Jim <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:


Not very good troll, I give it about a 3 on the Troll-O-Meter.

TROLL-O-METER
..1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.
^

On Wed, 09 May 2007 07:34:02 -0700, Jim wrote:
[color=blue]
> Like a lot of people when I installed Vista on my computer I found that
> it was underqualified for Vista. My CPU was too slow (Athlon 1.5gig)and
> my hard drive was too small (25 gig). So I made the decision to build a
> new system so I could take advantage of the cool features of Vista.
> What a shock when I found Microsoft would not authenticate Vista on my
> new computer - even though I had salvaged the old computer. It said I
> could only install on one machine (my old one) and I needed to buy a new
> copy of Vista for my new machine. The guy said they are really clamping
> down on piracy.[/color]

Complete and utter BS.

--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling
a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
[email]spam999free@rrohio.com[/email] (remove 999 for proper email address)

What I am doing is building a new box and am not using any of the compoenents
from the old computer that has Vista on it. I will wipe the hard drive of
the old box and donate it to Purple Heart. So I will only be using Vista on
one computer - the new one I just built. So where does that leave me.

"Justin" wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Jim" <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FE02B19D-5347-4193-AE4B-F5D16C412596@microsoft.com...[color=green]
> > Thanks. I do have the full version and I guess I just need to find the
> > right
> > person at Microsoft. I was really disappointed to get my new machine
> > built
> > (AMD Dual Core 4400, Geforce 7300GT, 3 gigs of ram, 160 gig HD) install
> > Vista
> > try to authenticate and it wouldnt let me. So if what you say is true its
> > just a case of finding the right person at Microsoft. I'll try again.[/color]
>
> I'm guess there was a miscommunication with the first guy you spoke to.
>
> If I understand you correctly, you upgraded your old machine? So you are
> left with only ONE computer? Not TWO computers right?
>
> If you told them you had an old computer and you built a new one he might
> have mistaken that as you now have TWO computers that you want to install
> Windows on.
>
>[/color]

On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:24:12 -0700, Frank wrote:[color=blue]
>
> ray wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I beg to differ. Installed Linux on the public access internet
>> computers at the local library two years ago. Since then we've added
>> five more Linux seats. The patrons adapted easily without instruction,
>> and we've had no complaints. The director previously was called to the
>> floor several times per day to help patrons with internet difficulties
>> - since Linux, no calls. It just works and everyone is quite happy. The
>> machines are usually very busy from opening to closing every day.
>> Installed OpenOffice.org, AbiWord and Gnumeric and most frequently used
>> browser plugins and all is cool. Count now is: 9 Linux seats, 1 MS.
>>
>>[/color]
> Get real! If you think running 9 seats of linux for Internet users in a
> small library is statistical proof one could use to extrapolate any kind
> of marketing evidence that linux is for the masses, you’re only fooling
> yourself.[/color]

I agree, if anyone just needs email and browsing and they don't need
games or interfacing with MS Apps, then a linux station is a good plan,
but if you have to interact with others and MS documents, then linux is
not a good platform.

--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling
a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
[email]spam999free@rrohio.com[/email] (remove 999 for proper email address)

I know, some are saying that I just talked to the wrong person at Micrsoft
and/or did not explain my situtation well enough. I think I will try
Microsoft again. Hey a phone call is a lot cheaper than an new copy of
Vista!

"XS11E" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Jim <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not very good troll, I give it about a 3 on the Troll-O-Meter.
>
> TROLL-O-METER
> ..1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.
> ^
>[/color]

On Wed, 09 May 2007 12:30:04 -0500, Leythos wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:24:12 -0700, Frank wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> ray wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I beg to differ. Installed Linux on the public access internet
>>> computers at the local library two years ago. Since then we've added
>>> five more Linux seats. The patrons adapted easily without instruction,
>>> and we've had no complaints. The director previously was called to the
>>> floor several times per day to help patrons with internet difficulties
>>> - since Linux, no calls. It just works and everyone is quite happy. The
>>> machines are usually very busy from opening to closing every day.
>>> Installed OpenOffice.org, AbiWord and Gnumeric and most frequently used
>>> browser plugins and all is cool. Count now is: 9 Linux seats, 1 MS.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> Get real! If you think running 9 seats of linux for Internet users in a
>> small library is statistical proof one could use to extrapolate any kind
>> of marketing evidence that linux is for the masses, you’re only fooling
>> yourself.[/color]
>
> I agree, if anyone just needs email and browsing and they don't need
> games or interfacing with MS Apps, then a linux station is a good plan,
> but if you have to interact with others and MS documents, then linux is
> not a good platform.[/color]

No one NEEDS games - that's what they make game consoles for for God's
sake. What problem 'interfacing with MS Apps' do you refer to - I've been
doing that for five years without incident.

On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:24:12 -0700, Frank wrote:
[color=blue]
> ray wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>
>> I beg to differ. Installed Linux on the public access internet computers
>> at the local library two years ago. Since then we've added five more Linux
>> seats. The patrons adapted easily without instruction, and we've had no
>> complaints. The director previously was called to the floor several times
>> per day to help patrons with internet difficulties - since Linux, no
>> calls. It just works and everyone is quite happy. The machines are usually
>> very busy from opening to closing every day. Installed OpenOffice.org,
>> AbiWord and Gnumeric and most frequently used browser plugins and all is
>> cool. Count now is: 9 Linux seats, 1 MS.
>>
>>[/color]
> Get real! If you think running 9 seats of linux for Internet users in a
> small library is statistical proof one could use to extrapolate any kind
> of marketing evidence that linux is for the masses, you’re only fooling
> yourself.
> Frank[/color]

Methinks you're fooling yourself, and you've never really given Linux a
fair shot. What could be more revealing than dumping Linux on a couple of
hundred folks ranging from pretty much neophytes (who, by the way have
less trouble with Linux than those indoctrinated with MS) to high school
computer geeks all with NO training - having them work successfully for
two years with no compliants? I'm seeing LOTS of complaints here about
vista, for example. I don't claim that Linux is for everyone - there is a
certain segment who are so closed minded that they won't consider anything
that does not say MS on the box. There are a few specialized niches where
proprietary MS only software is needed for process critical functions. For
95% of home users and 60% or more of business uses, Linux would be
entirely appropriate if given half a chance.

On Wed, 09 May 2007 11:42:14 -0600, ray wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 12:30:04 -0500, Leythos wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:24:12 -0700, Frank wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>
>>>> I beg to differ. Installed Linux on the public access internet
>>>> computers at the local library two years ago. Since then we've added
>>>> five more Linux seats. The patrons adapted easily without
>>>> instruction, and we've had no complaints. The director previously was
>>>> called to the floor several times per day to help patrons with
>>>> internet difficulties - since Linux, no calls. It just works and
>>>> everyone is quite happy. The machines are usually very busy from
>>>> opening to closing every day. Installed OpenOffice.org, AbiWord and
>>>> Gnumeric and most frequently used browser plugins and all is cool.
>>>> Count now is: 9 Linux seats, 1 MS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Get real! If you think running 9 seats of linux for Internet users in
>>> a small library is statistical proof one could use to extrapolate any
>>> kind of marketing evidence that linux is for the masses, you’re only
>>> fooling yourself.[/color]
>>
>> I agree, if anyone just needs email and browsing and they don't need
>> games or interfacing with MS Apps, then a linux station is a good plan,
>> but if you have to interact with others and MS documents, then linux is
>> not a good platform.[/color]
>
> No one NEEDS games - that's what they make game consoles for for God's
> sake. What problem 'interfacing with MS Apps' do you refer to - I've
> been doing that for five years without incident.[/color]

LOL, and I run Fedora and CrossOver so that I can open MS Office
documents without the format being messed up and so that I can send them
back to people without them wondering what I typed.

OO does not import MS Office documents well, yes, it does import the text
parts, but they don't properly handle formatting and other MS specific
items.

Why would I buy a game console for $400 when I have a $3,000 PC that does
it better.

--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling
a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
[email]spam999free@rrohio.com[/email] (remove 999 for proper email address)

ray wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
> Methinks you're fooling yourself, and you've never really given Linux a
> fair shot. What could be more revealing than dumping Linux on a couple of
> hundred folks ranging from pretty much neophytes (who, by the way have
> less trouble with Linux than those indoctrinated with MS) to high school
> computer geeks all with NO training - having them work successfully for
> two years with no compliants? I'm seeing LOTS of complaints here about
> vista, for example. I don't claim that Linux is for everyone - there is a
> certain segment who are so closed minded that they won't consider anything
> that does not say MS on the box. There are a few specialized niches where
> proprietary MS only software is needed for process critical functions. For
> 95% of home users and 60% or more of business uses, Linux would be
> entirely appropriate if given half a chance.
>[/color]

Oh please, using linux to access the Internet at a library is not by any
means a measure of the compatibility or competence of any OS.
If you actually believe that then meknows you're fooling yourself.
Frank

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.09.17.46.31.256890@zianet.com...[color=blue]
> On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:24:12 -0700, Frank wrote:
>[color=green]
>> ray wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> I beg to differ. Installed Linux on the public access internet computers
>>> at the local library two years ago. Since then we've added five more
>>> Linux
>>> seats. The patrons adapted easily without instruction, and we've had no
>>> complaints. The director previously was called to the floor several
>>> times
>>> per day to help patrons with internet difficulties - since Linux, no
>>> calls. It just works and everyone is quite happy. The machines are
>>> usually
>>> very busy from opening to closing every day. Installed OpenOffice.org,
>>> AbiWord and Gnumeric and most frequently used browser plugins and all is
>>> cool. Count now is: 9 Linux seats, 1 MS.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>> Get real! If you think running 9 seats of linux for Internet users in a
>> small library is statistical proof one could use to extrapolate any kind
>> of marketing evidence that linux is for the masses, you’re only fooling
>> yourself.
>> Frank[/color]
>
> Methinks you're fooling yourself, and you've never really given Linux a
> fair shot.[/color]

When linux is centrally manageable via active directory let me know and I'll
try it again.

"Jim" <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4A6BE1F9-AEFB-410F-8727-3AC3F9952103@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> What I am doing is building a new box and am not using any of the
> compoenents
> from the old computer that has Vista on it. I will wipe the hard drive of
> the old box and donate it to Purple Heart. So I will only be using Vista
> on
> one computer - the new one I just built. So where does that leave me.[/color]

Just a little advice, stop telling them you built a new computer. In
essence you have 100% upgraded your old one.

Tell them you upgraded all your hardware and are now trying to re-install
Vista.


[color=blue]
>
> "Justin" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Jim" <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:FE02B19D-5347-4193-AE4B-F5D16C412596@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>> > Thanks. I do have the full version and I guess I just need to find the
>> > right
>> > person at Microsoft. I was really disappointed to get my new machine
>> > built
>> > (AMD Dual Core 4400, Geforce 7300GT, 3 gigs of ram, 160 gig HD) install
>> > Vista
>> > try to authenticate and it wouldnt let me. So if what you say is true
>> > its
>> > just a case of finding the right person at Microsoft. I'll try again.[/color]
>>
>> I'm guess there was a miscommunication with the first guy you spoke to.
>>
>> If I understand you correctly, you upgraded your old machine? So you are
>> left with only ONE computer? Not TWO computers right?
>>
>> If you told them you had an old computer and you built a new one he might
>> have mistaken that as you now have TWO computers that you want to install
>> Windows on.
>>
>>[/color][/color]

=?Utf-8?B?Smlt?= <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
news:8E7841D1-8E0F-4EE7-B96D-7E824DA9A588@microsoft.com:
[color=blue]
> The "guy" was someone in sales and he said that I have to buy a
> separate copy for each machine I have. He said that this is not a new
> policy but Microsoft has always had this policy. Since I already had
> put it on my old machine I could not put it on another machine. I
> realize that Microsoft has probably lost a lot of money through piracy
> and I guess thats the reason for this.
>
> "Red Swingline Stapler" wrote:
>[color=green]
>> =?Utf-8?B?Smlt?= <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>> news:B657249D-E5DB-40B9-8B77-ECB73B98F46A@microsoft.com:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > ade the decision to build a new system
>> > so I could take advantage of the cool features of Vista. What a
>> > shock when I found Microsoft would not authenticate Vista on my new
>> > computer - even though I had salvaged the old computer. It said I
>> > could only install on one machine (my old one) and I needed to buy
>> > a new copy of Vista for my new machin[/color]
>>
>> What "guy" were you talking to? If you remove vista from the old
>> machine, then call Microsoft you should be able to get authorization
>> to install the OS on your new system.
>>[/color][/color]

This is true ONLY if you continue to use the OS on your old computer. If
you remove it from the old computer, you can install it on the new
computer.

Jim <Jim@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I know, some are saying that I just talked to the wrong person at
> Micrsoft and/or did not explain my situtation well enough. I
> think I will try Microsoft again. Hey a phone call is a lot
> cheaper than an new copy of Vista![/color]

Good luck, I hope it works for you.

I spent money on a $300 graphics card, $250 for 2GB of RAM, $200 Logitech
DiNovo Edge Keyboard, $100 Logitech MX Revolution mouse. Oh and $400 Vista
Ultimate Full edition. I am NOT rich.

So I quess you think I am stupid to spend that much money.

"Jim" wrote:
[color=blue]
> I would have prefered Vista too. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying Ubuntu
> is better than Vista - its just that I can't afford to buy a second copy
> right now. Maybe later I will. You must be rich, Frank!
>
> "Frank" wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Jim wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > Like a lot of people when I installed Vista on my computer I found that it
> > > was underqualified for Vista. My CPU was too slow (Athlon 1.5gig)and my hard
> > > drive was too small (25 gig). So I made the decision to build a new system
> > > so I could take advantage of the cool features of Vista. What a shock when I
> > > found Microsoft would not authenticate Vista on my new computer - even though
> > > I had salvaged the old computer. It said I could only install on one machine
> > > (my old one) and I needed to buy a new copy of Vista for my new machine. The
> > > guy said they are really clamping down on piracy. I tried to explain that
> > > this wasnt piracy but an honest effort to get the most out of Vista. I did
> > > not prevail. Faced with a new machine without an operating system I turned
> > > to my neighbor who is a computer guru and he loaned me a cdrom with a copy of
> > > a funny sounding program called Ubuntu? I installed it on my new dual core
> > > machine and is really great and it FLIES. He also gave me a copy of Open
> > > Office as my wife is an elementary school teacher and needs to do a lot of
> > > stuff for school. It to is amazingly fast and does everthing we need to do.
> > > I am not happy with Microsoft but at least I found a workaround. My neighbor
> > > said the workaround wont help for games as they need Vista or XP but I play
> > > games on my Xbox so no problem there.
> > >
> > > Jim[/color]
> >
> > I tried to install Urbuntu on my computer and it wouldn't recognize my
> > Matrox P750 video card and would not install. I'm sure a few people find
> > linux ok but it is not for me and seems not to be for the masses.
> > I have three versions of Vista installed and just really like it!
> > All of my software works and I have no problems with any hardware drivers.
> > Vista is a very good operating system.
> > Frank (a real Vista user)
> >[/color][/color]

Justin wrote:[color=blue]
> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
> news:Xns992B77E178B7Dthisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...[color=green]
>> Frank <fb@nospamm.cmm> wrote in
>> news:#EUpm4kkHHA.3388@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Jim wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would have prefered Vista too. Don't get me wrong. I am not
>>>> saying Ubuntu is better than Vista - its just that I can't afford to
>>>> buy a second copy right now. Maybe later I will. You must be rich,
>>>> Frank!
>>>
>>> No I'm not rich. I have a small business and Vista is a part of my
>>> business expense. I must be able to interface with the rest of the
>>> business world otherwise I'm dead in the water, so to speak. I can't
>>> efficiently or effectively do that with any distro of linux.
>>> Frank[/color]
>>
>> Based simply on a lack of drivers for your video card.
>>
>> Next time, do the proper research FIRST before trying to install an OS on
>> hardware that doesn't have the proper drivers.[/color]
>
> I know this is hard for you to understand but in some cases INSTALLING
> is the research. The difference here is that Frank isn't making bold
> claims of linux based on that one experience. He simply gave his findings.
>
> I understand what you MEANT to imply with that comment but it was
> unfounded.[/color]

Seems that the following quote from Frank could be taken as a rather
bold claim:
"I'm sure a few people find linux ok but it is not for me and seems not
to be for the masses."
He may certainly be correct that linux is not for him, but his
experience (no matter unsuccessful it was) in no way can define whether
or not linux is for the masses. ymmv.

--
norm