What happens when you get locked out of your XP system because of the stupid M$ activation?

[Psychoholic]

<< Better stability >>


I don't have stability problems now with W2K, how can it get any better???



<< more secure >>


With NTFS and good administration I'm covered here too. Any system has security holes, it's just a matter of closing them. I'll be willing to bet my boxes are as secure as anything offered by Linux.



<< dedicated up-to-the-minute software and hardware support >>


I think you're jumping the gun here. Linux has better hardware and software support??? Please. I haven't seen much dedication for third parties yet either. Maybe someday.



<< ease of use >>


Linux doesn't touch the ease of use from Windows systems either. Especially seeing as how my end users are already familar with Windows.



<< flexability, versatility >>


What about Windows isn't flexible or versitile???



<< and potential/desire to be better than it already is? >>


If I have no problems, how can it be better??? Oh I understand I can obtain downtime and retrain my end users which would cause a lack of productivity during that time. Is that what you're refereing to.

I'm sorry but your points are way off base with their validity.

 

[Psychoholic]

skace

Remember, crack is bad....mmmkay???

 

[skace]

<< If I have no problems, how can it be better??? >>



If you honestly believe this about Windows then there is no point arguing with you. I'd argue the other points but after reading this I am just going to end it.

 

[Psychoholic]

<< If you honestly believe this about Windows then there is no point arguing with you. I'd argue the other points but after reading this I am just going to end it. >>


Why is it so hard for you to believe I don't have any problems with W2K??? I'm not alone. What problems would you like me to have???

Go ahead and argue the other points, I'd love to hear what you have to say about them. I have trouble with the fact that you honestly believe some of your arguments, but you didn't see me wuss out, did you??? What was your argument about hardware and software support again.....????

 

[srvblues00]

bitch and moan bitch and moan - don't stop yet! please, keep beating a dead horse!

 

[Psychoholic]

<< bitch and moan bitch and moan - don't stop yet! please, keep beating a dead horse! >>


Would you at least like to tell us which dead horse you're referring to???

 

[ToBeMe]

Just a tidbit from todays news.......................

• Bucking a trend in the Linux business, Caldera International has begun charging for each copy of Linux customers use.
  Red Hat, SuSE and other companies that sell the Linux operating system have typically allowed users to install a copy of the software on as many computers as they want. Caldera, though, now requires users to pay for a &quot;certificate of license authority&quot; for each copy, said John Harker, vice president of server product management. Others are said to be considering the same.
  

.....................and so it starts!

 

[srvblues00]

<< Would you at least like to tell us which dead horse you're referring to??? >>



LMAO!!

 

[Psychoholic]

<< Bucking a trend in the Linux business, Caldera International has begun charging for each copy of Linux customers use.
Red Hat, SuSE and other companies that sell the Linux operating system have typically allowed users to install a copy of the software on as many computers as they want. Caldera, though, now requires users to pay for a &quot;certificate of license authority&quot; for each copy, said John Harker, vice president of server product management. Others are said to be considering the same. >>


lmaorotfpimp!!!!

Nice find ToBeMe. Wonder how much &quot;down with Caldera we'll be hearing&quot;??? Oh I forgot, that only applies to Microsoft.

srvblues00
I thought you'd enjoy that.

 

[Shadow07]

SKACE: I would love to hear what issues you would like us to have with Windows 2000. Come on. I've had more issues with Linux than I can count on my hands. To say that Linux has more hardware support is a frickin joke. I remember not that long ago, like 6 months or so, in order to install Linux on your machine, the MB had to be LINUX CERTIFIED. LINUX CERTIFIED?!? Come on. The problem I had was I had 256MB of RAM installed, and Linux only found 32MB. Also, LINUX wouldn't load the 3Com 905C-TXM drivers because it couldn't find the NIC. I reformatted the drive, installed Windows 2000 Pro and Windows 98SE, and had no problems (except with Windows 98SE crashing because I had 256MB of RAM ).

Come on, what problems do you want to discuss? Oh, you're probably going to start with the ATA-100 controllers, right? Microsoft released a hotfix for that after SP1, and just before SP2. Linux didn't have any drivers for it before Windows 2000/9x/ME.

 

[skace]

I originally stated Linux has more potential. Then psych stated he doesn't have any problems and how could it possibly be better? After which I said I would stop arguing.

Now some of you have misread that and thought I said Win2k has tons of issues or problems, but that was not what I innitialy stated. I was saying Linux had more potential. When Psych stated &quot;how could it possibly be better&quot; I realized he thinks Win2k is perfect - with no room for improvement. If he believes that then his view is incredibly jaded and not worth arguing with. If you are curious of what issues any windows platform has - pay a visit to support.microsoft.com. Check out how many of their problems end in &quot;a permanent fix is being worked on&quot; and one never comes out.

When I said Linux has better software support it was because Linux applications have a very quick turn around time on problems. If the original author doesn't fix it - someone else does. As far as hardware goes - When I innitially installed redhat it didn't have drivers for my video card, but it allowed me to make my own by answering simple questions about my video card, such as: how much ram, what resolutions does it support, etc. I will agree with winmodems and other windows geared hardware, windows may have an edge on the hardware support. But I am one to point the duty of hardware support to the person who makes the hardware - not the OS. If my video card isn't supported in Linux - I let nVidia know that that is something I would appreciate. I don't bitch to the Linux community - even though they might be able to help. Although, hardware support in windows is really a moot point because the support you are praising isn't because of Microsoft but because of hardware companies designing their product to the most popular OS.

As for ease of use - I can make a linux box look just like windows... but more importantly I can make it more friendly to the end user of the machine than windows is. Granted to make it that way I have to know what I am doing - this works well in the Office enviroment, where you can make a standard build with an end result that is very user friendly but requiring OS knowledge to begin with. Linux will always lose in this category due to people getting ease of use confused with familiarity. Just because you are familiar with Windows doesn't mean it is easier to use.

Your comment on stability was lame. I have never witnessed a machine that was completely void of stability problems. A machine so perfect and stable it could run for 100 years without ever failing. Everything is limited by its stability - you just choose not to gauge yours and therefor pretend it is perfect.

NT Security can only stay up to par with Unix(And thus Linux) security to a certain point and even then it requires twice the support to maintain constant protection of viruses, trojans, and backdoors. Outlook alone is the black plague.

You call windows Flexible and Versatile? Wake me when you get that stripped down version of windows running off potatos (in reference to the famous linux web server powered strictly by potatoes - couldn't be done without OS flexibility and the ability to strip out everything but what was needed for the task). One of Linux's greatest benefits is its flexibility to make it fit the operation you want it to achieve - awesome for fitting it on outdated hardware or sculpting it to the service you want it to provide and nothing more.

 

[srvblues00]

Excellent reply, Skace... well said.

 

[imported_Phil]

&quot;I'll tell you how to fix it:

Step1: Format c:

Step2: Install another OS....preferably Linux&quot;

Gosh, wow, haven't heard <i>that</i> one before! Chortle.

Dopefiend

 

[Shadow07]

&quot;Although, hardware support in windows is really a moot point because the support you are praising isn't because of Microsoft but because of hardware companies designing their product to the most popular OS.

This is the first real solid statement you have made. But, yet you still contradict yourself. Take this in for a moment.

If you were a software programmer, which platform would you create an application for, Windows or Linux? Now, keep this in mind. The MAJORITY of all desktops are some sort of Windows 9x/nt build. Software manufacturers are out to make money. If you only want to put out free code, that is your problem. MOST, if not all, software manufacturers are out to make money. They would rather port a game, application of some sort, to the more popular OS out on the market. This is Windows, not MacOS or LINUX.

This also goes with your argument on &quot;there are more viruses, trojens, backdoors in Windows.&quot; Obviously there are more viruses. A hacker/script kiddie will want to hack into the most popular OS rather than some OS that is not. &quot;Ohhh. I just hacked into MacOS!&quot; &quot;So what.&quot;

Out of the box, with Windows 2000 with NTFS, it is very secure. Now, some administrators do not know how to configure NTFS permissions, nor do they know how to properly delegate permissions. (Psycho, does this ring a bell with HardwareAddicted?!? )

Obvisouly, with FAT32, there is NO file-level protection. The user needs to have some sort of virus protection, like Norton, and/or personal firewall, like NeoWatch or BlackICE.

I don't think that Psycho was stating that Windows 2000 is Perfect, but rather did not agree with you saying that there are numerous problems with Windows 2000 than Linux. That is not true. Like I have said before, I've used Windows 2000 ever since Beta 1. Yes, there were numerous issues with the Beta and RC1 and 2. With the RTM, I haven't experienced any major issues.

Please, don't get me wrong. I think Linux is good in some areas; small, non-expensive web server or router.

 

[skace]

Right, but they will continue to design their hardware for Windows until WE the users change our OS to something different - such as linux. So again, it becomes a big game of circle logic: You can sit there and say &quot;I won't buy it until I have better support&quot;. And the companies will continue to think &quot;I won't give better support until I see a greater demand&quot;. In the end the users have to make the first move, period.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< Right, but they will continue to design their hardware for Windows until WE the users change our OS to something different - such as linux. >>


Exactly! Problem is, it's VERY doubtful this will EVER happen! Why? Because the only ones pulling for it are those using Linux.............somewhere around 9% of all users!

Hell, many Corporations have already commited to XP such as Mastercard, Monsanto, Boeing......why? Because they are still using NT for the most part and are skipping over 2K for XP!

As for Homeusers.......as I have stated earlier, for the most part you can forget about them too! Why? Because most don't care at all what is on their system, they are used to Windows and won't put forth the effort to learn something new for a device the use &quot;occasionally&quot;, and finally they want compatability......yes, exactly the issue at hand, but, as stated, that won't change without a larger marketshare thus, as I've said repeatedly, Linux is destined to always be a &quot;niche&quot; OS!

As was stated earlier, at this point most software manufactures are in it for one reason.......to make money! They will stay with what's popular........and from the looks of it, Linux isn't too far from joining them!

 

[RubberDuckie]

This got rediculiously off topic....
Back to the subject at hand:
This may happen even if you have a device with bad contact(Say one or two cards don't seat correctly in their slots). I can imagine some smart viruses may take the advantage of that like what they did with flashable motherboards.

Is that yet another reason why you should use a pirated and hacked version of windowsXP than paying for it?

Well M$ mentions that only big changes in hardware (not software) might trigger a reactivation. But this shouldnt be a problem, because you have 7 days to activate. If your worried about people like me who change video cards like underwear (every 3 months or so ) it is still not a problem to M$. They are looking for activations on keys that happen very frequently...Say 1,000 times in a day. This would be an obvious bootleg Key that would be shut down. If you were to reformat your computer once a week and have to reactivate the key every week, M$ doesnt care about you and that will not be a problem. So long as you can get online within 7 days.

This would make a modem or internet connection a requirement for the XP OS

 

[skace]

10 dollars say 1,000 times a day is a nice big over-exageration(sp?). I wouldn't be suprised if I put it on 3 machines and it locked me. They are aiming to catch casual piracy - no one casualy pirates in quantities of 1000 and if they do it is by the internet with leaked/cracked ISO's which MS doesn't plan to stop.

 

[murdock2525]

Get XP Corporate...no activation.....

 

[Psychoholic]

<< Now some of you have misread that and thought I said Win2k has tons of issues or problems, but that was not what I innitialy stated. I was saying Linux had more potential. When Psych stated &quot;how could it possibly be better&quot; I realized he thinks Win2k is perfect - with no room for improvement. If he believes that then his view is incredibly jaded and not worth arguing with. If you are curious of what issues any windows platform has - pay a visit to support.microsoft.com. Check out how many of their problems end in &quot;a permanent fix is being worked on&quot; and one never comes out. >>


Why is it so hard for you to believe, Skace, that I haven't had any problems with W2K??? The only time I've had any issues they were hardware/driver/software related. The worst problem I had was when I installed PCAnywhere on a W2K machine for the first time. I forgot to check at Symantec's website and found out there was an issue with their software that caused a serious problem upon rebooting. There was a patch for it.

Once I have the corrct drivers and hardware settings taken care of I have yet to see a BSOD. Linux, just like W2K, cannot handle poor drivers or incorrectly configured hardware. So again I ask, &quot;how could Linux possibly be better than what I'm experiancing now&quot;???



<< When I said Linux has better software support it was because Linux applications have a very quick turn around time on problems. >>


And W2K software suppoters don't have a quick turnaround??? With the exception of a UMAX scanner driver and Adaptec Easy CD-Creator, all my software and hardware was supported for both home and work before W2K was released to the public. That includes any specialized software I run.



<< As for ease of use - I can make a linux box look just like windows... but more importantly I can make it more friendly to the end user of the machine than windows is. >>


Give me an example of more friendly. Windows can be customized as well, just like Linux you have to know what you're doing. There's also quite a bit of freeware/shareware out the for both platforms to help in area so I think that's a moot point. However, Windows is more familar and requires less training of the employee. I can also bring in the average Joe off the street and there's a 99% chance they will not require training to know how to use Windows. That's a big plus to a company's bottom line.



<< Your comment on stability was lame. I have never witnessed a machine that was completely void of stability problems. A machine so perfect and stable it could run for 100 years without ever failing. Everything is limited by its stability - you just choose not to gauge yours and therefor pretend it is perfect. >>


What about my stability comment was lame. I never said it would run for 100 years, in case you were not aware of the fact W2K has only been out for 1.5 years, I just stated I don't have those issues. Once I get an installation ironed out I rarely have any problems. Under NT I would have an occasional problem 1 or 2 a year, nothing major. Since moving to W2K it's been smooth sailing. I will say that in addition to W2K being better than W2K, I am more knowledgable in W2K than NT.

Why is it so hard for you to believe someone might have no problems running with W2K??? Is it the fact you base your opinion of Windows on Win9x, or the fact you're not willing to believe that other OS'es besides Linux might actually be stable???



<< NT Security can only stay up to par with Unix(And thus Linux) security to a certain point and even then it requires twice the support to maintain constant protection of viruses, trojans, and backdoors. Outlook alone is the black plague. >>


NT Security is good, but you're right. Some viruses can get around it, just like some can defeat Linux. There are more viruses targeted at Windows due to the fact there are more Windows users. If Linux was king of the hill there would be less Windows viruses.

Outlook is an virus issue. However Outlook's shortcomings are not the fault of the OS and anyone with computer literate person should know how to handle e-mail so that Outlook does handle e-mail correctly. For those who are not computer-savvy there are patches that correct how Outlook handles potential problematic mail. Any administrator worth his salt will apply these patches to users who might be a threat to the integrity of the system.



<< You call windows Flexible and Versatile? Wake me when you get that stripped down version of windows running off potatos (in reference to the famous linux web server powered strictly by potatoes - couldn't be done without OS flexibility and the ability to strip out everything but what was needed for the task). One of Linux's greatest benefits is its flexibility to make it fit the operation you want it to achieve - awesome for fitting it on outdated hardware or sculpting it to the service you want it to provide and nothing more. >>


How do I respond to this??? Windows can be stripped down what cannot be done during the install can be accomplished by an experianced Administrator.

As for the potato deal, I guess Windows users just seem to live in areas where electricity is available.

 

[coolVariable]

<< As for ease of use - I can make a linux box look just like windows... but more importantly I can make it more friendly to the end user of the machine than windows is. >>



ROFL!!
How do you want to make it more user-friendly?? 95% or something are used to the Win GUI and comfortable with it!!

And please tell me:
What's the use of migrating to linux only to have the OS look just like Windows????
Maybe you should go see a doctor or a psychologist?

 

[synchronicity]

<< What's the use of migrating to linux only to have the OS look just like Windows???? >>



The technical term for this is &quot;facilitating migration&quot;.

I'll give you an example you can understand. Most people who have been smoking for some time find it difficult to give up their addiction by going &quot;cold turkey&quot;. They often resort to slowly lowering their smoking frequency, or using nicotine patches, or other similar solutions. They slowly &quot;migrate&quot; from a smoking lifestyle to a nonsmoking lifestyle.

Similarly, it is unreasonable to expect the majority of Windows users (of at least a couple of years experience) to feel instantly comofortable with a GUI that has substantially different looks, behaviors and dynamics. It makes much more sense to facilitate their migration by offering them a Windows-like Linux desktop to begin with, and allowing them to configure the desktop to their own taste as they become more comfortable and proficient in using Linux. Which happens within a matter of weeks in most cases.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< &quot;Although, hardware support in windows is really a moot point because the support you are praising isn't because of Microsoft but because of hardware companies designing their product to the most popular OS.

This is the first real solid statement you have made. But, yet you still contradict yourself. Take this in for a moment.

If you were a software programmer, which platform would you create an application for, Windows or Linux? Now, keep this in mind. The MAJORITY of all desktops are some sort of Windows 9x/nt build. Software manufacturers are out to make money. If you only want to put out free code, that is your problem. MOST, if not all, software manufacturers are out to make money. They would rather port a game, application of some sort, to the more popular OS out on the market. This is Windows, not MacOS or LINUX.

This also goes with your argument on &quot;there are more viruses, trojens, backdoors in Windows.&quot; Obviously there are more viruses. A hacker/script kiddie will want to hack into the most popular OS rather than some OS that is not. &quot;Ohhh. I just hacked into MacOS!&quot; &quot;So what.&quot;

Out of the box, with Windows 2000 with NTFS, it is very secure. Now, some administrators do not know how to configure NTFS permissions, nor do they know how to properly delegate permissions. (Psycho, does this ring a bell with HardwareAddicted?!? )

Obvisouly, with FAT32, there is NO file-level protection. The user needs to have some sort of virus protection, like Norton, and/or personal firewall, like NeoWatch or BlackICE.

I don't think that Psycho was stating that Windows 2000 is Perfect, but rather did not agree with you saying that there are numerous problems with Windows 2000 than Linux. That is not true. Like I have said before, I've used Windows 2000 ever since Beta 1. Yes, there were numerous issues with the Beta and RC1 and 2. With the RTM, I haven't experienced any major issues.

Please, don't get me wrong. I think Linux is good in some areas; small, non-expensive web server or router. >>



Or large webservers.

Or big name webserver.

We don't even want to go into which OSes are among netcraft.com's top 50 servers based on uptime, or the OSes being run on the largest ftp servers in the world...

 

[bot2600]

Yeah, but I believe the original arguement for linux was using it on the desktop. I have been playing with computers since 1984 with my little c=64 and have built and used PC's since 86. I loved dos and never even got windows 3.1 until 95 came out. I hated the idea of having this mouse thingy and not having my command line. Now that I am used to windows I really like it, but it took along time of opening a command prompt everytime I wanted to do something. I tried playing with linux recently and it just seems that most things are really alot harder to do in linux than in windows. Linux will be viable on the desktop when most apps that you want to install go click icon, click ok, click ok, click ok, app is installed, app is running. That is how the average user sees windows.click click click, everything went exactly as planned. You click an icon to install an RPM in linux and half the time you can't even figure out where it installed the damn files. I fought with mine for days just trying to figure out how the hell to play quake3. Then I said WTF and re-installed windows 2000. I have to give linux some credit though, last time I installed linux was in 1992 or so and the improvements are astounding. Installing the operating system was click click click, done which was just SWEET (Mandrake 8), and when things get a little more convienent AFTER the install, I will try it again. Anyhow, that is my daily rant, I am tired now, I am gonna go take a nap.

Bot

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Yeah, but I believe the original arguement for linux was using it on the desktop. I have been playing with computers since 1984 with my little c=64 and have built and used PC's since 86. I loved dos and never even got windows 3.1 until 95 came out. I hated the idea of having this mouse thingy and not having my command line. Now that I am used to windows I really like it, but it took along time of opening a command prompt everytime I wanted to do something. I tried playing with linux recently and it just seems that most things are really alot harder to do in linux than in windows. Linux will be viable on the desktop when most apps that you want to install go click icon, click ok, click ok, click ok, app is installed, app is running. That is how the average user sees windows.click click click, everything went exactly as planned. You click an icon to install an RPM in linux and half the time you can't even figure out where it installed the damn files. I fought with mine for days just trying to figure out how the hell to play quake3. Then I said WTF and re-installed windows 2000. I have to give linux some credit though, last time I installed linux was in 1992 or so and the improvements are astounding. Installing the operating system was click click click, done which was just SWEET (Mandrake 8), and when things get a little more convienent AFTER the install, I will try it again. Anyhow, that is my daily rant, I am tired now, I am gonna go take a nap.

Bot >>



I am not arguing that linux is ready for the desktop. Its not. Users are too stupid or lazy or (for Psychoholic) the company in question is too cheap to stop spending thousands+ on MS licenses. I just wanted to point out that the FUD about linux being good for only small silly webservers is false. Of course according to netcraft neither linux not MS are in the top 50 in the uptime category, but that is another debate.