Alan Shoemaker wrote:
> Trevor....I have mdk 7.0 running (as near as I can tell)
> flawlessly on three machines. At first one of the three would
> not install 7.0, but 6.1 had installed just fine on it. So I
> changed the ide cdrom drive to a new one and that solved the
> problem. But on my main personal system, where mdk 7.0
> installed and runs fine, BeOS will not boot without a floppy and
> the sound card outputs a constant stream of static (needs to
> have the speakers physically unplugged while running BeOS). So
> I believe your allegation, "BUT, it proved you can write a
> hassle free installer THAT WORKS!", is not correct. It's more
> accurate to say that some installers work well in some
> situations and other installers work well in other situations.
>
> I understand that you are frustrated, but that's because your
> particular combination of factors led to a problematic
> installation/setup experience with mdk 7.0-2, much like my
> combination of factors led to my bad experience with BeOS. In
> the past I've also had a very bad experience when upgrading from
> Win95 to Win98. I couldn't get my ATI video card to work at all
> except at 640x480x16 colors. At least till I did a complete new
> bare hard drive install, that is. Above all, enjoy.
>
> Alan
Point taken, Alan, but I still have to say that the BeOS installer is much
easier to use! Perhaps its because it is running under Windows, and can
therefore ask Windows for the settings, instead of asking the user (an
approach some linux packages have also taken, I believe). And, we all know
that upgrades just don't work, I don't know why OS distributors (including
M$) still persist in offering them.
As I said earlier, I am still a Linux enthusiast - Linux is where I want to
go tomorrow! but my perspectives and perceptions have changed.
