M$ turns the screw... more

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Remember back when WPA was first talked of here? The doubters were cast as
people who just wanted to whinge and complain about a procedure which was
apparently painless, innocuous and really, really convenient... because all
you had to do, if you were honest, was click to "activate" and no personal
information was intruded on.

Well, we told them that WPA was just the first step in a regressive trend
which would remove rights bit by bit from anyone who thought they had
purchased a license to use... but they scoffed at us. Now we have this:
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1769339,00.asp?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
where they clearly announce their intention to scrap Internet based WPA for
all "pre-activated PCs". I'm still trying to figure what it is that Mr.
Kochis is telling us is now a "criminal offence" but we'll see what happens
to our ability to purchase OEM copies of WinXP with our self-build systems
in future - wouldn't surprise me if that goes away too.

I'm not sure how this new procedure is going to play for someone on an
overseas trip with a notebook computer - having to 'phone M$ to beg for an
activation code could be difficult.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
36 answers Last reply
More about turns screw more
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:06:38 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

    > Remember back when WPA was first talked of here? The doubters were cast as
    > people who just wanted to whinge and complain about a procedure which was
    > apparently painless, innocuous and really, really convenient... because all
    > you had to do, if you were honest, was click to "activate" and no personal
    > information was intruded on.
    >
    > Well, we told them that WPA was just the first step in a regressive trend
    > which would remove rights bit by bit from anyone who thought they had
    > purchased a license to use... but they scoffed at us. Now we have this:
    > http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1769339,00.asp?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
    > where they clearly announce their intention to scrap Internet based WPA for
    > all "pre-activated PCs". I'm still trying to figure what it is that Mr.
    > Kochis is telling us is now a "criminal offence" but we'll see what happens
    > to our ability to purchase OEM copies of WinXP with our self-build systems
    > in future - wouldn't surprise me if that goes away too.
    >
    > I'm not sure how this new procedure is going to play for someone on an
    > overseas trip with a notebook computer - having to 'phone M$ to beg for an
    > activation code could be difficult.

    Nice article, now after the Linux wine posting, this is getting real
    interesting. So does that mean when I buy my OEM copy of Windows XP 64, I
    will get a warranty? What about fair use? What about a new build using a
    new board, chip, memory? What happens if I type in the wrong code,a 1
    instead of an L, am I marked as a thief? This is getting better and
    better, no COA's, I can see the nightmares already, say you call up Dell,
    they tell you to call Microsoft, do this about 10 times.

    As if I needed another excuse to put *nix *bsd's on my machines, all I can
    say is Thank You Microsoft for your excellent customer service, and
    customer loyalty, Not!

    Gnu_Raiz
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:06:38 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >Remember back when WPA was first talked of here? The doubters were cast as
    >people who just wanted to whinge and complain about a procedure which was
    >apparently painless, innocuous and really, really convenient... because all
    >you had to do, if you were honest, was click to "activate" and no personal
    >information was intruded on.

    WPA is anything but painless for a LOT of people. Trust me, I get to
    deal with it every now and then, and it's a MAJOR pain in the butt if
    your system isn't on a LAN.

    Ironically, business systems that typically would not have problems
    with activation since they are usually on a LAN don't have to worry
    about this because they mostly use WinXP Pro (or at least they
    should), which doesn't have WPA.

    >Well, we told them that WPA was just the first step in a regressive trend
    >which would remove rights bit by bit from anyone who thought they had
    >purchased a license to use... but they scoffed at us. Now we have this:
    >http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1769339,00.asp?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
    >where they clearly announce their intention to scrap Internet based WPA for
    >all "pre-activated PCs". I'm still trying to figure what it is that Mr.
    >Kochis is telling us is now a "criminal offence" but we'll see what happens
    >to our ability to purchase OEM copies of WinXP with our self-build systems
    >in future - wouldn't surprise me if that goes away too.

    Ohhh bloody hell! I have this NASTY feeling that this is going to end
    up being a *major* pain in my ass!

    >I'm not sure how this new procedure is going to play for someone on an
    >overseas trip with a notebook computer - having to 'phone M$ to beg for an
    >activation code could be difficult.

    That's only the first bit of the nightmare that I'm starting to
    picture in my head...

    Uggg.. I'm getting a headache just thinking about this one... All I
    can say is that I'm DAMN glad that over 90% of the systems I encounter
    use WinXP Pro, though I'm sure MS is just *itching* to add activation
    into that as well.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:42:01 -0500, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:06:38 -0500, George Macdonald
    ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Remember back when WPA was first talked of here? The doubters were cast as
    >>people who just wanted to whinge and complain about a procedure which was
    >>apparently painless, innocuous and really, really convenient... because all
    >>you had to do, if you were honest, was click to "activate" and no personal
    >>information was intruded on.
    >
    >WPA is anything but painless for a LOT of people. Trust me, I get to
    >deal with it every now and then, and it's a MAJOR pain in the butt if
    >your system isn't on a LAN.

    Perhaps an :-P would have been apropriate in my comment above.:-)

    >Ironically, business systems that typically would not have problems
    >with activation since they are usually on a LAN don't have to worry
    >about this because they mostly use WinXP Pro (or at least they
    >should), which doesn't have WPA.

    For WinXP Pro, it used to depend on where you got it from. All the OEM
    WinXP Pros I've installed on DIY systems had WPA; I'm pretty sure even the
    Thinkpads I was buying had WPA at one time, though the last couple didn't.

    >>Well, we told them that WPA was just the first step in a regressive trend
    >>which would remove rights bit by bit from anyone who thought they had
    >>purchased a license to use... but they scoffed at us. Now we have this:
    >>http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1769339,00.asp?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
    >>where they clearly announce their intention to scrap Internet based WPA for
    >>all "pre-activated PCs". I'm still trying to figure what it is that Mr.
    >>Kochis is telling us is now a "criminal offence" but we'll see what happens
    >>to our ability to purchase OEM copies of WinXP with our self-build systems
    >>in future - wouldn't surprise me if that goes away too.
    >
    >Ohhh bloody hell! I have this NASTY feeling that this is going to end
    >up being a *major* pain in my ass!

    I also came across another tid-bit, in French at Aviran's, more gossip than
    any confirmed report, that from April 12, the auto-update will only work if
    you have SP2 installed.

    >>I'm not sure how this new procedure is going to play for someone on an
    >>overseas trip with a notebook computer - having to 'phone M$ to beg for an
    >>activation code could be difficult.
    >
    >That's only the first bit of the nightmare that I'm starting to
    >picture in my head...

    I'm thinking though that the road warriors are the "users" who are going to
    be the most impacted and the ones who are in the best position to raise a
    stink about it.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:

    > I also came across another tid-bit, in French at Aviran's, more gossip than
    > any confirmed report, that from April 12, the auto-update will only work if
    > you have SP2 installed.

    Errh, the windowsupdate.microsoft.com website says SP1 - which I'd say
    is reasonable.

    But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
    have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
    8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
    pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
    Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?


    Kai
    --
    Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <khp(at)harrekilde(dot)dk>
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:08 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
    <khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:

    >George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:
    >
    >> I also came across another tid-bit, in French at Aviran's, more gossip than
    >> any confirmed report, that from April 12, the auto-update will only work if
    >> you have SP2 installed.
    >
    >Errh, the windowsupdate.microsoft.com website says SP1 - which I'd say
    >is reasonable.

    Yeah, I figured that might be gossip:
    http://www.whynet.org/actualites/index.php/2005/02/23/335-windows-update-oem-chez-microsoft
    - I guess we'll see what happens on April 12... 3days before U.S. tax day
    so that could be aggravating for a few people.:-)

    >But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
    >have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
    >8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
    >pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
    >Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?

    I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
    may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
    e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
    Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
    you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
    disk. M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
    end up paying retail price for a new system OS.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:08 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
    ><khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:
    >

    <snip>

    >
    >>But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
    >>have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
    >>8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
    >>pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
    >>Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?

    Ole' Bill's a real hero, he is.

    >
    >I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
    >may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
    >e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
    >Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
    >you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
    >disk. M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
    >end up paying retail price for a new system OS.

    I'd read somewhere it was the retail boxed version they planned on
    discontinuing. That's the version I've always purchased. If you look
    hard, it can be had for not much more than the OEM version, and it's
    legally portable. If they discontinue OEM and Retail Boxed, it means
    no more Windows for DIY. I doubt that outcome, but that they'd make
    it a real PITA for we brave few, I can readily believe.

    This all just proves how not ready for prime time linux is and ever
    will be. Otherwise, supernerd would never get away with this kind of
    nonsense.

    RM
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:01:53 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald
    ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:08 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
    >><khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:
    >>
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >>
    >>>But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
    >>>have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
    >>>8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
    >>>pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
    >>>Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?
    >
    >Ole' Bill's a real hero, he is.

    The Embalmer is the one I think.

    >>I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
    >>may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
    >>e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
    >>Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
    >>you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
    >>disk. M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
    >>end up paying retail price for a new system OS.
    >
    >I'd read somewhere it was the retail boxed version they planned on
    >discontinuing. That's the version I've always purchased. If you look
    >hard, it can be had for not much more than the OEM version, and it's
    >legally portable. If they discontinue OEM and Retail Boxed, it means
    >no more Windows for DIY. I doubt that outcome, but that they'd make
    >it a real PITA for we brave few, I can readily believe.

    At NewEgg, WinXP Pro OEM is $147.95 and Retail is $269.95 and you *do* have
    to buy the OEM version where you get your hardware. I hadn't heard about
    any discontinuation of the retail package... what?... on top of all the
    other guff, they're going to make us beg for it now.:-)

    >This all just proves how not ready for prime time linux is and ever
    >will be. Otherwise, supernerd would never get away with this kind of
    >nonsense.

    I'm not sure I understand the Linux application software business model.
    E.g. Oracle has a Linux version. How do they charge for it?... assuming
    they use a goodly portion of the open source libraries, at least for the
    user interface?

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

    > I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
    > may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
    > e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
    > Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
    > you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
    > disk.

    Some will sell you OEM software witl as little as an IDE *cable*. Hey,
    it's hardware, even if it's only $3 worth.

    > M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
    > end up paying retail price for a new system OS.

    I'm not bloody likely to either. I stopped (and started, in fact) with
    Win2K.

    --
    Keith
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:08:24 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:01:53 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald
    >><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:08 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
    >>><khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:
    >>>
    >>
    >><snip>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
    >>>>have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
    >>>>8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
    >>>>pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
    >>>>Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?
    >>
    >>Ole' Bill's a real hero, he is.
    >
    >The Embalmer is the one I think.
    >
    Plausible deniability being one of the perks of being the world's
    wealthiest man? I'll never believe that anything important happens
    without his approval.

    >>>I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
    >>>may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
    >>>e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
    >>>Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
    >>>you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
    >>>disk. M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
    >>>end up paying retail price for a new system OS.
    >>
    >>I'd read somewhere it was the retail boxed version they planned on
    >>discontinuing. That's the version I've always purchased. If you look
    >>hard, it can be had for not much more than the OEM version, and it's
    >>legally portable. If they discontinue OEM and Retail Boxed, it means
    >>no more Windows for DIY. I doubt that outcome, but that they'd make
    >>it a real PITA for we brave few, I can readily believe.
    >
    >At NewEgg, WinXP Pro OEM is $147.95 and Retail is $269.95 and you *do* have
    >to buy the OEM version where you get your hardware. I hadn't heard about
    >any discontinuation of the retail package... what?... on top of all the
    >other guff, they're going to make us beg for it now.:-)
    >
    Last time I bought, I found I could do significantly better than that
    for the retail boxed version.

    >>This all just proves how not ready for prime time linux is and ever
    >>will be. Otherwise, supernerd would never get away with this kind of
    >>nonsense.
    >
    >I'm not sure I understand the Linux application software business model.
    >E.g. Oracle has a Linux version. How do they charge for it?... assuming
    >they use a goodly portion of the open source libraries, at least for the
    >user interface?

    http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/eplext.pdf

    I assume that whatever they use must be LGPL or equivalent. I'm not a
    GUI type.

    The bigger problem with Linux is that it just really isn't supported.
    Adobe Reader for X is not nearly as functional as Adobe Reader for
    Windows. Web sites don't always work. Media often don't work. You
    can fiddle and fumble, but, in the end, it just isn't worth it...

    I blame this partly on Sun, which, had it recognized Microsoft as the
    enemy and been more open with Java, might have forced an open standard
    for web-type applications. Didn't happen. Game, set, and match:
    Microsoft.

    RM
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:26:17 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:42:01 -0500, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:06:38 -0500, George Macdonald
    >><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>Ironically, business systems that typically would not have problems
    >>with activation since they are usually on a LAN don't have to worry
    >>about this because they mostly use WinXP Pro (or at least they
    >>should), which doesn't have WPA.
    >
    >For WinXP Pro, it used to depend on where you got it from. All the OEM
    >WinXP Pros I've installed on DIY systems had WPA; I'm pretty sure even the
    >Thinkpads I was buying had WPA at one time, though the last couple didn't.

    Hmm.. I can't remember ever activating a WinXP Pro system. Maybe I
    just got lucky?

    >>Ohhh bloody hell! I have this NASTY feeling that this is going to end
    >>up being a *major* pain in my ass!
    >
    >I also came across another tid-bit, in French at Aviran's, more gossip than
    >any confirmed report, that from April 12, the auto-update will only work if
    >you have SP2 installed.

    I don't know about the exact date, but I just got the official word at
    work yesterday that sometime in April, SP2 was going to become somehow
    mandatory for all WinXP systems. Details are still kind of sketchy as
    to what this means though. I'll let you know when I hear more,
    probably next week.

    Typically Microsoft provides 1 year worth of updates for previous
    service packs, so I don't know why they've changed this for WinXP SP2,
    especially since a LOT of corporate buyers have been rather reluctant
    to move to SP2.

    >>>I'm not sure how this new procedure is going to play for someone on an
    >>>overseas trip with a notebook computer - having to 'phone M$ to beg for an
    >>>activation code could be difficult.
    >>
    >>That's only the first bit of the nightmare that I'm starting to
    >>picture in my head...
    >
    >I'm thinking though that the road warriors are the "users" who are going to
    >be the most impacted and the ones who are in the best position to raise a
    >stink about it.

    The best position to raise a stink about it, yes. Though they
    certainly won't be the only ones affected by this!

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:08 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
    <khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:

    >George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:
    >
    >> I also came across another tid-bit, in French at Aviran's, more gossip than
    >> any confirmed report, that from April 12, the auto-update will only work if
    >> you have SP2 installed.
    >
    >Errh, the windowsupdate.microsoft.com website says SP1 - which I'd say
    >is reasonable.
    >
    >But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
    >have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
    >8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
    >pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
    >Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?
    >
    >
    >Kai
    While I can see a legitimate reason in buying Sony laptop, I could
    find no justification whatsoever in getting "brand-spanking new Dell
    with XP Pro". At least not for someone who has enough brain to be in
    this NG. Never had that validation issue with any of my home-built
    systems loaded with software from my employer's MSDN subscription.
    But then, again, I am still on Win2k - was suspitious about XP when it
    came out, and am even more suspitious after SP2 forced so many to
    C:>FORMAT C/u ;-)
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:
    >
    [...]
    > I'd read somewhere it was the retail boxed version they planned on
    > discontinuing. That's the version I've always purchased. If you look
    > hard, it can be had for not much more than the OEM version, and it's
    > legally portable. If they discontinue OEM and Retail Boxed, it means
    > no more Windows for DIY. I doubt that outcome, but that they'd make
    > it a real PITA for we brave few, I can readily believe.

    Which would mean the end of home build as we know it. We've already
    had a decline of programming by the end users; this was very important
    in the early beginning of home computers.

    > This all just proves how not ready for prime time linux is and ever
    > will be. Otherwise, supernerd would never get away with this kind of
    > nonsense.

    Yes, shame about all those years of interest in M$; if it's not doing
    the job, then it can only be dumped.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    "nobody@nowhere.net" <mygarbage2000@hotmail.com> writes:

    > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:56:08 +0100, Kai Harrekilde-Petersen
    > <khp@harrekilde.dk> wrote:
    >
    >>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> writes:
    >>
    >>> I also came across another tid-bit, in French at Aviran's, more gossip than
    >>> any confirmed report, that from April 12, the auto-update will only work if
    >>> you have SP2 installed.
    >>
    >>Errh, the windowsupdate.microsoft.com website says SP1 - which I'd say
    >>is reasonable.

    But I gather now that the delay-program for XPSP2 is running out this
    April, and MS is not going to extend it.

    >>But microsoft has already started requesting you to validate that you
    >>have a valid license by downloading a program that returns some
    >>8-character code. Said program fails on my Sony laptop with
    >>pre-installed XP home, and a brand-spanking new Dell with XP Pro.
    >>Just exactly *what* are they smoking in Redmond?
    >
    > While I can see a legitimate reason in buying Sony laptop, I could
    > find no justification whatsoever in getting "brand-spanking new Dell
    > with XP Pro". At least not for someone who has enough brain to be in
    > this NG.

    Dude, I didn't say I bought it. As it happens, it was IT at work that
    bought it. I just happend to notice the problem it the first place,
    and notified ITS that it might be a problem for them down the road.


    Kai
    --
    Kai Harrekilde-Petersen <khp(at)harrekilde(dot)dk>
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:19:50 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:08:24 -0500, George Macdonald
    ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >>At NewEgg, WinXP Pro OEM is $147.95 and Retail is $269.95 and you *do* have
    >>to buy the OEM version where you get your hardware. I hadn't heard about
    >>any discontinuation of the retail package... what?... on top of all the
    >>other guff, they're going to make us beg for it now.:-)
    >>
    >Last time I bought, I found I could do significantly better than that
    >for the retail boxed version.

    For WinXP?... not the academic version? A quick look at Pricewatch doesn't
    turn up anything - there are a few bottom-feeders selling slightly lower
    but the lower the price, the lower the confidence factor... and there are a
    lot of "back orders", which could mean that M$ has already cut them off.

    >>>This all just proves how not ready for prime time linux is and ever
    >>>will be. Otherwise, supernerd would never get away with this kind of
    >>>nonsense.
    >>
    >>I'm not sure I understand the Linux application software business model.
    >>E.g. Oracle has a Linux version. How do they charge for it?... assuming
    >>they use a goodly portion of the open source libraries, at least for the
    >>user interface?
    >
    >http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/eplext.pdf
    >
    >I assume that whatever they use must be LGPL or equivalent. I'm not a
    >GUI type.
    >
    >The bigger problem with Linux is that it just really isn't supported.
    >Adobe Reader for X is not nearly as functional as Adobe Reader for
    >Windows. Web sites don't always work. Media often don't work. You
    >can fiddle and fumble, but, in the end, it just isn't worth it...

    A leaner Adobe Reader could only be a good thing IMO. I'm thoroughly
    disgusted with Adobe's recent bloated "efforts". For Web sites, you mean
    the ones which are IE-only?... I can live without them - if they know that
    people won't *come" they'll change. I'm not sure what you mean by "media"
    - is that a DRM issue? Again, the "market" can mold this.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:55:57 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
    >
    >> I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
    >> may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
    >> e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
    >> Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
    >> you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
    >> disk.
    >
    >Some will sell you OEM software witl as little as an IDE *cable*. Hey,
    >it's hardware, even if it's only $3 worth.

    Yes, NewEgg used to have a link through to their "minimum hardware
    purchase" for any OEM software, which was a power cable Y-adapter... but
    that's no more. I once bought a 3-pack Office XP with a single hard drive
    from them but that option is also no more. I believe that M$ is tightening
    the rules... and likely with the threat of cut-off.

    >> M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
    >> end up paying retail price for a new system OS.
    >
    >I'm not bloody likely to either. I stopped (and started, in fact) with
    >Win2K.

    I didn't feel I could get away with that - some work-related things I do at
    home need Windows and then other people use the home computer. I've been
    "considering" dual boot to a Linux for a while but am procrastinating on
    the (in)convenience and possible complexity of the mechanism to family. I
    once had a WinNT upgrade on an Alpha system wipe out my Unix disk... after
    telling it to "leave alone".

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:47:13 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:

    > On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:55:57 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    >>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
    >>
    >>> I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
    >>> may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
    >>> e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
    >>> Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
    >>> you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
    >>> disk.
    >>
    >>Some will sell you OEM software witl as little as an IDE *cable*. Hey,
    >>it's hardware, even if it's only $3 worth.
    >
    > Yes, NewEgg used to have a link through to their "minimum hardware
    > purchase" for any OEM software, which was a power cable Y-adapter... but
    > that's no more. I once bought a 3-pack Office XP with a single hard drive
    > from them but that option is also no more. I believe that M$ is tightening
    > the rules... and likely with the threat of cut-off.

    Likely. Another reason for home=builders to resist the Dork-of-Redmond.
    Resistance may be futile, but not resisting certainly is death.

    >>> M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
    >>> end up paying retail price for a new system OS.
    >>
    >>I'm not bloody likely to either. I stopped (and started, in fact) with
    >>Win2K.
    >
    > I didn't feel I could get away with that - some work-related things I do
    > at home need Windows and then other people use the home computer. I've
    > been "considering" dual boot to a Linux for a while but am
    > procrastinating on the (in)convenience and possible complexity of the
    > mechanism to family.

    I have the K6-III on a KVM switch for anything that needs M$uck. I did a
    BIOS upgrade on my Opteron system last week that trashed my hard-drive's
    boot record, and did I hear about *that* (it's still ACPI brain-ead).
    SWMBO rather likes the Linux environment, if it's offered. Yes she
    still useses the K6-III system to play M$uck games.

    >I once had a WinNT upgrade on an Alpha system wipe
    > out my Unix disk... after telling it to "leave alone".

    You'll have that. Were I *thinking* I;d have unplugged the disk drives
    before flashing this systems's BIOS. Hindsight and all that...

    --
    Keith
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:47:13 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    >On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:19:50 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    >wrote:
    >>The bigger problem with Linux is that it just really isn't supported.
    >>Adobe Reader for X is not nearly as functional as Adobe Reader for
    >>Windows. Web sites don't always work. Media often don't work. You
    >>can fiddle and fumble, but, in the end, it just isn't worth it...
    >
    >A leaner Adobe Reader could only be a good thing IMO. I'm thoroughly
    >disgusted with Adobe's recent bloated "efforts". For Web sites, you mean
    >the ones which are IE-only?...

    There are VERY few websites that I find which fail in both Firefox and
    Konqueror. In fact, it's extremely rare that I have any sites fail to
    load properly in either one. The one caveat to go along with that
    comment though is that you sometimes have to use a User-Agent
    switching trick to TELL the website that you're running IE before it
    will let you in. The sites almost always render perfectly (or
    sufficiently close not to bother me) in Firefox or Konqueror once
    you're in.

    > I can live without them - if they know that
    >people won't *come" they'll change. I'm not sure what you mean by "media"
    >- is that a DRM issue? Again, the "market" can mold this.

    Media really isn't the problem that it once was in Linux, with the
    possible exception of the DRM issue (though that might not exactly be
    a bad thing). It used to be that it was rather difficult to play any
    of the less standard media formats in Linux. However these days you
    can use any codec that plugs into Windows Media Player to play content
    in Linux, and that's pretty darn near any type of media out there.
    Sometimes it's a bit trickier to get the codecs loaded though as their
    regular Windows installer (for those that come with one) obviously
    won't cut it.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:08:53 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

    >On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:47:13 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:55:57 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
    >>>> may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
    >>>> e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
    >>>> Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
    >>>> you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
    >>>> disk.
    >>>
    >>>Some will sell you OEM software witl as little as an IDE *cable*. Hey,
    >>>it's hardware, even if it's only $3 worth.
    >>
    >> Yes, NewEgg used to have a link through to their "minimum hardware
    >> purchase" for any OEM software, which was a power cable Y-adapter... but
    >> that's no more. I once bought a 3-pack Office XP with a single hard drive
    >> from them but that option is also no more. I believe that M$ is tightening
    >> the rules... and likely with the threat of cut-off.
    >
    >Likely. Another reason for home=builders to resist the Dork-of-Redmond.
    >Resistance may be futile, but not resisting certainly is death.

    As Robert has noted, it's actually kinda amazing how businesses world-wide
    have embraced, and committed their most valuable asset, i.e. information,
    to, a set of proprietary formats... which require IPS (latest buzz-word
    acronym for Intrusion Prevention Software :-)) to protect that data from
    common thieves and miscreants... never mind competitors, zealous info
    harvesters and govt. I keep thinking "somebody's going to waken up"
    but.... nope.

    >>>> M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
    >>>> end up paying retail price for a new system OS.
    >>>
    >>>I'm not bloody likely to either. I stopped (and started, in fact) with
    >>>Win2K.
    >>
    >> I didn't feel I could get away with that - some work-related things I do
    >> at home need Windows and then other people use the home computer. I've
    >> been "considering" dual boot to a Linux for a while but am
    >> procrastinating on the (in)convenience and possible complexity of the
    >> mechanism to family.
    >
    >I have the K6-III on a KVM switch for anything that needs M$uck. I did a
    >BIOS upgrade on my Opteron system last week that trashed my hard-drive's
    >boot record, and did I hear about *that* (it's still ACPI brain-ead).
    >SWMBO rather likes the Linux environment, if it's offered. Yes she
    >still useses the K6-III system to play M$uck games.

    Wow - that hurts. Did you find a culprit?... a fix?

    >>I once had a WinNT upgrade on an Alpha system wipe
    >> out my Unix disk... after telling it to "leave alone".
    >
    >You'll have that. Were I *thinking* I;d have unplugged the disk drives
    >before flashing this systems's BIOS. Hindsight and all that...

    Then again, we've all done flashes 100s of times without unplugging
    anything. An odd thing with MSI mbrds I've been using recently: there are
    dire warning not to try flashing from a floppy - the BIOS file and flash
    executable must be on the hard disk or on the RAMDRIVE created by a Win98
    bootable floppy. This Live Update nonsense though... that's really scarey
    stuff.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <7ik5215err87me61hagpuqa9qv3raruk0o@4ax.com>, fammacd=!
    SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com says...
    > On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:08:53 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    >
    > >On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:47:13 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:55:57 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:37:47 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> I haven't seen that one yet. What I'm most concerned about is that they
    > >>>> may clamp down on the "WinXP OEM" versions which are available at
    > >>>> e-tailers... as long as you buy "with hardware" or "a complete system".
    > >>>> Some of the vendors have been pretty lax about the rules; e.g. they'd sell
    > >>>> you a WinXP OEM, or an Office 3-pack, with the purchase of only a hard
    > >>>> disk.
    > >>>
    > >>>Some will sell you OEM software witl as little as an IDE *cable*. Hey,
    > >>>it's hardware, even if it's only $3 worth.
    > >>
    > >> Yes, NewEgg used to have a link through to their "minimum hardware
    > >> purchase" for any OEM software, which was a power cable Y-adapter... but
    > >> that's no more. I once bought a 3-pack Office XP with a single hard drive
    > >> from them but that option is also no more. I believe that M$ is tightening
    > >> the rules... and likely with the threat of cut-off.
    > >
    > >Likely. Another reason for home=builders to resist the Dork-of-Redmond.
    > >Resistance may be futile, but not resisting certainly is death.
    >
    > As Robert has noted, it's actually kinda amazing how businesses world-wide
    > have embraced, and committed their most valuable asset, i.e. information,
    > to, a set of proprietary formats... which require IPS (latest buzz-word
    > acronym for Intrusion Prevention Software :-)) to protect that data from
    > common thieves and miscreants... never mind competitors, zealous info
    > harvesters and govt. I keep thinking "somebody's going to waken up"
    > but.... nope.

    Yup. I regularly get "security update" messages and "Compliance ACTION
    REQUIRED" notes from corporate security telling me that I *must*
    install this or update that. I'd think they would sit back and have a
    "wait a minute" moment. Nope.

    > >>>> M$ has tightened the rules a bit in the past year and I'd rather not
    > >>>> end up paying retail price for a new system OS.
    > >>>
    > >>>I'm not bloody likely to either. I stopped (and started, in fact) with
    > >>>Win2K.
    > >>
    > >> I didn't feel I could get away with that - some work-related things I do
    > >> at home need Windows and then other people use the home computer. I've
    > >> been "considering" dual boot to a Linux for a while but am
    > >> procrastinating on the (in)convenience and possible complexity of the
    > >> mechanism to family.
    > >
    > >I have the K6-III on a KVM switch for anything that needs M$uck. I did a
    > >BIOS upgrade on my Opteron system last week that trashed my hard-drive's
    > >boot record, and did I hear about *that* (it's still ACPI brain-ead).
    > >SWMBO rather likes the Linux environment, if it's offered. Yes she
    > >still useses the K6-III system to play M$uck games.
    >
    > Wow - that hurts. Did you find a culprit?... a fix?

    I fixed the boot record using the repair facility on the SuSE install
    DVD. I still can't get ACPI working. It gives me a warning on boot
    that I should start the powersaved daemon, but it won't start. It
    complains that my system doesn't support APM or ACPI, which I know
    isn't right. Perhaps Tyan's latest BIOS (2.53, IIRC) for the S2875
    isn't so hot? I'll have to fire off a note to Tyan today.

    > >>I once had a WinNT upgrade on an Alpha system wipe
    > >> out my Unix disk... after telling it to "leave alone".
    > >
    > >You'll have that. Were I *thinking* I;d have unplugged the disk drives
    > >before flashing this systems's BIOS. Hindsight and all that...
    >
    > Then again, we've all done flashes 100s of times without unplugging
    > anything. An odd thing with MSI mbrds I've been using recently: there are
    > dire warning not to try flashing from a floppy - the BIOS file and flash
    > executable must be on the hard disk or on the RAMDRIVE created by a Win98
    > bootable floppy. This Live Update nonsense though... that's really scarey
    > stuff.

    Me too. I did hundreds of flashes before there was boot sector flash.
    ....before flash. ;-) One slip and it was hot-swap time. Tyan's
    instructions explicitly say to use a Win95/98 recovery diskette (an
    image I found using the advice in this NG - thanks again folks). Live
    update of the OS is scary enough. BIOS? Without a way to use the boot
    sector of the flash device to get back? Yuck, sounds like a step
    backwards.

    --
    Keith
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    > Me too. I did hundreds of flashes before there was boot sector flash.
    > ...before flash. ;-) One slip and it was hot-swap time. Tyan's

    Oh, could the trouble have been you tried to save old BIOS to a
    filesystem (NTFS) that the boot OS (MS-DOS) doesn't understand?
    This ought to be fixable.

    You may be able to get ACPI working by a hard clear of BIOS SRAM.
    Sometimes this is required after an ugly BIOS update.

    -- Robert
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    In article <D_FUd.20030$D34.2468@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
    redelm@ev1.net.invalid says...
    > Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
    > > Me too. I did hundreds of flashes before there was boot sector flash.
    > > ...before flash. ;-) One slip and it was hot-swap time. Tyan's
    >
    > Oh, could the trouble have been you tried to save old BIOS to a
    > filesystem (NTFS) that the boot OS (MS-DOS) doesn't understand?
    > This ought to be fixable.

    Not on purpose. The Tyan site keeps all prior versions, including the
    one I upgraded from, so I simply downloaded the flash files for a few
    versions (I've been scared to go back though).

    > You may be able to get ACPI working by a hard clear of BIOS SRAM.
    > Sometimes this is required after an ugly BIOS update.

    Good idea. Though the information in the SRAM seemed OK. It's worth a
    try.

    --
    Keith
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:15:09 -0500, Tony Hill
    <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

    >On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:47:13 -0500, George Macdonald
    ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:19:50 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    >>wrote:
    >>>The bigger problem with Linux is that it just really isn't supported.
    >>>Adobe Reader for X is not nearly as functional as Adobe Reader for
    >>>Windows. Web sites don't always work. Media often don't work. You
    >>>can fiddle and fumble, but, in the end, it just isn't worth it...
    >>
    >>A leaner Adobe Reader could only be a good thing IMO. I'm thoroughly
    >>disgusted with Adobe's recent bloated "efforts". For Web sites, you mean
    >>the ones which are IE-only?...
    >
    >There are VERY few websites that I find which fail in both Firefox and
    >Konqueror. In fact, it's extremely rare that I have any sites fail to
    >load properly in either one. The one caveat to go along with that
    >comment though is that you sometimes have to use a User-Agent
    >switching trick to TELL the website that you're running IE before it
    >will let you in. The sites almost always render perfectly (or
    >sufficiently close not to bother me) in Firefox or Konqueror once
    >you're in.
    >

    Your experience is different from mine, that's all I can say. Many,
    many websites with active content do not work under Mozilla, whether
    in Linux or Windows.


    >> I can live without them - if they know that
    >>people won't *come" they'll change. I'm not sure what you mean by "media"
    >>- is that a DRM issue? Again, the "market" can mold this.
    >
    >Media really isn't the problem that it once was in Linux, with the
    >possible exception of the DRM issue (though that might not exactly be
    >a bad thing). It used to be that it was rather difficult to play any
    >of the less standard media formats in Linux. However these days you
    >can use any codec that plugs into Windows Media Player to play content
    >in Linux, and that's pretty darn near any type of media out there.
    >Sometimes it's a bit trickier to get the codecs loaded though as their
    >regular Windows installer (for those that come with one) obviously
    >won't cut it.
    >

    Not if it's in Windows media format, AFAIK. Linspire has something
    that will do Windows media format,

    http://www.linspire.com/lindows_michaelsminutes_archives.php?id=143

    but it certainly didn't come with my RedHat distribution.

    As to tricky installs, that's called geekware, and that's why Linux is
    not ready for prime time and probably never will be. I haven't tried
    Linspire. Maybe it actually works out of the box as a media platform.

    RM
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:15:09 -0500, Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca>
    wrote:

    >On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:47:13 -0500, George Macdonald
    ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:19:50 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    >>wrote:
    >>>The bigger problem with Linux is that it just really isn't supported.
    >>>Adobe Reader for X is not nearly as functional as Adobe Reader for
    >>>Windows. Web sites don't always work. Media often don't work. You
    >>>can fiddle and fumble, but, in the end, it just isn't worth it...
    >>
    >>A leaner Adobe Reader could only be a good thing IMO. I'm thoroughly
    >>disgusted with Adobe's recent bloated "efforts". For Web sites, you mean
    >>the ones which are IE-only?...
    >
    >There are VERY few websites that I find which fail in both Firefox and
    >Konqueror. In fact, it's extremely rare that I have any sites fail to
    >load properly in either one. The one caveat to go along with that
    >comment though is that you sometimes have to use a User-Agent
    >switching trick to TELL the website that you're running IE before it
    >will let you in. The sites almost always render perfectly (or
    >sufficiently close not to bother me) in Firefox or Konqueror once
    >you're in.

    I've looked at Firefox and see no reason to switch from (Mozilla 1.7.5
    currently) - it's no faster in any substantial way -- I did read that the
    engine is the same in both now anyway -- and I can't be bothered to face up
    to switching to Thunderbird for e-mail... yeah I know it's not essential
    but it would be sorta unclean.:-) Mozilla works well in most places - I've
    never seen a total failure though there is the odd malfunction, e.g. at
    www.cdspeed2000.com - baffles me why someone who is actually clued about
    the computer business could commit the sin of an IE Web site.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:46:39 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:


    >
    >I've looked at Firefox and see no reason to switch from (Mozilla 1.7.5
    >currently) - it's no faster in any substantial way -- I did read that the
    >engine is the same in both now anyway -- and I can't be bothered to face up
    >to switching to Thunderbird for e-mail... yeah I know it's not essential
    >but it would be sorta unclean.:-) Mozilla works well in most places - I've
    >never seen a total failure though there is the odd malfunction, e.g. at
    >www.cdspeed2000.com - baffles me why someone who is actually clued about
    >the computer business could commit the sin of an IE Web site.

    Firefox takes forever to save web pages, at least the last time I
    tried it.

    RM
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:02:38 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:15:09 -0500, Tony Hill
    ><hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:47:13 -0500, George Macdonald
    >><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:19:50 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>>The bigger problem with Linux is that it just really isn't supported.
    >>>>Adobe Reader for X is not nearly as functional as Adobe Reader for
    >>>>Windows. Web sites don't always work. Media often don't work. You
    >>>>can fiddle and fumble, but, in the end, it just isn't worth it...
    >>>
    >>>A leaner Adobe Reader could only be a good thing IMO. I'm thoroughly
    >>>disgusted with Adobe's recent bloated "efforts". For Web sites, you mean
    >>>the ones which are IE-only?...
    >>
    >>There are VERY few websites that I find which fail in both Firefox and
    >>Konqueror. In fact, it's extremely rare that I have any sites fail to
    >>load properly in either one. The one caveat to go along with that
    >>comment though is that you sometimes have to use a User-Agent
    >>switching trick to TELL the website that you're running IE before it
    >>will let you in. The sites almost always render perfectly (or
    >>sufficiently close not to bother me) in Firefox or Konqueror once
    >>you're in.
    >>
    >
    >Your experience is different from mine, that's all I can say. Many,
    >many websites with active content do not work under Mozilla, whether
    >in Linux or Windows.

    Sorry but I find very few sites which don't work with Mozilla - a very few
    don't work 100% right but there's usually some work-around where I don't
    lose content. I figure that if a Web site really works only with IE it's
    because the owner is too stupid to know better or he wants to commit a
    mischief which other browsers will not allow. Both groups should pay
    attention to the number of Firefox downloads.:-)

    >>> I can live without them - if they know that
    >>>people won't *come" they'll change. I'm not sure what you mean by "media"
    >>>- is that a DRM issue? Again, the "market" can mold this.
    >>
    >>Media really isn't the problem that it once was in Linux, with the
    >>possible exception of the DRM issue (though that might not exactly be
    >>a bad thing). It used to be that it was rather difficult to play any
    >>of the less standard media formats in Linux. However these days you
    >>can use any codec that plugs into Windows Media Player to play content
    >>in Linux, and that's pretty darn near any type of media out there.
    >>Sometimes it's a bit trickier to get the codecs loaded though as their
    >>regular Windows installer (for those that come with one) obviously
    >>won't cut it.
    >>
    >
    >Not if it's in Windows media format, AFAIK. Linspire has something
    >that will do Windows media format,
    >
    >http://www.linspire.com/lindows_michaelsminutes_archives.php?id=143
    >
    >but it certainly didn't come with my RedHat distribution.
    >
    >As to tricky installs, that's called geekware, and that's why Linux is
    >not ready for prime time and probably never will be. I haven't tried
    >Linspire. Maybe it actually works out of the box as a media platform.

    But Windows has its share of such geekware too - just sometimes it's not so
    obvious that anything's gone wrong. That's why your average non-expert
    user's Windows system is so consistently screwed up.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:47:06 -0500, Keith R. Williams <krw@att.bizzzz>
    wrote:

    >Me too. I did hundreds of flashes before there was boot sector flash.
    >...before flash. ;-) One slip and it was hot-swap time. Tyan's
    >instructions explicitly say to use a Win95/98 recovery diskette (an
    >image I found using the advice in this NG - thanks again folks). Live
    >update of the OS is scary enough. BIOS? Without a way to use the boot
    >sector of the flash device to get back? Yuck, sounds like a step
    >backwards.

    Hmmm, that sounds like what is known as a Windows 98 Startup Disk and that
    is *not* what you want, since it contains a bunch of drivers, including
    HIMEM.SYS, CD-ROM drivers & DRVSPACE.BIN which is the compressed drive
    driver... could be it's the one which buggered your boot record if it's not
    a Windows hard disk. At any rate what you want is a simple Windows 95/98
    formatted with system files disk - that'd have 4 files on it:
    MSDOS.SYS(0KB), IO.SYS, COMMAND.COM & DRVSPACE.BIN and for a BIOS Flash I
    always delete the DRVSPACE.BIN. You should be able to trim the "Startup
    Disk" down to that by just deleting files.

    For the ACPI thing, I wonder if you need to clear the NVRAM PnP stuff with
    the new BIOS - there's a switch on the Award/Phoenix Flash prog to do that
    but I don't recall what it is. You *did* reload the BIOS Setup Defaults
    after the flash?

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:47:13 -0500, George Macdonald
    <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:

    ....snip...

    >
    >I didn't feel I could get away with that - some work-related things I do at
    >home need Windows and then other people use the home computer. I've been
    >"considering" dual boot to a Linux for a while but am procrastinating on
    >the (in)convenience and possible complexity of the mechanism to family.

    As for me, I need MS stuff for work. Also must admit that, knowing
    very little about *nix (including linux), I am afraid to install it on
    my system that I use to work from home. And, if I ever get extra time
    to learn new stuff, I'd rather spend it on something that would
    increase my employability, like the next MS certification level (done
    MCAD, on my way to MCDBA and MCSD). Open Source may be cool, but MS
    pays my bills...
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:26:59 -0500, Robert Myers <rmyers1400@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:46:39 -0500, George Macdonald
    ><fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>I've looked at Firefox and see no reason to switch from (Mozilla 1.7.5
    >>currently) - it's no faster in any substantial way -- I did read that the
    >>engine is the same in both now anyway -- and I can't be bothered to face up
    >>to switching to Thunderbird for e-mail... yeah I know it's not essential
    >>but it would be sorta unclean.:-) Mozilla works well in most places - I've
    >>never seen a total failure though there is the odd malfunction, e.g. at
    >>www.cdspeed2000.com - baffles me why someone who is actually clued about
    >>the computer business could commit the sin of an IE Web site.
    >
    >Firefox takes forever to save web pages, at least the last time I
    >tried it.

    You mean save a local copy of a page? I don't think I even tried that but
    I *did* recently find why my Mozilla was blocking badly (10secs or more to
    start and again to finish) on Saves and Downloads: the DOWNLOADS.RDF file
    had gotten huge because I'd never even realized the need to clean out the
    Download Manager history. I've also found that several migrations from
    Netscape 4.x versions through NS 6.x through NS 7.x to Mozilla had left a
    lot of clutter in various files. Sometimes you just need to start afresh.

    --
    Rgds, George Macdonald
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:

    > Many, many websites with active content do not work under Mozilla,
    > whether in Linux or Windows.

    What version of Mozilla are you using?
    Could you provide 3 or 4 URLs to websites which do not work?

    > Not if it's in Windows media format, AFAIK. Linspire has something
    > that will do Windows media format, but it certainly didn't come with
    > my RedHat distribution.

    Have you tried MPlayer?

    http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/info.html

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:40:37 +0100, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
    wrote:

    >Robert Myers wrote:
    >
    >> Many, many websites with active content do not work under Mozilla,
    >> whether in Linux or Windows.
    >
    >What version of Mozilla are you using?
    >Could you provide 3 or 4 URLs to websites which do not work?
    >

    I'm not eager to post my browsing habits, but, if you're serious, I'll
    be glad to pass them along as I collect them, assuming that's a real
    e-mail address.

    >> Not if it's in Windows media format, AFAIK. Linspire has something
    >> that will do Windows media format, but it certainly didn't come with
    >> my RedHat distribution.
    >
    >Have you tried MPlayer?
    >
    >http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/info.html

    No. I'll see what I can make of it when I get a chance.

    RM
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:02:38 -0500, Robert Myers
    <rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:

    >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 02:15:09 -0500, Tony Hill
    ><hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    >
    >>There are VERY few websites that I find which fail in both Firefox and
    >>Konqueror. In fact, it's extremely rare that I have any sites fail to
    >>load properly in either one. The one caveat to go along with that
    >>comment though is that you sometimes have to use a User-Agent
    >>switching trick to TELL the website that you're running IE before it
    >>will let you in. The sites almost always render perfectly (or
    >>sufficiently close not to bother me) in Firefox or Konqueror once
    >>you're in.
    >>
    >
    >Your experience is different from mine, that's all I can say. Many,
    >many websites with active content do not work under Mozilla, whether
    >in Linux or Windows.

    Perhaps. It's quite odd for me to run into such sites, but I guess
    everyone visits a different set of sites.

    >>Media really isn't the problem that it once was in Linux, with the
    >>possible exception of the DRM issue (though that might not exactly be
    >>a bad thing). It used to be that it was rather difficult to play any
    >>of the less standard media formats in Linux. However these days you
    >>can use any codec that plugs into Windows Media Player to play content
    >>in Linux, and that's pretty darn near any type of media out there.
    >>Sometimes it's a bit trickier to get the codecs loaded though as their
    >>regular Windows installer (for those that come with one) obviously
    >>won't cut it.
    >>
    >
    >Not if it's in Windows media format, AFAIK. Linspire has something
    >that will do Windows media format,
    >
    >http://www.linspire.com/lindows_michaelsminutes_archives.php?id=143
    >
    >but it certainly didn't come with my RedHat distribution.

    One word for you: MPlayer

    http://www.mplayerhq.hu/homepage/design7/info.html

    It plays WMA and WMV files using the Windows Media Player codecs. The
    only thing that Linspire has here is that they are legally allowed to
    use the Windows media codec pack WIHTOUT owning a copy of Windows. On
    other versions of Linux you CAN use the codec pack, but you are
    required to have a legal copy of Windows on that machine to get the
    rights to them.

    >As to tricky installs, that's called geekware, and that's why Linux is
    >not ready for prime time and probably never will be.

    It definitely still is geekware, though I don't know about the "never
    will be" part. These things are MUCH easier now than they were just a
    few years ago. The Linux geeks are finally realizing that they do
    need to make things all "point, click and it works" like for more
    widespread acceptance. It's still a LONG road though.

    Of course, that being said, some of the codecs aren't very easy to
    install in Windows either, many still require a fair bit of knowledge
    to figure out just WHAT codec is required and often are not just a
    point-and-shoot install on their own. XVid is a good example of a
    very common video codec that can be rather tricky in Windows and is
    actually EASIER in Linux (in most cases it's just a matter of adding a
    package like any other program). This might be more the exception
    than the rule, but I'm definitely seeing more exceptions like this as
    time goes by.

    -------------
    Tony Hill
    hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 02:14:22 -0500, Tony Hill
    <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

    >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:02:38 -0500, Robert Myers
    ><rmyers1400@comcast.net> wrote:
    >

    <snip>

    >
    >>As to tricky installs, that's called geekware, and that's why Linux is
    >>not ready for prime time and probably never will be.
    >
    >It definitely still is geekware, though I don't know about the "never
    >will be" part. These things are MUCH easier now than they were just a
    >few years ago. The Linux geeks are finally realizing that they do
    >need to make things all "point, click and it works" like for more
    >widespread acceptance. It's still a LONG road though.
    >
    You are much more optimistic than I am. I hung mozilla recently,
    terminated it abnormally, then had a devil of a time figuring out
    where the lock file had been moved. I once thought RedHat would solve
    those problems, but, of course, RedHat is no longer interested in the
    desktop.

    If you look at the history of mainframes, life doesn't get easier.
    People are forced to adjust. If it's only marginally easier to adjust
    to Windows, Windows will continue to dominate. Open Office can do
    MSWord and Power Point formats? Oh, sort of.

    Linux is just too much for people who like the power of knowing they
    _can_ figure out where the softlink for java has to be, and the linux
    cognoscenti just cannot relate to people who don't know, don't care,
    and will put up with whatever Bill dishes out to stay that way. Didja
    hear that Bill was just knighted?

    RM
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    Robert Myers wrote:

    > I'm not eager to post my browsing habits, but, if you're serious,
    > I'll be glad to pass them along as I collect them, assuming that's
    > a real e-mail address.

    No, it's just a spamtrap.

    Did you search Mozilla's Bugzilla to see if your websites were listed?
    Do you think there is a problem with Mozilla or do the websites use
    non-standard IE extensions?

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/query.cgi?help=1&format=advanced

    --
    Regards, Grumble
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:40:37 +0100, Grumble <devnull@kma.eu.org>
    wrote:

    >Robert Myers wrote:
    >
    >> Many, many websites with active content do not work under Mozilla,
    >> whether in Linux or Windows.
    >
    >What version of Mozilla are you using?
    >Could you provide 3 or 4 URLs to websites which do not work?
    >
    The problem under windows turned out to be Norton Internet Security,
    which was blocking pop-up windows. Apparently, it saw the embedded
    media (like quick time or windows media player) as a pop up window
    under mozilla but not under explorer. As stated elsewhere, I haven't
    put much effort into trying to configure media for linux.

    RM
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    hi

    On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:02:38 -0500, Robert Myers wrote:

    > Your experience is different from mine, that's all I can say. Many,
    > many websites with active content do not work under Mozilla, whether
    > in Linux or Windows.

    Active X content on IE has a history of security CERT advisories, which
    translates into unwanted adware and trojans. As a web developer, it's
    imperative that I test web sites on IE, but I will always turn active X
    off -- furthermore, I don't see it being a roadmap for future web
    development. We have the Gecko engine, which is now integrated into
    countless variations of browsers; we have opera, which is a
    mainstay for mobile phones: IE usage ratings have dropped considerably
    over the last couple of years (some sites have it at 76%).
    You cannot develop only for IE these days.

    >
    > As to tricky installs, that's called geekware, and that's why Linux is
    > not ready for prime time and probably never will be. I haven't tried
    > Linspire. Maybe it actually works out of the box as a media platform.
    >

    Windows is getting more "dummified" to appeal to the mass market though,
    so where would you like to sit ?

    Besides, the linux has a more distinct failure: the distros are so
    disparate and many many programs are not willing to agree to any
    standards. Linux will not be ready for prime time until this is sorted out.

    I am half a geek though, so I like it.

    regards,

    - Niel
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

    On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 22:35:09 +0000, Niel Drummond
    <nntp@cyan-unlinkthis-escent.co.uk> wrote:

    >hi
    >
    >On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:02:38 -0500, Robert Myers wrote:
    >
    >> Your experience is different from mine, that's all I can say. Many,
    >> many websites with active content do not work under Mozilla, whether
    >> in Linux or Windows.
    >
    >Active X content on IE has a history of security CERT advisories, which
    >translates into unwanted adware and trojans. As a web developer, it's
    >imperative that I test web sites on IE, but I will always turn active X
    >off -- furthermore, I don't see it being a roadmap for future web
    >development. We have the Gecko engine, which is now integrated into
    >countless variations of browsers; we have opera, which is a
    >mainstay for mobile phones: IE usage ratings have dropped considerably
    >over the last couple of years (some sites have it at 76%).
    >You cannot develop only for IE these days.
    >
    As I said in a separate post, at least part of the problem turned out
    to be a pop-up blocker that saw embedded media in Mozilla as popups,
    but not in IE.

    >>
    >> As to tricky installs, that's called geekware, and that's why Linux is
    >> not ready for prime time and probably never will be. I haven't tried
    >> Linspire. Maybe it actually works out of the box as a media platform.
    >>
    >
    >Windows is getting more "dummified" to appeal to the mass market though,
    >so where would you like to sit ?
    >
    With cygwin, I almost get the best of both worlds: brain-dead PC user
    to do my taxes and watch windows media, hyper-aware Linux user when I
    need the power. Doesn't always work, and cygwin is noticeably slower
    than native linux.

    >Besides, the linux has a more distinct failure: the distros are so
    >disparate and many many programs are not willing to agree to any
    >standards. Linux will not be ready for prime time until this is sorted out.
    >
    >I am half a geek though, so I like it.
    >
    Being a geek wears thin after a while, especially when you've got lots
    of other things to worry about.

    RM
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs