Linked by David Adams on Thu 9th Jul 2009 19:49 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 372670
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Nah, too expensive for me
by darknexus on Thu 9th Jul 2009 23:35
in reply to "RE: Nah, too expensive for me"
RE[2]: Nah, too expensive for me
by jack_perry on Fri 10th Jul 2009 01:19
in reply to "RE: Nah, too expensive for me"
It's worth paying for. Asking to be paid for using it is somewhat absurd.
Not so sure about that. I recently had the opportunity to re-install Vista from a recovery disk. It took an enormously long time, during which I passed through several black screens devoid of information. The computer sat there, with a black screen, for at least 20-30 seconds, if not 2-3 minutes or longer, giving no hint that it was doing anything.
Never mind a Windows Vista update, which involves the interminable wait for "Installing update xx of yy." I'd have reset the computer during one of those if a Google search hadn't warned me against it. I came across so many web pages asking for help with these interminable udpates, that I realized it's standard procedure for a Windows re-install.
People pay to be treated like this? Don't get me wrong: these things happen in Linux, too--but it isn't standard procedure, and I don't pay for it.
RE[2]: Nah, too expensive for me
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 06:47
in reply to "RE: Nah, too expensive for me"
It's worth paying for.
How so?
http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2009070900835RVMSAP
http://www.flexense.com/resources/file_systems_performance_comparis...
Save your money and get better performance by paying nothing.






Member since:
2007-05-28
It's worth paying for. Asking to be paid for using it is somewhat absurd.
Edited 2009-07-09 21:12 UTC