I've spent the last 3 days attempting to upgrade 4 Windows-XP systems to Vista and have had various problems with software compatability. I've spent countless hours on the phone and technical support websites and finally after 3 days I have everything working. This fiasco has left me with some doubt as to whether or not Microsoft has the ability to maintain it's position as the defacto standard in operating systems.
After reading about Linux I decided to give it a try on another system which is an older P4 2.4G system based around an Asus board. I downloaded Fedora and attempted to install.
First problem, my SATA drives were not found.
Google time >>>> 2 hours later <<<< I found the solution which was a Custom Install Option.
(After a few cryptic questions and a partition manager that was convoluted and potentially very dangerous in the hands of a new user, Fedora was installed)
Second Problem, the system would not boot after install. I got a Grub Error 15 message.
Google Time>>>>>>> 5 Hours Later <<<<.. Oh boy I found lots of information on this puppy. About 5 hours later I fixed the problem which involved copying a know working Grub configuration file from some kind soul on the net, modifying it for my particular system and replacing the one already installed. I did this with a Knoppix LiveCD.
So now I can boot the system, but my display image is shifted way off the screen and too low to click on anything.
Google Time >>>>>> 2 hours later <<<< Ok I learned how to boot to a command line and edit the Xorg file to fix the entries that were incorrect for my common Nvidia card. So now I could see my desktop, but it was at 1024x768 and what appeared to be 16 colors.
Google Time >>> 3 hours later <<< I discovered that there is no apparent way to get 32bpp, 3D acceleration, 85hz and 1280x1024 all at the same time like I have with Windows. Bummer. I settled for 1280x1024 24bpp and no 3d because I don't use it and Linux doesn't appear to have any games written for Linux anyhow.
So now I have the system up, am surfing the net and things look pretty good. Time to add a printer. I go to the control panel and click on printers and peruse the list but I don't see my Lexmark Multifunction listed? I do see a similar model however so I decide to try this. It installs easy enough, but when I go to print I get one line of gibberish on the top of the page, the page ejects and the next page does the same thing over and over and over again. Rebooting the system does no good because the printer, like a mad beast, starts right up again wasting my paper. Finally I turn the damm thing off while I.....................
Google Time << 4 hours >>> I discover Print Ques, printer names and the wonderful account called root. I finally figure out how to purge this thing and with some trepidation I turn the printer on and thankfully it behaves.
Oh well, I don't need to print right now anyhow so on to my network. The problem is, I can't see my other 3 Windows Vista machines. And now it's......... you guessed it!
GOOGLE TIME << infinite >>> I discover something called Samba, but I also learn that Microsoft Vista and Samba are not friends but only after a day and a hlf of playing with a smb.conf file and reading maybe a hundred web pages devoted to helping people get Samba working, and this is with Windows XP which supposedly plays nicely with Samba. I wouldn't know know, I never got Samba working.
At this point, I took the Linux CD's, all 6 of them including the rescue CD which seems useless BTW and tossed them, violently I might add, into the dustbin.
I have wasted far too much time with this Linux crap and I don't intend to waste another millisecond trying to shoehorn this pile of garbage into my systems.
I can see why Linux is free. It doesn't work!
I can also see why it is not even making the slightest ding in Microsoft's armour: It, Linux, doesn't work.
I'm not sure, but if the Linux users expect people, ordinary people, to spend their lives Googling in order to make Linux work, they are daft.
Maybe in 10 years Linux might be able to install and work properly, but for now Linux is too difficult and too buggy for the average user.
Karla

karla.bonerstein yahoo.com wrote:

Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu. ubuntu.com Order the 6.06 CD. They send it to you free and pay the postage.
Alias

On Thursday 22 February 2007 16:59 karla.bonerstein yahoo.com wrote:

I.T.T.A.!

"Alias"

That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my system

Alias writes:

What is it with you Linux geeks and "free".
Here's a better idea - download the bloody thing and help save the planet.

On Feb 22, 12:22 pm, "Brian W" wrote:

The problem with Linux is that while the postage may be free, the time required to make Linux work is astronomical. Sure the Linux pundits will cry "it works fine for me" and blame the user, but the internet is chock full of Linux horror stories.
I've always wondered what "works for me" actually means when spoken by a Linux zealot. Does it mean the system boots? Does it mean 640x480 on the screen? Does it mean their Epson 9 pin printer works? Their Soundblaster 8 bit or Adlib card (remember those?) makes noise?
It sure seems that "works" takes on a totally different meaning when Linux is involved. Maybe the standard that Linux has to meet is just much lower and the people using Linux don't mind doing without modern conviences?
I've tried Linux, including Ubuntu, and while it may ok for a techie I would never let it anywhere near a common user because I know my phone would not stop ringing.

On Feb 22, 12:22 pm, "Brian W" wrote:

So you have no OS ? I know of no recent OS that takes less than 30 minutes to install on a PC. When you consider that Linux also installs many applications, which require a separate and also long installation on other OS's. Thus you are saying that the fastest installing OS is too slow for you, so you are going to use a slower one.
Not only that, but if you go with a pre-installed OS, then you are likely going to end up re-installing the OS several times, as even the experts who promote that OS suggest an re-install at least annually, and perhaps more often for power users.
Abort, Retry, Fail, Reboot, Reinstall, Remit all of your money to Redmond. Smile, you are one of those people Stalin called "useful".
Dean G.

I just went to that site and read "Linux for human beings" your a troll so why are you pitching a product that doesn't even want you? my advice is for you to take a pill and go to your happy place

Dean G. wrote:

We thought "Alias" was probably lying, you confirmed it.
"linux makes you stupid... and now, makes you a liar too."

Posted via a free Usenet account from teranews.com

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, karla.bonerstein yahoo.com wrote on 22 Feb 2007 08:59:43 -0800 :

[rest snipped]
Go bug someone who cares. This is COLA amongst the crossposts. :-P
Followups reset.
#191, ewill3 earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129: void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
Posted via a free Usenet account from teranews.com

warpsix wrote:

Another typical response from an MS fanboi, an insult and no response to content. Boring.
Alias

karla.bonerstein yahoo.com wrote:

If you had had the good sense to use IRC and talk directly to Linux users, you would have saved yourself a lot of time googling.
Alias

Brian W wrote:

Your loss.
Alias

Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you to get it to work that really counts. Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years.
"Dean G."

"Alias"

Is there any reason you recommend 6.06 over 6.1?
Paul Smith, Yeovil, UK. Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User. windowsresource.net/
*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

On Feb 22, 12:34 pm, jjwasserm... yahoo.com wrote:

A quick Google search finds far more Windows horror stories, with far worse results, particularly on the malware front.

Funny, I've always wondered what "works for me" meant what spoken by a Windows user.
Does it mean the system boot (and reboots, and reboots, and reboots...)
Does it mean it starts up and shows the desktop ?
Does it mean the Windows PC is turned into a zombie spewing spam to clutter everyone's inbox ?
Does it mean it defrags the disk every month ?
Does it mean that Windows is a good platform for key-logging malware ?
Does it mean it functions just enough that the user doesn't have to actually think, so everything must be OK ?
Does it mean it cam pre-installed, so the user will live with it instead of considering other option ?
Does it mean complaining about Linux not having every driver, while Vista is OK even though the driver support is even more marginal ?
It seems "it works" has an odd meaning for Windows users.
Maybe the Windows standard is so low exactly because it is pre- installed, and thus many of the users know little if anything about the alternatives. Maybe the Vista users will be happy with all the DRM restrictions , constant running of security and maintenance programs, and the constant nagging of the user controls ? Maybe they don't mind that they are susceptible to malware. Maybe they just don't want to admit that they spend so much for an OS that is worse than the free alternatives. Denial is a very powerful thing.
I recommend Linux to others, because the Windows users are always calling me about some problem or another. If MS wanted to pay me for each time I had to re-install Windows for one of their users, then I might have a different view. If MS wanted to pay me for each time I had to walk someone through booting into safe mode to remove some kind of malware, then maybe I'd be more likely to have a "pro-Windows" stance. But then it would be $elf-$erving, and certainly not an honest opinion.
Meanwhile, I have better things to do than fix the constant problems Windows users have.
Dean G.
Windows on your PC - it works better for the spammers than it does for you.

Have you been to this forum? How can this all be? A forum full of problems?
ubuntuforums.org/
"Alias"

Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

Gary wrote:

LOL! Mine was ready to go right away.
Alias

Paul Smith wrote:

The former has Long Term Support and the latter is in development.
Alias

"Dean G."

A quick look at statistics showing how many windows installs there are per linux installs quickly debunks this comment. Aside from the malware part. No denying that :(

karla.bonerstein yahoo.com wrote:

*plonk*

On Feb 22, 1:11 pm, "Gary" wrote:

Ubuntu worked fine for me right after the install. The last version I had that took more than a few hours was Slackware 3.0, but that was a long time ago, and the then current Windows version (95) took longer to set up even with the vaunted "plug and play", which didn't really work.
Also, Linux does far more out of the box. People like to compare a full distro of Linux to a bare OS install of Linux. Yes, maybe Windows is installed and "working", but you still can't do anything. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is ready to go with applications. You "working" Windows box still needs more work. It takes far longer to install Windows AND the equivalent applications. Hopefully Vista will do away with the Windows Multiple Reboot Boogie, but I wouldn't count on it.
Dean G.

On Feb 22, 1:33 pm, Alias wrote:

So was mine. Ready to go into the dustbin of course. I just wasn't smart enough to toss it after the first set of problems.
Linux is a waste of time. A HUGE waste of time.

Karla...
Thanks for your post. I found it to be very informative.
Unfortunately, you have posted something that will cause all the penguin heads to go nuts. Guess I'll have to not visit this newsgroup for a month or two while all of the *nix zealots hemorrhage all over this newsgroup.
Enjoy

On Feb 22, 1:58 pm, "Dean G." wrote:

So what you are saying is that I used the wrong version of Linux? Tell me, what is the right version of Linux? There seem to be so many different versions and I figured since Fedora is associated with Redhat, it must be a well developed version of Linux.
I was wrong.
As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true. However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of applications.
Linux is so pitiful and I got frustrated, after days of mucking with Linux BTW, that I tossed it and I don't intend to try it again until it reaches the point where it is installable and usable on common hardware.
I just don't have the time to spend futzing with an operating system and I doubt other common users do either. Maybe it is a hobby for some, but not me.

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:06:49 +0100, Alias wrote:

Hello? McFly? Troll! Hello??
JDS | jeffrey go.away.com | newtnotes.com DJMBS | newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:58:45 -0800, Dean G. wrote:

I bet you meant to say, "...to a bare OS install of Windows".

My new 160G laptop HD arrived a few days ago. Two hours after it arrived I'd installed Ubuntu + the hundreds of applications that are part of the default install + a few hundred more of my own favorite apps + did a full update of the OS and all applications + had the system fully and completely configured to my liking.
Windows isn't even in the ballpark anymore.

A few hundred apps and then a few hundred more? Amazed that you find so many, and the time to use them all..
"arachnid"

Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

karla.bonerstein yahoo.com wrote:

1. Download the Ubuntu .iso image 15 minutes 2. Burn to disk 4 minutes 3. Boot from cd into Ubuntu 2 minutes 4. Select install to hard drive option 5 seconds 5. Install routine starts and finishes 20 minutes 6. Remove disk, boot PC to desktop 1 minute 7. Set up sharing, connect to other PC's on (wireless) network 10 minutes 8. Set up local and network laser printers using cups 10 minutes
That's about how long it took me.
Cost? Nothing!
No time looking for drivers, no time installing applications, which were all bundled with the o/s, no need for virus-checkers or spyware checkers.
Since then I've installed KDE and XFCE on the machine, and it's earning it's keep running my business.
Never crashed or failed to boot, no blue screens, no uac, no nasty pop-ups, no wga, no activation, no DRM
I have Windows XP (which I like) and Vista (which I don't) machines on my network, but overall the Linux is faster and more productive on a less powerful PC with less memory than the Windows machines.
And I had no previous experience with any flavour of Linux before 2 months ago.
Paul-B

On Feb 22, 2:46 pm, "Paul-B" wrote:

That's all very nice but I have one question?
How many months did you spend researching and hunting down hardware that would work with Linux? How many other versions of Linux did you try before you finally found one that worked?
I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with Linux and each one said the same thing.
"Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with your carefully chosen hardware".
Stray far from that tennant and Linux becomes a nightmare.
So how long did you spend doing the research?
Or did you just happen to *get lucky* ?

Alias is posting? Oh brother! Be like me and block that fool!
He's been caught lying so many times I've lost count.
"Dustbin"