Discussion:
installing Win 8.1 on multiple machines
(too old to reply)
trinity
2014-06-29 10:51:44 UTC
Permalink
I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
Windows 8 Professional.
I am setting up the first one but after W8 installed I have to go through
the long process of downloading 8.1 from the Store.

Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc image
and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the process each
time for each PC?
Thanks
Stewart
2014-06-29 12:19:49 UTC
Permalink
"trinity" <***@invalid.uk> wrote in message
news:53afefbf$0$1454$***@news.zen.co.uk...
>I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
> Windows 8 Professional.
> I am setting up the first one but after W8 installed I have to go
> through
> the long process of downloading 8.1 from the Store.
>
> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc
> image
> and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the process
> each
> time for each PC?
> Thanks

This is what our IT group at work does with new and redeployed
PC's....should work, though your licensing arrangement may make it
difficult? (not sure about that part of it).
trinity
2014-06-29 12:38:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:19:49 -0400, Stewart wrote:

> "trinity" <***@invalid.uk> wrote in message
> news:53afefbf$0$1454$***@news.zen.co.uk...
>>I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
>> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
>> Windows 8 Professional.
>> I am setting up the first one but after W8 installed I have to go
>> through the long process of downloading 8.1 from the Store.
>>
>> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc image
>> and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the process
>> each time for each PC?
>> Thanks
>
> This is what our IT group at work does with new and redeployed
> PC's....should work, though your licensing arrangement may make it
> difficult? (not sure about that part of it).

Thanks for your reply. I am aware how a large company with a volume
license can deploy but we are a charity which bought the PCs through
normal retail channels so they have OEM licenses and I wonder if the image
made on one PC would contain anything that identifies a specific PC
license.
Johnny
2014-06-29 12:55:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:38:51 +0000, trinity wrote:

> Thanks for your reply. I am aware how a large company with a volume
> license can deploy but we are a charity which bought the PCs through
> normal retail channels so they have OEM licenses and I wonder if the
> image made on one PC would contain anything that identifies a specific
> PC license.

Why don't you use Linux Mint 17 KDE? It's free, no license required, and
you can install it on as many computers as you need to.


Linux Mint is the most popular desktop Linux distribution and the 3rd most
widely used home operating system behind Microsoft Windows and Apple Mac
OS.

http://www.linuxmint.com/index.php
trinity
2014-06-29 13:08:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:55:51 +0000, Johnny wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:38:51 +0000, trinity wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your reply. I am aware how a large company with a volume
>> license can deploy but we are a charity which bought the PCs through
>> normal retail channels so they have OEM licenses and I wonder if the
>> image made on one PC would contain anything that identifies a specific
>> PC license.
>
> Why don't you use Linux Mint 17 KDE? It's free, no license required,
> and you can install it on as many computers as you need to.
>
>
> Linux Mint is the most popular desktop Linux distribution and the 3rd
> most widely used home operating system behind Microsoft Windows and
> Apple Mac OS.
>
> http://www.linuxmint.com/index.php

Hi Johnny,
Numerous reasons why not, mainly that we are teaching the over 50s and
others how to use computers/internet and most go out and buy a laptop
after that (Win 8 of course.) We do use Linux for those who are XP
refugees and have an old desktop they can't afford to replace and use Mint
17 Cinnammon or Linux Lite2 or PC Linux if the first two won't play ball
with the (often ancient) kit...

Now, back to the original question if I may................
Stewart
2014-07-02 11:16:30 UTC
Permalink
"trinity" <***@invalid.uk> wrote in message
news:53b008db$0$1460$***@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:19:49 -0400, Stewart wrote:
>
>> "trinity" <***@invalid.uk> wrote in message
>> news:53afefbf$0$1454$***@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came
>>>with
>>> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade
>>> to
>>> Windows 8 Professional.
>>> I am setting up the first one but after W8 installed I have to go
>>> through the long process of downloading 8.1 from the Store.
>>>
>>> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc
>>> image
>>> and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the
>>> process
>>> each time for each PC?
>>> Thanks
>>
>> This is what our IT group at work does with new and redeployed
>> PC's....should work, though your licensing arrangement may make it
>> difficult? (not sure about that part of it).
>
> Thanks for your reply. I am aware how a large company with a volume
> license can deploy but we are a charity which bought the PCs through
> normal retail channels so they have OEM licenses and I wonder if the
> image
> made on one PC would contain anything that identifies a specific PC
> license.

You may not be able to register more than one. Of course, if it's
already registered, it may not need to be done again. I would contact
Mickeysoft and pose the question to them.....Ubuntu or some other
flavor of Linux may be a less costly route if there are issues that
cannot be resolved.
BillW50
2014-07-07 09:13:37 UTC
Permalink
On 6/29/2014 7:38 AM, trinity wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:19:49 -0400, Stewart wrote:
>
>> "trinity" <***@invalid.uk> wrote in message
>> news:53afefbf$0$1454$***@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
>>> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
>>> Windows 8 Professional.
>>> I am setting up the first one but after W8 installed I have to go
>>> through the long process of downloading 8.1 from the Store.
>>>
>>> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc image
>>> and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the process
>>> each time for each PC?
>>> Thanks
>>
>> This is what our IT group at work does with new and redeployed
>> PC's....should work, though your licensing arrangement may make it
>> difficult? (not sure about that part of it).
>
> Thanks for your reply. I am aware how a large company with a volume
> license can deploy but we are a charity which bought the PCs through
> normal retail channels so they have OEM licenses and I wonder if the image
> made on one PC would contain anything that identifies a specific PC
> license.

I am not sure about Windows 8, but Windows XP through 7 with large
computer manufactures like Dell, Gateway, etc. uses branded OEM Windows.
And these are really volume licenses. If you check the Windows key, it
most likely won't match the one on the COA. That is because the
manufacture is using the volume key.

For example, I have seven Gateway M465. I can take the drive out of one
machine and drop it into another M465 and it works just fine. Same is
true of my four Motion Computing LE1700 tablets and two Dell Latitude
Slate Tablets. No activation, fuss, or anything.

So I would just clone the first one and drop it into the second one. If
things work as they did in the past, it will be just fine. And then just
clone the rest of them. If it doesn't work, just means you need to
change the key for each one (search and there are ways to do this) and
then reactivate them.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional
David.WE.Roberts
2014-06-29 14:45:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 10:51:44 +0000, trinity wrote:

> I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
> Windows 8 Professional.
> I am setting up the first one but after W8 installed I have to go
> through the long process of downloading 8.1 from the Store.
>
> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc image
> and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the process
> each time for each PC?
> Thanks

I think the main question is "can I use a Windows 7/8.0 key to change
licence keys on a system which was installed as 7, upgraded to 8.0 via
recovery disc then upgraded to 8.1.1.via the App store?".

Certainly you should be able to do the install on one, upgrade to 8.1.1
(long slow process) then use something like Paragon Backup and Restore
Free (if you don't want to take the HDDs out) or a cloning tool e.g. under
Linux if you are happy to shuffle the discs around.

I'm afraid I can't answer the 'key' question, though.
I suppose your best bet is to do the first system then try to clone it, if
nobody else has gone this route.

Do you have a Windows 8 key, or just a Windows 7 key?

If you have a Windows 8 key then you can (with a bit of fancy footwork) do
a clean install instead of an upgrade to a W7 install.

Hope this is of some help.

Dave R
trinity
2014-06-30 20:41:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:45:56 +0000, David.WE.Roberts wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 10:51:44 +0000, trinity wrote:
>
>> I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
>> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
>> Windows 8 Professional.
>> I am setting up the first one but after W8 installed I have to go
>> through the long process of downloading 8.1 from the Store.
>>
>> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc image
>> and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the process
>> each time for each PC?
>> Thanks
>
> I think the main question is "can I use a Windows 7/8.0 key to change
> licence keys on a system which was installed as 7, upgraded to 8.0 via
> recovery disc then upgraded to 8.1.1.via the App store?".
>
> Certainly you should be able to do the install on one, upgrade to 8.1.1
> (long slow process) then use something like Paragon Backup and Restore
> Free (if you don't want to take the HDDs out) or a cloning tool e.g.
> under Linux if you are happy to shuffle the discs around.
>
> I'm afraid I can't answer the 'key' question, though.
> I suppose your best bet is to do the first system then try to clone it,
> if nobody else has gone this route.
>
> Do you have a Windows 8 key, or just a Windows 7 key?
>
> If you have a Windows 8 key then you can (with a bit of fancy footwork)
> do a clean install instead of an upgrade to a W7 install.
>
> Hope this is of some help.
>
> Dave R

Hello Dave,
No that's not really the question as the PCs came with no license key
label for win 7 nor win 8.
That's half of the problem.
Dave
Paul
2014-06-29 17:42:20 UTC
Permalink
trinity wrote:
> I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
> Windows 8 Professional.
> I am setting up the first one but after W8 installed I have to go through
> the long process of downloading 8.1 from the Store.
>
> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc image
> and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the process each
> time for each PC?
> Thanks

Could you get it from here ?

http://catalog.update.microsoft.com/v7/site/Search.aspx?q=2919355

Runs in IE. It allows you to specify a download folder.

I've never used this, and just found the suggestion two minutes ago.

You can also download all the U1 updates separately, and
that's how I did my 8.1 to 8.1U1 update. I kept all the
files separate, in case I needed to do a reinstall.

Paul
Paul
2014-06-29 19:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Paul wrote:
> trinity wrote:
>> I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
>> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
>> Windows 8 Professional. I am setting up the first one but after W8
>> installed I have to go through the long process of downloading 8.1
>> from the Store.
>>
>> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc
>> image and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the
>> process each time for each PC?
>> Thanks
>
> Could you get it from here ?
>
> http://catalog.update.microsoft.com/v7/site/Search.aspx?q=2919355
>
> Runs in IE. It allows you to specify a download folder.
>
> I've never used this, and just found the suggestion two minutes ago.
>
> You can also download all the U1 updates separately, and
> that's how I did my 8.1 to 8.1U1 update. I kept all the
> files separate, in case I needed to do a reinstall.
>
> Paul

Sorry, that's for U1, not for SP1. Those files aren't big enough.

Paul
trinity
2014-06-30 20:45:18 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:17:59 -0400, Paul wrote:

> Paul wrote:
>> trinity wrote:
>>> I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
>>> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
>>> Windows 8 Professional. I am setting up the first one but after W8
>>> installed I have to go through the long process of downloading 8.1
>>> from the Store.
>>>
>>> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc
>>> image and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the
>>> process each time for each PC?
>>> Thanks
>>
>> Could you get it from here ?
>>
>> http://catalog.update.microsoft.com/v7/site/Search.aspx?q=2919355
>>
>> Runs in IE. It allows you to specify a download folder.
>>
>> I've never used this, and just found the suggestion two minutes ago.
>>
>> You can also download all the U1 updates separately, and that's how I
>> did my 8.1 to 8.1U1 update. I kept all the files separate, in case I
>> needed to do a reinstall.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Sorry, that's for U1, not for SP1. Those files aren't big enough.
>
> Paul

To be honest Paul I have no idea what you are saying. SP1 for Windows 8??
And I couldn't find any reference to win 8 update 1 in the web site you
mentioned.
Paul
2014-06-30 20:57:16 UTC
Permalink
trinity wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:17:59 -0400, Paul wrote:
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>> trinity wrote:
>>>> I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
>>>> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
>>>> Windows 8 Professional. I am setting up the first one but after W8
>>>> installed I have to go through the long process of downloading 8.1
>>>> from the Store.
>>>>
>>>> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc
>>>> image and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the
>>>> process each time for each PC?
>>>> Thanks
>>> Could you get it from here ?
>>>
>>> http://catalog.update.microsoft.com/v7/site/Search.aspx?q=2919355
>>>
>>> Runs in IE. It allows you to specify a download folder.
>>>
>>> I've never used this, and just found the suggestion two minutes ago.
>>>
>>> You can also download all the U1 updates separately, and that's how I
>>> did my 8.1 to 8.1U1 update. I kept all the files separate, in case I
>>> needed to do a reinstall.
>>>
>>> Paul
>> Sorry, that's for U1, not for SP1. Those files aren't big enough.
>>
>> Paul
>
> To be honest Paul I have no idea what you are saying. SP1 for Windows 8??
> And I couldn't find any reference to win 8 update 1 in the web site you
> mentioned.

To go from Win8 to Win8.1, visit the Microsoft Store (use the Microsoft Store
icon). You don't need a Microsoft Account to get that update. For other
things involving the Store icon, you would likely need a Microsoft Account,
but not for the software that takes you to 8.1. It is a Service Pack, but
involves downloading virtually an entire installer DVD. I did not need to
do that, because I already had an 8.1 DVD to use.

After that update completes (long downloaded), look for KB2919355. It
can be done from Windows Update, automatically. Or it can be done
by hand, by downloading around six files or so, as described in
the Knowledgebase article. This takes you from Win8.1 to Win8.1U1.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=42335

clearcompressionflag.exe
Windows8.1-KB2919355-x64.msu
Windows8.1-KB2932046-x64.msu
Windows8.1-KB2934018-x64.msu
Windows8.1-KB2937592-x64.msu
Windows8.1-KB2938439-x64.msu
Windows8.1-KB2959977-x64.msu

Sometime soon, there will be a U2 update, and another set of
files to take you to Win8.1U2.

*******

I mistakenly thought that update site had the software, but
I was looking at U1 info and not 8.1 info.

The only thing I don't like about using the Store for a source
of the Service Pack, is the file isn't easy to reuse that way.
Whereas with the KB2919355 article, all the files are there,
and you can keep them for when you need to do a reinstall. I
always try to collect enough files to do a reinstall.

Paul
. . .winston
2014-07-02 04:52:36 UTC
Permalink
trinity wrote, On 6/30/2014 4:45 PM:
>
> To be honest Paul I have no idea what you are saying. SP1 for Windows 8??
> And I couldn't find any reference to win 8 update 1 in the web site you
> mentioned.
>

While some have called Windows 8.1 a service pack for Windows 8.0 that
would be incorrect in MSFT terminology and the majority of internet
articles.

8.1 is a mandatory o/s upgrade to 8.0 with specific time constraints
- required for Windows 8.0 prior to January 2016
- required to install 8.1 Update (aka but not by MSFT as 8.1 Update 1)
- also 8.1 is deprecated as of June 10 2014 since 8.1 Update is
necessary to receive program and security updates.
- is available from the MSFT Store

8.1 Update is deployed (a) via Windows Update after all necessary prior
Windows updates have been installed; (b) via download from the MSFT
Download Center; (c) optionally from the MSFT Catalog Update website

i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1 Update.
If one has 8.1 then to continue to receive program and security
updates they need to update asap.
**Note** - what is unknown is whether or not the future/next update for
8.1 (referred to as Update 2) will require 8.1 Update to be installed as
a minimume pre-req or also allow updating from 8.1 RTM
-

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps
Roderick Stewart
2014-07-02 06:29:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
>yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1 Update.

But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till support is
stopped, or if Linux, forever.

Certainly something to bear in mind when choosing an operating system.

Rod.
Neil
2014-07-03 11:21:21 UTC
Permalink
On 7/2/2014 2:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1 Update.
>
> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till support is
> stopped, or if Linux, forever.
>
> Certainly something to bear in mind when choosing an operating system.
>
> Rod.
>
For those who use a computer for professional purposes, the main thing
to consider about an OS is whether it supports the requisite hardware
and software needed for getting work done efficiently. Outside of a very
few occupations, Linux falls too far short to be of much use. Windows 7
is adequate for "legacy users", but the growing market segment is not
there.

For casual users, a smart watch may be all they desire. ;-^
--
best regards,

Neil
Caver1
2014-07-03 12:06:38 UTC
Permalink
On 07/03/2014 07:21 AM, Neil wrote:
> On 7/2/2014 2:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
>>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1 Update.
>>
>> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till support is
>> stopped, or if Linux, forever.
>>
>> Certainly something to bear in mind when choosing an operating system.
>>
>> Rod.
>>
> For those who use a computer for professional purposes, the main thing
> to consider about an OS is whether it supports the requisite hardware
> and software needed for getting work done efficiently. Outside of a very
> few occupations, Linux falls too far short to be of much use. Windows 7
> is adequate for "legacy users", but the growing market segment is not
> there.

Where did you get the idea that Linux "falls too far short to be of much
use"? It works just as good as Windows and in many cases better.
Most of Linux's usage is professional and covers many occupations.

> For casual users, a smart watch may be all they desire. ;-^

True. :)

--
Caver1
Neil
2014-07-03 17:34:58 UTC
Permalink
On 7/3/2014 8:06 AM, Caver1 wrote:
> On 07/03/2014 07:21 AM, Neil wrote:
>> On 7/2/2014 2:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
>>>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1
>>>> Update.
>>>
>>> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till support is
>>> stopped, or if Linux, forever.
>>>
>>> Certainly something to bear in mind when choosing an operating system.
>>>
>>> Rod.
>>>
>> For those who use a computer for professional purposes, the main thing
>> to consider about an OS is whether it supports the requisite hardware
>> and software needed for getting work done efficiently. Outside of a very
>> few occupations, Linux falls too far short to be of much use. Windows 7
>> is adequate for "legacy users", but the growing market segment is not
>> there.
>
> Where did you get the idea that Linux "falls too far short to be of much
> use"?
>
I got it from decades of trying to get Linux to be functional in the
professional areas that I earn my keep.

Most of the apps that I require can't be run in a virtual environment
without problems, and there are no Linux equivalents. Most of the
hardware that I require for media production have no Linux drivers, and
the drivers for the few devices that I have that can run under Linux are
inadequate compared to the Windows and Mac versions.

> It works just as good as Windows and in many cases better.
>
That has not been my experience. Not even close.

> Most of Linux's usage is professional and covers many occupations.
>
I agree that most of Linux's usage is professional, but that's largely
because of its use in server environments. But, that hardly comprises
"many occupations", just many people in a couple of them. ;-^
--
best regards,

Neil
Caver1
2014-07-03 18:10:12 UTC
Permalink
On 07/03/2014 01:34 PM, Neil wrote:
> On 7/3/2014 8:06 AM, Caver1 wrote:
>> On 07/03/2014 07:21 AM, Neil wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2014 2:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
>>>>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1
>>>>> Update.
>>>>
>>>> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till support is
>>>> stopped, or if Linux, forever.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly something to bear in mind when choosing an operating system.
>>>>
>>>> Rod.
>>>>
>>> For those who use a computer for professional purposes, the main thing
>>> to consider about an OS is whether it supports the requisite hardware
>>> and software needed for getting work done efficiently. Outside of a very
>>> few occupations, Linux falls too far short to be of much use. Windows 7
>>> is adequate for "legacy users", but the growing market segment is not
>>> there.
>>
>> Where did you get the idea that Linux "falls too far short to be of much
>> use"?
> >
> I got it from decades of trying to get Linux to be functional in the
> professional areas that I earn my keep.
>
> Most of the apps that I require can't be run in a virtual environment
> without problems, and there are no Linux equivalents. Most of the
> hardware that I require for media production have no Linux drivers, and
> the drivers for the few devices that I have that can run under Linux are
> inadequate compared to the Windows and Mac versions.
>
>> It works just as good as Windows and in many cases better.
>>
> That has not been my experience. Not even close.
>
> > Most of Linux's usage is professional and covers many occupations.
> >
> I agree that most of Linux's usage is professional, but that's largely
> because of its use in server environments. But, that hardly comprises
> "many occupations", just many people in a couple of them. ;-^

If you did a little research you would find that the professional use
I'm talking about has nothing to do with servers. It has to do with real
time applications from scientific to the movies to military and so on.

--
Caver1
Neil
2014-07-03 21:01:07 UTC
Permalink
On 7/3/2014 2:10 PM, Caver1 wrote:
> On 07/03/2014 01:34 PM, Neil wrote:
>> On 7/3/2014 8:06 AM, Caver1 wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2014 07:21 AM, Neil wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/2014 2:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
>>>>>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1
>>>>>> Update.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till support is
>>>>> stopped, or if Linux, forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly something to bear in mind when choosing an operating system.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rod.
>>>>>
>>>> For those who use a computer for professional purposes, the main thing
>>>> to consider about an OS is whether it supports the requisite hardware
>>>> and software needed for getting work done efficiently. Outside of a
>>>> very
>>>> few occupations, Linux falls too far short to be of much use. Windows 7
>>>> is adequate for "legacy users", but the growing market segment is not
>>>> there.
>>>
>>> Where did you get the idea that Linux "falls too far short to be of much
>>> use"?
>> >
>> I got it from decades of trying to get Linux to be functional in the
>> professional areas that I earn my keep.
>>
>> Most of the apps that I require can't be run in a virtual environment
>> without problems, and there are no Linux equivalents. Most of the
>> hardware that I require for media production have no Linux drivers, and
>> the drivers for the few devices that I have that can run under Linux are
>> inadequate compared to the Windows and Mac versions.
>>
>>> It works just as good as Windows and in many cases better.
>>>
>> That has not been my experience. Not even close.
>>
>> > Most of Linux's usage is professional and covers many occupations.
>> >
>> I agree that most of Linux's usage is professional, but that's largely
>> because of its use in server environments. But, that hardly comprises
>> "many occupations", just many people in a couple of them. ;-^
>
> If you did a little research you would find that the professional use
> I'm talking about has nothing to do with servers. It has to do with real
> time applications from scientific to the movies to military and so on.
>
One doesn't have to do research to know that most professions are
outside of those fields, and/or that most users don't write their own
applications, drivers, and so forth. In the world of business in most
fields of endeavor, it's Windows and Mac (to a much lesser extent).

In other words, I'm not discounting any *nix, including Linux as being a
useful OS, and even the best choice for some applications. I'm just not
deluded about it, either.
--
best regards,

Neil
Caver1
2014-07-03 21:19:37 UTC
Permalink
On 07/03/2014 05:01 PM, Neil wrote:
> On 7/3/2014 2:10 PM, Caver1 wrote:
>> On 07/03/2014 01:34 PM, Neil wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2014 8:06 AM, Caver1 wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2014 07:21 AM, Neil wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2014 2:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less
>>>>>>> than 2
>>>>>>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1
>>>>>>> Update.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till support is
>>>>>> stopped, or if Linux, forever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Certainly something to bear in mind when choosing an operating
>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rod.
>>>>>>
>>>>> For those who use a computer for professional purposes, the main thing
>>>>> to consider about an OS is whether it supports the requisite hardware
>>>>> and software needed for getting work done efficiently. Outside of a
>>>>> very
>>>>> few occupations, Linux falls too far short to be of much use.
>>>>> Windows 7
>>>>> is adequate for "legacy users", but the growing market segment is not
>>>>> there.
>>>>
>>>> Where did you get the idea that Linux "falls too far short to be of
>>>> much
>>>> use"?
>>> >
>>> I got it from decades of trying to get Linux to be functional in the
>>> professional areas that I earn my keep.
>>>
>>> Most of the apps that I require can't be run in a virtual environment
>>> without problems, and there are no Linux equivalents. Most of the
>>> hardware that I require for media production have no Linux drivers, and
>>> the drivers for the few devices that I have that can run under Linux are
>>> inadequate compared to the Windows and Mac versions.
>>>
>>>> It works just as good as Windows and in many cases better.
>>>>
>>> That has not been my experience. Not even close.
>>>
>>> > Most of Linux's usage is professional and covers many occupations.
>>> >
>>> I agree that most of Linux's usage is professional, but that's largely
>>> because of its use in server environments. But, that hardly comprises
>>> "many occupations", just many people in a couple of them. ;-^
>>
>> If you did a little research you would find that the professional use
>> I'm talking about has nothing to do with servers. It has to do with real
>> time applications from scientific to the movies to military and so on.
>>
> One doesn't have to do research to know that most professions are
> outside of those fields, and/or that most users don't write their own
> applications, drivers, and so forth. In the world of business in most
> fields of endeavor, it's Windows and Mac (to a much lesser extent).
>
> In other words, I'm not discounting any *nix, including Linux as being a
> useful OS, and even the best choice for some applications. I'm just not
> deluded about it, either.

I just put them up as examples not that they were the only fields, many
big business's have already switched over, some are a mixture.
Well, I'm afraid you are deluded about it. Just like Wall Street is 99%
Linux, Facebook is 100% Linux, not just it's servers for other examples.

--
Caver1
trinity
2014-07-03 22:16:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 17:19:37 -0400, Caver1 wrote:

> On 07/03/2014 05:01 PM, Neil wrote:
>> On 7/3/2014 2:10 PM, Caver1 wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2014 01:34 PM, Neil wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2014 8:06 AM, Caver1 wrote:
>>>>> On 07/03/2014 07:21 AM, Neil wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/2014 2:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
>>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less
>>>>>>>> than 2 yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update
>>>>>>>> to 8.1 Update.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till support
>>>>>>> is stopped, or if Linux, forever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly something to bear in mind when choosing an operating
>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rod.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those who use a computer for professional purposes, the main
>>>>>> thing to consider about an OS is whether it supports the requisite
>>>>>> hardware and software needed for getting work done efficiently.
>>>>>> Outside of a very few occupations, Linux falls too far short to be
>>>>>> of much use.
>>>>>> Windows 7 is adequate for "legacy users", but the growing market
>>>>>> segment is not there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did you get the idea that Linux "falls too far short to be of
>>>>> much use"?
>>>> >
>>>> I got it from decades of trying to get Linux to be functional in the
>>>> professional areas that I earn my keep.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the apps that I require can't be run in a virtual environment
>>>> without problems, and there are no Linux equivalents. Most of the
>>>> hardware that I require for media production have no Linux drivers,
>>>> and the drivers for the few devices that I have that can run under
>>>> Linux are inadequate compared to the Windows and Mac versions.
>>>>
>>>>> It works just as good as Windows and in many cases better.
>>>>>
>>>> That has not been my experience. Not even close.
>>>>
>>>> > Most of Linux's usage is professional and covers many occupations.
>>>> >
>>>> I agree that most of Linux's usage is professional, but that's
>>>> largely because of its use in server environments. But, that hardly
>>>> comprises "many occupations", just many people in a couple of them.
>>>> ;-^
>>>
>>> If you did a little research you would find that the professional use
>>> I'm talking about has nothing to do with servers. It has to do with
>>> real time applications from scientific to the movies to military and
>>> so on.
>>>
>> One doesn't have to do research to know that most professions are
>> outside of those fields, and/or that most users don't write their own
>> applications, drivers, and so forth. In the world of business in most
>> fields of endeavor, it's Windows and Mac (to a much lesser extent).
>>
>> In other words, I'm not discounting any *nix, including Linux as being
>> a useful OS, and even the best choice for some applications. I'm just
>> not deluded about it, either.
>
> I just put them up as examples not that they were the only fields, many
> big business's have already switched over, some are a mixture.
> Well, I'm afraid you are deluded about it. Just like Wall Street is 99%
> Linux, Facebook is 100% Linux, not just it's servers for other examples.

Well as you seem to have hijacked my original thread I'll step in here and
ask are you really saying Facebook use Linux for all there desktops, as
well as Wall street?
I have been a fan of Linux for years and am currently using it to convert
the PCs of XP refugees who can't afford a new PC or tablet and getting
peripherals such as printers, web-cams etc to work is certainly a
challenge.
If you are a mega corporation with Linux IT specialists and specialist
needs then no doubt it's great but, as a replacement for joe blog's
desktop, it has some way to go.


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Neil Gould
2014-07-04 11:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Caver1 wrote:
> On 07/03/2014 05:01 PM, Neil wrote:
>> On 7/3/2014 2:10 PM, Caver1 wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2014 01:34 PM, Neil wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2014 8:06 AM, Caver1 wrote:
>>>>> On 07/03/2014 07:21 AM, Neil wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/2014 2:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
>>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less
>>>>>>>> than 2
>>>>>>>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to
>>>>>>>> 8.1 Update.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till
>>>>>>> support is stopped, or if Linux, forever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly something to bear in mind when choosing an operating
>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rod.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those who use a computer for professional purposes, the main
>>>>>> thing to consider about an OS is whether it supports the
>>>>>> requisite hardware and software needed for getting work done
>>>>>> efficiently. Outside of a very
>>>>>> few occupations, Linux falls too far short to be of much use.
>>>>>> Windows 7
>>>>>> is adequate for "legacy users", but the growing market segment
>>>>>> is not there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did you get the idea that Linux "falls too far short to be
>>>>> of much
>>>>> use"?
>>>> >
>>>> I got it from decades of trying to get Linux to be functional in
>>>> the professional areas that I earn my keep.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the apps that I require can't be run in a virtual
>>>> environment without problems, and there are no Linux equivalents.
>>>> Most of the hardware that I require for media production have no
>>>> Linux drivers, and the drivers for the few devices that I have
>>>> that can run under Linux are inadequate compared to the Windows
>>>> and Mac versions.
>>>>
>>>>> It works just as good as Windows and in many cases better.
>>>>>
>>>> That has not been my experience. Not even close.
>>>>
>>>> > Most of Linux's usage is professional and covers many
>>>> occupations. >
>>>> I agree that most of Linux's usage is professional, but that's
>>>> largely because of its use in server environments. But, that
>>>> hardly comprises "many occupations", just many people in a couple
>>>> of them. ;-^
>>>
>>> If you did a little research you would find that the professional
>>> use I'm talking about has nothing to do with servers. It has to do
>>> with real time applications from scientific to the movies to
>>> military and so on.
>>>
>> One doesn't have to do research to know that most professions are
>> outside of those fields, and/or that most users don't write their own
>> applications, drivers, and so forth. In the world of business in most
>> fields of endeavor, it's Windows and Mac (to a much lesser extent).
>>
>> In other words, I'm not discounting any *nix, including Linux as
>> being a useful OS, and even the best choice for some applications.
>> I'm just not deluded about it, either.
>
> I just put them up as examples not that they were the only fields,
> many big business's have already switched over, some are a mixture.
> Well, I'm afraid you are deluded about it. Just like Wall Street is
> 99% Linux, Facebook is 100% Linux, not just it's servers for other
> examples.
>
So far, every example you've presented have common characteristic of being
very restricted, and that does not represent the typical professional
business environment. You don't address the lack of drivers for requisite
hardware that I spoke of earlier, or that requisite apps don't function
adequately in VMs, which is the only way they can run under Linux. Until
that changes, Linux market penetration in the business world will remain
limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_adoption

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/linux-market-share

--
best regards,

Neil
Caver1
2014-07-04 11:30:03 UTC
Permalink
On 07/04/2014 07:31 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
> Caver1 wrote:
>> On 07/03/2014 05:01 PM, Neil wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2014 2:10 PM, Caver1 wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2014 01:34 PM, Neil wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2014 8:06 AM, Caver1 wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/03/2014 07:21 AM, Neil wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2014 2:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
>>>>>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less
>>>>>>>>> than 2
>>>>>>>>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to
>>>>>>>>> 8.1 Update.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till
>>>>>>>> support is stopped, or if Linux, forever.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Certainly something to bear in mind when choosing an operating
>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rod.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For those who use a computer for professional purposes, the main
>>>>>>> thing to consider about an OS is whether it supports the
>>>>>>> requisite hardware and software needed for getting work done
>>>>>>> efficiently. Outside of a very
>>>>>>> few occupations, Linux falls too far short to be of much use.
>>>>>>> Windows 7
>>>>>>> is adequate for "legacy users", but the growing market segment
>>>>>>> is not there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did you get the idea that Linux "falls too far short to be
>>>>>> of much
>>>>>> use"?
>>>>> >
>>>>> I got it from decades of trying to get Linux to be functional in
>>>>> the professional areas that I earn my keep.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the apps that I require can't be run in a virtual
>>>>> environment without problems, and there are no Linux equivalents.
>>>>> Most of the hardware that I require for media production have no
>>>>> Linux drivers, and the drivers for the few devices that I have
>>>>> that can run under Linux are inadequate compared to the Windows
>>>>> and Mac versions.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It works just as good as Windows and in many cases better.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That has not been my experience. Not even close.
>>>>>
>>>>> > Most of Linux's usage is professional and covers many
>>>>> occupations. >
>>>>> I agree that most of Linux's usage is professional, but that's
>>>>> largely because of its use in server environments. But, that
>>>>> hardly comprises "many occupations", just many people in a couple
>>>>> of them. ;-^
>>>>
>>>> If you did a little research you would find that the professional
>>>> use I'm talking about has nothing to do with servers. It has to do
>>>> with real time applications from scientific to the movies to
>>>> military and so on.
>>>>
>>> One doesn't have to do research to know that most professions are
>>> outside of those fields, and/or that most users don't write their own
>>> applications, drivers, and so forth. In the world of business in most
>>> fields of endeavor, it's Windows and Mac (to a much lesser extent).
>>>
>>> In other words, I'm not discounting any *nix, including Linux as
>>> being a useful OS, and even the best choice for some applications.
>>> I'm just not deluded about it, either.
>>
>> I just put them up as examples not that they were the only fields,
>> many big business's have already switched over, some are a mixture.
>> Well, I'm afraid you are deluded about it. Just like Wall Street is
>> 99% Linux, Facebook is 100% Linux, not just it's servers for other
>> examples.
>>
> So far, every example you've presented have common characteristic of being
> very restricted, and that does not represent the typical professional
> business environment. You don't address the lack of drivers for requisite
> hardware that I spoke of earlier, or that requisite apps don't function
> adequately in VMs, which is the only way they can run under Linux. Until
> that changes, Linux market penetration in the business world will remain
> limited.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_adoption
>
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/linux-market-share
>

The first link is positive and very general. The second is old Linux has
come a long way since then. The examples I gave were exactly that
examples,just a couple out of the broad spectrum of Linux users in the
professional word. The list is growing all the time. Linux capabilities
in the past were very limited. No longer. There are very few, if any,
driver problems in Linux any more. Linux is adding more drivers
constantly, whereas is shipping with less.
Linux has just as good apps as Windows and many times better.

This is an incompetent list of professional Linux users;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters

I think this has gone far enough.


--
Caver1
Neil
2014-07-04 22:35:05 UTC
Permalink
On 7/4/2014 7:30 AM, Caver1 wrote:
> On 07/04/2014 07:31 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>>
[snipped for brevity]
>
> [...] There are very few, if any,
> driver problems in Linux any more.
>
The various devices that I've been referring to that are in wide use in
several professional fields either have no drivers for Linux or, for the
few that do, don't access the device's full functionality. The reason is
simple: the level of potential sales to Linux users can't justify the
development and support costs.

> Linux has just as good apps as Windows and many times better.
>
That has not been my experience. When that is the case, I'm confident
that the Linux market share will reflect it.
--
best regards,

Neil
Paul
2014-07-04 23:00:59 UTC
Permalink
Neil wrote:
> On 7/4/2014 7:30 AM, Caver1 wrote:
>> On 07/04/2014 07:31 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>>>
> [snipped for brevity]
>>
>> [...] There are very few, if any,
>> driver problems in Linux any more.
> >
> The various devices that I've been referring to that are in wide use in
> several professional fields either have no drivers for Linux or, for the
> few that do, don't access the device's full functionality. The reason is
> simple: the level of potential sales to Linux users can't justify the
> development and support costs.
>
>> Linux has just as good apps as Windows and many times better.
>>
> That has not been my experience. When that is the case, I'm confident
> that the Linux market share will reflect it.

An example would be LibreOffice.

I haven't got any high quality prints from it yet.
And I'm not even a serious user. The font spacing
always ends up wrong. It's almost like Cairo is in
there or something (that's a print engine that
shipped before it was even half finished.)

You can generate some pretty nice looking output,
by outputting an entire string in a selected font,
and leave it to the printer to figure out the
spacing. And the output from LibreOffice seems to
output one character at a time, and pretends to know
where everything is supposed to go. And you have
to be damn good, to get that right. And so far,
I'm not impressed. It's not WYSIWYG. It fails
the WYSIWYG test.

In fact, I could write some PostScript or PDF code
by hand, and get nicer output than LibreOffice is
giving me right now. And LibreOffice is a "showcase"
app included on every LiveCD for Linux. What is it
a showcase of, then ?

Paul
Neil Gould
2014-07-05 11:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Paul wrote:
> Neil wrote:
>> On 7/4/2014 7:30 AM, Caver1 wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2014 07:31 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>>>>
>> [snipped for brevity]
>>>
>>> [...] There are very few, if any,
>>> driver problems in Linux any more.
>> >
>> The various devices that I've been referring to that are in wide use
>> in several professional fields either have no drivers for Linux or,
>> for the few that do, don't access the device's full functionality.
>> The reason is simple: the level of potential sales to Linux users
>> can't justify the development and support costs.
>>
>>> Linux has just as good apps as Windows and many times better.
>>>
>> That has not been my experience. When that is the case, I'm confident
>> that the Linux market share will reflect it.
>
> An example would be LibreOffice.
>
> I haven't got any high quality prints from it yet.
> And I'm not even a serious user. The font spacing
> always ends up wrong. It's almost like Cairo is in
> there or something (that's a print engine that
> shipped before it was even half finished.)
>
> You can generate some pretty nice looking output,
> by outputting an entire string in a selected font,
> and leave it to the printer to figure out the
> spacing. And the output from LibreOffice seems to
> output one character at a time, and pretends to know
> where everything is supposed to go. And you have
> to be damn good, to get that right. And so far,
> I'm not impressed. It's not WYSIWYG. It fails
> the WYSIWYG test.
>
> In fact, I could write some PostScript or PDF code
> by hand, and get nicer output than LibreOffice is
> giving me right now. And LibreOffice is a "showcase"
> app included on every LiveCD for Linux. What is it
> a showcase of, then ?
>
I find Open/LibreOffice to be a less capable word processor than Word 4.0
for DOS. Even simple things, such as editable sections with different
layouts are pretty much impossible. And, those apps are about as good as it
gets for open source software under Linux. Ardour is OK, as long as you have
Linux drivers for your hardware, which is unlikely except for consumer-level
products.

I think Caver1 was referring to some of the custom-written apps that take
advantage of Linux' strengths, such as very low latency processing. If not,
I don't know what s/he's thinking.
--
best regards,

Neil
BillW50
2014-07-07 10:03:04 UTC
Permalink
On 7/5/2014 6:08 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
> I think Caver1 was referring to some of the custom-written apps that take
> advantage of Linux' strengths, such as very low latency processing. If not,
> I don't know what s/he's thinking.

Really? Then why does Linux trip over itself with WMA and WMV files? If
it can't do something so simple, what good is it?

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional
Neil Gould
2014-07-07 12:48:25 UTC
Permalink
BillW50 wrote:
> On 7/5/2014 6:08 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>> I think Caver1 was referring to some of the custom-written apps that
>> take advantage of Linux' strengths, such as very low latency
>> processing. If not, I don't know what s/he's thinking.
>
> Really? Then why does Linux trip over itself with WMA and WMV files?
> If it can't do something so simple, what good is it?
>
Well, there is a difference between apps handling particular file formats
and an OS having performance limitations. Due to the need to provide support
for a very wide range of apps, Windows can't deliver the low-latency
performance of Linux and other OSs. That limitation only impacts a very
small segment of users and almost no business or non-commercial users.
--
best regards,

Neil
BillW50
2014-07-07 12:24:24 UTC
Permalink
In news:lpe17l$vg5$***@dont-email.me,
Neil Gould typed:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> On 7/5/2014 6:08 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>>> I think Caver1 was referring to some of the custom-written apps that
>>> take advantage of Linux' strengths, such as very low latency
>>> processing. If not, I don't know what s/he's thinking.
>>
>> Really? Then why does Linux trip over itself with WMA and WMV files?
>> If it can't do something so simple, what good is it?
>>
> Well, there is a difference between apps handling particular file
> formats and an OS having performance limitations. Due to the need to
> provide support for a very wide range of apps, Windows can't deliver
> the low-latency performance of Linux and other OSs. That limitation
> only impacts a very small segment of users and almost no business or
> non-commercial users.

I wish I could see this low-latency performance of Linux. Running one
application at time, Linux runs fine. When you start multitasking, it
starts acting like everything gets the same amount of CPU time and
everything runs at the same priority. That is awful, things that don't
need much CPU time gets more than it needs and the ones that needs a lot
get less.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
Neil Gould
2014-07-07 18:15:28 UTC
Permalink
BillW50 wrote:
> In news:lpe17l$vg5$***@dont-email.me,
> Neil Gould typed:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> On 7/5/2014 6:08 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> I think Caver1 was referring to some of the custom-written apps
>>>> that take advantage of Linux' strengths, such as very low latency
>>>> processing. If not, I don't know what s/he's thinking.
>>>
>>> Really? Then why does Linux trip over itself with WMA and WMV files?
>>> If it can't do something so simple, what good is it?
>>>
>> Well, there is a difference between apps handling particular file
>> formats and an OS having performance limitations. Due to the need to
>> provide support for a very wide range of apps, Windows can't deliver
>> the low-latency performance of Linux and other OSs. That limitation
>> only impacts a very small segment of users and almost no business or
>> non-commercial users.
>
> I wish I could see this low-latency performance of Linux. Running one
> application at time, Linux runs fine. When you start multitasking, it
> starts acting like everything gets the same amount of CPU time and
> everything runs at the same priority. That is awful, things that don't
> need much CPU time gets more than it needs and the ones that needs a
> lot get less.
>
That's a somewhat different issue than I was referring to. In media
production applications, the timing of multiple live-channel processing gets
to be critical rather quickly. What you're describing is multi-threaded
operation, though it just may be one side-effect of the principle that makes
low-latency multi-track processing possible.
--
best regards,

Neil
BillW50
2014-07-07 17:42:38 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 01:15 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:lpe17l$vg5$***@dont-email.me,
>> Neil Gould typed:
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/2014 6:08 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>>>>> I think Caver1 was referring to some of the custom-written apps
>>>>> that take advantage of Linux' strengths, such as very low latency
>>>>> processing. If not, I don't know what s/he's thinking.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Then why does Linux trip over itself with WMA and WMV files?
>>>> If it can't do something so simple, what good is it?
>>>>
>>> Well, there is a difference between apps handling particular file
>>> formats and an OS having performance limitations. Due to the need to
>>> provide support for a very wide range of apps, Windows can't deliver
>>> the low-latency performance of Linux and other OSs. That limitation
>>> only impacts a very small segment of users and almost no business or
>>> non-commercial users.
>>
>> I wish I could see this low-latency performance of Linux. Running one
>> application at time, Linux runs fine. When you start multitasking, it
>> starts acting like everything gets the same amount of CPU time and
>> everything runs at the same priority. That is awful, things that don't
>> need much CPU time gets more than it needs and the ones that needs a
>> lot get less.
>>
> That's a somewhat different issue than I was referring to. In media
> production applications, the timing of multiple live-channel processing gets
> to be critical rather quickly. What you're describing is multi-threaded
> operation, though it just may be one side-effect of the principle that makes
> low-latency multi-track processing possible.

How is that different than running four TV tuners under XP and having
four totally different sources in each corner of the monitor playing
flawlessly at the same time? Heck I haven't seen Linux just play one
WMA/WMV file decently yet. Heck I even had Linux choke on one of them
once and the player crashed. No problem I thought, restart the player.
And to my horror, it also ate the file it was playing. It was just gone.
Now if it can't handle this simple task, how can you trust it to do more
complex things?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Ubuntu 12.04.1
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - Thunderbird v24.6.0
Neil
2014-07-07 21:16:46 UTC
Permalink
On 7/7/2014 1:42 PM, BillW50 wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 01:15 PM, Neil Gould wrote:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> In news:lpe17l$vg5$***@dont-email.me,
>>> Neil Gould typed:
>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2014 6:08 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
>>>>>> I think Caver1 was referring to some of the custom-written apps
>>>>>> that take advantage of Linux' strengths, such as very low latency
>>>>>> processing. If not, I don't know what s/he's thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Then why does Linux trip over itself with WMA and WMV files?
>>>>> If it can't do something so simple, what good is it?
>>>>>
>>>> Well, there is a difference between apps handling particular file
>>>> formats and an OS having performance limitations. Due to the need to
>>>> provide support for a very wide range of apps, Windows can't deliver
>>>> the low-latency performance of Linux and other OSs. That limitation
>>>> only impacts a very small segment of users and almost no business or
>>>> non-commercial users.
>>>
>>> I wish I could see this low-latency performance of Linux. Running one
>>> application at time, Linux runs fine. When you start multitasking, it
>>> starts acting like everything gets the same amount of CPU time and
>>> everything runs at the same priority. That is awful, things that don't
>>> need much CPU time gets more than it needs and the ones that needs a
>>> lot get less.
>>>
>> That's a somewhat different issue than I was referring to. In media
>> production applications, the timing of multiple live-channel
>> processing gets
>> to be critical rather quickly. What you're describing is multi-threaded
>> operation, though it just may be one side-effect of the principle that
>> makes
>> low-latency multi-track processing possible.
>
> How is that different than running four TV tuners under XP and having
> four totally different sources in each corner of the monitor playing
> flawlessly at the same time? Heck I haven't seen Linux just play one
> WMA/WMV file decently yet. Heck I even had Linux choke on one of them
> once and the player crashed. No problem I thought, restart the player.
> And to my horror, it also ate the file it was playing. It was just gone.
> Now if it can't handle this simple task, how can you trust it to do more
> complex things?
>
If the problem is with the Windows file format (WMV/WMA), then it
wouldn't matter how much throughput the system has otherwise because
that's not a latency problem.
--
best regards,

Neil
BillW50
2014-07-07 10:00:17 UTC
Permalink
On 7/4/2014 5:35 PM, Neil wrote:
> That has not been my experience. When that is the case, I'm confident
> that the Linux market share will reflect it.

I have been hearing this for the past 20+ years. And the last time I
checked, Linux has just a 1.3% market share. I am sure glad I didn't buy
that story 20+ years ago. What a waste of time that would have been.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional
Alias
2014-07-07 11:29:43 UTC
Permalink
BillW50 wrote:
> On 7/4/2014 5:35 PM, Neil wrote:
>> That has not been my experience. When that is the case, I'm confident
>> that the Linux market share will reflect it.
>
> I have been hearing this for the past 20+ years. And the last time I
> checked, Linux has just a 1.3% market share. I am sure glad I didn't buy
> that story 20+ years ago. What a waste of time that would have been.
>

It's six percent now. Of course, being as Linux doesn't have to be
activated, there's really no way to know exactly. And if you include
Android phones, the market share is much larger.

--
Alias
Neil Gould
2014-07-07 12:39:38 UTC
Permalink
BillW50 wrote:
> On 7/4/2014 5:35 PM, Neil wrote:
>> That has not been my experience. When that is the case, I'm confident
>> that the Linux market share will reflect it.
>
> I have been hearing this for the past 20+ years. And the last time I
> checked, Linux has just a 1.3% market share. I am sure glad I didn't
> buy that story 20+ years ago. What a waste of time that would have
> been.
>
There are always lots of "good ideas" being introduced into the market.
Remember the Amiga? Atari? I invested (and subsequently lost) a good deal of
money in BeOS, which really did have the potential to deliver a functional
low-latency, general purpose OS. BeOS was purchased by Palm... need more be
said? As you have pointed out, after decades of development, Linux has made
its place for some niche applications, but that is about it.
--
best regards,

Neil
BillW50
2014-07-07 09:53:56 UTC
Permalink
On 7/3/2014 1:10 PM, Caver1 wrote:
> If you did a little research you would find that the professional use
> I'm talking about has nothing to do with servers. It has to do with real
> time applications from scientific to the movies to military and so on.

You mean niche professionals! Niche professionals have special needs. So
they have their own programmers to write software for their special
needs. And niche professions make up what, 1% or something?

As far as an user like me, Linux offers nothing better than what Windows
does. Worse, it does so much less than Windows does. It reminds me a lot
like my Android machines. Cute and all, but not very useful.

Yet I have tons of WMA and WMV files. And I never found one single Linux
distro play one of them perfectly yet. The audio and video stops and
starts constantly. They can play MPG files fine though, but so can
anything. Even my smart watch.

And what about drivers? They are just basic drivers with basic features.
No adjustments for the special features of the hardware. What good is
that? Can't even access the compressed video mode of Intel. I really
don't understand why anybody would want to remove Windows (a general
purpose OS) and install Linux, which is only useful to me as a glorified
PDA OS. What a waste of good hardware. And when the heck is Linux going
to get decent touch screen support? It can't even get that right!

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional
Caver1
2014-07-07 12:38:18 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 05:53 AM, BillW50 wrote:
> On 7/3/2014 1:10 PM, Caver1 wrote:
>> If you did a little research you would find that the professional use
>> I'm talking about has nothing to do with servers. It has to do with real
>> time applications from scientific to the movies to military and so on.
>
> You mean niche professionals! Niche professionals have special needs. So
> they have their own programmers to write software for their special
> needs. And niche professions make up what, 1% or something?
>
> As far as an user like me, Linux offers nothing better than what Windows
> does. Worse, it does so much less than Windows does. It reminds me a lot
> like my Android machines. Cute and all, but not very useful.
>
> Yet I have tons of WMA and WMV files. And I never found one single Linux
> distro play one of them perfectly yet. The audio and video stops and
> starts constantly. They can play MPG files fine though, but so can
> anything. Even my smart watch.

Just like Windows. sometimes you just have to install extra codecs, some
Linux programs run them natively. I don't have any problems sudo apt-get
install w32codecsrunning them.

> And what about drivers? They are just basic drivers with basic features.
> No adjustments for the special features of the hardware. What good is
> that? Can't even access the compressed video mode of Intel. I really
> don't understand why anybody would want to remove Windows (a general
> purpose OS) and install Linux, which is only useful to me as a glorified
> PDA OS. What a waste of good hardware. And when the heck is Linux going
> to get decent touch screen support? It can't even get tha t right!
>

How long has it been since you have actually run Linux? That was true a
few years ago. The Linux drivers are much better now and Linux can run
most proprietary drivers now. There is less hardware that is not
compatible with Linux today. There is some but there is some hardware
out there that is that will serve the same purpose as those that don't.
I don't have a touch screen and don't have any use for them, so I don't
know. Touch screens are fairly new give it a little time.

--
Caver1
BillW50
2014-07-07 15:59:45 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 07:38 AM, Caver1 wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 05:53 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>> On 7/3/2014 1:10 PM, Caver1 wrote:
>>> If you did a little research you would find that the professional use
>>> I'm talking about has nothing to do with servers. It has to do with real
>>> time applications from scientific to the movies to military and so on.
>>
>> You mean niche professionals! Niche professionals have special needs. So
>> they have their own programmers to write software for their special
>> needs. And niche professions make up what, 1% or something?
>>
>> As far as an user like me, Linux offers nothing better than what Windows
>> does. Worse, it does so much less than Windows does. It reminds me a lot
>> like my Android machines. Cute and all, but not very useful.
>>
>> Yet I have tons of WMA and WMV files. And I never found one single Linux
>> distro play one of them perfectly yet. The audio and video stops and
>> starts constantly. They can play MPG files fine though, but so can
>> anything. Even my smart watch.
>
> Just like Windows. sometimes you just have to install extra codecs, some
> Linux programs run them natively. I don't have any problems sudo apt-get
> install w32codecsrunning them.

Windows supports a couple hundred from the start. And you can get
hundreds more if you want. Some Linux distros come with 4 or a few more.
That isn't much. Sure you can find more, but nothing like support for
hundreds like Windows.

>> And what about drivers? They are just basic drivers with basic features.
>> No adjustments for the special features of the hardware. What good is
>> that? Can't even access the compressed video mode of Intel. I really
>> don't understand why anybody would want to remove Windows (a general
>> purpose OS) and install Linux, which is only useful to me as a glorified
>> PDA OS. What a waste of good hardware. And when the heck is Linux going
>> to get decent touch screen support? It can't even get tha t right!
>
> How long has it been since you have actually run Linux? That was true a
> few years ago.

I am using it right now matter of fact.

>The Linux drivers are much better now and Linux can run
> most proprietary drivers now. There is less hardware that is not
> compatible with Linux today. There is some but there is some hardware
> out there that is that will serve the same purpose as those that don't.

Really? I have been waiting for Palm support for the past 15 years.
There is one but that thing is designed for 20 year old Palms and not
for anything newer. I am also still waiting for AverMedia support for my
TV tuner. And I could go on for all of the times I have been waiting for
Linux to support something.

Heck the other day I wanted to watch a movie on HBO from DirecTV Player
online. If you try from Linux, you get an error to upgrade your OS. Yet
it works fine from Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, Mac, iPhone, iPad, and Android.

I think the big killer for Linux is this. DirecTV can get support from
Microsoft for Windows. Apple for the Mac, iPhone, and iPad. And of
course Google for the Android. But for Linux, you got nobody. Then you
have that 300+ distro support problem. Who needs that headache?

> I don't have a touch screen and don't have any use for them, so I don't
> know. Touch screens are fairly new give it a little time.

I've been using touch screens for 15 years now. They are everywhere
nowadays. Heck Microsoft has been supporting them for 21 years now. The
oldest one I had used was on a Windows 3.1 machine. They were pretty
heavy back then. My XP touch screens aren't too light either.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Ubuntu 12.04.1
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - Thunderbird v24.6.0
Caver1
2014-07-07 16:50:00 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 11:59 AM, BillW50 wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 07:38 AM, Caver1 wrote:
>> On 07/07/2014 05:53 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2014 1:10 PM, Caver1 wrote:
>>>> If you did a little research you would find that the professional use
>>>> I'm talking about has nothing to do with servers. It has to do with
>>>> real
>>>> time applications from scientific to the movies to military and so on.
>>>
>>> You mean niche professionals! Niche professionals have special needs. So
>>> they have their own programmers to write software for their special
>>> needs. And niche professions make up what, 1% or something?
>>>
>>> As far as an user like me, Linux offers nothing better than what Windows
>>> does. Worse, it does so much less than Windows does. It reminds me a lot
>>> like my Android machines. Cute and all, but not very useful.
>>>
>>> Yet I have tons of WMA and WMV files. And I never found one single Linux
>>> distro play one of them perfectly yet. The audio and video stops and
>>> starts constantly. They can play MPG files fine though, but so can
>>> anything. Even my smart watch.
>>
>> Just like Windows. sometimes you just have to install extra codecs, some
>> Linux programs run them natively. I don't have any problems sudo apt-get
>> install w32codecsrunning them.
>
> Windows supports a couple hundred from the start. And you can get
> hundreds more if you want. Some Linux distros come with 4 or a few more.
> That isn't much. Sure you can find more, but nothing like support for
> hundreds like Windows.
>
>>> And what about drivers? They are just basic drivers with basic features.
>>> No adjustments for the special features of the hardware. What good is
>>> that? Can't even access the compressed video mode of Intel. I really
>>> don't understand why anybody would want to remove Windows (a general
>>> purpose OS) and install Linux, which is only useful to me as a glorified
>>> PDA OS. What a waste of good hardware. And when the heck is Linux going
>>> to get decent touch screen support? It can't even get tha t right!
>>
>> How long has it been since you have actually run Linux? That was true a
>> few years ago.
>
> I am using it right now matter of fact.
>
>> The Linux drivers are much better now and Linux can run
>> most proprietary drivers now. There is less hardware that is not
>> compatible with Linux today. There is some but there is some hardware
>> out there that is that will serve the same purpose as those that don't.
>
> Really? I have been waiting for Palm support for the past 15 years.
> There is one but that thing is designed for 20 year old Palms and not
> for anything newer. I am also still waiting for AverMedia support for my
> TV tuner. And I could go on for all of the times I have been waiting for
> Linux to support something.
>
> Heck the other day I wanted to watch a movie on HBO from DirecTV Player
> online. If you try from Linux, you get an error to upgrade your OS. Yet
> it works fine from Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, Mac, iPhone, iPad, and Android.
>
> I think the big killer for Linux is this. DirecTV can get support from
> Microsoft for Windows. Apple for the Mac, iPhone, and iPad. And of
> course Google for the Android. But for Linux, you got nobody. Then you
> have that 300+ distro support problem. Who needs that headache?
>
>> I don't have a touch screen and don't have any use for them, so I don't
>> know. Touch screens are fairly new give it a little time.
>
> I've been using touch screens for 15 years now. They are everywhere
> nowadays. Heck Microsoft has been supporting them for 21 years now. The
> oldest one I had used was on a Windows 3.1 machine. They were pretty
> heavy back then. My XP touch screens aren't too light either.
>

We've been through this before you haven’t touched an up to date Linux
distro so you don't know what you are talking about. You liked Xandros,
so you stuck with it, which was been quite a ways back.
Good bye Bill

--
Caver1
BillW50
2014-07-07 17:02:29 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 11:50 AM, Caver1 wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 11:59 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>> On 07/07/2014 07:38 AM, Caver1 wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2014 05:53 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2014 1:10 PM, Caver1 wrote:
>>>>> If you did a little research you would find that the professional use
>>>>> I'm talking about has nothing to do with servers. It has to do with
>>>>> real
>>>>> time applications from scientific to the movies to military and so on.
>>>>
>>>> You mean niche professionals! Niche professionals have special
>>>> needs. So
>>>> they have their own programmers to write software for their special
>>>> needs. And niche professions make up what, 1% or something?
>>>>
>>>> As far as an user like me, Linux offers nothing better than what
>>>> Windows
>>>> does. Worse, it does so much less than Windows does. It reminds me a
>>>> lot
>>>> like my Android machines. Cute and all, but not very useful.
>>>>
>>>> Yet I have tons of WMA and WMV files. And I never found one single
>>>> Linux
>>>> distro play one of them perfectly yet. The audio and video stops and
>>>> starts constantly. They can play MPG files fine though, but so can
>>>> anything. Even my smart watch.
>>>
>>> Just like Windows. sometimes you just have to install extra codecs, some
>>> Linux programs run them natively. I don't have any problems sudo apt-get
>>> install w32codecsrunning them.
>>
>> Windows supports a couple hundred from the start. And you can get
>> hundreds more if you want. Some Linux distros come with 4 or a few more.
>> That isn't much. Sure you can find more, but nothing like support for
>> hundreds like Windows.
>>
>>>> And what about drivers? They are just basic drivers with basic
>>>> features.
>>>> No adjustments for the special features of the hardware. What good is
>>>> that? Can't even access the compressed video mode of Intel. I really
>>>> don't understand why anybody would want to remove Windows (a general
>>>> purpose OS) and install Linux, which is only useful to me as a
>>>> glorified
>>>> PDA OS. What a waste of good hardware. And when the heck is Linux going
>>>> to get decent touch screen support? It can't even get tha t right!
>>>
>>> How long has it been since you have actually run Linux? That was true a
>>> few years ago.
>>
>> I am using it right now matter of fact.
>>
>>> The Linux drivers are much better now and Linux can run
>>> most proprietary drivers now. There is less hardware that is not
>>> compatible with Linux today. There is some but there is some hardware
>>> out there that is that will serve the same purpose as those that don't.
>>
>> Really? I have been waiting for Palm support for the past 15 years.
>> There is one but that thing is designed for 20 year old Palms and not
>> for anything newer. I am also still waiting for AverMedia support for my
>> TV tuner. And I could go on for all of the times I have been waiting for
>> Linux to support something.
>>
>> Heck the other day I wanted to watch a movie on HBO from DirecTV Player
>> online. If you try from Linux, you get an error to upgrade your OS. Yet
>> it works fine from Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, Mac, iPhone, iPad, and
>> Android.
>>
>> I think the big killer for Linux is this. DirecTV can get support from
>> Microsoft for Windows. Apple for the Mac, iPhone, and iPad. And of
>> course Google for the Android. But for Linux, you got nobody. Then you
>> have that 300+ distro support problem. Who needs that headache?
>>
>>> I don't have a touch screen and don't have any use for them, so I don't
>>> know. Touch screens are fairly new give it a little time.
>>
>> I've been using touch screens for 15 years now. They are everywhere
>> nowadays. Heck Microsoft has been supporting them for 21 years now. The
>> oldest one I had used was on a Windows 3.1 machine. They were pretty
>> heavy back then. My XP touch screens aren't too light either.
>
> We've been through this before you haven’t touched an up to date Linux
> distro so you don't know what you are talking about. You liked Xandros,
> so you stuck with it, which was been quite a ways back.
> Good bye Bill

That isn't true. I am running Ubuntu 12.04.1 right now. So what other
kind of lies are you going to tell next, Caver1? Sure I like Xandros a
lot, but it is pretty useless today. At least it supports the webcam.
There is no Linux applications though that uses it, but that is another
problem.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Ubuntu 12.04.1
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - Thunderbird v24.6.0
BillW50
2014-07-07 21:36:20 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 10:59 AM, BillW50 wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 07:38 AM, Caver1 wrote:
>> The Linux drivers are much better now and Linux can run
>> most proprietary drivers now. There is less hardware that is not
>> compatible with Linux today. There is some but there is some hardware
>> out there that is that will serve the same purpose as those that don't.

Another thing to add, did you know that Adobe Flash Player v11.2 is the
last version for Linux? You know I have seen this before. When Adobe
Flash v5 was the last version for the Palm OS, interest in Palm machines
dropped and it was all downhill from there.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Lucid Puppy 5.2.5
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - ThunderBird 24.6.0
Roderick Stewart
2014-07-07 15:21:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 04:53:56 -0500, BillW50 <***@aol.kom> wrote:

>I really
>don't understand why anybody would want to remove Windows (a general
>purpose OS) and install Linux, which is only useful to me as a glorified
>PDA OS.

Neither can I, unless it's an old unsupported version of Windows and
the hardware is old too and not worth spending money on, but might
have a bit of life left in it with a simpler operating system.

Alternatively you might want to be prepared for the next version of
Windows being even less user-friendly by maintaining some familiarity
with a few alternatives. There are plenty of variants of Linux from
which you can choose one to your taste, and recently they've been
getting more stable and easier to use with every new version. It's
easy to install as a dual-boot with Windows, and most of them can also
run directly from the CD or DVD, making it an excellent file rescue
disk if Windows won't start.

Rod.
Caver1
2014-07-07 15:40:09 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 11:21 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 04:53:56 -0500, BillW50 <***@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> I really
>> don't understand why anybody would want to remove Windows (a general
>> purpose OS) and install Linux, which is only useful to me as a glorified
>> PDA OS.
>
> Neither can I, unless it's an old unsupported version of Windows and
> the hardware is old too and not worth spending money on, but might
> have a bit of life left in it with a simpler operating system.
>
> Alternatively you might want to be prepared for the next version of
> Windows being even less user-friendly by maintaining some familiarity
> with a few alternatives.

That is one of the reasons. Another is user has total control over
his/her computer.

There are plenty of variants of Linux from
> which you can choose one to your taste, and recently they've been
> getting more stable and easier to use with every new version. It's
> easy to install as a dual-boot with Windows, and most of them can also
> run directly from the CD or DVD, making it an excellent file rescue
> disk if Windows won't start.
>
> Rod.
>


--
Caver1
BillW50
2014-07-07 16:28:42 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 10:21 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 04:53:56 -0500, BillW50 <***@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> I really
>> don't understand why anybody would want to remove Windows (a general
>> purpose OS) and install Linux, which is only useful to me as a glorified
>> PDA OS.
>
> Neither can I, unless it's an old unsupported version of Windows and
> the hardware is old too and not worth spending money on, but might
> have a bit of life left in it with a simpler operating system.

I have a hard time buying that claim. For example I have two Compaq
Concerto tablets running Windows 3.1. One has 12MB of RAM and the other
has 20MB. GEOS should run fine on them, but I doubt Linux will even run
at all.

I also have two Toshiba 2595XDVD laptops. Both has 192MB of RAM which
they say is max they can handle. One has Windows 98SE and runs fine. The
other has Windows 2000. While I have a lot of respect for Windows 2000,
192MB of RAM just doesn't cut it. Oh it runs (I mean crawls) and takes
10 minutes to boot because it is swapping stuff between RAM and the
virtual memory constantly while it is booting. Again, I don't think
Linux would cut it on those machines either.

I do have three working EeePCs. Now these run Linux pretty well. Not
great, but not real bad either. But they have 2GB of RAM installed. But
still Windows 2000 blows the doors off of Linux on that same machine. It
even beats Linux when booting too. Anyway this is about the lowest power
machine that I think will run Linux pretty decent. But it will run
2000/XP decent too.

> Alternatively you might want to be prepared for the next version of
> Windows being even less user-friendly by maintaining some familiarity
> with a few alternatives.

Yeah well while I have Windows 7 and 8 machines here, those might be the
last Windows OS I'll use. I still like XP better than any other Windows
version yet. One of the longest lasting one to boot. 13 years later it
still has a 25% market share.

>There are plenty of variants of Linux from
> which you can choose one to your taste, and recently they've been
> getting more stable and easier to use with every new version. It's
> easy to install as a dual-boot with Windows, and most of them can also
> run directly from the CD or DVD, making it an excellent file rescue
> disk if Windows won't start.

Oh man! I know people do this all of the time and something like 99.99%
of the time everything is just fine. But get burned once and you won't
do that any more. And how is Linux going to help you with the Windows
registry? What is better is BartPE or WinPE. And if you need a special
driver like for RAID or something you can do that under *PE. Try that
under Linux and you are screwed.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Ubuntu 12.04.1
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - Thunderbird v24.6.0
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
2014-07-07 16:40:07 UTC
Permalink
BillW50 wrote:

> I have a hard time buying that claim. For example I have two Compaq
> Concerto tablets running Windows 3.1. One has 12MB of RAM and the other
> has 20MB. GEOS should run fine on them, but I doubt Linux will even run
> at all.

I'm sure if you dug deep and old you could find a Linux that will run in
12MB of RAM and less. Your arguments dissing _current_ Linuxes by using
underpowered old hardware won't wash.

"I drive a Smart car and I can't fit the entire football team into it."

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
BillW50
2014-07-07 17:23:19 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 11:40 AM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
>> I have a hard time buying that claim. For example I have two Compaq
>> Concerto tablets running Windows 3.1. One has 12MB of RAM and the other
>> has 20MB. GEOS should run fine on them, but I doubt Linux will even run
>> at all.
>
> I'm sure if you dug deep and old you could find a Linux that will run in
> 12MB of RAM and less. Your arguments dissing _current_ Linuxes by using
> underpowered old hardware won't wash.
>
> "I drive a Smart car and I can't fit the entire football team into it."

How do you figure? Sure I could run Windows 3.1, 9x, 2000, and maybe XP
on those older machines. And yes, I could run an older distro on those
machines too. But what good would it do? The kernel would be too old to
run anything decent. Heck just the Linux kernel from 2007 can't even run
anything newer than Firefox v2 for a browser and that is very useless
for browsing today.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Ubuntu 12.04.1
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - Thunderbird v24.6.0
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
2014-07-07 17:34:48 UTC
Permalink
BillW50 wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> I have a hard time buying that claim. For example I have two Compaq
>>> Concerto tablets running Windows 3.1. One has 12MB of RAM and the
>>> other has 20MB. GEOS should run fine on them, but I doubt Linux will
>>> even run at all.
>>
>> I'm sure if you dug deep and old you could find a Linux that will run
>> in 12MB of RAM and less. Your arguments dissing _current_ Linuxes by
>> using underpowered old hardware won't wash.
>>
>> "I drive a Smart car and I can't fit the entire football team into it."
>
> How do you figure? Sure I could run Windows 3.1, 9x, 2000, and maybe XP
> on those older machines.

You think XP will run in 12MB of RAM?

> And yes, I could run an older distro on those
> machines too. But what good would it do? The kernel would be too old to
> run anything decent. Heck just the Linux kernel from 2007 can't even run
> anything newer than Firefox v2 for a browser and that is very useless
> for browsing today.

Firefox v2 won't run in 3.1 either. So what?

You need to stop comparing cherries and watermelons.

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high
BillW50
2014-07-07 17:58:45 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 12:34 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> BillW50 wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>> I have a hard time buying that claim. For example I have two Compaq
>>>> Concerto tablets running Windows 3.1. One has 12MB of RAM and the
>>>> other has 20MB. GEOS should run fine on them, but I doubt Linux will
>>>> even run at all.
>>>
>>> I'm sure if you dug deep and old you could find a Linux that will run
>>> in 12MB of RAM and less. Your arguments dissing _current_ Linuxes by
>>> using underpowered old hardware won't wash.
>>>
>>> "I drive a Smart car and I can't fit the entire football team into it."
>>
>> How do you figure? Sure I could run Windows 3.1, 9x, 2000, and maybe XP
>> on those older machines.
>
> You think XP will run in 12MB of RAM?
>
>> And yes, I could run an older distro on those
>> machines too. But what good would it do? The kernel would be too old to
>> run anything decent. Heck just the Linux kernel from 2007 can't even run
>> anything newer than Firefox v2 for a browser and that is very useless
>> for browsing today.
>
> Firefox v2 won't run in 3.1 either. So what?
>
> You need to stop comparing cherries and watermelons.

That is what I am saying. The claim is that Linux brings new life to
older machines. Yeah how? You have to use an older Linux distro to run
on those old machines. So what good is that? You might as well run an
older Windows version and you are still better off.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Ubuntu 12.04.1
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - Thunderbird v24.6.0
Alias
2014-07-07 18:17:52 UTC
Permalink
BillW50 wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 12:34 PM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> BillW50 wrote:
>>>>> I have a hard time buying that claim. For example I have two Compaq
>>>>> Concerto tablets running Windows 3.1. One has 12MB of RAM and the
>>>>> other has 20MB. GEOS should run fine on them, but I doubt Linux will
>>>>> even run at all.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure if you dug deep and old you could find a Linux that will run
>>>> in 12MB of RAM and less. Your arguments dissing _current_ Linuxes by
>>>> using underpowered old hardware won't wash.
>>>>
>>>> "I drive a Smart car and I can't fit the entire football team into it."
>>>
>>> How do you figure? Sure I could run Windows 3.1, 9x, 2000, and maybe XP
>>> on those older machines.
>>
>> You think XP will run in 12MB of RAM?
>>
>>> And yes, I could run an older distro on those
>>> machines too. But what good would it do? The kernel would be too old to
>>> run anything decent. Heck just the Linux kernel from 2007 can't even run
>>> anything newer than Firefox v2 for a browser and that is very useless
>>> for browsing today.
>>
>> Firefox v2 won't run in 3.1 either. So what?
>>
>> You need to stop comparing cherries and watermelons.
>
> That is what I am saying. The claim is that Linux brings new life to
> older machines. Yeah how? You have to use an older Linux distro to run
> on those old machines. So what good is that? You might as well run an
> older Windows version and you are still better off.
>

Two words: Puppy Linux.

--
Alias
Gene E. Bloch
2014-07-07 18:37:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:17:52 +0200, Alias wrote:

> Two words: Puppy Linux.

It's interesting, but I noticed this bullet point on their website
(puppylinux.org, under Overview and Getting Started):

Booting from DVD (or CD), Puppy can save all work to the DVD (CD).

That lacks credibility, IMO. Is it a typo for USB drive?

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Alias
2014-07-07 19:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:17:52 +0200, Alias wrote:
>
>> Two words: Puppy Linux.
>
> It's interesting, but I noticed this bullet point on their website
> (puppylinux.org, under Overview and Getting Started):
>
> Booting from DVD (or CD), Puppy can save all work to the DVD (CD).
>
> That lacks credibility, IMO. Is it a typo for USB drive?
>

I don't know, sorry. I just know that Puppy doesn't need many resources
to run.

--
Alias
Gene E. Bloch
2014-07-07 19:39:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 21:29:54 +0200, Alias wrote:

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:17:52 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Two words: Puppy Linux.
>>
>> It's interesting, but I noticed this bullet point on their website
>> (puppylinux.org, under Overview and Getting Started):
>>
>> Booting from DVD (or CD), Puppy can save all work to the DVD (CD).
>>
>> That lacks credibility, IMO. Is it a typo for USB drive?
>>
>
> I don't know, sorry. I just know that Puppy doesn't need many resources
> to run.

Yes, and in fact thanks for the suggestion. It looks interesting to me
also, and I bookmarked two related websites.

But I can be lazy (or I can get involved in other projects and forget!)
so no promises :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Roderick Stewart
2014-07-07 21:32:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 21:29:54 +0200, Alias
<***@maskedandanonymous.commmm> wrote:

>>> Two words: Puppy Linux.
>>
>> It's interesting, but I noticed this bullet point on their website
>> (puppylinux.org, under Overview and Getting Started):
>>
>> Booting from DVD (or CD), Puppy can save all work to the DVD (CD).
>>
>> That lacks credibility, IMO. Is it a typo for USB drive?
>>
>
>I don't know, sorry. I just know that Puppy doesn't need many resources
>to run.

Lubuntu and Mint XFCE are another two to try if resources are an
important consideration. There's another called Linux Lite, which I
hven't tried yet but it looks promising.

The great thing is that they're all absolutely free, so you can try as
many as you want until you find one that both you and your computer
are happy with.

Rod.
BillW50
2014-07-07 21:45:46 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 04:32 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 21:29:54 +0200, Alias
> <***@maskedandanonymous.commmm> wrote:
>
>>>> Two words: Puppy Linux.
>>>
>>> It's interesting, but I noticed this bullet point on their website
>>> (puppylinux.org, under Overview and Getting Started):
>>>
>>> Booting from DVD (or CD), Puppy can save all work to the DVD (CD).
>>>
>>> That lacks credibility, IMO. Is it a typo for USB drive?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know, sorry. I just know that Puppy doesn't need many resources
>> to run.
>
> Lubuntu and Mint XFCE are another two to try if resources are an
> important consideration. There's another called Linux Lite, which I
> hven't tried yet but it looks promising.
>
> The great thing is that they're all absolutely free,

Not all of them. Some I had to pay for. :-)

> so you can try as many as you want until you find one that both you
> and your computer are happy with.

Yes, 300+ distros and climbing. And if you give each one just 10 hours
each, it is only 3000+ hours worth of your time. It won't take long and
only 125 days if you work at it 24/7. :-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Lucid Puppy 5.2.5
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - ThunderBird 24.6.0
Paul
2014-07-07 22:35:30 UTC
Permalink
BillW50 wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 04:32 PM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 21:29:54 +0200, Alias
>> <***@maskedandanonymous.commmm> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Two words: Puppy Linux.
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting, but I noticed this bullet point on their website
>>>> (puppylinux.org, under Overview and Getting Started):
>>>>
>>>> Booting from DVD (or CD), Puppy can save all work to the DVD (CD).
>>>>
>>>> That lacks credibility, IMO. Is it a typo for USB drive?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know, sorry. I just know that Puppy doesn't need many resources
>>> to run.
>>
>> Lubuntu and Mint XFCE are another two to try if resources are an
>> important consideration. There's another called Linux Lite, which I
>> hven't tried yet but it looks promising.
>>
>> The great thing is that they're all absolutely free,
>
> Not all of them. Some I had to pay for. :-)
>
>> so you can try as many as you want until you find one that both you
>> and your computer are happy with.
>
> Yes, 300+ distros and climbing. And if you give each one just 10 hours
> each, it is only 3000+ hours worth of your time. It won't take long and
> only 125 days if you work at it 24/7. :-)
>

Not all projects have the team size needed for a
quality product. So you don't really need to test
all of them. For example, Linux Mint has a nicer
desktop than Ubuntu, but on the downside, the
fit and finish isn't as good.

As for the utilities, if you find a utility sucks
for some reason, it sucks everywhere. Which may
also dampen your enthusiasm. Even if the basic
desktop decorations and kernel are "wonderful",
without good utilities it's not going to be of
much value. Depending on your needs, that could
cut your test time as well. For example, the
LibreOffice spreadsheet, worked fine when I needed
to do some simple math for a little electronics project.
On the other hand, "Writer" has done nothing but
piss me off. Which would leave me wondering what
I would use to replace it. Is the ecosystem big
enough, to have a LibreOffice Writer replacement ?

And just to be fair, there are aspects of Microsoft Word
that I wouldn't like very much either. My most productive
tool to date, was FrameMaker/FrameBuilder, where when
you compose some content (text and images), it generally
prints right on the first try. Many times, I would take
images that other tools just would not print properly,
and put them in a Frame doc, just for the ability to print
and not waste paper while doing so. How many times
have I seen "Scale to fit" in a print configuration
dialog, where the feature didn't work ? Too many times.
With Frame, I could always be confident that
someone cared that printing worked right. Frame
started as a separate company, and was eventually
acquired by Adobe. Adobe didn't design it from scratch.
They bought it.

Paul
Neil
2014-07-08 01:23:51 UTC
Permalink
On 7/7/2014 6:35 PM, Paul wrote:
[big snip for brevity]
>
> And just to be fair, there are aspects of Microsoft Word
> that I wouldn't like very much either. My most productive
> tool to date, was FrameMaker/FrameBuilder, where when
> you compose some content (text and images), it generally
> prints right on the first try. Many times, I would take
> images that other tools just would not print properly,
> and put them in a Frame doc, just for the ability to print
> and not waste paper while doing so. How many times
> have I seen "Scale to fit" in a print configuration
> dialog, where the feature didn't work ? Too many times.
> With Frame, I could always be confident that
> someone cared that printing worked right. Frame
> started as a separate company, and was eventually
> acquired by Adobe. Adobe didn't design it from scratch.
> They bought it.
>
FrameMaker was a fairly restricted program until version 4, and even
then it couldn't hold a candle to Ventura Publisher in terms of
sophisticated layouts and quality printing. Color printing was still in
its future, as well. The best thing about FrameMaker 3-4 was that they
were cross-platform, with *nix, PC and Mac versions. After acquisition
by Adobe, the *nix versions were the first to go, followed by the Mac
versions. That says quite a bit about the nature of the marketplace for
professional-level publishing apps.
--
best regards,

Neil
Monty
2014-07-08 03:13:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:35:30 -0400, Paul <***@needed.com> wrote:

> For example, the
>LibreOffice spreadsheet, worked fine when I needed
>to do some simple math for a little electronics project.
>On the other hand, "Writer" has done nothing but
>piss me off. Which would leave me wondering what
>I would use to replace it. Is the ecosystem big
>enough, to have a LibreOffice Writer replacement ?
>
Paul,

You might find that SoftMaker FreeOffice will work for you better than
LibreOffice. You can get it at www.freeoffice.com
After much road-testing of other free office products, that is the
product that I now install for people who don't wish to spend their
money on the full featured versions of Softmaker Office (or other
office products).
Paul
2014-07-08 03:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Monty wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:35:30 -0400, Paul <***@needed.com> wrote:
>
>> For example, the
>> LibreOffice spreadsheet, worked fine when I needed
>> to do some simple math for a little electronics project.
>> On the other hand, "Writer" has done nothing but
>> piss me off. Which would leave me wondering what
>> I would use to replace it. Is the ecosystem big
>> enough, to have a LibreOffice Writer replacement ?
>>
> Paul,
>
> You might find that SoftMaker FreeOffice will work for you better than
> LibreOffice. You can get it at www.freeoffice.com
> After much road-testing of other free office products, that is the
> product that I now install for people who don't wish to spend their
> money on the full featured versions of Softmaker Office (or other
> office products).

My beef was with the bundling of LibreOffice with
every Linux LiveCD that you download. I'm sure, if
I needed an Office replacement on Windows, they
wouldn't all be using Cairo as a print engine.
Part of the reason some of these programs
have problems with print output, is the engine
used underneath for that. When Cairo was first
released, it wasn't even feature complete, and
yet they still stuck it in a release version
of Firefox.

And I wouldn't have even noticed these defects,
if someone hadn't complained in one of the groups,
about something he'd opened in LibreOffice, and
the letters were all out of place. I don't really
have any need anymore for Word, and so I probably
would have stayed out of LibreOffice Writer,
if it wasn't for a question on the topic.

Paul
Roderick Stewart
2014-07-08 10:12:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 23:52:52 -0400, Paul <***@needed.com> wrote:

>My beef was with the bundling of LibreOffice with
>every Linux LiveCD that you download.

If you don't like it you can just ignore it or uninstall it, and
install something else instead. If you haven't paid for something, you
lose nothing by throwing it away.

Rod.
Roderick Stewart
2014-07-08 10:06:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 16:45:46 -0500, BillW50 <***@aol.kom> wrote:

>> The great thing is that they're all absolutely free, [Linux distros]
>
>Not all of them. Some I had to pay for. :-)

Really? Linux? Well, just avoid those and consider them no great loss.
There are plenty of others.

>> so you can try as many as you want until you find one that both you
>> and your computer are happy with.
>
>Yes, 300+ distros and climbing. And if you give each one just 10 hours
>each, it is only 3000+ hours worth of your time. It won't take long and
>only 125 days if you work at it 24/7. :-)

You can make a lot of unnecessary work for yourself if you're
determined, but it's not compulsory.

Presumably you could manage to make an intelligent choice of a new
camera, or car, or washing machine, or any other common product,
without feeling you had to spend many hours trying every single one on
the market.

Rod.
BillW50
2014-07-08 16:15:15 UTC
Permalink
In news:***@4ax.com,
Roderick Stewart typed on Tue, 08 Jul 2014 11:06:02 +0100:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 16:45:46 -0500, BillW50 <***@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>>> The great thing is that they're all absolutely free, [Linux distros]
>>
>> Not all of them. Some I had to pay for. :-)
>
> Really? Linux? Well, just avoid those and consider them no great loss.
> There are plenty of others.

Well I find I like the commercial distros even better. They are
generally put together better (including having better drivers, etc.).
Plus there is support (sometimes not very good, but something).

>>> so you can try as many as you want until you find one that both you
>>> and your computer are happy with.
>>
>> Yes, 300+ distros and climbing. And if you give each one just 10
>> hours each, it is only 3000+ hours worth of your time. It won't take
>> long and only 125 days if you work at it 24/7. :-)
>
> You can make a lot of unnecessary work for yourself if you're
> determined, but it's not compulsory.
>
> Presumably you could manage to make an intelligent choice of a new
> camera, or car, or washing machine, or any other common product,
> without feeling you had to spend many hours trying every single one on
> the market.

Yeah well I can say for myself, Linux only does about 5% of the things I
want to do on a computer. While XP is still doing 100%. Both 7 and 8 are
doing about 95%. I imagine XP will be doing less and less for me in the
future. I don't think 7 and 8 are going to do more for me, but you
never know.

But any hope that Linux will do more for me in the future was killed
when I learned that Adobe Flash v11.2 is the last version for Linux. As
I require a machine to do multimedia too sometimes. And probably about
two years from now Flash v11.2 just isn't going to cut it anymore.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
BillW50
2014-07-07 20:25:51 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 01:37 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:17:52 +0200, Alias wrote:
>
>> Two words: Puppy Linux.
>
> It's interesting, but I noticed this bullet point on their website
> (puppylinux.org, under Overview and Getting Started):
>
> Booting from DVD (or CD), Puppy can save all work to the DVD (CD).
>
> That lacks credibility, IMO. Is it a typo for USB drive?

It might write to a CD if it is writable (it does write to an USB
drive). And yes, I have been using Puppy since 2008. I am actually
running it now. It normally uses about 350MB of RAM the last time I
checked. It is said to be the smallest footprint distro. I don't think I
ever ran it under anything less than 1GB of RAM though.


--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Lucid Puppy 5.2.5
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - ThunderBird 3.1
Gene E. Bloch
2014-07-07 20:31:12 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:25:51 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

> On 07/07/2014 01:37 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:17:52 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Two words: Puppy Linux.
>>
>> It's interesting, but I noticed this bullet point on their website
>> (puppylinux.org, under Overview and Getting Started):
>>
>> Booting from DVD (or CD), Puppy can save all work to the DVD (CD).
>>
>> That lacks credibility, IMO. Is it a typo for USB drive?
>
> It might write to a CD if it is writable (it does write to an USB
> drive).

Seems unlikely to be on a writeable disk. Maybe not impossible, but
still not likely. And thus still not credible to me.

Is it even possible to create an unfinalized CD or DVD from an ISO file?

> And yes, I have been using Puppy since 2008. I am actually
> running it now.

But I didn't ask :-)

> It normally uses about 350MB of RAM the last time I
> checked. It is said to be the smallest footprint distro. I don't think I
> ever ran it under anything less than 1GB of RAM though.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
BillW50
2014-07-07 20:52:19 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 03:31 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:25:51 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2014 01:37 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:17:52 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> Two words: Puppy Linux.
>>>
>>> It's interesting, but I noticed this bullet point on their website
>>> (puppylinux.org, under Overview and Getting Started):
>>>
>>> Booting from DVD (or CD), Puppy can save all work to the DVD (CD).
>>>
>>> That lacks credibility, IMO. Is it a typo for USB drive?
>>
>> It might write to a CD if it is writable (it does write to an USB
>> drive).
>
> Seems unlikely to be on a writeable disk. Maybe not impossible, but
> still not likely. And thus still not credible to me.
>
> Is it even possible to create an unfinalized CD or DVD from an ISO file?

Puppy can as long as that session isn't closed. It ask you when you
shutdown where you want the changes saved? And that could be back to the
writable Live CD if you want.

>> And yes, I have been using Puppy since 2008. I am actually
>> running it now.
>
> But I didn't ask :-)

But I wasn't talking to you, but left that as reference for the
newsgroup. :-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Lucid Puppy 5.2.5
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - ThunderBird 3.1.20
Gene E. Bloch
2014-07-07 21:29:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:52:19 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

> On 07/07/2014 03:31 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 15:25:51 -0500, BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/07/2014 01:37 PM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:17:52 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Two words: Puppy Linux.
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting, but I noticed this bullet point on their website
>>>> (puppylinux.org, under Overview and Getting Started):
>>>>
>>>> Booting from DVD (or CD), Puppy can save all work to the DVD (CD).
>>>>
>>>> That lacks credibility, IMO. Is it a typo for USB drive?
>>>
>>> It might write to a CD if it is writable (it does write to an USB
>>> drive).
>>
>> Seems unlikely to be on a writeable disk. Maybe not impossible, but
>> still not likely. And thus still not credible to me.
>>
>> Is it even possible to create an unfinalized CD or DVD from an ISO file?
>
> Puppy can as long as that session isn't closed. It ask you when you
> shutdown where you want the changes saved? And that could be back to the
> writable Live CD if you want.

Technology keeps gaining on me, I guess :-)

>>> And yes, I have been using Puppy since 2008. I am actually
>>> running it now.
>>
>> But I didn't ask :-)
>
> But I wasn't talking to you, but left that as reference for the
> newsgroup. :-)

Cool. Now we all know :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
BillW50
2014-07-07 09:23:48 UTC
Permalink
On 7/2/2014 1:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1 Update.
>
> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till support is
> stopped,

Who cares if support ends? Microsoft's support is awful anyway.

>or if Linux, forever.

Really? Care to explain why my Xandros EeePC is basically worthless
today? The kernel is so old it can only run Firefox v2 and that is it.
And FF2 displays modern webpages just something awful. Heck I fired up
IE6 last year to see which one displays worse. And IE6 displayed most
webpages much better than FF2 did. That isn't forever in my book.
Windows XP last much longer than Linux from the same year. Linux I have
to reinstall a newer version about every two years, Windows I install
once and it is good for decades.

--
Bill
Motion Computing LE1700 Tablet ('09 era) - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo L7400 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Professional
Caver1
2014-07-07 12:39:59 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 05:23 AM, BillW50 wrote:
> On 7/2/2014 1:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
>>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1 Update.
>>
>> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till support is
>> stopped,
>
> Who cares if support ends? Microsoft's support is awful anyway.
>
>> or if Linux, forever.
>
> Really? Care to explain why my Xandros EeePC is basically worthless
> today? The kernel is so old it can only run Firefox v2 and that is it.
> And FF2 displays modern webpages just something awful. Heck I fired up
> IE6 last year to see which one displays worse. And IE6 displayed most
> webpages much better than FF2 did. That isn't forever in my book.
> Windows XP last much longer than Linux from the same year. Linux I have
> to reinstall a newer version about every two years, Windows I install
> once and it is good for decades.
>

Xandros is dead and has been for quite awhile.

--
Caver1
BillW50
2014-07-07 15:59:13 UTC
Permalink
On 07/07/2014 07:39 AM, Caver1 wrote:
> On 07/07/2014 05:23 AM, BillW50 wrote:
>> On 7/2/2014 1:29 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
>>>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1
>>>> Update.
>>>
>>> But if one has Windows 7 they have 6 years to use it till support is
>>> stopped,
>>
>> Who cares if support ends? Microsoft's support is awful anyway.
>>
>>> or if Linux, forever.
>>
>> Really? Care to explain why my Xandros EeePC is basically worthless
>> today? The kernel is so old it can only run Firefox v2 and that is it.
>> And FF2 displays modern webpages just something awful. Heck I fired up
>> IE6 last year to see which one displays worse. And IE6 displayed most
>> webpages much better than FF2 did. That isn't forever in my book.
>> Windows XP last much longer than Linux from the same year. Linux I have
>> to reinstall a newer version about every two years, Windows I install
>> once and it is good for decades.
>
> Xandros is dead and has been for quite awhile.

Linux has been dead for 20+ years now. It was a niche OS back then and
it is still a niche today.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Ubuntu 12.04.1
Centrino Core Duo T2300 1.66GHz - 1GB - Thunderbird v24.6.0
CRNG
2014-07-02 11:59:30 UTC
Permalink
I love how MSFT makes everything so easy. No wonder people avoid
Apple.


On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
<***@gmail.com> wrote in <lp037c$otk$***@dont-email.me>

>trinity wrote, On 6/30/2014 4:45 PM:
>>
>> To be honest Paul I have no idea what you are saying. SP1 for Windows 8??
>> And I couldn't find any reference to win 8 update 1 in the web site you
>> mentioned.
>>
>
>While some have called Windows 8.1 a service pack for Windows 8.0 that
>would be incorrect in MSFT terminology and the majority of internet
>articles.
>
>8.1 is a mandatory o/s upgrade to 8.0 with specific time constraints
> - required for Windows 8.0 prior to January 2016
> - required to install 8.1 Update (aka but not by MSFT as 8.1 Update 1)
> - also 8.1 is deprecated as of June 10 2014 since 8.1 Update is
>necessary to receive program and security updates.
> - is available from the MSFT Store
>
>8.1 Update is deployed (a) via Windows Update after all necessary prior
>Windows updates have been installed; (b) via download from the MSFT
>Download Center; (c) optionally from the MSFT Catalog Update website
>
>i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
>yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1 Update.
> If one has 8.1 then to continue to receive program and security
>updates they need to update asap.
>**Note** - what is unknown is whether or not the future/next update for
>8.1 (referred to as Update 2) will require 8.1 Update to be installed as
>a minimume pre-req or also allow updating from 8.1 RTM
> -
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.
. . .winston
2014-07-03 00:55:43 UTC
Permalink
To make it even more confusing MSFT just started a pilot program for
Windows 8 RT providing owners to upgrade and update from 8.0 RT directly
to 8.1 Update effectively shortening the two step process (to 8.1 then
to 8.1 Update).
- unfortunately for 8.0 RT users it is still via the MSFT Store.


--
...winston
msft mvp

CRNG wrote, On 7/2/2014 7:59 AM:
> I love how MSFT makes everything so easy. No wonder people avoid
> Apple.
>
>
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 00:52:36 -0400, ". . .winston"
> <***@gmail.com> wrote in <lp037c$otk$***@dont-email.me>
>
>> trinity wrote, On 6/30/2014 4:45 PM:
>>>
>>> To be honest Paul I have no idea what you are saying. SP1 for Windows 8??
>>> And I couldn't find any reference to win 8 update 1 in the web site you
>>> mentioned.
>>>
>>
>> While some have called Windows 8.1 a service pack for Windows 8.0 that
>> would be incorrect in MSFT terminology and the majority of internet
>> articles.
>>
>> 8.1 is a mandatory o/s upgrade to 8.0 with specific time constraints
>> - required for Windows 8.0 prior to January 2016
>> - required to install 8.1 Update (aka but not by MSFT as 8.1 Update 1)
>> - also 8.1 is deprecated as of June 10 2014 since 8.1 Update is
>> necessary to receive program and security updates.
>> - is available from the MSFT Store
>>
>> 8.1 Update is deployed (a) via Windows Update after all necessary prior
>> Windows updates have been installed; (b) via download from the MSFT
>> Download Center; (c) optionally from the MSFT Catalog Update website
>>
>> i.e. as far as MSFT is concerned if one has 8.0 they have less than 2
>> yrs to upgrade to 8.1 and then immediately need to update to 8.1 Update.
>> If one has 8.1 then to continue to receive program and security
>> updates they need to update asap.
>> **Note** - what is unknown is whether or not the future/next update for
>> 8.1 (referred to as Update 2) will require 8.1 Update to be installed as
>> a minimume pre-req or also allow updating from 8.1 RTM
>> -


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps
Neil
2014-07-03 11:26:51 UTC
Permalink
On 7/2/2014 8:55 PM, . . .winston wrote:
> To make it even more confusing MSFT just started a pilot program for
> Windows 8 RT providing owners to upgrade and update from 8.0 RT directly
> to 8.1 Update effectively shortening the two step process (to 8.1 then
> to 8.1 Update).
>
IIRC, that is similar to the way that users that bypassed Windows 3.0
went from DOS 6 to Windows 3.1.

> - unfortunately for 8.0 RT users it is still via the MSFT Store.
>
Why is that an unfortunate thing? RT has many limitations, and that
method eliminates some possible problems that those who purchase the
wrong product would run into.
--
best regards,

Neil
. . .winston
2014-07-04 04:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Neil wrote, On 7/3/2014 7:26 AM:
> On 7/2/2014 8:55 PM, . . .winston wrote:
>> To make it even more confusing MSFT just started a pilot program for
>> Windows 8 RT providing owners to upgrade and update from 8.0 RT directly
>> to 8.1 Update effectively shortening the two step process (to 8.1 then
>> to 8.1 Update).
> >
> IIRC, that is similar to the way that users that bypassed Windows 3.0
> went from DOS 6 to Windows 3.1.
>
>> - unfortunately for 8.0 RT users it is still via the MSFT Store.
>>
> Why is that an unfortunate thing? RT has many limitations, and that
> method eliminates some possible problems that those who purchase the
> wrong product would run into.

The pilot program makes it easier for RT user to go from 8.0 to 8.1
Update but they still have to accomplish the task via the Store (i.e.
rather than a downloadable file).

What wrong product might an RT 8.0 user purchase ?
- RT only runs built-in apps or those available in the Windows Store

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps
Neil Gould
2014-07-04 11:14:05 UTC
Permalink
. . .winston wrote:
> Neil wrote, On 7/3/2014 7:26 AM:
>> On 7/2/2014 8:55 PM, . . .winston wrote:
>>> To make it even more confusing MSFT just started a pilot program for
>>> Windows 8 RT providing owners to upgrade and update from 8.0 RT
>>> directly to 8.1 Update effectively shortening the two step process
>>> (to 8.1 then to 8.1 Update).
>> >
>> IIRC, that is similar to the way that users that bypassed Windows 3.0
>> went from DOS 6 to Windows 3.1.
>>
>>> - unfortunately for 8.0 RT users it is still via the MSFT Store.
>>>
>> Why is that an unfortunate thing? RT has many limitations, and that
>> method eliminates some possible problems that those who purchase the
>> wrong product would run into.
>
> The pilot program makes it easier for RT user to go from 8.0 to 8.1
> Update but they still have to accomplish the task via the Store (i.e.
> rather than a downloadable file).
>
> What wrong product might an RT 8.0 user purchase ?
>
If things go as they did in the Android Tablet and iPad worlds, apps made
available through other channels may or may not be compatible with RT. It's
totally the user's responsibility to keep their device functional once on
that path.

> - RT only runs built-in apps or those available in the Windows Store
>
Right... which is why I was curious that you would find it unfortunate that
OS updates would also be available through the Windows Store.
--
best regards,

Neil
. . .winston
2014-07-04 18:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Neil Gould wrote, On 7/4/2014 7:14 AM:
> . . .winston wrote:
>> Neil wrote, On 7/3/2014 7:26 AM:
>>> On 7/2/2014 8:55 PM, . . .winston wrote:
>>>> To make it even more confusing MSFT just started a pilot program for
>>>> Windows 8 RT providing owners to upgrade and update from 8.0 RT
>>>> directly to 8.1 Update effectively shortening the two step process
>>>> (to 8.1 then to 8.1 Update).
>>> >
>>> IIRC, that is similar to the way that users that bypassed Windows 3.0
>>> went from DOS 6 to Windows 3.1.
>>>
>>>> - unfortunately for 8.0 RT users it is still via the MSFT Store.
>>>>
>>> Why is that an unfortunate thing? RT has many limitations, and that
>>> method eliminates some possible problems that those who purchase the
>>> wrong product would run into.
>>
>> The pilot program makes it easier for RT user to go from 8.0 to 8.1
>> Update but they still have to accomplish the task via the Store (i.e.
>> rather than a downloadable file).
>>
>> What wrong product might an RT 8.0 user purchase ?
>>
> If things go as they did in the Android Tablet and iPad worlds, apps made
> available through other channels may or may not be compatible with RT. It's
> totally the user's responsibility to keep their device functional once on
> that path.
>
>> - RT only runs built-in apps or those available in the Windows Store
>>
> Right... which is why I was curious that you would find it unfortunate that
> OS updates would also be available through the Windows Store.
>
Unfortunate was in reference to 'only being available' in the Store not
that they are available in the Store. Many RT users would like to have
access to the updates via download from the MSFT Download Center.



--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps
Neil
2014-07-04 22:22:46 UTC
Permalink
On 7/4/2014 2:42 PM, . . .winston wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote, On 7/4/2014 7:14 AM:
>> . . .winston wrote:
>>> Neil wrote, On 7/3/2014 7:26 AM:
>>>> On 7/2/2014 8:55 PM, . . .winston wrote:
>>>>> To make it even more confusing MSFT just started a pilot program for
>>>>> Windows 8 RT providing owners to upgrade and update from 8.0 RT
>>>>> directly to 8.1 Update effectively shortening the two step process
>>>>> (to 8.1 then to 8.1 Update).
>>>> >
>>>> IIRC, that is similar to the way that users that bypassed Windows 3.0
>>>> went from DOS 6 to Windows 3.1.
>>>>
>>>>> - unfortunately for 8.0 RT users it is still via the MSFT Store.
>>>>>
>>>> Why is that an unfortunate thing? RT has many limitations, and that
>>>> method eliminates some possible problems that those who purchase the
>>>> wrong product would run into.
>>>
>>> The pilot program makes it easier for RT user to go from 8.0 to 8.1
>>> Update but they still have to accomplish the task via the Store (i.e.
>>> rather than a downloadable file).
>>>
>>> What wrong product might an RT 8.0 user purchase ?
>>>
>> If things go as they did in the Android Tablet and iPad worlds, apps made
>> available through other channels may or may not be compatible with RT.
>> It's
>> totally the user's responsibility to keep their device functional once on
>> that path.
>>
>>> - RT only runs built-in apps or those available in the Windows Store
>>>
>> Right... which is why I was curious that you would find it unfortunate
>> that
>> OS updates would also be available through the Windows Store.
>>
> Unfortunate was in reference to 'only being available' in the Store not
> that they are available in the Store. Many RT users would like to have
> access to the updates via download from the MSFT Download Center.
>
Ah... thanks for the clarification.
--
best regards,

Neil
Jonathan
2014-07-02 15:19:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 10:51:44 +0000, trinity wrote:

> I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
> Windows 8 Professional.
> I am setting up the first one but after W8 installed I have to go
> through the long process of downloading 8.1 from the Store.
>
> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc image
> and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the process
> each time for each PC?
> Thanks

Yes you can.

HOWEVER: Because M$ products are proprietary software, they might not be
able to run because the OS might be programmed to (somehow...) check the
computer (MAC address, mabey?) and check if it's been registered.
Basically, you'll end up either buying Windows 8 for each computer, or
you won't... that's a good example of why I switched to linux (as a dev,
it's easier), but I digress.

Also, I wouldn't count of "recovery" discs, they don't work unless
Windows is installed on your system already (which, in my opinion is a
fundamentally flawed design), so an disk ISO is your best bet at a fool-
proof recovery.



--
Jonathan
Paul
2014-07-02 17:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Jonathan wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 10:51:44 +0000, trinity wrote:
>
>> I have 8 brand new PCs (all the same model and spec) which came with
>> Windows 7 pre-installed but also the (recovery) discs to upgrade to
>> Windows 8 Professional.
>> I am setting up the first one but after W8 installed I have to go
>> through the long process of downloading 8.1 from the Store.
>>
>> Question: when all is done on PC #1 will I be able to make a disc image
>> and apply to the other 7 PCs or do I have to got through the process
>> each time for each PC?
>> Thanks
>
> Yes you can.
>
> HOWEVER: Because M$ products are proprietary software, they might not be
> able to run because the OS might be programmed to (somehow...) check the
> computer (MAC address, mabey?) and check if it's been registered.
> Basically, you'll end up either buying Windows 8 for each computer, or
> you won't... that's a good example of why I switched to linux (as a dev,
> it's easier), but I digress.
>
> Also, I wouldn't count of "recovery" discs, they don't work unless
> Windows is installed on your system already (which, in my opinion is a
> fundamentally flawed design), so an disk ISO is your best bet at a fool-
> proof recovery.

On OEM Windows computers:

1) You've already paid for an OS, like it or not.
2) On Windows 7 or earlier computers, the BIOS SLIC table information
supports automatic activation of Windows. If you have a Dell for example,
you could load a Dell Windows 7 DVD or a Dell WinXP CD, and there is a good
chance they will both activate. The only uncertainty with media not
intended for a machine (but Dell branded), is whether drivers will be
available.
3) On Windows 8, an actual key (different on each machine) is
stored at BIOS level. This is different than the SLIC mechanism.
And allows a reinstall of Windows 8 to work right away. If the BIOS
has only that key, then there would be no mechanism for downgrading.
(Like, stuffing in a Dell Windows 7 OEM DVD and restoring.) I don't
know if any PCs have both Win8 key and SLIC at the same time.

Some downloads from Microsoft, *are* customized on a per customer basis.
But the customization does not appear to be for the purpose of exclusionary
behavior. When I bought Windows 8 Pro for $39.95 when it was initially
offered, the download DVD from the Microsoft store used install.esd, which
is an encrypted form of the more normal install.wim. Each time you download,
the install.esd is different. So no two downloads of that media, even when
I used my own account information and downloaded the *same* thing twice,
did the checksum remain the same. If I were to Torrent upload such a
file to the Internet, the install.esd used would presumably be traceable
to my credit card number. It's still not clear to me, after all this
time, as to why such a mechanism is necessary. It forces people to
get the MSDN subscription DVD (available as a Torrent), which uses
install.wim, and every downloaded copy of that has the same checksum
info. What being given an install.esd does, is prevent you from
performing any recipe that requires a copy of an install.wim to
make it work.

There's not a particular reason for the Windows Store download
to be handled in that way. But neither was there a good reason
to encrypt my download DVD. It's not possible for me to quote any
odds as to whether they're doing that or not. Delivery of software
from Microsoft, has become largely "whim of the day" in terms of
delivery. We can no longer rely on sane minds to just deliver
redistributable Service Packs (to make the IT job easier), or
have things uniformly delivered by Windows Update. Is the current
delivery mechanism a PITA ? Yes, absolutely. No excuses.

And yes, having to launch a Repair Install from the setup.exe on
the DVD, is silly as well. When with earlier OSes, you could
boot the installer media and do the Repair Install from there.
The current scheme is less convenient.

As for the files from the Windows Store, being blocked based on
MAC, that's silly. There is no precedent for that. Windows
Activation subsystem, takes care of all that bit. Everything else
relies on Windows Activation. As a test, I just fired up my
Windows 7 SP1 VM, the one downloaded from modern.ie, the one
with the activation grace period expired, and I can still
reach Windows Update and see 13 updates waiting for me. So the
Windows Update subsystem was not disabled. Similarly, you
can download security updates as individual packages, on another
computer, and bring them over to a machine. There's no tradition
of gate-keeping at that level. But my VM, it only runs for an
hour or so, before without announcement it shuts down in
mid-session. And that's enforcement of activation for that
particular OS. I can run it, "as long as I keep the session short".

If you could find the files from the Windows Store download,
and determine necessary registry settings so the OS on the
other machine, would recognize that the files were present,
I feel the odds are good they'd be re-usable. Just a matter
of tracking down a "recipe". In a quick search, I cannot
find such a recipe, but this is more a limitation of
search engines than anything. For example, if I
use "site:mydigitallife.info", I'm more likely to find
something topical on the subject. As you'd expect, stopping
the computer from rebooting into Windows, is the first
step to scavenging $Windows.~BT. So it's going to involve
something like that.

http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/49434-Save-or-Backup-Win-8-1-upgrade-ISO-file-downloaded-by-system-during-upgrade

I had no incentive to test all of this, as I managed to
snag a Windows 8.1 DVD :-) (using the double download
method). I also have install-only keys, so if I need
to reinstall my OS to 8.1 level, I'm ready. Just as
ready as I was for Windows 7 SP1, to do the same thing.

If I was "an IT guy on a deserted island", I would
start with the MSDN subscription DVD for 8.1, edit
the ei.cfg if needed, and do my install that way.
For Home and Pro, install-only keys like this
are available.

Windows 8.1 Pro: XHQ8N-C3MCJ-RQXB6-WCHYG-C9WKB
Windows 8.1 Home: 334NH-RXG76-64THK-C7CKG-D3VPT

( http://ingoboettcher.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/windows-8-1upgrade-via-iso-mit-windows-8-key/ )

Windows 8.0 Pro: XKY4K-2NRWR-8F6P2-448RF-CRYQH
Windows 8.0 Home: FB4WR-32NVD-4RW79-XQFWH-CYQG3

You can use "slui 3" to do a key change, after one of those
installs finishes, with the install-only key. Or you can
try installing with no key, and see if it gets past the
key step. That worked on Windows 7. And "slui 4" gets
you to a phone activation dialog, so you can at least
get an 800 number for the automated activation thing.

And Linux is no more trustworthy, than the people running
the show. If the NSA has taught us anything, it is
"trust no one". With Canonical, it was partnering with
Amazon, to collect your search information for commercial
purposes. Yeah, you can disable it... But did that help
build trust ? Nope. You'd be better off getting your
distro from a Communist country, because they'd never
put anything untoward in a distro :-) /s Still looking
for that Cuban Linux distro.

Paul
Jonathan
2014-07-02 22:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Even so, you have to pay for it. I wouldn't buy a subscription just
because I want an operating system on my computer. That kind of
functionality is somthing that should be on a cd when you buy the
computer.

Even if it isn't necessary for them to include it, they should at least
tell you: "You will have to re-buy the OS if you screw up your HDD", that
way you know what you'r getting, rather than figuring it out.

In any case, the "recovery" iso on my flash drive won't work, and while I
know open-source requires the trust of those who maintain it, I trust
them more than I trust a huge money-grabbing corporation. At least I can
check out the code before I install it.

But this is all completely irrelevant to the discussion. I think the OP
has a good idea of what he might/might not want to do now.



--
Jonathan
Paul
2014-07-03 02:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Jonathan wrote:
> Even so, you have to pay for it. I wouldn't buy a subscription just
> because I want an operating system on my computer. That kind of
> functionality is somthing that should be on a cd when you buy the
> computer.
>
> Even if it isn't necessary for them to include it, they should at least
> tell you: "You will have to re-buy the OS if you screw up your HDD", that
> way you know what you'r getting, rather than figuring it out.
>
> In any case, the "recovery" iso on my flash drive won't work, and while I
> know open-source requires the trust of those who maintain it, I trust
> them more than I trust a huge money-grabbing corporation. At least I can
> check out the code before I install it.
>
> But this is all completely irrelevant to the discussion. I think the OP
> has a good idea of what he might/might not want to do now.

I'm not proposing getting the MSDN subscription DVD from Microsoft.
It's available via Torrent. As long as there is a SHA-1 checksum
value listed on the Microsoft site (or any check better than that,
not MD5SUM), you can torrent that puppy and have your own
universal installer DVD for later. When it arrives, you compute
the checksum to verify it has not been modified.

The DVD I downloaded, came with my microsoftstore credit card
purchase. That one is not a universal installer DVD, uses
an install.esd, and just isn't as good as the MSDN one. But since
that DVD also allows me to do a bare metal install any time I want,
my "search for DVDs" is over :-) That DVD is good for only
a single purpose, and is not "IT toolbox" material like the
MSDN one is.

Paul
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...