Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > MS Support

Reply
Thread Tools

MS Support

 
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
Jules wrote:
> Now my problems are
> 1. Modem not recognised which is strange as windows 2000 recognises it fine
> as does linux.


I've sniped 2 as it can be fixed once 1 is done.

what sort of modem?
do you have the driver CD?
Does windows detect it as anything?(PCI Communication device?)

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz
http://www.karyn.net.nz
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
Jules wrote:
>>There are fewer Linux drivers available for hardware than Windows, in
>>good part due to the ideological refusal of the geeks to sign NDAs.


> Linux also has support for non-windows hardware
> for example my mouse, my keyboard. MS goes for
> the closest thing.


replace mouse/KB with monitor and you reverse the OS names and you have
my situation.
They're as good and as bad as each other.

This ****ing contest is getting boring.

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz
http://www.karyn.net.nz
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
Jules wrote:
> it was a limitation in windows xp.


actually what you are describing is a problem with your Bios not
enabling LBA correctly(or similar).
XP balked at it as it was not working correctly, Linux didn't...

Personally I'd prefer that it balked at it rather than continued on as
if all was fine.
Maybe Linux doesnt check that it is set correctly and assumes that it is
fine no matter what?

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz
http://www.karyn.net.nz
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bret
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:47:15 -0700, Jules wrote:

> Failing to boot up after install. MS support were useless, eventually found
> it was due to limitation in XP in not being able to detect type of hard
> drive properly, set Bios from
> auto to LBA and that fixed the problem, so why couldn't their help desk give
> me that as a possible solution.


I had the exact problem and used the same solution on a box that was
already running XP and had no problems previously.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gavin Tunney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:47:15 -0700, "Jules" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>"Gavin Tunney" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 07:52:47 -0700, Julian Visch <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>> What are you on about? What exactly was the problem you had with XP...
>> was it failing to install, or what?

>
>Failing to boot up after install. MS support were useless, eventually found
>it was due to limitation in XP in not being able to detect type of hard
>drive properly, set Bios from
>auto to LBA and that fixed the problem, so why couldn't their help desk give
>me that as a possible solution.


Possibly because XP talks directly to the hard drive, it doesn't use
the BIOS. It detects the installed hard drive(s) by sending 'identify
device' requests on the I/o ports of the disk controller. The
bootstrap loader uses the BIOS, is about all. It wouldn't have been an
XP 'detection' problem, if there was a problem there it would likely
have been a BIOS drive geometry translation issue.....which is not a
limitation in XP.

About the only (possible) MS bug I can see there is if XP used LBA to
set up the file system & the boot loader used CHS or Large mode which,
due to the BIOS not translating the drive geometry properly, meant the
bootstrap loader couldn't find the boot sector....ergo XP wouldn't
boot. (or something similar along those lines) But that's just idle
speculation from me there.... not enough information to reach a
conclusion.

One thing I can say is "Auto" should have worked, because the BIOS
uses the same "identify device" &hEC ATA command as XP does, and it
receives the same information from the drive as XP does....including
the drive geometry & whether LBA is supported by the drive or not. So
the BIOS is at least part of the fault.....and possibly the Hdd wasn't
fully ATA compliant either (which isn't unusual).

>Now my problems are
>1. Modem not recognised which is strange as windows 2000 recognises it fine
>as does linux.


Well one would assume that's because the modem manufacturer didn't
supply MS with signed drivers for the modem before XP was released(?).
MS didn't make the modem, how is it their problem?

One would also assume that your PC was supplied with a driver CD for
the modem when you bought it... if so did you try that CD?

>2. Activation for Office doesn't work due to 1. and the lack of a phone
>option.
>


Last I heard you could call them up & activate it manually.

Unless you can come up with the right technical explanation that
supports your argument I can't see where MS support are at fault here.
I'm also wondering whether your own manner & attitude contributed to
the problem you had with them, you seem a little eager to heap blame
for your woes on MS.

Gavin
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gavin Tunney
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:59:44 +1300, Waylon Kenning
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>Actually it's not really Windows, I mean, if you had a bare naked
>installation that you never touched, it might last a while. But as
>soon as you start installing third party applications (especially the
>9x family), the clock's ticking down to your next reinstall. I'm just
>talking from experience, that's all.


You'd be talking only from your own experience Waylon. Apart from
version upgrades I've reinstalled Windows on my primary workstation
once in the last seven years... and that was only because I couldn't
be arsed figuring out what I'd done to wreck it.


Gavin
 
Reply With Quote
 
Patrick Dunford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)> in nz.comp on
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:59:44 +1300, Waylon Kenning
<(E-Mail Removed)> says...
> It seems like Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:28:37 +1300 was when "nick"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> said Blah blah blah...
>
> >Are you suggesting that Windows is so unreliable that the majority of
> >Windows users re-install their operating systems ?

> Yes. Not so much these days, but not everyone runs Windows XP.
>
> >If you took a poll of all the PCs running Windows, how many would have the
> >installation done by their users ?
> >Bugger all.

> Well that's conjecture until a survey is done. However, I know of my
> less pc-orientated friends reinstalling Windows XP Home, Windows Me,
> Windows 98 and Windows 95.
>
> Actually it's not really Windows, I mean, if you had a bare naked
> installation that you never touched, it might last a while. But as
> soon as you start installing third party applications (especially the
> 9x family), the clock's ticking down to your next reinstall. I'm just
> talking from experience, that's all.


XP has the rollback that other versions don't have.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Patrick Dunford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)> in nz.comp on Tue, 26 Oct 2004
08:08:24 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz <(E-Mail Removed)> says...
> Jules wrote:
> > it was a limitation in windows xp.

>
> actually what you are describing is a problem with your Bios not
> enabling LBA correctly(or similar).
> XP balked at it as it was not working correctly, Linux didn't...


The reason is because Linux doesn't need LBA enabled in the Bios. The
Linux developers chose to use a different model of disk access that
doesn't need the Bios LBA setting.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Patrick Dunford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)> in nz.comp on Tue, 26 Oct
2004 00:19:00 -0700, Jules <(E-Mail Removed)> says...
>
> "Patrick Dunford" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed). nz...
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)> in nz.comp on Mon, 25 Oct
> > 2004 19:52:45 -0700, Jules <(E-Mail Removed)> says...
> > >
> > > "Patrick Dunford" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:(E-Mail Removed). nz...
> > > > In article <(E-Mail Removed)> in nz.comp on Sun, 24

> Oct
> > > > 2004 07:52:47 -0700, Julian Visch <(E-Mail Removed)> says...
> > > > > Having tried ringing them for support in getting the evaluation copy

> of
> > > > > windows xp going and getting the response, oh there must be

> something
> > > wrong
> > > > > with the hard drive bring it back to the shop as the solution. After
> > > > > pointing out that there was nothing wrong with the hard drive itself

> as
> > > I
> > > > > previously had linux installed on it, their brilliant solution was
> > > search
> > > > > under Linux they would have a solution. So I need to go to their own
> > > > > competition for a limitation in their own software? Ok the

> competition
> > > did
> > > > > have the solution but even still does the MS help desk not have

> anyone
> > > with
> > > > > a clue on what to do when things don't work, if so what is the point

> of
> > > > > them. I also found it annoying that the first guy I rang insisted

> that I
> > > > > must be at my computer if I wanted support, pointed out that my

> computer
> > > > > was at home, not at work, well he said ring us when you are at home,

> but
> > > > > then your help desk isn't operational. Eventually got from him an

> email
> > > > > address which I emailed and got no response at all.
> > > > > Conclusion I am coming to with my evaluation, MS lack support for

> their
> > > own
> > > > > product, their product does not install as well as windows 2000 as

> at
> > > least
> > > > > 2000 sees my modem, while brilliant XP tries to connect to the

> internet
> > > to
> > > > > get the latest driver...which one, doesn't say, so lots of guess

> work
> > > > > required.
> > > >
> > > > In this group you have told us how wonderful Linux is and have slagged

> MS
> > > > ample times. So is this just another anti MS rant?
> > > >
> > > > Since it is far, far harder to get say Debian working properly on

> obscure
> > > > hardware, if you cannot get Windows going there must be something
> > > > seriously wrong with your PC or you.
> > >
> > > > In article <(E-Mail Removed)> in nz.comp on Sun, 24

> Oct
> > > > 2004 07:52:47 -0700, Julian Visch <(E-Mail Removed)> says...
> > > > > Having tried ringing them for support in getting the evaluation copy

> of
> > > > > windows xp going and getting the response, oh there must be

> something
> > > wrong
> > > > > with the hard drive bring it back to the shop as the solution. After
> > > > > pointing out that there was nothing wrong with the hard drive itself

> as
> > > I
> > > > > previously had linux installed on it, their brilliant solution was
> > > search
> > > > > under Linux they would have a solution. So I need to go to their own
> > > > > competition for a limitation in their own software? Ok the

> competition
> > > did
> > > > > have the solution but even still does the MS help desk not have

> anyone
> > > with
> > > > > a clue on what to do when things don't work, if so what is the point

> of
> > > > > them. I also found it annoying that the first guy I rang insisted

> that I
> > > > > must be at my computer if I wanted support, pointed out that my

> computer
> > > > > was at home, not at work, well he said ring us when you are at home,

> but
> > > > > then your help desk isn't operational. Eventually got from him an

> email
> > > > > address which I emailed and got no response at all.
> > > > > Conclusion I am coming to with my evaluation, MS lack support for

> their
> > > own
> > > > > product, their product does not install as well as windows 2000 as

> at
> > > least
> > > > > 2000 sees my modem, while brilliant XP tries to connect to the

> internet
> > > to
> > > > > get the latest driver...which one, doesn't say, so lots of guess

> work
> > > > > required.
> > > >
> > > > In this group you have told us how wonderful Linux is and have slagged

> MS
> > > > ample times. So is this just another anti MS rant?
> > > >
> > > > Since it is far, far harder to get say Debian working properly on

> obscure
> > > > hardware, if you cannot get Windows going there must be something
> > > > seriously wrong with your PC or you.
> > >
> > > I have no trouble getting linux working....
> > > And I did get it going after searching the web and finding
> > > it was a limitation in windows xp.
> > > MS support couldn't get it working, so are you agreeing with me that

> there
> > > is something seriously wrong with them?
> > > Can't get modem to work, XPs solution is go on to the
> > > internet and download the latest driver, great so I have to
> > > logout of XP. Reboot into a decent operating system
> > > and find the correct driver, but which driver, and where from? Office

> 2003
> > > activation doesn't work without a modem and phone option deactivated.
> > > Try Patrick installing XP on a machine that hasn't had XP pre-installed

> on
> > > it before.

> >
> > We installed all our machines from scratch. One of them was a 6 year old
> > machine, no problems at all (too slow but that's another story)
> >
> > Today I installed XP on a machine with only 64 MB of RAM, a bit slow but
> > it does work

>
> Ok try the following, change the bios setting to be non-lba
> for your hard drive and try again, linux will install and boot
> properly, windows will not.


And that proves what?

Linux developers chose to use a different means of accessing the hard
drive that doesn't care whether it is set to LBA or not. XP requires the
LBA setting.

The fact is that every technician will set LBA because that is what works
with 99.9% of the software out there.

> Seeing you are such an expert, how do I get the modem to work?


Search the net for drivers. What kind of modem is it?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence DčOliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-26-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
Patrick Dunford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>There are fewer Linux drivers available for hardware than Windows, in
>good part due to the ideological refusal of the geeks to sign NDAs.


There are ways around that. Look at Nvidia--they release the source for
the kernel module interface, but not that for the guts of the driver
itself. That way you can rebuild their drivers for different kernel
versions, without them having to reveal their trade secrets.

There are lots of other vendor-provided driver modules for Linux with
firmware encoded in the C code in the form of long hex strings that
don't give away any source. I know this because some of the more purist
Linux distros (Debian) have started dropping these drivers from their
standard distribution.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IEEE 1284.4 generic printing support / HP LaserJet printer support Manuel Lopez Windows 64bit 13 10-18-2009 12:51 PM
Question for IT Support/Managers - Providing Personal PC Support Big Dog Microsoft Certification 4 01-16-2008 01:33 AM
Anti Virus Support + Japanese character support =?Utf-8?B?Q2hyaXMgQnVzaA==?= Windows 64bit 6 07-31-2005 09:57 AM
ANN: SCons.0.96 adds Fortran 90/95 support, better Qt support,platform-independent file system actions, improved debugging, lots more Steven Knight Python 0 08-18-2004 03:57 PM
Getting Third Party Component Suppliers to support NUnit and NUnitASP to support test driven development in web pages Nick Zdunic ASP .Net 0 11-05-2003 10:45 AM



Advertisments