Installing 5 OSes in a weekend.....

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by thing@nowehre.comm, Jul 11, 2005.

  1. Guest

    ouch......

    anyway.........

    Lets scale this 10/10 for perfect.

    Apple OSx 10.4.

    This is simple to install/upgrade, put the dvd in, 2 clicks and it
    reboots and off you go.

    Test dvd media to make sure its OK before install starts, good idea.

    Automatic hardware detection, nice, but for limited hardware it is
    whatyou would expect.

    Lose 1 point though as you can only buy 10.4 on DVD and to get the cds
    you have to send the original disk to OZ and wait several weeks.....if
    the disk gets lost you are screwed, in fact 2 points, its anal.

    When the dvd reboots, you are presented with a simple menu, pick a
    disk(ie upgrade 10.3 or new install/partition) and either just go, or
    change what will be installed if you are that bothered, nice, and simple.

    Wait 30 minutes.

    When the box comes up it asks you would you like to transfer all your
    personal settings off 10.3, click yes...wait 30 minutes.

    All your data and applications are now available in 10.4....Add one
    point, this is just NICE.....except....

    Network issues in 10.3 saw the box only run in 1/2 duplex 100 mode,
    before copying the 10.3 network settings across it looked like 10.4 was
    in duplex mode....:/. I will assume this is a one off for my old
    hardware and look at trying to set the network to full duplex.

    You have to go off and kick the update/patch program into gear, and need
    to do this at least twice....lose 1 point, these days the suggestion to
    patch needs to be in front of the users face straight off. Patching
    reminder does come up later, so that is not too bad, except ofcourse
    time is critical....

    As a user install this is just so easy it is not true, just about
    anybody in user land should do this without a problem, first time, I am
    impressed, add a point.

    Cost circa $200, most acceptable for a OS.

    So final score 9/10. I'd give it 10/10 (in fact I might later) as this
    is a relative score.

    Improvements, offer the OS as cds or dvd, or at least offer a NZ
    address. Dont be anal with ship by dates, buying 10.4 on the 5th July to
    find you had to ship buy the 9th or no deal is not appreciated.

    One easy fix that would help, provide a utility on the dvd that
    automatically splits the dvd into 4 or 5 or 6 cds. Telling the buyer to
    back the dvd up before shipping the original is kinda stupid, if I had a
    dvd burner I wouldnt need to ship the dvd now would I?.

    When the 10.4 comes up, immediately give the user the option to patch
    the box. Patching done in 2 goes, not the best. Total install time less
    than 2 hours.

    Windows 2000

    No test of cd media, (neither does XP) lose a point.

    My ata100 hd controller is not recognised by the installer so I have
    todo a F6 to load off a floppy, while an easy task, its annoying, but
    this happens in Linux world and with such a wide range of hardware to
    support this happens. Not fair to drop a point as Apple controls the
    hardware, Microsoft does not.

    Otherwise automatic hardware detection, nice, I have seen issues but not
    on this hardware. Picking the disk layout is way more complex than
    apple, you have to pick which disk and make partitions then format, lose
    a point too complex.

    First install does a funny, my cdrom drive is D: but the windows
    installer keeps trying to look at e:/i386, so I have to alter to d: for
    each CAB, annoying....I load the via driver and the gui goes awol, and
    at boot I get a lock up.....restart the install....

    On this install the cdrom is d: so the install goes without a hitch, I
    get a new via driver (same one as before but a fresh download) box
    trashes...I know this works and is the right one as it installed OK
    lastmonth....arrrgggg!

    Third install, we are back to drive e: again, lose a point, plain wierd
    flaky. Install graphics first, try via driver, barf......restart the
    install.

    Fourth install, still on e: so I have to change to d: for each CAB file,
    this is really annoying.

    Box is up, rather than use the via installer, I expand the file and
    right click on the via driver ini and install it, works fine, reboot OK,
    bit complex for a user. Nothing about patch now, OK OS is quite old so
    security was not considered that important then.....

    Go to windows updates, 4 reboots later box is fully patched. Way too
    many reboots and seperated installs, lose a point. (Bad architectural
    design flaw). Final score 6/10.....

    RHAS3.

    Put CD in, test cd if you want, good idea in case its barfed. Start is
    easy, Automatic hardware detection, nice, lets you confirm its correct,
    nicer still, often gets the mouse wrong though.....lose a point.

    Partitioning, automatic or manual, auto partitioning is crude but ok,
    useless as server setup, Ok for a workstation (but this is RHAS3 and not
    RHWS3), manual partitioning is not that inituative....

    Package selection, point and click, select what you want, or minimal or
    everything...good.

    Comes with a firewall, good.

    Wait 40 minutes, reboot, complete.

    Registration and patching kicks off.....good. Patching done in one go,
    good......except this time it does not patch says it does but in reality
    does not....badly broken, loose 2 points.

    The patching process can and does break with no apparant fix except a
    re-install, this does not seem happen in x86-64 installs just x86-32
    ones so RH's sucks for quality control....it is just too bad. NB this
    only appears to happen if you pick everything, so it is a
    interdependancy problem, but "everything" is a std install option.....

    New Kernel for RHAS3-32 set as default, for RHAS3-64 its not, god knows
    why, lose a point inconsistant.

    Overall experience, klunky......its setting up a more
    complex system than OS X.....things like firewire are not supported by
    default (but this is the server version).

    Lots of packages broken in RHAS3-64 as first shipped, it takes til
    update 5 to install/run well, lose a point. No 32 bit libraries in the
    64 bit OS, sorry this sucks, lose a point.

    This is worse than installing NT4 or win2k server......

    Final score 5/10.......

    Debian 3.1

    No harder than RH, quality is better but the final OS is more basic
    until you add things which is hard going.

    A basic user would find it harder going than RH so lose a point.
    Upgrading is good and bomb proof. No problem with libraries etc, so 6/10.

    XP.

    Oh...god....

    Check hardware compatibilty, yes fine, it passes. Dynamically check for
    updates so the install is the latest software, none needed......from
    here hell ensues.

    Disk partitioning seems a bit easier than win2k.

    Repeated installs crash (5) on hardware detection phase, changing cdrom
    letters g: to f: this time.....kinda consistant....you know its one
    letter less than it asks for.....

    So complete failure to install.....despite 5 goes......yet win2k runs
    fine........

    Purchase cost, DSE, XP pro, $794...ouch......arrggg!

    Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is $800?

    Now while I dont regard Apple as the bargin basement brigade, Sorry MS
    but 4 times Apple's cost seems a bit OTT.

    So total failure to install.

    0/10....have a nice day.....

    :/

    regards

    Thing
    , Jul 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. H.O.G Guest

    On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:48 +1200, ""
    <> spoke these fine words:
    >
    >Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is $800?


    I realise this is a troll, but I'll bite anyway.

    Because:

    a) Apple stole their OS from the BSD boys, so did not have anywhere
    near as high development costs.

    b) You need to also buy a computer from Apple to install the OS on.

    c) You are comparing an upgrade version of MacOS X with a full retail
    version of WinXP. Nobody buys a full retail version. The upgrade
    version of WinXP is around $280 incl GST.

    d) WinXP is better than MacOS.

    e) The people at Microsoft are more intelligent. They must be. They
    have over 90% of the desktop market, yet, according to you, their
    software isn't as good and is overpriced.

    f) Microsoft are monopolistic wankers.

    g) All of the above.


    I vote for (g).
    H.O.G, Jul 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. H.O.G wrote:
    > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:48 +1200, ""
    > <> spoke these fine words:
    >
    >>Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is $800?

    >
    >
    > I realise this is a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
    >
    > Because:
    >
    > a) Apple stole their OS from the BSD boys, so did not have anywhere
    > near as high development costs.


    Apple didn't steal their OS from the BSD boys. The BSD boys, unlike the
    GPL bitches, make their software available for such use. Apple also does
    their part and contributes back to the BSD community, which is more than
    many do.

    The Other Guy
    The Other Guy, Jul 11, 2005
    #3
  4. Guest

    H.O.G wrote:
    > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:48 +1200, ""
    > <> spoke these fine words:
    >
    >>Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is $800?

    >
    >
    > I realise this is a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
    >
    > Because:
    >
    > a) Apple stole their OS from the BSD boys, so did not have anywhere
    > near as high development costs.


    Most of the XP code is derived from win2k which is derived from NT4
    which is derived from NT3.5...(NT3?) witness security issues that effect
    the entire family tree. Hence neither is a ground up re-write. In fact
    its quite arguable that XP is nothing more than a front end change to
    win2k. So on the face of it the development costs should be similar,
    hence the costs. The OEM version of XP is $185? so it is the full new
    retail cost that hurts....

    > b) You need to also buy a computer from Apple to install the OS on.


    uh....not quite.

    ;]

    > c) You are comparing an upgrade version of MacOS X with a full retail
    > version of WinXP. Nobody buys a full retail version. The upgrade
    > version of WinXP is around $280 incl GST.


    No its a full Mac OS x, Apple do not sell an upgrade, only the full version.

    > d) WinXP is better than MacOS.


    why? on what grounds? yeah.....yeah...troll...Mac OS x is pretty secure,
    stable and has a very nice front end. imovie is neat, isync.....works
    well.....while 10.3 was OK, I DO like 10.4....and Im a Linux chap......

    > e) The people at Microsoft are more intelligent. They must be. They
    > have over 90% of the desktop market, yet, according to you, their
    > software isn't as good and is overpriced.


    uh...huh...
    >
    > f) Microsoft are monopolistic wankers.


    now......now....

    > g) All of the above.
    >
    >
    > I vote for (g).


    regards

    thing
    , Jul 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Guest

    The Other Guy wrote:
    > H.O.G wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:48 +1200, ""
    >> <> spoke these fine words:
    >>
    >>> Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is $800?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I realise this is a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
    >>
    >> Because:
    >>
    >> a) Apple stole their OS from the BSD boys, so did not have anywhere
    >> near as high development costs.

    >
    >
    > Apple didn't steal their OS from the BSD boys. The BSD boys, unlike the
    > GPL bitches, make their software available for such use. Apple also does
    > their part and contributes back to the BSD community, which is more than
    > many do.
    >
    > The Other Guy



    You could add, that in fact MS stole the bsd network stack from BSD as
    they didnt ak. the code...

    At least Apple is quite open about using BSD underneath, though its file
    systems seems heavily "simplified"

    regards

    Thing
    , Jul 11, 2005
    #5
  6. Chris Hope Guest

    wrote:

    [snip]

    >> b) You need to also buy a computer from Apple to install the OS on.

    >
    > uh....not quite.
    >
    > ;]


    So what other hardware can you install it to then?

    >> c) You are comparing an upgrade version of MacOS X with a full retail
    >> version of WinXP. Nobody buys a full retail version. The upgrade
    >> version of WinXP is around $280 incl GST.

    >
    > No its a full Mac OS x, Apple do not sell an upgrade, only the full
    > version.


    It really is an upgrade though, because you need to have a Mac to
    install it on, which will already have a Mac operating system on it. So
    you essentially are upgrading what you already have.

    [snip]

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.co.nz
    Chris Hope, Jul 11, 2005
    #6
  7. wrote:
    > Most of the XP code is derived from win2k which is derived from NT4
    > which is derived from NT3.5...(NT3?) witness security issues that effect


    You can go all the way back to VMS if you like...
    Stewart Fleming, Jul 11, 2005
    #7
  8. H.O.G Guest

    On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:43:02 +1200, Chris Hope
    <> spoke these fine words:

    > wrote:
    >
    >[snip]
    >
    >>> b) You need to also buy a computer from Apple to install the OS on.

    >>
    >> uh....not quite.
    >>
    >> ;]

    >
    >So what other hardware can you install it to then?
    >
    >>> c) You are comparing an upgrade version of MacOS X with a full retail
    >>> version of WinXP. Nobody buys a full retail version. The upgrade
    >>> version of WinXP is around $280 incl GST.

    >>
    >> No its a full Mac OS x, Apple do not sell an upgrade, only the full
    >> version.

    >
    >It really is an upgrade though, because you need to have a Mac to
    >install it on, which will already have a Mac operating system on it. So
    >you essentially are upgrading what you already have.


    My point exactly.
    H.O.G, Jul 11, 2005
    #8
  9. H.O.G Guest

    On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:05:49 +1200, The Other Guy
    <> spoke these fine words:

    >H.O.G wrote:
    >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:48 +1200, ""
    >> <> spoke these fine words:
    >>
    >>>Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is $800?

    >>
    >>
    >> I realise this is a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
    >>
    >> Because:
    >>
    >> a) Apple stole their OS from the BSD boys, so did not have anywhere
    >> near as high development costs.

    >
    >Apple didn't steal their OS from the BSD boys. The BSD boys, unlike the
    >GPL bitches, make their software available for such use. Apple also does
    >their part and contributes back to the BSD community, which is more than
    >many do.
    >

    You say took, I say stole.

    They still took a non-commercial product, slapped their name on it,
    and sold it for lots. And the BSD boys, instead of thinking "hey,
    these guys are profiting hugely from my hard work", were too busy
    saying "hee, hee, look! It really is a serious operating system. Take
    that, Linux!"
    H.O.G, Jul 11, 2005
    #9
  10. Chris Hope Guest

    H.O.G wrote:

    > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:05:49 +1200, The Other Guy
    > <> spoke these fine words:
    >
    >>H.O.G wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:48 +1200, ""
    >>> <> spoke these fine words:
    >>>
    >>>>Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is
    >>>>$800?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I realise this is a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
    >>>
    >>> Because:
    >>>
    >>> a) Apple stole their OS from the BSD boys, so did not have anywhere
    >>> near as high development costs.

    >>
    >>Apple didn't steal their OS from the BSD boys. The BSD boys, unlike
    >>the GPL bitches, make their software available for such use. Apple
    >>also does their part and contributes back to the BSD community, which
    >>is more than many do.
    >>

    > You say took, I say stole.
    >
    > They still took a non-commercial product, slapped their name on it,
    > and sold it for lots. And the BSD boys, instead of thinking "hey,
    > these guys are profiting hugely from my hard work", were too busy
    > saying "hee, hee, look! It really is a serious operating system. Take
    > that, Linux!"


    It's hardly stolen. This is allowed under the BSD license. And Apple is
    under no obligation to give back anything in return.

    --
    Chris Hope | www.electrictoolbox.com | www.linuxcdmall.co.nz
    Chris Hope, Jul 11, 2005
    #10
  11. Rob J Guest

    On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:48 +1200, ""
    <> wrote:


    >XP.
    >
    >Oh...god....
    >
    >Check hardware compatibilty, yes fine, it passes. Dynamically check for
    >updates so the install is the latest software, none needed......from
    >here hell ensues.
    >
    >Disk partitioning seems a bit easier than win2k.
    >
    >Repeated installs crash (5) on hardware detection phase, changing cdrom
    >letters g: to f: this time.....kinda consistant....you know its one
    >letter less than it asks for.....
    >
    >So complete failure to install.....despite 5 goes......yet win2k runs
    >fine........
    >
    >Purchase cost, DSE, XP pro, $794...ouch......arrggg!
    >
    >Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is $800?
    >
    >Now while I dont regard Apple as the bargin basement brigade, Sorry MS
    >but 4 times Apple's cost seems a bit OTT.
    >
    >So total failure to install.
    >
    >0/10....have a nice day.....


    Compare apples with apples. You can't buy OS10.x as a retail product
    from any shop. The version of XP listed is a retail edition, if you
    buy it with the PC it comes down to about $200.

    Zillions of people have installed XP without any hardware failures,
    and without the CDROM error letters, there must be some very strange
    config in his machine, like extra hidden partitions on the HDD.
    Rob J, Jul 11, 2005
    #11
  12. Rob J Guest

    On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 18:05:49 +1200, The Other Guy
    <> wrote:

    >H.O.G wrote:
    >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:48 +1200, ""
    >> <> spoke these fine words:
    >>
    >>>Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is $800?

    >>
    >>
    >> I realise this is a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
    >>
    >> Because:
    >>
    >> a) Apple stole their OS from the BSD boys, so did not have anywhere
    >> near as high development costs.

    >
    >Apple didn't steal their OS from the BSD boys. The BSD boys, unlike the
    >GPL bitches, make their software available for such use. Apple also does
    >their part and contributes back to the BSD community, which is more than
    >many do.


    They got almost all of the OS developed already by the BSD people.
    Rob J, Jul 11, 2005
    #12
  13. Rob J Guest

    On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:29:31 +1200, ""
    <> wrote:

    >H.O.G wrote:
    >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:48 +1200, ""
    >> <> spoke these fine words:
    >>
    >>>Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is $800?

    >>
    >>
    >> I realise this is a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
    >>
    >> Because:
    >>
    >> a) Apple stole their OS from the BSD boys, so did not have anywhere
    >> near as high development costs.

    >
    >Most of the XP code is derived from win2k which is derived from NT4
    >which is derived from NT3.5...(NT3?) witness security issues that effect
    >the entire family tree. Hence neither is a ground up re-write. In fact
    >its quite arguable that XP is nothing more than a front end change to
    >win2k. So on the face of it the development costs should be similar,
    >hence the costs. The OEM version of XP is $185? so it is the full new
    >retail cost that hurts....


    Retail products come with built in assumptions, like that it has to be
    made to run on a wide range of hardware, and MS Support has to handle
    a lot of calls from people who can't make it run on their PC.

    On an OEM PC, the OEM makes it work on their hardware when they sell
    the machine, and they provide the support, and so the costs are
    differently apportioned.
    Rob J, Jul 11, 2005
    #13
  14. Chris Hope Guest

    Chris Hope, Jul 11, 2005
    #14
  15. Guest

    I have to write this again since I neglected to copy it before I hit
    post and I'm sadly using IE...

    Anyway I've installed Windows 95, 98, 98SE, NT4, 2k, XP and 2k3
    countless times and have never had to restart an install unless I
    realised half way through I wanted to install to a diff partition
    except for one time I received an unhelpful error message which turned
    out to be due to insufficent disk space.

    And nor have I ever encounter the changing CD drive phenomena. Sure the
    DOS based Windowses could be a little quirky if you wanted a specific
    set up but if you just did things by default it was fine. The NT ones
    can be a little confusing in the way they decide to award drive letters
    but once awarded of course they remain. Either way, it doesn't really
    matter to most end users.

    Therefore, one can only assume either you have a very very strange
    config or did something very stupid...

    Also if you wanted minimal reboots you should have obtained or made a
    slipstreamed 2k CD with all the SPs.

    The 2k not having your ATA driver issue is likely due to your ATA
    controller coming out after 2k was released. This may have been solved
    by the slipstreaming but then again Microsoft has never been that good
    at making sure their install CDs have the latest drivers, especially if
    the produce the driver is for comes out after they have a newer OS.
    However there is no denying that on the whole Windows driver support
    roundely beats *nix. Of course, this is not just because of MSes hard
    work but this does not change the facts. Apple of course does not have
    this problem due to their control over the hardware but then again you
    pay through the roof for this 'service' and consequentialy also have
    very little flexibility and upgradability.

    Also, as others have pointed out, only an idiot will pay the full
    retail price for XP. You also seem to have missed out that Apple rather
    then just selling OSes sells service packs too. It's all very well
    MacOS 10.4 being cheaper but given that your paying for a service pack
    for MacOS 10.3 which was a service pack 10.2 etc the cost suddenly
    doesn't appear to be so cheap.... This was somewhat true with XP over
    2k perhaps but far less so and of course, at least then there was
    upgrade pricing.

    P.S. There is no denying that Windows installs and especially Windows
    itself can be quirky and annoying but your examples are clearly not
    typical nor useful analyses either really.
    , Jul 11, 2005
    #15
  16. In article <42d2263b$>, Stewart Fleming <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > wrote:
    >> Most of the XP code is derived from win2k which is derived from NT4
    >> which is derived from NT3.5...(NT3?) witness security issues that effect

    >
    >You can go all the way back to VMS if you like...


    Surely not ... VMS was good ! :)


    Bruce


    -------------------------------------
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
    - George Bernard Shaw
    Cynic, n: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
    - Ambrose Bierce

    Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
    (if there were any)
    Bruce Sinclair, Jul 11, 2005
    #16
  17. <> wrote in message news:...
    > The Other Guy wrote:
    >> H.O.G wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:48 +1200, ""
    >>> <> spoke these fine words:
    >>>
    >>>> Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is
    >>>> $800?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I realise this is a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
    >>>
    >>> Because:
    >>>
    >>> a) Apple stole their OS from the BSD boys, so did not have anywhere
    >>> near as high development costs.

    >>
    >>
    >> Apple didn't steal their OS from the BSD boys. The BSD boys, unlike the
    >> GPL bitches, make their software available for such use. Apple also does
    >> their part and contributes back to the BSD community, which is more than
    >> many do.
    >>
    >> The Other Guy

    >
    >
    > You could add, that in fact MS stole the bsd network stack from BSD as
    > they didnt ak. the code...
    >
    > At least Apple is quite open about using BSD underneath, though its file
    > systems seems heavily "simplified"
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >


    It might pay to check your facts on this one. When Microsoft was using the
    BSD TCP/IP stack that was acknowledged in the splash and "about" screens of
    the applicable Windows version as required by the BSD license. We pulled the
    BSD stack out and used our own further down the track and therefore no
    longer acknowledged (or had to acknowledge) the BSD stack. 6/10 for the
    troll attempt though :)

    Brett Roberts
    Microsoft NZ
    Brett Roberts, Jul 11, 2005
    #17
  18. thing2 Guest

    Rob J wrote:
    > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:13:48 +1200, ""
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>XP.
    >>
    >>Oh...god....
    >>
    >>Check hardware compatibilty, yes fine, it passes. Dynamically check for
    >>updates so the install is the latest software, none needed......from
    >>here hell ensues.
    >>
    >>Disk partitioning seems a bit easier than win2k.
    >>
    >>Repeated installs crash (5) on hardware detection phase, changing cdrom
    >>letters g: to f: this time.....kinda consistant....you know its one
    >>letter less than it asks for.....
    >>
    >>So complete failure to install.....despite 5 goes......yet win2k runs
    >>fine........
    >>
    >>Purchase cost, DSE, XP pro, $794...ouch......arrggg!
    >>
    >>Can someone explain to me why OS x 10.4 is (approx) $200 and XP is $800?
    >>
    >>Now while I dont regard Apple as the bargin basement brigade, Sorry MS
    >>but 4 times Apple's cost seems a bit OTT.
    >>
    >>So total failure to install.
    >>
    >>0/10....have a nice day.....

    >
    >
    > Compare apples with apples. You can't buy OS10.x as a retail product
    > from any shop. The version of XP listed is a retail edition, if you
    > buy it with the PC it comes down to about $200.


    I didnt buy a Mac so I didnt list it as OEM. It is a retail pack bought
    outright. The Apple OS X bought is also not some bastardised OEM recover
    disk, it is a fresh full install.

    Even by the argument you can buy an upgrade of XP Pro, its
    $536.......not $235.

    > Zillions of people have installed XP without any hardware failures,
    > and without the CDROM error letters, there must be some very strange
    > config in his machine, like extra hidden partitions on the HDD.
    >


    Yes, you can buy it as a retail product (which I just did), a local
    University computer shop sells it, Magnum Mac sells it, various on line
    stores.....

    regards

    Thing
    thing2, Jul 12, 2005
    #18
  19. AD. Guest

    On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:59:41 +1200, H.O.G wrote:

    > You say took, I say stole.
    >
    > They still took a non-commercial product, slapped their name on it, and
    > sold it for lots. And the BSD boys, instead of thinking "hey, these guys
    > are profiting hugely from my hard work", were too busy saying "hee, hee,
    > look! It really is a serious operating system. Take that, Linux!"


    GPL advocates are idealists that want to change attitudes around the way
    software is used. It's more of a social or political movement than a
    technical one.

    BSD fans just want their code to be used to improve software in general,
    and stick more to the technical side of things. Most of them couldn't give
    a rats ass about Linux or that anyone is profiting from their work.

    Apple only did what the BSD guys would've wanted anyone to be able to do.
    You can't really call that stealing.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jul 12, 2005
    #19
  20. thing2 Guest

    wrote:
    > I have to write this again since I neglected to copy it before I hit
    > post and I'm sadly using IE...
    >
    > Anyway I've installed Windows 95, 98, 98SE, NT4, 2k, XP and 2k3
    > countless times and have never had to restart an install unless I
    > realised half way through I wanted to install to a diff partition
    > except for one time I received an unhelpful error message which turned
    > out to be due to insufficent disk space.
    >
    > And nor have I ever encounter the changing CD drive phenomena.


    If it was a one off maybe, but the second install saw the cdrom as D:
    which was correct...inconsistant.

    Sure the
    > DOS based Windowses could be a little quirky if you wanted a specific
    > set up but if you just did things by default it was fine. The NT ones
    > can be a little confusing in the way they decide to award drive letters
    > but once awarded of course they remain. Either way, it doesn't really
    > matter to most end users.
    >
    > Therefore, one can only assume either you have a very very strange
    > config or did something very stupid...


    Standard build, since RH and Debian had no issues and reported the
    standard drives I was expecting....I dont see it as a strange
    config...as for stupid, well putting the cd in is pretty zero
    intelligence, and offensive I dont need.

    This box was also a fresh install of the win2k OS that had been on it
    for 18 months, the only hardware upgrade from win2k before that was a
    Ti4200 video card and a new PCI ~ external creative sound card.

    > Also if you wanted minimal reboots you should have obtained or made a
    > slipstreamed 2k CD with all the SPs.


    And could a ordinary home user do this? would they bother for a one off
    install? I think not. Setting up such a slip stream setup is large
    office territory....I could have done RH via kickstart....that is even
    less work....I didnt.

    > The 2k not having your ATA driver issue is likely due to your ATA
    > controller coming out after 2k was released.


    Yes and I didnt deduct a point.

    This may have been solved
    > by the slipstreaming but then again Microsoft has never been that good
    > at making sure their install CDs have the latest drivers, especially if
    > the produce the driver is for comes out after they have a newer OS.
    > However there is no denying that on the whole Windows driver support
    > roundely beats *nix.


    Justify this...my experience is the opposite, Linux kernels usually
    support more hardware than MS ones....

    Of course, this is not just because of MSes hard
    > work but this does not change the facts. Apple of course does not have
    > this problem due to their control over the hardware but then again you
    > pay through the roof for this 'service' and consequentialy also have
    > very little flexibility and upgradability.


    The way MS and the OEMs lock down the OS upgrades and obsolete the
    hardware mean that in effect there is little point in upgrading a box,
    it is cheaper to buy a new one, hence your comment on Apple makes no
    real sense.

    > Also, as others have pointed out, only an idiot will pay the full
    > retail price for XP.


    So, OK I pay a retail version upgrade, at $536, it is still 250% od more...

    I am now of course on an upgrade from an upgrade
    NT4WS-->Win2kWS-->XP-ProWS......I assume MS allows that?

    You also seem to have missed out that Apple rather
    > then just selling OSes sells service packs too.


    No Apple's patches are free, XP is a flashy upgrade to win2k which you
    pay dearly for, 10.4 is a flashy upgrade to 10.3 which you pay a lower
    cost for. I can but conclude you know zilch about Apple....

    It's all very well
    > MacOS 10.4 being cheaper but given that your paying for a service pack
    > for MacOS 10.3 which was a service pack 10.2 etc the cost suddenly
    > doesn't appear to be so cheap.... This was somewhat true with XP over
    > 2k perhaps but far less so and of course, at least then there was
    > upgrade pricing.


    see above.

    > P.S. There is no denying that Windows installs and especially Windows
    > itself can be quirky and annoying but your examples are clearly not
    > typical nor useful analyses either really.


    Having done a lot of MS and Linux isnatlls I have found MS the worst. I
    was very impressed with Apple.

    regards

    Thing
    thing2, Jul 12, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mucko

    multi oses

    mucko, Sep 4, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    459
    paul chapmann
    Sep 4, 2003
  2. Imhotep
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    903
    Moe Trin
    Aug 17, 2005
  3. =?Utf-8?B?c21sYW1hcnJl?=

    Dual-Boot and running Applications on both OSes

    =?Utf-8?B?c21sYW1hcnJl?=, Oct 7, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    527
    John Barnes
    Oct 8, 2005
  4. thing

    Fortune 100 web site hosting OSes

    thing, Nov 19, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    337
    thing
    Nov 20, 2004
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Force PCs to be sold without OSes?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 24, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    938
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Oct 2, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page