On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 09:26:03PM -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> Martin Ling wrote:
> > On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 06:47:52PM -0400, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Please specify such machines.
> > Out of six machines I tried, two failures. All were machines with
> > supported hardware, which had successfully installed other
> > distributions.
> Details please...
I fail to see what this contributes to the discussion, but these are
basic specs of the two I had trouble with.
Problem machine #1
6.4GB IDE HD
Gigabyte m/b (BX chipset)
ATI graphics card
[I do not recall model, & this one was not my machine]
Problem machine #2
32MB FP RAM
1GB IDE HD
S3 ViRGE DX
Intel FX chipset m/b
What caught my attention, as I mentioned before, is that both were
very standard and well supported hardware. Due to Corel's pretty loading
screen, I was also unable to tell at what stage problems had occured.
I can check my mail archives if you wish to know details from others who
have had problems, but I suggest ask me off-list as I fail to see how
this is relevant. This thread has dragged a long way off topic.
> > I do know from LUG mailing lists that others have had more problems than
> > usual - but as I said before, I don't pass on rumours.
> > > > > (and thus the only one qualified to be price compared for similar value)
> > > >
> > > > I'm afraid I fail to understand this logic. When did we suddenly decide
> > > > that the installation procedure (something most consumers never deal
> > > > with anyway!) was the important factor in the value of an OS?
> > >
> > > How easy it is for their computer tech to install determines what they
> > > pay for their computer, right????
> > I assume you mean this tounge-in-cheek, yes?
> Not at all. Time is money.
If you believe someone sits down and runs the install program for every
machine that is sold with a pre-installed copy of Windows, you are
wrong. The install is run once and the installed system simply cloned
off to other machines. This is one of the main reasons PC companies produce
Also, you began this point with complaints of Linux's ease (and hence
necessary time) of installation - in the context of average consumers
performing the installs. One assumes, however, that a technician
preparing installations for a PC manufacturer would be competent and
thus need no more time for setting up a Linux installation than he would
a Windows one.
In fact, using Linux actually makes things quicker and easier from the
point of view of a PC manufacturer. An installed copy of Windows can be
cloned, as I said - but it is very closely bound to the hardware
configuration of the machine it was set up on, so all models must be
identical (or at least from a few set models for which images have been
prepared). Windows keeps (for no particularly sensible reason, I might
add) a device inventory stored on the disk as part of the registry, and
is very closely bound to this. A Windows installation gets *very*
confused if started up on another set of hardware.
Linux, however, handles things much more dynamically. A company could
quite feasibly produce a single installation that could be cloned to
*all* their production machines.
-- +--------------------------------------------------------+ | Martin J. Ling Tel: +44 (0)20 8863 2948 | | firstname.lastname@example.org Fax: +44 (0)20 8248 4025 | | http://www.nodezero.org.uk Mobile: +44 (0)7940 482675 | +--------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:08 MDT