 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> As a great lyricist once wrote, "you suffer, but why?"
Which lyricist would that be?
Anyway, we have an ancient pile-of-crap application that doesn't work
under Windows XP, only Windows NT. (This is probably related to the fact
that it replaces SERIAL.SYS with a custom-patched version, which likely
fails completely under Windows XP.) Putting the stupid thing in a VM is
a nice, easy way to fix the problem.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> - Boot the CD. Windows XP gives you the little "press any key to boot
> this CD or wait X seconds to boot normally", but NT just boots into the
> installer, weather you meant to or not.
All the Windows installers will boot directly into the CD if there's no
bootable OS installed already.
> - Multiple warnings tell you that no OS is detected and if there *is* in
> fact an OS, the installer isn't seeing it and so will probably destroy
> it.
As opposed to Solaris x86, where even after you spend half an hour clearing
out enough room to make a partition for it, it blows away every other OS
installed without asking. :-)
> - Accept the license agreement. (You must repeatedly press PGDW to get
> to the bottom before you can press F8 to accept.)
I always liked that one.
> - The Windows NT boot screen appears. If you selected to format with
> NTFS, then Windows will now convert the existing FAT partition with all
> your files on it to NTFS like you actually asked for. (WTF?) Presumably
> because the text-mode installer doesn't grok NTFS yet or something...
Yes. Plus, apparently many people were upgrading earlier versions of Windows
anyway.
> - Now update Windows, preferably to the latest available version:
> Service Pack 6a. This is avilable in both "export" and "high encryption"
> versions, due to the old US export laws that forced Microsoft to export
> various software with only 40-bit encryption.
Ah yes. Service pack 6a, which is service pack 6 with the patent license
violating code removed. :-)
> Isn't all this fun? :-}
Is it more fun than trying to get MS products working where the only client
you have is beta-5 (and beta-5.2 is known not to work with your hardware)
and the only server you have is the one MS just came out with 2 months ago,
but which only runs on Server2003 which they stopped selling several years ago?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> - Boot the CD. Windows XP gives you the little "press any key to boot
>> this CD or wait X seconds to boot normally", but NT just boots into
>> the installer, weather you meant to or not.
>
> All the Windows installers will boot directly into the CD if there's no
> bootable OS installed already.
Ah yes, that's a subtle point. Windows XP *checks* to see if an OS is
present. If not, it boots the CD. If there is an OS already present, it
requires you to press a key to boot the CD.
Windows NT, on the other hand, just boots the CD, no matter what.
>> - Accept the license agreement. (You must repeatedly press PGDW to get
>> to the bottom before you can press F8 to accept.)
>
> I always liked that one.
Yep. Again fixed in XP. There you can press F8 immediately, without
needing to scroll down first. (I guess the idea was for "force" you to
read it - yeah, like that works!)
>> - The Windows NT boot screen appears. If you selected to format with
>> NTFS, then Windows will now convert the existing FAT partition with
>> all your files on it to NTFS like you actually asked for. (WTF?)
>> Presumably because the text-mode installer doesn't grok NTFS yet or
>> something...
>
> Yes. Plus, apparently many people were upgrading earlier versions of
> Windows anyway.
When I joined, we had lots of 98/NT machines. Each with a FAT partition
and two folders, C:\WINDOWS for 98, C:\WINNT for NT. ;-)
> Ah yes. Service pack 6a, which is service pack 6 with the patent license
> violating code removed. :-)
Is that the only difference?? o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymous org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4bb35e6a$1@news.povray.org...
> Am 31.03.2010 16:13, schrieb Invisible:
>
>> For those of you who haven't had the misfortune of trying to install
>> Windows NT, allow me to elaborate:
>
> Sounds more like, *Vade* retro! :-P
ROTFL! I knew there were evil powers at work in some OS!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Yep. Again fixed in XP. There you can press F8 immediately, without
> needing to scroll down first. (I guess the idea was for "force" you to
> read it - yeah, like that works!)
It does, in a legal sense. If they can prove you were required to scroll
thru the whole thing and then said "yes, I agree", they have a much stronger
position than someone who said "Oh, look, press F8 to continue" and pushed it.
People have lost lawsuits like that because the agreement you were agreeing
to was on a different web page linked from the one with the agree button,
and even if the agreement was on the same page but needed scrolling in the
default browser setup.
Blame the lawyers.
I guess by the time 2000 rolled around, the courts had gotten their act
together on clickware agreements.
>> Ah yes. Service pack 6a, which is service pack 6 with the patent
>> license violating code removed. :-)
>
> Is that the only difference?? o_O
AFAIK, yes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Yep. Again fixed in XP. There you can press F8 immediately, without
>> needing to scroll down first. (I guess the idea was for "force" you to
>> read it - yeah, like that works!)
>
> It does, in a legal sense. Blame the lawyers.
I still think the entire concept of a layman actually being able
comprehend twenty five pages of dense legalese and click "I agree"
actually having any clue what they just agreed to is absurd. But this is
not unique to computing; how many times have you signed some piece of
paper shoved at you? Do you actually spend two hours pouring over the
details? Or do you just sign it? Typically the salesman gets very
agressive if you attempt to read it before signing it.
>>> Ah yes. Service pack 6a, which is service pack 6 with the patent
>>> license violating code removed. :-)
>>
>> Is that the only difference?? o_O
>
> AFAIK, yes.
OK, that's pretty special. OOC, what exactly did they have to remove?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Typically the salesman gets very
> agressive if you attempt to read it before signing it.
That's a clear hint that you shouldn't sign it.
Never seen that here, though. Probably more usual in other places.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Typically the salesman gets very
>> agressive if you attempt to read it before signing it.
>
> That's a clear hint that you shouldn't sign it.
Just a tad... ;-)
> Never seen that here, though. Probably more usual in other places.
Lots of places seem to just assume that it's a case of "you need to sign
this form, it's all pretty standard stuff". Sometimes you can take a
form away with you, read it, and sign it at your leasure. But most
people seem to assume that you can just sign it right now. After all,
why would you need to actually *read* it? It's all "standard stuff",
after all...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I still think the entire concept of a layman actually being able
> comprehend twenty five pages of dense legalese and click "I agree"
> actually having any clue what they just agreed to is absurd.
Usually it's not that hard to understand, unless you get caught by some odd
law or precedent that makes what the words say something different than they
mean, or unless you're doing something unusual (like trying to use GPL code
in a commercial product or some such) at which point you hire your lawyer.
> how many times have you signed some piece of
> paper shoved at you?
I never do that.
> Do you actually spend two hours pouring over the
> details? Or do you just sign it?
I read it, at least.
> Typically the salesman gets very
> agressive if you attempt to read it before signing it.
Then you walk away. I don't need that crap from a salesman. ;-)
> OK, that's pretty special. OOC, what exactly did they have to remove?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/246009
OK, a moment with google shows there were a couple other bug fixes, but I'm
pretty sure the *main* reason was to get rid of patent-violating code. But
that's from memory.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Lots of places seem to just assume that it's a case of "you need to sign
> this form, it's all pretty standard stuff". Sometimes you can take a form
> away with you, read it, and sign it at your leasure. But most people seem
> to assume that you can just sign it right now. After all, why would you
> need to actually *read* it? It's all "standard stuff", after all...
LOL we had that recently. The document referenced 6 other documents that we
didn't have, so we asked for them before we signed it. In the end they sent
us 2 of them, saying the other 4 weren't relevant. So we asked them to
remove the references to the other 4 from the original. "Oh it's a standard
document, we can't change it". In the end we wrote, by hand, on the
contract that those four were not relevant and we weren't agreeing to them,
then signed it. I think they were a bit pissed at us.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
