...LOL!

>

>

> Lying and acting the fool provides you with ownership of the title of the

> idiot of the newsgroup. Keep it up and you might become an MVP.

>

> Alias

 

Thanks for always proving my point sheep-fukker!