Page 2 of 5
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:31 am
by Josh1billion
This thread reminded me of an activation problem I had recently.
Short story: The activation itself was a big pain, but when I called into support, it was solved way more easily than I had expected. Here's the story:
Long story: Early this year, I bought my PC used from a guy who custom-built it, and he threw in Windows XP (Home Edition) as part of the deal. I eventually reformatted once, and then later that PC stopped working (still doesn't work, I think it's the video card and possibly hard drive-- will need to replace them later). So I went out and bought a laptop since it was being sold for a good price and I'd be needing one eventually anyway, and I installed XP over the Vista. Then the old "activate within 30 days" thing pops up.. so I activated it online, and it said that the activation key had already been used too many times (and said to call support and tell them a certain code which was on-screen, a code of maybe 10 segments of 5 or 6 char's each).. what?? Could be from having installed it too many times (I think that's it), or the guy who sold it to me could have written down the key and released it to his favorite warez group (I doubt that though, the guy seemed like a good guy and seemed fairly well-off financially, judging by the huge TV sitting in his living room).
So I took a chance and called the ol' toll-free number, and the guy asked for that code (not the activation key, but the code on-screen). He only actually asked for the first segment (five or six characters), and oddly, that was all it took for the code to be verified-- that's the par of the story that amuses me and I find strange. After giving him that segment of the code, he gave me a long code to type in (not a new activation key) and it was activated successfully.
Very odd how the online activation is so strict and hassling while the over-the-phone activation is so quick, simple, and relaxed.
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:07 am
by CoderGoblin
Nobody has yet mentioned the fact that unless you fork out for a console most 'new' games tend to come out on PC's (and generally cheaper than the console versions). With Linux you are limited. Sure there are things like "wine" and some games for Linux but to run the latest games you need windows/console.
I enjoy having the flexibility of a dual boot system with Windows/Ubuntu which also has the benefit of separating work (Linux) and Play (Windows). Personally I am enjoying a blast from the past with OOlite (an elite clone) which runs on both Linux and Windows but I use it on windows in keeping with the work/play philosophy.
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:35 pm
by ReverendDexter
arborint wrote:People will adopt it when it comes pre-installed on hardware and does what they need to do cheaper.
I believe everything after "hardware" in that statement is superfluous. I don't think most users know that the OS *can* be changed, much less why the would ever want to.
And while I do agree that the state of gaming on Linux is almost nonexistant, I disagree about Windows games being "generally cheaper". Maybe on first release, but console games drop in price with the quickness, and usually the popular games get put out as a best hits version for $20 or less (the really really popular xbox games hit a second tier of that, and $10 versions were realeased). And for every person out there who's gonna say "but I already have the computer, why would I pay for a console?", think about how much you spend in video cards to play those new games.
I know I'd rather buy the console once, and *know* that every game *will* work, every controller *will* work, and I'll never have a driver issue.
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:01 pm
by feyd
I saw an article today about Asus shipping a new motherboard with embedded Linux.
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:44 pm
by RobertGonzalez
I think I may be making the jump to full time linux sooner than later. I messed around with Ubuntu this past weekend and I think I fell in love with computers all over again.
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:28 pm
by s.dot
If you buy (no pun intended) into the corporate world of microsoft, then things go well. I'm a very satisfied windows user, except I only pay for the OS. I don't use office (open office, for the win), I don't use outlook (thunderbird), I don't use IE (firefox), etc etc etc.
I prefer a Windows OS, and I've had no catastrophic events or stories to tell about.

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:49 pm
by Christopher
scottayy, if you use open office, thunderbird, and firefox, the it does not really matter which OS you use. But if you do web development, unless you develop for IIS then developing on localhost on Windows for at Unix target sucks. Perhaps you don't know what a filesystem with things like real aliases is like.

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:39 am
by Benjamin
I recently completed an onsite project for a high traffic website that was started back in 99. The lead developer, (more like the only developer who hadn't quit yet), considered OOP to be bad practice, didn't really know how to read the manual and also couldn't figure out why I preferred a Linux development environment over a Windows environment, even though all the code we wrote ended up running on Linux servers.
Developing on Windows for LAMP is certainly possible, but why one would ever want to do it is beyond me. Get a good Linux development environment setup and once you get used to developing on that, Windows will become a joke to you.
Honestly though, between Linux and Windows, they both have some very big downfalls. I'll take Linux over Windows any day, but they both have bugs, driver and compatibility issues.
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:40 am
by Michael A
A quick question from a long-time Windows user (or maybe usee?).
Since I design and develop web sites, I have to run IE, if only for testing purposes. Is it possible to run Vista from within a linux environment? If the answer is yes, is it a stable arrangement? Will I be able to count on it always working?
I would love to be rid of Windows completely, but that's just not realistic. I'm sure you all know that the vast majority of people on the internet use IE and no one, in his right mind, would develop a web site in a purely Linux (or Mac) environment, without a way to test sites in IE.
Thanks, in advance, for your responses, and please forgive me if this has already been covered elsewhere or if this seems like a thread hijack. I don't want to step on anyone's toes.
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:10 am
by feyd
Michael A wrote:Since I design and develop web sites, I have to run IE, if only for testing purposes. Is it possible to run Vista from within a linux environment? If the answer is yes, is it a stable arrangement? Will I be able to count on it always working?
Yes; yes; fairly sure, yes.
Michael A wrote:I would love to be rid of Windows completely, but that's just not realistic. I'm sure you all know that the vast majority of people on the internet use IE and no one, in his right mind, would develop a web site in a purely Linux (or Mac) environment, without a way to test sites in IE.
Actually I develop solely in a Mac environment now. Since I write in a completely standardized way, few bugs crop up from IE users. Those that due come up are easily dealt with (commonly UI issues.)
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:10 am
by matthijs
Maybe if Microsoft would really improve their OS, the whole registration process and DRM trouble wouldn't be necessary any more. because (most) people would be happy to just pay for their software.
I know that since I switched to mac I feel totally different about purchasing software. Before, I only did it because I really had to. Now, I am happy to pay for software I can use well, software which gives me a lot of pleasure to use. Paying for software suddenly feels different.
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:07 pm
by phice
I have, what, 4 machines that run Windows and I never have any problems.
I think some of you are looking for problems to quickly run to Linux and join the "rebel" crowd

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:14 pm
by RobertGonzalez
I too develop to a standard, so I don't really rely on needing IE as much either. I do test in it, but I develop standardized code first, then hack to make things work that may not work from the go.
And I am fairly certain that I will be going full bore Linux by year end.
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:20 pm
by VladSun
phice wrote:I have, what, 4 machines that run Windows and I never have any problems.
I think some of you are looking for problems to quickly run to Linux and join the "rebel" crowd

I have, what, 11 machines that run Linux and I never have any problems.
And yet - these are public servers
Let's not begin an OS-war here, ok ?
The problems, we are discussing here are due to marketing, not due to technical issues.
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:32 pm
by The Phoenix
phice wrote:I have, what, 4 machines that run Windows and I never have any problems.
I think some of you are looking for problems to quickly run to Linux and join the "rebel" crowd

I've worked at companies with 55,000 computers, and the #1 source of trouble tickets were windows machines.
Saying "I've got some machines that have no problems" doesn't disprove that there are problems, just like me saying I didn't get hit by a car today doesn't cause some poor guy to get 'un-hit' by a car today.
People are citing real, personal, and extremely well-documented and discussed issues that Microsoft products have.
Of course, there is no reason that you 'should' run to Linux. There is also FreeBSD, Mac OSX, and a slew of other high-quality operating systems.
The key is that many people are finding value in alternatives to the majority OS. Whether they are values you find attractive or not shouldn't negate
the fact that it is important to someone.