OT: Windows is too expensive - Page 2

geoschmo · #1 March 5th, 2007, 03:18 PM

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.

Fyron · #2 March 5th, 2007, 03:27 PM

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.

geoschmo · #3 March 5th, 2007, 03:51 PM

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.

Fyron · #4 March 6th, 2007, 10:35 PM

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.

geoschmo · #5 March 6th, 2007, 11:05 PM

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

Fyron · #6 March 7th, 2007, 12:21 AM

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).

GuyOfDoom · #7 March 7th, 2007, 12:29 AM

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.

geoschmo · #8 March 7th, 2007, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
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.

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.

capnq · #9 March 7th, 2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

geoschmo said: If Microsoft was smart they'd stop making people jump through all the hoops and price their OS reasonably.

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.

)

geoschmo · #10 March 7th, 2007, 04:21 PM

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.