Repair Install and bypassing Activation

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Would you prefer the legally correct phrase "convicted criminals"?
Convicted by courts in the United States and Europe. The convictions,
penalties, and the fact that they were upheld on appeal, are matters of
public record and transcend any accusation of name-calling.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

About the only thing that you've said that I agree with is that it
should be possible to buy a computer from any vendor (say Dell) without
any OS and save a few bucks less (I think that Dell pays about $40 for a
copy of Windows, but that's "marked up" somewhatg in the final product).
And in some cases you can do that, but I fully agree with you that it
should be possible in ALL -- 100.0% -- of the cases.

However, even if it was possible, the demand for such machines would be
miniscule, probably no more than 5% of the systems sold.

But there is no link between the ability or inability to do that and
product activation. Large OEMs (Dell, for example), have the ability to
offer their systems with Windows, either requiring or not requiring
activation (if it's not required, the version of Windows that they offer
will be locked to the Dell BIOS and won't run on other machines).

Microsoft does allow multiple installations per copy of some sofware
packages (Office, for example, depending on the EULA), but they have
never allowed that for any operating systems. NEVER, no exceptions, on
operating systems.


John Doue wrote:

> Barry Watzman wrote:
>
>> Microsoft's product activation is actually very, very good. They did
>> a good job of staying completely out of the way of almost all "normal"
>> users, and they are reasonable with users who have needs that go
>> beyond the "normal" user and who do need personal interaction. That's
>> not to say that there are not problems and issues, after all over
>> 100,000,000 people per year acquire just Windows XP alone (not to
>> mention other MS products).
>>
> Barry,
>
> It would be interesting to know how many individuals buy full licence XP
> as opposed to all those who unwillingly pay for an OEM version. How
> many times do you see someone buying an XP OS in a store like Best Buy,
> Compusa, etc, assuming XP is at all for sale there? That is very telling
> I believe.
>
> The rational of the activation device should allow MS to stop "forcing"
> (please do not argue manufacturers are not forced, let us look at the
> facts, not theory) OEM versions down the throat of any
> manufacturer/vendor of any significant size. Machines should be sold
> without OS, or at least a realistic option should be offered to buyers
> at the time they purchase the machine. This would be very easy to
> implement since the activation device seems to be real effective and a
> lot less treacherous than supposedly offering the option to be reimburse
> at install time. Who has ever seen this option pop-up when starting a
> new machine?
>
> Then, we will probably never get a thruthfull evaluation of the piracy
> phenomenon. Lots of users are aggravated by the activation thing - I for
> one, granted - ; the risks of having the activation trigger while you
> are on a business trip in a foreign country (or any inconvenient time)
> because you swapped hard drive, memory or anything else and having to go
> to the hassle of finding how to activate from there (OK, probably not
> very hard but a damn nuisance) is something no one looks forward to.
>
> I know for a fact - as you certainly do - that MVPs generally try to get
> MS to change its licencing policy to include the notion of house-hold
> and up to, say, five machines. This has fallen on dead hears so far.
>
>> Still, compared to the abortions that Symantec and Intuit (Turbo-Tax)
>> came up with, MS did it "right" ***IF*** you are going to do it.
>> (note, Intuit dropped PA for Turbo-Tax after using it for only one
>> disasterous year).
>
>
> I am so pleased those companies failed in their attempt; part of the
> failure cause was bad implementation but also customers ire.
>
>> That still leaves the matter of the "principle" of the thing, and of
>> firms that go "belly up". For example, 3-2-1 Studios used PA on all
>> of their "DVD XCopy" products. Now they are out of business, and
>> presumably anyone who has any of their products is out of luck. In
>> this instance, the courts declared the products themselves to be
>> illegal, so maybe that's kind of the intent, but if Symantec goes out
>> of business, it would leave a lot of people "high and dry" for
>> perfectly legal paid-for products.
>
>
> That is one more thing to take into consideration.
>
> The computing world would be a better place if Bill Gates had devoted
> its genius to innovative AND quality products marketed in a fair way. He
> might be some billion dollars "poorer" but he would enjoy more respect
> than the one he gets for being one of the wealthiest man on earth, this
> being just one measure of his personal value. But this is just my own
> rambling, quite OT.
>
> John
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

First, MS doesn't require a mfgr. to put it's OS on every computer sold,
but it does offer lower prices per unit if they do so.

Looking at this from the perspective of the computer maker, if MS gives
them a 10% discount for agreeing to put Windows on every single
computer, no exceptions, and the computer makers figures out that only
5% of customers would order a computer without an OS were it offered
both with and without an OS, guess what: It's cheaper for the laptop
maker and 95% of the customers for that vendor to offer only machines
with Windows. If you are one of the 5%, you may not like that outcome,
but should the Government really have the right to tell Microsoft that
they can't offer a 10% discount to a customer who agrees to sell Windows
with every computer?

There's also the matter of support and support costs. The 5% of
machines that would be sold without an OS are quite possibly going to
consume a disproportionately huge support resource as the people who
bought them try to install an OS on them themselves.

In the end, economically, it's just not worth it. It really, truly
isn't, not withstanding the fact that you'd like it to be, and that in
an ideal world it might be. But not in the real world.

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

> William J. Burlingame <wjburl@bs.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:35:33 -0800, mike <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote:
>>I don't understand your use of the term force. Who forced you to buy
>>XP?
>
>
> Presumably the manufacturer who refused to sell him the laptop without
> XP on it. And microsoft who refuse to sell the o/s's to the
> manufacturer unless they put them on every model, or whatever other
> illegal monopolistic agreement they make them sign!
>
>
>
>>it and more, but I just wanted newer technology. The computer I chose
>>didn't have an OS preloaded.
>
>
> Then it wasn't a laptop. I know of only one small manufacturer who will
> provide laptops without an o/s on. Goodness knows that every time I've
> ordered a laptop I've insisted they register my request that they
> supply it without an o/s and that I do not want and will not use or
> touch the one that comes with it.
>
> Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> writes:
> First, MS doesn't require a mfgr. to put it's OS on every computer
> sold, but it does offer lower prices per unit if they do so.

MS got its market dominance by applying illegal coercion to mfgrs and
others, i.e. MS got where it is by being crooks. That's not simply my
opinion; it's a fact determined by a federal court and upheld on
appeal two times. So I don't understand why you're surprised that
people think of Microsoft as being crooks. They think of Microsoft as
being crooks because that's exactly what Microsoft are.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Actually, DOT NET does NOT require XP.

But, give me a break. 98 was designed mostly in 1996, and XP mostly in
2000. It's 4 years newer. It has features and capabilities not present
in 98, and some of those will be required and used by an increasing
number of newer applications.

I really would like GM to give me a new 2005 car, or at least put all of
the improvements that they have made into my 1997 car, but I fully
understand that while I'd like it, expecting it is not very realistic.


mike wrote:

> William J. Burlingame wrote:
>
>
> I wanted to try something newer than visual basic 6. Dot net REQUIRES
> XP. You can argue that the dotnet environment is required, but it can
> be loaded on 98SE. >> I don't use Dot net.
>
> I bought a network appliance that plays mp3s wirelessly thru your
> stereo. The mp3 server software REQUIRES XP. Can't think of any reason
> for that. >> I sold the appliance.
>
> An increasing number of hardware and software products REQUIRE XP.
>
> Go down to Best Buy and try to buy a laptop computer that does not have
> XP on it. Call up Dell and try to get one. Yes, you can probably find
> a vendor, but it won't be mainstream.
>
> When I decided to upgrade from my old computer, no one put a gun
>
>> to my head. My old computer did everything it did when I first bought
>> it and more, but I just wanted newer technology.
>
>
> And you're certainly welcome to do that. Come back after you hear,
> "The XP activation number you have dialed is no longer in service;
> please check the listing" and tell us how happy you are.
>
> The computer I chose
>
>> didn't have an OS preloaded. I chose to use XP Pro. I've tried Red
>> Hat and prefer XP, but there are some who prefer a Linux based OS.
>
>
> You're allowed to choose whatever you want. I'd like that same option,
> and my choices would be different...if I had a choice.
>
> Linux is not ready for prime time. And it will NEVER be in it's present
> form. You have to be able to get drivers with new hardware you get from
> CompUSA. This won't happen until the OS is standardized. This won't
> happen until someone figgers out how to make a buck off it. Then it
> won't be free any more. Catch-22.
>
> I
>
>> chose not to buy a Mac and I understand that Mac's are preferred by
>> some users.
>
>
> Mac is a great choice if you're in the graphics art business. Otherwise
> Hw and Sw are limited and expensive. And why is it expensive, you ask?
> Because Apple has the monopoly on apple hw and sw.
>
> The point is that we all have a choice. If the
>
>> government gets into the act, they may be able to force the price
>> down,
>
>
> I'm not asking the government to force the price down. I'm asking the
> government to punish predators and restore the free market.
>
> but you would probably see the supply dry up and/or the
>
>> development of the product will be moved offshore. I just bought a
>> used laptop on Ebay for less than $200 (including shipping). It came
>> with an OS preloaded, but I knew that ahead of time and it was one of
>> the things I looked at when I decided to make a bid. I wasn't
>> "forced" to buy that computer. I have downloaded Open Office and it
>> didn't cost a dime.
>
>
> Open office looks like a fine product. If I didn't have a passel of
> Office 97 licenses, I's use it.
>
> I have MS Office Professional 2003 on my desktop
>
>> and it was my decision to do that - wasn't forced. I think the EULA
>> will permit me to put MS Office on both the desktop and the laptop,
>> but I haven't tried yet. My old desktop came with 98SE and I upgraded
>> that to XP Home.
>
>
> What was your motivation? What did XP give you that 98SE didn't?
> Isn't "home" a downgrade in networking capability?
> If it's just a matter of extra money, I can take that off your hands.
>
> I wasn't forced to do that either. I went to Costco
>
>> and bought it. The are many companies that sell systems they call
>> "barebones" and you load them up with what you want.
>
>
> Again, you're allowed to spend your money any way you want.
>
>
>>
>> I'm going to make some guesses about your situation. Unless your
>> retired
>
>
> Yes I am.
>
>> or independently wealthy,
>
>
>
> That too.
>
>> I would guess you sell your job
>
>
> So, you're still batting zero on your assumptions.
>
>> skills to someone at the most you can charge. Those who pay for your
>> services can either pay the price, find another person willing to
>> perform the service for less, or ask you to take less. You probably
>> think that they should be forced to pay what you think is "fair" and
>> you have already indicated that companies to be force to sell at
>> prices you have determined are "fair".
>
>
> You're missing the point. What I think is fair matters not. The free
> market determines price...except in the case of a monopoly that controls
> the price...and in this case wags the whole industry.
>
> From what I've read of your
>
>> posts, you are a Socialist.
>
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
> I'm not even sure the implications of the title.
>
> Let me say this:
> When the school bully slams you up against the wall and asks for your
> lunch money, what are you gonna do? He's providing a service at a price
> you're willing to pay. Or you can "choose" to NOT give him your lunch
> money. The teacher is also intimidated and looks the other way.
>
> Whatchagonnado?
>
> mike
> Barry is right.
>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
>> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth' to
>> send me a message.
>> Bill Burlingame
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> First, MS doesn't require a mfgr. to put it's OS on every computer sold,

First, that's not the case, as found by the courts. They did. The
question was whether that was illegal or not (and secondly, please stop
top posting! It is most rude to ignore my post like that and even ruder
to stub my poor ignored post on the end of yours as a sort of insult
saying "Look what I've ignored, ha ha").

(random quote, from the bbc, but you can find your own)

Microsoft had maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means
and had also attempted to monopolise the internet browser market.

..

However, he said that Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other
companies did not constitute unlawful exclusive dealing

..

and in my opinion he (judge jackson) was crazy not to.

> but it does offer lower prices per unit if they do so.

AFAIR (1) if they didn't agree to do so MS would charge them the full
whack for each unit sold and do it up front instead of afterwards, (2)
they offered the lower price and the pay-later only if the accounting
wæs per machine sold not "per machine with a MS o/s on". Those are
killers.

> Looking at this from the perspective of the computer maker, if MS gives
> them a 10% discount for agreeing to put Windows on every single

It's not a 10% discount - you know the difference.

> computer, no exceptions, and the computer makers figures out that only
> 5% of customers would order a computer without an OS were it offered
> both with and without an OS, guess what: It's cheaper for the laptop
> maker and 95% of the customers for that vendor to offer only machines
> with Windows. If you are one of the 5%, you may not like that outcome,
> but should the Government really have the right to tell Microsoft that
> they can't offer a 10% discount to a customer who agrees to sell Windows
> with every computer?

I don't expect to see a defense of such activity from you. Let me put
it this way - I offer to give all the greengrocers their apples from my
orchards at a 10% (your figure!) lower price if they give them away
"free" to every customer and include the cost instead in the overall
price they charge the customer, without disclosing it to them. And my
apples are already the most popular because they've been developed to
look good, no matter that they taste like paper.

I would have said that was deeply anticompetitive behaviour.

> There's also the matter of support and support costs. The 5% of
> machines that would be sold without an OS are quite possibly going to
> consume a disproportionately huge support resource as the people who
> bought them try to install an OS on them themselves.

Running support costs nothing (dell supply/ied server machines with
linux on, I know, because I bought one, and I ALWAYS buy no-name desktop
clones with no o/s on). The argument goes: supporting people who
install a supported o/s costs the same no matter which supported o/s
they use. You just change the flip-charts for the telephone help. And
if they don't use a supprted o/s then they don't get support. Your
argument must instead be based on capital costs, such as overheads for
housing, which is higher per 5% than it is per 95%.


> In the end, economically, it's just not worth it. It really, truly

I don't care - if I don't want an o/s on then they shouldn't insist on
selling me one. It doesn't cost them anything NOT to sell me an o/s
just as it doesn't cost them anything NOT to sell me a cd player. If I
don't want one I don't want one. And they get to choose if they want to
"support" me installing a cdrom on it by the service agreement they
sell me.

> isn't, not withstanding the fact that you'd like it to be, and that in
> an ideal world it might be. But not in the real world.

No - in the real world I almost never buy machines with an o/s on¸ and I
buy about 50 a year. The ones I can't get WITHOUT an o/s on are
portables, and I buy about 5 of those. I object to that.

Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Quit your bottom posting, it's more convenient to read the most recent
post at the top of the message. "Free" is not the same as includes in
the price. Auto manufacturers do not give away an engine with a car,
but it's included with the price. I may like the styling of a
particular car, but the dealer won't sell it to me without an engine
so I can put in a crate engine. Successful corporations sell to meet
the demands of most customers. If they don't, they fail. IBM tried
to push OS/2 and even though they were a larger company (perhaps they
still are - I haven't check lately) and they didn't succeed.

Bill Gates is rich because he had a better idea, he didn't sit around
and bitch about there being no software for the then new
microprocessor systems being sold in the mid to late 70's. He wrote
his own and marketed it. It was the programming language Basic that
ran under CP/M. I bought one of the first PC's made by IBM. At the
time, two operating systems were available. One was CP/M at a price
of about $200 and the other was Dos at about $40. Like most people, I
chose DOS because of the price. CP/M was the de facto operating
system at the time and Bill went up against the bigger guys. He was a
just a small guy with a big idea. If you don't like what's available
and think there is a market for your idea, go for it or otherwise stop
whining.


On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:54:09 +0100, ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T.
Breuer) wrote:

>Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> First, MS doesn't require a mfgr. to put it's OS on every computer sold,
>
>First, that's not the case, as found by the courts. They did. The
>question was whether that was illegal or not (and secondly, please stop
>top posting! It is most rude to ignore my post like that and even ruder
>to stub my poor ignored post on the end of yours as a sort of insult
>saying "Look what I've ignored, ha ha").
>
>(random quote, from the bbc, but you can find your own)
>
> Microsoft had maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means
> and had also attempted to monopolise the internet browser market.
>
> ..
>
> However, he said that Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other
> companies did not constitute unlawful exclusive dealing
>
> ..
>
>and in my opinion he (judge jackson) was crazy not to.
>
>> but it does offer lower prices per unit if they do so.
>
>AFAIR (1) if they didn't agree to do so MS would charge them the full
>whack for each unit sold and do it up front instead of afterwards, (2)
>they offered the lower price and the pay-later only if the accounting
>wæs per machine sold not "per machine with a MS o/s on". Those are
>killers.
>
>> Looking at this from the perspective of the computer maker, if MS gives
>> them a 10% discount for agreeing to put Windows on every single
>
>It's not a 10% discount - you know the difference.
>
>> computer, no exceptions, and the computer makers figures out that only
>> 5% of customers would order a computer without an OS were it offered
>> both with and without an OS, guess what: It's cheaper for the laptop
>> maker and 95% of the customers for that vendor to offer only machines
>> with Windows. If you are one of the 5%, you may not like that outcome,
>> but should the Government really have the right to tell Microsoft that
>> they can't offer a 10% discount to a customer who agrees to sell Windows
>> with every computer?
>
>I don't expect to see a defense of such activity from you. Let me put
>it this way - I offer to give all the greengrocers their apples from my
>orchards at a 10% (your figure!) lower price if they give them away
>"free" to every customer and include the cost instead in the overall
>price they charge the customer, without disclosing it to them. And my
>apples are already the most popular because they've been developed to
>look good, no matter that they taste like paper.
>
>I would have said that was deeply anticompetitive behaviour.
>
>> There's also the matter of support and support costs. The 5% of
>> machines that would be sold without an OS are quite possibly going to
>> consume a disproportionately huge support resource as the people who
>> bought them try to install an OS on them themselves.
>
>Running support costs nothing (dell supply/ied server machines with
>linux on, I know, because I bought one, and I ALWAYS buy no-name desktop
>clones with no o/s on). The argument goes: supporting people who
>install a supported o/s costs the same no matter which supported o/s
>they use. You just change the flip-charts for the telephone help. And
>if they don't use a supprted o/s then they don't get support. Your
>argument must instead be based on capital costs, such as overheads for
>housing, which is higher per 5% than it is per 95%.
>
>
>> In the end, economically, it's just not worth it. It really, truly
>
>I don't care - if I don't want an o/s on then they shouldn't insist on
>selling me one. It doesn't cost them anything NOT to sell me an o/s
>just as it doesn't cost them anything NOT to sell me a cd player. If I
>don't want one I don't want one. And they get to choose if they want to
>"support" me installing a cdrom on it by the service agreement they
>sell me.
>
>> isn't, not withstanding the fact that you'd like it to be, and that in
>> an ideal world it might be. But not in the real world.
>
>No - in the real world I almost never buy machines with an o/s on¸ and I
>buy about 50 a year. The ones I can't get WITHOUT an o/s on are
>portables, and I buy about 5 of those. I object to that.
>
>Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------

bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
to send me a message.

Bill Burlingame

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 11:26:12 -0800, mike <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote:

>What was your motivation? What did XP give you that 98SE didn't?
>Isn't "home" a downgrade in networking capability?

Legacy products are always a problem. Many manufacturers don't write
drivers for old OS's and many don't write drivers for old products to
be use on newer OS's. Same goes for some SW. For example,
Netstumbler will not run on 98.
---------------------------------------------------------------

bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
to send me a message.

Bill Burlingame

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> writes:
>
>>First, MS doesn't require a mfgr. to put it's OS on every computer
>>sold, but it does offer lower prices per unit if they do so.
>
>
> MS got its market dominance by applying illegal coercion to mfgrs and
> others, i.e. MS got where it is by being crooks. That's not simply my
> opinion; it's a fact determined by a federal court and upheld on
> appeal two times. So I don't understand why you're surprised that
> people think of Microsoft as being crooks. They think of Microsoft as
> being crooks because that's exactly what Microsoft are.
Paul,

Although I know where you are coming from, again, I do not believe in
name calling and using the word "crook" does not help promote an idea.

Barry is perfectly entitled to be more supportive (or less critical,
probably) of MS practices than some of us are but I suggest our views do
not need that kind of language to be strong!

Peter, you made very good points. Thanks.

John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

William J. Burlingame <wjburl@bs.net> wrote:
> Quit your bottom posting, it's more convenient to read the most recent

I am not BOTTOM POSTING!

How rude.

> post at the top of the message. "Free" is not the same as includes in

No it isn't - it makes replying impossible, as you can see. Please read
the netiquette FAQ. It's been there for 20 years.

<snip rude arrogant top post>

Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

larwe@larwe.com wrote:

> Would you prefer the legally correct phrase "convicted criminals"?
> Convicted by courts in the United States and Europe. The convictions,
> penalties, and the fact that they were upheld on appeal, are matters of
> public record and transcend any accusation of name-calling.
>
You tend to use strong words ... I wish those convictions had had more
impact than just a Windows edition in Europe without Media Player and
that money had not bought out of the proceedings one of the most
important plaintiffs (and this is just a beginning, probably)! No
contest here your Honor!

--
John Doue

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I will top post as much as I like, and if you don't like .... Great,
that's wonderful!!

OEMs have the option of offering PCs without windows and always have
had. MS just made it significantly more attractive (financially) for
the OEMs to agree to put Windows on every PC.


Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>First, MS doesn't require a mfgr. to put it's OS on every computer sold,
>
>
> First, that's not the case, as found by the courts. They did. The
> question was whether that was illegal or not (and secondly, please stop
> top posting! It is most rude to ignore my post like that and even ruder
> to stub my poor ignored post on the end of yours as a sort of insult
> saying "Look what I've ignored, ha ha").
>
> (random quote, from the bbc, but you can find your own)
>
> Microsoft had maintained its monopoly power by anticompetitive means
> and had also attempted to monopolise the internet browser market.
>
> ..
>
> However, he said that Microsoft's marketing arrangements with other
> companies did not constitute unlawful exclusive dealing
>
> ..
>
> and in my opinion he (judge jackson) was crazy not to.
>
>
>>but it does offer lower prices per unit if they do so.
>
>
> AFAIR (1) if they didn't agree to do so MS would charge them the full
> whack for each unit sold and do it up front instead of afterwards, (2)
> they offered the lower price and the pay-later only if the accounting
> wæs per machine sold not "per machine with a MS o/s on". Those are
> killers.
>
>
>>Looking at this from the perspective of the computer maker, if MS gives
>>them a 10% discount for agreeing to put Windows on every single
>
>
> It's not a 10% discount - you know the difference.
>
>
>>computer, no exceptions, and the computer makers figures out that only
>>5% of customers would order a computer without an OS were it offered
>>both with and without an OS, guess what: It's cheaper for the laptop
>>maker and 95% of the customers for that vendor to offer only machines
>>with Windows. If you are one of the 5%, you may not like that outcome,
>>but should the Government really have the right to tell Microsoft that
>>they can't offer a 10% discount to a customer who agrees to sell Windows
>>with every computer?
>
>
> I don't expect to see a defense of such activity from you. Let me put
> it this way - I offer to give all the greengrocers their apples from my
> orchards at a 10% (your figure!) lower price if they give them away
> "free" to every customer and include the cost instead in the overall
> price they charge the customer, without disclosing it to them. And my
> apples are already the most popular because they've been developed to
> look good, no matter that they taste like paper.
>
> I would have said that was deeply anticompetitive behaviour.
>
>
>>There's also the matter of support and support costs. The 5% of
>>machines that would be sold without an OS are quite possibly going to
>>consume a disproportionately huge support resource as the people who
>>bought them try to install an OS on them themselves.
>
>
> Running support costs nothing (dell supply/ied server machines with
> linux on, I know, because I bought one, and I ALWAYS buy no-name desktop
> clones with no o/s on). The argument goes: supporting people who
> install a supported o/s costs the same no matter which supported o/s
> they use. You just change the flip-charts for the telephone help. And
> if they don't use a supprted o/s then they don't get support. Your
> argument must instead be based on capital costs, such as overheads for
> housing, which is higher per 5% than it is per 95%.
>
>
>
>>In the end, economically, it's just not worth it. It really, truly
>
>
> I don't care - if I don't want an o/s on then they shouldn't insist on
> selling me one. It doesn't cost them anything NOT to sell me an o/s
> just as it doesn't cost them anything NOT to sell me a cd player. If I
> don't want one I don't want one. And they get to choose if they want to
> "support" me installing a cdrom on it by the service agreement they
> sell me.
>
>
>>isn't, not withstanding the fact that you'd like it to be, and that in
>>an ideal world it might be. But not in the real world.
>
>
> No - in the real world I almost never buy machines with an o/s on¸ and I
> buy about 50 a year. The ones I can't get WITHOUT an o/s on are
> portables, and I buy about 5 of those. I object to that.
>
> Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> I will top post as much as I like, and if you don't like .... Great,

No you won't, because it'll piss people off. But then maybe that's what
being arrogant is all about - not letting the benefit of the majority
put you off doing what YOU want, and yah boo sux to the rest.

I hope you like expressing yourself to yourself. Normally I like your
posts because they generally show maturity and depth of knowledge, but
not this.

I responded to you carefully when you mailed me personally (I don't
know why) and I set out the arguments there. I haven't had a reply. So
...

Plinkity, plonkity.

Peter

 

[TC]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I like top posters. Then I don't have to scroll through all the bs that I've
read already anyway.
Terry

"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:mah6a2-7hp.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es...
> Barry Watzman <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>> I will top post as much as I like, and if you don't like .... Great,
>
> No you won't, because it'll piss people off. But then maybe that's what
> being arrogant is all about - not letting the benefit of the majority
> put you off doing what YOU want, and yah boo sux to the rest.
>
> I hope you like expressing yourself to yourself. Normally I like your
> posts because they generally show maturity and depth of knowledge, but
> not this.
>
> I responded to you carefully when you mailed me personally (I don't
> know why) and I set out the arguments there. I haven't had a reply. So
> ..
>
> Plinkity, plonkity.
>
> Peter
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

tc <terrycassidy@msn.com> wrote:
> I like top posters. Then I don't have to scroll through all the bs that I've
> read already anyway.

Why do you think you have to "scroll through" bullshit when people post
properly? Have you ever had to "scroll through" anything when I've
posted?

No. You haven't. That's because I post correctly, unlike top posters!

And unlike bottom posters, may I add.

Not that I've seen many people who are so crazy as to quote a whole post
and then start theirs. That's just as bad as starting theirs and THEN
quoting the whole post they are replying to and didn't reply to!

If it's bullshit, DON'T QUOTE IT.

Simple - is it not?

Quote what you reply to, and reply to it, where the reply should go!

Don't leave a huge unreferenced mess hanging off your post while you
talk about something else up top, or down bottom.

That allows people to QUOTE YOU, QUOTING THEM.

Otherwise A mentions points 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. B replies to points 1 3 and
5, and quotes points 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, all without referring to any of
them so we have no idea what he is talking about. Then C qoutes B
replying to points 1 3 and 5 and quoting points 1-7, and replies to
points 2 4 and 6.

Result complete and utter confusion, absolute mess,and quote upon qute
of useless what you call "bullshit".

Don't do that, folks.

What is so difficult about the concept? For twenty years at least, the
netiquette FAQ has told you how to post!

Is this top posting thing some sort of hangover from people who write
business letters on paper, where they have no option but to tack the
whole previous correspondence on to their letter? DO you really think I
am your lawyer? If not, why write to me like that! You don't even
reference the points you are replying to with footnotes and markup, as
you should in a lawyerly correspondence.

On usenet, for twenty years, people have known that you can use your
editor to write responses between the paragraphs, quoting them
individually, so that people can reply to you reply and quote just the
paragraph you are replying to, not the whole flipping "bullshit".

So get it right. Twenty years is enough learning time even for the
great hordes from AOL.


Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I bought MS windows XP PRO for my laptop and it cost me Australian
$675.00.. Installed it on my laptop no prob. then within a couple of hours
of being on the internet I was hit with so many viruses, that I decided to
reinstall (with the virus protection (so-called) this time) I decided to
activate it straight away.. it told me that it had been already in use on
another computer..
Now I dont know if the copy of the Wxp Pro had a life before I bought it,
anyway I did know one thing, besides the reinstall I had taken it to the
screen where they give you an ID several times.
Now I rang the MS person ( that they direct you to call in the event you
cannot activate) I felt quite nervous like I had done something wrong..
turns out each time you hit that screen where you are given an ID number...
it is a different number.. She gave me a number to activate and it did..

BTW.... I dont quite understand that posting on the bottom anymore, all the
emails I get follow on from the original post, so it doesnt take as long to
just open each one and see the reply on the top other than having to scroll
right to the bottom it can be quite a long way..
Felicity

 

[Scott]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 01:40:51 +0100, ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T.
Breuer) wrote:
>
>On usenet, for twenty years, people have known that you can use your
>editor to write responses between the paragraphs, quoting them
>individually, so that people can reply to you reply and quote just the
>paragraph you are replying to, not the whole flipping "bullshit".
>
>So get it right. Twenty years is enough learning time even for the
>great hordes from AOL.
>
>
>Peter

In this era of broadband, times are changing. This is a battle you
can't win, as much as I agree with you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

mike wrote:

> William J. Burlingame wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:35:33 -0800, mike <spamme0@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>snip<
>>
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> I don't understand your use of the term force. Who forced you to buy
>> XP?
>
> I wanted to try something newer than visual basic 6.

Uh, Visual Basic is a Microsoft programming language invented by Microsoft
and supported only by Microsoft. If you want to use a Microsoft
programming language then don't blame Microsoft for your own poor choice of
tools. Perhaps you should learn C or Java or some other standard
programming language.

> Dot net REQUIRES
> XP.

"Supported Operating Systems: Windows 2000, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows
NT, Windows XP"

> You can argue that the dotnet environment is required, but it can
> be loaded on 98SE. >> I don't use Dot net.

Then why do you care about it?

> I bought a network appliance that plays mp3s wirelessly thru your
> stereo. The mp3 server software REQUIRES XP. Can't think of any reason
> for that. >> I sold the appliance.

Goody. Now, what does your poor choice of tools have to do with Microsoft?
There are plenty of Linux-based network appliances out there. Tivo for
openers.

> An increasing number of hardware and software products REQUIRE XP.

Well, now, since XP is the current operating system, why would you expect
otherwise?

> Go down to Best Buy and try to buy a laptop computer that does not have
> XP on it. Call up Dell and try to get one. Yes, you can probably find
> a vendor, but it won't be mainstream.

So? Takes about a minute to blow away the XP installation.

> When I decided to upgrade from my old computer, no one put a gun
>> to my head. My old computer did everything it did when I first bought
>> it and more, but I just wanted newer technology.

So? Why couldn't you reinstall your old OS on that "newer technology"?

> And you're certainly welcome to do that. Come back after you hear,
> "The XP activation number you have dialed is no longer in service;
> please check the listing" and tell us how happy you are.

Well, since that will mean that Microsoft has gone out of business or
abolished activation, one or the other, either would make me quite happy.

> The computer I chose
>> didn't have an OS preloaded. I chose to use XP Pro. I've tried Red
>> Hat and prefer XP, but there are some who prefer a Linux based OS.
>
> You're allowed to choose whatever you want. I'd like that same option,
> and my choices would be different...if I had a choice.

What prevents you from making this choice?

> Linux is not ready for prime time. And it will NEVER be in it's present
> form. You have to be able to get drivers with new hardware you get from
> CompUSA.

Why? Regardless, I'm having no trouble using it. If you are, let's see,
you also are a Visual Basic programmer, that might explain the problem--you
just don't want to actually have to learn how to use a computer do you?

> This won't happen until the OS is standardized.

It is. There are vendors that try to make it proprietary. That does not
prevent hardware vendors from packaging their drivers in the old "tar -xzf
'filename' & make & make install" format. Some hardware vendors however
are too stupid to realize this.

> This won't
> happen until someone figgers out how to make a buck off it.

You mean besides RedHat, Novell, and IBM?

> Then it
> won't be free any more. Catch-22.

Of course it will. They make their buck by charging for support.

> I
>> chose not to buy a Mac and I understand that Mac's are preferred by
>> some users.
>
> Mac is a great choice if you're in the graphics art business. Otherwise
> Hw and Sw are limited and expensive. And why is it expensive, you ask?
> Because Apple has the monopoly on apple hw and sw.

Well, now, the Mac is a Unix box these days, and last I heard there was a
vast array of GPLed Unix applications. Besides which, a Mac will run XP
just fine--maybe not as fast as an Athlon 64 and without high enough video
response for the latest games, but quite fast enough to run Office and the
like, assuming of course that you don't want to run the Mac version.

Most x32 and x64 Linux boxen will also run XP just fine. And 9x and DOS and
NT and Novell and BSD and Plan 9 and BeOS and whatever else you brung. All
at the same time.

> The point is that we all have a choice. If the
>> government gets into the act, they may be able to force the price
>> down,
>
> I'm not asking the government to force the price down. I'm asking the
> government to punish predators and restore the free market.

Hey, you have choices, you just don't like any of them.

> but you would probably see the supply dry up and/or the
>> development of the product will be moved offshore. I just bought a
>> used laptop on Ebay for less than $200 (including shipping). It came
>> with an OS preloaded, but I knew that ahead of time and it was one of
>> the things I looked at when I decided to make a bid. I wasn't
>> "forced" to buy that computer. I have downloaded Open Office and it
>> didn't cost a dime.
>
> Open office looks like a fine product. If I didn't have a passel of
> Office 97 licenses, I's use it.

How does that prevent you?

> I have MS Office Professional 2003 on my desktop
>> and it was my decision to do that - wasn't forced. I think the EULA
>> will permit me to put MS Office on both the desktop and the laptop,
>> but I haven't tried yet. My old desktop came with 98SE and I upgraded
>> that to XP Home.
>
> What was your motivation? What did XP give you that 98SE didn't?
> Isn't "home" a downgrade in networking capability?
> If it's just a matter of extra money, I can take that off your hands.

"Home" is not a "downgrade" except in the sense that it cannot join a
Windows NT/2K/2K3 domain. This turns out to be a very minor obstacle. I
use Novell anyway, so I don't really care--it takes the Novell client just
fine.

> I wasn't forced to do that either. I went to Costco
>> and bought it. The are many companies that sell systems they call
>> "barebones" and you load them up with what you want.
>
> Again, you're allowed to spend your money any way you want.

Precisely.

>> I'm going to make some guesses about your situation. Unless your
>> retired
>
> Yes I am.
>> or independently wealthy,
>
>
> That too.
>>I would guess you sell your job
>
> So, you're still batting zero on your assumptions.
>
>> skills to someone at the most you can charge. Those who pay for your
>> services can either pay the price, find another person willing to
>> perform the service for less, or ask you to take less. You probably
>> think that they should be forced to pay what you think is "fair" and
>> you have already indicated that companies to be force to sell at
>> prices you have determined are "fair".
>
> You're missing the point. What I think is fair matters not. The free
> market determines price...except in the case of a monopoly that controls
> the price...and in this case wags the whole industry.

So this "monopoly" controls the price of Linux, BSD, Plan 9, and the rest?

> From what I've read of your
>> posts, you are a Socialist.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
> I'm not even sure the implications of the title.
>
> Let me say this:
> When the school bully slams you up against the wall and asks for your
> lunch money, what are you gonna do? He's providing a service at a price
> you're willing to pay.

No, he's not. He's providing no service at all.

> Or you can "choose" to NOT give him your lunch
> money. The teacher is also intimidated and looks the other way.
>
> Whatchagonnado?

Well, when somebody from Microsoft shows up at my door and slams me up
against a wall and tells me that I have to give him money despite having no
Microsoft products in my posession that somebody will likely eat some
5.56mm after which he won't be useful for much besides fertilizer.

Sorry, but the fact that you don't like their products but don't dislike
them enough to use one of the alternatives does not mean that they have a
"monopoly". Only that you feel that they at their "high prices" offer
better value than "free".

>
> mike
> Barry is right.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
>> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
>> to send me a message.
>>
>> Bill Burlingame
>
>
>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Cyclops wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> mike wrote:
>> An increasing number of hardware and software products REQUIRE XP.
>>
>> Go down to Best Buy and try to buy a laptop computer that does not have
>> XP on it. Call up Dell and try to get one. Yes, you can probably find
>> a vendor, but it won't be mainstream.
>
> The Windows XP requirements are fuzzy, most will run on Win2000, just
> FYI... Additionally, you can purchase any new dell laptop or PC with
> RedHat Linux preinstalled. While other *nix and free OS's are out
> there, what would you suggest they put on the systems?
>
> XP requires activation - there is a really good reason for that - 90% of
> the copies out there are pirated!

I'd like to see your source for this information.

Personally I have more licenses for MS software than I have machines
running. They seem to multiply like coathangers in a closet.

> MS has to protect its investment in
> the OS. If you have a legit copy of the OS and can't activate, call up
> Microsoft and get activation help, if I remember, its free.
>
> There are ways to bypass activation, but I don't think you'll be finding
> them here.
>
> - David Wade Hagar
> AKA Cyclops
>
> http/members.cox.net/dwhagar
> http/www.livejournal.com/users/dwhagar
> http/genius-of-lunacy.blogspot.com/
>
> "It's sick, but it serves a purpose." - Bill Cosby
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
> Comment: http/members.cox.net/dwhagar/personal-key.asc
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http/enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkHPJZIACgkQbPwf4VgkRDt8hACgubCQH88WbRWAHJJ2mXOraGPD
> CoEAn2ll/d0HscLMm6mWDvaholYSpIOy
> =Wmqf
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

J. Clarke wrote:
> I'd like to see your source for this information.
> Personally I have more licenses for MS software than I have machines
> running. They seem to multiply like coathangers in a closet.

Well, try to order a dell system online, if you are at all compitent in
using your web browser (yes even Firefox which I use, which is NOT MS)
you can customize the system, and RedHat should be an option.

You didn't even comment on what you suggest they should put on systems,
so perhaps you didn't hear the question (or didn't want to hear the
question)... Lets use small words so you can understand them better...

What should they put on a new computer?

dExactly why do you have so many MS licenses? I purchased seperate from
a computer 2, one of which is for Windows 3.1. So, yeah, I have a
license to use Win95 (came with a PC I used back in the days of 486
CPU's), Win95 OSR2 (came with Toshiba 445CDT laptop), Win98 was
purchased seperately. Win98SE came with another PC I bought. WinXP
Home came with the laptop I'm using right now. XP Pro came with my
current PC.

Now, lets elighten you on how this whole OS /w Computer thing works
shall we?

Computer makers get huge licenses to sell Windows installations, which
is great for them because they can prefab all their HD's with the same
kind of disk image and make everything really the same. Works wonders
for newbies in computers.

NOw, because they are doing this ANYWAY its like hitching a ride with a
friend to the store that he's going to anyway. Doesn't cost the friend
anything extra to take you. Same with the computer companies, they are
doing anyway so they have no reason to charge you for the OS they are
installing, why? Because if they didn't install the OS like they do,
then a lot of newbies would be lost and not know what to do once the
system asked for a system disk please.

My 2 PC's and 2 Laptops that came with an OS didn't charge for either,
even the Dell here, which is only a year old, didn't charge, just gave
you the option. I didn't pay for the OS at all. When you buy a
computer that has an OS, they don't charge you for it! It could be
argued that it is part of the cost, like a car engine, however - it is
part of the cost as much as having a hard disk is part of the cost of a
new laptop, its just easier for them to use a hard disk they've
preformated and all of that because they are doing it to thousands of
hard disks per day anyway, so why not give you one too?

Besides, if you hate MS so much buy Mac, you can run a mac with no MS
products at all! I know, my wife does it!

Stop bitching on here because you think they are crooks, we get the
picture, you don't like MS.
- --
David Wade Hagar AKA Cyclops

http/members.cox.net/dwhagar
http/www.livejournal.com/users/dwhagar
http/genius-of-lunacy.blogspot.com/


"It's sick, but it serves a purpose." - Bill Cosby
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: http/members.cox.net/dwhagar/personal-key.asc
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http/enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkHRxlIACgkQbPwf4VgkRDv2uQCfceK4lncNsiqDpS6WnnekKdg7
0foAn2nLQgR+CpeAQDl5RYnWJW4DfBBk
=9PnQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----