"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47b1cf6d$2@news.povray.org...



A good machine with Vista pre-installed on, maybe. The software along, for
R12000??? Hell, no one would have bought that.
You can get enterprise licences for less than that. My near-top range laptop
with Vista installed cost that.

Are you ever going to learn to look things up before making an ass of
yourself?
As said by someone wise "It is better to remain silent and be assumed to be
an idiot, than to open one's mouth and prove that one is"

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> You could instead try NeoOffice, which runs "natively".
> 
> Mmm, OK.

NeoOffice runs beautifully on my MacBook (800 quid when new, by the way; 
not the most expensive model you can buy but certainly more than 
sufficient for my needs). AFAIK NeoOffice is simply "OpenOffice for MacOSX".

I've also heard that the OSX version of MSOffice is better than the 
windows version (although there are some compatibility problems for 
those poor fools that insist on using the Windows Metafile as a picture 
format).

Post a reply to this message

> From Amazon the non-OEM non-upgrade 32-bit versions
>





You'd be silly not to buy the OEM version though...  The main difference 
with the OEM version is that it is tied to the motherboard you first install 
it on.  Some say you can get around this by saying to the MS activiation 
person your old one died, but at worst it means you need to buy another OEM 
license when you get a new motherboard.  Given that the OEM license is 3-4 
times cheaper than the non-OEM version, it's a no-brainer.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> You'd be silly not to buy the OEM version though...  The main difference 
> with the OEM version is that it is tied to the motherboard you first 
> install it on.

Ah, is *that* what that actually means?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:17:58 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did  
spake, saying:

>> From Amazon the non-OEM non-upgrade 32-bit versions
>>




>
> You'd be silly not to buy the OEM version though...

I agree, except the point is these are the real prices Microsoft are  
trying to sell their operating system for. You're essentially saying it's  
silly to buy that suit from the actual store when you can get it cheaper  
in their 'factory' store except what is the cheaper price based upon?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:44:06 -0000, Gail Shaw sa dot com>  
<"<initialsurname"@sentech> did spake, saying:

> As said by someone wise "It is better to remain silent and be assumed to  
> be an idiot, than to open one's mouth and prove that one is"

'What the hell does that mean. Oh no it's gone quiet better say something  
quick'
"Takes one to know one"
'Swish"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> Depends on what you're surfing, I suppose. Sure, sometimes it works
> great. Sometimes it takes a lot of CPU cycles until I figure out what's
> going on. And you can't tell me you haven't heard people complaining it
> over-buffers stuff.
> 

Yes. One drain is Flash, which (at least on Linux) consumes resources on
the Mozilla process. I mean one Flash -animation oslt starts leaking and
it seems that Mozilla drains huuuuge amount of memory (and possibly
CPU), while the actual beast is Flash.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>>
>> What driver? What kernel does the system have?
> 
> I don't know. That was a while ago. It was apparently a known problem,
> not that it made it any easier to work around.  It sucks when youhave a
> bug in the software update software. :-)

Ah, ok. And yes, it does suck when software installer sucks.

> Actually, I may be confused. The USB problem was the USB kernel thingie
> going compute-bound at high priority.  Fixed after an update.

Ok.

> There was soemthing else about the install.

You remember Murphy? If something fails, also other things fail, even if
they aren't related. Unfortunately it's not uncommon to see that failed
installation has multiple problems.

>> distribution", but I still don't think it should be generalized to be a
>> *Linux* -feature.
> 
> I'm amused how whenever there's something good, it's a Linux thing, and
> whenever there's a problem, it's not Linux's fault but someone else's. ;-)

Yes and no. Yes, it IS a pretty common way handle things, but not
always. Noticed my words of Afterstep usability (Afterstep, not Linux
particular)? I can run Afterstep on *BSD, Irix, Solaris... But not on
Windows (well, actually I can, but I can't replace Explorer with it).
Nor this "install every driver" -thingie - it's generally a good thing,
but it depends on the distribution. If SuSE or Ubuntu does it (AFAIK
they both do), it doesn't apply on every Linux out there.

>> Nope, you install NIC drivers and download the rest from the Internet ;).
> 
> And from one place!

IF you have hardware that has working* drivers at Windows Update.

*) with your hardware combination


-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   I don't believe too many people would complain if Vista broke
> compatibility with Windows 3.1 and DOS (which would be approximately
> the same thing MacOS X has done).
> 
>   (OTOH, I don't really know if Vista actually has done that. I assume
> it hasn't.)
> 

AFAIK 64-bit Windowses actually do that - drop all 16-bit (and under)
-support off.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:01:02 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Some of the agreements also included verbiage that forbade the
>> installation of another OS even as a dual-boot option.
> 
> I must have missed that part of the evidence. :-) Yeah, that's pretty
> nasty.

Yeah, I followed the antitrust trial relatively closely - for some very 
interesting reading, read the deposition given by Eric Schmidt (then CEO 
of Novell) - particularly the bits about "bad playing" with mup.sys and 
the client redirector technologies.  I know people who worked on that 
stuff.

Jim

Post a reply to this message