Vista to Linux - Linux

This is a discussion on Vista to Linux - Linux ; Daddy-in-law has himself a laptop, with Vista on it. He loathes Vista. He's used to XP, has it on his desktop, had it on his older laptop, did pretty much what he wanted it to do, but Vista? In his ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Vista to Linux

  1. Vista to Linux

    Daddy-in-law has himself a laptop, with Vista on it. He loathes Vista.
    He's used to XP, has it on his desktop, had it on his older laptop, did
    pretty much what he wanted it to do, but Vista? In his own words, "Vista
    is not user friendly."

    This came about because his laptop stopped working. It has been working
    fine since he got it, but something happened. More specifically, a
    Windows Update happened, one which included a driver update for his
    machine. Vista applied the update, the system rebooted and... the system
    rebooted and rebooted and...

    It would boot once, try to load, fail, reboot, come up with an option to
    choose between starting normally and repairing. Running repair
    accomplished nothing; it would simply grind a while, announce it couldn't
    repair this machine and your only option was to reboot, which caused the
    entire cycle to repeat.

    Safe mode? Nope, doesn't work, tosses a BSOD for about 1/16 second and
    reboots, same as every other option, other than choosing to repair,
    resulted in the flashed BSOD and a reboot. Repair mode simply failed to
    do anything useful.

    Cute.

    I managed to get the silly-ass thing to ask if I wanted to do a restore
    to a previous point, so I said yes. It did. A reboot, Windows comes
    up. Very, very slowly. Enough so that I went out for a smoke. On
    coming back, I see Vista merrily applying the very updates which caused
    all this, and in typical Windows fashion, with no readily obvious way to
    cancel or roll back the update. Sure enough, wham, bam, blue screen you,
    Ma'am.

    Jump through the hoops again. Roll it back. Tell Windows update _not_
    to install "important" updates, just "critical" ones. Sigh of relief,
    all should be good - of the three available updates, the security update
    is "critical" while the other two - including the driver which is causing
    all this - are merely "important".

    Fine, good. All's well. Let's just make sure it all works as intended
    through a normal usage cycle - which includes power down and power up.
    Go to power down, and Vista decides that it really, really needs to
    install those updates, the ones I just expressly told it it was not
    allowed to install, including the one causing the problem.

    You got it - crash and burn again.

    So I do another rollback. Easy enough. Fire up the box. *Disable*
    Windows updates entirely, that being, apparently, the only way to get it
    to not install something you don't want installed. Of course, OneCare is
    now crying like a baby because I broke its update dolly, but too freakin'
    bad. We'll lock this nonsense down until we can find a solution to the
    driver problem. A problem which, BTW, has hit many other people who have
    also had this cycle of pain inflicted upon them as a result of a borked
    update.

    Fine, it's locked down, OneCare is crying in the corner, he keeps getting
    notices about new hardware, should we install the drivers, etc, etc, etc,
    but at least the machine is sort of working.

    About then he ponders putting XP on it. Which, of course, would mean
    going out and buying XP, to replace the Vista he loathes but which has
    already been paid for. (Paying to get a downgrade. Only in MS-land
    would that notion make sense.)

    Instead, he decided to try Linux. As he says, what's to lose? The
    laptop isn't much use _now_ and there's no way a regular user like me
    could fix it, I might as well try something else.

    So, I've got the laptop now, and Vista is going the way of the dinosaur.
    Whatever issues Linux may have, at the end of the day if a driver or app
    is causing problems, you can always tell the machine not to load that
    driver or app without having the OS get in your face every time you turn
    around because someone's not holding its hand for it, cry, whimper,
    where's my automatic updates, sniffle, cry, what do I do about this new
    hardware, please help me, I'm so lost.

    Vista: the only OS with codependency issues.


  2. Re: Vista to Linux

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:57:59 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >Daddy-in-law has himself a laptop, with Vista on it. He loathes Vista.
    >He's used to XP, has it on his desktop, had it on his older laptop, did
    >pretty much what he wanted it to do, but Vista? In his own words, "Vista
    >is not user friendly."


    vista is a piece of ****, but switching to linux requires relearning almost
    everything. Microsoft hates standards and likes to reinvent everything. Being
    comfortable with XP means not being comfortable with anything else (including
    vista)

    The least painful path is is to install XP on the machine.

  3. Re: Vista to Linux

    AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:57:59 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason
    > wrote:
    >>Daddy-in-law has himself a laptop, with Vista on it. He loathes Vista.
    >>He's used to XP, has it on his desktop, had it on his older laptop, did
    >>pretty much what he wanted it to do, but Vista? In his own words, "Vista
    >>is not user friendly."

    >
    > vista is a piece of ****, but switching to linux requires relearning
    > almost everything.


    Nope. For a normal user wanting to browse the web, doing email and
    occasionally writing a letter basically *nothing* changes

    > Microsoft hates standards and likes to reinvent everything.
    > Being comfortable with XP means not being comfortable with anything else
    > (including vista)
    >
    > The least painful path is is to install XP on the machine.


    I strongly disagree.
    My wife has a laptop with XP on it. The usual routine happened: After about
    1 year of usage, it became extremely unreliable, to the point of being
    unuseable.
    It has now dual boot, linux and XP. Linux is the default choice. Guess what:
    She barely noticed, and gets along just fine
    --
    Warning: 10 days have passed since your last Windows reinstall.


  4. Re: Vista to Linux

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ AZ Nomad on Monday 03 November 2008 22:13 : \____

    > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:57:59 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason
    > wrote:
    >>Daddy-in-law has himself a laptop, with Vista on it. He loathes Vista.
    >>He's used to XP, has it on his desktop, had it on his older laptop, did
    >>pretty much what he wanted it to do, but Vista? In his own words, "Vista
    >>is not user friendly."

    >
    > vista is a piece of ****, but switching to linux requires relearning almost
    > everything. Microsoft hates standards and likes to reinvent everything.
    > Being comfortable with XP means not being comfortable with anything else
    > (including vista)
    >
    > The least painful path is is to install XP on the machine.


    Not necessarily, it depends on the person. My parents hardly touch the 'O/S'.
    Being fairly technophobic, they just know things like browser, Skype, word
    processor. Changing the underlying O/S should hardly make a difference because
    the applications stay the same. 'Technical' support, however, relies on
    someone being around with fundamental familiarity with another operating
    system, which needn't be reinstalled anyway (no malware). Saw this one earlier
    today:

    Linux is granny-compatible, since long

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Concerning our aunt: she will be very pleased with Ubuntu, I’m sure. As a
    | normal home user nowadays, you don’t need much more - she’s happy with her
    | Mahjongg for herself and Planet Penguin Racer for some grand children. Never
    | had a happier “customer” than her - which shows that Linux just works, no
    | matter which age the “target” “customer” is. For her, she never asked for
    | something else. And if that isn’t a success story on its own, then I dunno
    | what would be.
    `----

    http://wolfgang.lonien.de/?p=733
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkkPlj4ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4wwQCgpPFJ9NieoQ kTMkIgdz3CaM7a
    Dk4AoI3Hee//fFNgYIX3AGwi5BASt6Qb
    =a0tO
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  5. Re: Vista to Linux

    Peter Khlmann wrote:
    > AZ Nomad wrote:
    >
    >> The least painful path is is to install XP on the machine.

    >
    > I strongly disagree. My wife has a laptop with XP on it. The
    > usual routine happened: After about 1 year of usage, it became
    > extremely unreliable, to the point of being unuseable. It has
    > now dual boot, linux and XP. Linux is the default choice.
    > Guess what: She barely noticed, and gets along just fine


    Agree. Linux GUI's, albeit KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc. are straight
    forward and easy to use, except for our trolls, who seem to be
    unable to do simple hand and eye coordination.

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  6. Re: Vista to Linux

    Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > Linux is granny-compatible, since long
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    >> Concerning our aunt: she will be very pleased with Ubuntu,
    >> I’m sure. As a normal home user nowadays, you don’t need
    >> much more - she’s happy with her Mahjongg for herself and
    >> Planet Penguin Racer for some grand children. Never had a
    >> happier “customer” than her - which shows that Linux just
    >> works, no matter which age the “target” “customer” is. For
    >> her, she never asked for something else. And if that isn’t a
    >> success story on its own, then I dunno what would be.

    > `----


    Granny-compatible, yes. Troll compatible, no.

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  7. Re: Vista to Linux

    High Plains Thumper wrote:
    > Peter Khlmann wrote:
    >> AZ Nomad wrote:
    >>
    >>> The least painful path is is to install XP on the machine.

    >>
    >> I strongly disagree. My wife has a laptop with XP on it. The
    >> usual routine happened: After about 1 year of usage, it became
    >> extremely unreliable, to the point of being unuseable. It has
    >> now dual boot, linux and XP. Linux is the default choice.
    >> Guess what: She barely noticed, and gets along just fine

    >
    > Agree. Linux GUI's, albeit KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc. are straight
    > forward and easy to use, except for our trolls, who seem to be
    > unable to do simple hand and eye coordination.


    How can you use something that causes full system crashes?

    "With KDE 4, I actually saw complete system crashes. I don't remember ever
    seeing a total Linux crash this century, but with KDE 4, I saw them."

    http://practical-tech.com/operating-...ust-plain-bad/





  8. Re: Vista to Linux

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > It has now dual boot, linux and XP. Linux is the default choice. Guess
    > what: She barely noticed, and gets along just fine


    Yep. The wife of my brother's co-worker had a computer that just kept puking
    on XP (probably a bad driver). She finally got tired of it and got a free
    copy of Ubuntu in the mail. She installed it, it worked great and she loved
    it. Her usage was basically browsing, email, pictures, writing letters,
    etc -- there's no reason why anyone couldn't get Linux to do that. After
    all, how hard is it to click on icons?

    (Snit would say it's "really hard" because the icons are a different color
    and/or shape than they are on the Mac -- therefore impossible to figure
    out. But Snit's a troll, so who gives a flying fig what he would say?)

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  9. Re: Vista to Linux

    DFS wrote:

    > How can you use something that causes full system crashes?


    Some people think Vista is all they can get. Poor suckers.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  10. Re: Vista to Linux

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ High Plains Thumper on Tuesday 04 November 2008 02:20 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> Linux is granny-compatible, since long
    >>
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >>> Concerning our aunt: she will be very pleased with Ubuntu,
    >>> I’m sure. As a normal home user nowadays, you don’t need
    >>> much more - she’s happy with her Mahjongg for herself and
    >>> Planet Penguin Racer for some grand children. Never had a
    >>> happier “customer” than her - which shows that Linux just
    >>> works, no matter which age the “target” “customer” is. For
    >>> her, she never asked for something else. And if that isn’t a
    >>> success story on its own, then I dunno what would be.

    >> `----

    >
    > Granny-compatible, yes. Troll compatible, no.


    The two are not mutually exclusive, though.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Reversi for free: http://othellomaster.com
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    08:20:01 up 19 days, 16:38, 1 user, load average: 3.96, 3.88, 3.75
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkkQBi8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5HkgCfdkZH2yjF6X 3EwDehXAh+2vpc
    gqoAniIBJA42hw96zxytT5uEhhcuOr/K
    =Ft4o
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  11. Re: Vista to Linux

    DFS wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >> Peter Khlmann wrote:
    >>> AZ Nomad wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The least painful path is is to install XP on the machine.
    >>> I strongly disagree. My wife has a laptop with XP on it. The
    >>> usual routine happened: After about 1 year of usage, it became
    >>> extremely unreliable, to the point of being unuseable. It has
    >>> now dual boot, linux and XP. Linux is the default choice.
    >>> Guess what: She barely noticed, and gets along just fine

    >> Agree. Linux GUI's, albeit KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc. are straight
    >> forward and easy to use, except for our trolls, who seem to be
    >> unable to do simple hand and eye coordination.

    >
    > How can you use something that causes full system crashes?
    >
    > "With KDE 4, I actually saw complete system crashes. I don't remember ever
    > seeing a total Linux crash this century, but with KDE 4, I saw them."
    >
    > http://practical-tech.com/operating-...ust-plain-bad/
    >
    >
    >
    >


    Yes, yes... KDE 4.0 was bad. We all know that. It's well known even in
    the Linux world that KDE 4.0 was a load of crap, and that's why the KDE
    devs worked quickly to fix all of the problems and release KDE 4.1 when
    they saw their credibility ebbing away, which, albeit far from perfect
    yet, is still better than KDE 4.0.

  12. Re: Vista to Linux

    Ben wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >> High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >>> Peter Khlmann wrote:
    >>>> AZ Nomad wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> The least painful path is is to install XP on the
    >>>>> machine.
    >>>>
    >>>> I strongly disagree. My wife has a laptop with XP on it.
    >>>> The usual routine happened: After about 1 year of usage,
    >>>> it became extremely unreliable, to the point of being
    >>>> unuseable. It has now dual boot, linux and XP. Linux is
    >>>> the default choice. Guess what: She barely noticed, and
    >>>> gets along just fine
    >>>
    >>> Agree. Linux GUI's, albeit KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc. are
    >>> straight forward and easy to use, except for our trolls,
    >>> who seem to be unable to do simple hand and eye
    >>> coordination.

    >>
    >> How can you use something that causes full system crashes?
    >>
    >> "With KDE 4, I actually saw complete system crashes. I don't
    >> remember ever seeing a total Linux crash this century, but
    >> with KDE 4, I saw them."
    >>
    >> http://practical-tech.com/operating-...ust-plain-bad/

    >
    > Yes, yes... KDE 4.0 was bad. We all know that. It's well known
    > even in the Linux world that KDE 4.0 was a load of crap, and
    > that's why the KDE devs worked quickly to fix all of the
    > problems and release KDE 4.1 when they saw their credibility
    > ebbing away, which, albeit far from perfect yet, is still
    > better than KDE 4.0.


    KDE 4 is Better than WinXP-ME (Vista). Vista is not doing so
    hot, in spite of the lovely gob****e that ad hominen attacker DFS
    spouts:

    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/1...y-the-numbers/

    October 24, 2008, 5:29 pm
    Microsofts Vista Problem, by the Numbers
    By Steve Lohr

    Microsoft reported a reassuringly solid quarter in tough times on
    Thursday, but its Windows business looked weak.

    The big Windows unit reported a 2 percent rise in revenue and 4
    percent decline in operating income. That is well below the norm
    for Microsofts lucrative personal operating system business
    and well below the companys stellar performers like server
    software, up 20 percent, and the Office unit, up 23 percent.

    The Windows problem? It is not selling enough of its Windows
    Vista software, the operating system introduced in January 2007.
    In the conference call Thursday afternoon, Christopher Liddell,
    Microsofts chief financial officer, said the mix of Windows
    sales had tipped more toward low-cost PCs in both mature and
    emerging markets, which come with lower-margin versions of
    Windows and often not Vista.

    The notable new thing in low-priced PC market is the netbook
    category smaller PCs with scant memory and intended mainly for
    surfing Web sites and handling e-mail, costing as little as $300.
    Mr. Liddell acknowledged that some of the growth in netbooks is
    cannibalization of sales of traditional PCs.

    The netbook challenge to Microsoft is two-fold. First, if they
    run Windows, the machines run a slimmed-down version of Windows
    XP. Charles Di Bona of Sanford Bernstein estimates that Microsoft
    pockets $30 to $35 on a netbook. By contrast, he figures that the
    operating system license fee on a standard consumer PC, running
    Vista, is about $70. The second netbook issue for Microsoft is
    that many of those machines run the Linux operating system. (Mr.
    Di Bonas Bernstein colleague, A.M. Sacconaghi, estimates
    netbooks accounted for that 4.5 to 5 percent of the 10 to 12
    percent unit growth of PC sales in the September quarter.)

    Corporations, Mr. Di Bona said, have not upgraded to Vista as
    widely or as quickly as they have tended to with past Windows
    operating systems. Now, with the economy troubled and corporate
    technology budgets squeezed, Vistas successor stands in the
    wings. Microsoft has said that Windows 7 will ship by late next year.

    You dont have a lot of Vista left, Mr. Di Bona observed.
    Vista could become a placeholder.

    Whatever Vistas ultimate fate, a closer look at the quarterly
    numbers also provides a reminder of why Microsoft will do
    anything corporately possible to keep the Windows franchise
    healthy as long as it can. The numbers behind the anemic 2
    percent growth in sales and the 4 percent slip in profits: $4.22
    billion and $3.27 billion, respectively. Huge quarterly numbers,
    and a 77 percent profit margin. Welcome to the economics of a
    dominant software franchise.
    Linux netbooks are eating Microsoft's lunch. XP is still too
    chunky to run on the lightest netbooks. Those it runs okay on,
    are really not netbooks, which still lack the processor
    horsepower to run sparkling.

    --
    HPT
    Quando omni flunkus moritati
    (If all else fails, play dead)
    - "Red" Green

  13. Re: Vista to Linux


    >> How can you use something that causes full system crashes?
    >>
    >> "With KDE 4, I actually saw complete system crashes. I don't remember
    >> ever seeing a total Linux crash this century, but with KDE 4, I saw
    >> them."
    >>
    >> http://practical-tech.com/operating-...ust-plain-bad/
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Yes, yes... KDE 4.0 was bad. We all know that. It's well known even in
    > the Linux world that KDE 4.0 was a load of crap, and that's why the KDE
    > devs worked quickly to fix all of the problems and release KDE 4.1 when
    > they saw their credibility ebbing away, which, albeit far from perfect
    > yet, is still better than KDE 4.0.


    DooFuS will tell you that Explorer never crashes, nor does Windows.

  14. Re: Vista to Linux

    On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:13:17 -0600, AZ Nomad wrote:

    > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:57:59 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason
    > wrote:
    >>Daddy-in-law has himself a laptop, with Vista on it. He loathes Vista.
    >>He's used to XP, has it on his desktop, had it on his older laptop, did
    >>pretty much what he wanted it to do, but Vista? In his own words,
    >>"Vista is not user friendly."

    >
    > vista is a piece of ****, but switching to linux requires relearning
    > almost everything.


    Not significantly. Okay, it's a "K" instead of "Start", but it's in the
    same place. It's "Office/OpenOffice.org Word Processor" instead of
    "Microsoft Office/Word". Big whoop.

    About the only hard part is in keeping the system up to date - which is
    _easier_ on the Linux side.

    Don't see the problem.


  15. Re: Vista to Linux

    [snips]

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:50:54 +0000, Ben wrote:

    >> "With KDE 4, I actually saw complete system crashes.


    > Yes, yes... KDE 4.0 was bad. We all know that. It's well known even in
    > the Linux world that KDE 4.0 was a load of crap, and that's why the KDE
    > devs worked quickly to fix all of the problems and release KDE 4.1 when
    > they saw their credibility ebbing away, which, albeit far from perfect
    > yet, is still better than KDE 4.0.


    Was KDE 4.0 ever actually released? I know it was out as a beta, but as
    a release version? The only times I saw it come out, say for Ubuntu,
    were as addons for testing, not as part of the base system.

    Is there in fact a distro expected to be used by Joe Sixpack (rather
    than, say, some die-hard geek, developer or tester) which includes KDE
    4.0 in a non-testing mode? Or is DuFuS just blowing smoke again?


  16. Re: Vista to Linux

    High Plains Thumper wrote:

    > KDE 4 is Better than WinXP-ME (Vista). *Vista is not doing so
    > hot, in spite of the lovely gob****e that ad hominen attacker DFS
    > spouts:


    And even if KDE 4 wasn't better than Vista (hard to imagine), it still
    should be mentioned that a Linux user doesn't have to use KDE 4. He can,
    like me, use KDE3, or Gnome, or Xfce, or...

    So, even if one Desktop "underperforms" in Linux you still have the ability
    to quite successfully use the OS -- unlike Vista.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  17. Re: Vista to Linux

    RonB wrote:
    > Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> It has now dual boot, linux and XP. Linux is the default choice. Guess
    >> what: She barely noticed, and gets along just fine

    >
    > Yep. The wife of my brother's co-worker had a computer that just kept
    > puking on XP (probably a bad driver). She finally got tired of it and
    > got a free copy of Ubuntu in the mail. She installed it, it worked great
    > and she loved it. Her usage was basically browsing, email, pictures,
    > writing letters, etc -- there's no reason why anyone couldn't get Linux
    > to do that. After all, how hard is it to click on icons?
    >
    > (Snit would say it's "really hard" because the icons are a different
    > color and/or shape than they are on the Mac -- therefore impossible to
    > figure out. But Snit's a troll, so who gives a flying fig what he would
    > say?)


    The Wintrolls keep going back to the early days of inception and spouting
    their nonsense, also making big issues out of non-issues.

    When MS-DOS first and Windows 3.1 got off, many clone system assemblers
    would bundle systems with freeware and shareware. Yes, one could buy a
    Mac or Apple II/III, but they were relatively expensive in comparison.
    Yes, one could buy expensive packages like Harvard Graphics, other
    business apps.

    These freeware and shareware apps helps to popularise and get Microsoft's
    foot in the door with small business and home users.

    Now, Linux has a similar niche and some of the software is quite good.

    Next issue comes that "Gimp is no Photoshop", also our trolls that
    poseur as a disgruntled Linux user and felt relegated to going out and
    spend several thousand dollars, because it was not happy with Linux.

    It is beyond dignity for a user to go any lower than Microsoft, is the
    usual troll line. What is not stated is that one who is starting a
    business or maintaining a tight bottom line, will seek that which will
    trim overhead expenses. That includes using Linux and FOSS.

    --
    HPT

  18. Re: Vista to Linux

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Cork Soaker belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    >>> How can you use something that causes full system crashes?
    >>>
    >>> "With KDE 4, I actually saw complete system crashes. I don't remember
    >>> ever seeing a total Linux crash this century, but with KDE 4, I saw
    >>> them."
    >>>
    >>> http://practical-tech.com/operating-...ust-plain-bad/

    >>
    >> Yes, yes... KDE 4.0 was bad. We all know that. It's well known even in
    >> the Linux world that KDE 4.0 was a load of crap, and that's why the KDE
    >> devs worked quickly to fix all of the problems and release KDE 4.1 when
    >> they saw their credibility ebbing away, which, albeit far from perfect
    >> yet, is still better than KDE 4.0.

    >
    > DooFuS will tell you that Explorer never crashes, nor does Windows.


    ****. Windows Explorer is awful on this one Dell laptop at work.
    Right-clicking or Ctrl-C brings up the hourglass. The easiest way out is to
    kill the desktop.

    But what I've been doing when that happens is going to a Cygwin/X desktop
    running openbox, and using rxvt to do my file operations. Plus, vi is much
    more pleasant to edit in than is Visual Studio.

    Pathetic.

    Oddly enough, the other XP box, a faster desktop from HP, works better.
    However, on /that/ box, the DOS console is /extremely/ slow, compared to the
    console on the XP laptop.

    How can one version of Windows act so differently on two machines? They
    both get the same train of updates.

    Crazy.

    --
    An Irishman is never at peace except when he's fighting.

  19. Re: Vista to Linux

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:27:00 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:

    >>> How can you use something that causes full system crashes?
    >>>
    >>> "With KDE 4, I actually saw complete system crashes. I don't remember
    >>> ever seeing a total Linux crash this century, but with KDE 4, I saw
    >>> them."
    >>>
    >>> http://practical-tech.com/operating-...ust-plain-bad/
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Yes, yes... KDE 4.0 was bad. We all know that. It's well known even in
    >> the Linux world that KDE 4.0 was a load of crap, and that's why the KDE
    >> devs worked quickly to fix all of the problems and release KDE 4.1 when
    >> they saw their credibility ebbing away, which, albeit far from perfect
    >> yet, is still better than KDE 4.0.

    >
    > DooFuS will tell you that Explorer never crashes, nor does Windows.


    It doesn't.

    As long as you don't actually run it, that is.


  20. Re: Vista to Linux

    On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 06:23:05 -0800, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    >On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:27:00 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:


    >>>> How can you use something that causes full system crashes?
    >>>>
    >>>> "With KDE 4, I actually saw complete system crashes. I don't remember
    >>>> ever seeing a total Linux crash this century, but with KDE 4, I saw
    >>>> them."
    >>>>
    >>>> http://practical-tech.com/operating-...ust-plain-bad/
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Yes, yes... KDE 4.0 was bad. We all know that. It's well known even in
    >>> the Linux world that KDE 4.0 was a load of crap, and that's why the KDE
    >>> devs worked quickly to fix all of the problems and release KDE 4.1 when
    >>> they saw their credibility ebbing away, which, albeit far from perfect
    >>> yet, is still better than KDE 4.0.

    >>
    >> DooFuS will tell you that Explorer never crashes, nor does Windows.


    >It doesn't.


    >As long as you don't actually run it, that is.


    sure?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast