Win XP Limitations
Peter
There is an interesting article in today's newspaper about the Windows XP
Home EULA. (Interesting 'cos I don't use XP.) It says Win XP has these
limitations.
1) Win XP can only be used on a single processor PC.
2) Win XP can only be used on a network of 5 or fewer devices. (Each
printer counts as a device.)
3) Microsoft has the right to collect data from the PC.
Any _one_ of these is enough for me to choose another OS.
In fact, I consider these terms to be unreasonably biased in favour of the
vendor, which supports Aum's earlier post that legislation should make
EULA's invalid in some circumstances.
Peter
Jeff Preou
part that states that only MS software such as Remote Desktop or
Terminal Services [client] can be used to 'remote control' a WinXP
machine. This makes software such as VNC technically 'illegal' for
WinXP.
Like I said, this is second-hand info that I haven't actually checked
so feel free to correct me. But, if this *is* the case then likely as
not hundreds or thousands of sys admins will be breaching the EULA !
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 09:56:48 +1300, Peter <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
Jeff
--
Don't bother replying to jpr...@hotmail.com - it's a spam-catch
You may, if you wish, send mail to "news" at "preou" dot "c-o-m"
(not the hotmail address - I don't check it)
Rupert
more than 5 devices to connect to it? It's fair enough to limit this they
don't want you turning it into a Server - they sell Windows 2000 Server for
that!
The XP Professional EULA states the following, is this the same wording for
Home ( replacing 10 with 5? )
Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one
copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or
other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used by more
than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices
(each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the
services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet
Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and
telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect
connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which
pools or aggregates connections.
"Peter" <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:aunnjq$8mb7o$1...@ID-132751.news.dfncis.de...
Enkidu
wrote:
>I believe, though I haven't actually checked, that there is also a
>part that states that only MS software such as Remote Desktop or
>Terminal Services [client] can be used to 'remote control' a WinXP
>machine. This makes software such as VNC technically 'illegal' for
>WinXP.
>
>Like I said, this is second-hand info that I haven't actually checked
>so feel free to correct me. But, if this *is* the case then likely as
>not hundreds or thousands of sys admins will be breaching the EULA !
>
Hmm, why use VNC over RDP? RDP is much smoother and faster.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The Nats held a Party and no one came.
Jeff Preou
the current user when you do so (my machine gets left on as it
performs fax/answerphone duty during the day). At least, it does on my
home PC, which causes me a few problems. Hence I installed VNC the
other day, though I haven't actually had cause to use it yet.
Jeff
blazer
+1300:
>
>There is an interesting article in today's newspaper about the Windows XP
>Home EULA. (Interesting 'cos I don't use XP.) It says Win XP has these
>limitations.
>
>1) Win XP can only be used on a single processor PC.
>2) Win XP can only be used on a network of 5 or fewer devices. (Each
>printer counts as a device.)
>3) Microsoft has the right to collect data from the PC.
>
>Any _one_ of these is enough for me to choose another OS.
But not enough to get Windows users to move. Back when I was using
Windows these kinds of restrictions just seemed par for the course,
nothing to get excited about. You first have to escape the passive
Windows mentality before you can see how insulting and oppressive
Microsoft's terms-of-use really are.
>In fact, I consider these terms to be unreasonably biased in favour of the
>vendor, which supports Aum's earlier post that legislation should make
>EULA's invalid in some circumstances.
Here's an oldie but goodie. I'll just list the highlights. The full
document is at http://www.cexx.org/svla.htm
======================================================
SOFTWARE VENDOR LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This Software Vendor License Agreement
("SVLA") is a legal agreement between you, the software vendor
("Vendor"), and the end user ("User") of a software product
("Software") legitimately purchased from your company. You must accept
this Agreement to complete the sale of a software license to the User.
If you do not accept the terms of this Agreement, the User is
unwilling to complete the transaction and you must provide a
convenient mechanism for the User to return the Software to you and
receive a refund for the full purchase price of the Software
("Refund"). By selling your Software to the User and failing to honor
Refunds for returned Software, you agree to be bound by the terms of
this SVLA.
This SVLA is an amendment of any contracts, legal disclaimers or
license agreements in which purchase of the software is required to
display the agreements. These agreements will be collectively referred
to as the End User License Agreement ("EULA"), and will include any
agreements contained inside the product's packaging, including those
stored in machine-readable form on the physical media on which the
software is contained ("Media"), upon which the installation or use of
the Software is conditional. In areas where this SVLA conflict with
the EULA, this SVLA shall supersede any conflicting statements in the
EULA.
USER RIGHTS
(1) The User reserves the right to take measures to protect his or her
privacy as well as the continued dependable and error-free operation
of the system on which the Software will be installed. To this end,
the User reserves the right to take proactive measures to ensure that
these fundamental rights will be upheld. These measures may include:
* Conditional installation or non-installation of some or all
components of the Software. The User reserves the right to refuse
installation or forcibly prevent installation of any component,
module, file or other information ("Component"), including without
limitation Components that may compromise those rights set forth in
(1). The User also reserves the right to manually remove, or use
software to remove, any component after the installation has
completed. This includes, without limitation, any type of "Spyware" or
other component that compromises the User's privacy or otherwise
negatively affects the User's use of legitimately purchased Software
or the system on which it is installed.
* Quarantine of the installed Software. The User reserves the right to
take measures as necessary to "quarantine" the Software, in whole or
in part, to prevent or limit its use of any system resource, including
memory, disk space, network connectivity, processor usage or files
present on the system. The user may selectively choose to prevent the
Software's access to specific files and Internet resources, filter
incoming and outgoing data, or use mechanisms to block or simulate
access to any system resource or information.
(2) While it is understood that no Software is perfect, the User
reserves the right to expect that the Software will function as
advertised, in a reasonably robust and error-free manner, or return
the Software for a complete, no-questions-asked Refund if it is found
that the Software fails to perform in such a manner.
(3) The Vendor agrees that the contents of the User's computing
facilities, including data stored in memory or on disk, environment
variables, user habits and system geometry are considered private and
understands that the system on which the Software is installed may
contain proprietary information. The Vendor agrees that such private
information may not be transmitted in whole or in part without the
prior express consent of the User. The User must be informed in clear,
unambiguous wording of any data-transmission capabilities that may
compromise the privacy of any User data, and allowed to explicitly
allow or disallow the transmission, BEFORE any transmission takes
place. This information must be explicitly stated independently of the
EULA or any other textual materials that may diminish the force and
effect of this information.
(4) Truthful representation of the Software and its abilities. The
Vendor agrees that the Software and its functions have not been
misrepresented to the User, and that the Vendor has not made false or
misleading claims relating to the purpose, function, capabilities or
other aspects of the Software's operation.
(5) Copyright of User-generated data. The Vendor agrees that the User
retains all rights to information loaded, typed or otherwise entered
into the Software by the User. The Vendor may not transmit, reproduce,
lease, sublicense or create derivative works of User-entered data in
whole or in part without express written permission from the User. The
Vendor may not restrict the User's rights with respect to User-entered
data or User-generated files, including User rights concerning the
usage or expression of User data stored in files generated by the
Software.
(6) Dispute resolution. This Section applies to any dispute between
you and the User arising out of or relating to this Agreement.
Enkidu
either allow the remote person share your desktop or let them take it
over. I'm not 100% sure though.
Cheers,
Cliff
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:24:44 +1300, Jeff Preou <jpr...@hotmail.com>
Enkidu
the RDP client to connect to someone's (XP) desktop? The RDP client
runs quite happily on Win2000.
Cheers,
Cliff
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:24:44 +1300, Jeff Preou <jpr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>You can RDP using the Win2k terminal services client but it locks out
>the current user when you do so (my machine gets left on as it
>performs fax/answerphone duty during the day). At least, it does on my
>home PC, which causes me a few problems. Hence I installed VNC the
>other day, though I haven't actually had cause to use it yet.
>
>
>
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:06:54 +1300, Enkidu <enk...@cliffp.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:35:06 +1300, Jeff Preou <jpr...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I believe, though I haven't actually checked, that there is also a
>>>part that states that only MS software such as Remote Desktop or
>>>Terminal Services [client] can be used to 'remote control' a WinXP
>>>machine. This makes software such as VNC technically 'illegal' for
>>>WinXP.
>>>
>>>Like I said, this is second-hand info that I haven't actually checked
>>>so feel free to correct me. But, if this *is* the case then likely as
>>>not hundreds or thousands of sys admins will be breaching the EULA !
>>>
>>Hmm, why use VNC over RDP? RDP is much smoother and faster.
>>
--
Nathan Mercer
"Enkidu" <enk...@cliffp.com> wrote in message
news:k66v0vgjq8mgc2uf7...@4ax.com...
> Um, I just thought - you said TS client? I thought that you had to use
> the RDP client to connect to someone's (XP) desktop? The RDP client
> runs quite happily on Win2000.
You can use either client to connect to XP or a TS Server. The best client
to use is v5.1 which is downloadble from
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/downloads/rdclientdl.asp (this is
already installed on XP, but can also be installed on everything from Win95
upwards)
Nathan Mercer
> Home EULA. (Interesting 'cos I don't use XP.) It says Win XP has these
> limitations.
>
> 1) Win XP can only be used on a single processor PC.
> 2) Win XP can only be used on a network of 5 or fewer devices. (Each
> printer counts as a device.)
> 3) Microsoft has the right to collect data from the PC.
Where did this article appear? Which newspaper? The article is incorrect,
or at least misleading.
1. Windows XP Home can be installed onto a PC with as many processors as you
like. It will only use the first one.
2. Only 5 concurrent inbound connections are allowed to the Windows XP Home
machine
3. This statement is probably taken out of context. Of course Microsoft
needs to collect some data from the machine so that you can use
WindowsUpdate or Automatic Update to keep your machine up to date with
Service packs etc. The data collected is anonymous and it literally looks
at a few registry keys to figure out which patches you have/haven't
installed. Of course the conspiracy theorists don't see it that way.
Nathan Mercer
> Hmm, why use VNC over RDP? RDP is much smoother and faster.
And _much_ more secure.
James West
--
.
"Peter" <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:aunnjq$8mb7o$1...@ID-132751.news.dfncis.de...
>
> There is an interesting article in today's newspaper about the Windows XP
> Home EULA. (Interesting 'cos I don't use XP.) It says Win XP has these
> limitations.
>
> 1) Win XP can only be used on a single processor PC.
Err Yes this is the HOME version you want SMP you use the PRO product which
HAS support for multi CPU
> 2) Win XP can only be used on a network of 5 or fewer devices. (Each
> printer counts as a device.)
again the HOME product
hands up who has more then 5 PC's networked at home ( the printers connect
to the PC usb so not on the network)
I do but have the Pro version so my network toaster is fine
> 3) Microsoft has the right to collect data from the PC.
well if they collected data and did not mention it the Americans will sue MS
for not telling them
guess it's fair they mention it
of course when you do an update at MS it NEEDS to send data about your
system and updates you already have
kinda makes sense would you like to have to download the whole lot each time
you update?
>
> Any _one_ of these is enough for me to choose another OS.
good luck
> In fact, I consider these terms to be unreasonably biased in favour of the
> vendor, which supports Aum's earlier post that legislation should make
> EULA's invalid in some circumstances.
I thought all vendor EULA's would be biased on the users side
silly me
awaiting Helen to take on MS? should be fun
James
>
>
> Peter
>
Jeff Preou
I think with RA you can have a take-over or a shadow session whereas
RD is like Terminal Services on a Win2k server. With RA the user needs
to request a support session (I think) which is hard to do when you
are already at work and trying to connect back home !! I suppose you
could email a RA with an extended invitation period (up to 99 days)
but then you'd have to remember to re-send it when it expires...
Incidentally, to Nathan, security is not an issue - I connect to my
Win2k server (also running ISA server) first via TS and then a
secondary connection to my workstation.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 13:52:07 +1300, Enkidu <enk...@cliffp.com> wrote:
>As I recall, and I haven't used it for a while, you can choose to
>either allow the remote person share your desktop or let them take it
>over. I'm not 100% sure though.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Cliff
>
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:24:44 +1300, Jeff Preou <jpr...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You can RDP using the Win2k terminal services client but it locks out
>>the current user when you do so (my machine gets left on as it
>>performs fax/answerphone duty during the day). At least, it does on my
>>home PC, which causes me a few problems. Hence I installed VNC the
>>other day, though I haven't actually had cause to use it yet.
>>
>>
>>
Jeff
Jeff Preou
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Nathan Mercer had trolled into nz.comp and
>left a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> 1. Windows XP Home can be installed onto a PC with as many processors
>> as you like. It will only use the first one.
>
>In otherwords, it's a crap OS that can't make full use of the hardware
>available to it!
MS *chose* not to allow more that one CPU. Its a HOME product. You
want more features, get Pro. This is no different to other products
offering different versions with different features.
>> 2. Only 5 concurrent inbound connections are allowed to the Windows XP
>> Home machine
>
>Why this microsoft silly limitation?
Again, HOME product - see above
If you care (and obviously you do), then go Linux. These limitations
do not affect your average Joe one bit.
Jeff Preou
There are some alternatives, but they also cost money and have more
limited functionality (eg Ximian Evolution in place of Outlook).
Quicken, [Free]Agent, Exchange 2000/Outlook 2002, Talkworks Pro, many
games, etc, etc ?
The simple FACT is, that for all it's faults, MS and Windows runs more
software for more people and is easier to use. Period. No argument.
*Every* Linux vs Windows article says exactly the same thing -
'nearly, but not quite'. Sure, if all you do is a bit of wordy
processing, browse the Internet and a bit of email then fine. Linux is
not ready for the masses.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 02:20:22 GMT, Lennier <Pleas...@Use.Email>
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that James West had trolled into nz.comp and left
>a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> awaiting Helen to take on MS? should be fun
>
>The worst that Micro$oft could do against our government is to say it
>cannot use Micro$oft software.
>
>This will hurt Micro$oft worse than it would hurt the government - because
>there are several good open source options available - all of which could
>entirely replace all Micro$oft's software.
>
>And, if the Government moved over to OSS, then the business community would
>follow - especially if legeslation specified that open standards and
>formats had to be used.
>
>I say - more power to those who would stand up to Micro$oft!
>
>
>Lennier
Jeff Preou
! That isn't exactly the case. I don't know much about Linux as I only
briefly tried Red Hat 8 and couldn't get it integrated into my Windows
based network properly. Samba ? Pah !
Realistically, though, if I could replace all my software with non-MS,
even if I have to pay for some of it, and not lose *any* functionality
or ease of use... then sure, I'd probably jump ship. Not yet though.
And probably not at all as far as games are concerned.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:43:11 +1300, Jeff Preou <jpr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>*I* cannot entirely replace MS or Windows-based software.
>There are some alternatives, but they also cost money and have more
>limited functionality (eg Ximian Evolution in place of Outlook).
>Quicken, [Free]Agent, Exchange 2000/Outlook 2002, Talkworks Pro, many
>games, etc, etc ?
>
>The simple FACT is, that for all it's faults, MS and Windows runs more
>software for more people and is easier to use. Period. No argument.
>*Every* Linux vs Windows article says exactly the same thing -
>'nearly, but not quite'. Sure, if all you do is a bit of wordy
>processing, browse the Internet and a bit of email then fine. Linux is
>not ready for the masses.
>
Jeff
Enkidu
Services Server works fine, but you are talking about TSClient or RDP
client to XP Pro, aren't you?
Cheers,
Cliff
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:18:46 +1300, Jeff Preou <jpr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
--
The Nats held a Party and no one came.
Peter
>
> Where did this article appear? Which newspaper?
The Daily News, today; "Buyers should read licence agreement terms"
(I hope you aren't going to get all the Microsoft heavies on to them for
daring to review your EULA.)
> The article is incorrect, or at least misleading.
From what you say, it looks like it is substantively correct;
- XP can only use one processor
- only 5 connections allowed
- MS has installed a feature (= backdoor) in XP so they can read data off
the PC.
> 1. Windows XP Home can be installed onto a PC with as many processors as
> you like. It will only use the first one.
>
> 2. Only 5 concurrent inbound connections are allowed to the Windows XP
> Home machine
>
> 3. This statement is probably taken out of context. Of course Microsoft
> needs to collect some data from the machine so that you can use
> WindowsUpdate or Automatic Update to keep your machine up to date with
> Service packs etc. The data collected is anonymous and it literally looks
> at a few registry keys to figure out which patches you have/haven't
> installed. Of course the conspiracy theorists don't see it that way.
I don't know if these limitations (1 CPU and <5 connections) are technical
or contractual. Either way, XP doesn't look good from a user's
perspective.
Peter
Jeff Preou
Have also used RD and TS clients from winxp to win2k svr ts.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:02:55 +1300, Enkidu <enk...@cliffp.com> wrote:
>OK, I'll have to have a play with that. RDP client to Terminal
>Services Server works fine, but you are talking about TSClient or RDP
>client to XP Pro, aren't you?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Cliff
>
>On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:18:46 +1300, Jeff Preou <jpr...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Are you mistaking Remote Assistance for Remote Desktop ?
>>I think with RA you can have a take-over or a shadow session whereas
>>RD is like Terminal Services on a Win2k server. With RA the user needs
>>to request a support session (I think) which is hard to do when you
>>are already at work and trying to connect back home !! I suppose you
>>could email a RA with an extended invitation period (up to 99 days)
>>but then you'd have to remember to re-send it when it expires...
>>
>>Incidentally, to Nathan, security is not an issue - I connect to my
>>Win2k server (also running ISA server) first via TS and then a
>>secondary connection to my workstation.
Jeff
Jeff Preou
with more than 5 PCs/devices are likely to be more technically savvy
and have purchased Pro anyway...
Incidentally, for those that are wondering the new HT P4s are seen as
*logical* processors so will work just fine under XP Home (ie two
logical on one physical). At least, that's what we were told at an
Intel seminar recently.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 16:54:54 +1300, Peter <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
>I don't know if these limitations (1 CPU and <5 connections) are technical
>or contractual. Either way, XP doesn't look good from a user's
>perspective.
>
>
>Peter
Jeff
Nathan Mercer
"Lennier" <Pleas...@Use.Email> wrote in message
news:Xns92F4B22AA...@203.96.92.12...
> On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Jeff Preou had trolled into nz.comp and left
> a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
> >
> > If you care (and obviously you do), then go Linux. These limitations
> > do not affect your average Joe one bit.
>
What about the left over 1%?
Enkidu
wrote:
>Yep. That's was I use - the TS client *from* win2k svr to winxp.
>
I now only use RDP client.
>Have also used RD and TS clients from winxp to win2k svr ts.
>
same here.
Cheers,
Cliff
Enkidu
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Jeff Preou had trolled into nz.comp and left
>a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> Actually, re-reading that it makes me seem very Pro MS and anti- Linux
>> ! That isn't exactly the case. I don't know much about Linux as I only
>> briefly tried Red Hat 8 and couldn't get it integrated into my Windows
>> based network properly. Samba ? Pah !
>
>Hey - Even *I* got SAMBA running. :o)
>
>And besides, you could always use FTP over TCP/IP.
>
...or scp.
cowboyz
Quote from Lennier in post I read 10 seconds ago.
"The Technically savvy use Linux.
The incompetant use M$ Windows "home"."
Quote from post I read 5 seconds ago.
> > Incidentally, for those that are wondering the new HT P4s are seen as
> > *logical* processors so will work just fine under XP Home (ie two
> > logical on one physical). At least, that's what we were told at an
> > Intel seminar recently.
>
> That must mean that Windows is not properly identifying the hardware that
> it is running on - that is if it thinks two physical CPUs are merely
> logical devisions of the one actual CPU.
>
> Unless those "CPUs" are in fact only devisions of the one CPU!
>
>
> Lennier
Being Technically savvy as you are one would think that you would know about
Intels hyperthreading by now?
Scott Lemon
"Lennier" <Pleas...@Use.Email> wrote in message
> On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Jeff Preou had trolled into nz.comp and left
> a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
> > *logical* processors so will work just fine under XP Home (ie two
> > logical on one physical). At least, that's what we were told at an
> > Intel seminar recently.
>
> it is running on - that is if it thinks two physical CPUs are merely
> logical devisions of the one actual CPU.
That's Intel's HyperThreading techology on the 3Ghz+ P4, if your MB BIOS
supports HT and you have one of these processors, then XP will identify your
machine as having two processors. Its supposed to be that way. HT is
supposed to give you performance benefits when multi-tasking applications.
I thought you were supposed to be one of "the technically savvy"? Back to
the Commodre64 for you.
>
> Unless those "CPUs" are in fact only devisions of the one CPU!
>
Yes, now you're gettting it.
Aum
> 2. Only 5 concurrent inbound connections are allowed to the Windows XP
> Home machine
Whose fucking stupid idea was *that*!!!!??!?
What a scam! Burn in Hell, Microsoft!!!
It takes *nothing* to use up 5 connections.
For fuck's sake, many web pages contain more than 4 images - such pages
would show up blanks for the remaining images.
Consumers have the moral right to *patch* WinXP to remove this restriction.
I'm sure there are already n websites where you can get the patches.
Go for it, people!
Jeff Preou
a lot of software products.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 04:26:12 GMT, Lennier <Pleas...@Use.Email>
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Jeff Preou had trolled into nz.comp and left
>a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> MS *chose* not to allow more that one CPU. Its a HOME product. You
>> want more features, get Pro. This is no different to other products
>> offering different versions with different features.
>
>So Micro$oft has decided to maintain two code bases after all!
>
>
>Lennier
Jeff Preou
Linux is building...
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 04:27:12 GMT, Lennier <Pleas...@Use.Email>
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Jeff Preou had trolled into nz.comp and left
>a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> Again, HOME product - see above
>>
>> If you care (and obviously you do), then go Linux. These limitations
>> do not affect your average Joe one bit.
>
>I have gone over to Linux - 66% of my network is Linux only.
>
>
>Lennier
T.N.O.
you may want to read up on hardware... especially the Intel HT info, there
is only one CPU, just pretending to be two :)
Jeff Preou
wrote:
>The Technically savvy use Linux.
True. Though there are people, such as myself, that have more than
'zero' knowledge but still find Linux a little too different. It's
just a learning thing, and once I have completed my MCSE (2 exams to
go) then I'll take a more in depth look at Linux. Right now it is
asking to much of my meagre grey matter to assimilate two subjects at
once !!
>The incompetant use M$ Windows "home".
Also True !
T.N.O.
about
| Intels hyperthreading by now?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
oh yeah... lol too.
T.N.O.
| I have not studied the internal mechanisms of CPUs - I know nearly
nothing
| about them.
|
do you read tech news?
Jeff Preou
single CPU package. Kind of. There is, of course, slightly more to it
than that and I couldn't go into further details without my seminar
notes (which are at work).
Even though there is one *physical* processor, if HT is enabled in the
BIOS then Windows will see ton-pports HT. Partial support is provided
by XP (native) and Win2k Service Pack 3 (but *not* previous service
packs)
3. To 'enable' full HT support the OS needs to be installed with HT
enabled. So if you install on a non-enabled system and then either
upgrade to an HT processor, or enable the HT on the existing processor
you will need to re-install the OS.
All this direct from the recent Intel seminar.
The HT vs non-HT demos were pretty impressive and my next PC will
definitely be an HT compliant one...
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 04:34:35 GMT, Lennier <Pleas...@Use.Email>
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Jeff Preou had trolled into nz.comp and left
>a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> Incidentally, for those that are wondering the new HT P4s are seen as
>> *logical* processors so will work just fine under XP Home (ie two
>> logical on one physical). At least, that's what we were told at an
>> Intel seminar recently.
>
>That must mean that Windows is not properly identifying the hardware that
>it is running on - that is if it thinks two physical CPUs are merely
>logical devisions of the one actual CPU.
>
>Unless those "CPUs" are in fact only devisions of the one CPU!
>
>
>Lennier
Jeff Preou
software support for Linux and I didn't have enough time to enable me
to work out how to Samba it into my Win2k network !!
Next time maybe !
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 04:28:50 GMT, Lennier <Pleas...@Use.Email>
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Jeff Preou had trolled into nz.comp and left
>a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> Linux is not ready for the masses.
>
>Have you tried out RedHat 8?
Jeff Preou
stuff. I'll try again in a few months when I'm done :-)
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 04:30:13 GMT, Lennier <Pleas...@Use.Email>
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Jeff Preou had trolled into nz.comp and left
>a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> Actually, re-reading that it makes me seem very Pro MS and anti- Linux
>> ! That isn't exactly the case. I don't know much about Linux as I only
>> briefly tried Red Hat 8 and couldn't get it integrated into my Windows
>> based network properly. Samba ? Pah !
>
>Hey - Even *I* got SAMBA running. :o)
>
>And besides, you could always use FTP over TCP/IP.
>
>
>Lennier
James West
--
.
"Peter" <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:auog3o$8t0ks$1...@ID-132751.news.dfncis.de...
> Nathan Mercer wrote:
> >
> > Where did this article appear? Which newspaper?
>
> The Daily News, today; "Buyers should read licence agreement terms"
> (I hope you aren't going to get all the Microsoft heavies on to them for
> daring to review your EULA.)
>
> > The article is incorrect, or at least misleading.
>
> From what you say, it looks like it is substantively correct;
> - XP can only use one processor
agreed
XPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHO
MEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOME
XPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOME
XPPRO can use MORE THAN ONE
try and understand before one of us dies...........................
James
Scott Lemon
"Aum" <spa...@no-thanks.com> wrote in message
news:aVRP9.876$F63....@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Nathan Mercer wrote:
>
> > 2. Only 5 concurrent inbound connections are allowed to the Windows XP
> > Home machine
>
> Whose fucking stupid idea was *that*!!!!??!?
>
> What a scam! Burn in Hell, Microsoft!!!
>
> It takes *nothing* to use up 5 connections.
>
> For fuck's sake, many web pages contain more than 4 images - such pages
> would show up blanks for the remaining images.
Jesus, would you calm down? How about getting the story straight before
launching into a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Microsoft tirade?
XP is limited to 5 inbound connections, that is, connections initiated from
*another host*. This is so you don't start using the HOME version as an
office SERVER.
Browsing a web page is an OUTBOUND connection. There are no limits to
outbound connections.
Take your paranoia pills, then do some reading and get educated:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314882
brevis
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that James West had trolled into nz.comp and left
>a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> awaiting Helen to take on MS? should be fun
>
>The worst that Micro$oft could do against our government is to say it
>cannot use Micro$oft software.
>
>This will hurt Micro$oft worse than it would hurt the government - because
>there are several good open source options available - all of which could
>entirely replace all Micro$oft's software.
>
>And, if the Government moved over to OSS, then the business community would
>follow - especially if legeslation specified that open standards and
>formats had to be used.
Why would any government impose restrictions and limit choice when the whole
concept of OSS is based on Freedom Of Choice? Are you afraid that people
would still prefer MSS?
>I say - more power to those who would stand up to Micro$oft!
Oh, I say, absolutely. Worked so far, hasn't it?
cowboyz
>
>
XPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHO
> MEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOME
> XPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOMEXPHOME
>
> XPPRO can use MORE THAN ONE
>
> try and understand before one of us dies
Interesting side point. (shooting myself in foot here being a fan of XP)
But. Look at what is typed above for 10 secs.
Can you see "XP PHONE HOME"?
Maybe it is just me?
Kenneth
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Jeff Preou had trolled into nz.comp and left
>a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> Why ? How many people are really likely to be affected by this ? Those
>> with more than 5 PCs/devices are likely to be more technically savvy
>> and have purchased Pro anyway.
>
>The Technically savvy use Linux.
>
>The incompetant use M$ Windows "home".
>
There would seem to be a large number of computer users that are both
simultaneously incompetent and technically savvy.
How long have you known this religious fanaticism based on Linux ?
Have you attended a PADI course lately ?
Kenneth
[re: XP home]
>It takes *nothing* to use up 5 connections.
>
>For fuck's sake, many web pages contain more than 4 images - such pages
>would show up blanks for the remaining images.
>Consumers have the moral right to *patch* WinXP to remove this restriction.
>
>I'm sure there are already n websites where you can get the patches.
>
>Go for it, people!
Amen.
Same goes for certain mods to Windows Terminal Server. $200 for 10
licenses would be sweet. But per each at a discount price ? Screw
that.
mcbean
> Yes. And on it's own it was fine. But there is a lack of mainstream
> software support for Linux and I didn't have enough time to enable me
> to work out how to Samba it into my Win2k network !!
> Next time maybe !
>
LinNeighborhood makes browsing your windows network easy.
http://www.bnro.de/~schmidjo/
There is an rpm for Redhat 8.0
http://java.thn.htu.se/~toor/rpms/LinNeighborhood-0.6.5-1.i686.rpm
Peter
>>
>> From what you say, it looks like it is substantively correct;
>> - XP can only use one processor
>
> agreed
>
limit its use in the future". Apparently other operating systems can
already handle more than 2 processors.
Peter
Peter
>
> Though there are people, such as myself, that have more than
> 'zero' knowledge but still find Linux a little too different. It's
> just a learning thing, and once I have completed my MCSE (2 exams to
> go) then I'll take a more in depth look at Linux.
be valuable for you.
I found Linux is very different, especially after using MS software for
years and years. When you get to it, start with an easy distro like
Mandrake or Redhat, be sure to read lots of books and magazines, and read
the linux news groups (like comp.os.linux.misc and comp.os.linux.advocacy).
good luck
Peter
Nathan Mercer
"Lennier" <Pleas...@Use.Email> wrote in message
> On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Jeff Preou had trolled into nz.comp and left
> a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
> > want more features, get Pro. This is no different to other products
> > offering different versions with different features.
>
> So Micro$oft has decided to maintain two code bases after all!
Same Windows code base for:
Windows XP Home
Windows XP Professional
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, and
Windows XP Media Centre Edition
This makes is very easy to support and maintain all these products
If linux wants to rise beyond the geeky tar pit, they're gonna have to get
serious about patch deployment strategies too...
Nathan Mercer
news:gfrv0v81rsj9fsjlf...@4ax.com...
> The new HyperThreaded P4s are effectively two logical processors in a
> single CPU package. Kind of. There is, of course, slightly more to it
> than that and I couldn't go into further details without my seminar
> notes (which are at work).
>
> Even though there is one *physical* processor, if HT is enabled in the
> BIOS then Windows will see ton-pports HT. Partial support is provided
> by XP (native) and Win2k Service Pack 3 (but *not* previous service
> packs)
Actually, ALL versions of Windows 2000 support HT and all 32 bit versions of
Windows XP and Windows .NET Server support HT too.
Windows 2000 treats each logical processor as if it were an individual
physical processor, whereas Windows .NET Server and Windows XP which are
Hyper-Threading-Aware Operating Systems count each physical HT processor as
a single processor and both logical processors are utilized by the operating
system.
See Windows Support for Hyper-Threading Technology
http://microsoft.com/hwdev/platform/proc/HT-Windows.asp
<snip>
> The HT vs non-HT demos were pretty impressive and my next PC will
> definitely be an HT compliant one...
Me too. This is impressive stuff.
Nathan Mercer
Like Windows 2000 and Windows .NET Server 2003 Datacentre Edition which
supports 32 way SMP.
"severely limit its use in the future" How many home users do you know what
have a 2 way SMP system, let alone more?
Jeff Preou
play with I did an online registration and now I get emailed
notification of patches. Presumably, if I still had the RedHat box
running, then I would be able to do a LiveUpdate kind of thing ?
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:55:59 +1300, "Nathan Mercer"
<nathan@**(*(*IHATESPAM*(**(K!!!mcs.co.nz> wrote:
>If linux wants to rise beyond the geeky tar pit, they're gonna have to get
>serious about patch deployment strategies too...
>
Jeff
Jeff Preou
I'll be able to get stuck in when I'm ready.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 21:46:50 +1300, Peter <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
Jeff
Kenneth
wrote:
>sounds like a smart move, having skills in both MS and Linux systems should
>be valuable for you.
>I found Linux is very different, especially after using MS software for
>years and years. When you get to it, start with an easy distro like
>Mandrake or Redhat, be sure to read lots of books and magazines, and read
>the linux news groups (like comp.os.linux.misc and comp.os.linux.advocacy).
I've never found any *.advocacy* isn't worth the time it takes to
read. The rest of the comp.os.linux.* heirachy was still worth reading
a few years ago but no idea what is it like now.
Email lists are the best source. The NZLUG one found at linux.net.nz
is one of best I've come across. Much more friendlier than anything
to be found on Usenet, and is localised too.
Kenneth
<nathan@**(*(*IHATESPAM*(**(K!!!mcs.co.nz> wrote:
Nathan you're funny. No really. I've had like 3 Linux systems
exploited in >= 8 years Nathan. 1 was being I thought it was late I
want to go home and I'll patch tomorrow. My fault 100%,
Wish to how guess who many Microsoft powered boxes I've had to
fix/recover/restore cure to some morons idea of security?
Man get with the plot. Linux now supports ACLs that blow the crap out
of anything Microsoft have on the market. They are niche things and
take alot of mental effort to get right. They are however here and
now. r00t is dead.
Jeff Preou
and am repeating *exactly* what they told us. Seeing the two logical
processors is not the same as making full use of them. The document
you reference does seem to confirm this, though I have not read it
fully.
Jeff
Enkidu
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Enkidu had trolled into nz.comp and left a
>bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>>>And besides, you could always use FTP over TCP/IP.
>>>
>> ...or scp.
>
"secure cp". The secure equivalent of cp over a network:
scp cliffp@machine1:/home/cliffp/testfile cliff@machine2:/home/cliff
This copies (using ssh) the file testfile in /home/cliffp on machine1
using the account cliffp to the directory /home/cliff on machine2
using the ccount cliff.
If you prefer a gui, you could use winscp.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The Nats held a Party and no one came.
Aum
> Browsing a web page is an OUTBOUND connection. There are no limits to
> outbound connections.
What I was talking about was using an XP-based computer as a home server.
In that case, you're limited to 4 embedded objects per web page.
If the home-hosted site gets popular, then the site will be effectively
unreachable much or most of the time.
This is like a scam that Wang had running in the '80s.
Customers would pay thousands of $$$ for a Wang VS processor upgrade.
Tech would come in and take out the processor board, replacing it with
another card. The replacement card was identical to the original card,
except for a jumper in a different position. The original card would be
taken back to the workshop, the jumper changed in 2 seconds flat, ready for
sale to the next sucker.
What's getting right up my nose with M$ and the whole proprietary software
trip is this 'pay for functionality' thing. Such *fraud* to have to pay
more for something that doesn't cost any extra to produce.
To bring it closer to home - imagine having a car that does 32 miles/gallon.
Imagine yourself paying for the car, running it through its life cycle,
then selling it, only to find out later that you could have flicked a
switch underneath the motor which would have given you 48 miles/gallon and
more power to boot. Who in their right mind wouldn't feel ripped off by
that!?
A
mcbean
Thats what your cable modem does, or your cable TV decoder. all the
enabling of higher speeds or more channels is accomplished by sending
codes.
Shareware is free, but greater functionality is provided when you pay the
registration etc.
Its not an unusual model.
You pay for the outcome you want.
(or you use samba apache proftpd etc)
steve
>
> There is an interesting article in today's newspaper about the Windows XP
> Home EULA. (Interesting 'cos I don't use XP.) It says Win XP has these
> limitations.
>
> 1) Win XP can only be used on a single processor PC.
> 2) Win XP can only be used on a network of 5 or fewer devices. (Each
> printer counts as a device.)
> 3) Microsoft has the right to collect data from the PC.
>
> Any _one_ of these is enough for me to choose another OS.
> In fact, I consider these terms to be unreasonably biased in favour of the
> vendor, which supports Aum's earlier post that legislation should make
> EULA's invalid in some circumstances.
>
>
> Peter
My nephew called today to say he had moved to Linux....having read the EULA
(at long last) and other things. In particular, he refused to accept that
Microsoft could access his system at any time and change software /
digital rights without his knowledge.
I've been talking to him about Linux for almost 4 years.....so him making
the move is a major event.
Steve
steve
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:35:06 +1300, Jeff Preou <jpr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I believe, though I haven't actually checked, that there is also a
>>part that states that only MS software such as Remote Desktop or
>>Terminal Services [client] can be used to 'remote control' a WinXP
>>machine. This makes software such as VNC technically 'illegal' for
>>WinXP.
>>
>>Like I said, this is second-hand info that I haven't actually checked
>>so feel free to correct me. But, if this *is* the case then likely as
>>not hundreds or thousands of sys admins will be breaching the EULA !
>>
> Hmm, why use VNC over RDP? RDP is much smoother and faster.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
Does RDP work on Linux?
Nathan Mercer
> Scott Lemon wrote:
>
> > Browsing a web page is an OUTBOUND connection. There are no limits to
> > outbound connections.
>
> What I was talking about was using an XP-based computer as a home server.
>
> In that case, you're limited to 4 embedded objects per web page.
You've got the wrong end of the stick. The limit is combined together then
counted against each device - any 5 machines can make as many connections as
they like to a XP Home box, or 10 to a XP Pro box.
Scott posted a KB article
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314882 which
explains this:
"All logical drive, logical printer, and transport level connections
combined from a single computer are considered to be one session"
steve
I asked about RDPon Linux because the folks I know who use VNC use to
allow a Linux system to control a WinXP system. This is an ad hoc way of
allowing the Linux system to "use" some Windows-only software when the
occasional need arises.
I think they can also control the Linux PC from Win XP, though the only
guy I know who tried this couldn't get the two to talk Win XP VNC to
Linux, but Linux to Win XP worked fine.
Nathan Mercer
"steve" <st...@nospam.org.nz> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.12.30...@nospam.org.nz...
> Does RDP work on Linux?
Not a Microsoft version, but there is an RDP client for *nix
http://www.rdesktop.org/
Aum
> Thats what your cable modem does, or your cable TV decoder. all the
> enabling of higher speeds or more channels is accomplished by sending
> codes.
Not quite comparable in the case of the cable modem, because bandwidth is
still a scarce and expensive resource.
As for cable TV, I have no plans to subscribe. But on my 'to-do' list is the
task of sourcing a decoder board and installing a dish to decode the vision
on the Sky UHF channels :)
> Shareware is free, but greater functionality is provided when you pay the
> registration etc.
What's shareware? :)
> Its not an unusual model.
Sadly, no.
> You pay for the outcome you want.
Yes - you do pay for the outcome you want.
But you get to choose the currency.
Most people, locked into the Cult of Instant Gratification, choose to pay in
cash and, in many cases, keep paying and paying and paying.
Others choose to pay in intelligence, innovation, willingness to learn,
openness to new paradigms.
> (or you use samba apache proftpd etc)
That's what I do - they're great! :)
A
Jeff Preou
a) the crap or unscrupulous salesperson not selling the correct
product to the user because they either don't know, don't ask, or
don't care (often all three !)
and/or
b) the user's "fault" for not researching first, or not telling the
saleperson exactly what they *need* to do with their computer. And, of
course, those that suddenly realise the computer can do more than type
letters after they bought it.
It's an education thing. If you are going to spend $1000-$5000 on a PC
then do some digging first...
What MS is doing is no different to other popular software makers eg
ZoneAlarm / ZoneAlarm Pro, three versions of Eudora, FreeAgent /
Agent, the list goes on and on.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:00:03 GMT, Lennier <Pleas...@Use.Email>
wrote:
>This is quite arbitarily done to make more money for Micro$oft - by
>including the knobbled version when you buy the computer and then forcing
>you to buy the more expensive version once you discover that the first
>version isn't up to the job!
>
>
>Lennier
Jeff Preou
PC how the hell are they supposed to know what patches, hotfixes, etc
you have and/or need ?
Come on Einstein, we're all waiting...???
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 00:03:02 -1100, "steve" <st...@nospam.org.nz>
wrote:
>My nephew called today to say he had moved to Linux....having read the EULA
>(at long last) and other things. In particular, he refused to accept that
>Microsoft could access his system at any time and change software /
>digital rights without his knowledge.
>
>I've been talking to him about Linux for almost 4 years.....so him making
>the move is a major event.
>
>Steve
Jeff
steve
...............> news:aunnjq$8mb7o$1...@ID-132751.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> There is an interesting article in today's newspaper about the Windows
>> XP Home EULA. (Interesting 'cos I don't use XP.) It says Win XP has
>> these limitations.
>>
>> 1) Win XP can only be used on a single processor PC.
>
> which HAS support for multi CPU
...and costs the better part of NZ$1000 for a full copy. Unless you pirate
it.....which is what most people seem to do.
A HOME user might want to crunch SETI@HOME work units on a multi-processor
PC. Nice of Microsoft to decide for home users that they can't do
multi-processor unless they want to fork out huge dollars.
Of course, they can run multi-processor on Linux - for free - no problem.
Just another reason for yet another group of home users to dump Windows.
>> 2) Win XP can only be used on a network of 5 or fewer devices. (Each
>> printer counts as a device.)
>
> again the HOME product
> hands up who has more then 5 PC's networked at home ( the printers
> connect to the PC usb so not on the network)
> I do but have the Pro version so my network toaster is fine
I have 9 PCs on my home network. 7 run Linux exclusively, one Win98SE and
one WinME. I have WinXP Home here, but it's been on the shelf for most of a
year now.
>> 3) Microsoft has the right to collect data from the PC.
>
> well if they collected data and did not mention it the Americans will
> sue MS for not telling them
> guess it's fair they mention it
...and equally fair for users to decide they won't have it...and to move
to alternatives. Of course, most people simply aren't paying attention -
being, by nature, hedgehogs on the highway of life. But occasionally the
light bulb goes on over their heads and they realise the implications of
all this.....and begin to check out alternatives.
Like my nephew...who moved to Linux this week...having realised where all
this is heading. He's also a programmer at a major insurance house....and
in a position to influence future platform choices. His comment to me:
"Looks like we will have to invest more in Linux going forward".
> of course when you do an update at MS it NEEDS to send data about your
> system and updates you already have
> kinda makes sense would you like to have to download the whole lot each
> time you update?
There is far more to it than that. They reserve the right to mess with
your operating system and digital rights managment without your knowledge
or explicit permission. Many people will have clicked "agree" on the new
EULA that came with Windows Media Player 7.1 without realising what they
had given permission for.
When they figure it out.....the trouble will start.
Jeff Preou
I'm sure the Linux boys will do it soon enough though...
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:14:42 GMT, Lennier <Pleas...@Use.Email>
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Jeff Preou had trolled into nz.comp and left
>a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> The HT vs non-HT demos were pretty impressive and my next PC will
>> definitely be an HT compliant one.
>
>What OSes other than Windoze can use this HyperThreading?
>
>I ask this, because I am not buying or installing any new M$ software.
>
>
>Lennier
steve
> On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that James West had trolled into nz.comp and left
> a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> awaiting Helen to take on MS? should be fun
>
> The worst that Micro$oft could do against our government is to say it
> cannot use Micro$oft software.
>
> This will hurt Micro$oft worse than it would hurt the government - because
> there are several good open source options available - all of which could
> entirely replace all Micro$oft's software.
>
> And, if the Government moved over to OSS, then the business community would
> follow - especially if legeslation specified that open standards and
> formats had to be used.
The Government *should* mandate Open Source (on any platform - including
Windows) if they truly want a knowledge economy.
It would kick start a domestic software programming industry unlike sany other
single measure could.
Nathan Mercer
"Lennier" <Pleas...@Use.Email> wrote in message
> On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Nathan Mercer had trolled into nz.comp and
> left a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
> > physical processor, whereas Windows .NET Server and Windows XP which
> > are Hyper-Threading-Aware Operating Systems count each physical HT
> > processor as a single processor and both logical processors are
> > utilized by the operating system.
>
> reality they are substantially the same but with bugfixes, and a plastic
> skin added and a few new "features".
Its called software development, your point being?
Windows .NET Server 2003 represents around about 3 years of development work
to the Windows 2000 codebase.
And the difference between this and for example, Redhat 6.0, 7.0, 7.2, 7.3,
8.0 is?
NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0, 5.2
Nathan Mercer
"Lennier" <Pleas...@Use.Email> wrote in message
> On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Nathan Mercer had trolled into nz.comp and
> left a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
> > know what have a 2 way SMP system, let alone more?
>
> of RAM being more than enough?
The future? Windows runs on up to 32 CPUs today, but we're talking about a
home OS here. Realistically how many home users have a single cpu vs dual
cpu SMP vs larger SMP.
Why waste all this time complaining about something that isn't affecting
anyone, or are you planning to bring a 32 way Xeon or Itanium2 Unisys ES7000
http://www.unisys.com/es7000 home for the weekend and install Windows XP
Home Edition on it?
steve
>
> "Lennier" <Pleas...@Use.Email> wrote in message
> news:Xns92F56674...@203.96.92.12...
>> On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Nathan Mercer had trolled into nz.comp and
>> left a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>>
>> > "severely limit its use in the future" How many home users do you
>> > know what have a 2 way SMP system, let alone more?
>>
>> Now, Nathan, don't you remember what your Guru Sahib Gates said about 640k
>> of RAM being more than enough?
>
> The future? Windows runs on up to 32 CPUs today, but we're talking about a
> home OS here. Realistically how many home users have a single cpu vs dual
> cpu SMP vs larger SMP.
Many home users enthusiastically participate in distributed computing
projects like Seti@Home.
Many sysadmins like to use at home systems with lots of power.
Microsoft is forcing them to either pirate the software or use Linux. I
know htey COULD pay for WinXP Pro....but I don't know any who actualy do
for home use.
In dictating what high-end home users can do, MS is pushing these
opinion-leaders and early adopters to other platforms.
Fine by me, but it will hurt MS in the long run.
> Why waste all this time complaining about something that isn't affecting
> anyone, or are you planning to bring a 32 way Xeon or Itanium2 Unisys ES7000
> http://www.unisys.com/es7000 home for the weekend and install Windows XP
> Home Edition on it?
A dual CPU system is what most home users I know with SMP have.
Steve
pa...@msunix.org
> On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Nathan Mercer had trolled into nz.comp and
> left a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
> > as you like. It will only use the first one.
>
> In otherwords, it's a crap OS that can't make full use of the hardware
> available to it!
>
>
> > 2. Only 5 concurrent inbound connections are allowed to the Windows XP
> > Home machine
>
> Why this microsoft silly limitation?
>
because they're a company that needs to make money. open source is great n
all, but it doesn't pay for my rent.
why bitch about microsoft anyway? you have a choice of operating systems!
steve
> On 31 Dec 2002, I vada'd that steve had trolled into nz.comp and left a
> bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> There is far more to it than that. They reserve the right to mess with
>> your operating system and digital rights managment without your knowledge
>> or explicit permission. Many people will have clicked "agree" on the new
>> EULA that came with Windows Media Player 7.1 without realising what they
>> had given permission for.
>
> What useful-to-the-user functionality does WMP 7.1 provide which is not
> already provided by WMP 6.4?
I don't know. I only use WMP 6.4 on Linux via the Crossover Plugin (WINE).
I know that Microsoft's sites check for ActiveX responses - and people
using browsers other than MS IE will not be able to give them, so they
can't access that content.
You'll see the media player trying to access 'activex.msn.com' just before
it craps out on playing it.
That's fine....sites like that aren't on my Internet. We might be only 10%
of all users - but that's still tens of millions of people.
Steve
steve
> On 31 Dec 2002, I vada'd that steve had trolled into nz.comp and left a
> bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> I have 9 PCs on my home network. 7 run Linux exclusively, one Win98SE
>> and one WinME. I have WinXP Home here, but it's been on the shelf for
>> most of a year now.
>
> Nice to hear! :o)
I read about the beta of SP1 and the articles foreshadowing the new EULA
and Imade the decision to "legacy" Windows at the WinME level.
No new Windows will run here. I don't knowingly use spyware from any
vendor - and I don't allow my OS to become spyware through blackmail.
Linux does everything I want it to do except video capture from my
USB-based Pinnacle Studio PCTV. There are Linux drivers for the PCI
version, but not for the USB version.
Steve
mcbean
> mcbean wrote:
>
>> Thats what your cable modem does, or your cable TV decoder. all the
>> enabling of higher speeds or more channels is accomplished by sending
>> codes.
>
> Not quite comparable in the case of the cable modem, because bandwidth is
> still a scarce and expensive resource.
Its not scarce locally on Saturns cable network.
Its just crippling a piece of technology
solely to enforce price tiering, as Microsoft does with XP
>
> As for cable TV, I have no plans to subscribe. But on my 'to-do' list is the
> task of sourcing a decoder board and installing a dish to decode the vision
> on the Sky UHF channels :)
<shultz> I see nothing ;) </shultz>
mustn´t.....hack......cable......box......noooo
>
>> Shareware is free, but greater functionality is provided when you pay the
>> registration etc.
>
> What's shareware? :)
>
>> Its not an unusual model.
>
> Sadly, no.
>
>> You pay for the outcome you want.
>
> Yes - you do pay for the outcome you want.
> But you get to choose the currency.
> Most people, locked into the Cult of Instant Gratification, choose to pay in
> cash and, in many cases, keep paying and paying and paying.
>
> Others choose to pay in intelligence, innovation, willingness to learn,
> openness to new paradigms.
>
>> (or you use samba apache proftpd etc)
>
> That's what I do - they're great! :)
>
Of course.
I can´t see the point of buying an all singing dancing multimedia home
client hot boys toy XP thingy then using it as a server where a cheap and
cheerful ol discarded p2 witha cheap fat HD and Debian will do it so much
better with no activation registration and fuss. All it is is a way of
attaching a hard disk to a network card ffs.
steve
Which he is forced to exercise because the dominant OS vendor keeps
forcing unwanted and restrictive conditions on its customers.
His choice isn't necessarily a positive one. One might say that many users
are being pushed off Windows by licensing conditions they can no longer
simply accept - or ignore.
That isn't "choice".
steve
> On 31 Dec 2002, I vada'd that had trolled into nz.comp and left a bona
> messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> because they're a company that needs to make money. open source is
>> great n all, but it doesn't pay for my rent.
>
> Being Open Source doesn't preclude you from making money off of what *you*
> produce - The GPL just requires you to publish the source code to any
> alterations you make to the software you have chosen to use and modify.
>
> Lennier
...and re-distribute.
Aum
>> Not quite comparable in the case of the cable modem, because bandwidth
>> is still a scarce and expensive resource.
>
> Only because Telecom is deliberately restricting it's availability.
Strong accusation. Not that I'd be one to flame you, because it wouldn't
surprise me.
But, can you qualify the accusation?
In what way do you feel they're 'deliberately restricting'?
Do you mean through hyper-inflated monopolistic pricing, orders of magnitude
above cost?
Or do you mean that they're keeping most of the SCC un-lit, and creating an
artificial bandwidth shortage?
Or some other dirty tricks?
I'd be interested to know more.
A
Kenneth
wrote:
>> Hmm, why use VNC over RDP? RDP is much smoother and faster.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Cliff
>
>Does RDP work on Linux?
There is an open source RDP client. It aint as great and grand as the
MS ones but it is getting better.
pa...@msunix.org
> produce - The GPL just requires you to publish the source code to any
> alterations you make to the software you have chosen to use and modify.
so if someone wants to make a product on a per licence basis, they're not
going
to release the source code are they?
pa...@msunix.org
"Lennier" <Pleas...@Use.Email> wrote in message
> On 31 Dec 2002, I vada'd that had trolled into nz.comp and left a bona
> messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
> > great n all, but it doesn't pay for my rent.
>
> produce - The GPL just requires you to publish the source code to any
> alterations you make to the software you have chosen to use and modify.
assuming your product is licenced under the GPL right?
pa...@msunix.org
n
> > all, but it doesn't pay for my rent.
> > why bitch about microsoft anyway? you have a choice of operating
systems!
>
> Which he is forced to exercise because the dominant OS vendor keeps
> forcing unwanted and restrictive conditions on its customers.
right, so you have the choice to move to another operating system.
> His choice isn't necessarily a positive one. One might say that many users
> are being pushed off Windows by licensing conditions they can no longer
> simply accept - or ignore.
>
> That isn't "choice".
microsoft have a product, if people don't like it they can move elsewhere. i
bet 90% of desktop users
don't even read the EULA or care what it says, they just want to do their
day to day work.
mcbean
Someone selling a service on a per licence basis may be quite happy to
though.
For instance
Red Hat Network Basic service level: $60/year per system subscription
Red Hat Network Basic service provides software management, priority
service, and access to Instant ISOs (full versions of Red Hat Linux) for
individuals with one or more systems. A Basic subscription is required for
each system supported on Red Hat Network. A Basic subscription to Red Hat
Network provides:
* Email notifications of available updates (errata) * Flexible
scheduling of updates
* Delivery of the actual updated files (packages) * Summaries of
update results
Kenneth
wrote:
>The Government *should* mandate Open Source (on any platform - including
>Windows) if they truly want a knowledge economy.
This knowledge stuff is crap. Is it too late to go back to a "skills"
based economy ?
>It would kick start a domestic software programming industry unlike sany other
>single measure could.
So who is going to pay for someone to bum out code that nobody
inparticular will own ?
Kenneth
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Kenneth had trolled into nz.comp and left a
>bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> There would seem to be a large number of computer users that are both
>> simultaneously incompetent and technically savvy.
>
>Most of the people I know who use computers are completely incompetant when
>it comes to even installing a simple piece of software or altering their IP
>settings - or even installing a simple font.
Like so am I when it comes to fixing a car. I know a number of uber
nerds that don't have a license for a private motor vehicle primarily
because they can't/don't drive. They pay someone else to do it
What is your point ?
I use Windows primarily for a desktop, because despite it crapping out
and giving me headaches on rare occasions I don't as a rule have to
piss around getting things working that don't interest me.
I use a somewhat modified/customised Linux as well as more traditional
Unix like systems for servers, development and generally having fun.
To me fun is what Linux is all about. I got better things to worry
about than saving the world from Microsoft.
If Linux wasn't fun I wouldn't bother with it due to the excessive
hype. Reminds me of all those Team OS/who weenies that preached the
logos on any Fidonet forum they could get there hands on.
What little box would you like me to fit in ?
The little money that I'm making trying to get out on my own is
largely Wintel based, mostly because I don't have to go and look that
hard for it.
>Micro$oft's principle target is the incompetent.
And this is the same reason Linux fanatics are wanting to dumb down
Linux so anyone can install it and get it working.
Kenneth
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Nathan Mercer had trolled into nz.comp and
>left a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> "severely limit its use in the future" How many home users do you
>> know what have a 2 way SMP system, let alone more?
>
>Now, Nathan, don't you remember what your Guru Sahib Gates said about 640k
>of RAM being more than enough?
It wasn't Bill Gates that said that. The man's names get shit on
enough without this trash.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15180
pa...@msunix.org
"Lennier" <Pleas...@Use.Email> wrote in message
> On 31 Dec 2002, I vada'd that had trolled into nz.comp and left a bona
> messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
not
> > going
> > to release the source code are they?
>
if i make a product where you pay a licence per machine and i release the
source code, no
one is going to buy my licences are they?
Peter
>
> What useful-to-the-user functionality does WMP 7.1 provide which is not
> already provided by WMP 6.4?
WMP.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/25956.html
Peter
steve
You could pay for the support (developmental and operational).....and if
Government or business were to adopt software locally written, the
software would/could come with a support contract, with the value of the
contract based on the needs of the company providing the support,plus a
profit, rather than the number of copies in use.
steve
> On 31 Dec 2002, I vada'd that steve had trolled into nz.comp and left a
> bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> Linux does everything I want it to do except video capture from my
>> USB-based Pinnacle Studio PCTV. There are Linux drivers for the PCI
>> version, but not for the USB version.
>
> Actually, that's something I should check out.
>
> I'm intending to upgrade my video capture card to the top-of-the-line model
> sometime next/this year. I will need to check for Linux drivers to ensure
> that I can future-proof that investment.
>
>
> Lennier
There definitely are top of the line Linux-based video capture and
production tools. It's the low-end where you have to make do with
half-maintained alpha drivers (like the Pinnacle PCI ones).
I wrote to Pinnacle and they said they had no plans for Linux at this
time.
But then, a lot of companies who now support Linux have said that in the
past. :-)
steve
If you use GPL code in your product, you don't have much choice, unless
you can somehow separate the two in implementation. Like....these 5 DLLs
are GPL'd and these 3 others aren't.
The GPL Is designed to prevent others taking the freely shared work of
others - and seeking to sequester all profit from that work to themselves.
The GPL is about recognising the donated work of others to you by
requiring you to also donate your work in return so that they may also
benefit - as you would have done. There isn't money in that necessarily,
but there is a HUGE saving in development costs - potentially - but
allowing you to build on the work of potentially thousands of others.
For 'free'.
The problem is at the start in a given area. I mean...if htere are only 3
programmers on Earth who are working in that area, supporting the Linux
version, and the demand proves to be huge.......then they can put in an
awfully large amount of time for no or low monetary return. That isn't
always the case, though. The German guy who was selling his excellent SB
Live support for US$10 a pop (cheap!) made a boatload of money for a few
years - until the community effort caught up with his work....But then the
burden of support no longer rests almost exclusively on his shoulders.
steve
>> Steve Wrote:
>> His choice isn't necessarily a positive one. One might say that many users
>> are being pushed off Windows by licensing conditions they can no longer
>> simply accept - or ignore.
>>
>> That isn't "choice".
>
> microsoft have a product, if people don't like it they can move elsewhere. i
> bet 90% of desktop users
> don't even read the EULA or care what it says, they just want to do their
> day to day work.
You can't actually count anyone who has no idea what the MS EULA says. They
can't be said to have in any way made an informed choice. They are the
hedgehogs on the highway of life.
Their moment of choice lies ahead of them should they ever find out how
exposed they are legally and operationally.
steve
> And besides, you could release the source code on a "look-but-don't-touch"
> basis if you wanted to.
>
> Lennier
Posted at 4:22am.
Don't you sleep?
cowboyz
> >> 1) Win XP can only be used on a single processor PC.
> >
> > Err Yes this is the HOME version you want SMP you use the PRO product
> > which HAS support for multi CPU
>
> ...and costs the better part of NZ$1000 for a full copy. Unless you pirate
> it.....which is what most people seem to do.
>
> A HOME user might want to crunch SETI@HOME work units on a multi-processor
> PC. Nice of Microsoft to decide for home users that they can't do
> multi-processor unless they want to fork out huge dollars.
A typical Linux advocates attitute. Let's take Jetstream for instance.
Let's say I have jetstart. All tests on my line indicate that I am able to
download at 8Mbs. Why the hell can I only get 128k out of it!
Outrageous!!!!! I think it is totally unreasonable that I should have to
pay for the service and equipment that will do the job for me. They should
give it to me for a lower price because I am a god.
>
> Of course, they can run multi-processor on Linux - for free - no problem.
No one EVER said that windows was the *only* software that could run
multi-processors. Microsoft is a business. They are there to make money
and do a damn fine job of it. No body HAS to buy MS products. However if
you want to do a certain job then you get the software that is appropriate
for you. Then comes RESEARCH!! Decide the best/cheapest option for you.
Sometimes the best option is not also the cheapest option. Sometimes we
compromise because the added cost does not seem worth it.
>
> Just another reason for yet another group of home users to dump Windows.
No not really. Maybe a few more people will start looking at other options
but charging more for winXP PRO than winXP HOME is hardly going to be MS's
downfall.
cowboyz
"Lennier" <Pleas...@Use.Email> wrote in message
> On 31 Dec 2002, I vada'd that steve had trolled into nz.comp and left a
> bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
> > your operating system and digital rights managment without your
knowledge
> > or explicit permission. Many people will have clicked "agree" on the new
> > EULA that came with Windows Media Player 7.1 without realising what they
> > had given permission for.
>
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
You want to re-read that?
Many people have agreed to something and then do not realise what they have
given permission for?
You are blaming MS for this?
IDIOT!
If people can't read a EULA then they *definitely* do not want to goto Linux
with all the reading required to get that setup.
cowboyz
"Lennier" <Pleas...@Use.Email> wrote in message
news:Xns92F5C1CE...@203.96.92.12...
> On 31 Dec 2002, I vada'd that steve had trolled into nz.comp and left a
> bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
> > There is far more to it than that. They reserve the right to mess with
> > your operating system and digital rights managment without your
knowledge
> > or explicit permission. Many people will have clicked "agree" on the new
> > EULA that came with Windows Media Player 7.1 without realising what they
> > had given permission for.
>
Oh yeah, forgot to mention. You know that you do not *have* to download
WMP7 just because it is there aye?
cowboyz
"Kenneth" <manic_m...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:f6h01v40ae0ercnfb...@4ax.com...
I think we should start a communist state.
blazer
GMT:
>On 30 Dec 2002, I vada'd that Nathan Mercer had trolled into nz.comp and
>left a bona messagette; to which I have responded as follows:
>
>> If linux wants to rise beyond the geeky tar pit, they're gonna have to
>> get serious about patch deployment strategies too.
>
>That is on the way - altho' RPMs and tarballs make this task much easier
>than what is possible under Windows.
I can upgrade my Debian or FreeBSD systems, including kernel upgrades,
security patches, *and* all the installed applications, with a single
command. How much easier can it get? :)
blazer
You might want to ask http://www.thekompany.com
They sell software packages, some GPL'd and some with their own
proprietary code which also comes with source.
blazer
Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:12:36 +1300:
>
>"Peter" <nospa...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:aup0ai$9276k$1...@ID-132751.news.dfncis.de...
>> James West wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From what you say, it looks like it is substantively correct;
>> >> - XP can only use one processor
>> >
>> > agreed
>> >
>> > XPPRO can use MORE THAN ONE
>>
>> The article says XP pro can only use 2 processors, which "will severely
>> limit its use in the future". Apparently other operating systems can
>> already handle more than 2 processors.
>
>Like Windows 2000 and Windows .NET Server 2003 Datacentre Edition which
>supports 32 way SMP.
>
>"severely limit its use in the future" How many home users do you know what
>have a 2 way SMP system, let alone more?
>
Well then if home users don't need it anyway, why have the limitation?
Jeff Preou
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:27:32 GMT, Lennier <Pleas...@Use.Email>
wrote:
>I recomend a book called "Linux Complete" - it's a bitsa book - bits of
>this and bits of that from various other good books, and it has enough of
>everything sufficiently well explained to help you get your head around
>Linux - at least to start with.
>
>Lennier
Jeff
--
Don't bother replying to jpr...@hotmail.com - it's a spam-catch
You may, if you wish, send mail to "news" at "preou" dot "c-o-m"
(not the hotmail address - I don't check it)
Richard Busby
>
> any GPL code that you may have included within your own product. The rest
> of it you can keep as closed as you like.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the GPL, but I was under the impression that if
I took some GPL code that you'd written and incorporated it into a program
I'm writing, then I'd have to release the entire source code to my program
under the GPL too. You say that I'd be able to keep my code closed and only
distribute your portion of the code?
nVidia removed a version of their Linux drivers from production when they
found out that it contained a portion of GPL'd code - and I believe that was
because they faced the alternative of having to release the entire driver
under the GPL.
Correct me if I'm wrong :)
Cheers
Richard