Re: Ubuntu is a worhtless POS...

Frank wrote:

> Christopher Hunter wrote:
>
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So you keep saying.. however the facts differ from your lies.
>>
>>
>> No. The "Vista" box across the room from me lasted just 20 minutes when
>> connected to the 'net before it began spewing spam.
>
> Do you actually think anyone who has Vista believes that lie for one
> second? Are you that fukkin dumb?

He was generous with the 20 minutes
After all, a standard install of XP will not even get the first update
before it is hit with the first malware if you are unlucky enough

< snip more lunacy from "Frank", worlds dumbest poster >
--
Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"

Peter Köhlmann wrote:


...his usual delusional lies.
Frank

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> He was generous with the 20 minutes

Yes. I couldn't believe that it could be taken over quite so quickly, so I
did a complete reinstall of "Vista". It took forever to load the rubbish,
with the endless reboots and loading drivers. I connected it to the 'net
again /with/ the "Firewall" enabled, and it lasted just 17 minutes.

> After all, a standard install of XP will not even get the first update
> before it is hit with the first malware if you are unlucky enough

/Any/ version of Windows - with the exception of the special "Friends of
Bill" versions that the people posting here obviously have - is unusably
insecure. The Windows idiots haven't realised yet that /nobody/ uses
Windows for any /serious/ computing...

> < snip more lunacy from "Frank", worlds dumbest poster >

Oh! /That/ fool's back is he? He /deserves/ Vista. He's too stupid to
realise that he's widely killfiled and nobody takes his dribbling nonsense
seriously.

C.

"Christopher Hunter" <> wrote in message
news:O0Rrj.88379$. uk...
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> He was generous with the 20 minutes
>
> Yes. I couldn't believe that it could be taken over quite so quickly, so
> I
> did a complete reinstall of "Vista". It took forever to load the rubbish,
> with the endless reboots and loading drivers. I connected it to the 'net
> again /with/ the "Firewall" enabled, and it lasted just 17 minutes.
>

Now we know you are lying.. vista doesn't need endless reboots to install..
mine took two which compares well with Ubuntu.

>> After all, a standard install of XP will not even get the first update
>> before it is hit with the first malware if you are unlucky enough
>
> /Any/ version of Windows - with the exception of the special "Friends of
> Bill" versions that the people posting here obviously have - is unusably
> insecure. The Windows idiots haven't realised yet that /nobody/ uses
> Windows for any /serious/ computing...

You obviously get the special enemies of Bill version and everyone else gets
the normal one.
Either that or you are really are as stupid as we think.

>> < snip more lunacy from "Frank", worlds dumbest poster >
>
> Oh! /That/ fool's back is he? He /deserves/ Vista. He's too stupid to
> realise that he's widely killfiled and nobody takes his dribbling nonsense
> seriously.

You appear to.

dennis@home wrote:

>
>
> "Christopher Hunter" <> wrote in
> message news:O0Rrj.88379$. uk...
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> He was generous with the 20 minutes
>>
>> Yes. I couldn't believe that it could be taken over quite so quickly, so
>> I
>> did a complete reinstall of "Vista". It took forever to load the
>> rubbish,
>> with the endless reboots and loading drivers. I connected it to the 'net
>> again /with/ the "Firewall" enabled, and it lasted just 17 minutes.
>>
>
> Now we know you are lying.. vista doesn't need endless reboots to
> install.. mine took two which compares well with Ubuntu.
>
I don't know about Vista, but the last Windoze box I installed Windoze on
(XP) certainly required MANY reboots. Just getting the manufacturer's
drivers installed required a reboot to install EACH of the devices
supported by the manufacturer. Some other device drivers also required
reboots to get installed. This has changed in Vista?

Cheers.

--
Frank's Brain Activity Plotted (watch the red line):
http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i4...nceMonitor.jpg

AlexB: "If it is Business or Ultimate open Command Prompt as administrator
and type lusrmgr.msc."
^^^^^
I must say the developers at Microsoft do have a sense of humour.

NoStop wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>
>>
>> "Christopher Hunter" <> wrote in
>> message news:O0Rrj.88379$. uk...
>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> He was generous with the 20 minutes
>>> Yes. I couldn't believe that it could be taken over quite so quickly, so
>>> I
>>> did a complete reinstall of "Vista". It took forever to load the
>>> rubbish,
>>> with the endless reboots and loading drivers. I connected it to the 'net
>>> again /with/ the "Firewall" enabled, and it lasted just 17 minutes.
>>>
>> Now we know you are lying.. vista doesn't need endless reboots to
>> install.. mine took two which compares well with Ubuntu.
>>
> I don't know about Vista, but the last Windoze box I installed Windoze on
> (XP) certainly required MANY reboots. Just getting the manufacturer's
> drivers installed required a reboot to install EACH of the devices
> supported by the manufacturer. Some other device drivers also required
> reboots to get installed. This has changed in Vista?
>
> Cheers.
>

He's only including Vista, not all the programs, device drivers,
updates, etc. that you need to install that require many reboots. IOW,
he's LYING by omission.

Alias

NoStop wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:
>
>
>>
>>"Christopher Hunter" <> wrote in
>>message news:O0Rrj.88379$. uk...
>>
>>>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>He was generous with the 20 minutes
>>>
>>>Yes. I couldn't believe that it could be taken over quite so quickly,so
>>>I
>>>did a complete reinstall of "Vista". It took forever to load the
>>>rubbish,
>>>with the endless reboots and loading drivers. I connected it to the 'net
>>>again /with/ the "Firewall" enabled, and it lasted just 17 minutes.
>>>
>>
>>Now we know you are lying.. vista doesn't need endless reboots to
>>install.. mine took two which compares well with Ubuntu.
>>
>
> I don't know about Vista,

Finally...a lying linux troll tells the truth...for once!!!

but the last Windoze box I installed Windoze on
> (XP) certainly required MANY reboots. Just getting the manufacturer's
> drivers installed required a reboot to install EACH of the devices
> supported by the manufacturer. Some other device drivers also required
> reboots to get installed. This has changed in Vista?

Duh!!!
Frank
>
> Cheers.
>

Alias wrote:

> NoStop wrote:
>
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Christopher Hunter" <> wrote in
>>> message news:O0Rrj.88379$. uk...
>>>
>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He was generous with the 20 minutes
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I couldn't believe that it could be taken over quite so
>>>> quickly, so
>>>> I
>>>> did a complete reinstall of "Vista". It took forever to load the
>>>> rubbish,
>>>> with the endless reboots and loading drivers. I connected it to the
>>>> 'net
>>>> again /with/ the "Firewall" enabled, and it lasted just 17 minutes.
>>>>
>>> Now we know you are lying.. vista doesn't need endless reboots to
>>> install.. mine took two which compares well with Ubuntu.
>>>
>> I don't know about Vista, but the last Windoze box I installed Windozeon
>> (XP) certainly required MANY reboots. Just getting the manufacturer's
>> drivers installed required a reboot to install EACH of the devices
>> supported by the manufacturer. Some other device drivers also required
>> reboots to get installed. This has changed in Vista?
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>
> He's only including Vista, not all the programs, device drivers,
> updates, etc. that you need to install that require many reboots. IOW,
> he's LYING by omission.
>
> Alias


hehehe...and you know all about lying, right...LOL!
Frank

Frank wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>> NoStop wrote:
>>
>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Christopher Hunter" <> wrote in
>>>> message news:O0Rrj.88379$. uk...
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> He was generous with the 20 minutes
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. I couldn't believe that it could be taken over quite so
>>>>> quickly, so
>>>>> I
>>>>> did a complete reinstall of "Vista". It took forever to load the
>>>>> rubbish,
>>>>> with the endless reboots and loading drivers. I connected it to
>>>>> the 'net
>>>>> again /with/ the "Firewall" enabled, and it lasted just 17 minutes.
>>>>>
>>>> Now we know you are lying.. vista doesn't need endless reboots to
>>>> install.. mine took two which compares well with Ubuntu.
>>>>
>>> I don't know about Vista, but the last Windoze box I installed
>>> Windoze on
>>> (XP) certainly required MANY reboots. Just getting the manufacturer's
>>> drivers installed required a reboot to install EACH of the devices
>>> supported by the manufacturer. Some other device drivers also required
>>> reboots to get installed. This has changed in Vista?
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>>
>>
>> He's only including Vista, not all the programs, device drivers,
>> updates, etc. that you need to install that require many reboots. IOW,
>> he's LYING by omission.
>>
>> Alias
>
>
> hehehe...and you know all about lying, right...LOL!
> Frank

Yeah, I see your lies every time you post.

Alias

I installed probably about 8 Vistas and at least a dozen XPs.

Vista installation is fast, requires only one reboot as far as I remember.
It takes care of ALL, and I mean it, ALL drivers. You don't have to do
anything, just sit and wait.

XP installation is a nightmare, requires about two days AT EAST. you have to
look for all drivers, inf file, dlls, other files with weird extensions.
After a few XPs installed I wrote a program that swept my entire computer
(actually a few) and collected all relevant files in a special directory. I
even called it Installation Files. After that subsequent installations were
easier but not completely trouble free.

The trouble at later stages was that drivers get old, corrupted, not
harmonized with latest update, etc.

Vista is a great OS. It is pitiful that unscrupulous and dishonest people
spread slander and lies about it.


"Christopher Hunter" <> wrote in message
news:O0Rrj.88379$. uk...
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> He was generous with the 20 minutes
>
> Yes. I couldn't believe that it could be taken over quite so quickly, so
> I
> did a complete reinstall of "Vista". It took forever to load the rubbish,
> with the endless reboots and loading drivers. I connected it to the 'net
> again /with/ the "Firewall" enabled, and it lasted just 17 minutes.
>
>> After all, a standard install of XP will not even get the first update
>> before it is hit with the first malware if you are unlucky enough
>
> /Any/ version of Windows - with the exception of the special "Friends of
> Bill" versions that the people posting here obviously have - is unusably
> insecure. The Windows idiots haven't realised yet that /nobody/ uses
> Windows for any /serious/ computing...
>
>> < snip more lunacy from "Frank", worlds dumbest poster >
>
> Oh! /That/ fool's back is he? He /deserves/ Vista. He's too stupid to
> realise that he's widely killfiled and nobody takes his dribbling nonsense
> seriously.
>
> C.
>