LFS Team, What is wrong with these guys.

My hard drive crashed and I had to reinstall, so I emailed them and asked for another key code, and still after 3 days have had no response.

Doesn't your original key code work? mjones53 wrote: > My hard drive crashed and I had to reinstall, so I emailed them and asked > for another key code, and still after 3 days have had no response. > >

"mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > My hard drive crashed and I had to reinstall, so I emailed them andasked > for another key code, and still after 3 days have had no response. Have you tried the unlock section on their website? I guess they are just busy atm with the new patch. Malc.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:53 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote: >Doesn't your original key code work? You have a limited numbers of keys, they can each be used once, and there's no way to "unlicense" the software like you can with eLicense products. So basically if you reformat or have a crash, etc, you're screwed. I haven't played LFS in 3+ months because I'm out of keys and dunno if it's worth the hassle to get a new one. Jason

How can you tell how many keys you have (left)? Marc "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:53 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Doesn't your original key code work? > > You have a limited numbers of keys, they can each be used once, and > there's no way to "unlicense" the software like you can with eLicense > products. So basically if you reformat or have a crash, etc, you're > screwed. I haven't played LFS in 3+ months because I'm out of keys > and dunno if it's worth the hassle to get a new one. > > Jason

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:00:53 GMT, Destroy <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Doesn't your original key code work? > > You have a limited numbers of keys, they can each be used once, and > there's no way to "unlicense" the software like you can with eLicense > products. So basically if you reformat or have a crash, etc, you're > screwed. I haven't played LFS in 3+ months because I'm out of keys > and dunno if it's worth the hassle to get a new one. > > Jason

Interesting. I've had the game since S1 came out. I have two keys left. I thought also that not only do you get three keys but that your keys reset after a month (or maybe longer) so that after a time you will again have three keys, or something like that. Alanb

> > Interesting. I've had the game since S1 came out. I have two keys left.I > thought also that not only do you get three keys but that your keys reset > after a month (or maybe longer) so that after a time you will again have > three keys, or something like that. > > Alanb > I just checked the web site, which says, to wit, "You are not restricted to 3 keys only - every month you automatically get a new spare key, in case you have problems with your computer." Alanb

In article <eQ7Cb.20296$[email hidden]>, Malc says... > I guess they are just busy atm with the new patch. Or sending keys around :) -- Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. ICQ: 138579247

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:57:19 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>You have a limited numbers of keys, they can each be used once, and >there's no way to "unlicense" the software like you can with eLicense >products. So basically if you reformat or have a crash, etc, you're >screwed. I haven't played LFS in 3+ months because I'm out of keys >and dunno if it's worth the hassle to get a new one. > >Jason

What a stupid scheme that is. Almost as stupid as the wargame company that made the keycode tied to your harddrive's serial number. Change HDD and you need a new code. Company went belly up in about one month after releasing their first game. Anyone who bought that game is now screwed when they change the HDD.

The wonderful world of Product Activation. For me, they went from Hero to Zero by incorporating this bullshit at the last moment. I bought it, but I haven't run it much. Once I found out about the product activation I just didn't see it the same way as before. LFS was much more than just a game. It was a new way of doing things. People were happy. It was somewhat of a community between the developers and the users. The product activation bullshit was a stab in the eye. Ask Intuit. Ask Symantec. And don't be around me when I upgrade my NIC drivers on my Home Machine, and I have to call Microsoft every time because it pisses off XP's Product Activation, and I spend the next 10 minutes reading off and writing down 50 digit numbers over the telephone. Just my opinion. Not out to change anyone elses, nor is anyone else required to try and change mine. I absolutely detest these draconian copy protection scheme's that cause neverending issues for paying users. -Larry "mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > My hard drive crashed and I had to reinstall, so I emailed them and asked > for another key code, and still after 3 days have had no response. > >

Are you speaking from experience or conjecture? I have never had to reactivate XP due to drivers. I also have upgraded everything but the drives and video card since installing XP and did not have to reactivate. New CPU, new mobo, new RAM, new NIC, new audio adapter, no problems. "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1QkCb.3695$hf1.2978@lakeread06... > > And don't be around me when I upgrade my NIC drivers on my Home Machine,and > I have to call Microsoft every time because it pisses off XP's Product > Activation, and I spend the next 10 minutes reading off and writing down50 > digit numbers over the telephone. >

"mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:vti03b5dr1sa98 @corp.supernews.com: > My hard drive crashed and I had to reinstall, so I emailed them and asked > for another key code, and still after 3 days have had no response. > > You should be able to do it via the website now, rather than requesting by email. cheers John

Haqsau wrote: > > Are you speaking from experience or conjecture? I have never had to > reactivate XP due to drivers. I also have upgraded everything but the > drives and video card since installing XP and did not have to reactivate. > New CPU, new mobo, new RAM, new NIC, new audio adapter, no problems. He runs the limited edition "let's piss off Larry" version :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:15:36 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Just my opinion. Not out to change anyone elses, nor is anyone else >required to try and change mine. I absolutely detest these draconian copy >protection scheme's that cause neverending issues for paying users. > >-Larry Here's a nice one for you. The game 'Enigma: Rising Tide' requires a keycode to install the game and then it has a second keycode to be able play MP.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:50:26 -0500, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Are you speaking from experience or conjecture? I have never had to >reactivate XP due to drivers. I also have upgraded everything but the >drives and video card since installing XP and did not have to reactivate. >New CPU, new mobo, new RAM, new NIC, new audio adapter, no problems. Yea, so, you've been lucky. I never had any problems until one day I installed XP to a different HDD and for no reason it wouldn't allow me to activate over the internet. It said I had installed it too many times for the period which was BS because it's my understanding you can install it six times within a six month period. I had installed it maybe twice in six months. I had to phone MS and explain to them why I was reinstalling XP. As if it's any of their fucking business why. Then the dork on the phone asked me if it was XP Pro or Home. You know why that is, huh? Because it is the Pro version that is pirated and not Home. Mine is Home.They gotta lose the Big Brother attitude.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Yea, so, you've been lucky. I never had any problems until one day I > installed XP to a different HDD and for no reason it wouldn't allow me > to activate over the internet. It said I had installed it too many > times for the period which was BS because it's my understanding you > can install it six times within a six month period. I had installed it > maybe twice in six months. I had to phone MS and explain to them why I > was reinstalling XP. As if it's any of their fucking business why. > Then the dork on the phone asked me if it was XP Pro or Home. You know > why that is, huh? Because it is the Pro version that is pirated and > not Home. Mine is Home.They gotta lose the Big Brother attitude.

It's just to scare you. You can make up any bullshit reason and they'll let you reactivate

Experience. I've been through it many times, like I said in my original post. -Larry "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Are you speaking from experience or conjecture? I have never had to > reactivate XP due to drivers. I also have upgraded everything but the > drives and video card since installing XP and did not have to reactivate. > New CPU, new mobo, new RAM, new NIC, new audio adapter, no problems. > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:1QkCb.3695$hf1.2978@lakeread06... > > > > And don't be around me when I upgrade my NIC drivers on my Home Machine, > and > > I have to call Microsoft every time because it pisses off XP's Product > > Activation, and I spend the next 10 minutes reading off and writing down > 50 > > digit numbers over the telephone. > > > >

Jeez :) -Larry "Luxor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:15:36 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >Just my opinion. Not out to change anyone elses, nor is anyone else > >required to try and change mine. I absolutely detest these draconiancopy

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >protection scheme's that cause neverending issues for paying users. > > > >-Larry > > Here's a nice one for you. The game 'Enigma: Rising Tide' requires a > keycode to install the game and then it has a second keycode to be > able play MP.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:21:27 -0500, "frederickson" <[email hidden]> wrote: >It's just to scare you. You can make up any bullshit reason and they'll let >you reactivate > Yea, but I wonder what would happen if I said, "it's none of your goddamn business why I am reinstalling XP, now give me the 'effing code monkey boy"? Think I might say that next time just to see their reaction. They have no legal right to withhold the code when I own a legit copy of XP no matter what I say to them.

The last few times Ive called they didnt even ask me why I was re-installing. Took all of about 3 minutes. When activation originally began it was much more of a PITA than now. Mitch "Luxor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:21:27 -0500, "frederickson" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > >It's just to scare you. You can make up any bullshit reason and they'lllet

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >you reactivate > > > > Yea, but I wonder what would happen if I said, "it's none of your > goddamn business why I am reinstalling XP, now give me the 'effing > code monkey boy"? Think I might say that next time just to see their > reaction. They have no legal right to withhold the code when I own a > legit copy of XP no matter what I say to them.

"Luxor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:21:27 -0500, "frederickson" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > >It's just to scare you. You can make up any bullshit reason and they'lllet

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >you reactivate > > > > Yea, but I wonder what would happen if I said, "it's none of your > goddamn business why I am reinstalling XP, now give me the 'effing > code monkey boy"? Think I might say that next time just to see their > reaction. They have no legal right to withhold the code when I own a > legit copy of XP no matter what I say to them.

Whatever. I don't think you actually "own" the software. You are using it, according to the EULA. I don't like these activation codes either, but LFS' is not bad at all. The bottom line is that if you don't like activation, then don't buy the product. Alanb

> Whatever. I don't think you actually "own" the software. You are usingit, > according to the EULA. I don't like these activation codes either, butLFS'

Quoted text (8 lines)

> is not bad at all. > > The bottom line is that if you don't like activation, then don't buy the > product. > > Alanb > >

Alan get the umbrella out your ass and shut the fuck up

Alan get the umbrella out your ass and shut the *** up

In article <[email hidden]>, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes: >Are you speaking from experience or conjecture? I have never had to >reactivate XP due to drivers. I also have upgraded everything but the >drives and video card since installing XP and did not have to reactivate. >New CPU, new mobo, new RAM, new NIC, new audio adapter, no problems. Larry's issues with XP have been WELL documented here...<g> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, Luxor <[email hidden]> writes: >What a stupid scheme that is. Almost as stupid as the wargame company >that made the keycode tied to your harddrive's serial number. Change >HDD and you need a new code. Company went belly up in about one month >after releasing their first game. Anyone who bought that game is now >screwed when they change the HDD. What game was THAT?!? Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"frederickson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:C2MCb.16847$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > > Whatever. I don't think you actually "own" the software. You are using > it, > > according to the EULA. I don't like these activation codes either, but > LFS' > > is not bad at all. > > > > The bottom line is that if you don't like activation, then don't buy the > > product. > > > > Alanb > > > > > > Alan get the umbrella out your ass and shut the fuck up > >

What's wrong there pal, your Dual Action causing headaches? But what I said makes sense to me. If you don't like a company's protection policy, then don't buy the software. It's that simple. No need to lose your cool over such a basic concept. Alanb

Luxor They have no legal right to withhold the code when I own a > legit copy of XP no matter what I say to them. I think if you read the EULA carefully, and I haven't so this is just a hunch, you will find that you don't actually OWN windows XP. Microsoft retains ownership, they are merely allowing you to use said product at their discretion.(sp?) Anyone know for sure? dave henrie

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:06:25 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Whatever. I don't think you actually "own" the software. You are using it, >according to the EULA. I don't like these activation codes either, but LFS' >is not bad at all. > >The bottom line is that if you don't like activation, then don't buy the >product. > >Alanb >

Good little lap dog. Have a biscuit.

"Jean Fouinon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:06:25 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > >Whatever. I don't think you actually "own" the software. You are usingit, > >according to the EULA. I don't like these activation codes either, butLFS'

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >is not bad at all. > > > >The bottom line is that if you don't like activation, then don't buy the > >product. > > > >Alanb > > > > Good little lap dog. Have a biscuit.

Well, there's nothing you can do about activation codes except refuse to buy products that use them. Are you planning some mass demonstration against Microsoft? I doubt they really care what you think, and care little whether you, as one single person, buy their products or not. I'm just taking the realistic approach. What approach are you taking? Alanb

"Luxor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 10:15:36 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >Just my opinion. Not out to change anyone elses, nor is anyone else > >required to try and change mine. I absolutely detest these draconiancopy

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >protection scheme's that cause neverending issues for paying users. > > > >-Larry > > Here's a nice one for you. The game 'Enigma: Rising Tide' requires a > keycode to install the game and then it has a second keycode to be > able play MP.

What did you expect from a game called "ENIGMA"? Consider yourself lucky you don't have to build some sort of steam-powered "difference engine" out of brass cylinders and wheels just to crack the code. Then again, that *would* be a really cool "enigma" game... Stephen

"mjones53" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > My hard drive crashed and I had to reinstall, so I emailed them and asked > for another key code, and still after 3 days have had no response. > They were too busy releasing the cool little "Christmas patch" which includes the McGill Racing Team Formula SAE, a car more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Stephen

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:06:25 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote: >The bottom line is that if you don't like activation, then don't buy the >product. That's pretty damn hard when said company has a defacto monopoly on PC operating systems.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:22:38 -0600, Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> wrote: > I think if you read the EULA carefully, and I haven't so this is just >a hunch, you will find that you don't actually OWN windows XP. >Microsoft retains ownership, they are merely allowing you to >use said product at their discretion.(sp?) > > Anyone know for sure? I was under the impression most if not all commercial software was like that. Jason

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 01:19:56 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Well, there's nothing you can do about activation codes except refuse to buy >products that use them. Are you planning some mass demonstration against >Microsoft? I doubt they really care what you think, and care little whether >you, as one single person, buy their products or not. > >I'm just taking the realistic approach. What approach are you taking? > >Alanb > >

I'm going down to Redmond and demonstrate on Microsoft's doorstep. What are you doing to reeducate good ol' Bill?

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 00:32:07 GMT, Joe62 <[email hidden]> wrote: >That's pretty damn hard when said company has a defacto monopoly on PC >operating systems. Yea, especially considering they are dropping support for Win9x very soon too. My hands are tied.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:02:12 +0100, "Stephen F." <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>What did you expect from a game called "ENIGMA"? Consider yourself lucky >you don't have to build some sort of steam-powered "difference engine" out >of brass cylinders and wheels just to crack the code. Then again, that >*would* be a really cool "enigma" game... > >Stephen > > >

Yea, but the "enigma" in this game is that they call it the most realistic naval sim yet on the box and it is no where near that.

>>That's pretty damn hard when said company has a defacto monopoly on PC >>operating systems. > >Yea, especially considering they are dropping support for Win9x very >soon too. My hands are tied. > You could still use win2000. Besides, just because they will drop support on win98 doesn't mean it will suddenly stop working... People are still using Windows 3.1, and even DOS 6.22 in some cases. As long as it suits your needs, you're fine. Eldred p.s. Or, you could go to Linux... -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

> I was under the impression most if not all commercial software was > like that. Aye, you own the media and a license to use the software, not the actual software

[email hidden] (EldredP) wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>>>That's pretty damn hard when said company has a defacto monopoly on >>>PC operating systems. >> >>Yea, especially considering they are dropping support for Win9x very >>soon too. My hands are tied. >> > > You could still use win2000. Besides, just because they will drop > support on win98 doesn't mean it will suddenly stop working... People > are still using Windows 3.1, and even DOS 6.22 in some cases. As long > as it suits your needs, you're fine. > > Eldred > p.s. Or, you could go to Linux...

The problem for most people on this newsgroup, is that we play gam-sorry, racing simulations on our PCs, under windows. When directX 10 or 11 or whatever comes out, and is required to play the latest, greatest racing title ever to grace the PC, and that version isn't available for unsupported OSes, then we have to make the choice to upgrade, or do without. cheers John

In article <[email hidden]>, JM <[email hidden]> writes: >The problem for most people on this newsgroup, is that we play gam-sorry, >racing simulations on our PCs, under windows. When directX 10 or 11 or >whatever comes out, and is required to play the latest, greatest racing >title ever to grace the PC, and that version isn't available for >unsupported OSes, then we have to make the choice to upgrade, or do >without. I understand you, but it hasn't happened yet. Even DX9 which is needed for some games works on win98. Granted you don't get all the bells and whistles, but it's backwards compatible. The first one that *isn't* will cost a bunch of sales - I'm not sure vendors are willing to take that risk. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On 16 Dec 2003 23:00:19 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >I understand you, but it hasn't happened yet. Even DX9 which is needed for >some games works on win98. Granted you don't get all the bells and whistles, >but it's backwards compatible. The first one that *isn't* will cost a bunch of >sales - I'm not sure vendors are willing to take that risk. > >Eldred Win9x is an unstable POS. And there are no games I want to play available for Linux. No, I don't have any choice but to use XP. Well, maybe Win2K but it doesn't have s good game compatibility as XP.

In article <[email hidden]>, Luxor <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>On 16 Dec 2003 23:00:19 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > > >>I understand you, but it hasn't happened yet. Even DX9 which is needed for >>some games works on win98. Granted you don't get all the bells and >whistles, >>but it's backwards compatible. The first one that *isn't* will cost a bunch >of >>sales - I'm not sure vendors are willing to take that risk. >> >>Eldred > >Win9x is an unstable POS. And there are no games I want to play >available for Linux. No, I don't have any choice but to use XP. Well, >maybe Win2K but it doesn't have s good game compatibility as XP.

To each his own. I was answering someone else's concerns. I just don't feel that I'm 'forced' to upgrade yet, so I haven't. If you truly feel that you have no choice, then I guess you don't. Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

> > Win9x is an unstable POS. And there are no games I want to play > available for Linux. No, I don't have any choice but to use XP. Well, > maybe Win2K but it doesn't have s good game compatibility as XP. I doubt you really are forced to upgrade. It's only your hatred or envy of Gates that makes you think that. And even if you are forced to update, XP is the better OS, by far. Alanb

Interesting read on MS http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1414128,00.asp "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MH2Eb.571821$HS4.4304898@attbi_s01...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > > Win9x is an unstable POS. And there are no games I want to play > > available for Linux. No, I don't have any choice but to use XP. Well, > > maybe Win2K but it doesn't have s good game compatibility as XP. > > I doubt you really are forced to upgrade. It's only your hatred or envy

of > Gates that makes you think that. And even if you are forced to update, XP > is the better OS, by far. > > Alanb > >

Interesting read on M$ http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1414128,00.asp "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MH2Eb.571821$HS4.4304898@attbi_s01...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > > Win9x is an unstable POS. And there are no games I want to play > > available for Linux. No, I don't have any choice but to use XP. Well, > > maybe Win2K but it doesn't have s good game compatibility as XP. > > I doubt you really are forced to upgrade. It's only your hatred or envy

of > Gates that makes you think that. And even if you are forced to update, XP > is the better OS, by far. > > Alanb > >

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:07:08 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I doubt you really are forced to upgrade. It's only your hatred or envy of >Gates that makes you think that. And even if you are forced to update, XP >is the better OS, by far. > >Alanb > Better a rebel who dies with honour than a boot licking lacky.

"Luxor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:07:08 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > > >I doubt you really are forced to upgrade. It's only your hatred or envyof > >Gates that makes you think that. And even if you are forced to update,XP > >is the better OS, by far. > > > >Alanb > > > > Better a rebel who dies with honour than a boot licking lacky. I think you have an identity problem. Not only that, you seem to think there are only two types of people-- suck-ups and martyrs. Strange way of looking at things. Alanb

"DB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Interesting read on MS > > http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1414128,00.asp > > "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:MH2Eb.571821$HS4.4304898@attbi_s01... > > > > > > > > Win9x is an unstable POS. And there are no games I want to play > > > available for Linux. No, I don't have any choice but to use XP. Well, > > > maybe Win2K but it doesn't have s good game compatibility as XP. > > > > I doubt you really are forced to upgrade. It's only your hatred or envy > of > > Gates that makes you think that. And even if you are forced to update,

XP

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > is the better OS, by far. > > > > Alanb > > > > > >

I am by no means a MS supporter; but they do make some good software, comparatively speaking. And XP is MS' best OS to date, hands down. But there are those who are not happy with Microsoft products. This has more to do with Bill Gates than the quality of the software. While it's okay for actresses and actors to make millions and millions of dollars (and waste probably billions more, blowing things up and whatnot), it's not okay for athletes or Bill Gates to make the same amount of money. I've never understood why people feel this way, though I suspect it has something to do with someone making a lot of money and enjoying it just the same. As to the article about support, I don't think I've ever called MS for any kind of help. Users these days are sometimes too lazy to fix problems on their own, though I do understand the problem users would be in if further versions of Direct-X are incompatible with Win98. Granted, MS should support its products. But if you think about it, a plumber who puts in a new toilet isn't going to come back six months later and fix that same toilet for free, so I don't see how people think that software support should be free. And as to not supporting Win98, it doesn't surprise me that MS is going to do this. At some point they have to, out of necessity. But too many think that the reason MS is not supporting Win98 is because they want to force users into using XP. I doubt very much if the Brass at MS sits around and says, "Okay, lets figure out some ways to force users to use XP." In the end it's all about dependence. The more a user is able to fix things on his own, the better off he'll be. Alanb

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:48:15 GMT, "Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote: ... ... >Granted, MS should support its products. But if you think about it, a >plumber who puts in a new toilet isn't going to come back six months later >and fix that same toilet for free, so I don't see how people think that >software support should be free. Nice comparison. ;-) I have but one (but major) problem with MS; their designs are overly bloated, making things more complex (thus inefficient & even slow, even on CPU's that do 3 billion operations per second). Mind you, I find the same with KDE on Linux. It's just that with MS, it seems company policy, and I can only make that out for lack of skill (though obviously lots of people will disagree). >And as to not supporting Win98, it doesn't surprise me that MS is going to >do this. At some point they have to, out of necessity. I'm surprised they've supported it up to here. But indeed, XP is far better, it just intervenes with nicely operating your OWN computer sometimes, giving all the wrong defaults when installed. ;-) >In the end it's all about dependence. The more a user is able to fix things >on his own, the better off he'll be. That is the Unix route though. Much cleaner & transparent. Compare 'the registry'; worst mixup of independent information ever, and the cause presumably of most slowdowns on Windows I've ever seen. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

In article <[email hidden]>, Ruud van Gaal <[email hidden]> wrote: > I have but one (but major) problem with MS; their designs are overly > bloated, making things more complex (thus inefficient & even slow, > even on CPU's that do 3 billion operations per second). NT was quoted by MS as having 16 million lines of source code. Of course, it was likely C++, which is notoriously inefficient at producing executable code. ;-) I'm certain XP is much larger. > That is the Unix route though. Much cleaner & transparent. Compare > 'the registry'; worst mixup of independent information ever, and the > cause presumably of most slowdowns on Windows I've ever seen. I'm still boggled by the alleged need for the registry. Unix gets along with a handful (depending on how much bloat the user wishes to add after installation ;-) of human-readable text files, while the Mac uses a database that can be automatically rebuilt by the computer if it gets corrupt -- which rarely happens. Contrast this with a clumsy hashtable that, if it gets trashed or you reinstall the OS, loses all your defaults. Urgh.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:34:26 GMT, JM <[email hidden]> wrote: >The problem for most people on this newsgroup, is that we play gam-sorry, >racing simulations on our PCs, under windows. When directX 10 or 11 or >whatever comes out, and is required to play the latest, greatest racing >title ever to grace the PC, and that version isn't available for >unsupported OSes, then we have to make the choice to upgrade, or do >without. One XP issue I haven't seen mentioned here... With Windows 98, the fact that Microsoft stops supporting it doesn't mean you can't continue to use it for another 10 years if you're capable of installing it on new machines and acquiring some kind of working drivers. In the future (probably 5 years or so), when MS drops XP support, you're going to be hosed. Sure, you'll be able to use your existing install for as long as you want -until the time you want to migrate to a piece of hardware that triggers Microsofts registration process. Then you'll most likely find they won't be issuing any more serial numbers because support has ceased. Forget putting it on a new machine. Unless you're using a hacked version, it will truly be a dead OS.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim O <[email hidden]> writes: >One XP issue I haven't seen mentioned here... With Windows 98, the >fact that Microsoft stops supporting it doesn't mean you can't >continue to use it for another 10 years if you're capable of >installing it on new machines and acquiring some kind of working >drivers. I've said that before. It doesn't just stop working because MS drops support for it. There are still people running Windows 3.1...<g> Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

MS doesnt issue a License, you purchase it. When you register XP your profile is created for the License YOU own. So long as you dont try to register the same License 100's of times it won't even show on MS radar and you can use it indefinitely. Mitch <<<<---- Posted using Pineapple News for BeOS ---->>>> Tim O wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> In the future (probably 5 years or so), when MS drops XP support, > you're going to be hosed. Sure, you'll be able to use your existing > install for as long as you want -until the time you want to migrate to > a piece of hardware that triggers Microsofts registration process. > Then you'll most likely find they won't be issuing any more serial > numbers because support has ceased. > Forget putting it on a new machine. Unless you're using a hacked > version, it will truly be a dead OS. >

On 26 Dec 2003 17:50:04 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: >I've said that before. It doesn't just stop working because MS drops support >for it. There are still people running Windows 3.1...<g> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough... 3.1 doesn't lock you out when you re-install or make certain hardware upgrades like XP does.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim O <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>On 26 Dec 2003 17:50:04 GMT, [email hidden] (EldredP) wrote: > >>I've said that before. It doesn't just stop working because MS drops >support >>for it. There are still people running Windows 3.1...<g> > >Perhaps I wasn't clear enough... 3.1 doesn't lock you out when you >re-install or make certain hardware upgrades like XP does.

I was agreeing with you about win 9x still being 'viable'. I didn't realize you were just trying to show how effed up XP is... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -2.4 MoGPL rank +302.38 ChallengeRank +54.48 MoC +743.77 Hist. +82.82 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

The "All your eggs in one basket" Registry is the stupidist idea Microsoft ever had. 90% of my need for customer re-images are because of that stupid thing. -Larry "Greg Dunn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:241220031721318812%[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, Ruud van Gaal > <[email hidden]> wrote: > I'm still boggled by the alleged need for the registry. Unix gets > along with a handful (depending on how much bloat the user wishes to > add after installation ;-) of human-readable text files, while the Mac > uses a database that can be automatically rebuilt by the computer if it > gets corrupt -- which rarely happens. Contrast this with a clumsy > hashtable that, if it gets trashed or you reinstall the OS, loses all > your defaults. Urgh.

A primary complaint about Product activation... Microsoft has said "it won't be a problem" but we'll see... -Larry "Tim O" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 20:34:26 GMT, JM > <[email hidden]> wrote: > One XP issue I haven't seen mentioned here... With Windows 98, the > fact that Microsoft stops supporting it doesn't mean you can't > continue to use it for another 10 years if you're capable of > installing it on new machines and acquiring some kind of working > drivers. > > In the future (probably 5 years or so), when MS drops XP support, > you're going to be hosed. Sure, you'll be able to use your existing > install for as long as you want -until the time you want to migrate to > a piece of hardware that triggers Microsofts registration process. > Then you'll most likely find they won't be issuing any more serial > numbers because support has ceased. > Forget putting it on a new machine. Unless you're using a hacked > version, it will truly be a dead OS. >

Mitch, That's not his point... When you reinstall Windows XP, you have to go through it's "Product Activation". In the future when Microsoft ceases to support XP, they can effectively FORCE every XP user on the planet (except corporate users) to upgrade. If they turn off "Product Activation" approvals, it's all over. -Larry "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> MS doesnt issue a License, you purchase it. When you register XP your > profile is created for the License YOU own. So long as you dont try to > register the same License 100's of times it won't even show on MS radar > and you can use it indefinitely. > > Mitch > > > <<<<---- Posted using Pineapple News for BeOS ---->>>> > > > > Tim O wrote: > > > In the future (probably 5 years or so), when MS drops XP support, > > you're going to be hosed. Sure, you'll be able to use your existing > > install for as long as you want -until the time you want to migrate to > > a piece of hardware that triggers Microsofts registration process. > > Then you'll most likely find they won't be issuing any more serial > > numbers because support has ceased. > > Forget putting it on a new machine. Unless you're using a hacked > > version, it will truly be a dead OS. > >

Couldnt they simply "lifetime activate" it somehow? Or leave a server that activates any legit key given it? "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Y95Hb.46796$hf1.9807@lakeread06...

Quoted text (38 lines)

> Mitch, > > That's not his point... > > When you reinstall Windows XP, you have to go through it's "Product > Activation". In the future when Microsoft ceases to support XP, they can > effectively FORCE every XP user on the planet (except corporate users) to > upgrade. If they turn off "Product Activation" approvals, it's all over. > > -Larry > > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > MS doesnt issue a License, you purchase it. When you register XP your > > profile is created for the License YOU own. So long as you dont try to > > register the same License 100's of times it won't even show on MS radar > > and you can use it indefinitely. > > > > Mitch > > > > > > <<<<---- Posted using Pineapple News for BeOS ---->>>> > > > > > > > > Tim O wrote: > > > > > In the future (probably 5 years or so), when MS drops XP support, > > > you're going to be hosed. Sure, you'll be able to use your existing > > > install for as long as you want -until the time you want to migrate to > > > a piece of hardware that triggers Microsofts registration process. > > > Then you'll most likely find they won't be issuing any more serial > > > numbers because support has ceased. > > > Forget putting it on a new machine. Unless you're using a hacked > > > version, it will truly be a dead OS. > > > > >

"RM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SedIb.4258244$[email hidden]... > Couldnt they simply "lifetime activate" it somehow? Or leave a serverthat > activates any legit key given it? Yes they could, but would they? The LFS Devs have said they may eventually (presumably in several year's time) do this, but Microsoft are a different matter ;-) Malc.

Well, they _could_ :) Without having it in writing from them that they will it can't be counted on. -Larry "RM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SedIb.4258244$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Couldnt they simply "lifetime activate" it somehow? Or leave a server that > activates any legit key given it? > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Y95Hb.46796$hf1.9807@lakeread06... > > Mitch, > > > > That's not his point... > > > > When you reinstall Windows XP, you have to go through it's "Product > > Activation". In the future when Microsoft ceases to support XP, they

can > > effectively FORCE every XP user on the planet (except corporate users)to > > upgrade. If they turn off "Product Activation" approvals, it's allover.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > -Larry > > > > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > MS doesnt issue a License, you purchase it. When you register XP your > > > profile is created for the License YOU own. So long as you dont try

to > > > register the same License 100's of times it won't even show on MSradar

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > and you can use it indefinitely. > > > > > > Mitch > > > > > > > > > <<<<---- Posted using Pineapple News for BeOS ---->>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Tim O wrote: > > > > > > > In the future (probably 5 years or so), when MS drops XP support, > > > > you're going to be hosed. Sure, you'll be able to use your existing > > > > install for as long as you want -until the time you want to migrate

to

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > > a piece of hardware that triggers Microsofts registration process. > > > > Then you'll most likely find they won't be issuing any more serial > > > > numbers because support has ceased. > > > > Forget putting it on a new machine. Unless you're using a hacked > > > > version, it will truly be a dead OS. > > > > > > > > > >

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:21:33 GMT, Greg Dunn <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>In article <[email hidden]>, Ruud van Gaal ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >> I have but one (but major) problem with MS; their designs are overly >> bloated, making things more complex (thus inefficient & even slow, >> even on CPU's that do 3 billion operations per second). >NT was quoted by MS as having 16 million lines of source code. Of >course, it was likely C++, which is notoriously inefficient at >producing executable code. ;-) I'm certain XP is much larger.

C++ isn't bad, if only for the fact that increased productivity can lead to more efficient executables, whereas with assembly you wouldn't have the time to optimize things (so ending up with actually worse code, hehe). It's just the MS makes inefficient designs; no way any code could live up to that. Oh, happy newyear btw. ;-)

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> That is the Unix route though. Much cleaner & transparent. Compare >> 'the registry'; worst mixup of independent information ever, and the >> cause presumably of most slowdowns on Windows I've ever seen. > >I'm still boggled by the alleged need for the registry. Unix gets >along with a handful (depending on how much bloat the user wishes to >add after installation ;-) of human-readable text files, while the Mac >uses a database that can be automatically rebuilt by the computer if it >gets corrupt -- which rarely happens.

I believe ASCII files are more transparent, in case funny things start happening (makes it easier to try & figure out what the software is doing). Ever wondered how the MS password/user system is done? I haven't got a clue, but it's more intertwined than is healthy. Also, one of the big remaining rules of computers is 'divide & conquer'. Works for software design, hardware design etc. etc. right up to the highest & lowest levels of programming. The registry is ofcourse the complete opposite. Uninstalling programs often leaves a lot of junk, downgrading performance, which becomes noticable after some time and then unbearable. Reinstalling should not be needed, uninstalling should just get rid of what it installed. > Contrast this with a clumsy >hashtable that, if it gets trashed or you reinstall the OS, loses all >your defaults. Urgh. Fortunately I never lost my registry. :) But still, if I rightclick on a file it sure is slow enough to avoid doing it again. :) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/