On Sat, 2004-04-24 at 17:38, Sean Estabrooks wrote: > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:55:42 -0600 > "Rodolfo J. Paiz" <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If he'd argued this with *any* common, available, real (really real, as > > in tangible!) sound card, his argument would have been a lot stronger. > > But the way he tested... was simply doomed to fail. The whole story > > really had no other possible ending. > > Yes he mentions a previous article about Virtual PC's from Microsoft > but how sure are you he was testing Linux on a virtual PC: > > <quote> > Despite my very positive first impressions, I couldn't get XYZ to work > with my sound card at all, even though I was testing XYZ on a brand new PC > from a major vendor. The system was based on an utterly mainstream Intel > motherboard with an on-board Intel sound system. This isn't some weird, > off-brand system using unknown components: It's about as mainstream as it > gets. > </quote> <quote> So I started looking at ways to change the hardware without trashing part of a brand-new PC. That's what originally led me to explore virtual PCs. </quote> He didn't want to trash his brand-new PC, so he installed everything under Microsoft Virtual PC. After this, he installed Win XP...3.1. He claims that 95 worked with no updated drivers (because he was using the VPC software). Then he says that he installed Xandros and eight other versions of Linux that 'didn't work'. Next he tried Win98 dual boot (again under the Microsoft Virtual PC), which didn't work. Forrest
