Alias wrote:

> 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.

 

LIAR!!!

 

The rest of your condescending post

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

 

Nice try at backpedaling, liar!

In article <1215972995_162333@news.usenet.com>,

Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote:

>

>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.

>

 

Well, ya know... I'd venture to guess your observations are somehow

flawed vis-a-vis representing an accurate sample. It's a documented fact that

when running identical applications on identical hardware you see better (more

tps, faster response, fewer errors, whatever) performance on any UNIX variant than

on a Windows system. That's simply because a Unix system is much more simple and

lacks the overhead of Windows which is after all a desktop OS that's been promoted

to a server role by slick marketing.

 

You could sum up this whole stupid argument just by saying "Windows runs

a lot MORE stuff but Unix runs what it does run better".

Alias wrote:

> 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.

 

So you just lie huh?

>

> I have Vista Ultimate and I have installed it.

 

Liar! You proly have a pirated copy that won't activate and therefore

won't update.

Figures.

 

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.

 

IOW's you have no idea about Vista.

Figures!

/Alias** wrote:

> 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

 

So you're in "recovery"?

Good for you!

In article <g5de8m$1bf$1@reader1.panix.com>, wrat@panix.com says...

> In article <1215972995_162333@news.usenet.com>,

> Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote:

> >

> >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.

> >

>

> Well, ya know... I'd venture to guess your observations are somehow

> flawed vis-a-vis representing an accurate sample. It's a documented fact that

> when running identical applications on identical hardware you see better (more

> tps, faster response, fewer errors, whatever) performance on any UNIX variant than

> on a Windows system. That's simply because a Unix system is much more simple and

> lacks the overhead of Windows which is after all a desktop OS that's been promoted

> to a server role by slick marketing.

>

> You could sum up this whole stupid argument just by saying "Windows runs

> a lot MORE stuff but Unix runs what it does run better".

 

And it's a documented fact that performance tests are often tweaked to

make the results that the tester wants, as is the case of most video and

other testing.

 

Face it, Ubuntu is a reasonable operating system for home users that

don't need to interact with MS people, but it's not a good business OS

for anyone. The closes "Business" version of Linux is Fedora Core.

 

It doesn't matter if "Unix" runs it's better for what it runs, better

perception.

 

--

- 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)

"LesleyO " <lesleyo@DELETETHIStelusplanet.net> wrote in message

news:eQqMO%23w4IHA.4492@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

> I'm a home user and I would never use Vista Basic, as it wouldn't support

> the type of image editing I want to do. On the other hand, I wouldn't

> bother with Ultimate, either, as I'm not into games. I bought a decent

> Home Premium system, and would frankly recommend that over Basic any day.

 

 

Why do you think Ultimate is suited for games, when it adds advanced

networking and Bootlicker over Home Premium? You do not seem to know what

the different versions offer.

 

ss.