Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

M$ turns the screw... more

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2005 2:06:38 AM

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,...
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

More about : turns screw

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2005 3:14:59 AM

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,...
> 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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2005 6:42:01 AM

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,...
>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
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2005 8:26:17 AM

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,...
>>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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2005 9:56:08 PM

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>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2005 9:56:09 PM

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/2005/02/23/3...
- 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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2005 11:01:53 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2005 11:08:24 AM

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
February 26, 2005 1:55:57 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2005 4:19:50 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2005 7:27:29 PM

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
February 27, 2005 3:14:39 AM

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 ;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2005 2:42:04 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2005 5:33:20 PM

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>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2005 10:47:13 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2005 10:47:13 PM

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
February 28, 2005 12:08:53 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2005 5:15:09 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2005 6:13:03 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2005 11:47:06 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2005 5:35:15 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2005 5:35:16 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2005 8:02:38 PM

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_archive...

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2005 8:46:39 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2005 9:26:59 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2005 11:18:03 PM

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_archive...
>
>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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2005 11:18:03 PM

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
March 1, 2005 1:20:07 AM

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...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2005 4:29:03 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2005 8:40:37 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2005 8:40:38 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2005 5:14:22 AM

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_archive...
>
>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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2005 12:24:21 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2005 12:25:22 PM

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=ad...

--
Regards, Grumble
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2005 12:43:49 PM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2005 1:35:09 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 10, 2005 1:35:10 AM

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
!