So you really think Linux is better than Vista, do you?

I've already posted about Vista running nicely on my new laptop. I've had
some encounters with Linux previously, primarily in the context of hacking
my Tivo (which is nothing but a small and not-particularly-powerful Linux
computer). I recently replaced my wife's old desktop with a new laptop, so
I thought this might be a nice time to experiment a little.

I decided to install Ubuntu on my wife's old machine, and also in as a
Virtual PC on my laptop.
That was around noon today, 12 hours ago.

I downloaded Ubuntu, burned it on to a CD and popped it into my wife's
computer. My wife's old machine is an 500 MHz AMD K6. This is an old slow
machine, but it was running Win2000 and doing it just fine. Ubuntu booted
from the CD, but failed to properly recognize the graphics card and came up
in 640 x 480 VGA mode. The installation screens were, evidently, hard-coded
for higher res -- I had to keep scrolling up and down to read them. I
finally got through the installation and rebooted. Okay, there was Ubuntu
with a pretty GUI -- but in VGA mode. Nothing I tried got it to change the
resolution of the display.

I decided I'd pop in another graphics card. I installed it and turned on
the machine. Ubuntu started to boot and then flashed a text message
indicating that it couldn't find the driver for my graphics card.

Okay, I'll just re-install from scratch.

This time, everything worked fine and, after 40 minutes or so, the computer
booted into the Ubuntu GUI in 1024 x 768 mode (the limits of the graphics
card that I had installed). The first thing it did was flash a warning:
Updates are available. I clicked on the Update button and discovered that
Ubuntu wanted to download 139 (!!!) updates that were necessary for, among
other things, patching security problems. Hmmm. Sounds familiar, doesn't
it?

I told it to go ahead and do the updates -- another 30 minutes spent
downloading them, and then a good hour while they were installed. Reboot.
Back to the pretty GUI.

I decided to do some exploring. Here is Firefox - Linux edition. I open it
up and start browing. First thing I notice is that it is slow -- very,
very, very slow. Yes, this is an old slow machine but, remember, it was
running fine under Win2000. including running Firefox. That's what my wife
used it for -- surfing the web. I went to Youtube to look at videos. They
played like old fashioned, jerky silent movies -- a frame rate of perhaps 6
frames a second. I decided to look at some videos on my network. Hmmm.
The video player gave an error message when I tried to play .wmv, .mpg and
..mp4 files -- it needed a codec installed. Where to get the codec? I don't
know. I tried to play a DV-codec AVI file, i.e. one transferred direct from
a miniDV player. Guess what? It couldn't play that either.

Okay. So maybe this machine is just too slow for Ubuntu (though it ran fine
with Win2000). I really wanted to use it as a server anyway -- let it do
FTP and file serving on my network. I decided to install Ubuntu Server.

Another 40 minutes loading it from CD and installing it, and I was
finished -- it indicated that everything had installed fine and I should
remove the CD and reboot. I did. And the machine promptly ground to a
halt. Some problem with something called "GRUB." It said, "Error 18."
What's error 18? I don't know.

As for my laptop, I'm on my second attempt at installing Ubuntu under a
Virtual PC window. The first attempt failed because Ubuntu defaults to
24-bit graphics and Virtual PC only runs at 16 bits. It's actually a
virtual PC bug because the graphics card emulation reports 24-bit
capability. However, Win XP had no problem loading into Virtual PC.

I spend some time on the web and find instructions for installing Ubuntu
under Virtual PC. It's 12:14 am. I started the installation at 7:30 pm.
It's still cranking away -- the CD drive light is flickering like made, but
the progress bar has been on 6% for several hours. According to the web
instructions, this step, "takes a LOOOOONNNNGGGG time." They're not
kidding!

Perhaps it will finish by tomorrow morning when I wake up.

So . . . tell me again how Linux is better than Vista. Linux isn't
plug-and-play. Linux is slower than Win2000, at least on my wife's old
machine. Linux is buggy. And, most of all, Linux requires a heck of a lot
of specialized knowledge. I've been mucking around with computers since
high school (which was many decades ago). The first computer I programmed
was in a refrigerated room and was fed a deck of punch cards. I've written
in assembler, as well as higher level languages. I don't have trouble
configuring Windows machines (though I'm not, by any means, an average
user -- I know what I'm doing).

However, I don't know Linux. I don't know what GRUB is. I don't know what
apt installers are. I can learn and probably will. The point, though, is
computers are fun for me and playing with Linux will be a hobby.

However, I also need computers for my job. I have work to do, which is why
my laptop runs Vista and not a Linux distro, except for fun and running
under Virtual PC (maybe -- at this rate, who knows if it will install by
Monday).

So . . . tell me again why Linux is better than Vista?

"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:un0vdb7YHHA.3520@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> ...go ahead and...

LOL!

> And, most of all, Linux requires a heck of a lot of specialized knowledge.

That's certainly true. E.g. if you had downloaded the "alternative" CD,
you'd have had none of the graphics problems because it has a text
installation mode where you can set up the properties of your card
(including colour depth for VirtualPC etc etc) before the GUI loads...

> So . . . tell me again why Linux is better than Vista?

It's free.

Er, that's about it...

<snip>
>
> However, I don't know Linux. I don't know what GRUB is. I don't know
what
> apt installers are. I can learn and probably will. The point, though, is
> computers are fun for me and playing with Linux will be a hobby.
>
> However, I also need computers for my job. I have work to do, which is
why
> my laptop runs Vista and not a Linux distro, except for fun and running
> under Virtual PC (maybe -- at this rate, who knows if it will install by
> Monday).
>
> So . . . tell me again why Linux is better than Vista?
>

I've been dual booting Linux and Windows for maybe 6 years now.
Though Ubuntu seems to have gotten a lot of attention...I gave it a try
and was quite disappointed.

OTOH: Distributions such as Slackware or Fedora Core work exceedingly
well...
so I would not write Linux off totally...though it certainly does have a
learning curve.


Here is how I do it though...I use removable HD kits...
that way I can install Linux natively and not have to worry about destroying
some other OS in the process

The beings that run Linsux are not even carbon based life forms!

Well lets see...I did something similar yesterday!

I decided to switch my desktop to the other desktop manager and setup my
partitions properly. Before I had everything onto one partition which is
bad. Old windows habit since it is virtually impossible there to keep the
OS isolated.

So I reinstalled Ubuntu, setup the partitions the way I liked them (32 gigs
for the OS / Application partition) and the remainder 260 gigs for /home
which is where all user data goes. Perfect!

Install took about 10 minutes...
Of course, loads in 1024x768 VESA driver...incredibly slow...
Then, unlike you, I went to my manufacturers website (nvidia in my case)
downloaded the video driver...installed it...reboot...ohh..lookie here!
1600x1200 and running at full speed.

This now about 20 minutes later...and now...I'm done beyond adding little
add on's I like. Beryl took another few minutes to download and add to auto
start.

So yea, you *might* want to consider installing the appropriate graphics
card driver on your wife's laptop..that should improve performance
drastically.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

Richard Urban wrote:
> The beings that run Linsux are not even carbon based life forms!
>

Do you think you could be more bigoted? Are you also a member of the K.K.K.?

Alias

"Mark Rae" <mark@markNOSPAMrae.com> wrote in message
news:%236YR1j7YHHA.4616@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:un0vdb7YHHA.3520@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> ...go ahead and...
>
> LOL!
>
>> And, most of all, Linux requires a heck of a lot of specialized
>> knowledge.
>
> That's certainly true. E.g. if you had downloaded the "alternative" CD,
> you'd have had none of the graphics problems because it has a text
> installation mode where you can set up the properties of your card
> (including colour depth for VirtualPC etc etc) before the GUI loads...

I've downloaded the "alternative" CD. That's the one that ran for hours.
And I just checked it -- the installation bombed. I'm starting it over.
Who knows, maybe it will even work this time.

>
>> So . . . tell me again why Linux is better than Vista?
>
> It's free.
>
> Er, that's about it...
>

PTravel wrote:
> I've already posted about Vista running nicely on my new laptop. I've
> had some encounters with Linux previously, primarily in the context of
> hacking my Tivo (which is nothing but a small and
> not-particularly-powerful Linux computer). I recently replaced my
> wife's old desktop with a new laptop, so I thought this might be a nice
> time to experiment a little.
>
> I decided to install Ubuntu on my wife's old machine, and also in as a
> Virtual PC on my laptop.
> That was around noon today, 12 hours ago.

Which version of Ubuntu? If you tried 6.10, try 6.06. Order the CD.

Alias

"Alias" <alias@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:et131c$rjo$1@aioe.org...
> PTravel wrote:
>> I've already posted about Vista running nicely on my new laptop. I've
>> had some encounters with Linux previously, primarily in the context of
>> hacking my Tivo (which is nothing but a small and
>> not-particularly-powerful Linux computer). I recently replaced my wife's
>> old desktop with a new laptop, so I thought this might be a nice time to
>> experiment a little.
>>
>> I decided to install Ubuntu on my wife's old machine, and also in as a
>> Virtual PC on my laptop.
>> That was around noon today, 12 hours ago.
>
> Which version of Ubuntu? If you tried 6.10, try 6.06. Order the CD.
>
> Alias

I tried them both. I'm trying 6.10 again. If it works, I'll post back
here.

"Alias" <alias@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:et131c$rjo$1@aioe.org...
> PTravel wrote:
>> I've already posted about Vista running nicely on my new laptop. I've
>> had some encounters with Linux previously, primarily in the context of
>> hacking my Tivo (which is nothing but a small and
>> not-particularly-powerful Linux computer). I recently replaced my wife's
>> old desktop with a new laptop, so I thought this might be a nice time to
>> experiment a little.
>>
>> I decided to install Ubuntu on my wife's old machine, and also in as a
>> Virtual PC on my laptop.
>> That was around noon today, 12 hours ago.
>
> Which version of Ubuntu? If you tried 6.10, try 6.06. Order the CD.
>
> Alias

I gave Linux a try as well with bad results. Downloaded Ubuntu 6.06 cut the
CD and tried to run the on disk version. It would shut down my monitor due
to timing issues. The monitor would go into sleep mode (LG 20" wide LCD) I
posted in Linux group and was told to use a CRT until I got it working. I
tossed out my last CRT 2 years ago.

Next I tried 6.10 and it did the same thing.

Next I tried Mandriva it did install but for some reason would not run the
KDE gui so I reinstalled and selected GNOME same thing could not get GUI to
run.

Downloaded openSUSE did the install it locked up. I unhooked all USB devices
and did the install again. All went OK. The screen was very slow to scroll
(1280 x 1024) so I got the ATI driver file. Printed off the 30 pages of
install instructions from SUSE and ATI. Followed them to the letter. I did
get the file compiled but it would not run. Came up with an error. No sound
card driver at all for it. The desktop compares to Win95/98. Why do you need
3 HD partitions for it. The file structure is a complete mess if you ask me
the directories make no sense at all. Even in Root it would not let me run
some of the files to make the Driver file I had to change some file
permissions. that was enough for me. I did like the Firefox web browser.

I spent about 20 hours on this in total not counting DL time and could not
even get a video card driver installed.

It took about 2.5 hours to Backup my files Clean my HD, install Vista,
install all drivers, AV software, Office 2003, and World of Warcraft. I have
had some minor bugs that updated drivers have fixed.

This system has been powered up and running since Jan 20 2007 without Vista
crashing. I do not regret upgrading to Vista.

I have been around computers since 1979 and working with Linux put me back
to the MS-Dos and Windows 3.0 Days, even with MS-Dos and Win 3.0 The drivers
and programs had an Install program.

Windows is not perfect but Linux is farther from perfect in my opinion.

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:46:20 -0000, "Robert Moir"
<robspamtrap@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:e0VnQd9YHHA.2436@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> The beings that run Linsux are not even carbon based life forms!
>
>I'd love to be able to say I expected better from you, but to be honest, I
>didn't.


My take, people endlessly evangelizing for Macs or Linux should be
treated as the TROLLS they are. This is a Microsoft support group for
Vista. Not some other browser, not some other operating system.

For idiots, and nobody kid yourself, idiots is what they are to
constantly nag people that already are Windows users, many who have
already purchased Vista or likely will at some point is beyond being
rude. There is no need to be subjected to constant nagging about how
product X is so much better. Doing so day after day like a few clods
do is the equivalent of shouting fire in a theater.

There are rules of conduct and these morons are clearly out of order.
They are deliberately with hostile intention trying to distrup this
newsgroup and should be shown the contempt they so richly deserve.