"Bob Henson" wrote in message
...
On 09/12/2014 10:32 am, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-09, Bob Henson wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:45 am, Bill wrote:
In message , Davey
writes
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:03:13 +0000
Graham. wrote:

It's a feature. Install Linux.

Seconded. All those Windows/MS problems just disappear.

And are replaced by all the Linux problems.

If I had a pound for all the time I've wasted trying to get an IPCam
program or some audio hardware to work in Mint (or AVLinux or Red Hat),
I'd be rich enough to buy a Mac. :-)


And here too. I just installed the latest Linux Mint 17.1 as a dual boot
on my old laptop, only to spend two days looking unsuccessfully for a
reason that the notification area icons are invisible. It turns out,
after a lot of research, that it is yet another Linux feature that is
not backwards compatible (a SIS video problem, in this case). Add to
that the fact that none of them will natively function with Broadcom B43
Wifi chips, and older several versions (13 for one - and it's a kernel
problem, not Mint's) won't even load/install because of that, you have
an O/S that is flaky in the extreme on older kit. Use on older kit was
Linux's main use, in my humble opinion, thus rendering it well useless
for most practical purposes. That's before you start on the software
that doesn't exist under Linux, and the 3G dongles that have no Linux
drivers.

On the same old laptop, Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8 and now 10 ran first
rattle out of the box and without modification or extra drivers.
Microsoft aren't always wrong.

Exactly how long is that stick that you've firmly grasped the wrong end
of?

If the hardware manufacturers will not provide drivers, or documentation
in order to allow drivers to be developed, in what way is it Linux' fault
that that hardware will not work under Linux?



Why have Microsoft got them, if Linux haven't? Because they make the
effort.

Nope, because those who did the hardware
realise that they have to support Win.

There are drivers for B43 chipsets - they just don't bother to supply
them with Mint and Debian and thus make them backwards compatible - I
don't know about the other variants. There are drivers for both my 3G
modems - they just don't supply them - and, boy, do they take some
finding and installing. Why is getting a network to work such a long
job, needing so much advice and help? They all work without effort in
Windows - certainly from 7 onwards. If the Linux devs spent less time
adding bells and whistles, and trendy GUIs that no-one wants, developing
software to match the Windows suppliers, and making the OS work half as
well as Windows they'd be getting somewhere. They do say that you get
what you pay for - and it shows.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love Linux to succeed - but they're going
totally the wrong way about it, and falling into the same open-source
traps as Mozilla, who are pouring away their hard earned market share by
developing the wrong parts of the Firefox program. I keep trying Linux
because I want to tell people how good it is - but it just isn't, and it
gets worse. As a desktop user, I hate Windows 8 and 10 - but they do
actually work. The rough development version of Windows 10 is far, far
better than the latest "stable" Mint 17.1.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 00:47:17 UTC, Bill wrote:
In message , Davey
writes
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:03:13 +0000
Graham. wrote:

It's a feature. Install Linux.

Seconded. All those Windows/MS problems just disappear.

And are replaced by all the Linux problems.

If I had a pound for all the time I've wasted trying to get an IPCam
program or some audio hardware to work in Mint (or AVLinux or Red Hat),
I'd be rich enough to buy a Mac. :-)

You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

(unless you get a real crappy one of course)

Even sillier than you usually manage.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Bob Henson wrote:
On 09/12/2014 10:32 am, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-09, Bob wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:45 am, Bill wrote:
In ,
writes
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:03:13 +0000
wrote:

It's a feature. Install Linux.

Seconded. All those Windows/MS problems just disappear.

And are replaced by all the Linux problems.

If I had a pound for all the time I've wasted trying to get an IPCam
program or some audio hardware to work in Mint (or AVLinux or Red
Hat),
I'd be rich enough to buy a Mac. :-)


And here too. I just installed the latest Linux Mint 17.1 as a dual
boot
on my old laptop, only to spend two days looking unsuccessfully for a
reason that the notification area icons are invisible. It turns out,
after a lot of research, that it is yet another Linux feature that is
not backwards compatible (a SIS video problem, in this case). Add to
that the fact that none of them will natively function with Broadcom
B43
Wifi chips, and older several versions (13 for one - and it's a kernel
problem, not Mint's) won't even load/install because of that, you have
an O/S that is flaky in the extreme on older kit. Use on older kit was
Linux's main use, in my humble opinion, thus rendering it well useless
for most practical purposes. That's before you start on the software
that doesn't exist under Linux, and the 3G dongles that have no Linux
drivers.

On the same old laptop, Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8 and now 10 ran first
rattle out of the box and without modification or extra drivers.
Microsoft aren't always wrong.

Exactly how long is that stick that you've firmly grasped the wrong end
of?

If the hardware manufacturers will not provide drivers, or documentation
in order to allow drivers to be developed, in what way is it Linux'
fault
that that hardware will not work under Linux?



Why have Microsoft got them, if Linux haven't? Because they make the
effort.

There are drivers for B43 chipsets - they just don't bother to supply
them with Mint and Debian and thus make them backwards compatible - I
don't know about the other variants. There are drivers for both my 3G
modems - they just don't supply them - and, boy, do they take some
finding and installing. Why is getting a network to work such a long
job, needing so much advice and help? They all work without effort in
Windows - certainly from 7 onwards. If the Linux devs spent less time
adding bells and whistles, and trendy GUIs that no-one wants, developing
software to match the Windows suppliers, and making the OS work half as
well as Windows they'd be getting somewhere. They do say that you get
what you pay for - and it shows.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love Linux to succeed - but they're going
totally the wrong way about it, and falling into the same open-source
traps as Mozilla, who are pouring away their hard earned market share by
developing the wrong parts of the Firefox program. I keep trying Linux
because I want to tell people how good it is - but it just isn't, and it
gets worse. As a desktop user, I hate Windows 8 and 10 - but they do
actually work. The rough development version of Windows 10 is far, far
better than the latest "stable" Mint 17.1.



My experience does not resemble yours. My Linux boxes and Android phone
generally work perfectly over the network without me doing a thing. I'm
using Ubuntu 10.4 in most cases, but the next box will be Mint 15.

The Windows computers regularly lose their network settings and do not
find them again when rebooted. They also cant find the scan function on
printers and lose the ability to print on a regular basis.

Nothing like that happens with mine.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 08/12/2014 22:52, Andrew Mawson wrote:
Had a series of power off failures and failure to boot on one of my Win
7 PCs - and in an elimination exercise exchanged hard drives with
another less important one. Both legitimate licenced copies. Fault
actually seems to have been a power supply on the original machine (but
fault has 'gone away') So I left the drives swapped 'just in case' and
altered their network names to suit. Now several days later the first to
be swapped is coming up claiming it has a non genuine windows copy (as
the mother board details don't match) No doubt the other one will do the
same thing tomorrow as they were re-instated a day apart.

So now my tomorrows schedule is put awry as presumably I'll need to
re-configure the machines as they were to get them working again before
I can do the work I intended.

Thanks a bunch Microsoft - love you to bits !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fault is your's not Microsoft's. You broke the terms of the licence.

He didn't break the terms of the licence at all. He was unfamiliar with
a specific provision which allows him to re-activate Windows after a
signifucant hardware change by making a phone call.

Which, given that the original problem resolved itself, could have
been solved by having a back-up to hand. But then who wants to
spend hours on end sitting there feeding a pile of floppies into the machine?

Anyone with even half a clue has a backup on a separate hard drive.


Just as anyone with even half a clue, should be able to recognise
the possibility that someone is joking.


Lets just hope that one day they make this a back up business a bit easier.

Happened more than a decade ago now.

Get away!


Maybe with higher capacity floppy discs.

Nope, another hard drive leaves that for dead.


Get away!

We can but hope.

No need to hope.

What? That at some point in the future you may eventually
be able to recognise irony, when it's staring you in the face ?


michael adams

....

"J.B.Treadstone" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:24:53 +0000, Bob Henson wrote:

On 09/12/2014 10:32 am, Huge wrote:

snip

If the hardware manufacturers will not provide drivers, or documentation
in order to allow drivers to be developed, in what way is it Linux'
fault that that hardware will not work under Linux?

Why have Microsoft got them, if Linux haven't? Because they make the
effort.

"If the hardware manufacturers will not provide drivers,"
M$ don't make the drivers, the /hardware manufacturers/ do.

Its much more complicated than that, particularly with the
generic hardware like hard drives and many USB devices.

THEY provide M$ with the drivers FFS.

Not always.

M$ don't make /any/ effort.

Wrong. Even with stuff like printers MS does have generic drivers.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 11:37:59 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/12/2014 11:25, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 00:47:17 UTC, Bill wrote:
In message , Davey
writes
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:03:13 +0000
Graham. wrote:

It's a feature. Install Linux.

Seconded. All those Windows/MS problems just disappear.

And are replaced by all the Linux problems.

If I had a pound for all the time I've wasted trying to get an IPCam
program or some audio hardware to work in Mint (or AVLinux or Red
Hat),
I'd be rich enough to buy a Mac. :-)
--
Bill

You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac. PCs cost more NOT less.
(unless you get a real crappy one of course)

What planet are *you* on?

This one.

you could prove it like for like.


Apple stuff has always been priced high.
You are paying a premium for the brandname.

My brother wanted a PC I suggested a mac mini,
heb rang dell and they quoted for a 550 UKP PC i5

I built my latest i5 for a hell of a lot less than that.

not much cheaper than the mac mini

In my case for a hell of a lot less and its MUCH more capable
than a mac mini hard drive and TV capture wise too.

but didn;t come with any useful software.

Doesn't need to for most, I just used what I already had.

Mac minis come with quite a bit.

**** all over what I already have.

So he needed to buy office,

I didn't, I already had it.

luckily he doesnt need any photo software.

I already have that too.

I'll see if this PC last anywhere near as long as my
2010 mac mini without needing a repair or service.

I know mine won't. Its unlikely with a Dell tho, they usually do.

I am not saying that Apple stuff isn't good, but you can tell when there
are Hackintosh compatible PCs/laptops in Aldi because there are queues
of unwashed long haired geeks outside at 0800 on Thursday mornings
and a scrable when it opens to get them before they sell out.

Certain Medion models made exceptionally good Hackintoshes.

wouldn't touch one myself.

Much better priced than the Apple branded stuff.

"Bob Henson" wrote in message
...
On 09/12/2014 1:03 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/12/14 12:19, Capitol wrote:
Bob Henson wrote:
On 09/12/2014 10:32 am, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-09, Bob wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:45 am, Bill wrote:
In ,
writes
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:03:13 +0000
wrote:

It's a feature. Install Linux.

Seconded. All those Windows/MS problems just disappear.

And are replaced by all the Linux problems.

If I had a pound for all the time I've wasted trying to get an IPCam
program or some audio hardware to work in Mint (or AVLinux or Red
Hat),
I'd be rich enough to buy a Mac. :-)


And here too. I just installed the latest Linux Mint 17.1 as a dual
boot
on my old laptop, only to spend two days looking unsuccessfully for a
reason that the notification area icons are invisible. It turns out,
after a lot of research, that it is yet another Linux feature that
is
not backwards compatible (a SIS video problem, in this case). Add to
that the fact that none of them will natively function with Broadcom
B43
Wifi chips, and older several versions (13 for one - and it's a
kernel
problem, not Mint's) won't even load/install because of that, you
have
an O/S that is flaky in the extreme on older kit. Use on older kit
was
Linux's main use, in my humble opinion, thus rendering it well
useless
for most practical purposes. That's before you start on the software
that doesn't exist under Linux, and the 3G dongles that have no Linux
drivers.

On the same old laptop, Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8 and now 10 ran first
rattle out of the box and without modification or extra drivers.
Microsoft aren't always wrong.

Exactly how long is that stick that you've firmly grasped the wrong
end of?

If the hardware manufacturers will not provide drivers, or
documentation
in order to allow drivers to be developed, in what way is it Linux'
fault
that that hardware will not work under Linux?



Why have Microsoft got them, if Linux haven't? Because they make the
effort.

There are drivers for B43 chipsets - they just don't bother to supply
them with Mint and Debian and thus make them backwards compatible - I
don't know about the other variants. There are drivers for both my 3G
modems - they just don't supply them - and, boy, do they take some
finding and installing. Why is getting a network to work such a long
job, needing so much advice and help? They all work without effort in
Windows - certainly from 7 onwards. If the Linux devs spent less time
adding bells and whistles, and trendy GUIs that no-one wants,
developing
software to match the Windows suppliers, and making the OS work half as
well as Windows they'd be getting somewhere. They do say that you get
what you pay for - and it shows.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love Linux to succeed - but they're going
totally the wrong way about it, and falling into the same open-source
traps as Mozilla, who are pouring away their hard earned market share
by
developing the wrong parts of the Firefox program. I keep trying Linux
because I want to tell people how good it is - but it just isn't, and
it
gets worse. As a desktop user, I hate Windows 8 and 10 - but they do
actually work. The rough development version of Windows 10 is far, far
better than the latest "stable" Mint 17.1.



My experience does not resemble yours. My Linux boxes and Android
phone generally work perfectly over the network without me doing a
thing. I'm using Ubuntu 10.4 in most cases, but the next box will be
Mint 15. The Windows computers regularly lose their network settings and
do not find them again when rebooted. They also cant find the scan
function on printers and lose the ability to print on a regular basis.

Definitely finding Mint 17.1 is OK on most stuff.

Sure there are some places where you still need Windows, but restoring a
windows VM from a virtual machine is a few seconds only with an SSD
disk, which I am now running on for OS use.

If you use Windows you don't need to fall back on Linux

Sometimes you do, particularly when Win turns its nose up at a drive.

- there's nothing Windows won't do.

There are a few things Linux does better like looking
at a drive Win turns its nose up at. **** all else tho.

On 09/12/14 21:13, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Henson
wrote:

If you use Windows you don't need to fall back on Linux - there's
nothing Windows won't do.

Here's a good example of something that Windows appears unable to do.
Under OS X, if I use e.g. the Finder to rename a file or move it to
another folder on the same volume, any application that has the file
open simply updates its user presentation of the file's name/location.
Even Word and Excel manage it (somewhat to my surprise).

That's an artefact of the underlying Unix O/S.

Well yes and no...

The application has the inode (actual file, without the concept of a
name or path) open and does not care if any directory entries pointing
to that are renamed (unlike Windows which goes mental).

However, the rename() system call does not (can not) communicate any
change in one or more directory entries pointing at the inode to the
app. So that must be done on MacOSX by some higher level susbsystem
designed specifically to do so.

I wonder what it does with multiple hardlinks to the file? Unless
hardlinks are prohibited on MacOSX

On 09/12/14 21:13, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Henson
wrote:

If you use Windows you don't need to fall back on Linux - there's
nothing Windows won't do.

Here's a good example of something that Windows appears unable to do.
Under OS X, if I use e.g. the Finder to rename a file or move it to
another folder on the same volume, any application that has the file
open simply updates its user presentation of the file's name/location.
Even Word and Excel manage it (somewhat to my surprise).

That's an artefact of the underlying Unix O/S.


Not quite.

changing the name of open files is one thing, making sure the
application receives a signal to display the new name is rather more.

I've been fairly impressed that some linux distros mow have suitable
daemons that are doing this kind of housekeeping.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 09/12/14 21:24, Tim Watts wrote:
On 09/12/14 21:13, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Henson
wrote:

If you use Windows you don't need to fall back on Linux - there's
nothing Windows won't do.

Here's a good example of something that Windows appears unable to do.
Under OS X, if I use e.g. the Finder to rename a file or move it to
another folder on the same volume, any application that has the file
open simply updates its user presentation of the file's name/location.
Even Word and Excel manage it (somewhat to my surprise).

That's an artefact of the underlying Unix O/S.

Well yes and no...

The application has the inode (actual file, without the concept of a
name or path) open and does not care if any directory entries pointing
to that are renamed (unlike Windows which goes mental).

However, the rename() system call does not (can not) communicate any
change in one or more directory entries pointing at the inode to the
app.

It could. Kernel knows PIDS of any file openers. Send a signal 'refresh
file name please'.

I suspect its done by a daemon tho.


So that must be done on MacOSX by some higher level susbsystem
designed specifically to do so.

I wonder what it does with multiple hardlinks to the file? Unless
hardlinks are prohibited on MacOSX



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 09/12/2014 08:57, RJH wrote:

Yes, I did this once following a motherboard failure, against my better
judgement. Got through on the phone straight away, and all done in a
minute or 2.

Microsoft activation by phone takes considerably more than two minutes -
more than that to listen to the intro!

--
Rod

Bob Henson wrote:

Android is different and I don't think of it like a generic Linux - it's
a pukka commercial system and a case on its own. It hasn't been made to
run on desktops, and it's not like any other Linux - it works, for a
start. I use Android on my phone and am about to acquire an Android tablet.

I believe the Chromebooks version of Android is squarely aimed at the
office desktop market?

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:21:24 +0000, Dennis@home wrote:

On 09/12/2014 13:44, J.B.Treadstone wrote:

"If the hardware manufacturers will not provide drivers," M$ don't make
the drivers, the /hardware manufacturers/ do. THEY provide M$ with the
drivers FFS. M$ don't make /any/ effort.

That's not true, M$ have written a lot of the drivers in windows. Nearly
all the old stuff is M$ drivers. New bleeding edge stuff has drivers from
the manufacturer.

And just /where/ do you think the drivers came from /for/ the
manufacturer's hardware in the /first/ place?
Why did manufacturers bother to include a CD with drivers on?

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:34:35 +0000, Huge wrote:

On 2014-12-09, Bob Henson wrote:
On 09/12/2014 10:32 am, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-09, Bob Henson wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:45 am, Bill wrote:
In message , Davey
writes
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:03:13 +0000
Graham. wrote:

It's a feature. Install Linux.

Seconded. All those Windows/MS problems just disappear.

And are replaced by all the Linux problems.

If I had a pound for all the time I've wasted trying to get an IPCam
program or some audio hardware to work in Mint (or AVLinux or Red
Hat), I'd be rich enough to buy a Mac. :-)


And here too. I just installed the latest Linux Mint 17.1 as a dual
boot on my old laptop, only to spend two days looking unsuccessfully
for a reason that the notification area icons are invisible. It turns
out, after a lot of research, that it is yet another Linux feature
that is not backwards compatible (a SIS video problem, in this case).
Add to that the fact that none of them will natively function with
Broadcom B43 Wifi chips, and older several versions (13 for one - and
it's a kernel problem, not Mint's) won't even load/install because of
that, you have an O/S that is flaky in the extreme on older kit. Use
on older kit was Linux's main use, in my humble opinion, thus
rendering it well useless for most practical purposes. That's before
you start on the software that doesn't exist under Linux, and the 3G
dongles that have no Linux drivers.

On the same old laptop, Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8 and now 10 ran first
rattle out of the box and without modification or extra drivers.
Microsoft aren't always wrong.

Exactly how long is that stick that you've firmly grasped the wrong end
of?

If the hardware manufacturers will not provide drivers, or
documentation in order to allow drivers to be developed, in what way is
it Linux' fault that that hardware will not work under Linux?



Why have Microsoft got them, if Linux haven't? Because they make the
effort.

Jesus, that's wronger than a big bag full of wrong things on national
wrong day.

Absolutely!

I keep trying Linux
because I want to tell people how good it is - but it just isn't,

And so is that.

and it
gets worse. As a desktop user, I hate Windows 8 and 10 - but they do
actually work. The rough development version of Windows 10 is far, far
better than the latest "stable" Mint 17.1.

Sorry, but I'm afraid you're an idiot.

Agreed.

--
openSUSE Linux 13.2 64-bit
KDE 4.14.3

"J.B.Treadstone" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:21:24 +0000, Dennis@home wrote:

On 09/12/2014 13:44, J.B.Treadstone wrote:

"If the hardware manufacturers will not provide drivers," M$ don't make
the drivers, the /hardware manufacturers/ do. THEY provide M$ with the
drivers FFS. M$ don't make /any/ effort.

That's not true, M$ have written a lot of the drivers in windows. Nearly
all the old stuff is M$ drivers. New bleeding edge stuff has drivers from
the manufacturer.

And just /where/ do you think the drivers came from
/for/ the manufacturer's hardware in the /first/ place?

With quite a bit of the hardware like hard drives and USB, from MS.

Why did manufacturers bother to include a CD with drivers on?

When it does more than the MS driver does, most obviously with printers.

in 1354244 20141209 142152 Capitol wrote:
Bob Henson wrote:

Out of curiosity - why Mint 15 and not a newer one?

I like systems which work, obsolete generally means reliable (Like
boilers!), hence Ubuntu 10.4 and happen to have a Mint 15 DVD on hand
and am going to replace Mandriva on a spare machine when I get through
the current DIY job. If it is OK, I'll upgrade probably to a later Mint
version, but 15 has a good reputation and seems the best starting point.

Mint 15 is no longer supported. Mint 13 and 17 are LTS.

in 1354257 20141209 143435 Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-09, Bob Henson wrote:
On 09/12/2014 10:32 am, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-09, Bob Henson wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:45 am, Bill wrote:
In message , Davey
writes
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:03:13 +0000
Graham. wrote:

It's a feature. Install Linux.

Seconded. All those Windows/MS problems just disappear.

And are replaced by all the Linux problems.

If I had a pound for all the time I've wasted trying to get an IPCam
program or some audio hardware to work in Mint (or AVLinux or Red Hat),
I'd be rich enough to buy a Mac. :-)


And here too. I just installed the latest Linux Mint 17.1 as a dual boot
on my old laptop, only to spend two days looking unsuccessfully for a
reason that the notification area icons are invisible. It turns out,
after a lot of research, that it is yet another Linux feature that is
not backwards compatible (a SIS video problem, in this case). Add to
that the fact that none of them will natively function with Broadcom B43
Wifi chips, and older several versions (13 for one - and it's a kernel
problem, not Mint's) won't even load/install because of that, you have
an O/S that is flaky in the extreme on older kit. Use on older kit was
Linux's main use, in my humble opinion, thus rendering it well useless
for most practical purposes. That's before you start on the software
that doesn't exist under Linux, and the 3G dongles that have no Linux
drivers.

On the same old laptop, Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8 and now 10 ran first
rattle out of the box and without modification or extra drivers.
Microsoft aren't always wrong.

Exactly how long is that stick that you've firmly grasped the wrong end of?

If the hardware manufacturers will not provide drivers, or documentation
in order to allow drivers to be developed, in what way is it Linux' fault
that that hardware will not work under Linux?



Why have Microsoft got them, if Linux haven't? Because they make the effort.

Jesus, that's wronger than a big bag full of wrong things on national wrong
day.

I keep trying Linux
because I want to tell people how good it is - but it just isn't,

And so is that.

and it
gets worse. As a desktop user, I hate Windows 8 and 10 - but they do
actually work. The rough development version of Windows 10 is far, far
better than the latest "stable" Mint 17.1.

Sorry, but I'm afraid you're an idiot.

No, just a M$ fanboi.

On 09/12/2014 13:44, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 11:37:59 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/12/2014 11:25, whisky-dave wrote:

You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac. PCs cost more NOT less.
(unless you get a real crappy one of course)

What planet are *you* on?

This one.

you could prove it like for like.


Apple stuff has always been priced high.
You are paying a premium for the brandname.

My brother wanted a PC I suggested a mac mini, heb rang dell and they quoted for a 550 UKP PC i5 not much cheaper than the mac mini but didn;t come with any useful software. Mac minis come with quite a bit.
So he needed to buy office, luckily he doesnt need any photo software.
I'll see if this PC last anywhere near as long as my 2010 mac mini without needing a repair or service.

I am not saying that Apple stuff isn't good, but you can tell when there
are Hackintosh compatible PCs/laptops in Aldi because there are queues
of unwashed long haired geeks outside at 0800 on Thursday mornings and a
scrable when it opens to get them before they sell out.

Certain Medion models made exceptionally good Hackintoshes.

wouldn't touch one myself.


The point about the particular Medions is that they will run the Apple
OSX perfectly well but on very much cheaper generic open hardware.

http://www.hackintosh.com/

Clueless brandname snobbery is a great way to ensure that you get ripped
off at every turn. Dell are an overpriced US vendor to corporate types
whose main aim originally was to be slightly cheaper than IBM.

Compaq was another player in the dim and distant past and theirs were
faster. It was interesting to note that COCOM rules were such that IBM
could sell into Russia but Compaq PC and Acorn's BBC Micro could not.
(Compaq was 8MHz vs IBMs 4.7MHz and Acorns graphics were "too good")

There are plenty of reputable makers or even secondhand PC models
available that would be perfectly adequate for an ordinary home user.
This lot for instance (although they are not as good as they were)

http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In message , J.B.Treadstone
writes
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:21:24 +0000, Dennis@home wrote:

On 09/12/2014 13:44, J.B.Treadstone wrote:

"If the hardware manufacturers will not provide drivers," M$ don't make
the drivers, the /hardware manufacturers/ do. THEY provide M$ with the
drivers FFS. M$ don't make /any/ effort.

That's not true, M$ have written a lot of the drivers in windows. Nearly
all the old stuff is M$ drivers. New bleeding edge stuff has drivers from
the manufacturer.

And just /where/ do you think the drivers came from /for/ the
manufacturer's hardware in the /first/ place?
Why did manufacturers bother to include a CD with drivers on?

FWIW, I have been specifically looking at audio drivers for laptops on
the Windows 10 preview.
MS provide a generic driver. This seems to work with many of the
chipsets I've tried. I don't know who wrote it, but it is being modified
and updated regularly, apparently by MS.
It doesn't expose the vital "Stereo Mix" or "What you hear" function
where the hardware has not crippled this, but usually the manufacturer's
drivers do. I have been attempting to raise this with the MS reps on the
forum.

For external audio devices, many manufacturers provide Mac drivers in
the same way as they provide Windows drivers.

Linux audio with external devices, on the other hand, seems to me to be
a complete mess. Not only are the drivers difficult to find or
non-existent, but the basic audio UI's are a masterpiece of confusion.

I'm with, I think it was, Bob H. What I would really like to find is a
basic LTS version of Linux that has been developed by someone for simple
useability rather than bells and whistles. Until I find that, I'm going
to stick with XP, W7 or W10 for any real audio and hence most of my
other work.
--
Bill

In article ,
Andrew Mawson wrote:
Right. Never had that problem. Are you sure your Win7 is pukka and you
have the product key?


Well it wasn't a cheap rip off, it authenticated correctly originally,
and has been running for (wild guess) 2 years plus with automatic
updates.

But is it Win7 you bought yourself - or an OEM version supplied as a
package with the computer?

--
*Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 18:13:16 UTC, Bill wrote:
In message , Bob Henson
writes
Do unto others, then run like hell.

I don't often see people quoting Homer and Jethro lines in this group.
--
Bill

Doh !

is a Homer quote isn't it ;-)

On 10/12/14 10:56, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-10, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2014-12-09, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

AFAICS, hard links are fine on MacOS/X;

Well you may be able to make one (in Terminal) but the only place where
they are used in OS X is in Time Machine, such that each incremental
backup is jigged to look (to the user) like a complete backup. Works
quite well. Otherwise AFAIK they are forbidden. What the effect is in
OS X if you went around and created some, I know not,

Well, I was wrong. They work fine so long as you only manipulate them
in Darwin/Shell/Unix/Terminal (or whatever it is you MacPhreaks call it.)

Terminal.

Fair enough. Not a terminology I would use, but if the Mac community
uses it ...

In which I tend to run the zsh shell to do simple things like
fgrep.

One of the reasons I bought a MacBook was that it had a Real Unix system
underneath. It appears that it is slightly less real than I thought. But
not enough to make me get rid of it. Or run something else on the rather
nice hardware.


OSX may have a stable unix keernel at its heart, but the chrome and
tailfins applied on top make it just as ghastly as Windows.

The only advantage is that the hardware is tailored to work with the
software.

And it is a bit more stable as a result of those two things.

But you pay a huge price for that.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 19:30:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message


You don't have to be rich to buy a Mac.

True.

PCs cost more NOT less.

Like hell they do.

it obviously depends on what you want.
I've got a retina Mac at the monment what PC can you buy that is similar enough to make it worth comparing ?


(unless you get a real crappy one of course)

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On 09/12/2014 10:09, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 08/12/2014 22:52, Andrew Mawson wrote:
[...]

Thanks a bunch Microsoft - love you to bits
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fault is your's not Microsoft's. You broke the terms of the licence.


What nonsense. A consumer isn't expected to read a license and even if I
read it I couldn't remember it or understand it for long. If MS sell an
OS then the consumer has a legal and moral right to expect it to work
and to be able to use it in a normal reasonable way. That would include
changing a hard drive and would include transferring it to another PC.

Tim W

On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 11:26:05 UTC, Tim w wrote:
On 09/12/2014 10:09, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 08/12/2014 22:52, Andrew Mawson wrote:
[...]

Thanks a bunch Microsoft - love you to bits
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fault is your's not Microsoft's. You broke the terms of the licence..


What nonsense. A consumer isn't expected to read a license and even if I
read it I couldn't remember it or understand it for long. If MS sell an
OS then the consumer has a legal and moral right to expect it to work
and to be able to use it in a normal reasonable way.

But that depends on what's thought to be reasonable.

That would include
changing a hard drive and would include transferring it to another PC.


Why, if you buy windows to use it on one PC then you use it on one PC.
I've got about 40 PCs in my lab we buy licenses so we can have windows on more than one PC. Microsoft decide that a PC is a certain amount of hardware and if you buy ONE license you can put it on that hardware. This is where Apple differs from MS, in that if yuo already have a licensed copy you can install it on as many hard sics as you 'own' they really couldn't care less, in that they don't restrict you.





Tim W

On 10/12/14 11:20, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/12/14 10:56, Huge wrote:

[26 lines snipped]

One of the reasons I bought a MacBook was that it had a Real Unix system
underneath. It appears that it is slightly less real than I thought. But
not enough to make me get rid of it. Or run something else on the rather
nice hardware.


OSX may have a stable unix keernel at its heart, but the chrome and
tailfins applied on top make it just as ghastly as Windows.

Worse in some ways. I never thought I'd say this, but Finder is worse
than Windows Explorer.

The only advantage is that the hardware is tailored to work with the
software.

And it is a bit more stable as a result of those two things.

But you pay a huge price for that.

Not if you get a good buy on eBay. To the extent that the seller expressed
disappointment with how much he got for it. Not often I get bargains, since
I usually decide ahead of time how much I'm prepared to bid, place that as
my maximum bid and let it get on with it.

No, I wouldn't buy a new one. They set off my HFM(*) Detector.

(* *HOW* ****ing much??? )


well IME an old one is obsolescent in 5 years and unsupportable in 10.

I am now typing on a ten year old computer with fully up to date software.

Some sort of dual core intel chippery at its heart.

Thank you Linux.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:26:03 +0000, Tim w wrote:

On 09/12/2014 10:09, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 08/12/2014 22:52, Andrew Mawson wrote:
[...]

Thanks a bunch Microsoft - love you to bits
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fault is your's not Microsoft's. You broke the terms of the
licence.


What nonsense. A consumer isn't expected to read a license and even if I
read it I couldn't remember it or understand it for long. If MS sell an
OS then the consumer has a legal and moral right to expect it to work
and to be able to use it in a normal reasonable way. That would include
changing a hard drive and would include transferring it to another PC.

Tim W

Tim,

Agree 100% but I fear you have not bought the OS ...

You have, I think, purchased the right to use it on loan from M$.

The only winblows here is on a VM for extremis use - a work citrix based
thing that won't play nice with *nix (and that is XP with all the bits
turned off).

Avpx

--
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.
(Small Gods)
11:35:01 up 15 days, 22:43, 6 users, load average: 0.48, 0.38, 0.34

On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 11:26:05 UTC, Tim w wrote:
On 09/12/2014 10:09, Peter Crosland wrote:
On 08/12/2014 22:52, Andrew Mawson wrote:
[...]

Thanks a bunch Microsoft - love you to bits
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fault is your's not Microsoft's. You broke the terms of the licence.


What nonsense. A consumer isn't expected to read a license and even if I
read it I couldn't remember it or understand it for long.

Forgot to say that isn't exactly true, as with MS you have options. When I last looked you had a home edition a buisness edition and a pro edition at the very least all being differnt in their own way.
Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.
But there were ways around it or so someone told me. ;-)
Might be differnt with 8.x

In message ,
whisky-dave writes
On Tuesday, 9 December 2014 18:13:16 UTC, Bill wrote:
In message , Bob Henson
writes
Do unto others, then run like hell.

I don't often see people quoting Homer and Jethro lines in this group.
--
Bill

Doh !

is a Homer quote isn't it ;-)

H & J = jazz mandolin & guitar and sort of country songs with lines
like

"What made the boys say wow, it's all behind her now"
--
Bill

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

--
*I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
...............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the PC.

You can only run one copy if you only have one licence but you can move
it to another PC if you have a full Home licence rather than an OEM one.
Various third party tools exist to recover the registration code for
when you have lost the crucial package with the magic key on it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message ...

On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the PC.

You can only run one copy if you only have one licence but you can move it
to another PC if you have a full Home licence rather than an OEM one.
Various third party tools exist to recover the registration code for when
you have lost the crucial package with the magic key on it.


Well it is the 'professional' version and not and OEM version, and is
legally licenceable to three PCs (yes 3 - I checked with Microsoft when I
got it), and I'm fairly sure that the two PCs in question were loaded from
the same disc originally - though as I've bought two full copies of Win 7
pro this possibly isn't the case.

Andrew

On 10/12/2014 13:55, Andrew Mawson wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message ...

On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the PC.

You can only run one copy if you only have one licence but you can
move it to another PC if you have a full Home licence rather than an
OEM one. Various third party tools exist to recover the registration
code for when you have lost the crucial package with the magic key on it.


Well it is the 'professional' version and not and OEM version, and is
legally licenceable to three PCs (yes 3 - I checked with Microsoft when
I got it), and I'm fairly sure that the two PCs in question were loaded
from the same disc originally - though as I've bought two full copies of
Win 7 pro this possibly isn't the case.

All you need then is to talk to them explaining what has happened and
they should provide you with a suitable product validation code.

TBH if you swapped system disks between two radically different machines
I am surprised that you aren't having all sorts of strange driver
conflicts in addition to your other woes. Perhaps Win7 is a bit smarter
than earlier versions of 'doze in this department.

I had this hardware changed problem happen with another product fairly
recently when I tried to install it on an SSD based netbook and it took
exception to the very different hardware. The machine it was installed
on had expired with a puff of smoke. They were surprisingly good about
it too - I was expecting more of a Spanish inquisition.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:45:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the PC.

Which is what most people buy as individuals.
Most PCs come with the OS


You can only run one copy if you only have one licence but you can move
it to another PC if you have a full Home licence rather than an OEM one.

Which most people wouldn't have, I notice you said the full home licence that would imply thre are other options and if a person IS going to buy teh OS as a seperate item there's an advantage to understandiong the licencing agremnet you are buying.

Various third party tools exist to recover the registration code for
when you have lost the crucial package with the magic key on it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I simply loaded it in to the new PC as I'd done with the old, and had no
problems whatsoever.

--
*I got a sweater for Christmas. I really wanted a screamer or a moaner*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:45:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the PC.

Which is what most people buy as individuals.
Most PCs come with the OS

Well, yes. But if they buy a machine with installed OS I'd rather expect
they'd do the same again with a new one.


You can only run one copy if you only have one licence but you can
move it to another PC if you have a full Home licence rather than an
OEM one.

Which most people wouldn't have, I notice you said the full home
licence that would imply thre are other options and if a person IS going
to buy teh OS as a seperate item there's an advantage to understandiong
the licencing agremnet you are buying.

I assemble my own PCs. So bought my own copy of Win 7 Home Premium. No
problem in loading that into a new machine.

Various third party tools exist to recover the registration code for
when you have lost the crucial package with the magic key on it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message ...



TBH if you swapped system disks between two radically different machines
I am surprised that you aren't having all sorts of strange driver
conflicts in addition to your other woes. Perhaps Win7 is a bit smarter
than earlier versions of 'doze in this department.


Machines identical except for external usb devices ! (Compaq SFF DC7600's)

Andrew

On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 14:55:07 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:45:21 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 10/12/2014 13:33, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 13:21:35 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:

Buying the home edition meant you couldn't transfer it to a new PC.

I've got news for you...

as you snipped the important bit, in that case then change my line to
..............you [sh]ouldn't transfer it to a new PC.

That isn't true either. The ones you cannot move to another PC are OEM
versions "not for resale" that are bound to the manufacturer of the PC.

Which is what most people buy as individuals.
Most PCs come with the OS

Well, yes. But if they buy a machine with installed OS I'd rather expect
they'd do the same again with a new one.

I guess some people must update/upgrade windows at some point.



I assemble my own PCs. So bought my own copy of Win 7 Home Premium. No
problem in loading that into a new machine.

I would hope not. Ther'es 6 differnt win 7 products.
I hope you're not planing on going about 16GB RAM.

En el artículo , michael adams
escribió:

What? That at some point in the future you may eventually
be able to recognise irony, when it's staring you in the face ?

Woddles is an Aussie. Like Americans, they don't get irony.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")