Repair Install and bypassing Activation

[Guest]

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

William J. Burlingame wrote:

> Quit your bottom posting, it's more convenient to read the most recent
> post at the top of the message.

<plonk>

--
--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?)

John Doue wrote:

> Notan wrote:
>> John Doue wrote:
>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>4/ I would gladly go back to the days buying software was a joy and not
>>>a rip-off. Since this is not an option, I get by but would NEVER use a
>>>software which requires activation if I cannot find a work-around. And
>>>this does not necessarily mean going illegal.
>>
>>
>> 1) What OS are you currently using?
>>
>> 2) How does one find a "work-around" without "going illegal?"
>>
>> Notan
> 1/ 98 and XP. Before you ask, OEM versions don't require activation.

98 has never required any kind of activation. XP OEM most assuredly _does_
require activation. It may be preactivated on the computer you buy, but if
you buy an OEM copy you'll find that it does have to be activated.

There is a "corporate edition" that does not require activation. That is
different from OEM.

> 2/ You will have to do your own digging here, sorry. My point is, as
> long as you legally use a software (I am not saying "own" to avoid long
> amplifications from legal experts ...), you are not doing anyone any
> harm if you do not activate it.

But if you are using it in violation of your contract with the vendor then
you are in fact not using it legally.

--
--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?)

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.

You see it enough times that they keep it on the shelves--CompuUSA, Best
Buy, Circuit City, Staples, OfficeMax, many of the big chains have XP in
all its retail variants on the shelf, and are often sold out.

> 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?

Huh? You're saying that a machine should come with Windows preinstalled and
not activated and to activate it you have to call Microsoft with a credit
card? Oh, that would fly really well.

> 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.

If you've got Internet access and haven't reactivated enough times to
trigger a requirement to call in person then your location should not
matter at all. If you do have to call, I can't see how your location would
matter--you give their automated voice response system the number, it gives
you the code, you're up. At worst you have to talk to a tech for a couple
of minutes.

> 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.

Given the choice between being respected for my integrity as a programmer
and having a few billion dollars in the bank, I'll take the few billion.
Anybody who feels otherwise has never found himself out of cash.
>
> John

--
--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 <david.hagar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> > 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!

(snip whole quoted, uncommented post)

> Dude! Chill out! Top posting isn't right or wrong it just is. It is a

Wow, I've just seen a person doing something I never thought anyone
could be idiotic enough to do.

Plonk.

Peter

 

[Guest]

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

Re: " That's because I post correctly, unlike top posters!"

The joke is that you think that there is a "correct" way to post.


Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> 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 (More info?)

Scott,

I'm not going to ridicule you, but truly understanding all of this stuff
is the equivalent of at least an associates degree. While any one item
can be looked up (with a google search), I don't know of a quick, easy
way for you to get a real undertanding with less than at least quite a
few weeks of reading.


Scott wrote:

> 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?)

Cyclops wrote:

> -----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.

Be careful with your attributions. You seem to be addressing someone else's
point. My question pertained to the information that some large percentage
of the installed base of Microsoft operating systems was pirated, and my
observation was that I seem to have the opposite experience, that I use far
less of it than I have licenses for.

> 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?

Whatever they damned well please of course.

> dExactly why do you have so many MS licenses?

Computer here, computer there, after a while it adds up. I don't have this
religous mania that makes me pay extra for a machine without a Microsoft
OS, I go for the lowest price with the features I need and if has software
that I don't want then I have no qualms about tossing the disks in a box
and reformatting the drive to install whatever I want to use.

> 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?

Once again you appear to have confused me with someone who gives a damn.

> 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.

Huh? You're making no sense here. Microsoft charges x per OS license
somebody has to pay that X.

> 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?

You're still making no sense here. What point are you trying to make? They
most assuredly do charge you for the OS somewhere along the way.

> 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!

Now, Brainiac, what OS do you believe that I am running and on what
information do you base that belief?

> Stop bitching on here because you think they are crooks, we get the
> picture, you don't like MS.

Actually, I don't give a hoot in Hell about Microsoft. Again, you seem to
have me confused with someone else.

> - --
> David Wade Hagar AKA Cyclops
>
> http/members.cox.net/dwhagar
> http/www.livejournal.com/users/dwhagar
> http/genius-of-lunacy.blogspot.com/

"Lunacy" I'll buy, but considering your inability to keep the players
straight without a scorecard, "genius" seems a bit of a stretch.


--
--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?)

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:04:48 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> Frankly, if I were Bill Gates and had the power to do so, I'd give you
>> your money back, and then put you on a "banned customer list". Your
>> expectations are unreasonable and unrealistic, and no reasonable person
>> who know what your attitudes were would sell you ANYTHING, not only
>> software, but a computer or a car or anything else.
>
>One thing I find amusing is the assertion that Microsoft neither notifies of
>nor corrects bugs. Every time I've seen some rabid anti-Microsoft type
>raving about some "uncorrected bug" that Microsoft was "hiding" when I've
>gone to the knowledgebase I've found that there was an announcement dated 6
>months previously and that Update had already put the fix on the machine I
>was using.
>
Right on!!! Many of the hackers look at the Microsoft fix, reverse
engineer it and put out a virus to catch the people who are too lazy
to do the updates. The ones who have done the update are not
threatened.
---------------------------------------------------------------

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 Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:01:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Yep. Do they still require that you have a business license? Last time I
>did an Action Pack was when NT 4 was fairly new.

Another deal is to attend a MS TS2 event and get a NFR copy of MS
Office 2003 Professional or Virtual PC. You only have to be an MS
Partner at no cost. They also give out door prizes at the events and
a code to get a discount on the subscriptions. You do not have to show
a license to be a Partner, but you do need a business name (i.e.
YourName Consulting or perhaps your employer). They may also ask for
a business card at the event, but I've never been asked. They do
expect that the attendees be involved it the IT industry. I also have
an NFR copy of Windows Server 2003 Professional Enterprise Edition
with 25 clients for attending a seminar (not given by MS). It's still
in the shrink wrap. The normal price for it is about $3K. The point
is, you don't have to steal SW to get free, but legal copies of some
expensive packages.

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

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?)

J. Clarke <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Yep. Do they still require that you have a business license? Last
> time I did an Action Pack was when NT 4 was fairly new.

No, no "license" required.

> Pays to watch the betas too. Their Win2K/Office 2K beta went about
> 200 bucks for the two and for that you got release Office 2K with all
> the trimmings and all versions of 2K including the servers.

An even better deal was the "Hands-On Training Kits" for W2K and Office 2K
that were available from MS Direct Access. IIRC each was around $50 and you
got all of the Betas, the NFR release and all of the Service Packs.

The W2K Kit also got you all of the Server releases.

--
Regards,

James

Checkout the NEW Thinkpad Forums: http/forum.thinkpads.com

 

[Guest]

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

To those questions that arose from my statement and opinion of Microsoft
Windows software:

DOS was acquired, not written by MS. That is a fact. I did not say they
ripped it off, but the DOS was a rip off (read that reverse engineered) from
CP/M - 8080 or z80 then ported to 8088/86. This is simply history. As I
said, I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with a in
house designed and developed code to date. Not that I don't think they as a
company can, it is just they haven't.

None of your responses seem to refute the concept that a product should
perform as advertised. Yes, 98 was better than 95 in the stability area.
SE was even better. ME....one step back. All had the issues of being
poorly designed in the error handling area. With any of those you could
load the OS, on a certified machine and within 24 - 48 hours the system
would typically need to be rebooted. NO other installed software. That is
in my opinion is fraud. It was not my first experience with computer system
and fraud. Commodore committed it when they sold their first batch of
C128's. Those were advertised to take 512 K memory expansion pack. But due
to a manufacturing error, they would not. Commodore failed to provide a
free fix or exchange. Thus, to me they ripped off the public and should
have been criminally charged. (Before that happened the public moved on to
other machines and Commodore went on to greater failures.) I put Microsoft
into that catagory.

As to the reason I used Microsoft. Work. I have been looking for another
option and have found one. It is running on one of my 5 laptops now. As I
gain exepertise on it I will move it to three of my four laptops. (One is
my wife's and she uses hers to interface with work and at this poiint
doesn't want to learn the new OS. The other runs specific PFAFF software and
cannot run under the new systrem.) I have XP on a desktop machine and the
only reason for that was simply to know the OS. It will also be converted
in the future.

By the way, I am a MCSE. Got it the hard way, self study, buying WinNT Back
office playing with it at home. I also am certified with VMS from DEC's
schools. (all three levels). I simply believe the consumer should get what
they are sold. An OS that works, without fail and has security built into
its fundemental structure. Anything else is IMHO stealing, thus those that
put anything else out IMHO are crooks. Nothing said so far has dissuaded
from that opinion.

Also as I have some influence in my employeers selection of operating
systems, I am lobbying for a change to something else. Within a decade I
would like to see a transition away from any MS boxes. I am sure MS has no
particular issue with this change either. After all it is only one customer
out of billions.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:42:38 -0800, "Richard Johnson"
<richj@remove.this.tairedd.com> wrote:

>I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with a in
>house designed and developed code to date.

Who developed NT?

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

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?)

It seems to me that some people don't understand why others start a
business. They do it to make money!!! It's not to provide jobs, a
service and/or a product. It order to make money, it's most likely
that they will provide jobs, a service and/or a product. It's the
obligation of a corporation to it's shareholders to maximize profits.
To do that, they need to optimize both the selling price and cost of
doing business. When they fail to make profits, the corporation dies.
The scene is littered with corporations who have failed to do so.
Whatever happened to Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, Osborne Computers,
Commodore Computers, Studebaker, Nash, Hudson, Packard, Montgomery
Ward, Woolworth's, the big steel companies in the rust belt, etc.
They failed to make profits for the shareholders. It looks like
Microsoft is succeeding. They must be doing something right. They
started very small. IBM was king when Gates started MS. He was like
a gnat on the rear of an elephant to IBM. They need to keep looking
over their should to see if there is another Bill Gates on the
horizon. I use MS products because I like them and I choose to do
so. I remember when the joy of computing was to watch the lights
flicker on the front panel - there was no OS, only the predecessor to
today's BIOS. I guess some of you would like to see MS fail. If they
did, I would suggest that the cost of software would increase, not
decrease.


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

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?)

I don't have the depth of knowledge of some of you fellows, but I have made
my living with computers for the past twenty four years.

I use NT at work. I routinely have a dozen or so applications open at once,
including AutoCAD 14, Excel 97, Word 97, VB6, Fastlook, Notes, and some
other smaller titles. I work the hell out of it all day long. It's fast (a
mere P3-733, 256 MB) and stable. I leave it on at night and have only had
to reboot once in the past six months or so. Individual applications
(especially Excel) crash now and then, but NT keeps on truckin.

I have a newer laptop at home, running XP Home. Everything good I just said
about NT applies to XP, except that Excel seems to be more stable and the
fonts display better. I just put XP on my wife's Athlon 850 desktop,
replacing 98SE (which was starting to get too many blue screens). All her
programs actually seem to run faster with XP than with 98SE.

I install security updates as they become available (none for NT of course),
use up-to-date antivirus and spyware programs, and add a little common
sense. I haven't had my system trashed yet.

I'm very happy with NT and XP.




"William J. Burlingame" <wjburl@bs.net> wrote in message
news0s7t0tb4edbp1rv0p566umffb06f42otl@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:01:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Yep. Do they still require that you have a business license? Last time
I
> >did an Action Pack was when NT 4 was fairly new.
>
> Another deal is to attend a MS TS2 event and get a NFR copy of MS
> Office 2003 Professional or Virtual PC. You only have to be an MS
> Partner at no cost. They also give out door prizes at the events and
> a code to get a discount on the subscriptions. You do not have to show
> a license to be a Partner, but you do need a business name (i.e.
> YourName Consulting or perhaps your employer). They may also ask for
> a business card at the event, but I've never been asked. They do
> expect that the attendees be involved it the IT industry. I also have
> an NFR copy of Windows Server 2003 Professional Enterprise Edition
> with 25 clients for attending a seminar (not given by MS). It's still
> in the shrink wrap. The normal price for it is about $3K. The point
> is, you don't have to steal SW to get free, but legal copies of some
> expensive packages.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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?)

Richard Johnson wrote:

> To those questions that arose from my statement and opinion of Microsoft
> Windows software:
>
> DOS was acquired, not written by MS. That is a fact. I did not say they
> ripped it off, but the DOS was a rip off (read that reverse engineered)
> from
> CP/M - 8080 or z80 then ported to 8088/86.

Considering that CP/M wasn't any fantastic programming achievement, and
given that monitor type programs had been in use for decades by that time,
I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what? Are you suggesting that
current Microsoft operating systems are in any significant way dependent on
any part of DOS?

> This is simply history. As I
> said, I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with a
> in
> house designed and developed code to date.

So where was NT designed and developed?

> Not that I don't think they as
> a company can, it is just they haven't.
>
> None of your responses seem to refute the concept that a product should
> perform as advertised.

So what advertised properties are not provided? Please be kind enough to
quote the advertisement and then demonstrate the lack of compliance.

> Yes, 98 was better than 95 in the stability area.
> SE was even better. ME....one step back. All had the issues of being
> poorly designed in the error handling area.

The 9x series was designed for a specific marketing purpose and I believe
that if you ask them you will find that Microsoft makes no secret of the
fact that it was heavily compromised for that reason. If it hadn't been
then we'd still be using Windows 3 applications.

> With any of those you could
> load the OS, on a certified machine and within 24 - 48 hours the system
> would typically need to be rebooted.

"Certified" by who? I've not had this experience as "typical". Yeah, I've
encountered hardware on which this happened, but it was far from the norm.

> NO other installed software. That
> is
> in my opinion is fraud.

If failing to run for more than 24 hours on some piece of hardware when
nobody has promised that it will run for even 24 seconds on that hardware
is in your opinion "fraud", then I would suggest that you are not yet ready
to take the bar exam.

> It was not my first experience with computer
> system and fraud. Commodore committed it when they sold their first batch
> of
> C128's. Those were advertised to take 512 K memory expansion pack. But
> due
> to a manufacturing error, they would not. Commodore failed to provide a
> free fix or exchange. Thus, to me they ripped off the public and should
> have been criminally charged.

So why didn't you sue them?

> (Before that happened the public moved on
> to
> other machines and Commodore went on to greater failures.) I put
> Microsoft into that catagory.
>
> As to the reason I used Microsoft. Work. I have been looking for another
> option and have found one. It is running on one of my 5 laptops now. As I
> gain exepertise on it I will move it to three of my four laptops. (One is
> my wife's and she uses hers to interface with work and at this poiint
> doesn't want to learn the new OS. The other runs specific PFAFF software
> and
> cannot run under the new systrem.) I have XP on a desktop machine and the
> only reason for that was simply to know the OS. It will also be converted
> in the future.
>
> By the way, I am a MCSE.

You should only admit that in the dark with the lights off and the shades
drawn. It's not something to be proud of.

> Got it the hard way, self study, buying WinNT
> Back
> office playing with it at home. I also am certified with VMS from DEC's
> schools. (all three levels). I simply believe the consumer should get
> what
> they are sold. An OS that works, without fail and has security built into
> its fundemental structure.

Well, now if you can provide an operating system that "works without fail"
then the world will beat a path to your door. IBM has been trying to come
up with one for decades and not succeeded. While VMS was pretty good, it
could not be said to "work, without fail". As for "security being built
into its fundamental structure", what kind of security specifically?
"Security" covers a lot of territory.

> Anything else is IMHO stealing, thus those
> that
> put anything else out IMHO are crooks. Nothing said so far has dissuaded
> from that opinion.

Except that by your criteria IBM, Novell, DEC, Apple, BSD, all the OS
providers out there are "crooks" and "stealing". Your expectations are
unrealistic. Take a couple of years of CS sometime--you write your first
operating system, generally something about as complex as MS-DOS, around
the later part of your sophomore year in most such curricula. After you've
done that if you still think that your expectations are realistic get back
to us.

> Also as I have some influence in my employeers selection of operating
> systems, I am lobbying for a change to something else.

Like what that is not in your opinion fraud perpetrated by crooks?

> Within a decade I
> would like to see a transition away from any MS boxes.

You mean you're trying to run your business on videogame consoles? If so, I
would agree that transitioning to computers would be a wise decision. If
you don't mean that you're running on Xboxes, then what kind of "MS boxes"
are you running?

> I am sure MS has
> no
> particular issue with this change either. After all it is only one
> customer out of billions.

--
--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?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:49:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
>not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
>history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what?

DOS was made written to take advantage of the then large list of
applications written for CP/M. DOS could run CP/M applications. As I
said in another post, IBM also marketed a version of CP/M for the PC,
but it was priced much higher than DOS. Windows ME and it's
predecessors were nothing but large DOS applications. The systems
booted in DOS and ran Windows as an application. MS developed NT as
an OS not based on DOS. In order to run DOS SW in NT, they had to
emulate DOS. BTW, I see nothing wrong with making a product that is
compatible with another. Also, I wasn't complaining about Mr. Clark's
post, just tried to answer a question.

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

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?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:cr28am12of@news1.newsguy.com...
> Richard Johnson wrote:
>
> > To those questions that arose from my statement and opinion of Microsoft
> > Windows software:
> >
> > DOS was acquired, not written by MS. That is a fact. I did not say
they
> > ripped it off, but the DOS was a rip off (read that reverse engineered)
> > from
> > CP/M - 8080 or z80 then ported to 8088/86.
>
> Considering that CP/M wasn't any fantastic programming achievement, and
> given that monitor type programs had been in use for decades by that time,
> I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
> not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
> history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what? Are you suggesting that
> current Microsoft operating systems are in any significant way dependent
on
> any part of DOS?
>
> > This is simply history. As I
> > said, I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with
a
> > in
> > house designed and developed code to date.
>
> So where was NT designed and developed?
I
BM OS/2 team in conjunction with MS
>
> > Not that I don't think they as
> > a company can, it is just they haven't.
> >
> > None of your responses seem to refute the concept that a product should
> > perform as advertised.
>
> So what advertised properties are not provided? Please be kind enough to
> quote the advertisement and then demonstrate the lack of compliance.
>
Simply the fact they said it was an Operating system. The consumer has a
right to expect that what they pay for is reliable. Aside from that,
pulling out the old advertisments is a bit of a push, but I would bet that
it said it was reliable.

> > Yes, 98 was better than 95 in the stability area.
> > SE was even better. ME....one step back. All had the issues of being
> > poorly designed in the error handling area.
>
> The 9x series was designed for a specific marketing purpose and I believe

> that if you ask them you will find that Microsoft makes no secret of the
> fact that it was heavily compromised for that reason. If it hadn't been
> then we'd still be using Windows 3 applications.
>
> > With any of those you could
> > load the OS, on a certified machine and within 24 - 48 hours the system
> > would typically need to be rebooted.
>
> "Certified" by who? I've not had this experience as "typical". Yeah,
I've
> encountered hardware on which this happened, but it was far from the norm.
Remember Microsoft's certification? I do.
>
> > NO other installed software. That
> > is
> > in my opinion is fraud.
>
> If failing to run for more than 24 hours on some piece of hardware when
> nobody has promised that it will run for even 24 seconds on that hardware
> is in your opinion "fraud", then I would suggest that you are not yet
ready
> to take the bar exam.
>
> > It was not my first experience with computer
> > system and fraud. Commodore committed it when they sold their first
batch
> > of
> > C128's. Those were advertised to take 512 K memory expansion pack. But
> > due
> > to a manufacturing error, they would not. Commodore failed to provide a
> > free fix or exchange. Thus, to me they ripped off the public and should
> > have been criminally charged.
>
> So why didn't you sue them?
>
> > (Before that happened the public moved on
> > to
> > other machines and Commodore went on to greater failures.) I put
> > Microsoft into that catagory.
> >
> > As to the reason I used Microsoft. Work. I have been looking for
another
> > option and have found one. It is running on one of my 5 laptops now. As
I
> > gain exepertise on it I will move it to three of my four laptops. (One
is
> > my wife's and she uses hers to interface with work and at this poiint
> > doesn't want to learn the new OS. The other runs specific PFAFF software
> > and
> > cannot run under the new systrem.) I have XP on a desktop machine and
the
> > only reason for that was simply to know the OS. It will also be
converted
> > in the future.
> >
> > By the way, I am a MCSE.
>
> You should only admit that in the dark with the lights off and the shades
> drawn. It's not something to be proud of.
>
> > Got it the hard way, self study, buying WinNT
> > Back
> > office playing with it at home. I also am certified with VMS from
DEC's
> > schools. (all three levels). I simply believe the consumer should get
> > what
> > they are sold. An OS that works, without fail and has security built
into
> > its fundemental structure.
>
> Well, now if you can provide an operating system that "works without fail"
> then the world will beat a path to your door. IBM has been trying to come
> up with one for decades and not succeeded. While VMS was pretty good, it
> could not be said to "work, without fail". As for "security being built
> into its fundamental structure", what kind of security specifically?
> "Security" covers a lot of territory.
>
> > Anything else is IMHO stealing, thus those
> > that
> > put anything else out IMHO are crooks. Nothing said so far has
dissuaded
> > from that opinion.
>
> Except that by your criteria IBM, Novell, DEC, Apple, BSD, all the OS
> providers out there are "crooks" and "stealing". Your expectations are
> unrealistic. Take a couple of years of CS sometime--you write your first
Oh, so anyone that expects things to work properly, and without fail when
they spend their hard earned dollars has to take a CS course and write their
own OS.

No, I believe that is what they paid for with they bought it. You might
believe it is unrealistic, but others do not. You therefore are the one the
MS wants to sell to, and have a fun time with it.

> operating system, generally something about as complex as MS-DOS, around
> the later part of your sophomore year in most such curricula. After
you've
> done that if you still think that your expectations are realistic get back
> to us.
>
> > Also as I have some influence in my employeers selection of operating
> > systems, I am lobbying for a change to something else.
>
> Like what that is not in your opinion fraud perpetrated by crooks?
>
Linux, it is free - no charge - Can't say anyone that puts it out is a
crook, because they do not charge for it. (This is only an example, I do not
advocate using it without having some considerable experience.) There are
distrubutions of other OS's based upon that core that are good as well, but
you pay for their installation systems and aggration of drivers etc.

> > Within a decade I
> > would like to see a transition away from any MS boxes.

MS box here is simply short hand for servers and desktops running Windows
2000 pro or XP pro. (As if someone of your obvious intelligence could not
figure that out.)

>
> You mean you're trying to run your business on videogame consoles? If so,
I
> would agree that transitioning to computers would be a wise decision. If
> you don't mean that you're running on Xboxes, then what kind of "MS boxes"
> are you running?
>
No Linux, Unix, etc. I have already started the process, and it progresses
successfully. Oracle is taking over for Exchange as well, but I had nothing
to do with that.

> > I am sure MS has
> > no
> > particular issue with this change either. After all it is only one
> > customer out of billions.
>
> --
> --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?)

"Michael Rainey" <rainey47@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:33jf4gF3v56quU1@individual.net...
> I don't have the depth of knowledge of some of you fellows, but I have
made
> my living with computers for the past twenty four years.
>
> I use NT at work. I routinely have a dozen or so applications open at
once,
> including AutoCAD 14, Excel 97, Word 97, VB6, Fastlook, Notes, and some
> other smaller titles. I work the hell out of it all day long. It's fast
(a
> mere P3-733, 256 MB) and stable. I leave it on at night and have only had
> to reboot once in the past six months or so. Individual applications
> (especially Excel) crash now and then, but NT keeps on truckin.
>
> I have a newer laptop at home, running XP Home. Everything good I just
said
> about NT applies to XP, except that Excel seems to be more stable and the
> fonts display better. I just put XP on my wife's Athlon 850 desktop,
> replacing 98SE (which was starting to get too many blue screens). All her
> programs actually seem to run faster with XP than with 98SE.
>
> I install security updates as they become available (none for NT of
course),
> use up-to-date antivirus and spyware programs, and add a little common
> sense. I haven't had my system trashed yet.
>
> I'm very happy with NT and XP.
>
>

That is fine by me. You have accepted Microsoft's way of doing business and
if you are happy with it as a way, then it is a good deal to you. Enjoy!

>
> "William J. Burlingame" <wjburl@bs.net> wrote in message
> news0s7t0tb4edbp1rv0p566umffb06f42otl@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:01:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> > <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >Yep. Do they still require that you have a business license? Last
time
> I
> > >did an Action Pack was when NT 4 was fairly new.
> >
> > Another deal is to attend a MS TS2 event and get a NFR copy of MS
> > Office 2003 Professional or Virtual PC. You only have to be an MS
> > Partner at no cost. They also give out door prizes at the events and
> > a code to get a discount on the subscriptions. You do not have to show
> > a license to be a Partner, but you do need a business name (i.e.
> > YourName Consulting or perhaps your employer). They may also ask for
> > a business card at the event, but I've never been asked. They do
> > expect that the attendees be involved it the IT industry. I also have
> > an NFR copy of Windows Server 2003 Professional Enterprise Edition
> > with 25 clients for attending a seminar (not given by MS). It's still
> > in the shrink wrap. The normal price for it is about $3K. The point
> > is, you don't have to steal SW to get free, but legal copies of some
> > expensive packages.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 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?)

"William J. Burlingame" <wjburl@bs.net> wrote in message
news:ljt8t0t2i9ov8dt869tabe94bncv4bt08o@4ax.com...
> It seems to me that some people don't understand why others start a
> business. They do it to make money!!! It's not to provide jobs, a
> service and/or a product. It order to make money, it's most likely
> that they will provide jobs, a service and/or a product. It's the
> obligation of a corporation to it's shareholders to maximize profits.
> To do that, they need to optimize both the selling price and cost of
> doing business. When they fail to make profits, the corporation dies.
> The scene is littered with corporations who have failed to do so.
> Whatever happened to Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, Osborne Computers,
> Commodore Computers, Studebaker, Nash, Hudson, Packard, Montgomery
> Ward, Woolworth's, the big steel companies in the rust belt, etc.
> They failed to make profits for the shareholders. It looks like
> Microsoft is succeeding. They must be doing something right. They
> started very small. IBM was king when Gates started MS. He was like
> a gnat on the rear of an elephant to IBM. They need to keep looking
> over their should to see if there is another Bill Gates on the
> horizon. I use MS products because I like them and I choose to do
> so. I remember when the joy of computing was to watch the lights
> flicker on the front panel - there was no OS, only the predecessor to
> today's BIOS. I guess some of you would like to see MS fail. If they
> did, I would suggest that the cost of software would increase, not
> decrease.
>
Bill:

I am very Capitalist. I do not want to see them fail. A part and parcel of
Capitalism is when you sell someone a product, nothing should be hidden from
them. You never sell your customer products you know have defects unless
you let them know what those defects or limitations are. If you made
errors in the product you should refund the purchase price or at least a
depreciated purchase price, or let people it is "as is". (Up front and in
BIG LETTERS.) Business, in order to work, has to adhere to laws and ethics.
I do not believe that Microsoft adheres to the law, or ethical practice in
this case. Laws and ethics are the structure business, good business, is
built upon. I just don't see Microsoft doing that. In fact in all of this
I hope that they reform and get down to making good deals. (A good deal is
where the Customer is satisfied and the Business is satisfied after the
transaction. I don't see that normally with Microsoft's operating systems.)
Those businesses that fail to adhere to this good deal will go out of
business unless they have a monopoly on something. (Microsoft so far has
come very close to that, but not yet.)

Just as a comparison, look at another company. One in a business everyone
currently hates. A drug company. Remember Johnson & Johnson during the
Tylenol poisoning fiasco? The ethics of that company by recalling their
product and replacing the packaging with tamper resistant packaging is an
example of ethical business practices. (Heck, the issue was not even their
fault, and they did it.) That is a company with ethics and one that I will
buy product from and even give them more slack when other issues arise,
because I know their ethical practices would not let them put out a
defective product on purpose. There are many other examples.

 

[Guest]

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

Yes, you are right. People who post at the bottom are a real pain.
Posting at the top is the majority preferred default worldwide.

Warmest Felicitations,

Brian

On 27/12/2004 15:55, barbibiz wrote:


> 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
>
>