Need New PC recommendations/info

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan
  • Start date Start date
Al Smith said:
I looked at it this way. Microsoft pissed me off so royally, I vowed never
to give them another dime. On the other hand, Microsoft was forcing me to
upgrade by phasing out Windows 98 and phasing in Windows XP. I tested out
Linux and found it wasn't ready for the desktop. What were my choices?
Click to expand...

If you can live with stealing, then that's your choice. My suggestion is
that you talk to your mother and your children and explain to them that
stealing is OK if you don't like the person or company from whom you are
stealing. I think that would be a particularly powerful message for you to
impart on your children.
 
Mac Cool said:
BobR:


I never had any problems installing it, it's getting it to work after you
install it.
Click to expand...

Odd. The few times I've installed linux, it's been easier to install AND
use than any version of windows, including windows XP. The only thing
that's stopping linux from dominating the OS market is Microsoft Office*.
The "compatible" programs for linux will never be compatible enough,
unfortunately. Yes, they can open and save files in Microsoft office
format. The problem is, you don't know UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE if anybody ELSE
can open those files. -Dave

*That, and games. But if most businesses switched to linux, you'd see more
games ported to linux soon enough.
 
IsaacKuo wrote in message
For me, Knoppix is worth if for QTParted alone. It's a Partition
Magic clone. I have long simply lived without a decent partitioning
utility because I neither wanted to spend the money on Partition
Magic nor did I want to pirate it.
Click to expand...

When I first got my Debian CDs, I had to use Parted(command-line) before I
could do anything. I was so impressed, I will never use ms fdisk if I have a
choice(parted, cfdisk, etc.)!
I would heartily recommend dual booting Windows/Linux for anyone
who is currently used to Windows but who also likes to tinker with
his computer. You literally have nothing to lose, and it's fun to
play around with.
Click to expand...

The real mind-blower for me was the fact you can change the kernel to what
you want.
I took out things I knew this machine would never need, 'moduled' the things
I thought I may need in the future, and 'built-in' the things I do need.
Stock kernel booted in about 40 seconds, my kernel boots in about 10 seconds
and has never crashed (knock on wood.).

Then I have another partition on another drive (hdb) with Debian
Sid(unstable) installed, which runs much more stable than the Woody(release)
install.
My lilo-conf is a real mess, but, it all works, {linux, linux-old, linuxSid,
win98[1]}.
The biggest difference in the Linux experience...
Click to expand...
..... Once you get used to it, though, it's hard to go back to
Windows.
Isaac Kuo
Click to expand...

I go back, and forth. I'm learning/working in C++ with wxWidgets, and want
to be sure my programs compile/run in Linux and windows.

Well, enough babble, I think I'll fire up an IDE somewhere and tinker!

[1] - I successfully installed win95b on this Pentium 4, but it wouldn't
run, wonder why (duh! <G>). I won't go winXP!!
 
kony:

I was aiming my comment specifically at Al who justifies stealing because
he was 'pissed off'. Sure, there were lots of reasons to be pissed off
back in 95/98 days because those were defective products IMO and quite
frankly I could care less if people bitch but it starts chapping my ass
when people just make shit up to bitch about.
Click to expand...


Even so, you just gave them justification...
If the prior version is defective, they're entitled to money
back or a working replacement. User can't steal what they
paid for right? If they pay for an OS (like XP) that's
marketed as secure, and the email client can't even open an
email without risk of infection, unless
patched/safeguarded/virus-scanned, extra measures, it's not
secure. XP is defective too, IMO. I don't think anyone
should steal windows, rather that MS should be forced to
patch it. They should be fined so severely for every day
these issues go unaddressed that within a year, if all but
the obscure problems aren't fixed then they're bankrupt.

In a way this kinda parallels the whole situation with the
RIAA, people stealing MP3s. Some may just do it because
they can, but others aren't willing to pay $15+ for a CD
with only one or two songs they want. Same people might not
be willing to pay MS over $100 for defect pathes, USB2, or
48bit LBA support (and still not get defect resolution??),
they just want what they paid for already to be supported,
not in a half-assed fashion but appropriate to the profits
made, the price of it.

I don't think WInXP brings enough value-added featues
(beyond those things that should've be patched in past OS)
that most people would pay over $100 if they already have a
prior OS license. Well actually I think it's detrimental to
add the features to 2K that MS did then call it XP, but I
digress. Perhaps some had OEM license that is
non-transferrible, but others didn't. A complex issue with
so many variables, and it doesn't help that some people may
feel cheated. It is complex because it is legally stealing,
by a government that does not hold MS to the standards of
defect or monopoly seen elsewhere, many people ARE forced to
choose windows as Linux is not a viable alternative for
them.

Then again I can't read minds, some might just do it because
they can. I'd heard that MS is checking licenses now for
some of (all but the most critical?) windows updates and
denying people, so at least those "stealing" windows aren't
able to continually update it, but that doesn't diminish
that I still think MS should have to patch their past
versions of windows for _paying_ customers. They did make
billion$ off of them, is that too much to expect even if it
weren't legally necessary (excepting that our goverment
seems to apply different standards to the software industry,
and MS in particular, compared to other industries). I
suppose my advice is to pay for windows but jump ship as
soon as linux meets one's needs. That is, if one doesn't
feel Windows is worth paying for.
 
kony said:
Even so, you just gave them justification...
If the prior version is defective, they're entitled to money
back or a working replacement. User can't steal what they
paid for right? If they pay for an OS (like XP) that's
marketed as secure, and the email client can't even open an
email without risk of infection, unless
patched/safeguarded/virus-scanned, extra measures, it's not
secure. XP is defective too, IMO. I don't think anyone
should steal windows, rather that MS should be forced to
patch it. They should be fined so severely for every day
these issues go unaddressed that within a year, if all but
the obscure problems aren't fixed then they're bankrupt.

In a way this kinda parallels the whole situation with the
RIAA, people stealing MP3s. Some may just do it because
they can, but others aren't willing to pay $15+ for a CD
with only one or two songs they want. Same people might not
be willing to pay MS over $100 for defect pathes, USB2, or
48bit LBA support (and still not get defect resolution??),
they just want what they paid for already to be supported,
not in a half-assed fashion but appropriate to the profits
made, the price of it.

I don't think WInXP brings enough value-added featues
(beyond those things that should've be patched in past OS)
that most people would pay over $100 if they already have a
prior OS license. Well actually I think it's detrimental to
add the features to 2K that MS did then call it XP, but I
digress. Perhaps some had OEM license that is
non-transferrible, but others didn't. A complex issue with
so many variables, and it doesn't help that some people may
feel cheated. It is complex because it is legally stealing,
by a government that does not hold MS to the standards of
defect or monopoly seen elsewhere, many people ARE forced to
choose windows as Linux is not a viable alternative for
them.

Then again I can't read minds, some might just do it because
they can. I'd heard that MS is checking licenses now for
some of (all but the most critical?) windows updates and
denying people, so at least those "stealing" windows aren't
able to continually update it, but that doesn't diminish
that I still think MS should have to patch their past
versions of windows for _paying_ customers. They did make
billion$ off of them, is that too much to expect even if it
weren't legally necessary (excepting that our goverment
seems to apply different standards to the software industry,
and MS in particular, compared to other industries). I
suppose my advice is to pay for windows but jump ship as
soon as linux meets one's needs. That is, if one doesn't
feel Windows is worth paying for.
Click to expand...

Linux has patches to
http://www.ciac.org/ciac/bulletinsByType/vndr_linux_bulletins.html

Craig
 
kony:
Even so, you just gave them justification...
Click to expand...

Just a note, the only reason I consider 95/98 defective is because of
the inherent memory leak that required the system to be rebooted
occasionally.
If the prior version is defective, they're entitled to money
back or a working replacement. User can't steal what they
paid for right?
Click to expand...

Opinion doesn't justify theft even if it's my opinion ;)
 
kony:


Just a note, the only reason I consider 95/98 defective is because of
the inherent memory leak that required the system to be rebooted
occasionally.


Opinion doesn't justify theft even if it's my opinion ;)
Click to expand...

So if I offer to sell you a tomato, but mail you an apple...
if you come over and pick a tomato off my vine did you steal
it?
 
kony said:
So if I offer to sell you a tomato, but mail you an apple...
if you come over and pick a tomato off my vine did you steal
it?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Arguably you've also stolen his money, but two wrongs don't make a
right.

- Brooks
 
Yes.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Once I have accepted payment he didn't.
Arguably you've also stolen his money, but two wrongs don't make a
right.
Click to expand...

Arguably I've committed fraud, but there aren't TWO wrongs.

Problem is, this applies to the concept of stealing but not
directly to windows. Since MS never patched windows, one
cannot "take" the tomato, and grabs a pear instead... that
would be stealing, except that if I'd defrauded millions of
people with my apple scheme, I'd be in prison already.
There's the double-standard, MS appears to be above the law.
 
Back
Top