Windows Genuine Advantage Notification Starts This Week

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Odd, I'd be willing to bet that I can easily come up with 10 things that I can do in Linux that you can't do in Windows.

probably. i was annoyed with something else when i posted that. however for 90% of the population linux is not an option. sorry, but it's the truth. most days i don't think windows is an option either, because they are just too damn stupid.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: jjones
So, how long you think it will take for someone to hack this and make it yet another futile effort on the part of MS? I don't blame MS for doing more and more things like this, but it really won't affect the users of a pirated OS; they just won't update until a hack comes out, which likely won't be long.

then something else will come out and more bitching whining and moaning will ensue.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: doornail

Originally posted by: Seeruk
The point he was making is that there is stuff that you can do on Linux that you cant do with Windows.

To be accurate, he was replying to someone else's claim that Linux/BSD has less than 1/10th of the functionality of Windows. You neglected to correct that pro-Windows FUD for some reason.

Nether OS is a drop-in replacement for the other but Linux is more flexible and can address a wider range of computing challenges. Not a selling point to the AoL crowd, I know. Windows is simpler to use -- especially since out-of-the box there's very little there.

i should have put "for windows users" in there somehwere. for windows users linux doesn't have 1/10th the usability. that and i'm tired of people just randomly dropping into windows threads and posting links to linux distros. even tho i'm sure things have advanced from the last time i had linux installed on a pc i'm still guessing for your average user it would be damn near useless unless they had someone to hold their hand 24/7.

what an ubergeek can do with linux and what my dad can do with linux are two completely different things.

 

[networkman]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Odd, I'd be willing to bet that I can easily come up with 10 things that I can do in Linux that you can't do in Windows.

probably. i was annoyed with something else when i posted that. however for 90% of the population linux is not an option. sorry, but it's the truth. most days i don't think windows is an option either, because they are just too damn stupid.

Amen! Preach it brother!

 

[Seeruk]

Originally posted by: hardcandy2
1. I can view a NTFS filesystem and even write to it if I so desire from a Linux installation. I cannot view or write to a linux partition.from a WinXP installation

Yes you can

2. I can have 10 people each with their own console and their own keyboard and mice on the same machine in Linux. I cannot do this in WinXP.

Yes You can

3. I can add a driver to a running kernel in Linux, and keep it going. I have to stop and reboot in Windows.

Woah is me... 2 minutes out of my life every 6 months

4. I can view Word documents from several word processors available in Linux. I cannot view open office docs from Word.

Word is an application not an operating system. You can install open office on Windows Just as you can in Linux

5. I can write code to supplement or improve a program in Linux. I am not legally allowed to alter the program code in Windows.

Program code and windows??? What are you on about? No you cant edit windows code but you can write an app to do anything just as you can in Linux

6. I can run a linux distro off a usb key or a floppy in Linux. How big is WinXP again?

You can do exactly the same with XP (Nlite'n yourself -bad pun I know )

7. I can update and add security patches in Linux and keep working. Again, I have to reboot WinXP.

Maybe one in 10 updates require a reboot, usally because they are kernel level.... guess what you need to do in linux when patching the kernel??? thats right REBOOT

8. I can choose to use more than one filesystem for a Linux installation (/boot is ext2, / is reiserfs, /home is ext3, etc). WinXP only allows either NTFS OR FAT32, not both.

Flat out wrong

9. I can run Linux with a GUI or without a GUI. WinXP does not give me that choice.

Ummmm thats usability for you

10. I can smile at the folks who rundown Linux because they do not know what they are talking about. With WinXP I have to agree with them because I am ignorant as well.

Yeah Zealots do that

Nice try but no cigar

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: hardcandy2
1. I can view a NTFS filesystem and even write to it if I so desire from a Linux installation. I cannot view or write to a linux partition.from a WinXP installation

if you're running windows xp why would you want to do this?

2. I can have 10 people each with their own console and their own keyboard and mice on the same machine in Linux. I cannot do this in WinXP.

this one has merit if the 10 people can do something productive like use word or excel without having to call tech support 20 times a day.

3. I can add a driver to a running kernel in Linux, and keep it going. I have to stop and reboot in Windows.

true. thankfully you shouldn't need to install new drivers very often. can you do it in a gui tho?

4. I can view Word documents from several word processors available in Linux. I cannot view open office docs from Word.

so proprietary formats are a good thing...? when you are the standard you don't have to open other types of docs.

5. I can write code to supplement or improve a program in Linux. I am not legally allowed to alter the program code in Windows.

true. and i imagine it's much more fun to do in linux. not sure why you'd want to hack up xp tho.

6. I can run a linux distro off a usb key or a floppy in Linux. How big is WinXP again?

too big to run off a usb key for sure. can you boot into a gui and play a game or run a word processor from a floppy? (asking because i don't know. the only floppy linux distro i've seen was for running a router i think)

7. I can update and add security patches in Linux and keep working. Again, I have to reboot WinXP.

not always, but you're right. when you have to alter files in use you have to reboot. i'm sure there is at least one situation in linux where you'd have to reboot the machine after updating software.

8. I can choose to use more than one filesystem for a Linux installation (/boot is ext2, / is reiserfs, /home is ext3, etc). WinXP only allows either NTFS OR FAT32, not both.

okay again, why would you WANT to do this in xp? what benefit? not sure why you'd want to use fat32 at all.

9. I can run Linux with a GUI or without a GUI. WinXP does not give me that choice.

you could always run windows 3.11 if you want that kind of operating system. we've advanced past that tho. maybe even windows 95/98 if you're crafty.

10. I can smile at the folks who rundown Linux because they do not know what they are talking about. With WinXP I have to agree with them because I am ignorant as well.

i'm not trying to rundown linux, because it definately has a place. i'm not completely ignorant, i have been a linux user in the past but unfortuately it doesn't fit what i use my windows pc for (which is mostly gaming these days, most other things i do on my powerbook in os x). but coming into a windows xp activation thread and posting linux links is pretty much trolling. i'm sure you'd feel the same way if someone came into every linux "how do i?" or "this isn't working" thread and posted links to microsoft.com. i realize you like linux, i realize you don't like windows. that's fine. however some people feel it's some kind of pseudo religion that they have to preach everywhere.

edit: i'm not touching drag's response because it's much better and i won't do most of the things he listed ever on a computer. so i guess he pwns me.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Seeruk

Originally posted by: hardcandy2
7. I can update and add security patches in Linux and keep working. Again, I have to reboot WinXP.

Maybe one in 10 updates require a reboot, usally because they are kernel level.... guess what you need to do in linux when patching the kernel??? thats right REBOOT

these days most updates seem to require you to reboot, so i'm not sure 1 in 10 is right. i don't mind giving up those 30 seconds of my life tho.

 

[Nothinman]

Frankly I call FUD

FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, I'm not sure how that applies to drag's post =)

if you're running windows xp why would you want to do this?

People with dualboot systems want to do this all of the time.

this one has merit if the 10 people can do something productive like use word or excel without having to call tech support 20 times a day.

Strawman, if all they're doing is word processing and spreadsheets I doubt they'll have to call support at all as long as the box was setup correctly initially.

true. thankfully you shouldn't need to install new drivers very often. can you do it in a gui tho?

The GUI argument is a strawman, the original post mentioned nothing about requiring a GUI.

so proprietary formats are a good thing...? when you are the standard you don't have to open other types of docs.

MS is the one with the proprietary formats, just because they're still the defacto standard doesn't make them a good thing. And O docs are an official standard, it's MS who hasn't supported them yet.

true. and i imagine it's much more fun to do in linux. not sure why you'd want to hack up xp tho.

Just because you don't know why someone would want to do it doesn't mean someone doesn't want to, so the point is perfectly valid.

too big to run off a usb key for sure. can you boot into a gui and play a game or run a word processor from a floppy? (asking because i don't know. the only floppy linux distro i've seen was for running a router i think)

Sure, you can mount anything via NFS and run it from there if you want.

not always, but you're right. when you have to alter files in use you have to reboot. i'm sure there is at least one situation in linux where you'd have to reboot the machine after updating software.

Only the kernel and only if you need the new kernel to be running, you can replace any file on the filesystem at runtime. There are some core things that are recommended that you reboot for, like glibc, but it's not really necessary.

okay again, why would you WANT to do this in xp? what benefit? not sure why you'd want to use fat32 at all.

Because different filesystems do different things better. And again, just because you don't see a benefit for it doesn't mean it's an invalid point.

you could always run windows 3.11 if you want that kind of operating system. we've advanced past that tho. maybe even windows 95/98 if you're crafty.

If anything Vista is coming back to that point, isn't MS moving the UI back into userspace?

As for my list, I had to shorten it a bit because of the extra posts this morning:

1) Boot to a CLI-only system.

This is useful if you have to fix/debug the GUI or if you just want to save some resources.

2) Run custom scripts when ACPI events fire
3) Load/unload kernel modules at runtime

These two go hand in hand because there's still issues with some drivers ACPI support, so I can remove them before I hibernate and reload them on resume. On XP if you have a driver that doesn't do proper PM you're scewed.

3) Update all of my software in a single place. Yes, it's technically possible in Windows but it'll never happen.
4) Encrypted swap

For the truly paranoid, you don't want all of those cached passwords saved to disk in your swap file in plain text.

5) Setup seperate mounted filesystems at installation time.

Sure it's possible to move Documents and Settings after the installation or with an installation answer file, but both are a PITA.

6) Remove all of the web browsers from my system.

Even if you tell the Windows installer to remove IE you still have MSHTML and crap on the system, it's impossible to remove them and have a working system.

7) I can work around bad memory by telling Linux to ignore a certain range of addresses.

Not terribly useful, but still an impossibility on Windows.

8) I can choose from different block I/O schedulers and TCP congestion algorithms for different workloads.

Again not all that useful for most people but could make a huge difference in things like database servers and still impossible to do on Windows.

9) I can export a block device from one Linux box and mount it as if it was a local disk on another Linux box.

I'm not sure if this would be possible with iSCSI software on Windows or not.

10) I can install Linux on around two dozen different architectures.

Windows is stuck on i386, AMD64 and IA64 whereas Linux supports those plus around 20 more. Even more if you start counting sub architectures like all of the PPC variants, UML, Xen, etc.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: fisher
these days most updates seem to require you to reboot, so i'm not sure 1 in 10 is right. i don't mind giving up those 30 seconds of my life tho.

For some applications, those reboots are killers.

I had a couple of Unix servers at one of Motorola's semiconductor fabs. A 3rd-party vendor, whose software was being used to monitor and control some functions on manufacturing tools, decided to update their software. And that required a server reboot.

The vendor didn't ask if it was OK to reboot the server. It took down several important tools and cost, no doubt, mucho bucks to fix the mess.

 

[RebateMonger]

Microsoft Knowledge Base Article on Windows Genuine Advantage Notifications application.

 

[Nothinman]

The vendor didn't ask if it was OK to reboot the server. It took down several important tools and cost, no doubt, mucho bucks to fix the mess.

That's the fault of the vendor then, anyone with half a brain knows that you have to schedule downtime for important resources before installing any patch.

 

[hardcandy2]

To replace number 8 in my original list. I have not done this in reality.
With linux you can install an ATI card and a Nvidia card, and if you have 2 separate xorg.conf files, you can switch between the two video cards without rebooting.
Maybe not pratical in the real world but that was not a condition in the original statement.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: hardcandy2
To replace number 8 in my original list. I have not done this in reality.
With linux you can install an ATI card and a Nvidia card, and if you have 2 separate xorg.conf files, you can switch between the two video cards without rebooting.
Maybe not pratical in the real world but that was not a condition in the original statement.

I would have multiple layouts in my X.org configuration when I ran dual monitors.

I would have the default layout be dual screens, with the desktop stretched across both desktops. I'd log into that via the graphical login manager.

Then for full screen items such as games I don't like having the two monitor setup, so I had a second layout that ran on a single monitor.

So that way I'd be playing my game, hit ctrl-alt-f7 to browse the internet or change the song playing in the background or whatever with dual monitors, then hit ctrl-alt-F8 to get back into the game.

And before that I had a old 386 IBM thinkpad laptop running a DOS version. On that I had kermit installed and connected to my Linux desktop via a null modem serial cable using that. So basicly it was just a little ansi serial terminal for my desktop. From there I would control the cdrom player during games, and also launch applications on my desktop, monitor log files, check hardware, among other things. It was kinda neat running quake3 from it since all the quake terminal (the ~) would have it's output on the serial console, so I could read people comments and such after they dissapeared and things like that.

I also have a few live cdroms laying around that I play with. The XGL demo one from that Gentoo live-cd thingy, for instance. I have a Knoppix cdrom that I used to help recover my personal file server after a harddrive failure (no data loss, woot). It's nice to have a full featured KDE desktop to use as a recovery environment (it's nice to have browser to look up stuff and internet streaming music and such while working on a system) rather then just mucking around with dos utilities and such.

I'd have a very hard time doing any of that stuff with a Windows-only system.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: fisher
these days most updates seem to require you to reboot, so i'm not sure 1 in 10 is right. i don't mind giving up those 30 seconds of my life tho.

For some applications, those reboots are killers.

I had a couple of Unix servers at one of Motorola's semiconductor fabs. A 3rd-party vendor, whose software was being used to monitor and control some functions on manufacturing tools, decided to update their software. And that required a server reboot.

The vendor didn't ask if it was OK to reboot the server. It took down several important tools and cost, no doubt, mucho bucks to fix the mess.

anything i've written in this thread has to do with me, not with what a critical server is doing. just fyi. as i said above, there are places for linux but that doesn't mean it's for everyone.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Frankly I call FUD

FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, I'm not sure how that applies to drag's post =)

this has nothing to do with me as far as i know.

if you're running windows xp why would you want to do this?

People with dualboot systems want to do this all of the time.

gotcha. so hardcandy2 was incorrect in saying that you can't read or write to a linux partition from winxp? where are you correcting him? right.

this one has merit if the 10 people can do something productive like use word or excel without having to call tech support 20 times a day.

Strawman, if all they're doing is word processing and spreadsheets I doubt they'll have to call support at all as long as the box was setup correctly initially.

no idea who strawman is, i'll just assume you're confused as to who you are quoting. you obviously underestimate people's abilities to screw things up, but you do have a point. that's how it SHOULD work.

true. thankfully you shouldn't need to install new drivers very often. can you do it in a gui tho?

The GUI argument is a strawman, the original post mentioned nothing about requiring a GUI.

strawman again? okay. xp has a gui. if i'm working in word on xp and i have to reboot i have to close word. if i'm working in word on linux and i have to exit the gui i have to close word. either way i'm stopping what i'm doing, even if i'm not technically rebooting.

that was an honest question btw, i wanted to know if you could do that without exiting the gui, but apparently you'd rather prove how superior your are.

so proprietary formats are a good thing...? when you are the standard you don't have to open other types of docs.

MS is the one with the proprietary formats, just because they're still the defacto standard doesn't make them a good thing. And O docs are an official standard, it's MS who hasn't supported them yet.

for whom is O a standard? certainly not anyone i've come across in the working world. once again, honest question. i'd like to know because i have yet to have anyone say "i need that in O format!"

true. and i imagine it's much more fun to do in linux. not sure why you'd want to hack up xp tho.

Just because you don't know why someone would want to do it doesn't mean someone doesn't want to, so the point is perfectly valid.

okay... i was agreeing with him on this one. i'm not a programmer but from the C++ course i took i couldn't even imagine trying to change something in XP from the sheer amount of code there must be. stop trying to act superior and relax a bit.

too big to run off a usb key for sure. can you boot into a gui and play a game or run a word processor from a floppy? (asking because i don't know. the only floppy linux distro i've seen was for running a router i think)

Sure, you can mount anything via NFS and run it from there if you want.

fair enough.

not always, but you're right. when you have to alter files in use you have to reboot. i'm sure there is at least one situation in linux where you'd have to reboot the machine after updating software.

Only the kernel and only if you need the new kernel to be running, you can replace any file on the filesystem at runtime. There are some core things that are recommended that you reboot for, like glibc, but it's not really necessary.

so he wasn't completely right when he made it sound like you never have to reboot linux for any updates but you do whenever you update xp... which is all i was trying to point out.

okay again, why would you WANT to do this in xp? what benefit? not sure why you'd want to use fat32 at all.

Because different filesystems do different things better. And again, just because you don't see a benefit for it doesn't mean it's an invalid point.

i'd like to see hardcandy2 answer these questions instead of you answering for him personally. since he made the list he should be able to back it up. in this case i think it does make it an invalid point because of the way he phrased the question. he's talking about mixing ntfs and fat32 partitions on a single xp installation. i think it's perfectly valid to ask what benefits and reasons you'd want to do this. i wasn't even given the chance to format fat32 when i installed xp, it was ntfs quick or normal.

you could always run windows 3.11 if you want that kind of operating system. we've advanced past that tho. maybe even windows 95/98 if you're crafty.

If anything Vista is coming back to that point, isn't MS moving the UI back into userspace?

i have no idea, vista isn't out yet and i'm not really that interested in it. the only thing i use windows for these days is gaming. somehow i don't see you having the option to boot your vista machine to an ms-dos prompt. windows is a gui driven OS, so it would make sense that you can't run it without one. saying that you can run linux without a gui isn't really comparing apples to apples.

.....

nice list.

.....

for someone who has been here so long your quoting is weak. i didn't even realize you were talking to me (who is strawman?) until i went back and looked through each post to see where you'd pulled things from.

edit: i love wikipedia. i see what strawman is now. funny stuff.

edit 2: where is that "who has the worst fanboys" thread?!? i want to change my answer!!

 

[g8wayrebel]

One caviat. MS also said something to the effect that OEM versions will not renew if there are any major component changes.
A new motherboard (not a replacement ) "is a new computer" in the eyes of MS and will require the purchase of a new OS.
This will supposedly apply from the first release of VISTA as well.
They are also considering validation assurance for ANY updating of VISTA. That means you will not be able to receive updates of any kind without a valid certificate and license each time it is necesary with VISTA.
There is a hack currently for XP (validator) , but it plays hell with your active X controls , especially for auto updating controls such as antivirus and others using backweb solutions , and is not for amatures or the impatient or faint of heart. If you can't dig into the registry and fix it , it is a real doozy.
That is a major break from the update support they have had since 98.

 

[erikistired]

i've always had to call up and get an auth code when i've changed the motherboard on my oem xp box. is this something new concerning that?

btw, hacking this is going to lead to whatever is next. if people would leave it alone and stop supporting the theft of the OS things like this wouldn't come along.

i wonder what is going to be next and at what point they start requiring your OS to match your DNA or you can't log into windows.

 

[Seeruk]

Just a little update here... did somebody say something earlier about no rebooting with Linux? I'm currently 7 hours into a Ubuntu install (YES SEVEN!) and so far I have rebooted 6 times and downloaded > 800mb of updates .... yes nearly a gig for a 7/8 month old distro :/

 

[Nothinman]

gotcha. so hardcandy2 was incorrect in saying that you can't read or write to a linux partition from winxp? where are you correcting him? right.

You can do it with ext2, not sure about ext3 or any of the other filesystems that Linux supports natively. I personally use XFS on all of my systems so it wouldn't work for me.

no idea who strawman is, i'll just assume you're confused as to who you are quoting. you obviously underestimate people's abilities to screw things up, but you do have a point. that's how it SHOULD work.

No, I worked on the helpdesk for many years so I know how bad people can screw things up. But on that level both cases are equal. The fact still remains that you can setup a Linux box with 10 physical keyboards, mice, monitors, etc and it'll work and the same thing is impossible on Windows. The incompetence of the people using those 10 devices is irrelevant.

that was an honest question btw, i wanted to know if you could do that without exiting the gui, but apparently you'd rather prove how superior your are.

I interpreted your original post as "is there a GUI tool to handle the addition/removal of kernel modules" not "Can I add/remove modules while X is running". I'm not sure about the answer of the former, but the latter is a definite yes. Obviously modules that X is using (like the nvidia driver) won't be removable while X is running, but anything not in use can be removed and anything new can be added while X is running.

for whom is O a standard? certainly not anyone i've come across in the working world. once again, honest question. i'd like to know because i have yet to have anyone say "i need that in O format!"

The Oasis format is an official standard (or is in the process of becoming one), MS documents are not. You do know the difference between an official and a defacto standard, right?

okay... i was agreeing with him on this one. i'm not a programmer but from the C++ course i took i couldn't even imagine trying to change something in XP from the sheer amount of code there must be. stop trying to act superior and relax a bit.

If the code is sufficiently modularized it shouldn't be too bad as long as you understand the area you're trying to change. But even that's irrelevant, the question wasn't whether it was easily doable just whether it was possible.

so he wasn't completely right when he made it sound like you never have to reboot linux for any updates but you do whenever you update xp... which is all i was trying to point out.

You only need ot reboot if you update the kernel and need the new kernel running immediately. And the only reason to update the kernel at all is for security fixes and remote exploits are rare so it's pretty safe to run with the old kernel until it's convenient to reboot. The fact that you can't replace open files and so many services have interdependencies that require a reboot to update one of them means you will be rebooting a Windows box much, much more often than any unix box.

i'd like to see hardcandy2 answer these questions instead of you answering for him personally. since he made the list he should be able to back it up. in this case i think it does make it an invalid point because of the way he phrased the question. he's talking about mixing ntfs and fat32 partitions on a single xp installation. i think it's perfectly valid to ask what benefits and reasons you'd want to do this. i wasn't even given the chance to format fat32 when i installed xp, it was ntfs quick or normal.

Because Linux can't write to NTFS? Because of that limitation most people default to setting up a FAT partition to share data between the two in a dualboot situation. It sucks, but it's the only good way right now. And you probably weren't allowed to use FAT because MS decided to not let you format FAT partitons >32G in XP, it's techincally possible but they added the restriction to discourage the use of FAT.

i have no idea, vista isn't out yet and i'm not really that interested in it. the only thing i use windows for these days is gaming. somehow i don't see you having the option to boot your vista machine to an ms-dos prompt. windows is a gui driven OS, so it would make sense that you can't run it without one. saying that you can run linux without a gui isn't really comparing apples to apples.

I could definitely see that, MS is attempting to take over unix/Linux many areas and most good unix admins don't want a GUI on their servers, it's just an extra thing to break and take up resources. They recently released RC1 of the Monad shell, a cmd replacement that is supposed to actually be powerful enough to use. Why would they develop that if they weren't interested in non-GUI-fying at least some of their suff?

And yes we're comparing apples to oranges, but that's part of the point. But it's beside the main point, the main point was to list things that can be done in Linux but not Windows and running without a GUI is one of them.

Just a little update here... did somebody say something earlier about no rebooting with Linux? I'm currently 7 hours into a Ubuntu install (YES SEVEN!) and so far I have rebooted 6 times and downloaded > 800mb of updates .... yes nearly a gig for a 7/8 month old distro :/

I haven't looked at all of the updates that Ubuntu has released but I would say that 1 of those reboots was necessary, if that. Or at the very least you could have installed all of the updates and then rebooted. And the amount of updates will be larger than what's provided by MS because a lot more software is included in Ubuntu.

 

[erikistired]

The Oasis format is an official standard (or is in the process of becoming one), MS documents are not. You do know the difference between an official and a defacto standard, right?

apparently not. by standard i guess i was referring to "what everyone uses and what people have demanded of me and/or my clients in the past and present." sorry.

i wish i'd never posted the blanket comment that linux was 1/10 as functional as windows or whatever it was. i do apologize, even if it was a reply to a thread hijack.

 

[Nothinman]

Yea, I'd say your post resulted in a much worse hijack =)

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Yea, I'd say your post resulted in a much worse hijack =)

hindsight 20/20 and all that.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Seeruk
Just a little update here... did somebody say something earlier about no rebooting with Linux? I'm currently 7 hours into a Ubuntu install (YES SEVEN!) and so far I have rebooted 6 times and downloaded > 800mb of updates .... yes nearly a gig for a 7/8 month old distro :/

And my brother just called, he has been trying to install XP Home on his HP for 3 days. I can do an XP Install in under 2-3, and Ubuntu in even less (one hour to get it installed and RT 3.4 running in a VM machine). I fail to understand why your difficutlies translate to "linux suxxors"

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Seeruk

2. I can have 10 people each with their own console and their own keyboard and mice on the same machine in Linux. I cannot do this in WinXP.

Yes You can

8. I can choose to use more than one filesystem for a Linux installation (/boot is ext2, / is reiserfs, /home is ext3, etc). WinXP only allows either NTFS OR FAT32, not both.

Flat out wrong

Nice try but no cigar

I would like to see the first thing backed up, especially considering there is no "thin client" windows (you have to have a host OS to do this....linux works great to boot and load a termina server session on a thin client, btw)

and while the second statement is incorrect (you CAN have NTFS and Fat32 in the same install) one point would be that with Linux you have a much larger choice of open standard file systems. XP=2 (and no s/w raid on install for XP that I know of)
Linux=5+, s/w raid, lvm, etc all during install.

 

[Addikt]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I doubt that Microsoft is really seeing any huge losses in profits from piracy of their operating system.

So? Stealing from the rich is still stealing.

I have a copy of windows XP that does not need online verification it's part of a mass order to those involved in the public education system, teachers, principals, secretaries, etc. How much do you want to bet that I'm going to get a warning for not using genuine hardware?

They're talking about genuine software, not hardware and if your license is good then you have nothing to worry about.

Let me just say it again. Thanks Microsoft. *starts slow clap*

If you don't like it, don't use their software.

when linux/bsd has 1/10 the functionality of windows you might have a chance.

Odd, I'd be willing to bet that I can easily come up with 10 things that I can do in Linux that you can't do in Windows.

My mistake, I did not mean genuine hardware, I DID mean software that was a typo. I don't think that needed to be pointed out I'm sure most could have gathered that's what I meant given the information contained in the first post. A feeble attempt at demeaning others to, prove what exactly, that you can point out the obvious? Something that has plagued these boards for a long time.

Stealing IS stealing though, I agree. That would be the technical aspect of it, I was not addressing the technicality in my post though, that was simply a lead-in to the actual point I was trying to make. This is not a very economical solution. If this move by Microsoft is going to have a negatiave effect on my usability then I do not have an ounce of pity. As a customer I do not wish to pay for hassles.

Second, not using their software is not an option, I don't believe that I really have to go into this since it has been an exhausted topic in these forums for ages. The fact is that Microsoft is basically a monopoly, there is no other operating systems out there that Windows really competes with, Windows is widely used whereas UNIX-based systems are not, that's a simple fact.

So let me reiterate my point. This is typical Microsoft, because a lot of people pirate their product they introduce a system to deal with these people without really considering the futility of their imposed solution. If anything this will be a nusiance to paying customers, and I am sure that a cracker will be able to create a fix for those who use an illegal copy of Windows in a matter of days. Like Nothinman said, if you don't like it, don't use their software. Well this would be great, if there were another operating system that fulfilled ALL my requirements, one of which would be using office related programs that have only been developed for Windows.