Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX - Ubuntu ; On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:44:43 +0000, Chris S. wrote: > "JD" wrote in message > news:4813337e$0$3387$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... >>I didn't know that Ubuntu had moved into the UNIX market too. > > LINUX IS UNIX.. And UNIX pre-dates it by over ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 69

Thread: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

  1. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:44:43 +0000, Chris S. wrote:

    > "JD" wrote in message
    > news:4813337e$0$3387$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    >>I didn't know that Ubuntu had moved into the UNIX market too.

    >
    > LINUX IS UNIX.. And UNIX pre-dates it by over 20 years.


    I guess the sarcasm didn't come across very well in that one. As in
    Stallman and Gnu's Not Unix, and his insisting that Linux should always be
    referred to as GNU/Linux. Even in school they preferred to describe Linux
    as UNIX-like but not UNIX.

    JD

  2. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX



    "Chris S." wrote in message
    news:vdHQj.4285$E77.2640@trnddc05...
    >
    > "JD" wrote in message
    > news:4813337e$0$3387$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    >>I didn't know that Ubuntu had moved into the UNIX market too.

    >
    > LINUX IS UNIX.. And UNIX pre-dates it by over 20 years.


    Linux is *not* Unix.
    Linux is a kernel that copies the interfaces of a Unix kernel.

    Ubuntu is based on the linux kernel, it is not linux.
    You can run the same software on other kernels including BSD which was(is?)
    a variant of Unix once.

    >
    > "UNIX, a multi-user, user i.d. operating system that incorporates
    > multitasking, originally developed by Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie at
    > AT&T Bell Laboratories in 1969 for use on minicomputers."
    >
    > "LINUX: Computer operating system, the first version of which was written
    > by a second-year student of computer science at the University of Helsinki
    > in Finland, Linus Torvalds, and was released in 1991."


    That is an error.

    >
    > Regards, ;-)
    > Chris S.


    Is everything you say based on errors?


  3. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX



    "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    news:6WIQj.252992$cQ1.7608@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > Chris S. wrote:
    >>
    >> "ray" wrote in message
    >> news:67gubaF2p2f7bU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>> For the record: Ubuntu is not UNIX. Ubuntu is Linux; and Linux is not
    >>> UNIX. Linux is a UNIX work alike, but with a completely different
    >>> kernel -
    >>> and Linux is the kernel.

    >>
    >> "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...."
    >>
    >> "Works like" is key here......
    >>
    >> Of course creating a "work alike" OS on a completely different platform
    >> requires a completely different kernel. Porting the early desktop UNIX
    >> was relatively easy, as the Motorola processors had a very similar
    >> addressing
    >> scheme to the PDP's that UNIX was developed on. The Intel scheme had
    >> /has enormous differences. Torvalds did some remarkable things to
    >> emulate UNIX on the x86 platform.
    >>
    >> But to me it's still just a version of UNIX. Linus certainly has the
    >> right
    >> to put his name in his project.
    >>
    >> Chris S.
    >> ;-)

    >
    >
    > Linux is often described as a "clone" of Unix.
    >
    > Dolly the sheep was a clone.


    That is debatable.
    Dolly was asexual but had genetic problems that the real sheep didn't have.

    >
    > Was Dolly a sheep? ;-)
    >


    A defective sheep, yes. So you think linux is a defective Unix then?

    Good these analogies!?




  4. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    > news:6WIQj.252992$cQ1.7608@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >> Chris S. wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "ray" wrote in message
    >>> news:67gubaF2p2f7bU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>> For the record: Ubuntu is not UNIX. Ubuntu is Linux; and Linux is not
    >>>> UNIX. Linux is a UNIX work alike, but with a completely different
    >>>> kernel -
    >>>> and Linux is the kernel.
    >>>
    >>> "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...."
    >>>
    >>> "Works like" is key here......
    >>>
    >>> Of course creating a "work alike" OS on a completely different platform
    >>> requires a completely different kernel. Porting the early desktop UNIX
    >>> was relatively easy, as the Motorola processors had a very similar
    >>> addressing
    >>> scheme to the PDP's that UNIX was developed on. The Intel scheme had
    >>> /has enormous differences. Torvalds did some remarkable things to
    >>> emulate UNIX on the x86 platform.
    >>>
    >>> But to me it's still just a version of UNIX. Linus certainly has the
    >>> right
    >>> to put his name in his project.
    >>>
    >>> Chris S.
    >>> ;-)

    >>
    >>
    >> Linux is often described as a "clone" of Unix.
    >>
    >> Dolly the sheep was a clone.

    >
    > That is debatable.



    Not with me it isn't. I wasn't there, and I don't suspect you were either.


    > Dolly was asexual but had genetic problems that the real sheep didn't
    > have.
    >
    >>
    >> Was Dolly a sheep? ;-)
    >>

    >
    > A defective sheep, yes. So you think linux is a defective Unix then?
    >
    > Good these analogies!?


    Are you not the one making them? ;-)


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  5. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX



    "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    news:0mNQj.254165$cQ1.28099@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    >> news:6WIQj.252992$cQ1.7608@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>> Chris S. wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "ray" wrote in message
    >>>> news:67gubaF2p2f7bU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>> For the record: Ubuntu is not UNIX. Ubuntu is Linux; and Linux is not
    >>>>> UNIX. Linux is a UNIX work alike, but with a completely different
    >>>>> kernel -
    >>>>> and Linux is the kernel.
    >>>>
    >>>> "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...."
    >>>>
    >>>> "Works like" is key here......
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course creating a "work alike" OS on a completely different platform
    >>>> requires a completely different kernel. Porting the early desktop UNIX
    >>>> was relatively easy, as the Motorola processors had a very similar
    >>>> addressing
    >>>> scheme to the PDP's that UNIX was developed on. The Intel scheme had
    >>>> /has enormous differences. Torvalds did some remarkable things to
    >>>> emulate UNIX on the x86 platform.
    >>>>
    >>>> But to me it's still just a version of UNIX. Linus certainly has the
    >>>> right
    >>>> to put his name in his project.
    >>>>
    >>>> Chris S.
    >>>> ;-)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Linux is often described as a "clone" of Unix.
    >>>
    >>> Dolly the sheep was a clone.

    >>
    >> That is debatable.

    >
    >
    > Not with me it isn't. I wasn't there, and I don't suspect you were either.


    So what?

    >> Dolly was asexual but had genetic problems that the real sheep didn't
    >> have.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Was Dolly a sheep? ;-)
    >>>

    >>
    >> A defective sheep, yes. So you think linux is a defective Unix then?
    >>
    >> Good these analogies!?

    >
    > Are you not the one making them? ;-)


    Am I?
    I was just expanding on one someone else had made.


  6. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    > news:0mNQj.254165$cQ1.28099@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    >>> news:6WIQj.252992$cQ1.7608@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>>> Chris S. wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "ray" wrote in message
    >>>>> news:67gubaF2p2f7bU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>> For the record: Ubuntu is not UNIX. Ubuntu is Linux; and Linux is
    >>>>>> not
    >>>>>> UNIX. Linux is a UNIX work alike, but with a completely different
    >>>>>> kernel -
    >>>>>> and Linux is the kernel.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...."
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Works like" is key here......
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Of course creating a "work alike" OS on a completely different
    >>>>> platform
    >>>>> requires a completely different kernel. Porting the early desktop
    >>>>> UNIX
    >>>>> was relatively easy, as the Motorola processors had a very similar
    >>>>> addressing
    >>>>> scheme to the PDP's that UNIX was developed on. The Intel scheme had
    >>>>> /has enormous differences. Torvalds did some remarkable things to
    >>>>> emulate UNIX on the x86 platform.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But to me it's still just a version of UNIX. Linus certainly has
    >>>>> the right
    >>>>> to put his name in his project.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Chris S.
    >>>>> ;-)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Linux is often described as a "clone" of Unix.
    >>>>
    >>>> Dolly the sheep was a clone.
    >>>
    >>> That is debatable.

    >>
    >>
    >> Not with me it isn't. I wasn't there, and I don't suspect you were
    >> either.

    >
    > So what?



    So what?!

    You just made my point: You want to jabber about anything even if you or
    your audience knows nothing about it.

    Nor cares.


    >>> Dolly was asexual but had genetic problems that the real sheep
    >>> didn't have.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Was Dolly a sheep? ;-)
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> A defective sheep, yes. So you think linux is a defective Unix then?
    >>>
    >>> Good these analogies!?

    >>
    >> Are you not the one making them? ;-)

    >
    > Am I?
    > I was just expanding on one someone else had made.



    Where does this fit into the discussion: "So you think linux is a
    defective Unix then?"?

    Never mind. I see you are up to your usual trolling, from a Windows PC
    at that. Don't bother replying because you've just joined Dan and a few
    others in the plonked room.

    Have a nice day -- it's entirely up to you.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  7. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX



    "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    news:1DNQj.254232$cQ1.202814@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    >> news:0mNQj.254165$cQ1.28099@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>> dennis@home wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    >>>> news:6WIQj.252992$cQ1.7608@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    >>>>> Chris S. wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "ray" wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:67gubaF2p2f7bU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>>>>>> For the record: Ubuntu is not UNIX. Ubuntu is Linux; and Linux is
    >>>>>>> not
    >>>>>>> UNIX. Linux is a UNIX work alike, but with a completely different
    >>>>>>> kernel -
    >>>>>>> and Linux is the kernel.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Works like" is key here......
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Of course creating a "work alike" OS on a completely different
    >>>>>> platform
    >>>>>> requires a completely different kernel. Porting the early desktop
    >>>>>> UNIX
    >>>>>> was relatively easy, as the Motorola processors had a very similar
    >>>>>> addressing
    >>>>>> scheme to the PDP's that UNIX was developed on. The Intel scheme had
    >>>>>> /has enormous differences. Torvalds did some remarkable things to
    >>>>>> emulate UNIX on the x86 platform.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> But to me it's still just a version of UNIX. Linus certainly has the
    >>>>>> right
    >>>>>> to put his name in his project.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Chris S.
    >>>>>> ;-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Linux is often described as a "clone" of Unix.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Dolly the sheep was a clone.
    >>>>
    >>>> That is debatable.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Not with me it isn't. I wasn't there, and I don't suspect you were
    >>> either.

    >>
    >> So what?

    >
    >
    > So what?!
    >
    > You just made my point: You want to jabber about anything even if you or
    > your audience knows nothing about it.
    >
    > Nor cares.
    >
    >
    >>>> Dolly was asexual but had genetic problems that the real sheep didn't
    >>>> have.
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Was Dolly a sheep? ;-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> A defective sheep, yes. So you think linux is a defective Unix then?
    >>>>
    >>>> Good these analogies!?
    >>>
    >>> Are you not the one making them? ;-)

    >>
    >> Am I?
    >> I was just expanding on one someone else had made.

    >
    >
    > Where does this fit into the discussion: "So you think linux is a
    > defective Unix then?"?
    >
    > Never mind. I see you are up to your usual trolling, from a Windows PC at
    > that. Don't bother replying because you've just joined Dan and a few
    > others in the plonked room.
    >
    > Have a nice day -- it's entirely up to you.


    Typical response from an idiot.
    Plonk someone because they pointed out the stupidity of analogies that
    shouldn't have been used in the first place by someone who obviously knows
    nothing about Dolly or anything else either.

    BTW you are the one that brought windows in not me so sod off!


  8. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:48:54 +0000, Chris S. wrote:

    > For now back to get some work done with the Vista OS and my
    > Applications.


    Applications which came with Vista?

  9. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:59:55 +0000, ray wrote:

    > For the record: Ubuntu is not UNIX. Ubuntu is Linux; and Linux is not
    > UNIX. Linux is a UNIX work alike, but with a completely different kernel
    > - and Linux is the kernel.


    While what you say is very true, Linux is not UNIX, it does show the
    power of operating environments working together with standards like
    POSIX. And Linus has done a great job at this.* His insight was a
    resounding success.

    Linus did write a kernel independent of UNIX, but UNIX alike enough it's
    adoption has grown and compatibility is astounding. Back in the days
    when Linux was downloaded from Slackware at 1200 baud, the compilers
    included when UNIX vendors were getting greedy. One of the things that
    always attracted me to Linux is the you get it all and it was open
    without an arm and leg detached.

    Contributions from GNU (gcc mainly) and teams like Ubuntu have added
    greatly to CompSci. For without them, and the countless and tireless
    contributors to Linux applications we would all be at the mercy of the
    likes of Microsoft/Vista.

    God forbid. And good job Ubuntu team, this was authored with your
    works. You won me over. My main systems is now Ubuntu.

  10. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:40:34 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:

    > Chris S. wrote:
    >>
    >> "ray" wrote in message
    >> news:67gubaF2p2f7bU1@mid.individual.net...
    >>> For the record: Ubuntu is not UNIX. Ubuntu is Linux; and Linux is not
    >>> UNIX. Linux is a UNIX work alike, but with a completely different
    >>> kernel -
    >>> and Linux is the kernel.

    >>
    >> "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...."
    >>
    >> "Works like" is key here......
    >>
    >> Of course creating a "work alike" OS on a completely different platform
    >> requires a completely different kernel. Porting the early desktop UNIX
    >> was relatively easy, as the Motorola processors had a very similar
    >> addressing
    >> scheme to the PDP's that UNIX was developed on. The Intel scheme had
    >> /has enormous differences. Torvalds did some remarkable things to
    >> emulate UNIX on the x86 platform.
    >>
    >> But to me it's still just a version of UNIX. Linus certainly has the
    >> right
    >> to put his name in his project.
    >>
    >> Chris S.
    >> ;-)

    >
    >
    > Linux is often described as a "clone" of Unix.
    >
    > Dolly the sheep was a clone.
    >
    > Was Dolly a sheep? ;-)


    Vista is a clone of the worst of:

    CE + ME + NT == VISTA

    So, your point?


  11. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    Chris S. wrote:

    > I'm rather sure it is supported, but not without finding and installing
    > drivers...


    Strangely, there's /more/ hardware handled correctly by a basic Ubuntu
    install than there is by a Windows disk.

    > A clean install of Vista x64 Ultimate had no such problems.


    Nonsense. You had to get the drivers for your video card, for your
    monitors, for your sound card - /none/ of the modern hardware is handled
    correctly by a Vista install disk.

    C.

  12. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    Chris S. wrote:

    > For now back to get some work done with the Vista OS and my Applications.


    Well you can't, unless you've bought a whole new set of applications to work
    with your shiny, insecure, unreliable mess of an "operating system". Your
    beloved Microsoft /deliberately/ break compatibility with older software.

    Hope you don't want to play any games - most pre-Vista games simply won't
    run. Also, don't try playing DVD films or listening to music - the Vista
    analogue and digital outputs are /deliberately/ degraded because MS assume
    that /every/ user is a criminal...

    C.


  13. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    Christopher Hunter, the lying POS linturd wrote:
    > Chris S. wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I'm rather sure it is supported, but not without finding and installing
    >>drivers...

    >
    >
    > Strangely, there's /more/ hardware handled correctly by a basic Ubuntu
    > install than there is by a Windows disk.


    Stop lying you POS...anyone who has Vista installed knows that is simply
    not true.

    >
    >
    >>A clean install of Vista x64 Ultimate had no such problems.

    >
    >
    > Nonsense.


    Nonsense? How the fukk does a lying linturd like you know anything at
    all about Vista huh?

    You had to get the drivers for your video card, for your
    > monitors, for your sound card - /none/ of the modern hardware is handled
    > correctly by a Vista install disk.


    What a fukkin lying FUDDER you are!
    STFU loser...oh and stop your lying!
    Frank

  14. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    Christopher Hunter wrote:

    > Chris S. wrote:
    >
    >
    >>For now back to get some work done with the Vista OS and my Applications.

    >
    >
    > Well you can't, unless you've bought a whole new set of applications to work
    > with your shiny, insecure, unreliable mess of an "operating system". Your
    > beloved Microsoft /deliberately/ break compatibility with older software.
    >

    You dumb, ignorant, stupid, lying POS linturd loser! You can run older
    software on Vista. We've got over 80 older apps that we have been
    running on XP that run just fine on Vista.
    What a fukkin lying POS you are!


    > Hope you don't want to play any games - most pre-Vista games simply won't
    > run.


    More of your lies?

    Also, don't try playing DVD films or listening to music - the Vista
    > analogue and digital outputs are /deliberately/ degraded because MS assume
    > that /every/ user is a criminal...


    OMG! Anyone with Vista knows what a lying ****sucker you are...LOL!
    You need to just STFU!!!
    Frank

    oh, and I just love catching you in your insidious, incessant lies about
    Vista, the very best OS available today, and then busting your balls
    over it.
    You're really a weak, dumb, stupid lying linturd loser!

  15. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    Frank wrote:

    > Christopher Hunter, the lying POS linturd wrote:
    >> Strangely, there's /more/ hardware handled correctly by a basic Ubuntu
    >> install than there is by a Windows disk.

    >
    > Stop lying you POS...anyone who has Vista installed knows that is simply
    > not true.


    Except me. I've got Vista with a new PC and I could cry
    of all the problems I have with this system. It is just
    an effrontery to sell this product.

    Or maybe I'm just to stupid to use it right. So I rather
    stay at my easy-to-use Linux.

    Gunter


  16. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    Canuck57 wrote:
    > On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:40:34 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >> Linux is often described as a "clone" of Unix.
    >>
    >> Dolly the sheep was a clone.
    >>
    >> Was Dolly a sheep? ;-)
    >>

    >
    > Vista is a clone of the worst of:
    >
    > CE + ME + NT == VISTA
    >
    > So, your point?



    My "point" was right there for you to see. You must have overlooked it.
    Here it is again, five times so you won't miss it:

    ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  17. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX



    Frank wrote:
    > Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >
    >> Chris S. wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> For now back to get some work done with the Vista OS and my
    >>> Applications.

    >>
    >>
    >> Well you can't, unless you've bought a whole new set of applications
    >> to work
    >> with your shiny, insecure, unreliable mess of an "operating system".
    >> Your
    >> beloved Microsoft /deliberately/ break compatibility with older
    >> software.
    >>

    > You dumb, ignorant, stupid, lying POS linturd loser! You can run older
    > software on Vista. We've got over 80 older apps that we have been
    > running on XP that run just fine on Vista.
    > What a fukkin lying POS you are!

    Who is we? I do not think another human being can stand a lowlife like you.
    >
    >
    >> Hope you don't want to play any games - most pre-Vista games simply
    >> won't
    >> run.

    >
    > More of your lies?

    Most likely true.
    >
    > Also, don't try playing DVD films or listening to music - the Vista
    >> analogue and digital outputs are /deliberately/ degraded because MS
    >> assume
    >> that /every/ user is a criminal...

    >
    > OMG! Anyone with Vista knows what a lying ****sucker you are...LOL!

    It is not nice to talk about your mama that way.
    > You need to just STFU!!!

    Now what does that mean? I guess only a vista user knows that.

    Hasta La Vista
    > Frank
    >
    > oh, and I just love catching you in your insidious, incessant lies
    > about Vista, the very best OS available today

    It look nice but under the hood is another thing.
    > , and then busting your balls

    Too bad you do not have any. Jealous one.
    > over it.
    > You're really a weak, dumb, stupid lying linturd loser!


    I think that this time you got the idiot upset. He is really rambling
    this time. I thought it was very funny. Not a hehehe funny but a ha ha
    ha funny.

  18. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    Gunter Lindemann wrote:

    > Frank wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Christopher Hunter, the lying POS linturd wrote:
    >>
    >>>Strangely, there's /more/ hardware handled correctly by a basic Ubuntu
    >>>install than there is by a Windows disk.

    >>
    >>Stop lying you POS...anyone who has Vista installed knows that is simply
    >>not true.

    >
    >
    > Except me. I've got Vista with a new PC and I could cry
    > of all the problems I have with this system. It is just
    > an effrontery to sell this product.
    >
    > Or maybe I'm just to stupid to use it right. So I rather
    > stay at my easy-to-use Linux.
    >
    > Gunter
    >

    EXCUSE ME!!! Hey bozo, We've got 17 installs of Vista Ultimate x32 & x64
    running properly (counting home & business). Other than laptops, none
    are oem as we build our own. We have have been able to properly install,
    configure and successfully run all of them. Most users don't have any
    problems with Vista.
    But then again, linux zealots and fanatics hate MS and don't want to
    hear the truth.
    Too bad loser!...LOL!
    Frank

  19. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    measekite, the ng's biggest idiot moron loser wrote:

    ---------------------------------------------------

    STFU you dumb POS oem ink drinking moron loser...LOL!
    Frank

  20. Re: Satisified Vista user's report on Ubuntu UNIX

    Frank wrote:

    > EXCUSE ME!!! Hey bozo, We've got 17 installs of Vista Ultimate x32 & x64
    > running properly (counting home & business). Other than laptops, none
    > are oem as we build our own. We have have been able to properly install,
    > configure and successfully run all of them. Most users don't have any
    > problems with Vista.


    Ok, maybe we have different performance values. I conclude,
    that Vista is just enough for your requirements and this
    is quite fine! 20 years ago, I was satisfied just with DOS,
    and couldn't imagine that there is any increase in workflow.

    I'm sure, there is no reason for you to change! So have fun!

    Gunter


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast