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 ..."

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."

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!

* 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

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."

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"?

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."

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: