Re: [OT] Windows XP install - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Re: [OT] Windows XP install - Ubuntu ; Marco illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing: > Moog schreef: >> Marco illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing: >> >>> >>> Funny that this whole process you desribe only takes me 2 or so hours. >> >> Yup. It's hilarious. Do you use a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Re: [OT] Windows XP install

  1. Re: [OT] Windows XP install

    Marco illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Moog schreef:
    >> Marco illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Funny that this whole process you desribe only takes me 2 or so hours.

    >>
    >> Yup. It's hilarious. Do you use a partition backup? "Why?", I hear you ask.
    >> Well, my recent XP re-install (SP2 version BTW) on a fairly straightforward
    >> machine took close to 5 hours to sort out with OS and all hardware
    >> configured and "drivered up".
    >>
    >> BTW. I've been running Windows since 3.11. The fact that you can do it
    >> in 2 hours suggest that
    >> 1) You're lying
    >> 2) You have absolutely no hardware other than mobo, processor and hard
    >> drive.
    >>
    >> Andrew. Things aren't much better with Vista either FYI.
    >> But I presume it will be similar when the SP is released.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Yes, of course i use images (acronis) but that has nothing to do with
    > this matter.


    And aree you classing this as *installing*?

    > I find it hilarious that it takes someone 5 hours to get a functional XP
    > machine, no matter what kind of hardware you have.


    Absolute hoop. I described my installation perfectly. I told you about
    it in the thread. It involved getting XP (with SP2 already there) and
    my hardware working. I counted the time it took to download the
    drivers for my wireless stick and my all-in-one. Do you want to
    re-read the thread again as you are only succeeding in making yourself
    look foolish.

    > Installing XP, installing SP2, updating the system, installing drivers
    > for the scanner and printer, installing Firefox and installing some
    > tools for best performance does NOT take (me) 5 hours.


    Come around to my house. I'll *guarantee* you that it will take you at
    least as long as it took me on my hardware and with the need to
    download and install the required drivers.

    > I get a little irritated when in a Ubuntu NG people like the OP only
    > sent messages about how "terrible" Windows XP is.


    He didn't. I get perturbed when people selective ignore valid points
    made in threads. I have absolutely no axe to grind with Windows. I
    prefer XP, but operate both. I am blind to neither Windows or Ubuntu's
    faults. Unlike others in this thread. Yourself, quite obviously,
    included.

    > I so much wish that
    > people would just use the OS they like best and stop this stupid
    > Windows/Linux competition.


    Why can't I use and enjoy *both*. You live in "black and white land"
    and I claim my £5 prize.

    --
    Moog

    "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
    leather straps."

  2. Re: [OT] Windows XP install

    Moog wrote:
    > Marco illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >> Moog schreef:
    >>> Marco illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Funny that this whole process you desribe only takes me 2 or so hours.
    >>> Yup. It's hilarious. Do you use a partition backup? "Why?", I hear you ask.
    >>> Well, my recent XP re-install (SP2 version BTW) on a fairly straightforward
    >>> machine took close to 5 hours to sort out with OS and all hardware
    >>> configured and "drivered up".
    >>>
    >>> BTW. I've been running Windows since 3.11. The fact that you can do it
    >>> in 2 hours suggest that
    >>> 1) You're lying
    >>> 2) You have absolutely no hardware other than mobo, processor and hard
    >>> drive.
    >>>

    >> I find it hilarious that it takes someone 5 hours to get a functional XP
    >> machine, no matter what kind of hardware you have.

    >
    >
    >> Installing XP, installing SP2, updating the system, installing drivers
    >> for the scanner and printer, installing Firefox and installing some
    >> tools for best performance does NOT take (me) 5 hours.

    >


    I must be a pretty lousy, slow windows expert then: a complete windows
    xp installation takes me at least 6 hours.
    - winxp, sp2, (onboard) several hardware drivers, extra software: (ms)
    office, seamonkey, acrobat, winzip, mediaplayer classic, password tool,
    hardware software, virus scanner, lavasoft, quicktime, realplayer
    (alternatives, both), ftp program
    - config internet, e-mail (5 accounts)
    - adapting local policies to close security holes Bill left

    Plus several hours to config webbrowsers, mediaplayers, office and so on
    to have the correct options on / off.

    In 2 hours you can put a ghost image back (5-15 minutes) and waste some
    time on whatever is not in the image. The "shop image" / restore cd will
    take longer, I guess.
    --

    Xubunt6

    "Xubuntu 6 just installed ..."

  3. Re: [OT] Windows XP install

    xubunt6 illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Moog wrote:
    >> Marco illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>> Moog schreef:
    >>>> Marco illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Funny that this whole process you desribe only takes me 2 or so hours.
    >>>> Yup. It's hilarious. Do you use a partition backup? "Why?", I hear you ask.
    >>>> Well, my recent XP re-install (SP2 version BTW) on a fairly straightforward
    >>>> machine took close to 5 hours to sort out with OS and all hardware
    >>>> configured and "drivered up".
    >>>>
    >>>> BTW. I've been running Windows since 3.11. The fact that you can do it
    >>>> in 2 hours suggest that
    >>>> 1) You're lying
    >>>> 2) You have absolutely no hardware other than mobo, processor and hard
    >>>> drive.
    >>>>
    >>> I find it hilarious that it takes someone 5 hours to get a functional XP
    >>> machine, no matter what kind of hardware you have.

    >>
    >>
    >>> Installing XP, installing SP2, updating the system, installing drivers
    >>> for the scanner and printer, installing Firefox and installing some
    >>> tools for best performance does NOT take (me) 5 hours.

    >>

    >
    > I must be a pretty lousy, slow windows expert then: a complete windows
    > xp installation takes me at least 6 hours.


    No. I would say that time spent installing *any* OS differs depending
    entirely on which hardware you are installing it on to.

    --
    Moog

    "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
    leather straps."

  4. Re: [OT] Windows XP install

    On 1 Sep 2007 13:42:54 GMT
    Moog wrote:

    > >>> Installing XP, installing SP2, updating the system, installing drivers
    > >>> for the scanner and printer, installing Firefox and installing some
    > >>> tools for best performance does NOT take (me) 5 hours.
    > >>

    > >
    > > I must be a pretty lousy, slow windows expert then: a complete windows
    > > xp installation takes me at least 6 hours.

    >
    > No. I would say that time spent installing *any* OS differs depending
    > entirely on which hardware you are installing it on to.


    I think my one (thread) has expired now but my last install was around
    5 hours and well documented (if I say so myself). That was installing
    SP1 then going from there.

    --
    People say I'm violent.
    Tell 'em it aint true or I'll kick yer teeth in!

  5. Re: [OT] Windows XP install

    * Trevor Best wrote in alt.os.linux.ubuntu:
    > On 1 Sep 2007 13:42:54 GMT
    > Moog wrote:


    >> >>> Installing XP, installing SP2, updating the system, installing drivers
    >> >>> for the scanner and printer, installing Firefox and installing some
    >> >>> tools for best performance does NOT take (me) 5 hours.



    >> > I must be a pretty lousy, slow windows expert then: a complete windows
    >> > xp installation takes me at least 6 hours.


    >> No. I would say that time spent installing *any* OS differs depending
    >> entirely on which hardware you are installing it on to.


    > I think my one (thread) has expired now but my last install was around
    > 5 hours and well documented (if I say so myself). That was installing
    > SP1 then going from there.


    I just completed a vanilla install of XPSP2 to a VMWare VM and it took 5
    hours and no less than 4 reboots.

    --
    David
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

    By golly, I'm beginning to think Linux really *is* the best thing since
    sliced bread.
    -- Vance Petree, Virginia Power

  6. Re: [OT] Windows XP install

    Trevor Best illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > On 1 Sep 2007 13:42:54 GMT
    > Moog wrote:
    >
    >> >>> Installing XP, installing SP2, updating the system, installing drivers
    >> >>> for the scanner and printer, installing Firefox and installing some
    >> >>> tools for best performance does NOT take (me) 5 hours.
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > I must be a pretty lousy, slow windows expert then: a complete windows
    >> > xp installation takes me at least 6 hours.

    >>
    >> No. I would say that time spent installing *any* OS differs depending
    >> entirely on which hardware you are installing it on to.

    >
    > I think my one (thread) has expired now but my last install was around
    > 5 hours and well documented (if I say so myself). That was installing
    > SP1 then going from there.


    It's the people that keep popping up and telling us that we're having
    a go at windows, or the others that can install Server 2003 with a
    full working LAMP and an Exchange server in 5 minutes that are pissing
    me off in this thread. It's stupid. They should just take what is
    written at face value. No-one here is trying to debunk MS. They're
    simply posting it for comparison reasons. That's fair enough IMHO.

    Anyway. Would you believe I installed Ubuntu in 30 seconds last week?

    The only preparation I made was to change my name by deed poll to
    "marco" just before starting. I then returned to my local magistrates
    court (yeah. I know. Bloody scouser.) to change it back to "Moog" just
    after installation. That saved me a good 45 minutes. ;-)

    --
    Moog

    "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
    leather straps."

  7. Re: [OT] Windows XP install

    Moog writes:

    > Trevor Best illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >> On 1 Sep 2007 13:42:54 GMT
    >> Moog wrote:
    >>
    >>> >>> Installing XP, installing SP2, updating the system, installing drivers
    >>> >>> for the scanner and printer, installing Firefox and installing some
    >>> >>> tools for best performance does NOT take (me) 5 hours.
    >>> >>
    >>> >
    >>> > I must be a pretty lousy, slow windows expert then: a complete windows
    >>> > xp installation takes me at least 6 hours.
    >>>
    >>> No. I would say that time spent installing *any* OS differs depending
    >>> entirely on which hardware you are installing it on to.

    >>
    >> I think my one (thread) has expired now but my last install was around
    >> 5 hours and well documented (if I say so myself). That was installing
    >> SP1 then going from there.

    >
    > It's the people that keep popping up and telling us that we're having
    > a go at windows, or the others that can install Server 2003 with a
    > full working LAMP and an Exchange server in 5 minutes that are pissing
    > me off in this thread. It's stupid. They should just take what is
    > written at face value. No-one here is trying to debunk MS. They're
    > simply posting it for comparison reasons. That's fair enough IMHO.
    >
    > Anyway. Would you believe I installed Ubuntu in 30 seconds last week?
    >
    > The only preparation I made was to change my name by deed poll to
    > "marco" just before starting. I then returned to my local magistrates
    > court (yeah. I know. Bloody scouser.) to change it back to "Moog" just
    > after installation. That saved me a good 45 minutes. ;-)


    btw, what is a "Moog"?

  8. Re: [OT] Windows XP install

    Hadron illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >
    > btw, what is a "Moog"?


    It's a synthesizer produced by the late, great Bob Moog.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moog

    It's also a nickname of mine. I've had it since the mid '80's. I was
    a guitarist in a band at the time. We weren't bad. We went into a
    recording studio and I played some terrible keyboard on a track of
    ours. Hence, I was christened with this nickname as a bit of a
    pisstake.

    --
    Moog

    "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
    leather straps."

  9. Re: [OT] Windows XP install

    It was on, or about, Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:51:52 +0000, that as I was
    halfway through a large jam doughnut, Moog wrote:

    > Hadron illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>
    >> btw, what is a "Moog"?

    >
    > It's a synthesizer produced by the late, great Bob Moog.
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moog
    >
    > It's also a nickname of mine. I've had it since the mid '80's. I was a
    > guitarist in a band at the time. We weren't bad. We went into a
    > recording studio and I played some terrible keyboard on a track of ours.
    > Hence, I was christened with this nickname as a bit of a pisstake.


    Heh!
    It's also the name of an engineering company which make hydraulic
    equipment. One UK aerospace company I worked for used to use their
    products for controlling landing gear, ailerons etc.

    --
    Surely you are not comparing the non-existent Linux (at that time) with
    98? - Hadron aka Hadron Quark, Hans Schneider, & Damian O'Leary
    comp.os.linux.advocacy - Thu, 16 Aug 2007
    Message-ID:

+ Reply to Thread