OEM vs Retail XP Pro

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
John.
255 answers Last reply
More about retail
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "jeh" <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote...
    > Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
    > pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and there
    > occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.

    Included drivers.

    Support -- none from MS on an OEM serial number.

    Lack of some add-ons (e.g., NetBEUI).

    You may not get a CD for OEM.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    jeh <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote:

    > Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions
    > of xp pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing
    > upgrading here and there occasionally you might run into
    > problems with oem versions.

    I think the only difference is that you must do a clean install with
    the OEM version. I never do an upgrade install anyway (maybe once a
    long time ago), so OEM is fine.

    In direct answer to your question, No, I don't think there is any
    difference in that way. If you do upgrade installations with the
    retail version, you are more likely to run into problems. Doing
    clean installs is more work upfront. It's up to you.

    This might be more advanced than the options you need, but the real
    way to install Windows is to make incremental backup copies and keep
    copies you can revert to when things go wrong. Even now with XP's
    stability, I wouldn't do without a disk manager.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    jeh wrote:
    > Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
    > pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
    > there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
    > John.

    the main difference between OEM and Retail is that OEM has no packaging
    or instructions (other than a quick start), there is no product support
    and you cannot transfer the operating system to another pc eg. you buy a
    new computer without windows you cannot install a previously installed
    OEM version on it (well your not supposed to)

    Retail version has product support, packaging and you can transfer it to
    another computer.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    JD wrote:

    > jeh wrote:
    >
    >> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
    >> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
    >> there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
    >> John.
    >
    >
    > the main difference between OEM and Retail is that OEM has no packaging
    > or instructions (other than a quick start), there is no product support
    > and you cannot transfer the operating system to another pc eg. you buy a
    > new computer without windows you cannot install a previously installed
    > OEM version on it (well your not supposed to)

    Which is also why the OEM version does not support 'upgrading' a prior O.S..


    > Retail version has product support, packaging and you can transfer it to
    > another computer.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:
    > jeh <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions
    >>of xp pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing
    >>upgrading here and there occasionally you might run into
    >>problems with oem versions.
    >
    >
    > I think the only difference is that you must do a clean install with
    > the OEM version. I never do an upgrade install anyway (maybe once a
    > long time ago), so OEM is fine.
    >
    > In direct answer to your question, No, I don't think there is any
    > difference in that way. If you do upgrade installations with the
    > retail version, you are more likely to run into problems. Doing
    > clean installs is more work upfront. It's up to you.
    >
    > This might be more advanced than the options you need, but the real
    > way to install Windows is to make incremental backup copies and keep
    > copies you can revert to when things go wrong. Even now with XP's
    > stability, I wouldn't do without a disk manager.

    Sounds like you have a lot of problems with XP. I've been doing pretty
    good with 98, and I'm sort of hesitant to change, but I do some work
    online with various companies and they are starting to require a more
    updated os for the security aspect of it. Think I should wait for Longhorn?
    Thanks.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:116bokneipv1s5a@corp.supernews.com...
    > JD wrote:
    >
    >> jeh wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
    >>> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
    >>> there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
    >>> John.
    >>
    >>
    >> the main difference between OEM and Retail is that OEM has no packaging
    >> or instructions (other than a quick start), there is no product support
    >> and you cannot transfer the operating system to another pc eg. you buy a
    >> new computer without windows you cannot install a previously installed
    >> OEM version on it (well your not supposed to)
    >
    > Which is also why the OEM version does not support 'upgrading' a prior
    > O.S..
    >
    I have updated a Toshiba laptop of mine that had a Toshiba version of XP
    Home with an OEM version of XP Pro and it worked just fine. As far as
    updating from 98 or ME I don't know because back then I upgraded with a
    retail version. I wound up reinstalling XP Pro clean after deciding I didn't
    want or need all the junk that Toshiba installs with it's version of XP
    Home.
    >
    >> Retail version has product support, packaging and you can transfer it to
    >> another computer.
    >
    The above OEM XP Pro that I installed on the Toshiba was previously
    installed on a Sony Vaio laptop that bit the dust. I didn't even need to
    call MS to activate. It activated just as a retail version would. I think
    the largest difference is the packaging and lack of product support. If you
    can do without those, I think the OEM version is a good deal. Of course, you
    must purchase a major computer component (supposedly) to get an OEM copy. I
    have an OEM version of XP Pro on this system and it is my "test" system
    (guinea pig if u will) and have changed virtually everything in it and have
    had to make the 10 min call to MS on a few occasions but just telling them I
    upgraded, which is true, and they just reactivated normally.

    Ed
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    If your hardware is up to the challenge, you will find that XP is a big
    improvement over W98, such as for the security enhancements that you
    mentioned.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    The OEM version is cheaper because it is meant to be sold with a hardware
    system and does NOT come with Microsoft support.

    --
    DaveW


    "jeh" <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote in message
    news:d139d$42659e90$4ee038a$18368@ALLTEL.NET...
    > Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
    > pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and there
    > occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
    > John.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    jeh <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote:
    > John Doe wrote:

    >> I think the only difference is that you must do a clean install
    >> with the OEM version. I never do an upgrade install anyway
    >> (maybe once a long time ago), so OEM is fine.
    >> In direct answer to your question, No, I don't think there is
    >> any difference in that way. If you do upgrade installations
    >> with the retail version, you are more likely to run into
    >> problems. Doing clean installs is more work upfront. It's up to
    >> you.
    >> This might be more advanced than the options you need, but the
    >> real way to install Windows is to make incremental backup
    >> copies and keep copies you can revert to when things go wrong.
    >> Even now with XP's stability, I wouldn't do without a disk
    >> manager.
    >
    > Sounds like you have a lot of problems with XP. I've been doing
    > pretty good with 98, and I'm sort of hesitant to change, but I
    > do some work online with various companies and they are starting
    > to require a more updated os for the security aspect of it.
    > Think I should wait for Longhorn?

    I put my personal computer to the test, persistently. Currently, I
    am beginning what in my little world is a new era of speech
    recognition, integrating that into the whole. I am looking forward
    to integrating speech into my system wide macro recorder, to make
    Windows dance on my verbal command.

    Even if you do little with your computer, a disk manager probably
    is useful. Apparently you do enough, since you are concerned
    enough to ask about OEM versus retail versions of Windows XP.

    If you don't mind the hassles, stick with Windows 98. I wouldn't
    recommend Windows XP because I want to increase Microsoft's
    wealth. You just have to keep paying personal computer user dues
    if you want a smooth running system.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:16:56 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
    wrote:

    .. Currently, I
    >am beginning what in my little world is a new era of speech
    >recognition, integrating that into the whole. I am looking forward
    >to integrating speech into my system wide macro recorder, to make
    >Windows dance on my verbal command.
    >
    If you're into C++. here's a great page on making speech reco
    programs. http://www.generation5.org/content/2001/sr00.asp
    and
    http://www.generation5.org/articles.asp?Action=List&Topic=Speech%20Recognition

    I wrote a speech-driven Windows Media Player. Just say "Play ..." and
    it does (most of the time!)
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    sdeyoreo@hotmail.com wrote:
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >> Currently, I am beginning what in my little world is a new era
    >> of speech recognition, integrating that into the whole. I am
    >> looking forward to integrating speech into my system wide macro
    >> recorder, to make Windows dance on my verbal command.

    > If you're into C++. here's a great page on making speech reco
    > programs. http://www.generation5.org/content/2001/sr00.asp and
    > http://www.generation5.org/articles.asp?Action=List&Topic=Speech%
    > 20Recognition
    > I wrote a speech-driven Windows Media Player. Just say "Play
    > ..." and it does (most of the time!)

    My impression of the personal computer user interface is that it
    must work nearly 100% of the time to be practical/acceptable. That
    goes for macroing and speech recognition. Currently, I am using
    Dragon NaturallySpeaking. It is by far the most accurate speech to
    text I have found. I would like to apply speech recognition to my
    macroer but I won't be writing the speech recognition part.
    Thinking mainly for gaming, I don't want to use NaturallySpeaking
    because its overhead is high, and only the Pro version will do
    speech to keyboard keystrokes. I tried Shoot but I'm not sure it
    will be accurate enough. Microsoft's effort at accurate speech
    recognition looks like a failure so far.

    That's not meant to be a very meaningful reply to your advice, just
    my thoughts. Thanks.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    DaveW writes:

    > The OEM version is cheaper because it is meant to be sold with a hardware
    > system and does NOT come with Microsoft support.

    Given how useless MS support can be sometimes, that's a pretty good
    deal.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    jeh wrote:

    >
    > Sounds like you have a lot of problems with XP. I've been doing pretty
    > good with 98, and I'm sort of hesitant to change, but I do some work
    > online with various companies and they are starting to require a more
    > updated os for the security aspect of it. Think I should wait for
    > Longhorn?
    > Thanks.

    If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security functions
    of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure than Windows and
    all the popular web tools are there. Its also free and as you are still
    using win9x its fair to assume that your hardware is dated also, another
    good point about using linux is it runs well on older hardware. check
    out Suse (www.suse.com),Ubuntu (www.ubuntu.com),Gentoo (www.gentoo.org)
    and Fedora Core (redhat - www.fedora.redhat.com) you can purhase,
    download or even get a copy on magazines such as linux format , linux
    magazine.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    JD writes:

    > If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security functions
    > of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure than Windows and
    > all the popular web tools are there.

    Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
    as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
    Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:16:26 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
    wrote:


    >Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
    >as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
    >Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.

    And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD.
    Almost the same thing.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    > JD writes:
    >
    >
    >>If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security functions
    >>of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure than Windows and
    >>all the popular web tools are there.
    >
    >
    > Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
    > as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
    > Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.
    >

    The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux and the
    strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows! and as
    far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish as long as you
    don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing you can do on
    windows that you cannot do on Linux. you can even run windows programs
    on Linux using one of the many Windows emulators you can even play
    Halflife2 and Doom3 on Linux.

    and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
    ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
    Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    JD wrote:
    > Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    >> JD writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>> If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security
    >>> functions of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure
    >>> than Windows and all the popular web tools are there.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
    >> as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
    >> Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.
    >>
    >
    > The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux

    The fact of your simple fact is it isn't true. There are less than 100
    viruses for Linux (even fewer that are 'popular') but they do exist and are
    growing in number.

    The 'no virus' argument has always been a 'damned if you do' kind of thing
    with Linux because part of what's 'protected' it is the rather small market
    share. I.E. if one wants to inflict damage on a multitude of systems then
    you pick a platform that's popular enough to propagate it. And as Linux
    becomes more popular it'll attract more attackers and lose that 'feature'
    Linux aficionados are touting as a reason to make it more popular. The
    curse of success.


    > and the
    > strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows!

    One can run with root privileges in Linux just as easily as one can run as
    Administrator in Windows.

    > and as
    > far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish as long as you
    > don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing you can do on
    > windows that you cannot do on Linux.

    Not quite right either, depending on what it is you want to do. In a
    business environment one of the big drawbacks to Linux has been the lack of
    a full featured replacement for the MS Exchange server, which then
    translates to what the client needs to be.

    Bynari claims to have a replacement (using Outlook with it requires their
    plug-in) but it isn't 'free' and neither is their client on the desktop.

    > you can even run windows programs
    > on Linux using one of the many Windows emulators

    Partly true. The emulators are always 'behind' compared to Windows and not
    all Windows apps will operate properly.

    > you can even play
    > Halflife2 and Doom3 on Linux.
    >
    > and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
    > ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
    > Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Aldwyn Edain wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:16:26 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
    >>as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
    >>Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.
    >
    >
    > And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD.
    > Almost the same thing.

    I meant to put that in the end of my other post .. it uses a heavily
    modified version of the FreeBSD kernel as far as im led to belive.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:k6be611ulfinnl6tmrfelelb5b177bhivo@4ax.com...
    > DaveW writes:
    >
    > > The OEM version is cheaper because it is meant to be sold with a
    hardware
    > > system and does NOT come with Microsoft support.
    >
    > Given how useless MS support can be sometimes, that's a pretty good
    > deal.
    >
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

    A warning about OEM versions Microsoft programs. This is what Microsoft says
    they plan to do. It's not been implemented yet.
    Soon, Microsoft will not allow OEM versions to be upgraded through Service
    packs or patches downloaded from their websites. All oem version will have
    to be updated through the vendor you bought the PC from. If you have a gray
    market oem Windows product you bought with a cable or floppy drive
    etc.,you'll be SOL.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    dawg wrote:
    > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:k6be611ulfinnl6tmrfelelb5b177bhivo@4ax.com...
    >
    >>DaveW writes:
    >>
    >>
    >>>The OEM version is cheaper because it is meant to be sold with a
    >
    > hardware
    >
    >>>system and does NOT come with Microsoft support.
    >>
    >>Given how useless MS support can be sometimes, that's a pretty good
    >>deal.
    >>
    >>--
    >>Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    >
    >
    > A warning about OEM versions Microsoft programs. This is what Microsoft says
    > they plan to do. It's not been implemented yet.
    > Soon, Microsoft will not allow OEM versions to be upgraded through Service
    > packs or patches downloaded from their websites. All oem version will have
    > to be updated through the vendor you bought the PC from. If you have a gray
    > market oem Windows product you bought with a cable or floppy drive
    > etc.,you'll be SOL.
    >
    >

    That's not completely true they are planning to withdraw the oem
    activation codes for the top 20 pc manufacturers, if however you own a
    legitimate copy you will be redirected to a activation telephone number
    where you will have to answer a few questions, after that you can use it
    as normal for updates etc.


    "Starting February 28, Microsoft will indefinitely begin to disable
    Internet product activation on OEM keys used by the top 20 worldwide PC
    makers.

    If a customer attempts to activate Windows XP with an OEM key from a
    COA, they will be directed to call customer support specialists to
    obtain an override code - provided they can prove that their copy is
    legitimate by answering a series of questions." -
    http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Closes_Activation_Loophole/1109293194
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    JD writes:

    > The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux and the
    > strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows!

    There are virtually no viruses for the Mac, either, and it is a thousand
    times easier to set up than any distribution of Linux.

    Additionally, Windows has a much more extensive and complex system of
    user identification than a simple user/root philosophy. Under Windows,
    each of any number of users can be assigned any of dozens of different
    privileges individually, ranging from no privilege at all (essentially a
    guest account) to a full local or domain administrator. In corporate
    environments, Windows can be very easily locked down in this way, with
    centralized control of access to all individual PCs.

    > ... and as far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish
    > as long as you don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing
    > you can do on windows that you cannot do on Linux.

    The vast majority of microcomputer applications today run under Windows,
    and only under Windows.

    > you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many
    > Windows emulators ...

    You can run them much more easily under Windows.

    > and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
    > ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
    > Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.

    UNIX is even less suitable as a desktop, with the sole exception of Mac
    OS X, which has been so heavily modified with respect to the user
    interface that it isn't even recognizable as UNIX. Eventually OS X will
    no longer contain any UNIX, anyway.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Aldwyn Edain writes:

    > And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD.
    > Almost the same thing.

    Worlds apart. Not only is it based on BSD (a real flavor of UNIX--even
    though it doesn't pay for the UNIX trademark--as opposed to Linux, which
    is a clone), but the user interface is vastly more coherent,
    user-friendly, stable, performant, and secure, thanks to the huge amount
    of money invested in it by Apple. Linux is a pimply teenager's gadget
    by comparison.

    Unfortunately, you have to buy a (expensive) Mac to get the Mac
    operating system, but if you want user-friendliness, it beats Windows
    (slightly). There aren't nearly as many applications available, however
    (although there are far more than you can find for Linux, including many
    major name-brand applications, such as commercial Adobe and Microsoft
    products).

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > Aldwyn Edain writes:
    >
    >> And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well
    >> ok, BSD. Almost the same thing.
    >
    > Worlds apart. Not only is it based on BSD (a real flavor of
    > UNIX--even though it doesn't pay for the UNIX trademark--as
    > opposed to Linux, which is a clone), but the user interface is
    > vastly more coherent, user-friendly, stable, performant, and
    > secure, thanks to the huge amount of money invested in it by
    > Apple. Linux is a pimply teenager's gadget by comparison.
    >
    > Unfortunately, you have to buy a (expensive) Mac to get the Mac
    > operating system, but if you want user-friendliness, it beats
    > Windows (slightly). There aren't nearly as many applications
    > available, however (although there are far more than you can
    > find for Linux, including many major name-brand applications,
    > such as commercial Adobe and Microsoft products).

    And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft
    threatened to stop making Office for the Mac. Apple is dependent
    on Microsoft. People who promote Linux to unwise desktop users end
    up making very bad public relations for Linux. I guess they do that
    out of plain ignorance.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "dawg" <don't look@worldnet.att.net> writes:

    > Soon, Microsoft will not allow OEM versions to be upgraded through Service
    > packs or patches downloaded from their websites. All oem version will have
    > to be updated through the vendor you bought the PC from. If you have a gray
    > market oem Windows product you bought with a cable or floppy drive
    > etc.,you'll be SOL.

    Since I typically never upgrade an OS after installing it, this is not a
    very big issue.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe writes:

    > And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft
    > threatened to stop making Office for the Mac.

    Apple has always been so poorly managed as a company that I'm
    continually amazed by its survival.

    > Apple is dependent on Microsoft.

    I don't know ... maybe. Certainly the Office suite is the leading
    application for the Mac.

    > People who promote Linux to unwise desktop users end
    > up making very bad public relations for Linux. I guess they do that
    > out of plain ignorance.

    Plain ignorance, and unbridled emotion. Most Linux fans are in fact
    Microsoft-haters who want something that looks, feels, and behaves like
    Windows, but don't want Microsoft's name on it. They've latched on to
    Linux and they are trying to make Linux into an ersatz Windows. This is
    an exercise in futility, since nothing will ever do Windows as well as
    Windows itself does Windows. Promoting Linux as a serious alternative
    to Windows leads many unsuspecting people down a path to certain
    disappointment and frustration, and it also guarantees that Linux will
    never be anything more than an inferior and largely useless substitute
    for Windows.

    A few Linux users understand this and promote Linux as an environment in
    itself, rather than as an alternative to Windows, but they are small
    voices in a large and noisy crowd. Additionally, the massive emphasis
    on the desktop that most distributions seem to put on Linux is really
    trying to put a round peg into a square hole. UNIX and clones such as
    Linux are not ideal desktop operating systems; they work better as
    servers.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > John Doe writes:
    >
    >
    >>And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft
    >>threatened to stop making Office for the Mac.
    >
    >
    > Apple has always been so poorly managed as a company that I'm
    > continually amazed by its survival.
    >
    >
    >>Apple is dependent on Microsoft.
    >
    >
    > I don't know ... maybe. Certainly the Office suite is the leading
    > application for the Mac.

    What's kind of amusing is that MS developed Office *for* Apple and created
    'Windows' to make it available on the PC.


    <snip>
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > There are virtually no viruses for the Mac, either, and it is a thousand
    > times easier to set up than any distribution of Linux.

    I don't know when you last looked at Linux but most distro's now have a
    Full GUI setup environment that automatically partitions your hard
    drives, detects and sets up your hardware (admitedly some hardware still
    lacks support). Macs are obviously a thousand times easier to setup
    because they come pre-installed.

    > Additionally, Windows has a much more extensive and complex system of
    > user identification than a simple user/root philosophy.

    I meant by "simple" that a Linux user will not use root as default all
    distro's by default DON NOT allow root to log in remotely some even go
    as far as not letting root log in localy, in that case you would use the
    superuser command to change to root privileges which only certain
    users can do depending on what "group" they are in.

    Under Windows,
    > each of any number of users can be assigned any of dozens of different
    > privileges individually, ranging from no privilege at all (essentially a
    > guest account) to a full local or domain administrator. In corporate
    > environments, Windows can be very easily locked down in this way, with
    > centralized control of access to all individual PCs.
    >

    This setup is standard in Linux/UNIX, Linux/UNIX was built with security
    firmly in mind whereas windows security was an afterthought! EVERYTHING
    in Linux is a file be it a text document or hard-drive / cdrom, Every
    file has permissions "Owner Group Other" which can be set to any
    combination of "Read Write and Execute" (in actual fact there are more
    permissions than that, for folders) and I'm not even going to touch on
    CHROOT's and Jails.

    Going back to my comment on Windows security as an afterthought.. the
    new longhorn version of windows is supposedly built from the ground up
    with security in mind, so we will wait and see what this brings.

    Going back to your comment on windows privileges and locking down,
    Speaking from real world experience here how many people do you know
    that don't use the admin account? the simple fact that many users are
    simply lazy and "cant be bothered" to log out a user account and log in
    as administrator (or use the RUN AS command) is astonishing and its not
    all there fault ether, some programs refuse to work properly without
    admin privileges (Nero Burning rom as an example, it is fixed now however)

    >
    >>... and as far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish
    >>as long as you don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing
    >>you can do on windows that you cannot do on Linux.
    >
    >
    > The vast majority of microcomputer applications today run under Windows,
    > and only under Windows.

    Rubbish again I have word processors, graphics applications, sound
    editing, dvd authoring, cd/dvd writing in actual fact there is very
    little Linux cannot do and at NO/LITTLE COST.

    >
    >>you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many
    >>Windows emulators ...
    >
    >
    > You can run them much more easily under Windows.

    That's obvious they were designed for that.

    >
    >>and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
    >>ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
    >>Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.
    >
    >
    > UNIX is even less suitable as a desktop, with the sole exception of Mac
    > OS X, which has been so heavily modified with respect to the user
    > interface that it isn't even recognizable as UNIX. Eventually OS X will
    > no longer contain any UNIX, anyway.
    >

    I agree to some extent with you there my point was that I use UNIX as my
    main OS and I am still able to use my word processors,Graphics,cd/dvd
    players and Linux is far more versatile. UNIX machines are renowned for
    there stability that's why they are commonplace in servers.

    You are seriously underestimating Linux.

    This post I fear has seriously went OT however I have enjoyed the
    conversation however I will not be able to respond/read posts until
    Sunday evening as I am going away for the weekend.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    JD writes:

    > I don't know when you last looked at Linux ...

    About two months ago.

    > ... but most distro's now have a Full GUI setup environment that
    > automatically partitions your hard drives, detects and sets up
    > your hardware (admitedly some hardware still lacks support).

    I tried Mandrake, and it hung after the pretty splash screen.

    > Macs are obviously a thousand times easier to setup because
    > they come pre-installed.

    Yes. The same is true for Windows. But even an installation of Windows
    from scratch is extremely easy and quick.

    > I meant by "simple" that a Linux user will not use root as default all
    > distro's by default DON NOT allow root to log in remotely some even go
    > as far as not letting root log in localy, in that case you would use the
    > superuser command to change to root privileges which only certain
    > users can do depending on what "group" they are in.

    Seems a bit odd to not even let root log in locally. It is the system
    console, after all.

    > This setup is standard in Linux/UNIX ...

    No, it isn't even possible in Linux/UNIX, with the exception of a
    handful of very heavily modified versions of these operating systems.
    Standard UNIX doesn't hold a candle to the granularity of security
    available in NT-based versions of Windows.

    > ... Linux/UNIX was built with security firmly in mind ...

    No, Linux and UNIX have absolutely no clue concerning security. They
    are barely a step away from no security at all; they have just about the
    minimum necessary for a timesharing system, and that's it.

    > ... whereas windows security was an afterthought!

    No, Windows security is designed directly into the kernel, and is
    enforced in the kernel as well.

    > EVERYTHING in Linux is a file be it a text document or hard-drive
    > / cdrom, Every file has permissions "Owner Group Other" which can
    > be set to any combination of "Read Write and Execute" (in actual fact there are more
    > permissions than that, for folders) and I'm not even going to touch on
    > CHROOT's and Jails.

    Every object in Windows, file, device, resource, etc., has an access
    control list that can specify any combination of _dozens_ of different
    permissions for any combination of user accounts or account groups. It
    blows UNIX security completely out of the water. There is really no
    comparison.

    Oddly enough, the ancestor of UNIX, Multics, did even better, but UNIX
    dropped all the Multics security features for the sake of simplicity,
    user-friendliness, and speed.

    > Going back to my comment on Windows security as an afterthought.. the
    > new longhorn version of windows is supposedly built from the ground up
    > with security in mind, so we will wait and see what this brings.

    All versions of Windows from NT forward have been built with security
    from the ground up.

    > Going back to your comment on windows privileges and locking down,
    > Speaking from real world experience here how many people do you know
    > that don't use the admin account?

    It depends on the environment. I know of companies where nobody can log
    onto his own desktop machine with an administrator account; everyone
    uses simple user accounts, and only the IT department has administrator
    access to machines.

    > ... the simple fact that many users are
    > simply lazy and "cant be bothered" to log out a user account and log in
    > as administrator (or use the RUN AS command) is astonishing and its not
    > all there fault ether, some programs refuse to work properly without
    > admin privileges (Nero Burning rom as an example, it is fixed now however)

    The same is true for UNIX. Many UNIX desktop users run as root.

    > Rubbish again I have word processors, graphics applications, sound
    > editing, dvd authoring, cd/dvd writing in actual fact there is very
    > little Linux cannot do and at NO/LITTLE COST.

    There are a quarter-million Windows applications out there. Nothing for
    Linux or even the Mac comes anywhere close to that.

    > That's obvious they were designed for that.

    So why run them under Linux emulations of Windows, if you can just run
    them under Windows for real?

    > I agree to some extent with you there my point was that I use UNIX as my
    > main OS and I am still able to use my word processors,Graphics,cd/dvd
    > players and Linux is far more versatile. UNIX machines are renowned for
    > there stability that's why they are commonplace in servers.

    NT-based versions of Windows are rock solid also, they can run for years
    without a boot. I almost never boot my Windows machines.

    > You are seriously underestimating Linux.

    No, I've just been using these operating systems for many years, and I
    know what they can and cannot do.

    Always use the right tool for the right job.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    If you love playing with the OS and using your mind to come up with
    creative ways to run almost everything - in one form or another - Linux
    is great.

    If you never want to be bothered with the OS and just want to get your
    work done reliably and simply without too many application choices, get
    a Mac and run OS X.

    If you want to run just about anything and have lots of choices in
    applications and do it relatively easily without having to bother with
    compatibility, run Windows XP.

    I have run all of them at one time or another on desktop computers.
    Right now, I only have XP on my computers.

    Clyde
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Clyde wrote:
    > If you love playing with the OS and using your mind to come up with
    > creative ways to run almost everything - in one form or another - Linux
    > is great.
    >
    > If you never want to be bothered with the OS and just want to get your
    > work done reliably and simply without too many application choices, get
    > a Mac and run OS X.
    >
    > If you want to run just about anything and have lots of choices in
    > applications and do it relatively easily without having to bother with
    > compatibility, run Windows XP.
    >
    > I have run all of them at one time or another on desktop computers.
    > Right now, I only have XP on my computers.
    >
    > Clyde


    In the interests of (1) security (2) leveraging open source (3) breaking
    away from Windows, I've spent lots of 2005 trying various distros of
    Linux on multiple machines. In short:

    Three different distros could not connect with the Internet via a
    Wireless USB adapter (this was on a 5-year old Pentium III which still
    runs great, which I use a test platform for experiments such as this).
    The same three distros could not run a PCI sound card (even though they
    were able to handle audio tasks via mobo integrated sound).

    However, the install/setup --and eventuall-- removal-- of these distros
    gave me enough confidence that I could get a dual boot XP/Linux system
    running on my main machine, which does have an wired connection to the
    Internet.

    Guess what: the display was unreadable on a dual display system.

    Since I'm not up to a two floor run of CAT5 cable between my cable modem
    and the Pentium III, I have a lingering install of Suse on my lab test
    machine...but can't connect to the Internet unless I go back to XP.

    USB wireless: negative. PCI DSP: negative. Dual display support:
    negative. I never even got to the point of trying printers or scanners.
    I'm as open-minded as anybody about what OS to use. But ultimately I
    want it to give me the flexibility use any harware I want to do stuff,
    not force me work- around solutions (or be left with no options at all).

    Until I find a Linux distro that plays well with the hardware I'm
    already using..I'll keep a probably patched and unpdated Windows machine
    running, back up regularly, and reformat/reload as needed (about every
    18 months is what I've needed for XP). Linux fought back hard against
    this user, and for the most part I know what I'm doing. I can't imagine
    what it would mean for the totally clueless.....
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    ropeyarn@gmail.com wrote:

    > This is the problem with Linux. I have actual work to do...and can't do
    > it without a printer and wireless Internet access. I can piddle around
    > with innards of an OS that is supported only via the best guesses of
    > kindly geeks, or I can stick with Windows, which simply works. My SO was
    > certainly delighted when I hauled out 100 feet of CAT 5 cable to see if
    > Suse would work with wired ethernet..which it did:-)

    Like I said, SuSE 9.3 should have the new kernel with wireless connectivity.
    The new Mandrake, 2005LE, has the 2.6.10 kernel, but I'm willing to bet
    that it backported the wireless stuff.

    You might try and install the newest version of SuSE and maybe get the
    wireless going.

    Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering so
    much is incredibly fun. Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
    Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff. :o)
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > USB wireless: negative. PCI DSP: negative. Dual display support: negative. I never even got to the point of trying printers or scanners. I'm as open-minded as anybody about what OS to use. But ultimately I want it to give me the flexibility use any harware I want to do stuff, not force me work- around solutions (or be left with no options at all).
    >
    > Until I find a Linux distro that plays well with the hardware I'm already using..I'll keep a probably patched and unpdated Windows machine running, back up regularly, and reformat/reload as needed (about every 18 months is what I've needed for XP). Linux fought back hard against this user, and for the most part I know what I'm doing. I can't imagine what it would mean for the totally clueless.....

    Unless Linux can be made to recognize and work with common
    hardware, it isn't going anywhere on the desktop, no matter what
    Linux apologists say. Try Ubuntu. It seems to be the most
    friendly, from what I've heard lately. I tried it. It wouldn't
    handle Winmodems on both my computers, and wouldn't recognize my
    Epson scanner on my main computer. Still, you might want to try it.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Al Smith wrote:

    > Unless Linux can be made to recognize and work with common
    > hardware, it isn't going anywhere on the desktop, no matter what
    > Linux apologists say. Try Ubuntu. It seems to be the most
    > friendly, from what I've heard lately. I tried it. It wouldn't
    > handle Winmodems on both my computers, and wouldn't recognize my
    > Epson scanner on my main computer. Still, you might want to try it.

    Kubuntu would be a better choice for a first time Linux user, as it's Ubuntu
    based on KDE rather than Gnome. However, once installed, you can install
    either KDE or Gnome to the other and it's all the same.

    I have a big problem with Ubuntu/Kubuntu: When logged in as user, and you
    need to do something administrative, it asks for your _user_ password - not
    your _root_ password. This seems to almost be as wide open as Windows...
    Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't like it at all. I'm sure there's a way to
    change it, but I just didn't bother to dig that deep.

    Ubuntu/Kubuntu is based on Debian Sid, which Knoppix/Gnoppix and Mepis are
    too. Though Kubuntu was more visually pleasing, and it got my onboard Via
    sound to work (minor problem), I thought Mepis was a better distro. They
    all have their shortcomings...

    The Linux community is predicting that based on growth rates and projecting
    that at a certain marketshare, OEM's will be forced to come onboard and
    support their hardware. At that point, the issue of working or not on your
    computer should become moot.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ruel Smith wrote:
    > ropeyarn@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >>In the interests of (1) security (2) leveraging open source (3) breaking
    >>away from Windows, I've spent lots of 2005 trying various distros of
    >>Linux on multiple machines. In short:
    >>
    >>Three different distros could not connect with the Internet via a
    >>Wireless USB adapter (this was on a 5-year old Pentium III which still
    >>runs great, which I use a test platform for experiments such as this).
    >>The same three distros could not run a PCI sound card (even though they
    >>were able to handle audio tasks via mobo integrated sound).
    >
    >
    > Wireless connectivity is in the 2.6.11 kernel. You have to be patient with
    > Linux because Linksys, Netgear, and others are simply not developing any
    > drivers for their hardware for Linux. Therefore, it's developed by the OSS
    > community without any knowledge of how the things work from the
    > manufacturers. Windows has an advantage of having so much marketshare that
    > it gets the OEM drivers to make it all work.
    >

    Isn't that the point?

    Linux is like a new car that is small, fast, handles super, and almost
    free. However, they haven't padded the seats in it yet and no one makes
    tires for it yet. If you never wear out the OEM tires and bring your own
    seat cushion, it's fine. However, you wouldn't get very many people to
    get on board.

    Mac OS X is like a luxury sports car with almost everything you need.
    (The salesman swears it IS everything you need!) There are no options.
    You can get replacement parts for everything, but there is only one
    choice for every part. There is no customizing, upgrading, or
    personalization. You had better like buying that one brand of gas and
    those unique set of tires. If you do, it's great. Besides other owners
    will love you death as part of the club.

    Windows is like all the other cars. There is a lot of variety,
    variation, and not everything is perfect. However, you can get parts
    anywhere. Lots of people can fix it for you too. You can hotrod your
    car, make it super luxury, or strip it down for mileage. Most of the
    time modifications will work very well. A few times it will screw things
    up. You can make it very secure and hard to steal. You can also leave it
    in a dark street with all the doors unlock and the windows down.

    If you take care of your Windows car, it will run well for you for many
    years. Then you can do just about anything you want to do. There is a
    reason these kind of cars sell very well.

    Clyde - no longer driving Linux and OS X cars
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ruel Smith wrote:

    > ropeyarn@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >>This is the problem with Linux. I have actual work to do...and can't do
    >>it without a printer and wireless Internet access. I can piddle around
    >>with innards of an OS that is supported only via the best guesses of
    >>kindly geeks, or I can stick with Windows, which simply works. My SO was
    >>certainly delighted when I hauled out 100 feet of CAT 5 cable to see if
    >>Suse would work with wired ethernet..which it did:-)
    >
    >
    > Like I said, SuSE 9.3 should have the new kernel with wireless connectivity.
    > The new Mandrake, 2005LE, has the 2.6.10 kernel, but I'm willing to bet
    > that it backported the wireless stuff.
    >
    > You might try and install the newest version of SuSE and maybe get the
    > wireless going.
    >
    > Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering so
    > much is incredibly fun. Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
    > Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff. :o)

    Yes we do. That's why I have a Linux toy boxes and a Windows work boxes.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    David Maynard wrote:

    >> Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering
    >> so much is incredibly fun. Those of us old enough to remember the joys of
    >> the Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff. :o)
    >
    > Yes we do. That's why I have a Linux toy boxes and a Windows work boxes.

    My Linux toy box just became my work box after awhile. I still do some
    things on Windows, but I'm doing less and less of it there. It was a
    gradual move. Hell, I might not even bother with Longhorn when it's
    released, installing Debian on my Windows computer instead...
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    ropeyarn@gmail.com writes:

    > This is the problem with Linux. I have actual work to do...and can't do
    > it without a printer and wireless Internet access. I can piddle around
    > with innards of an OS that is supported only via the best guesses of
    > kindly geeks, or I can stick with Windows, which simply works. My SO was
    > certainly delighted when I hauled out 100 feet of CAT 5 cable to see if
    > Suse would work with wired ethernet..which it did:-)

    Linux advocates, like so many geeks, don't understand that the vast
    majority of people with computers today just use the computers as tools
    to get things done ... they don't play with computers for the sake of
    playing with a computer. And when one has actual work to do, the only
    realistic choices for the desktop are Windows or a Mac (usually the
    former, since more applications are available for it).

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ruel Smith writes:

    > Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering so
    > much is incredibly fun.

    No, it's not. About 99.999% of all computer users today do not consider
    tinkering with computers to be "fun." Computers are a necessary evil; a
    tool to get things done, and nothing more. They are not a source of fun
    or entertainment.

    > Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
    > Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff.

    The other 99.999% of modern computer users don't.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    >> Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
    >> Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually enjoy this stuff.
    >
    > The other 99.999% of modern computer users don't.

    Funny... Recent estimates have Linux home use at approximately 13% of all
    users either using Linux full time, dual booting it, or slipping in a
    Knoppix type disk and running it...
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ruel Smith writes:

    > The Linux community is predicting that based on growth rates and projecting
    > that at a certain marketshare, OEM's will be forced to come onboard and
    > support their hardware.

    The Linux community doesn't necessarily have a realistic view of the
    computer world.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > Ruel Smith writes:

    >> The Linux community is predicting that based on growth rates
    >> and projecting that at a certain marketshare, OEM's will be
    >> forced to come onboard and support their hardware.
    >
    > The Linux community doesn't necessarily have a realistic view of
    > the computer world.

    That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
    users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
    mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
    of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
    operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.

    Someday, it might happen. But, barring unforeseen/bizarre
    technological innovation, that is going to mark an event of
    humongous global significance.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe wrote:

    >> The Linux community doesn't necessarily have a realistic view of
    >> the computer world.
    >
    > That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
    > users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
    > mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
    > of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
    > operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.
    >
    > Someday, it might happen. But, barring unforeseen/bizarre
    > technological innovation, that is going to mark an event of
    > humongous global significance.

    I think it _can_ happen, but then again, it seems as if Linux purists are
    trying to NOT make it happen. They run people off in newsgroups that are
    absolutely clueless, and they complain about distros like SuSE that
    actually try and make Linux better for the mainstream user.

    I also think SuSE (Novell) and Mandrake (now Mandriva) in particular, can do
    a lot more than they are doing to make it more paletteable to the average
    desktop user. Unfortunately, some tools still seem rather crude to many
    users that come from a more polished desktop user experience like Windows.
    It doesn't seem that they've made great strides in those particular areas
    in quite awhile. While there has been strides to get WiFi working, and
    other things, things like setting your monitor resolution and refresh rate
    are still crude. Sax2 seems to be the best so far, but even that seems
    rather crude. You'd think SuSE would have put some spit shine on it by now,
    but its been virtually the same for a very long time.

    I don't know if it's a money issue, or if the techno gurus that develop this
    stuff are actually clueless to what the average user needs, but it doesn't
    seem that anyone is actually making huge strides to make it more consumer
    friendly. If they really put some effort into it, it could change for the
    better in just one or two releases.

    I hope Linux does get better, and companies like Novell really make an
    effort to make it more consumer friendly. Let's face it, the way Novell is
    going get more enterprise desktop marketshare is to get the same OS on the
    home computers as well, making working at home and sharing files to/from
    home and office a lot more natural.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe writes:

    > That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
    > users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
    > mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
    > of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
    > operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.

    All versions of UNIX and clones (such as Linux) are essentially server
    operating systems, even if Apple managed to cobble together a desktop OS
    out of one of them (with tremendous coding effort).

    On the desktop, I recommend Windows. On servers, I recommend UNIX
    (FreeBSD, specifically). I don't recommend Linux for anything, since
    it's a wannabe desktop that is dramatically inferior to Windows, and the
    emphasis on desktop use makes it less than ideal for servers as well.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > John Doe writes:

    >> That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for
    >> desktop users (something about people living in the Third World
    >> comes to mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but
    >> a small part of the overall problem for normal desktop users.
    >> Linux is a server operating system, not for mainstream desktop
    >> users.
    >
    > All versions of UNIX and clones (such as Linux) are essentially
    > server operating systems, even if Apple managed to cobble
    > together a desktop OS out of one of them (with tremendous coding
    > effort). On the desktop, I recommend Windows. On servers, I
    > recommend UNIX (FreeBSD, specifically). I don't recommend Linux
    > for anything, since it's a wannabe desktop that is dramatically
    > inferior to Windows, and the emphasis on desktop use makes it
    > less than ideal for servers as well.

    You recommend server software?

    I don't think Linux has an emphasis on desktop use, except by
    Linux groupies.

    Take Red Hat Linux for example, the only profitable Linux Corp. so
    far. Here is its business summary. "Provides an enterprise
    operating system and related systems management services based on
    open source technology for the information technology
    infrastructure requirements of large enterprises."

    Linux is doing well as a server operating system. Linux does have
    the backing of many large companies. Linux also has the backing of
    many governments, including some of our (United States)
    governments. The greatest threat to Windows, in my estimation, is
    the banding together of other countries to thwart Microsoft's
    dominance of computing (Microsoft is a giant, powerful
    corporation). Linux appears to be the weapon of choice. Linux has
    been and continues to be gaining ground on other forms of UNIX.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > John Doe writes:
    >
    >> That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
    >> users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
    >> mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
    >> of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
    >> operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.
    >
    > All versions of UNIX and clones (such as Linux) are essentially server
    > operating systems, even if Apple managed to cobble together a desktop OS
    > out of one of them (with tremendous coding effort).
    >
    > On the desktop, I recommend Windows. On servers, I recommend UNIX
    > (FreeBSD, specifically). I don't recommend Linux for anything, since
    > it's a wannabe desktop that is dramatically inferior to Windows, and the
    > emphasis on desktop use makes it less than ideal for servers as well.

    You're full of it. Linux is just a kernel. The Gnu and OSS applications that
    actually turn it into an operating system make it dynamic. Linux is
    everything from an embedded OS on Palm-like devices, the underlying OS in
    the PlayStation 2, and many other embedded devices. Major companies are
    making great strides to shift to Linux both on the desktop and for their
    servers, in particular DaimlerChrysler. Average everyday Joes are using
    Linux on the desktop too, like myself. I'm probably a little more informed
    than the average computer user, but I'm not a techno geek. I just kept at
    it and learned something. It's not hard, just different.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ruel Smith wrote:
    >>Linux is like a new car that is small, fast, handles super, and almost
    >>free. However, they haven't padded the seats in it yet and no one makes
    >>tires for it yet. If you never wear out the OEM tires and bring your own
    >>seat cushion, it's fine. However, you wouldn't get very many people to
    >>get on board.
    >
    >
    > Linux is like a kit car. You can get one that needs complete assembly
    > (Gentoo), one that comes with a rolling chassis but still needs some work
    > from the buyer to get roadworthy (Debian), or a turnkey one the will run
    > great, provided you stick the right key in (SuSE, Mandrake). You can
    > install your own engine (custom kernel) and really soup it up or provide it
    > with a custom built engine (prepackaged custom kernel), provided you have
    > the muster to do it. You can even get a rental (Knoppix)...
    >
    >

    The market for kit cars has always been very small, but enthusiastic. It
    is right for a handful of people, but not even close for most. Have fun!

    Clyde
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ruel Smith wrote:
    > ropeyarn@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >>This is the problem with Linux. I have actual work to do...and can't do
    >>it without a printer and wireless Internet access. I can piddle around
    >>with innards of an OS that is supported only via the best guesses of
    >>kindly geeks, or I can stick with Windows, which simply works. My SO was
    >>certainly delighted when I hauled out 100 feet of CAT 5 cable to see if
    >>Suse would work with wired ethernet..which it did:-)
    >
    >
    > Like I said, SuSE 9.3 should have the new kernel with wireless connectivity.
    > The new Mandrake, 2005LE, has the 2.6.10 kernel, but I'm willing to bet
    > that it backported the wireless stuff.
    >
    > You might try and install the newest version of SuSE and maybe get the
    > wireless going.
    >
    > Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering so
    > much is incredibly fun. Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
    > Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff. :o)


    Never adopted any early Apple products (to pricey). But was a prowd
    owner of a Commodore 64.

    I'm still relatively amazed at the richness of a full color display..and
    while I have my own beefs with MS (and particularly with some of their
    marketing to technically uninformed customers), I have grown fond of
    bringing a printer/camera/scanner/wireless USB ethernet adapter/you name
    it home and having it working within minutes.

    If Suse 9.2 had supported wireless Internet out of the box, there's a
    very high probability that the Windows partition on that machine would
    have disappeared within the week.

    www.wlinux-wlan.com has information that suggests if I am willing to
    back down to 802.11b, there is some potential for support of a wireless
    USB adapter. All I have to do is follow the instructions as presented
    in 13 --count 'em 13-- pages of instructions.


    Of course, without Internet connectivity, the Suse box is undeniably the
    most secure machine in my house:-)
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    John Doe writes:

    > You recommend server software?

    If a server is what someone wants, yes.

    > I don't think Linux has an emphasis on desktop use, except by
    > Linux groupies.

    Almost all users of Linux are Linux groupies. The entire Linux movement
    is driven by them. People who aren't groupies and just want servers
    knew about UNIX long before Linux came along, and versions of UNIX that
    make superior servers have existed for years.

    > Take Red Hat Linux for example, the only profitable Linux Corp. so
    > far.

    Gee, and I thought Linux was supposed to be _free_.

    > Here is its business summary. "Provides an enterprise
    > operating system and related systems management services based on
    > open source technology for the information technology
    > infrastructure requirements of large enterprises."

    What would you expect it to say?

    > Linux is doing well as a server operating system. Linux does have
    > the backing of many large companies. Linux also has the backing of
    > many governments, including some of our (United States)
    > governments. The greatest threat to Windows, in my estimation, is
    > the banding together of other countries to thwart Microsoft's
    > dominance of computing (Microsoft is a giant, powerful
    > corporation). Linux appears to be the weapon of choice. Linux has
    > been and continues to be gaining ground on other forms of UNIX.

    Linux is technically inferior to most flavors of UNIX; it advances only
    because of some of the same hype that originally caused Windows to
    advance.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  49. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    >> I don't think Linux has an emphasis on desktop use, except by
    >> Linux groupies.

    Mandrake, now Mandriva, has a desktop emphasis. It has some ways to go, but
    it's pretty good. Hell, you can insert a Knoppix CD and boot it and be up
    and running in minutes. And it's not hard to use, just different.

    > Almost all users of Linux are Linux groupies. The entire Linux movement
    > is driven by them. People who aren't groupies and just want servers
    > knew about UNIX long before Linux came along, and versions of UNIX that
    > make superior servers have existed for years.

    Nope. I tried using Linux based on all the buzz about it back in 1998. I
    struggled with it dearly. It was very crude back then. I've slowly found
    out more and more about it.

    Let's face it, the first time you sat down to a computer, did you have a
    clue? Using a completely different OS is like sitting down to a computer
    for the first time all over again. What you think you already know about
    them doesn't apply at all.

    >> Take Red Hat Linux for example, the only profitable Linux Corp. so
    >> far.
    >
    > Gee, and I thought Linux was supposed to be _free_.

    First of all, though Red Hat is probably the MOST profitable, I believe SuSE
    was profitable as well.

    Most distros are completely free. Debian, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mepis, Knoppix,
    Gnoppix, Slackware, Gentoo, and others are completely donation funded.
    Distros like SuSE and Mandrake have commercial versions and they are
    somewhat of an illusion. What you're paying for is the the non-free
    software included, the printed manuals, disks, installation support, etc..
    They are not permitted to charge you a single dime for any of the GPL'd
    software. They can only charge you their costs for distribution of it. Now,
    the printed manuals, etc. are another story. However, both SuSE and
    Mandrake have free downloadable versions on their FTP sites. Red Hat even
    offers Fedora for free.

    However, GPL does not restrict anyone from charging you anything. It's free
    as in freedom, not as in beer... It is copyrighted software, afterall.

    >> Linux is doing well as a server operating system. Linux does have
    >> the backing of many large companies. Linux also has the backing of
    >> many governments, including some of our (United States)
    >> governments. The greatest threat to Windows, in my estimation, is
    >> the banding together of other countries to thwart Microsoft's
    >> dominance of computing (Microsoft is a giant, powerful
    >> corporation). Linux appears to be the weapon of choice. Linux has
    >> been and continues to be gaining ground on other forms of UNIX.
    >
    > Linux is technically inferior to most flavors of UNIX; it advances only
    > because of some of the same hype that originally caused Windows to
    > advance.

    Linux has its strengths and weaknesses. Unix flavors such as FreeBSD would
    not be as good as they are without the Linux movement. Much of the software
    it uses came from the Linux community, ported to BSD Unix.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt OEM Windows XP Systems Product