Re: Suse Linux: first Impression, Too Much Work
From: Angry American (angryamerican_at_n0spam.com)
Date: 08/01/05
- Next message: Perfect Reign: "Ping: CMS Geeks (you know you are...)"
- Previous message: Karel Venken: "Re: Tool to scan Hard disk for bad sectors"
- In reply to: John Kloosterman: "Re: Suse Linux: first Impression, Too Much Work"
- Next in thread: Peter Köhlmann: "Re: Suse Linux: first Impression, Too Much Work"
- Reply: Peter Köhlmann: "Re: Suse Linux: first Impression, Too Much Work"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:31:55 -0500
"John Kloosterman" <JClosed_AD_netscape_DoT_net> wrote
> And for the install procedure. Well - with some newer hardware and XP it's
> not very complicated. Just be prepared to install a lot of drivers and
> rebooting the machine every time you install one.
Usually only for sound, chipset, and video drivers. XP does not have to
reboot as often as any of the older OS's.
>Be prepared to have a very basic system afterwards and a lot less control
>you are used to. Be prepared to buy a lot of expensive pacakges to get some
>basic office work to do. Of course you can use OpenOffice etc, but then you
>get the same complaints as the OpenOffice used for Linux.
Agreed, adding functionality to Windows gets expensive very quickly.
>Playing games - however is a bit better on this system (altough most games
>are a bit expensive).
A damn bit better, Linux does not have enough games available to even come
close to competition. My server runs Slackware, I run Suse 9.3 on my
thinkpad, and I have an exclusive gaming box running XP 64bit.
>
> The last time i installed windows i had to restrict myself to windows 98
> because the hardware in the machine was not up to par for XP. It had
> on-board sound, a Matrox G200 card etc. It took me about 5 hours to
> install. De problem was with drivers. After a lot searching with google i
> found several drivers and several problems coming with them. Freezing the
> system, giving psyhcadelic colours and modes i did not kow ever existed.
> And rebooting, and rebooting, and rebooting, and re....
> But - to be fair - that was a old windows and system...
And you obviously didn't bother to go to the hardware manufacturers web site
for the proper drivers, no need for all that googling. Windows can be up and
running, with all updates and patches in less than an hour.
(however - using
> Ubuntu the same system was up and running within a hour - including the
> office and other packages - and only one reboot...)
>
> Said that all - windows is not a bad system at all. If it is running it is
> a ease to use. Just be prepared to put a lot of effort in protecting the
> system, because there are a lot of problems with that.
Installing a AV program and Ms Antispyware is hardly hard to do, or
configure.
>And be prepared to give up a lot of controll because you cant "tweak" the
>system like you are used to do.
>
> I have used windows for years, and its not too difficult to learn how to
> use it. I have also used Linux at the same time and i liked it more
> because it gives me more control and gives me the chance to avoid
> vendor-lockin.
This I totally agree with, if Windows allows some sort of modularization,
then I would be much happier with the OS. The ability to choose to install
or not to install certain components and features.
>
> So - dont think i hate windows. I only hate it when people take the step
> to jump to another OS without even looking at the differences. I hate it
> when people get something for free and start complaining it is not the
> same as a system they payed a lot of money for. I hate it when people just
> complaining without being constructive and try to find an answer that will
> help to improve the system.
>
> I agree Linux has come a long way from the humble beginnings, but is not
> (yet) as easy as a clickertyclick-system like windows (although things can
> realy go bad in that system without a way to "repair"). You have to put in
> a little more effort, but the rewardings are numerous. So - both systems
> have their strength- and weaknesess. It's up to the enduser to choose what
> system fits him. Just dont use a system you dont like and start
> complaining about it. Thats childish....
And I hate it when people don't quite get their facts right. Both OS's have
their place. Windows has come a long way in functionality and reliability. I
personally prefer Linux in my day to day machines, but I support Windows on
my customers machines. I have to keep up with the latest and greatest for
both too keep marketable as a consultant.
Dan
- Next message: Perfect Reign: "Ping: CMS Geeks (you know you are...)"
- Previous message: Karel Venken: "Re: Tool to scan Hard disk for bad sectors"
- In reply to: John Kloosterman: "Re: Suse Linux: first Impression, Too Much Work"
- Next in thread: Peter Köhlmann: "Re: Suse Linux: first Impression, Too Much Work"
- Reply: Peter Köhlmann: "Re: Suse Linux: first Impression, Too Much Work"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
