Testing Linux Retail Speed
7
----------------------------------
Linux Acer netbook for 149.99 inc vat.
1Gb RAM, 120Gb HD 8.9" screen with resolution 1024x600 and 0.3M webcam.
When I checked an hour ago, it was >100 in stock.
Watch it go in a few hours to within a couple of days.
Then compare that result with windump machines sell rate of practically
nothing. Windummy machines are sitting unsold on shelves because
no one wants them. They are too slow and expensive for that slow
speed. The public want Linux netbooks and micoshaft and certain DUMB Taiwan
manufacturers like Assus are colluding to stop retail sales of Linux
netbooks by putting up prices, restricting supplies of high end Linux
netbooks and fitting Linux to abysmal hardware instead of equal hardware
as windump machines and sell it at the lower price through price comparison.
Retailers need to take note of how fast Linux is selling
netbooks and bringing in the money to re-order more Linux netbooks;
and complain to EU competition authorities
if the prices are being rigged to the same levels
as windump machines because it is illegal anti-trust issue to be overcharged
in order to keep a monopoly player in the market happy.
Meanwhile EU regulators are fast asleep drunk on tax payer
money as usual.
Phil Stovell
> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
Most of the comments seem to be about loading Windows on it.
PS, both my PCs only run Ubuntu 8.04.3 LTS.
Gordon
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:03:22 +0000, 7 wrote:
>
>> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>
> Most of the comments seem to be about loading Windows on it.
>
Yeah that really pissed me off when I bought my Netbook. While
researching which one to buy I noticed that 95% of comments about Linux
netbooks began with "I *IMMEDIATELY* replaced Linux with Windows.
Now, being a cynical sort of person, it /could/ be that these were MS
shills, just trying their usual stuff.
If they weren't, it actually made me quite angry that they took NO time
at all to even try to have a look at a different operating system.
Weren't even interested.
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
Say No to OOXML http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9594#mpart8
gordonATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
to email me remove the obvious!
Gordon Henderson
7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>Testing Linux Netbook Retail Speed
>----------------------------------
>
>
>www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>
>
>Linux Acer netbook for 149.99 inc vat.
>1Gb RAM, 120Gb HD 8.9" screen with resolution 1024x600 and 0.3M webcam.
Wow. good price. might buy a backup to my current AAO ...
Gordon
SteveH
news:7b0e4mF...@mid.individual.net...
> Phil Stovell wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:03:22 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>
>>> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>>
> researching which one to buy I noticed that 95% of comments about Linux
> netbooks began with "I *IMMEDIATELY* replaced Linux with Windows.
> Now, being a cynical sort of person, it /could/ be that these were MS
> shills, just trying their usual stuff.
> If they weren't, it actually made me quite angry that they took NO time
> at all to even try to have a look at a different operating system.
> Weren't even interested.
>
Why should they have to be interested?
Whatever happened to freedom of choice?
What if they've already got Windows software they want to use?
What if they're not geeks?
> --
> Registered Linux User no 240308
> Say No to OOXML http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9594#mpart8
> gordonATgbpcomputingDOTcoDOTuk
> to email me remove the obvious!
>
--
SteveH
Say no to overly long sig lines!
Gordon
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b0e4mF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Phil Stovell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:03:22 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>>
>>>> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>> Yeah that really pissed me off when I bought my Netbook. While
>> researching which one to buy I noticed that 95% of comments about Linux
>> netbooks began with "I *IMMEDIATELY* replaced Linux with Windows.
>> Now, being a cynical sort of person, it /could/ be that these were MS
>> shills, just trying their usual stuff.
>> If they weren't, it actually made me quite angry that they took NO time
>> at all to even try to have a look at a different operating system.
>> Weren't even interested.
>>
>
> Why should they have to be interested?
because I would be. I wouldn't spend 3 hoursd IMMEDIATELY and that's the
nub of the matter, removing the pre-installed OS without at least a
little look at what it's all about.
> Whatever happened to freedom of choice?
Precisely - they have been conditioned to NO "freedom of choice" if they
IMMEDIATELY install Windows.
> What if they've already got Windows software they want to use?
A valid point - however I don't think again that they give any THOUGHT
to the matter....
> What if they're not geeks?
Oh come on - no-one needs to be a "geek" with the latest popular Linux
distros any more than one needs to be a "geek" in order to a) install
Windows b) install all the drivers that aren't included in windows, c)
install AV and malware apps d) install all the windows apps that the
user "needs" and f) then update all that .
The Distro already HAS all that. Which is more "geeky"?
Gordon
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b0e4mF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Phil Stovell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:03:22 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>>
>>>> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>> Yeah that really pissed me off when I bought my Netbook. While
>> researching which one to buy I noticed that 95% of comments about Linux
>> netbooks began with "I *IMMEDIATELY* replaced Linux with Windows.
>> Now, being a cynical sort of person, it /could/ be that these were MS
>> shills, just trying their usual stuff.
>> If they weren't, it actually made me quite angry that they took NO time
>> at all to even try to have a look at a different operating system.
>> Weren't even interested.
>>
>
> Why should they have to be interested?
> Whatever happened to freedom of choice?
> What if they've already got Windows software they want to use?
> What if they're not geeks?
>
>
Err then why buy a Netbook with Linux on it, and then publicly ridicule
Linux in the forums, when the *SAME* model is available with Windows
pre-installed?
Smacks of shilling to me.....
Chris Davies
> Now, being a cynical sort of person, it /could/ be that these were MS
> shills, just trying their usual stuff.
Sadly, there are such people on all sides.
Chris
bcoombes
>>
>> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>>
>>
>> Linux Acer netbook for 149.99 inc vat.
>> 1Gb RAM, 120Gb HD 8.9" screen with resolution 1024x600 and 0.3M webcam.
>
> Wow. good price. might buy a backup to my current AAO ...
>
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/208539/acer-aspire-one.html
Ezekiel
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:03:22 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>
>>> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>>
>> Most of the comments seem to be about loading Windows on it.
>>
>
> Yeah that really pissed me off when I bought my Netbook. While
> researching which one to buy I noticed that 95% of comments about Linux
> netbooks began with "I *IMMEDIATELY* replaced Linux with Windows.
Sounds just like 95% of the COLA "advocates" who claim that when they buy a
PC they *immediately* replace Windows with Linux.
> Now, being a cynical sort of person, it /could/ be that these were MS
> shills, just trying their usual stuff.
Yeah... that dreaded bogey-man behinc every tree.
> If they weren't, it actually made me quite angry that they took NO time
> at all to even try to have a look at a different operating system.
They already know what they want so why waste time messing around?
> Weren't even interested.
Other than the technical people that I work with - I don't know of a single
person that even knows what Linux is. How can they be interested in
something they've never heard of?
bcoombes
>
> Other than the technical people that I work with - I don't know of a single
> person that even knows what Linux is. How can they be interested in
> something they've never heard of?
>
Lol, this must be what cola would call an inconvenient truth.
Conor
>
> Phil Stovell wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:03:22 +0000, 7 wrote:
> >
> >> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
> >
> > Most of the comments seem to be about loading Windows on it.
> >
>
> Yeah that really pissed me off when I bought my Netbook. While
> researching which one to buy I noticed that 95% of comments about Linux
> netbooks began with "I *IMMEDIATELY* replaced Linux with Windows.
> Now, being a cynical sort of person, it /could/ be that these were MS
> shills, just trying their usual stuff.
> If they weren't, it actually made me quite angry that they took NO time
> at all to even try to have a look at a different operating system.
> Weren't even interested.
They're not MS Shills but they do need complete interoperability with
Windows. Take Ubuntu. Its windows network browsing out of the box is
fucked from the start. If you implement wins to get it working, you
can't use aMSN and therefore webcam chat on MSN. And then when they
changed to 9.04, they broke the Intel graphics driver which pretty much
EVERY netbook uses.
And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
deep. I've given up on it.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Gordon Henderson
Wifey has had one since last Novemberish, and I've had one since about
Feb. Yes, 2-2.5 hours on the battery, but it's not an issue for what we
need them for.
I re-installed Debian Lenny with xfce4 on them both too - Wifey found
that easier to use than Linpus. (We have the 8GB Flash models)
Gordon
Gordon
> They're not MS Shills but they do need complete interoperability with
> Windows. Take Ubuntu. Its windows network browsing out of the box is
> fucked from the start.
Err no it's not. What makes you say it is? I can browse MY Windows
Network perfectly OK from my Ubuntu netbook....without WINS or anything
like that....in fact my Ubuntu Netbook will access Vista shares FAR
easier than Windows XP does...
If you implement wins to get it working, you
> can't use aMSN and therefore webcam chat on MSN. And then when they
> changed to 9.04, they broke the Intel graphics driver which pretty much
> EVERY netbook uses.
Upgrading to 9.04 didn't break anything on my Toshiba NB100.....
>
> And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
> deep. I've given up on it.
As I posted before - WHY then, buy a Linux Netbook, when the SAME model
is available with Windows, and THEN spend the three hours plus
converting Linux to Windows? Just doesn't come within the realms of
common sense to me...
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
> deep.
Bullshit.
--
You will meet an important person who will help you advance professionally.
Ezekiel
> Conor wrote:
>>
>> And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
>> deep. I've given up on it.
>
> As I posted before - WHY then, buy a Linux Netbook, when the SAME model
> is available with Windows, and THEN spend the three hours plus
> converting Linux to Windows?
It takes you "three hours plus" to install Windows? Are you doing this
from 5.25" floppy disks or something?
> Just doesn't come within the realms of
> common sense to me...
Makes more sense than the "advocate" claims of how people are buying
Windows machines and then installing Linux on them.
bcoombes
hours. Since you've tried them with two different nix flavours it must be a
hardware issue, probably the backlight. Still if you can live with the battery
life the eBuyer deal represents great value for money.
Gordon Henderson
Another battery drainer is probably the Wi-Fi. I don't know how to turn
it off under Linux (not sure you can), but when we use them, it's almost
always on Wi-Fi anyway.
Gordon
Tony Houghton
Gordon Henderson <gordon...@drogon.net> wrote:
> Wifey has had one since last Novemberish, and I've had one since about
> Feb. Yes, 2-2.5 hours on the battery, but it's not an issue for what we
> need them for.
>
> I re-installed Debian Lenny with xfce4 on them both too - Wifey found
> that easier to use than Linpus. (We have the 8GB Flash models)
Uh oh, does that mean the one with the ordinary HD has an even shorter
battery life? It's still great value even if you have to buy a higher
capacity battery though.
--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
Andrew Halliwell
> Sounds just like 95% of the COLA "advocates" who claim that when they buy a
> PC they *immediately* replace Windows with Linux.
Oh, I've NEVER done that.
Even the first PC I got (poor impoverished student, someone gave me a rather
decrepid old 486 with win3.11 on it, this was 1999) I had a poke around
before nuking it.
With this current one...
I booted vista first just to see it. THEN wiped it.
'course, I didn't see much, cos they'd forgotten to give me the password
(not that it mattered, I'd told them it was gonna be nuked and reinstalled).
(( it was an ex-display model or "manager's special" as they called it.))
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
Peter Köhlmann
>
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b0tgsF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Conor wrote:
>
>>>
>>> And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
>>> deep. I've given up on it.
>>
>> As I posted before - WHY then, buy a Linux Netbook, when the SAME model
>> is available with Windows, and THEN spend the three hours plus
>> converting Linux to Windows?
>
> It takes you "three hours plus" to install Windows? Are you doing this
> from 5.25" floppy disks or something?
It takes a lot longer than that to have a somewhat similar setup compared
to a typical linux install
The install time for windows alone is longer than the time needed for a
complete linux install including the apps.
With windows, you just start to setup the applications then.
Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
--
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course
chrisv
> trolling fsckwit Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>> Other than the technical people that I work with - I don't know of a single
>> person that even knows what Linux is. How can they be interested in
>> something they've never heard of?
You should have a chat with your mentally-ill troll-buddy flatfish,
"Ezekiel". He's spent the last decade repeating, again and again and
again, that Linux' small market share is due to it being "pretty darn
bad" or whatever.
Of course, like you, flatfish is a shameless liar.
>Lol, this must be what cola would call an inconvenient truth.
LOL You are easily amused, I see. Do you think that there's anyone
reading this thread that does not know that most people are not aware
of the Linux alternative?
--
"You freetards liars don't seem to be encumbered by facts and
accuracy. Why should I self-impose those same constraints on myself?"
- "Ezekiel", defending his shameless, bald-faced lies
Gordon
>
> It takes a lot longer than that to have a somewhat similar setup compared
> to a typical linux install
>
> The install time for windows alone is longer than the time needed for a
> complete linux install including the apps.
> With windows, you just start to setup the applications then.
>
> Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
40 to 45 minutes for a plain clean install of Windows XP - we're NOT
talking "recovery disk" here, which in this context wouldn't work anyway.
Then 15 to 20 minutes for drivers, most of which are NOT included on the
XP CD - unlike Linux. Then 15 to 20 minutes for whatever MS Office suite
is required.
Then 10 minutes (say) to install AV and Malware apps - could be longer
if they need to be downloaded. Then they need to be updated and scans run.
Then Windows needs to be updated - that can take up to an hour or more
unless the user has slipstreamed service packs into the install disk -
but then we are talking nON-GEEK here, aren't we? ;-)
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>
>> It takes a lot longer than that to have a somewhat similar setup
>> compared to a typical linux install
>>
>> The install time for windows alone is longer than the time needed for a
>> complete linux install including the apps.
>> With windows, you just start to setup the applications then.
>>
>> Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
>
> 40 to 45 minutes for a plain clean install of Windows XP - we're NOT
> talking "recovery disk" here, which in this context wouldn't work
> anyway. Then 15 to 20 minutes for drivers, most of which are NOT
> included on the XP CD - unlike Linux. Then 15 to 20 minutes for whatever
> MS Office suite is required.
> Then 10 minutes (say) to install AV and Malware apps - could be longer
> if they need to be downloaded. Then they need to be updated and scans
> run. Then Windows needs to be updated - that can take up to an hour or
> more unless the user has slipstreamed service packs into the install
> disk - but then we are talking nON-GEEK here, aren't we? ;-)
>
So you are already dumbing down a windows install to Win, Office and AV.
Good that you note that even then the install time is already several
times that of a typical linux (complete with *dozens* of apps).
--
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of
old ones.
chris
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7b0tgsF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Conor wrote:
>>>> And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
>>>> deep. I've given up on it.
>>> As I posted before - WHY then, buy a Linux Netbook, when the SAME model
>>> is available with Windows, and THEN spend the three hours plus
>>> converting Linux to Windows?
>> It takes you "three hours plus" to install Windows? Are you doing this
>> from 5.25" floppy disks or something?
>
> It takes a lot longer than that to have a somewhat similar setup compared
> to a typical linux install
>
> The install time for windows alone is longer than the time needed for a
> complete linux install including the apps.
> With windows, you just start to setup the applications then.
And don't forget all the software updates for Windows, Office, Norton,
etc. Plus the reboots required between some of the updates.
> Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
I did an XP install a few years back for my FIL (plus Office, Norton and
a few other smaller things) and it took me about 5hrs! Never again.
Admittedly, Windows 7 is a much more painless experience if the RC is
anything to go by. They have definitely been taking lessons from Linux :P
Gordon
> In uk.comp.os.linux Ezekiel <ze...@some-where.com> wrote:
>> Sounds just like 95% of the COLA "advocates" who claim that when they buy a
>> PC they *immediately* replace Windows with Linux.
>
> Oh, I've NEVER done that.
> Even the first PC I got (poor impoverished student, someone gave me a rather
> decrepid old 486 with win3.11 on it, this was 1999) I had a poke around
> before nuking it.
>
> With this current one...
> I booted vista first just to see it.
That's precisely my point. These "posters" on Ebuyer seem to have almost
NO curiosity AT ALL. Most humans are imbued with some sort of curiosity
about new and different things - these so-called "posters" seem to have
NONE whatsoever. THAT is what makes me wonder about the genuineness of
their "posts".
NONE of them say things like "well I tried Linux for an hour/day/week
and it didn't do what I wanted or I didn't like it".
Gordon
>
> Admittedly, Windows 7 is a much more painless experience if the RC is
> anything to go by. They have definitely been taking lessons from Linux :P
But even then there's no applications in it - not even a Mail client
now......
Conor
>
> Conor wrote:
>
> > They're not MS Shills but they do need complete interoperability with
> > Windows. Take Ubuntu. Its windows network browsing out of the box is
> > fucked from the start.
>
> Err no it's not. What makes you say it is? I can browse MY Windows
> Network perfectly OK from my Ubuntu netbook....without WINS or anything
> like that....in fact my Ubuntu Netbook will access Vista shares FAR
> easier than Windows XP does...
I guess you don't know much about security and therefore don't password
protect accounts. No wonder you have issues.
ubuntuforums.org is stuffed full of people who have had problems since
8.04.
>
>
> If you implement wins to get it working, you
> > can't use aMSN and therefore webcam chat on MSN. And then when they
> > changed to 9.04, they broke the Intel graphics driver which pretty much
> > EVERY netbook uses.
>
> Upgrading to 9.04 didn't break anything on my Toshiba NB100.....
>
You're so blind I doubt you noticed. As I said, it only affected Intel
graphics and its been widely reported everywhere.
>
> >
> > And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
> > deep. I've given up on it.
>
> As I posted before - WHY then, buy a Linux Netbook, when the SAME model
> is available with Windows, and THEN spend the three hours plus
> converting Linux to Windows? Just doesn't come within the realms of
> common sense to me...
Because its cheaper.
Conor
> It takes a lot longer than that to have a somewhat similar setup compared
> to a typical linux install
>
Not if its done from a CD/DVD and set to automatically install
everything like a Linux distro.
> The install time for windows alone is longer than the time needed for a
> complete linux install including the apps.
> With windows, you just start to setup the applications then.
>
> Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
However you then spend hours, if not days, applying all the bug fixes
for a particular distribution and editing things to make it work
properly.
Conor
says...
>
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Conor belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
> > And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
> > deep.
>
> Bullshit.
I guess you don't do much other than type letters and do basic
spreadsheets.
Owain
> And then when they [Ubuntu]
> changed to 9.04, they broke the Intel graphics driver which pretty much
> EVERY netbook uses.
Extensive googling suggests they've used a broken implementation (or
they broke the implementation) of X which affects *lots* of graphics
drivers
> And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
> deep. I've given up on it.
WordPerfect 5.1 roolz.
Owain
Gordon
> In article <7b0tgsF...@mid.individual.net>, Gordon says...
>> Conor wrote:
>>
>>> They're not MS Shills but they do need complete interoperability with
>>> Windows. Take Ubuntu. Its windows network browsing out of the box is
>>> fucked from the start.
>> Err no it's not. What makes you say it is? I can browse MY Windows
>> Network perfectly OK from my Ubuntu netbook....without WINS or anything
>> like that....in fact my Ubuntu Netbook will access Vista shares FAR
>> easier than Windows XP does...
>
> I guess you don't know much about security and therefore don't password
> protect accounts. No wonder you have issues.
<sigh> as a retired Systems Accountant of COURSE I have passwords. What
a DORKISH comment. I also happen to run in XP as a Limited User and in
Vista as a Standard User, unlike vast swathes of the Windows world, so
DON'T lecture me about security.
>
> ubuntuforums.org is stuffed full of people who have had problems since
> 8.04.
>
most of which have been fixed (IMHE) in 9.04
>> As I posted before - WHY then, buy a Linux Netbook, when the SAME model
>> is available with Windows, and THEN spend the three hours plus
>> converting Linux to Windows? Just doesn't come within the realms of
>> common sense to me...
>
> Because its cheaper.
>
>
And the cost in time of converting? If it's for BUSINESS (as you seem to
think) then a normal charge-out rate is �50 per hour. That's a �150 plus
cost to convert. The price difference between the same model Netbook
with Linux and XP on? abouy �75 -�80.
Proof that Windows makes you innumerate as well as stupid....
Peter Köhlmann
> In article <h2fk1i$1as$01$1...@news.t-online.com>, Peter Köhlmann says...
>
>> It takes a lot longer than that to have a somewhat similar setup
>> compared to a typical linux install
>>
> Not if its done from a CD/DVD and set to automatically install
> everything like a Linux distro.
It is nowhere near that of a typical linux distro
>> The install time for windows alone is longer than the time needed for a
>> complete linux install including the apps.
>> With windows, you just start to setup the applications then.
>>
>> Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
>
> However you then spend hours, if not days, applying all the bug fixes
> for a particular distribution and editing things to make it work
> properly.
>
>
Whereas in windows, everything is magically set up all by itself...
--
You're genuinely bogus.
Gordon
> In article <h2fk1i$1as$01$1...@news.t-online.com>, Peter Kï¿œhlmann says...
>
>> It takes a lot longer than that to have a somewhat similar setup compared
>> to a typical linux install
>>
> Not if its done from a CD/DVD and set to automatically install
> everything like a Linux distro.
>
Read the thread. We are talking NON-GEEK here......
Gordon
> In article <8zH2m.5556$Uf1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, Chris Ahlstrom
> says...
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Conor belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
>>> deep.
>> Bullshit.
>
> I guess you don't do much other than type letters and do basic
> spreadsheets.
>
>
Err as a Management Accountant I can guarantee you that Calc 3.1 will do
almost everything that Excel 2003 does. I might also remind you that 75%
of MS Office users ONLY use 25% of it's functionality....
Phil Stovell
> I booted vista first just to see it. THEN wiped it. 'course, I didn't see
> much, cos they'd forgotten to give me the password (not that it mattered,
> I'd told them it was gonna be nuked and reinstalled). (( it was an
> ex-display model or "manager's special" as they called it.))
Microsoft won't care. They've already got your money for the OS you
trashed, or did you decline the license agreement and claim your refund?
I bought my last 2 PCs from Novatech, which came without an OS installed,
or for another £40 with XP or Vista. I spent the £40 on more hardware.
Paul Rudin
> Another battery drainer is probably the Wi-Fi. I don't know how to turn
> it off under Linux (not sure you can)
For ubuntu/gnome at least right clicking on the network manager applet
allows you to turn off wifi. I don't know what exactly that's invoking,
but presumably it's something that'll work when the driver for the wifi
card supports it.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> However you then spend hours, if not days, applying all the bug fixes
> for a particular distribution and editing things to make it work
> properly.
Ahhh, a second post that is bullshit.
You don't get a third.
--
The bay-trees in our country are all wither'd
And meteors fright the fixed stars of heaven;
The pale-faced moon looks bloody on the earth
And lean-look'd prophets whisper fearful change.
These signs forerun the death or fall of kings.
-- Wm. Shakespeare, "Richard II"
William Poaster
of the trolls Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Conor belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> However you then spend hours, if not days, applying all the bug fixes
>> for a particular distribution and editing things to make it work
>> properly.
>
> Ahhh, a second post that is bullshit.
>
> You don't get a third.
Conor is an idiot who knows sweet FA about Linux.
--
"The philosophy behind Free, Open Source Software has parallels in several
cultures which practice *ethical* co-operation. Perhaps that's why it
threatens *unethical* business practices which feed on the unknowing."
-- Bassam A. Hassan -- CoFounder of the ILUG.
Ad Hominem (HPT's coach)
news:h2fk1i$1as$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAH!, you stupid tit!
http://www.google.nl/search?source=ig&hl=nl&rlz=&q=Windows+7+install+takes+15+minutes&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=
One for the cockup list!
Chris Ahlstrom
After takin' a swig o' grog, Gordon belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> Conor wrote:
>> In article <8zH2m.5556$Uf1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>, Chris Ahlstrom
>> says...
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Conor belched out
>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
>>>> deep.
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> I guess you don't do much other than type letters and do basic
>> spreadsheets.
>
> Err as a Management Accountant I can guarantee you that Calc 3.1 will do
> almost everything that Excel 2003 does. I might also remind you that 75%
> of MS Office users ONLY use 25% of it's functionality....
Conor's a Munchkin, nothing more.
In fact, I use OpenOffice fairly heavily. I use it almost exclusively when
I'm reading Microsoft Office documents, and I use it a lot when /creating/
Microsoft Office documents.
In editing Microsoft documents using OOo, I've found a couple of
little-known features of Word that Writer can't handle, but OOo handles some
pretty complex technical documents.
Frankly, though, if it were up to me, I'd shit-can the whole GUI
word-processor paradigm for technical documents and use LaTeX and other
tools in the UNIX toolchain. They are far more more suitable for
colloboration in a technical environment, much in the same way that
Adobe's
"Structured FrameMaker is used to achieve consistency in documentation
within industries such as aerospace, where several models of the same
complex product exist, or pharmaceuticals, where translation and
standardization are important requirements in communications about
products." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_FrameMaker
Word and OpenOffice? Too clumsy, too fragile.
An example closer to home: We used to write our detailed design
documentation using Word. A more time-wasting, duplicative, and tedious
experience would be difficult to imagine.
What do we do now? We mark up our source-code thoroughly and run it
through Doxygen. Now, when we make changes, we run Doxygen, tell it to
generate LaTeX files, and, in a few minutes, get a 1000-page PDF file,
well-formatted PDF document, with a table of contents, diagrams, and
hyperlinks. And you can see all the tests and todos you generated.
And you can post the HTML version on a web site for casual perusal.
Word and OpenOffice? Good luck if you make radical design or internal
changes. I hope you like writing the same stuff three times (code,
comments, and document).
--
Fine day to work off excess energy. Steal something heavy.
Gordon
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAH!, you stupid tit!
> http://www.google.nl/search?source=ig&hl=nl&rlz=&q=Windows+7+install+takes+15+minutes&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=
>
Who's the TIT? That's NOT "released software" it's only RC1 and there
are STILL no drivers, or apps or mail client or AV or malware included.
IDIOT!
Ezekiel
> Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>
>>
>> It takes a lot longer than that to have a somewhat similar setup compared
>> to a typical linux install
>>
>> The install time for windows alone is longer than the time needed for a
>> complete linux install including the apps.
>> With windows, you just start to setup the applications then.
>>
>> Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
>
> unless the user has slipstreamed service packs into the install disk -
> but then we are talking nON-GEEK here, aren't we? ;-)
Right... those Windows updates make such a difference. Because anyone who's
installed a Linux distro will tell you that it's not like the first thing
that happens when you first start your new Linux install is to have to
download multiple 100's of megs of updates, patches and fixes. Oh wait...
you do need to download 100's of megs of updates on Linux too.
Andrew Halliwell
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:08:36 +0100, Andrew Halliwell wrote:
>
>> I booted vista first just to see it. THEN wiped it. 'course, I didn't see
>> much, cos they'd forgotten to give me the password (not that it mattered,
>> I'd told them it was gonna be nuked and reinstalled). (( it was an
>> ex-display model or "manager's special" as they called it.))
>
> Microsoft won't care. They've already got your money for the OS you
> trashed, or did you decline the license agreement and claim your refund?
I saw no license agreement.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Gordon Henderson
I'm using Wicd, but honestly, I'm not that bothered. At least the latest
Linux kernel made the Wi-Fi LED light up (probably removing another 10
seconds from battery life ;-)
What I did find was the changing the CPU frequency made zero difference
to the power consumption (measuring with an external meter), so no point
in having the cpu frequency stuff loaded either.
Wonder how many ebuyer have shipped today then - I passed the link onto
a few friends...
Gordon
Martin Gregorie
> Sounds just like 95% of the COLA "advocates" who claim that when they
> buy a PC they *immediately* replace Windows with Linux.
>
The big difference is that you often can't buy a PC (especially a laptop)
without paying the M$ tax, so you are forced to do just that.
This Lenovo R61 was bought solely with the intention of running Linux.
Could I get one without Vista pre-installed? NO!
I did run Vista out of curiosity - for about 10 mins. Half of that was
the time it took for the "preinstalled" OS to make itself runnable. The
rest was me trying to see if there was a way of getting a M$ tax refund.
There wasn't. My impression of it at the time was that it was
surprisingly sluggish for a dual core 1.6 GHz machine with 1 GB RAM.
After shutting down Vista it took 40 mins to do a full install of Fedora
9. I was surprised because I was expecting it to take around 1.5 hours.
That install includes browsers, Open Office, assorted servers and the
full development kit. Finally, another 5 minutes was needed for it to
become a fully functional host on my LAN.
It runs very noticeably faster with Fedora 9 and 10 than it ever did
under Vista.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
Gordon
> My impression of it at the time was that it was
> surprisingly sluggish for a dual core 1.6 GHz machine with 1 GB RAM.
The currently recommended RAM for Vista on the street (as opposed to
what MS say, which is ALWAYS too low - they are STILL saying the
recommended RAM for XP is 256MB when all the wisdom for some years has
pointed to 512MB being the optimum) is 2GB.....
>
> After shutting down Vista it took 40 mins to do a full install of Fedora
> 9. I was surprised because I was expecting it to take around 1.5 hours.
> That install includes browsers, Open Office, assorted servers and the
> full development kit. Finally, another 5 minutes was needed for it to
> become a fully functional host on my LAN.
>
> It runs very noticeably faster with Fedora 9 and 10 than it ever did
> under Vista.
>
>
--
Ezekiel
"Martin Gregorie" <mar...@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote in message
news:h2fqjd$pcb$1...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:09:01 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> Sounds just like 95% of the COLA "advocates" who claim that when they
>> buy a PC they *immediately* replace Windows with Linux.
>>
> The big difference is that you often can't buy a PC (especially a laptop)
> without paying the M$ tax, so you are forced to do just that.
You *can't* buy a PC or laptop without paying the M$ tax??? How many links
would you like to PCs and laptops that come with Linux preinstalled. (Here's
a hint... this entire thread is about people who buy computers with /Linux/
preinstalled and then remove it and install Windows on it.)
> This Lenovo R61 was bought solely with the intention of running Linux.
> Could I get one without Vista pre-installed? NO!
I'm not familiar with this model but it's possible that this particular
model doesn't have a Linux option. But other models are available with
Linux.
> I did run Vista out of curiosity - for about 10 mins. Half of that was
> the time it took for the "preinstalled" OS to make itself runnable. The
> rest was me trying to see if there was a way of getting a M$ tax refund.
Some posters in this thread are whining that people aren't giving Linux a
fair chance and dumping it in order to install Windows. And here we have you
who spent a whole 5 or 10 minutes running Vista.
> There wasn't. My impression of it at the time was that it was
> surprisingly sluggish for a dual core 1.6 GHz machine with 1 GB RAM.
And other people report the opposite.
> After shutting down Vista it took 40 mins to do a full install of Fedora
> 9. I was surprised because I was expecting it to take around 1.5 hours.
> That install includes browsers, Open Office, assorted servers and the
> full development kit. Finally, another 5 minutes was needed for it to
> become a fully functional host on my LAN.
>
> It runs very noticeably faster with Fedora 9 and 10 than it ever did
> under Vista.
It sounds like you found what makes you happy. I'm glad to see that /your
personal choice/ is working well for you.
PeeGee
[snip]
> And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
> deep. I've given up on it.
>
Having spent a long time trying to get others to give me text only MS
Office documents that my copy of MS Office* would read, I tried and
failed to persuade them to supply RTFs (what's that?) - not that the
various MS versions are compatible anyway.
* Office 97 - Interestingly, OOo doesn't seem to have similar problems
with backwards compatibility and WP5 will read WP10 files. Note that I
am talking formatted text files, not strange tables/pictures.
--
PeeGee
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)
Ad Hominem (HPT's coach)
news:7b178gF...@mid.individual.net...
> Ad Hominem (HPT's coach) wrote:
>
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAH!, you stupid tit!
>> http://www.google.nl/search?source=ig&hl=nl&rlz=&q=Windows+7+install+takes+15+minutes&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta=lr%3D&aq=f&oq=
>>
>
> Who's the TIT? That's NOT "released software" it's only RC1 and there
> are STILL no drivers, or apps or mail client or AV or malware included.
>
>
Even Vista was up and running here within 30 minutes and I needed 20 minutes
for the apps.
Well, let's see: Peter K�hlmann blabbed in COLA: "Three hours is actually a
IDIOT!
Gordon
>
> Even Vista was up and running here within 30 minutes and I needed 20
> minutes for the apps.
Err LIAR. How about SP1 and SP2? How about updating and SCANNING with
your AV and Malware app?
Ad Hominem (HPT's coach)
> Conor wrote:
>> In article <7b0tgsF...@mid.individual.net>, Gordon says...
>>> Conor wrote:
>>>
>>>> They're not MS Shills but they do need complete interoperability with
>>>> Windows. Take Ubuntu. Its windows network browsing out of the box is
>>>> fucked from the start.
>>> Err no it's not. What makes you say it is? I can browse MY Windows
>>> Network perfectly OK from my Ubuntu netbook....without WINS or anything
>>> like that....in fact my Ubuntu Netbook will access Vista shares FAR
>>> easier than Windows XP does...
>>
>> I guess you don't know much about security and therefore don't password
>> protect accounts. No wonder you have issues.
>
>
> <sigh> as a retired Systems Accountant
Early retirement, I bet!
Did they pay you to get rid of you?
Lusotec
It is probably using iwconfig.
From iwconfig ma(ual) page:
"iwconfig - configure a wireless network interface"
" txpower
For cards supporting multiple transmit powers, sets the transmit
power in dBm. If W is the power in Watt, the power in dBm is P =
30 + 10.log(W). If the value is postfixed by mW, it will be
automatically converted to dBm.
In addition, on and off enable and disable the radio, and auto
and fixed enable and disable power control (if those features
are available).
Examples :
iwconfig eth0 txpower 15
iwconfig eth0 txpower 30mW
iwconfig eth0 txpower auto
iwconfig eth0 txpower off
"
Regards.
Gordon
No they did not. I made a life-style change.
JEDIDIAH
>
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Phil Stovell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:03:22 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>>
>>>> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>>>
>>> Most of the comments seem to be about loading Windows on it.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah that really pissed me off when I bought my Netbook. While
>> researching which one to buy I noticed that 95% of comments about Linux
>> netbooks began with "I *IMMEDIATELY* replaced Linux with Windows.
>
> Sounds just like 95% of the COLA "advocates" who claim that when they buy a
> PC they *immediately* replace Windows with Linux.
That might make some sense if pre-installed Linux boxes were plentiful.
The whole reason that Linux users WIPE Windows boxes is because they
are so prevalent. It's hard to find a consumer grade PC from a major vendor
that doesn't have the latest version of Win Whatever on it pre-installed.
Just finding a bare machine is hard, nevermind one with Linux.
OTOH, getting a corporate grade box with no OS or Linux is pretty easy.
Those have been available for quite awhile from major vendors that are
otherwise Windows pushers.
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
JEDIDIAH
>
> "Martin Gregorie" <mar...@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote in message
> news:h2fqjd$pcb$1...@localhost.localdomain...
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:09:01 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds just like 95% of the COLA "advocates" who claim that when they
>>> buy a PC they *immediately* replace Windows with Linux.
>>>
>> The big difference is that you often can't buy a PC (especially a laptop)
>> without paying the M$ tax, so you are forced to do just that.
>
> You *can't* buy a PC or laptop without paying the M$ tax??? How many links
> would you like to PCs and laptops that come with Linux preinstalled. (Here's
> a hint... this entire thread is about people who buy computers with /Linux/
> preinstalled and then remove it and install Windows on it.)
...those are a distinct minority. They offer a limited selection and they
have only been available for a very short time. Not everyone is interested
in the smallest netbook available. OTOH, there's a Linux nettop from Acer
that I'm waiting to come available so I can actually buy it.
Although why restrict ourselves to WinDOS PC's?
I buy Macs and put Linux on them.
[deletia]
JEDIDIAH
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b0e4mF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Phil Stovell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:03:22 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>>
>>>> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>>>
>> researching which one to buy I noticed that 95% of comments about Linux
>> netbooks began with "I *IMMEDIATELY* replaced Linux with Windows.
>> shills, just trying their usual stuff.
>> If they weren't, it actually made me quite angry that they took NO time
>> at all to even try to have a look at a different operating system.
>> Weren't even interested.
>>
>
> Why should they have to be interested?
> Whatever happened to freedom of choice?
> What if they've already got Windows software they want to use?
> What if they're not geeks?
You know. Those last two are mutually exclusive.
Not a Geek + able to install Windows
If you can get Windows onto a "naked" box especially one without
an optical drive then you are quite geeky and hardly the sort of
user that the Lemmings here like to champion.
The likelihood of users having a legitimate copy of Windows to
install on a new naked PC is vanishingly small since most PC's in
general come with OEM Windows install and no generic install media.
IOW, we're likely talking about Pirate Bay fans here.
Go out of your way to buy a machine without Windows in a marketplace
dominated by Windows? That's a bit silly.
--
If it were really about "being good", then Microsoft would |||
have been put out of business by Apple before the first line of / | \
the Linux kernel was ever written.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Ad Hominem (HPT's coach) wrote:
>>
>> Even Vista was up and running here within 30 minutes and I needed 20
>> minutes for the apps.
>
> Err LIAR. How about SP1 and SP2? How about updating and SCANNING with
> your AV and Malware app?
Took my boss about three days to get Vista fully working, though that
includes a lot of time monkeying around to find that he needed to
get a new version of one of his apps.
--
There is always one thing to remember: writers are always selling somebody out.
-- Joan Didion, "Slouching Towards Bethlehem"
chrisv
>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
>> My impression of it at the time was that it was
>> surprisingly sluggish for a dual core 1.6 GHz machine with 1 GB RAM.
>
>The currently recommended RAM for Vista on the street (as opposed to
>what MS say, which is ALWAYS too low - they are STILL saying the
>recommended RAM for XP is 256MB when all the wisdom for some years has
>pointed to 512MB being the optimum) is 2GB.....
Well, 2G is pretty generous, for XP. 1G is plenty, for most people.
Lusotec
> "Gordon" wrote:
>> Conor wrote:
>>> And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
>>> deep. I've given up on it.
>>
>> is available with Windows, and THEN spend the three hours plus
>> converting Linux to Windows?
>
> It takes you "three hours plus" to install Windows? Are you doing this
> from 5.25" floppy disks or something?
Last month, I reinstalled Windows XP along with some programs (e.g. Avira,
Adware, OpenOffice, GIMP, Pidgin, ET) on a friends machine. It took more
than three hours. Just the "windows update" phase took more than one hour
and I was using a 24 down / 2.4 up MBps internet connetion. On the same
machine and internet connection, installing Mandriva 2009.1 with lots more
software took less than one hour a significantly less work.
>> Just doesn't come within the realms of
>> common sense to me...
>
> Makes more sense than the "advocate" claims of how people are buying
> Windows machines and then installing Linux on them.
Uh, I do that, buy a machine with Windows and then install GNU/linux, but
only, for those machines that I want Windows in.
Regards.
chrisv
>Ad Hominem (HPT's coach) wrote:
>>
>> Early retirement, I bet!
>> Did they pay you to get rid of you?
>
>No they did not. I made a life-style change.
So did Clogwog, I hear. Now "she" can legally use the ladies room.
JEDIDIAH
No not really. This is just your own personal dellusion.
What may happen is that you are prompted to install updates once you've
booted into your desktop. If you choose to do this, this is something that
will not interrupt your use of the system. You can "click the update button"
and it will go about on it's merry way.
We don't have to worry about crap like Conflicker so we don't have to
be quite so "diligent" with the updates.
It's not like "update or be rooted" which is the Windows situation.
Hans Lister
> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7b0e4mF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Phil Stovell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:03:22 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>>
>>>> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>>>
>>> Most of the comments seem to be about loading Windows on it.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah that really pissed me off when I bought my Netbook. While
>> researching which one to buy I noticed that 95% of comments about Linux
>> netbooks began with "I *IMMEDIATELY* replaced Linux with Windows.
>
> Sounds just like 95% of the COLA "advocates" who claim that when they buy a
> PC they *immediately* replace Windows with Linux.
Yea!
>
>> Now, being a cynical sort of person, it /could/ be that these were MS
>> shills, just trying their usual stuff.
> Yeah... that dreaded bogey-man behinc every tree.
Linux freetards have to blame someone for Linux's failures.
It can't possibly be that Linux sucks now can it?
>
>> If they weren't, it actually made me quite angry that they took NO time
>> at all to even try to have a look at a different operating system.
>
> They already know what they want so why waste time messing around?
>
Excatly!
>> Weren't even interested.
>
> Other than the technical people that I work with - I don't know of a single
> person that even knows what Linux is. How can they be interested in
> something they've never heard of?
I kid of disagree on that one. I find that people know "of
Linux", but a lot of stereotypes, some true, still exist.
For example some people still believe it is "text only".
Their words, not mine.
What I *do know* is that people will try Linux, use it for a few
days and then dump it and go back to Windows.
Linux just turns regular people off.
They see it doing nothing better, except maybe security, than
their Windows machines.
Getting their multimedia devices to work with Linux is a chore
and the commercial Windows programs they most likely already
own, blow the socks off of most of the Linux programs which look
and run crudely in comparison.
Hans Lister
> In article <h2fk1i$1as$01$1...@news.t-online.com>, Peter K�hlmann says...
>
>> It takes a lot longer than that to have a somewhat similar setup compared
>> to a typical linux install
>>
> Not if its done from a CD/DVD and set to automatically install
> everything like a Linux distro.
>
>> The install time for windows alone is longer than the time needed for a
>> complete linux install including the apps.
>> With windows, you just start to setup the applications then.
>>
>> Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
>
> However you then spend hours, if not days, applying all the bug fixes
> for a particular distribution and editing things to make it work
> properly.
That's the dirty little secret that Linux freetards don't want
you to know about.
Sure Linux installs in 30 minutes or so.
Now you have to spend 10 days trying to make it work.
Most people give up long before that and go back to Windows
which is why Linux desktop still sits at around 1 percent of the
desktop even after 15+ years of being free.
Theo Markettos
> Wonder how many ebuyer have shipped today then - I passed the link onto
> a few friends...
Six. I checked at about 11am and the stock was 98. Now it's 92.
Theo
Ezekiel
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnh4muk...@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2009-07-01, Ezekiel <nowher...@zeke.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7b12sbF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It takes a lot longer than that to have a somewhat similar setup
>>>> compared
>>>> to a typical linux install
>>>>
>>>> The install time for windows alone is longer than the time needed for a
>>>> complete linux install including the apps.
>>>> With windows, you just start to setup the applications then.
>>>>
>>>> Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
>>>
>>> Then Windows needs to be updated - that can take up to an hour or more
>>> unless the user has slipstreamed service packs into the install disk -
>>> but then we are talking nON-GEEK here, aren't we? ;-)
>>
>> Right... those Windows updates make such a difference. Because anyone
>> who's
>> installed a Linux distro will tell you that it's not like the first thing
>> that happens when you first start your new Linux install is to have to
>> download multiple 100's of megs of updates, patches and fixes. Oh wait...
>> you do need to download 100's of megs of updates on Linux too.
>
> No not really. This is just your own personal dellusion.
Not really what? Are you honestly claiming that a fresh install of something
like Ubuntu, Suse or Fedora isn't going to want to download and install 100+
Megs of updates? The amount of megabytes of downloads that I need each month
for my Windows installs is much less than my Linux boxes. It seems like
every other day Ubuntu wants to download 80 Megs worth of patches.
> What may happen is that you are prompted to install updates once you've
> booted into your desktop. If you choose to do this, this is something that
> will not interrupt your use of the system. You can "click the update
> button"
> and it will go about on it's merry way.
So in other words it works the same way as Windows does. You do realize that
Windows will also download apps in the background.
JEDIDIAH
You can never have too much memory. If you can at all swing it,
put as much memory as the box as you can (or will be detected).
Hans Lister
1G for XP is the sweet spot.
Below that and performance suffers.
Above that and typically you don't see much increase in
performance.
There are exceptions of course like video/audio work etc.
But for average Joe 1G is usually enough.
SteveH
>
> As I posted before - WHY then, buy a Linux Netbook, when the SAME
> model is available with Windows, and THEN spend the three hours plus
> common sense to me...
To confound Linux users of course.
--
SteveH
Hans Lister
I believe you are confusing him with Roy Schestowitz.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.support.transgendered/msg/27752775c0b5c387
Gordon Henderson
So I tried:
iwconfig wlan0 txpower off
and nothing happened.
Ho hum.
Gordon
Hans Lister
They don't need any help.
It seems to come naturally to them.
Take a look at this bunch of Linux freetards :
http://www.abiword.org/~abi/expo99/expo_02_010_full.jpg
Then of course there is the "Linux Leader" RMS picking toe jam
and eating it in front of an audience.
God only knows what he does in the privacy of his own basement.
You gotta see this one!
James
>
> Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
I installed Windows 7 Ultimate RC from DVD in 14 minutes and from a USB
thumb drive in 7 minutes. Windows updates, installing MS Office and
utilities took another 45 minutes.
Please try again Peter.
Dave Liquorice
> Err as a Management Accountant I can guarantee you that Calc 3.1 will do
> almost everything that Excel 2003 does.
Fuctionality within a system is not the same as interoperbilty
between systems. What happens if you work on the same file with OO
and MS Office?
In my experience OO and MS Office don't work well enough together to
be trusted. A Word orginated documment with a small table with
centered text had that table a different size, in different position
and left justified in Writer (under doze). Lifes too short, I found a
window box to make my changes to the document on.
--
Cheers
Dave.
Hans Lister
Bingo!
I had a similar experience with a paper that was written in OO
and contained foot notes and simple tables.
When opened in Office 2003 the tables were skewed, the footnotes
were messed up and the margins of the document were changed
enough to effect the formatting which split lines and made the
overall appearance of the document very amateurish looking.
Fortunately I had the good sense to test the OO generated
document with MSOffice.
And this was really not a complex document.
I cringe to think what would have happened had that document
just been sent without checking as I highly doubt the person on
the receiving end would be using Open Office.
JEDIDIAH
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:slrnh4muk...@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2009-07-01, Ezekiel <nowher...@zeke.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7b12sbF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It takes a lot longer than that to have a somewhat similar setup
>>>>> compared
>>>>> to a typical linux install
>>>>>
>>>>> The install time for windows alone is longer than the time needed for a
>>>>> complete linux install including the apps.
>>>>> With windows, you just start to setup the applications then.
>>>>>
>>>>> Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
>>>>
>>>> Then Windows needs to be updated - that can take up to an hour or more
>>>> unless the user has slipstreamed service packs into the install disk -
>>>> but then we are talking nON-GEEK here, aren't we? ;-)
>>>
>>> Right... those Windows updates make such a difference. Because anyone
>>> who's
>>> installed a Linux distro will tell you that it's not like the first thing
>>> that happens when you first start your new Linux install is to have to
>>> download multiple 100's of megs of updates, patches and fixes. Oh wait...
>>> you do need to download 100's of megs of updates on Linux too.
>>
>> No not really. This is just your own personal dellusion.
>
> Not really what? Are you honestly claiming that a fresh install of something
> like Ubuntu, Suse or Fedora isn't going to want to download and install 100+
> Megs of updates? The amount of megabytes of downloads that I need each month
I don't have to worry about being part of some botnet if I don't
install those. My system will not be disabled due to the lack of some
really important driver (like the network card) not being a part of
the OS install.
These are updates to things that aren't even installed by the
basic OS installer under Windows.
> for my Windows installs is much less than my Linux boxes. It seems like
> every other day Ubuntu wants to download 80 Megs worth of patches.
>
>
>> What may happen is that you are prompted to install updates once you've
>> booted into your desktop. If you choose to do this, this is something that
>> will not interrupt your use of the system. You can "click the update
>> button"
>> and it will go about on it's merry way.
>
> So in other words it works the same way as Windows does. You do realize that
> Windows will also download apps in the background.
Yeah... right. Microsoft implemented dkpg while we weren't looking.
You should lay off the special brownies.
--
...as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
|||
/ | \
Vaughn Bode
> "Gordon" <gbpli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7b0e4mF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Phil Stovell wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:03:22 +0000, 7 wrote:
>
> >>>www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>
> > researching which one to buy I noticed that 95% of comments about Linux
> > netbooks began with "I *IMMEDIATELY* replaced Linux with Windows.
> > shills, just trying their usual stuff.
> > at all to even try to have a look at a different operating system.
>
> Why should they have to be interested?
> Whatever happened to freedom of choice?
> What if they've already got Windows software they want to use?
They would buy a Windows netbook. Are they going after a cheap deal?
How much to buy Windows to go along with the netbook? Oops, just lost
the money advantage. Perhaps they want to install a pirate copy of
Windows. I have not installed Windows for maybe 15 years. How
difficult is it these days? Does the netbook configuration present
any special challenges?
> What if they're not geeks?
If they are not geeks, they would not be the type to install an
operating system.
Vaughn Bode
> Conor wrote:
> > They're not MS Shills but they do need complete interoperability with
> > Windows. Take Ubuntu. Its windows network browsing out of the box is
> > fucked from the start.
>
> Err no it's not. What makes you say it is? I can browse MY Windows
> Network perfectly OK from my Ubuntu netbook....without WINS or anything
> like that....in fact my Ubuntu Netbook will access Vista shares FAR
> easier than Windows XP does...
>
>
> > can't use aMSN and therefore webcam chat on MSN. And then when they
> > changed to 9.04, they broke the Intel graphics driver which pretty much
> > EVERY netbook uses.
>
> Upgrading to 9.04 didn't break anything on my Toshiba NB100.....
>
>
>
> > And then there's OpenOffice whose MS Office compatiblity is only skin
> > deep. I've given up on it.
>
> is available with Windows, and THEN spend the three hours plus
> converting Linux to Windows? Just doesn't come within the realms of
> common sense to me...
Those are the people for whom time has no value. No wait, that can't
be right. The Microsoft goons here have declared that Linux users
squander their time.
PeeGee
I take it that it's OK for MS Office to create files that OOo cannot
process properly but not the reverse - a bit hypocritical methinks :-) .
--
PeeGee
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)
Hans Lister
Who cares?
99.99 percent of the time the person on the receiving end is
either using MSOffice and/or specifically specifies the format
of the document say PDF, RTF or plain text.
Hey, I have nothing against ODF,or OO I think it's a great idea,
however the defacto standard is MSOffice and not Open Office.
That's the real world.
Lusotec
> Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>>From iwconfig ma(ual) page:
>>"iwconfig - configure a wireless network interface"
>>" txpower
>> For cards supporting multiple transmit powers, sets the
>> transmit power in dBm. If W is the power in Watt, the power in
>> dBm is P =
>> 30 + 10.log(W). If the value is postfixed by mW, it will
>> be automatically converted to dBm.
>> In addition, on and off enable and disable the radio, and
>> auto
>> and fixed enable and disable power control (if those
>> features are available).
>> Examples :
>> iwconfig eth0 txpower 15
>> iwconfig eth0 txpower 30mW
>> iwconfig eth0 txpower auto
>> iwconfig eth0 txpower off
>
> So I tried:
>
> iwconfig wlan0 txpower off
>
> and nothing happened.
What do you mean by "nothing happened"?
What is the output of
iwconfig wlan0
before and after
iwconfig wlan0 txpower off
?
Usually, if the driver does not support a feature it shows an error message.
Regards.
Lusotec
> PeeGee wrote:
>> I take it that it's OK for MS Office to create files that OOo cannot
>> process properly but not the reverse - a bit hypocritical methinks :-) .
>
> Who cares?
>
> 99.99 percent of the time the person on the receiving end is
> either using MSOffice and/or specifically specifies the format
> of the document say PDF, RTF or plain text.
>
> Hey, I have nothing against ODF,or OO I think it's a great idea,
> however the defacto standard is MSOffice and not Open Office.
>
> That's the real world.
That is you part of the real world. In "my" part of the real world, send a
DOCX and you most likely would get a reply asking to resend in ODF, DOC,
PDF or PS. Most people use OpenOffice or MS Office 2003.
Regards.
JEDIDIAH
No. The real world has no real standard.
There's enough compatability problems in between msoffice that if you
are a user of a "deviant" app and do manage to run into a problem it will
never occur to the other party that you aren't running msoffice.
In the real world, people are used to Microsoft screwing up.
Hans Lister
Key word *my*.
I haven't seen a single copy of OpenOffice used in a corporate
setting.
I have seen IBM Symphony though, but no OpenOffice.
SteveH
>>
>> To confound Linux users of course.
>
> They don't need any help.
> It seems to come naturally to them.
Good so far..
>
> Take a look at this bunch of Linux freetards :
>
> http://www.abiword.org/~abi/expo99/expo_02_010_full.jpg
>
> Then of course there is the "Linux Leader" RMS picking toe jam
> and eating it in front of an audience.
>
> God only knows what he does in the privacy of his own basement.
>
> You gotta see this one!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ
And then you go spoil it with all this juvenile crap
--
SteveH
Hans Lister
The guy is picking his feet and eating it.
He's the juvenile Linux leader.
Ad Hominem (HPT's coach)
news:7b1aquF...@mid.individual.net...
> Ad Hominem (HPT's coach) wrote:
>>
>> minutes for the apps.
>
> Err LIAR. How about SP1 and SP2?
SP2 comes with recent install DVD's, so there is no need to install SP1, you
fuckwitted moron!
> How about updating and SCANNING with
> your AV and Malware app?
I don't use AV or Malware app!
Windows Vista is safe enough, safer than some Linux distro's,
http://www.itsecurity.com/features/ubuntu-secure-install-resource/
And ask Theo de Raadt and Tannenbaum, you idiot!
Linux is for losers!
"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't
realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add
to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should
fix it.'"
http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
Clogwog
news:13mapzny9n6y6$.zajvpvr6d2qg$.dlg@40tude.net...
lol !
He can't take his mind of peeping in ladies rooms.
poor Chris Van den Bergh
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2009-07-01, Ezekiel <nowher...@zeke.com> wrote:
>
>> Right... those Windows updates make such a difference. Because anyone who's
>> installed a Linux distro will tell you that it's not like the first thing
>> that happens when you first start your new Linux install is to have to
>> download multiple 100's of megs of updates, patches and fixes. Oh wait...
>> you do need to download 100's of megs of updates on Linux too.
>
> No not really. This is just your own personal dellusion.
Especially if you do a net-install.
> What may happen is that you are prompted to install updates once you've
> booted into your desktop. If you choose to do this, this is something that
> will not interrupt your use of the system. You can "click the update button"
> and it will go about on it's merry way.
>
> It's not like "update or be rooted" which is the Windows situation.
A good root would do the Zekester a world o' good, IMHO. Brighten up his
sour puss a bit.
--
You will inherit millions of dollars.
Conor
> No. The real world has no real standard.
>
HAHAHA
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
RonB
> Other than the technical people that I work with - I don't know of a single
> person that even knows what Linux is. How can they be interested in
> something they've never heard of?
And yet you spend your whole life here ranting against Linux -- an OS so
"insignificant" that "virtually no one knows about it."
DOH!
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
RonB
> The big difference is that you often can't buy a PC (especially a laptop)
> without paying the M$ tax, so you are forced to do just that.
Yep. The Dell Optiplex I bought for my wife actually cost more *without*
an OS than it did with Vista, plus a 21" monitor. How does that work out
for Dell?
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> PeeGee skrev:
>> Hans Lister wrote:
>
>>> Fortunately I had the good sense to test the OO generated
>>> document with MSOffice.
>>>
>>> And this was really not a complex document.
>>>
>>> I cringe to think what would have happened had that document
>>> just been sent without checking as I highly doubt the person on
>>> the receiving end would be using Open Office.
>>
>> I take it that it's OK for MS Office to create files that OOo cannot
>> process properly but not the reverse - a bit hypocritical methinks :-) .
>
> It is in deed.
I've never had any issues creating a document in OOo, saving it as Word
97/2000/XP, and then opening it up in Word 2000 through 2003.
--
All I know is what the words know, and dead things, and that
makes a handsome little sum, with a beginning and a middle and
an end, as in the well-built phrase and the long sonata of the dead.
-- Samuel Beckett
Logan Rathbone
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Sven Svensson belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> PeeGee skrev:
>>> Hans Lister wrote:
>>
>>>> Fortunately I had the good sense to test the OO generated document
>>>> with MSOffice.
>>>>
>>>> And this was really not a complex document.
>>>>
>>>> I cringe to think what would have happened had that document just
>>>> been sent without checking as I highly doubt the person on the
>>>> receiving end would be using Open Office.
>>>
>>> I take it that it's OK for MS Office to create files that OOo cannot
>>> process properly but not the reverse - a bit hypocritical methinks :-)
>>> .
>>
>> It is in deed.
>
> I've never had any issues creating a document in OOo, saving it as Word
> 97/2000/XP, and then opening it up in Word 2000 through 2003.
Mmm. Well, I haven't had *many* problems, but I can't say that I've had
*none*. I find that things work better without macros and such, and when
documents are formatted with styles as opposed to manually tweaking every
little thing until it looks *just* right... those types of documents have
a much higher likelihood of having formatting errors when exported/
imported to each other's formats, IMHE.
For me, the thing that makes me nervous is the lack of *guarantee* that
things will look right when exporting/importing. That's why I tend to
use PDF when exporting from OOo if I want to be *sure* that the
formatting will look right across the board. But then people will
invariably email me and say "can I have that in word please so I can edit
it??" So, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess.
Baron
> Testing Linux Netbook Retail Speed
> ----------------------------------
>
>
> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>
>
> Linux Acer netbook for 149.99 inc vat.
> 1Gb RAM, 120Gb HD 8.9" screen with resolution 1024x600 and 0.3M
> webcam.
>
> When I checked an hour ago, it was >100 in stock.
> Watch it go in a few hours to within a couple of days.
>
> Then compare that result with windump machines sell rate of
> practically nothing. Windummy machines are sitting unsold on shelves
> because no one wants them. They are too slow and expensive for that
> slow speed. The public want Linux netbooks and micoshaft and certain
> DUMB Taiwan manufacturers like Assus are colluding to stop retail
> sales of Linux netbooks by putting up prices, restricting supplies of
> high end Linux netbooks and fitting Linux to abysmal hardware instead
> of equal hardware as windump machines and sell it at the lower price
> through price comparison.
>
> Retailers need to take note of how fast Linux is selling
> netbooks and bringing in the money to re-order more Linux netbooks;
> and complain to EU competition authorities
> if the prices are being rigged to the same levels
> as windump machines because it is illegal anti-trust issue to be
> overcharged in order to keep a monopoly player in the market happy.
>
> Meanwhile EU regulators are fast asleep drunk on tax payer
> money as usual.
I agree with your comments ! I have personally experienced a major UK
retailer being deliberately obstructive in supplying Linux netbooks.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
Baron
> SteveH wrote:
>> "Gordon" <gbpl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7b0e4mF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Phil Stovell wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:03:22 +0000, 7 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> www.ebuyer.com/product/146879
>>> Yeah that really pissed me off when I bought my Netbook. While
>>> researching which one to buy I noticed that 95% of comments about
>>> Linux netbooks began with "I *IMMEDIATELY* replaced Linux with
>>> Windows. Now, being a cynical sort of person, it /could/ be that
>>> these were MS shills, just trying their usual stuff.
>>> If they weren't, it actually made me quite angry that they took NO
>>> time at all to even try to have a look at a different operating
>>> system. Weren't even interested.
>>>
>>
>> Why should they have to be interested?
>> Whatever happened to freedom of choice?
>> What if they've already got Windows software they want to use?
>> What if they're not geeks?
>>
>>
>
> Err then why buy a Netbook with Linux on it, and then publicly
> ridicule Linux in the forums, when the *SAME* model is available with
> Windows pre-installed?
> Smacks of shilling to me.....
>
Yes it does !
If you think about it these people, if what they say is true, must have
stolen the copies of Wins that they are putting on their newly acquired
netbooks ! Since they won't run Vista and XP is no longer available
for general sale, that only leaves theft and piracy.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
Baron
> Gordon Henderson <gordon...@drogon.net> writes:
>
>
>> Another battery drainer is probably the Wi-Fi. I don't know how to
>> turn it off under Linux (not sure you can)
>
> For ubuntu/gnome at least right clicking on the network manager applet
> allows you to turn off wifi. I don't know what exactly that's
> invoking, but presumably it's something that'll work when the driver
> for the wifi card supports it.
Go for the six cell battery.
Doesn't the little button under the right front lip turn wireless on and
off ? Mine does.
--
Best Regards:
Baron.
Gregory Shearman
Are you talking about an Australian "root"?
TwoBeamer would have to find a sexual partner first.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Gregory Shearman
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>
>> Three hours is actually a short time for a windows install
>
>
> thumb drive in 7 minutes. Windows updates, installing MS Office and
> utilities took another 45 minutes.
Yeah, and I own an Island in the Bahamas and a private jet and a motor
launch the size of Singapore.