OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Just a min-rant. Windows is too expensive. My nieces computer blew up last week and I'm trying to be a nice guy and help her out by putting another computer together for her. Nothing fancy, she just mainly uses it to web surf and chat with her friends. But it costs so much to get a copy of windows anymore you can't even afford to build a PC yourself. Even an upgrade version is 100 bucks and for that you've got to have a hardrive with an OS on it already. A full version of XP Home is almost 200 bucks. It's getting to where the OS is most of the cost of a computer.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

The computer blew up?
Well, just keep using your existing license on the new PC.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

If all she uses it for is web surfing and chat, you could consider Ubuntu...

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Your complaining about the price of XP.
I hope you don't look at the Vista prices. ;-)

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Yah, that would work if she had a disk or a license number. It was a hand me down computer from my brother in law. I'm not sure where the original OS came from. It might have been an OEM way back. Either way we don't have anything I could use as documentation to get another license. I don't think if I call Microsoft up and explain the situation they would give me another license do you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I was hesitant to try something in the Linux universe since she's just a teen and isn't really a computer geek like her uncles. But looking at their website it actually looks pretty user-friendly. I might give it a shot and see if she likes it.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I would see what your local PC shop has in the way of affordable OS. I have an old copy of 95 someplace that could give you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

If it is just mainly for websurfing and chatting, then I would say definitely go with Ubuntu. Non-technical users can get by just fine with it, never need to touch the command line or anything, and Firefox and gAIM work just as well as (some would even dare say better than) IE and MSN/Y!IM/AIM/etc. The Ubuntu people have done some really good work on bringing the distro together and making it user-friendly.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Windoze XP Home Edition for under $100 as long as you keep your receipts for mother board, hard drive, RAM and a CPU. But as it's been said already, if all she does is light internet use Ubuntu's probably the way to go, especially if she's got a savvy uncle to set the whole thing up for her.
I would say though, that it'd probably be a good idea to have her make a list of the applications she can't live without in case there's anything on there without a Linux equivalent.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

You could always call them up and say "Hey you, your exorbitant prices just cost you another customer, I'm switching to Ubuntu" and go on and on about the joys of free software http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
It won't get you a free copy of Windows, but it will make you feel good, and maybe if enough people get fed up with Microsoft then they will change their business practices -
ya know, kinda like voting for a third-party candidate, how it won't get you anything in the short run but in the long run it tells the major parties where to align themselves to garner more votes? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

So I'm having a fit trying to download this Ubuntu iso. Tried twice just a straight download and it crapped out after an hour or so and said the file was corrupt. I tried the Bit Torrent thingy and had the same problem. Got almost done downloading and then said it was corrupted and I had to restart. I thought one of the advantages of bit Torrent was it would pick up where you left off? Why is it wanting to start downloading again from the beginning? I must be doing something wrong. This is the first time I've tried using BitTorrent for anything.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Which bit torrent client are you using? uTorrent usually works well. Which torrent are you using? The i386 desktop is probably what you want, right? Unless you are building a 64bit AMD system, though its not strictly necessary to use the AMD64 version. I've queued up the i386 ISO to see how it goes.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I was using Bit Tornado, but I downloaded uTorrent and am giving it a try. The Utorrent client seems a bit more familier to me than the Tornado one. We'll see if it does a better job.

I think mabe the reason it didn't pick up where it left off before was I hadn't saved the .torrent file, just clicked and opened it. If I understand it correctly now saving the torrent file to your pc is what allows you to resume a download after restarting? Or maybe not. I guess I'll see.

Yes, I am downloading the x86 iso, not the 64 Bit.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I couldn't get uTorrent to run on my antiquated system. I had to use Azureus to get the all-versions patch for SE IV.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

That's odd. I started using uTorrent because it used less resources than Azureus. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Computers make no sense!

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Geo:
Were you trying to resume a broken download from IE/FF? If so, that might not work, because they tend to delete failed download files. If a partial .iso existed somewhere on disk, you should be able to point the torrent at it and get the client to keep whatever pieces of that file pass the hash checks, thus reduce the amount it has to download from the swarm.

You don't necessarily need to save the .torrent file to disk before opening it in a torrent client. You can redownload and restart the same .torrent and resume a partial torrent download (or reseed a completed download), so long as you point it at the existing .iso file (or whatever the torrent contained). Note that most clients save a copy of the .torrent files for future references.

AZ:
Its not so much about resources, as about win32 APIs. If a program is only designed to work with win2k/xp, it probably won't be able to run on win9x no matter what type of system is running the OS. win2k/xp have a lot of system APIs available that were not present in win9x.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

uTorrent runs just fine on 98se for me.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I use utorrent on Win 98 myself (not even 'SE'!) It works great.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

What happened to OS/2? A long time ago when I was in university, some of my friends used OS/2 instead of Windows and thought it was great. It looked pretty good but I never used it. Then gradually I stopped hearing much about it and it somehow disappeared.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Development of it stopped some time around the turn of the century.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

According to this history, OS/2 forked in 1990, and the branch that Microsoft controlled eventually became Windows NT. That page says the other branch had a new release coming in 1999.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

AgentZero said:
"Windoze XP Home Edition for under $100 as long as you keep your receipts for mother board, hard drive, RAM and a CPU."

For reference, you only need that information to get a free (plus S.H.) upgrade to Vista from Microsoft, as part of their "don't hate us cause we released a month after Christmas" campaign. You don't need to actually buy such hardware; you can enter whatever serial numbers you like (even 0), apparently, and still get the free upgrade.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

To get an upgrade I have to have a working OS of version 98 or later. I might be able to scrounge up a 98 install disk, but I don't have one handy at the moment.

If Microsoft was smart they'd stop making people jump through all the hoops and price their OS reasonably. I think a brand new full install of Vista might be worth 100. And maybe start discounting the older versions accordingly. If I could get a full version XP for 75-80 bucks I'd probably buy it. But for that price I only get an upgrade, and I have to have bought some hardware? That's stupid.

I got this Ubuntu downloaded and installed. I'm playing aroudn with it now. First impressions are very positive. It's pretty slick and easy to use. I haven't done a whole lot yet, but what I've done seems to work pretty well.

Have to show it to my niece and see if it meets all her needs though. Not sure if there are any apps she might want that I can't get for Linux. I might have to play around with Wine or Cedega or something before it's over. That will be another learning experience for me.

Geoschmo

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

That's not what this is; it is an OEM copy of XP. It is not an upgrade copy, it is a full installer. You don't need to provide anyone any information to install or activate it. The "OEM" version simply means that its activation is tied to a motherboard, and you can't transfer the license to a new machine (like you can with a Retail full edition). When you buy the thing AZ linked to, you get a full, working copy of XP that is installed from a clean slate, not linked to upgrading any previous edition of Windows.

Where the upgrade comes into play is with Vista. In order to pacify customer complaints about Vista being delayed past the Christmas season, MS has offered discounted (or free, depending on what you have) upgrades to Vista for recently purchased OEM systems. They apparently also let system builders do it too, if they purchase an OEM (rather than retail) copy of XP. What Newegg is doing is simply providing you with information on this potential upgrade path.

==0==

When the time comes, post about any software she needs and we can probably provide a Linux alternative (unless it is a win32 only game, then you really need Wine/Cedega).

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

The problem with Microsoft is they don't have to be nice or reasonable because everyone at this point needs there OS for some reason or another.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

That sounds better, but I'm curious how that works. Do I have to show proof of purchase to NewEgg(Or whoever I buy the OEM version from). How does one do that for an online purchase? Do have to fax it or something? I still think it's a stupid hoop to have to jump through. Why not simply say, "$90 bucks for a single use license." and only let you register it once. The same thing is accomplished without forcing someone to buy new hardware and turn in receipts. Hardware that isn't even being purchased from Microsoft. I must be missing something because it doesn't make sense to me.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

No, you don't have to give Newegg anything (other than money and a shipping address). You just buy it, they ship it, you install it. Nothing more. Noone is forced to buy new hardware or turn in any receipts. There are no hoops anywhere in the process (other than the Windows product activation, but that is just a trivial, automated step in the installation process).

AFAIK, the _only_ difference between purchasing an OEM copy of Windows and a Retail copy is that MS will not let you transfer the license to a new machine (defined by motherboard) down the line. With a Retail copy, you can generally get it to activate on a new machine by calling MS customer service and having them activate it over the phone.

The receipts bit is _only_ related to getting the discounted/free upgrade of Vista from Microsoft for buying an OEM PC (or being a system builder buying an OEM license) between 10/26/06 and 3/15/07. It is not the normal way to use an upgrade copy of Windows, which normally has no forms to fill out at all. That does not involve Newegg in any way. After getting the OEM copy of XP, you can apparently apply for the discounted Vista upgrade by just entering whatever serial numbers you like for the hardware, not having purchased any hardware at all, and MS will still ship you the Vista upgrade. Note that this is done on MS' web site, and is not any part of the XP installation or activation process.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Heh, sorry about the confusion, Geo. When I saw the disclaimer I jumped to the conclusion that they wanted receipts before they'd sell you an OEM copy, since nowhere does it say anything about a Vista upgrade. Thank goodness we have Fyron around to slap Newegg CS about and find out what they're really on about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Replace "smart" with "ethical", and I'd agree with you.

(My first two home computers were Amigas. I'm not allowed to have a rational opinion of Microsoft. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif)

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Well, in a suposedly free-market economy like we have I wouldn't say charging too much for software would be an issue of ethics. It's not as if there aren't alternatives, and even if their weren't it's not a neccesary item, it's a luxury. It's not like I'm starving and they are gouging me cause they are the only source of food.

It just doesn't seem all that rational. Their pricing and other business practices are doing more towards strengthening their competitors then anything else. I guess when companies get on top they lose the long term view that allowed them to get where they are in the first place.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

I'm not a software expert or anything, but I figure that if a PC game costs about $50 or so - then it's not so far fetched to believe an OS might cost a couple times more than that? After all, I'm sure it's a resource intensive project to co-ordinate and program etc... and it's not like their programmers are working for free.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Corporations are curious things.

They're legally required to make as much money as possible. If one of their investors finds out that a decision maker wasted money (whether that was by buying a company helicopter and hiring a pilot for his exclusive use so he can go island-hopping in the Bahamas or passing up a lucrative business opportunity) the investor can, no joke, sue the decision maker for the difference it was thought to have made in the investor's portfolio (there's some caveats, check with a lawyer if you're interested, but essentially, that's what can happen). Successfully, even, either collectively or individually.

This is part of the reason a lot of corporations are going private, nowadays.

So suppose we have a corporation - Macrohard, say - that has a very large portion of the market. Macrohard makes stuff - an operating system, call it Doors; and a document suite, call it Business. Macrohard has a huge market share. They dominate. Because they are so large and ingrained, they can do things nobody else can, that make them money faster.

Suppose, for instance, you're a business trying to avoid Macrohard's stuff. You've got a problem; most, if not all, of your suppliers and clients are using Business. You need to be able to successfully read the documents your suppliers and clients send you, and you need to be able to send your clients and suppliers documents that they can read. If all Business files are in a proprietary Macrohard format, you pretty much need something from Macrohard to read it. They distribute a free reader program to be in compliance with Fair Use, but it only runs on one of the last X versions of Doors, and it will not permit you to write documents in Business format to distribute. In order to communicate effectively with your suppliers and clients, you're kinda forced to get a version of Doors and Business; you're either in Business, or you're out of business in short order.

Now, suppose, a new version of Business comes out. It comes bundled with most new computers, and some of your suppliers and customers upgrade as they are getting new machines anyway. Macrohard has inserted some new features, though, and Business 2.0 files can't be read by Business 1.0 software (without your clients and suppliers going through a few hoops; Business 2.0 can write Business 1.0 files if you remember to tell it to do so, although it will goof the formatting every here and there, leading to miscommunications at times). Business 2.0 will usually read Business 1.0 files successfully... but it will get the formatting wrong every here and there, leading to miscommunications at times. As your suppliers and customers are now using Business 2.0 format, after a while, you find that in order to communicate effectively with your clients and suppliers, you need Business 2.0... or you're out of business. Macrohard has the capacity to very nearly force you to upgrade every so often, without breaking any laws at all. Every time you upgrade, you have to pay Macrohard a fee for the new licenses.

As Macrohard is a corporation, the decision-makers can be sued if they don't make as much money as they can. As most of the Macrohard decision-makers are also major investors, and making as much money as they can not only makes them money, but prevents them from being sued, what do you think they are going to do?

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

The moral of the story is Corporations are evil.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Which, of course, is inherently wrong. There is nothing intrinsically evil about corporations. Most businesses in the US are, in fact, corporations (particularly of the LLC variety). So unless you want to say every small business is evil...

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

No. But the rules of the game are set up to push them in that direction. Probably not deliberately.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Capitalism is based on the fact that consumers can control businesses by a feedback loop in purchasing. The problem is most of the larger corporations now days can control that feedback loop by limiting or eliminating the flow of the key information which would affect that feedback loop. Capitalism is the "best" economic model out there right now, but it's flawed to it's very core.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Any economic system is subject to being manipulated by those with greater power than the majority. This will be true as long as people are motivated by personal gain rather than the good of the many (ie: forever).

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Of course, if we were all CEOs, we'd see no problem with this model whatsoever. Or would we? There's only one way to find out. We must all be made CEOs as part of a great social experiment! And of course we'd have to be allowed to keep all the money we embez- er... invest. It's only fair.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Now if he'd just slap MS around and make them give us better license terms...

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Well, I will say this about Linux. It may be that there are comparable programs out there for everyhting I need, but it's not always the easiest thing to get them loaded and running.

I sure am spoiled by Windows. You find a program, install it and it runs. I'm a moderatly techie individual and I'm findign it diffecult to get thigs setup in Ubuntu. Everything's got six lines of commands you have to type into the command line terminal, and even then maybe it won't work. I've been working on getting a wireless adapter setup for a few hours now and it's just not flying. I've found instructions in several places on the web, all of them with minor differences, and none of them seem to work.

I know the same thing would happen if I tried to plug non-supported hardware with windows, but it's still frusterating. The biggest problem I seem to be running into is there is just so much information out there it's tough to filter out those that know what they are talking about.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

For software installation, just use Synaptics. Its often as easy as Windows, cause you can get almost all software you'd need in one integrated package management application.

Network configuration is loads of fun... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

That has been the standing complaint about Linux, recognized even by the geeks who are boosting it, for some years now. Linux is still not being adopted, despite being better at nearly everything. Linux has native security and has had for years. Windows is still a bug-riddled trojan that lets all the organized crime syndicates who have now entered into cyber crime do whatever they please with your machine. Apache on Linux is vastly more secure and more stable as a web server than Windows and IIS, and it can carry a much heavier load on the same hardware. Open Office has almost every single feature that MS Office has, and it is more backwards compatible than Office itself -- yes, a third party program is better at loading old Word or Excel files than brand-name MS Office! Games is where Windows still has the undisputed advantage. Everyone has gotten used to using Direct-X and it's hard to make the effort to independently learn how to program graphical hardware. But because it's still so hard to use -- the learning curve is just too steep for anyone but a tech geek -- almost no but but the geeks are using it. So it remains a niche product or a server OS at best while Windows continues to rule the desktop.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

For getting the wireless adapter to work, your best bet is probably to do a walkthrough on installing ndiswrapper, and wrapping the windows driver that came with the wireless card. There are a few wireless devices that are part of the kernel that will Just Work, but for the most part you need to get the Windows driver loaded into Linux.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

That sounds exactly like what I did, but it doesn't seem to see the adapter. I installed the driver, but I don't see where to go to get it to connect to my wireless network.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Market forces. If Linux becomes easier to use, more people will use it.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Wireless is a pain in the butt with any OS besides windows. Don't jump on ndiswrapper right away; I have seen wireless cards not show up because /etc/network/interfaces has a typo or doesn't have wep set or the module hasn't been added to the repositories. With that said whats the hardware? This will display all your "pci" devices (actually a lot more but...):
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>lspci -v | less</pre><hr />
If its usb:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>lsusb -v | less</pre><hr />

It would help if you would post your /etc/network/interfaces and what you have done.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

It's a Trendnet TEW424UB v2.0 which according to everything I've read is not supported natively by Ubuntu. That seems to be confirmed by the fact that when I plug it in it doesn't "just work". According to the info I could find it uses a driver sis163u.inf driver. I loaded that driver using the GUI driver interface thingy and it seems to work there, but it doesn't appear to find the hardware. I did notive when I do the command "ndiswrapper -l" it shows the driver as loaded but out to the right says "invalid driver!" so maybe I've got the wrong one somehow.

I'll play with it some more tonight and try your commands para.

On the bright side I have managed to load the flash and adobe plugins for firefox so at least browsing seems to work pretty well at this point. Using an ethernet cable was totally painless. Didn't have to do anything at all to get it to work except plug the cable into the NIC port. I'd just like to move off the floor next to my router and on to the desk, so I'd like to get that wireless working. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Anybody have any experience getting VNC to work? I want to load VNC server on the Ubuntu pc and use my windows laptop with the vnc client to control it. That should work, right? Or do I have to have the same OS on both machines to use VNC?

Geoschmo

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

You can use VNC across OSes.

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

Nevermind

Re: OT: Windows is too expensive
 

How do I tell what version of ndiswrapper I have? This doc you linked to was one I found, but it's for Ubuntu 5.10 and I have 6.10. I assumed that page was out of date and that probably the ndiswrapper I had was actually the latest one.

Geoschmo