Vista Versions

[MyndFyre]

Linux installed in 30 minutes. Not the 15 you asked for, but 1/3 of Window's hour and a half.
Linux - 1. Windows - 0.

After the 5th installation attempt on the third distribution I'm trying I finally have something booting up.  It only took 4.5 hours.  Windows 1, Linux 0.

Linux worked with my video card at a nice, workable resolution straight out of the box. Windows did not.
Linux - 2. Windows - 0.

Linux didn't work with my laptop's specc'd resolution, 1440x900, despite changes to the appropriate .conf file and new sparkly nVidia drivers.  Gnome simply refused to go to that resolution.  It wasn't until I found a hack online that I could do it.  And it only took me three weeks of searching.  Windows - 10, Linux - 0.  But wait!  Windows worked with my PCI wi-fi card out of the box!  With Linux I need to get NDISWrapper -- but wait, I can't get online to get it!  I can download it to my NTFS drive, but wait!  I can't read my NTFS drive until I get online to download the driver!  Windows - 15, Linux 0.  (Note that the reverse argument -- that Windows doesn't ship with ext2/ext3 -- doesn't apply with nearly as much weight, because NTFS is a standard workplace filesystem found very commonly).

Complicated? Tell me how having the Messenger service enabled by default and having countless popups spawn on top of your work complicates things? How about having services enabled that give out your private information (which Linux doesn't even ask for) to anyone who get's your IP?
Linux - 4. Windows - 0.

Messenger service isn't enabled by default on SP2, and the services you're talking about only apply if you're directly connected to the external network, which is a stupid thing to have in any instance.  No score change there.

[Joe]

I'm going to laugh when Vista doesn't install any faster than XP, and saying it will take only 15 minutes is another piece of Microsoft bull. I'm going to laugh even harder when Warrior doesn't post for a week after finding out he was wrong.

[Warrior]

I'm going to laugh when Vista doesn't install any faster than XP, and saying it will take only 15 minutes is another piece of Microsoft bull. I'm going to laugh even harder when Warrior doesn't post for a week after finding out he was wrong.

I've already used Vista and it's already faster. It's possible to have an OS install in 15 minutes, MacOSX Tiger does it in 5.
I'm going to laugh--wait I'm already laughing at you.

[Sidoh]

While I disagree with the number of versions Vista is going to be released to, I'm still pretty excited to try the upgrade.  I think I've mentioned this to Warrior each time he talks about the new features it's going to have, despite the obvious disdain I've represented here on the forums.

I'm going to laugh when Vista doesn't install any faster than XP, and saying it will take only 15 minutes is another piece of Microsoft bull. I'm going to laugh even harder when Warrior doesn't post for a week after finding out he was wrong.

It's a generalized statistic, Joe.  There's an implicit "on most machines" at the end of that statement.  You should well know that installation times vary from computer to computer.  There's no saying the exact time the installation will complete.  Hell, there are noticeable discrepancies installing the same operating system on the exact same computer with absolutely no hardware changes whatsoever.  It happens.

Even if it doesn't install in 15 minutes on most machines: who gives a rat's ass?  I expect to spend several hours after the installation setting up my computer the way I like it, even on Windows.  On Linux, I expect it to be weeks before I configure things the way I like them.  While I will openly admit part of this is due to my lack of experience in using Linux, any reasonable person will also admit a constituent of this are the complications that are tied in with Linux.

I'm a fence-sitter.  I love Linux, but I think Windows has its place.  I have argued numerous times -- Newby and Ergot will tell you -- that trying to get video games intended to be for Windows working on Linux is a waste of time.  If you want to be any sort of avid gamer, chances are you're going to have Windows installed.  I have a much easier time getting around Windows.  Sure, I almost always have a SSH window open that's connected to my server, but that doesn't mean I'm forced to use it to do everything I want.

I've already used Vista and it's already faster. It's possible to have an OS install in 15 minutes, MacOSX Tiger does it in 5.
I'm going to laugh--wait I'm already laughing at you.

Hehe, I'd like to see it install in 15 minutes (not saying that it can't, I just think it'd be pretty nice to see after doing so many damned XP installations).

[MyndFyre]

And this --

Lol, not very user-friendly for those that don't know how to really work a computer.

--or just not very user-friendly for people who don't want to learn a command line.

I know quite a bit about a computer, about how it functions, and how to operate it.  If it's not one of my notebooks but it's my computer, chances are very good that I built it.  I typically know my system specs down to (but not including) the bus architecture.

So your assessment that Linux is only not user-friendly for "those that (sic) don't know how to really work a computer" is erroneous.  I have a much easier time with Macs than I do Linux (especially odd considering Tiger is based on FreeBSD, isn't it?).  

It's a generalized statistic, Joe.  There's an implicit "on most machines" at the end of that statement.  You should well know that installation times vary from computer to computer.  There's no saying the exact time the installation will complete.  Hell, there are noticeable discrepancies installing the same operating system on the exact same computer with absolutely no hardware changes whatsoever.  It happens.

LOL yes, I forgot that Joe uses shitty old-school stuff. 

[Newby]

After the 5th installation attempt on the third distribution I'm trying I finally have something booting up.  It only took 4.5 hours.  Windows 1, Linux 0.

I think you just suck at Linux. It takes me less than 30 minutes to be using Linux on a fresh install with everything I need I'd wager.

[MyndFyre]

I don't know.  The first time I tried to install slackware, the media was bad for whatever reason, and the menu system (which apparently you need to go through in-order) didn't set it up right.  So I may suck at Linux, but only because Linux sucks at being installed. 

(Note that this isn't true for SuSE or Fedora Core, both of which I've used and like).

[deadly7]

Part of your video problem is that you're using Gnome.  I believe slackware doesn't really support gnome anymore.  I could very well be wrong, however.

[Newby]

I don't know.  The first time I tried to install slackware, the media was bad for whatever reason, and the menu system (which apparently you need to go through in-order) didn't set it up right.  So I may suck at Linux, but only because Linux sucks at being installed. 

Once you pick a menu item, it will go through the remaining menu items in order.

And the media being bad wasn't Slackware's fault! Just yours!

Maybe you need to read my tutorial on how to dual boot. Just read the instructions on Slackware, though.

[MyndFyre]

Part of your video problem is that you're using Gnome.  I believe slackware doesn't really support gnome anymore.  I could very well be wrong, however.

Gnome was a different issue (Fedora Core), although I had a similar problem with KDE on Slackware.

*But*, why *doesn't* Slack support Gnome anymore?  I thought the hallmark of Linux was that you're able to choose your desktop.

[iago]

deadly7 misspoke (typed). 

You can still use Gnome on Slackware, and you are absolutely free to.  You can download it and compile it, and I think there are some binary packages floating around.  But Slackware doesn't come with Gnome by default anymore. 

I forget what the official reason was, but here is the changelog:

gnome/*:  Removed from -current, and turned over to community support and
  distribution.  I'm not going to rehash all the reasons behind this, but it's
  been under consideration for more than four years.  There are already good
  projects in place to provide Slackware GNOME for those who want it, and
  these are more complete than what Slackware has shipped in the past.  So, if
  you're looking for GNOME for Slackware -current, I would recommend looking at
  these two projects for well-built packages that follow a policy of minimal
  interference with the base Slackware system:

    http://gsb.sf.net
    http://gware.sf.net

  There is also Dropline, of course, which is quite popular.  However, due to
  their policy of adding PAM and replacing large system packages (like the
  entire X11 system) with their own versions, I can't give quite the same sort
  of nod to Dropline.  Nevertheless, it remains another choice, and it's _your_
  system, so I will also mention their project:

    http://www.dropline.net/gnome/

  Please do not incorrectly interpret any of this as a slight against GNOME
  itself, which (although it does usually need to be fixed and polished beyond
  the way it ships from upstream more so than, say, KDE or XFce) is a decent
  desktop choice.  So are a lot of others, but Slackware does not need to ship
  every choice.  GNOME is and always has been a moving target (even the
  "stable" releases usually aren't quite ready yet) that really does demand a
  team to keep up on all the changes (many of which are not always well
  documented).  I fully expect that this move will improve the quality of both
  Slackware itself, and the quality (and quantity) of the GNOME options
  available for it.

[AntiVirus]

And this --

Lol, not very user-friendly for those that don't know how to really work a computer.

--or just not very user-friendly for people who don't want to learn a command line.

I know quite a bit about a computer, about how it functions, and how to operate it.  If it's not one of my notebooks but it's my computer, chances are very good that I built it.  I typically know my system specs down to (but not including) the bus architecture.

So your assessment that Linux is only not user-friendly for "those that (sic) don't know how to really work a computer" is erroneous.  I have a much easier time with Macs than I do Linux (especially odd considering Tiger is based on FreeBSD, isn't it?). 

It's a generalized statistic, Joe.  There's an implicit "on most machines" at the end of that statement.  You should well know that installation times vary from computer to computer.  There's no saying the exact time the installation will complete.  Hell, there are noticeable discrepancies installing the same operating system on the exact same computer with absolutely no hardware changes whatsoever.  It happens.

LOL yes, I forgot that Joe uses shitty old-school stuff. 

I wouldn't say that what I said is "erroneous", I just only said part of the people who would find it not very user-friendly.  And in todays world there are a lot of people that don't know how to use a computer (and yes, I agree that's sick).  But to base an OS that will be as widely used as aVista on an OS that isn't as widely used and isn't all that user-friendly would cause some grief for a lot of people.

And the Tiger OS is based off of UNIX, but I don't know for sure if it is based off the FreeBSD distro, but it's highly likely.

[deadly7]

Part of your video problem is that you're using Gnome.  I believe slackware doesn't really support gnome anymore.  I could very well be wrong, however.

Gnome was a different issue (Fedora Core), although I had a similar problem with KDE on Slackware.

*But*, why *doesn't* Slack support Gnome anymore?  I thought the hallmark of Linux was that you're able to choose your desktop.

I said "I think."  I'm sure you can still RUN Gnome on it, it's just not one of the pre-packaged things with Slackware.