Arch is superior to both<br clear="all">Blake Kelly<br>Student<br>Mildura Senior College<br>OpenPGP Public Key ID: FDAFFB51<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/6/11 Bill Kerr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:billkerr@gmail.com">billkerr@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
When our network manager recently became very enthusiastic about the latest <a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/" target="_blank">Ubuntu</a> release (9.04), I asked him to spell it out. This is what he said:<br><br>Ubuntu is <span style="font-weight: bold;">better</span> than Windows (eg. Vista) as follows:<br>
<ul><li>managing memory </li><li>easier to install virtual box, for testing multiple OS environments</li><li>managing
multiple OS environments, it can run 4 separate sessions without
noticeable lag (cf. 2 sessions max with Vista and VMware)</li><li>app support out of the box - it just tells you what you need to run an app and then installs it for you</li><li>no need to run anti virus software</li><li>
more stable, it never seems to fully crash (blue screen of death)<br></li><li>if the window does freeze then it has a kill an app feature which works</li></ul>-- <br><font color="#888888">Bill Kerr<br><a href="http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>