New Laptop questions
|
View:
New views
16 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 | Next > |
 |
Re: Mac vs. PC costs
by Jarod Wilson
::
Rate this Message:
On Jun 20, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Robert Krawitz <rlk@...> wrote:
> You're talking to someone who's owned Inspiron 8000's and 8200's, just > about the ugliest laptops anyone's ever built. My 9400 has a nasty > ding on it where I removed the Designed for Windows sticker and then > used acetone to remove the sticky stuff that also removed some of the > paint. The real joke is that I would care how a laptop looks. I'm guessing you probably drive a "practical" car too... :) > Its a BITCH replacing the hard drive in a > PowerBook or a MacBook Pro. Its one screw in my ThinkPad. > > Since I've already upgraded the drive in my 9400 twice (lots of photos > and VirtualBox images does that to you), that *does* matter to me. Eh. Two hours of extra effort once a year, maybe, isn't such a big deal to me. --jarod _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: Mac vs. PC costs
by Richard Pieri
::
Rate this Message:
On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
> Obviously the important question is whether any of these Mac-specific > features matter to you. If they do, then that says you need a Mac, > otherwise you go for the functionality that is relevant to your > practical needs. I did push OS X as the best desktop Unix out there. There's a reason for that. About 8 years ago I bought a 12" iBook G4, the absolutely cheapest Mac notebook I could find. It was an experiment, to see if it could do everything that six previous Linux notebooks could (specifically: a Sharp somethingorother, a Sony 505TS, a Sony SR17, a Winbook XL, a Winbook X1 and a Dell Insprion 4150, not necessarily in that order). I had the epiphany within about 2 weeks. I'm a Unix admin at work. With the Mac I don't have to be one at home if I don't want. So, at least for me, Mac is more than just the parts or the premium price tag. --Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: Mac vs. PC costs
by Robert Krawitz-2
::
Rate this Message:
From: Richard Pieri <richard.pieri@...>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:17:12 -0400 On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Tom Metro wrote: > Obviously the important question is whether any of these Mac-specific > features matter to you. If they do, then that says you need a Mac, > otherwise you go for the functionality that is relevant to your > practical needs. I did push OS X as the best desktop Unix out there. There's a reason for that. A matter of taste. Personally, I can't stand the Mac interface for the following reasons: 1) It's "click to raise and type" -- you have to take action more than just moving the pointer over the window to activate it, and then it brings it to the top. 2) I find the menu bar separate from the application window disconcerting. That just doesn't work for me. I use focus strictly follows mouse without autoraise -- exactly the opposite combination. I constantly jump back and forth between things, and sometimes I'll do things like type blindly or semi-blindly into one window while watching what's going on in another. -- Robert Krawitz <rlk@...> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@... Project lead for Gutenprint -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: Mac vs. PC costs
by Jarod Wilson
::
Rate this Message:
On 06/20/2009 04:56 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> I buy them used, when they're already 50% off their original price. Didn't quite go that far, but my PowerBook was a floor model of the prior generation immediately after a spec bump, so it was discounted a ways, and my ThinkPad was also purchased just before a spec bump, and via a special hookup because IBM is a partner of ours (IBM and Lenovo are still heavily intertwined in the laptop area...). --jarod _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: Mac vs. PC costs
by Jarod Wilson
::
Rate this Message:
On 06/20/2009 08:43 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
> From: Richard Pieri<richard.pieri@...> > Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:17:12 -0400 > > On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Tom Metro wrote: > > Obviously the important question is whether any of these Mac-specific > > features matter to you. If they do, then that says you need a Mac, > > otherwise you go for the functionality that is relevant to your > > practical needs. > > I did push OS X as the best desktop Unix out there. There's a > reason for that. > > A matter of taste. Personally, I can't stand the Mac interface for > the following reasons: > > 1) It's "click to raise and type" -- you have to take action more than > just moving the pointer over the window to activate it, and then it > brings it to the top. There are extensions that will add that exact functionality to Mac OS X for you. > 2) I find the menu bar separate from the application window > disconcerting. I was a loooong-time Mac user (first family computer was a Mac SE in '88, and I never had anything *but* Macs all the way up to college. Still had multiple Macs, but also got my first PC, built out of spare junk parts at the computer shop I was working at... Cyrix 166MHz clunker, iirc...), but have used almost nothing but Linux for the better part of the last 4 or 5 years. I still use a Mac periodically (I have four of them in the house), but there was a point just last week where I was very confused for a moment about where the hell the menu for the window I was working in had gone off to... :) --jarod _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: OS X vs. desktop Linux
by Tom Metro-16
::
Rate this Message:
Richard Pieri wrote:
> I did push OS X as the best desktop Unix out there. There's a reason > for that. > ... > I had the epiphany within about 2 weeks. I'm a Unix admin at work. > With the Mac I don't have to be one at home if I don't want. So, at > least for me, Mac is more than just the parts or the premium price tag. Can you elaborate? I'm always curious to hear from people who use both platforms on a regular basis what it is they find lacking on the Linux side. To clarify, I'm not looking for general pros and cons. It's a given that any OS distributed with hardware is going to be less hassle for the end user than one that the user has to install. What type of admin work do you do on your Linux desktop machines that you find is not necessary on an OS X machine? Or is it more that the OS X machine comes loaded with the system tools and configuration that you find useful out-of-the-box, while the Linux system requires more customization effort? Does OS X permit you to do things you can't do with Linux? What operations do you find are either impossible or less efficient with Linux? -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA "Enterprise solutions through open source." Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: OS X vs. desktop Linux
by Richard Pieri
::
Rate this Message:
On Jun 20, 2009, at 9:30 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
> What type of admin work do you do on your Linux desktop machines > that you find is not necessary on an OS X machine? Or is it more > that the OS X machine comes loaded with the system tools and > configuration that you find useful out-of-the-box, while the Linux > system requires more customization effort? APM is one. APM has always been more "miss" than "hit" on notebooks. Four of my six Linux notebooks had a habit of just locking up out of the blue, no reason, no kernel panic, nothing. Those problems disappeared when I disabled APM in the BIOSes. Killing APM goes a long way towards negating the point of notebooks. Another is support for hardware that isn't in the mainline kernel or part of a packaged distribution. Both WinBooks required ALSA to get sound working and at the time ALSA was not part of any distribution. Whenever I did a kernel upgrade I also had to compile ALSA by hand. There really isn't one big thing; it's a lot of little things like these that can be a real PITA with Linux that aren't an issue with OS X. > Does OS X permit you to do things you can't do with Linux? What > operations do you find are either impossible or less efficient with > Linux? There is little different at the shell level. One is GNU syntax, the other is BSD syntax. That's nothing. At the desktop level it is, again, the collection of little things. A consistent menu bar. Applications that act like they belong together. Selecting network configurations from a simple menu. Lots of little things like these. The only things I've run into as far as can't/impossible are vendor related. For example, there is no Linux version of Microsoft Office. Good as OpenOffice is there are still things that don't work the same and probably never will. --Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: OS X vs. desktop Linux
by Tom Metro-16
::
Rate this Message:
Richard Pieri wrote:
> Tom Metro wrote: >> What type of admin work do you do on your Linux desktop machines >> that you find is not necessary on an OS X machine? > > APM is one. > > Another is support for hardware that isn't in the mainline kernel or > part of a packaged distribution. Both WinBooks required ALSA to get > sound working and at the time ALSA was not part of any distribution. > Whenever I did a kernel upgrade I also had to compile ALSA by hand. > > There really isn't one big thing; it's a lot of little things like > these that can be a real PITA with Linux that aren't an issue with OS X. OK, valid, but these are all issues relating to hardware support, which is a well known and understood problem. For every component that goes into a PC, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of variations. Until vendors get on board with Linux, this is going to be an up hill battle. (I think when it comes to after market peripherals, Mac users only get slightly more respect from the vendors than Linux users.) The current remedy is to either buy a machine with the OS pre-installed, or research and select hardware with a known track record of being compatible. I almost mentioned that a starting assumption should be a pre-installed OS that fully supports the supplied hardware, as problems in this area are largely initial setup problems, and I'm more interested in differences in ongoing capabilities. >> Does OS X permit you to do things you can't do with Linux? What >> operations do you find are either impossible or less efficient with >> Linux? > > At the desktop level it is, again, the collection of little things. > A consistent menu bar. OK, so largely personal preference matters. > Applications that act like they belong together. I'm not real fond of applications that deviate from the norm, particularly when it comes to the behaviors of the UI components and the dialogs. (You see this with some Java applications that don't use native widgets.) But I haven't noticed much of that, despite using a mix of GNOME and KDE applications. > Selecting network configurations from a simple menu. It seems the Ubuntu people spend a lot of time working on the Network Manager applet, and it is adequate, but could use some work. (I thought it provided a poor UI for dealing with VPNs.) > The only things I've run into as far as can't/impossible are vendor > related. Yup, and that won't change until the political and business motivations change. Obviously if the Linux desktop market share grows large enough, Microsoft will begrudgingly support it, just as they do OS X. So if you've achieved adequate hardware support with Linux, and you don't need any proprietary applications that only run on OS X, and don't have a personal preference for the look or UI behavior, then I'm not hearing any clear compelling reasons that would suggest OS X would lead to a more efficient and productive working environment. Thanks for your comments. -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA "Enterprise solutions through open source." Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: Mac vs. PC costs
by Bill Ricker-3
::
Rate this Message:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Jarod Wilson<jarod@...> wrote:
> The amount of money I've spent on repair, ongoing costs, whatever, for > my c.2004 PowerBook is less than $200. I bought a new hard drive for it > at one point (the original 80G got filled up) and upgraded the memory. if someone takes good care of a macbook, maybe they won't get involved with the ironic 'Genius Bar' shipping your laptop to Missouri for an extended vacation. Luckily we had two independent local repair places to choose from when daughter destroyed her MacBook screen with an errant elbow, one's gone now, and the other is 100' north of the Apple Store, how long can it hold out? She also discovered the hard-way the superdrive will jam if you regularly transport the macbook with a DVD disk in. and a paperclip won't help you. cute industrial design but bad engineering. Maybe they've improved it, but look for the pin hole. If it doesn't have one, it's admitting something bad. > while the ThinkPad has the "ThinkLight" (what a > joke)... works fine for me. and doesn't illuminate my face from below like a horror story interlocutor. my ibm thinkpad T41 is at the age where i need to replace the backlight's inverter (endemic in T4x), which does make me want LED backlight next time. And aluminum body sounds good. When the next must-have MBP comes out, I may buy a gently used Aluminum body MBP as an ubuntu platform. -- Bill n1vux@... bill.n1vux@... _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: OS X vs. desktop Linux
by Ben Eisenbraun
::
Rate this Message:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 02:06:46AM -0400, Tom Metro wrote:
> Richard Pieri wrote: > > Tom Metro wrote: > >> What type of admin work do you do on your Linux desktop machines > >> that you find is not necessary on an OS X machine? > > > > APM is one. <snip> > > OK, valid, but these are all issues relating to hardware support, which > is a well known and understood problem. Right, one which some of us who have to deal with these problems during the work day don't want to have to deal with during the evenings/weekends. Sure I can research every component in the laptop before making a purchase decision and read the kernel changelog before every system update and spend time reading man pages, mailing lists and web forums trying to get the various bits of hardware working properly, but with a Mac, I don't have to. > The current remedy is to either buy a machine with the OS pre-installed, > or research and select hardware with a known track record of being > compatible. And even that is no guarantee. I've been tracking Fedora on my workstation at work since the FC4/5 era. Sound worked flawlessly up until Fedora 8, at which point PulseAudio was introduced. Every upgrade since then I've had audio problems where it clicks and pops during playback. After each upgrade, I hit google, find some mailing list post that suggests changing some config file setting and then running a couple commands, and things start working, mostly. I still manage to lock up the audio on the machine about once a month just playing mp3s, which then requires a reboot to reset the hardware. > I almost mentioned that a starting assumption should be a pre-installed > OS that fully supports the supplied hardware, as problems in this area > are largely initial setup problems, and I'm more interested in > differences in ongoing capabilities. Is there a major manufacturer that provides such a thing for linux laptops? Netbooks are making inroads here, but Dell, e.g., has 3 models that they prequalify for Ubuntu, and they're all running either 8.04 or 8.10. > >> Does OS X permit you to do things you can't do with Linux? Absolutely. I can run the software update process without worrying that sound will stop working. Or 3d. Or Flash. > So if you've achieved adequate hardware support with Linux ...except we haven't. Which major manufacturer tests and approves a linux distribution and the updates for their laptops? > , and you don't need any proprietary applications that only run on OS X, > and don't have a personal preference for the look or UI behavior, then > I'm not hearing any clear compelling reasons that would suggest OS X > would lead to a more efficient and productive working environment. I think you missed Richard's point. In order to have a reasonably good linux desktop experience, you need to be willing to work at installing, configuring and maintaining the machine. With a Mac, someone else does that work for you. (As a side note, it's interesting how much discussion this topic has spawned.) -ben -- it is easier to suppress the first desire than to satisfy all that follow it. <benjamin franklin> _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: OS X vs. desktop Linux
by Richard Pieri
::
Rate this Message:
On Jun 21, 2009, at 2:06 AM, Tom Metro wrote:
> So if you've achieved adequate hardware support with Linux, and you > don't need any proprietary applications that only run on OS X, and > don't have a personal preference for the look or UI behavior, then > I'm not hearing any clear compelling reasons that would suggest OS X > would lead to a more efficient and productive working environment. Then I suppose I really didn't try hard enough. :) As I said, there really isn't any one big thing that makes OS X better than Linux. It's that I don't have to deal with any of the plethora of little things that I did (and do) with Linux. I don't have to worry about hardware support. I don't have to worry about tools that are incomplete, inconsistent, and sometimes just barely adequate. I don't have to worry about GNU changing libc and breaking every legacy program I have and use. I don't have to worry about my distribution of choice switching from ALSA to PulseAudio and breaking sound. I don't have to be a sysadmin when I go home. I can if I want but it isn't necessary like it is with Linux. I haven't had a Mac as my work machine in several years but when I did it was the same: I didn't have to be a sysadmin at my desk. That made being a sysadmin for real production just a little bit easier. --Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: OS X vs. desktop Linux
by Richard Pieri
::
Rate this Message:
On Jun 21, 2009, at 10:34 PM, Rich Braun wrote:
> Over half the time, I'm finding that these folks are choosing a Mac, > despite > the fact that each person's job title starts with the word "Linux". That doesn't surprise me. > That said--we do have a lot of challenges dealing with Macs because > of the > infernal dependency on Internet Explorer that so many apps have. > (Including I have a few solutions for this -- and in fact they're the same solutions that I'd use with a Linux desktop or notebook as I would with Macintosh. The cheap, quick & dirty solution: run IE with WINE using IEs 4 Linux or IEs 4 Mac: http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page Pros: cheap. Cons: some ActiveX controls don't work. The brute force solution: dual-boot with Windows as a secondary OS. Pros: reliable. Cons: painful, potentially costly depending on Windows site licensing, users can mess up configurations and render the computers unbootable without sysmonsterly assistance. The elegant solution: build a Windows appliance in VMware and run it with VMware Player (Linux) or Fusion (Mac). Pros: reliable, not painful like dual-booting, easy to deploy and maintain. Cons: potentially costly depending on Windows site licensing, there is no Player for Mac and Fusion is not free. The clever solution: assuming a sane VPN that Macintosh can use, set up a Windows machine inside the network for remote users and use VNC or Remote Desktop or whatever you like to drive it. Pros: inexpensive, reliable. Cons: dependent on users not screwing up their own computers, nearly useless with slow network links. I'm partial to the VMware solution. While it can have the highest up front monetary cost it is also the easiest to manage. Appliances are easy to deploy as ZIP files and they are their own backups. If an appliance is corrupted or destroyed you can delete the damaged appliance, unpack the ZIP file, and run with the clean copy. --Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: OS X vs. desktop Linux
by Feanil Patel
::
Rate this Message:
If you don't want to pay for VMWare Fusion on the Macs. Virtual Box is a
great alternative. I use it at work when IEs for linux won't do what I want. It's available for Mac, Linux and Windows so it's a pretty good versatile solution. -- Feanil On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri@...>wrote: > On Jun 21, 2009, at 10:34 PM, Rich Braun wrote: > > Over half the time, I'm finding that these folks are choosing a Mac, > > despite > > the fact that each person's job title starts with the word "Linux". > > That doesn't surprise me. > > > That said--we do have a lot of challenges dealing with Macs because > > of the > > infernal dependency on Internet Explorer that so many apps have. > > (Including > > I have a few solutions for this -- and in fact they're the same > solutions that I'd use with a Linux desktop or notebook as I would > with Macintosh. > > The cheap, quick & dirty solution: run IE with WINE using IEs 4 Linux > or IEs 4 Mac: http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page > Pros: cheap. Cons: some ActiveX controls don't work. > > The brute force solution: dual-boot with Windows as a secondary OS. > Pros: reliable. Cons: painful, potentially costly depending on > Windows site licensing, users can mess up configurations and render > the computers unbootable without sysmonsterly assistance. > > The elegant solution: build a Windows appliance in VMware and run it > with VMware Player (Linux) or Fusion (Mac). > Pros: reliable, not painful like dual-booting, easy to deploy and > maintain. Cons: potentially costly depending on Windows site > licensing, there is no Player for Mac and Fusion is not free. > > The clever solution: assuming a sane VPN that Macintosh can use, set > up a Windows machine inside the network for remote users and use VNC > or Remote Desktop or whatever you like to drive it. > Pros: inexpensive, reliable. Cons: dependent on users not screwing up > their own computers, nearly useless with slow network links. > > I'm partial to the VMware solution. While it can have the highest up > front monetary cost it is also the easiest to manage. Appliances are > easy to deploy as ZIP files and they are their own backups. If an > appliance is corrupted or destroyed you can delete the damaged > appliance, unpack the ZIP file, and run with the clean copy. > > --Rich P. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@... > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: OS X vs. desktop Linux -- or virtualization for both
by grg-webvisible+blu
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 08:34:41AM -0400, Feanil Patel wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri@...>wrote: > > The cheap, quick & dirty solution: run IE with WINE using IEs 4 Linux > > or IEs 4 Mac: http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page > > Pros: cheap. Cons: some ActiveX controls don't work. > > > > The brute force solution: dual-boot with Windows as a secondary OS. > > Pros: reliable. Cons: painful, potentially costly depending on > > Windows site licensing, users can mess up configurations and render > > the computers unbootable without sysmonsterly assistance. > > > > The elegant solution: build a Windows appliance in VMware and run it > > with VMware Player (Linux) or Fusion (Mac). > > Pros: reliable, not painful like dual-booting, easy to deploy and > > maintain. Cons: potentially costly depending on Windows site > > licensing, there is no Player for Mac and Fusion is not free. > > If you don't want to pay for VMWare Fusion on the Macs. Virtual Box is a > great alternative. I use it at work when IEs for linux won't do what I > want. It's available for Mac, Linux and Windows so it's a pretty good > versatile solution. I've been wondering about the virtualization angle on this question of os + hardware selection. I'd like to run linux on my next laptop but since IE isn't the only windows app worth running - especially given the likelihood that any extra-nifty hardware on it will have a windows app that feeds it - windows still isn't optional imho. but I'd really prefer to avoid letting windows dictate how stable and healthy my laptop is. as rich & feanil say above, virtualization sounds like the right answer; it seems to me that ideally I'd get the laptop with windows and all the manufacturer's customizations & apps installed, then pop in a virtualizing conversion cd which would make a virtualized windows image out of what the laptop already has and let me install linux as a non-guest os (either as host os, or as one of many equal running oses -- so long as windows isn't the host). ideally I'd also be able to do things like fork the windows image at any point to install new windows software, to first see if it messes up other windows apps or comes with malware, and be able to just rm that fork if it fails the test. (I have no expectation of being able to merge after forking; I'd install a second time back on the main/good image after I've determined I won't be spending the weekend trying to undo the damage.) what virtualization package does this kind of thing well, especially given that a value I see in doing this is letting the guest os think it has full hardware access? I'd prefer open source but will use a closed solution if that's what it takes. I'm aware of but not familiar enough with a lot of virtualizers like virtual box, xen, virtuozzo, kvm, a half dozen seemingly different vmware offerings, etc; do people have enough experience with any of these to know whether they fit the need or not? thanks! --grg _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
|
|
Re: OS X vs. desktop Linux -- or virtualization for both
by Richard Pieri
::
Rate this Message:
On Jun 22, 2009, at 10:19 AM, grg-webvisible+blu@... wrote:
> as rich & feanil say above, virtualization sounds like the right > answer; > it seems to me that ideally I'd get the laptop with windows and all > the > manufacturer's customizations & apps installed, then pop in a > virtualizing > host os, or as one of many equal running oses -- so long as windows > isn't > the host). ideally I'd also be able to do things like fork the > windows Try to avoid it. A lot of what vendors bung in there is custom drivers for their own custom hardware and none of that will work in the VM regardless of who's VM you use. In the end you get a lot of disk and registry bloat for zero benefit and in some cases you can't remove it. My own experience with that is a particular sound driver that can't be uninstalled because the sound hardware doesn't exist. Thankyouverymuchstupidvendor. Another issue is how Windows/NT itself handles multiple CPUs. You can't take a multi-CPU (including multiple core) Windows/NT image and run it on a single CPU or core. The HAL won't load. Making it work requires finding the correct HAL DLL and renaming files around so that the correct HAL gets loaded... and that requires mounting the virtual disk image read-write somewhere... and *that* is a whole 'nother pain in the ass if it's NTFS. I would (and do) try to build the VM from scratch and install what I need from the vendor-supplied CDs, saving the P2V conversion as a last resort. --Rich P. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@... http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
