On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:35:13 +0200, Marti van Lin wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ____/ Homer on Thursday 13 August 2009 23:28 : \____
>>
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Terry Porter spake thusly:
>>
>>>> I was about to write that the PSU is a likely candidate, until I
>>>> reread that Ubuntu runs without any problems on the same machine.
>>>>
>>>> It has to be Windows that's the problem.
>>> And yet note the responses ("it must be the hardware") despite the
>>> article clearly stating that GNU/Linux runs fine on that same machine.
>>
>>> Windows fanatics are utterly delusional.
>>
>> Yes, it's the hardware. Vista 7 does not support it. A friend of mine
>> recently tried it too and gave up (Vista 7 would not deal with ACPI,
>> unlike Linux).
>
> I installed Vistas 7 RC1 on my Acer Aspire 7220, with these isues:
>
> - 1400x900 flatscreen was recognized as a 800x600 CRT; - Nvidia Geoforce
> 7000M GPU was recognized as a standard VGA adapter; - Nvidia nForce
> Ethetnet adapter was not recognized at all; - Atheros PCI WLAN adapter
> was not recognized at all.
>
> I downloaded the Vista drivers from the Acer website on my Fedora 10
> machine (Pleunix) and copied them to a USB thumbdrive. Installed them on
> Vista 7. However I was still unable to make any connection (neither
> wired nor wireless) to "the Internet".
>
> Vista 7 didn't understood that my Sitecom (Linux) wireless
> router/firewall/switch/nat only serves as a access point and switch
> behind another router. That is obviously too complicated for Vista 7.
Windows networking has never been too good in my opinion, and I usually
have a windows user on the phone every week who cant set up his wifi
network.
>
> After 12 hours
Ouch!
As you may know, Sidux has a 'install timer' that tells you how long the
install took. It took 5 minutes on a netbook and this desktop.
Thats 5 minutes folks, to a fully functional kick arse Linux desktop.
12 hours indeed, what a waste of life! Thanks Microsoft.
> I gave up and re-installed Ubuntu 9.04 on that machine.
>
> My final conclusion: Vista 7 is even worst that Vista if it's not
> preinstalled.
I'm not surprised. All we have heard about is a time limited cut down
prerelease version of vista7, and a ton of astroturf fanbois raving about
it.
>
> I am wondering if people are stupid enough to pay for that piece of
> junkware.
Well ... people get married two, three times and more, yet you'd think
they would learn from the first failure, so yes, I guess plenty of people
will fall for the same old microsoft marketing tricks again, and again.
They won't pay for it tho, it will be preinstalled on all the major
retailers new pcs, so when they buy one, it will have vista7 on it.
The major retailers are all locked into microsoft, (for a bunch of
financial and legal reasons) so there won't be any other choice for the
consumer.
Microsoft will hype it as a great success, the savior of their business,
whilst revealing (at a later date) that their profit is down, again.
To the stock exchange they will say that the reason for the loss of
profit is competition from Linux.
To the general public, they will claim the recession is the reason.
They can't tell the stock exchange the reason is the recession, when both
Google and IBM are going great guns, but the general public are fairly
clueless, so microsoft can generally get away with that excuse with them.
>
> Cheers
--
C.O.L.A Charter:-
"For discussion of the benefits of GNU/Linux compared to other
operating systems."
|
|
