Beware of Upgrading Your Computer

[Justin]

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.

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.

 

[Red Swingline Stapler]

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.

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.

 

[XS11E]

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!

Good luck, I hope it works for you.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[norm]

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.

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]

Although he brought up a valid point. Linux desktop is pretty much for
internet use and 99% of the time that's all people report using it for

Please cite a source for your 99% usage figure. Thanks.

 

[Julian]

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.

Cool toys. Must make work quite fun.

 

[norm]

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.

Can you please cite any sources for your 60% and 95% figures? Thanks.

 

[Frank]

norm wrote:

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.

I believe the usage number for linux desktop is around 7%, high end.
Google linux desktop usage and the numbers (between 4-7%) generally come up.
4-7% hardly defines the "masses".
Frank

 

[Doris Day - MFB]

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!

Probably has a rich mommie and a good allowance. But if he was kid, I won't
let him on computer until he could successfully pass the Grade 4 reading
comprehension program. <snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris

 

[Doris Day - MFB]

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

So sad, that you lack the basic skills of being able to do something as
mundane as that. From what I've seen of the "business world", read small
business world, all they need to do is read xls files, send email and read
a doc file. Linux can do all this with ease. <snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris

 

[Doris Day - MFB]

We only run six total computers

And you call yourself some kind of business man? Shit, I run that many
computers on my home network. One of them is a webserver, mysql
server.<snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris

 

[norm]

norm wrote:




I believe the usage number for linux desktop is around 7%, high end.
Google linux desktop usage and the numbers (between 4-7%) generally come
up.
4-7% hardly defines the "masses".
Frank

The statement that "linux is not for the masses" was not qualified one
way or another. It was simply appended to the statement of your
experience. Your experience, however, is not a defining criteria as to
whether linux is for the masses. The percentages you now cite still
don't necessarily reflect whether or not linux is for the masses. They
only reflect reported or estimated usage. They certainly don't define
whether linux is easy or hard to use, or whether or not linux would meet
the needs of more than the percentage listed.

 

[Frank]

The statement that "linux is not for the masses" was not qualified one
way or another. It was simply appended to the statement of your
experience. Your experience, however, is not a defining criteria as to
whether linux is for the masses. The percentages you now cite still
don't necessarily reflect whether or not linux is for the masses. They
only reflect reported or estimated usage. They certainly don't define
whether linux is easy or hard to use, or whether or not linux would meet
the needs of more than the percentage listed.

Let the numbers (4-7% desktop usage) speak for themselves.
The masses have decided, based on percentage of usage, that obviously
linux is not that easy to use.
Especially given the fact that linux disrtos are free and the masses
don't seem all that interested or they (like me) have tried it and have
no use for it.
Frank

 

[Frank]

Frank wrote:




So sad, that you lack the basic skills of being able to do something as
mundane as that. From what I've seen of the "business world", read small
business world, all they need to do is read xls files, send email and read
a doc file. Linux can do all this with ease. <snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris

How long have you been unemployed?
(snort)
Frank

 

[Doris Day - MFB]

How long have you been unemployed?
(snort)
Frank

Speak for yourself Frankie Boy. Child labor is outlawed in most civilized
countries, so I know that you don't work. <snort><fart><snort> Back to your
Grade 4 classroom before I call your teacher.

Love and Kisses,
Doris

 

[Doris Day - MFB]

The statement that "linux is not for the masses" was not qualified one
way or another. It was simply appended to the statement of your
experience. Your experience, however, is not a defining criteria as to
whether linux is for the masses. The percentages you now cite still
don't necessarily reflect whether or not linux is for the masses. They
only reflect reported or estimated usage. They certainly don't define
whether linux is easy or hard to use, or whether or not linux would meet
the needs of more than the percentage listed.

Computers generally are hard for Frankie to use. So it's no wonder he'd have
trouble trying to install Linux. The masses can certainly accomplish it
without difficultly. Frankie on the other hand is a *special* child.
Witness his inability to pass his Grade 4 reading comprehension class.
<snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris

 

[Doris Day - MFB]

Let the numbers (4-7% desktop usage) speak for themselves.
The masses have decided, based on percentage of usage, that obviously
linux is not that easy to use.
Especially given the fact that linux disrtos are free and the masses
don't seem all that interested or they (like me) have tried it and have
no use for it.
Frank

Trying Linux is a little more than booting up a LiveCD and running Firefox.
I know, it gave you some sense of accomplishment. But really ... there
really is much more to Linux than just that. <snort>

Love and Kisses,
Doris

 

[Justin]

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.

You are correct. His experience does not define that. Reality defines
that.

 

[Justin]

Please cite a source for your 99% usage figure. Thanks.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=what+do+you+use+linux+for

Now learn to take a joke.