CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
1 edit | reply to Anon
Re: [RANT] vista can only be reintalled once?
Real questions is - parts BREAK and it is out of your control. Is MS assuming you will never have a need to replace a video card that went bad or a hard drive - even a CPU or ram that went bad? If they use the hardware profile like with XP - what can you change without using up all of your reinstalls??
This this comes to fruition it is a mere money grab and nothing. They will penalize those folks who need to replace hardware because of failure or to get something newer... All this will do is piss off more people and MS can't afford that...
--
Brian
"Some people are like Slinkies...
Not really good for anything......
But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." |
|
Leathal
Premium
join:2002-02-09
Toronto, ON
1 edit | reply to CylonRed
Re: [RANT] vista can only be reintalled once?
said by CylonRed  :Real questions is - parts BREAK and it is out of your control. Is MS assuming you will never have a need to replace a video card that went bad or a hard drive - even a CPU or ram that went bad? If they use the hardware profile like with XP - what can you change without using up all of your reinstalls?? This this comes to fruition it is a mere money grab and nothing. They will penalize those folks who need to replace hardware because of failure or to get something newer... I am sure there is going to be some tolerance to the rule, it just surprises me that people people have nothing better to do but blow it all to you know what... s$%t!
Vista is not even retail yet so worry about it when does come out in the stores. But like I said already there will be tolerance the rule as Microsoft knows very well that if you buy a machine where the hardware breaks with time, even brand name machines break down, they will have to allow Vista to operate. However there is bound to away for Microsoft to detect if you change your motherboard with a new different brand one which they may choose not to support it which would force you to buy a new version of Vista.
So just wait and see.
This whole whining reminds me of when the were going to pass the helmet law in Ontario for motorcyclist. Bikers were whining a lot, once they passed the law they found a loop hole as the law didn't say were you had to wear your helmet.  They have since then fixed that but people don't whine about it anymore and it's become apart of life.
Leathal |
|
Shootist
Premium
join:2003-02-10
Decatur, GA
| reply to CylonRed
Well the whole point to the GA system was to stop piracy and increase there bottom line, ER stop them from losing money because of piracy. You would think once that came about the cost of software would come down. Yeah right. Now that MS has perfected this system they are raising the cost to everyone and to top it off they have so many different version which one is for who. I know that most would be OK with the home version. But if it's anything like XP home, with no ability to change security settings, then I would want the pro version. But which version is the pro version and what outrageous price do they want for it.
Lets face it, it is a operating system. I see no new features in Vista. It doesn't have a better file system, it's the same as XP. What you can't do without the eye candy?? If I'm actually using my PC for what it was intended for I never look at the desktop except at bootup and when shutting down.
--
Shooter Ready--Stand By BEEP ******** |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| said by Shootist :Well the whole point to the GA system was to stop piracy and increase there bottom line, ER stop them from losing money because of piracy. You would think once that came about the cost of software would come down. Yeah right. Now that MS has perfected this system they are raising the cost to everyone and to top it off they have so many different version which one is for who. I know that most would be OK with the home version. But if it's anything like XP home, with no ability to change security settings, then I would want the pro version. But which version is the pro version and what outrageous price do they want for it. Lets face it, it is a operating system. I see no new features in Vista. It doesn't have a better file system, it's the same as XP. What you can't do without the eye candy?? If I'm actually using my PC for what it was intended for I never look at the desktop except at bootup and when shutting down. Not at all sure why this was directed toward me...
--
Brian
"Some people are like Slinkies...
Not really good for anything......
But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." |
|
izy
Premium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Naples, FL
| reply to Leathal
said by Leathal :I am sure there is going to be some tolerance to the rule, it just surprises me that people people have nothing better to do but blow it all to you know what... s$%t! hmmm, I don't know what's worse, people with an opinion or you whining about others opinions....  |
|
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs:
 ·DIRECTV
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Anon
said by Leathal :Stop you whining then! If you don't want to run it, don't but sooner or later you will have no choice as there aren't enough applications on Linux or any other platform other than Macintosh that allow you to do everything that Windows does. Leathal Really!?!? Visit sourceforge much? So far I have found a few replacements for some core things I use. Games I can let Windows 2000 handle.
1.) RADMIN=UltraVNC
2.) MSoffice=Open office
3.) QUicken and a few others=Crossover (»desktoplinux.com/articles/AT2282537026.html)
4.) Antivirus=clamwin
5.) drivers for equipment and such=various vendor sites, such as Dlink for the wireless network card and such.
So far just on a basic test drive... I am impressed, and thinking of moving within a year or so.
--
If you have a topic in the direct forum please reply to it or a post of mine, I get a notification when you do this.
Koetting Ford, Granite City, illinois... YOU'RE FIRED!!
|
|
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Anon
said by Leathal :I don't see why you'd want to upgrade to anything faster once you had your ultimate machine running Vista? Uh, because as far as I'm aware, hardware is still being improved, and that trend will probably continue for the next year at least?
I've long since ceased to be a top-of-the-line buyer; I prefer the middle sweet spot of cheap enough/fast enough. But there are people who want fast fast fast. And if they want the fastest that's available today, they'll probably want the fastest that's available tomorrow, as well.
And in any case, telling people they shouldn't upgrade hardware is completely beside the point:
Person 1: "Damn, Microsoft won't let me move a licence from one machine to another".
Person 2: "Well, you shouldn't want to upgrade your hardware anyway".
I for one think this is a pretty low blow from Microsoft, if it turns out to be true. |
|
Bangy
join:2000-12-20
Lincoln, RI
| reply to Anon
Leathal, you are a marketers wet dream. Keep eating the crap that hardware/software manufacturers shove down your throat. Keep accpeting DRM management that kills performance and treats honest customers lke criminals.
Anyhow, The point is NO ONE should have to bend to MS's ridiculous rules for an OS that will likely cost over $200. To build one machine and have to be content with it for the duration of the OS life is moronic. For instance I'm a gaming enthusiast and I upgraded 6 times during XP's run. It sheep like yourself that keep purveyors of garbage computers like Dell and HP in business. If you're content with having your options narrowed down to what a small group of suits wants you to have then fine, but don't call people who don't whiners. It simply shows the degree of greed inherent in that company, a company that controls 90% of the worlds operating systems. If they released a base free version and sold extended versions and extended support gurantees they'd still make a fortune and not have to implement disgusting practices like DRM. |
|
Shootist
Premium
join:2003-02-10
Decatur, GA
| reply to CylonRed
It wasn't directed AT you. It was just a response to the whole thread.
said by CylonRed :said by Shootist :Well the whole point to the GA system was to stop piracy and increase there bottom line, ER stop them from losing money because of piracy. You would think once that came about the cost of software would come down. Yeah right. Now that MS has perfected this system they are raising the cost to everyone and to top it off they have so many different version which one is for who. I know that most would be OK with the home version. But if it's anything like XP home, with no ability to change security settings, then I would want the pro version. But which version is the pro version and what outrageous price do they want for it. Lets face it, it is a operating system. I see no new features in Vista. It doesn't have a better file system, it's the same as XP. What you can't do without the eye candy?? If I'm actually using my PC for what it was intended for I never look at the desktop except at bootup and when shutting down. Not at all sure why this was directed toward me...
--
Shooter Ready--Stand By BEEP ******** |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
| said by Shootist :It wasn't directed AT you. It was just a response to the whole thread. said by CylonRed :said by Shootist :Well the whole point to the GA system was to stop piracy and increase there bottom line, ER stop them from losing money because of piracy. You would think once that came about the cost of software would come down. Yeah right. Now that MS has perfected this system they are raising the cost to everyone and to top it off they have so many different version which one is for who. I know that most would be OK with the home version. But if it's anything like XP home, with no ability to change security settings, then I would want the pro version. But which version is the pro version and what outrageous price do they want for it. Lets face it, it is a operating system. I see no new features in Vista. It doesn't have a better file system, it's the same as XP. What you can't do without the eye candy?? If I'm actually using my PC for what it was intended for I never look at the desktop except at bootup and when shutting down. Not at all sure why this was directed toward me... Ok - usually when a post is quoted by someone in their post - it usually means the specific post is being replied to and not the entire thread...
--
Brian
"Some people are like Slinkies...
Not really good for anything......
But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to Anon
said by Leathal :If you are going to build a machine, build a fast and powerful one. I still use a P4 3.2Ghz, 2GB DDR RAM, ATI X800XT AGP 8x, to play WoW and other graphic intensive games which don't lag, I don't see why you'd want to upgrade to anything faster once you had your ultimate machine running Vista? When Windows XP first came up, the top of the line machine was a 2.0GHz Socket 423 on PC800 RDRAM with 7200RPM IDE Raid 5 (Generally about 240GB unless you wanted to get really ridiculous) and an AGP Pro slot running something like a wildcat 4200 or an AGP 4x running a 4000 series nvidia card (ATI was behind at the time).
Would you really want to still be trying to run your games on that type of machine now, because XP is still the primary OS right now, so that is what you would be running if you had built your ultimate machine running windows XP.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
Leathal
Premium
join:2002-02-09
Toronto, ON
1 edit | reply to David
said by David :said by Leathal :Stop you whining then! If you don't want to run it, don't but sooner or later you will have no choice as there aren't enough applications on Linux or any other platform other than Macintosh that allow you to do everything that Windows does. Leathal Really!?!? Visit sourceforge much? So far I have found a few replacements for some core things I use. Games I can let Windows 2000 handle. 1.) RADMIN=UltraVNC 2.) MSoffice=Open office 3.) QUicken and a few others=Crossover (» desktoplinux.com/articles/AT2282537026.html) 4.) Antivirus=clamwin 5.) drivers for equipment and such=various vendor sites, such as Dlink for the wireless network card and such. So far just on a basic test drive... I am impressed, and thinking of moving within a year or so. That maybe true however none of the products you have listed above are not main stream products, meaning that they are not backwards compatible with the comparable mainstream products that Microsoft or other software companies develop and support.
Will the world convert to Linux? Definitely not!
Leathal |
|
Leathal
Premium
join:2002-02-09
Toronto, ON
1 edit | reply to Bangy
said by Bangy :Leathal, you are a marketers wet dream. Keep eating the crap that hardware/software manufacturers shove down your throat. Keep accpeting DRM management that kills performance and treats honest customers lke criminals. Anyhow, The point is NO ONE should have to bend to MS's ridiculous rules for an OS that will likely cost over $200. To build one machine and have to be content with it for the duration of the OS life is moronic. For instance I'm a gaming enthusiast and I upgraded 6 times during XP's run. It sheep like yourself that keep purveyors of garbage computers like Dell and HP in business. If you're content with having your options narrowed down to what a small group of suits wants you to have then fine, but don't call people who don't whiners. It simply shows the degree of greed inherent in that company, a company that controls 90% of the worlds operating systems. If they released a base free version and sold extended versions and extended support gurantees they'd still make a fortune and not have to implement disgusting practices like DRM. Wait and you think it costs Microsoft $0.50 to make Windows Vista? How about the millionaires that Microsoft will make this year who co-developed Vista, how about the millions Microsoft will pay some rock group to use their song with Vista's release? And the BILLIONS spent on advertising?
Microsoft is not shoving the software down your throat you do have a choice, and there are a lot of free solutions; it's just that Microsoft has made it easier for people to use their product without having to learn another language like you do with with all flavours of *nix. I forgot to add Apple is the second in command now, so I guess you could start using a Mac, at least Microsoft makes Office for the Macintosh.
Leathal |
|
Leathal
Premium
join:2002-02-09
Toronto, ON
| reply to marigolds
said by marigolds :said by Leathal :If you are going to build a machine, build a fast and powerful one. I still use a P4 3.2Ghz, 2GB DDR RAM, ATI X800XT AGP 8x, to play WoW and other graphic intensive games which don't lag, I don't see why you'd want to upgrade to anything faster once you had your ultimate machine running Vista? When Windows XP first came up, the top of the line machine was a 2.0GHz Socket 423 on PC800 RDRAM with 7200RPM IDE Raid 5 (Generally about 240GB unless you wanted to get really ridiculous) and an AGP Pro slot running something like a wildcat 4200 or an AGP 4x running a 4000 series nvidia card (ATI was behind at the time). Would you really want to still be trying to run your games on that type of machine now, because XP is still the primary OS right now, so that is what you would be running if you had built your ultimate machine running windows XP. My point is people are too greedy when it comes to maintaining the hardware of their systems, they always want the latest and greatest thing; I use to be like that believe me until XP then I started to realize I can run everything you can on your dual Xeon 4GB cache, 5GB NVidia or ATI PCI-32 card, etc. comfortably on my P4, so what if I don't the 100,000,000 frames per second that you do. TV operates at 29.97FPS in North America and if I get 50+ FPS I am happy.
Leathal |
|
Kramer
Premium,Mod
join:2000-08-03
Richmond, VA
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
 ·GoDaddy Hosting
Host:
Microsoft Help
Wireless Security
| reply to dave
said by dave :said by Leathal :I don't see why you'd want to upgrade to anything faster once you had your ultimate machine running Vista? Uh, because as far as I'm aware, hardware is still being improved, and that trend will probably continue for the next year at least? I've long since ceased to be a top-of-the-line buyer; I prefer the middle sweet spot of cheap enough/fast enough. But there are people who want fast fast fast. And if they want the fastest that's available today, they'll probably want the fastest that's available tomorrow, as well. And in any case, telling people they shouldn't upgrade hardware is completely beside the point: Person 1: "Damn, Microsoft won't let me move a licence from one machine to another". Person 2: "Well, you shouldn't want to upgrade your hardware anyway". I for one think this is a pretty low blow from Microsoft, if it turns out to be true. I agree. This burns at least two types of owners. First people like yourself and I that would rather buy cheaper and fast enough only to upgrade to cheaper and faster or those users that you mention that are constantly upgrading to have the fastest hardware available. It makes sense to upgrade high paid individuals as regularly as possible in occupations like programming and engineering. I am sure there are a lot of shops out there that simply replace a motherboard every year on the machines of their highest paid employees. All you have to do is improve efficiency 1% to cover the cost of a $1000 upgrade on a person earning 100K/yr. If this is all true, I think Microsoft may be hearing from more than hobbyists. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to Leathal
said by Leathal :I can run everything you can on your dual Xeon 4GB cache, 5GB NVidia or ATI PCI-32 card, etc. comfortably on my P4, so what if I don't the 100,000,000 frames per second that you do. I think geospatial database or image processing wonks would disagree with you there. I've got stuff that takes hours to run on a quad xeon; I could not even begin to picture running it on a P4. When I run it in lab, that is fine because we are buying new machines rather than upgrading. When I run it at home though, then I am dealing with a machine I need to upgrade because I cannot afford to buy new servers for myself every new software release.
Then again, I have to be able to run virtual machine and remote desktop, so I guess I will have to spring for an unlimited copy anyway.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://whip.isca.uiowa.edu
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
CylonRed
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
1 edit | reply to Leathal
said by Leathal :said by marigolds :said by Leathal :If you are going to build a machine, build a fast and powerful one. I still use a P4 3.2Ghz, 2GB DDR RAM, ATI X800XT AGP 8x, to play WoW and other graphic intensive games which don't lag, I don't see why you'd want to upgrade to anything faster once you had your ultimate machine running Vista? When Windows XP first came up, the top of the line machine was a 2.0GHz Socket 423 on PC800 RDRAM with 7200RPM IDE Raid 5 (Generally about 240GB unless you wanted to get really ridiculous) and an AGP Pro slot running something like a wildcat 4200 or an AGP 4x running a 4000 series nvidia card (ATI was behind at the time). Would you really want to still be trying to run your games on that type of machine now, because XP is still the primary OS right now, so that is what you would be running if you had built your ultimate machine running windows XP. My point is people are too greedy when it comes to maintaining the hardware of their systems, they always want the latest and greatest thing; I use to be like that believe me until XP then I started to realize I can run everything you can on your dual Xeon 4GB cache, 5GB NVidia or ATI PCI-32 card, etc. comfortably on my P4, so what if I don't the 100,000,000 frames per second that you do. TV operates at 29.97FPS in North America and if I get 50+ FPS I am happy. Leathal When I rebuild - I build so it will last 3-5 years - even when playing games then I rebuild. I currentyl haeva XP2000+ with 512 megs of ram and video card that is about 3 generations old (Ti4400). I can't play any games but anythign older - I used to be a beta tester for Americas Army but I can't play it with acceptable FPS right now. I had to replace a hard drive 2 weeks ago - that would mean I would have to buy a new copy of Vista (if I was using it) when I rebuilt my PC - utter crap.
I want my OS to last as long as well but if MS has its way with Vista the chance that I can run the same OS that I paid big bucks for, for more than 5 years is nill since odds are I will have to replace a video card/hard drive/ram/or motherboard in that period of time making my OS useless after the new hardware is in... And that is utter crap as well.
There is no way we consumers can make sure our hardware won't die in 5 years - completely and utterly impossible and MS wants to screw it to us that do have hardware failures by making us buy a new OS because some hardware changed that was OUTSIDE of our control.
--
Brian
"Some people are like Slinkies...
Not really good for anything......
But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." |
|
