Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] GNU/Linux Makes Windows XP Seem Like a Nightmare

On 2009-05-14, Megabyte <Megabyte.NoSpam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Terry Porter on Sunday 26 April 2009 13:16 : \____
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>> Rant: Microsoft Windows Out of Box Experience Sucks
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | OK, rant mode on. This morning I spent over three hours running Windows
>>>>> | Update on the cool Viliv S5 UMPC I am evaluating. Yes, I realize it runs
>>>>> | the older Windows XP operating system, but even so Microsoft must make
>>>>> | the out of box experience (OOBE) better than this. I have recently
>>>>> | experienced this process with Vista too, and it?s no better than XP.
>>>>> | It?s time that Microsoft fix this absolutely unbearable process.
>>>>> | 
>>>>> | The entire Windows Update process resulted in 5 reboots and took almost
>>>>> | 3.5 hours. That is ridiculous in and of itself, but watching it closely
>>>>> | (something you have to do as it requires user input at inopportune
>>>>> | moments) really got me steamed, as I realized that Microsoft could
>>>>> | easily fix this stupid process.
>>>>> `----
>>> http://jkontherun.com/2009/04/19/microsoft-windows-out-of-box-experience-sucks/
> I will attest to the same frustration from when I installed Vista this 
> week.  The Windows Update process is crap in comparison to Linux. 
> Simply downloading and installing about 60 updates took forever where 
> with Ubuntu it can update the distribution and applications in 1/10 th 
> time.  Linux wins hands down on updating.
>>>> LOL, how STUPID is that ?
>>>> Recently dr flatfish stated that MythTV is too complex and time consuming to
>>>> bother with, yet I can install a whole MythTV box from scratch in about 1/2
>>>> an hour.
>>>> Here, a 'simple' Windows update takes 5 reboots and took almost
>>>> 3.5 hours, thats 7 times longer than installing MythTV.
>>>> Why am I not surprised ?
>>> MythTV is great !! It just needs advertising (for itself, not for the TV).
>> Unfortunately, Mythtv completely favours the customer, by allowing
>> long-term storage of materials which have been broadcast to one's
>> receiver.  Most copyright owners aren't keen on that - they want the
>> consumer to accept having this stuff irradiating their premises, whilst
>> paying for the privilege... this is not a great fit :-)
> I'm not sure it was flatfish that stated it was too complex it was 
> actually me.  I'm sure I could have installed one of the preconfigured 
> MythTV distributions but I instead used a standard Ubuntu install and 
> attempted to get MythTV working.  With Windows it is simply a matter of 
> answering about 6 questions and you are up an running Media Centre but 
> with MythTV there is back-end and front-end packages and getting it 
> functioning is not as simple.


   Getting MythTV up and running is a matter of a single apt-get command.

   What is more interesting is getting recordings set up but that's an
inherently interesting process. There are a lot of options. Doing this
from scratch even on a Tivo isn't even brain dead.

> So Linux wins hands down on updates but Windows presently fairs better 
> in getting Media Centre going over MythTV in Ubuntu IMHO.

    What did you actually do with it?

    MCE by itself doesn't come with enough built-in codec support to be
terribly useful. The inability to specify a subdirectory of a cifs share
for shared media is also most peculiar.

    That's really a hoot-and-a-half.

    If you want to bludgeon MythTV with some bit of Windows software
then SageTV is probably a far better instrument.

    Microsoft: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants.        |||
                                                                     / | \

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index