10-20-2009, 08:29 AM
Damn, and I'm here, you're there 
|
WINDOWS 7
|
10-20-2009, 09:56 AM
BASTARDS! I want to put the new windows 7 on my new hardrives when I put them in and wanted to use the same software.::scared::....Fuckers!
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
10-20-2009, 02:32 PM
What do you mean use the same software? If you're running dual hard drives in the same machine you only need Windows on one of them. If you mean use the same software you're using now under a previous version of Windows... good luck, no guarantees.
10-20-2009, 06:41 PM
Duchess Wrote:Yeah, people are assholes about stuff like minimum fees.D Wrote:Well... just because I'm an ass I'm gonna nitpick here. Its "installing" not "downloading". I usually charge a $15 'minimum fee', which means essentially, that if I spend time working on your machine and can't fix it for whatever reason (usually it needs a part and the customer isn't willing to shell out the money for it), they have to pay me at least $15. It keeps people from 'abusing' my time. Recently, I had a customer with a nasty laptop problem (nothing similar to yours or Lump's) and I told her what my best guess was, which was a part that I don't keep in stock (it would be very difficult for a small shop to stock these, as they are fairly specific to each machine). I ordered the part for her (she had to prepay) and she wanted 'overnight' shipping, so the part ended up costing her $100. It turned out that was NOT the problem, it actually turned out to be an esoteric issue with the motherboard, which I had to go to a colleague of mine to figure out. He's been in the business forever and told me not to feel bad, because he would have done the same thing. I was able to return the part, but she lost $50 in shipping and I didn't make a cent on the job. I felt bad about it, but it couldn't have really been avoided. Even if she had taken her machine to someone who MAY have had the resources to figure out the real issue before ordering the part, she would have ended up spending at least $65 just on the evaluation, so I don't feel TOO bad. Oh well.
10-20-2009, 06:48 PM
Maggot Wrote:BASTARDS! I want to put the new windows 7 on my new hardrives when I put them in and wanted to use the same software.::scared::....Fuckers!Are you saying you want to install the same copy of Windows on two different computers? Because if you are, it's unlikely you can do it. Windows has cracked down on that so much, even since XP. With XP, you can actually buy a 'Retail' version of the operating system, and install it on more than one machine (up to 3, I believe) using the same license number. After that, if I remember, it will start kicking up a fuss. The problem is in the activation process, wherein your license number is verified from Microsoft's servers. If using an OEM version of the operating system, that license number is actually tied to the hardware in your machine. With a 'retail' version, you can legally change the registered copy of your Operating System from one computer to another (although, it is only supposed to be installed on one machine at any given time). With OEM, you can swap out some hardware, but you basically have to keep the Operating System on the machine you originally installed it onto. If you're just talking about having two hard drives in your computer, as D said, you only install the operating system on ONE of them (not something you have to fret over, this happens pretty much automatically). Not sure if I managed to address your question or not. ::dunno::
10-21-2009, 04:44 PM
[user=116]SyberBitch[/user] wrote:
Are you saying you want to install the same copy of Windows on two different computers? Yes
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
10-21-2009, 07:06 PM
Maggot Wrote:[user=116]SyberBitch[/user] wrote:Then the answer is no. Not without a pirated "Corporate" version and WGA hacks, OR a "Retail" with both activation and WGA hacks. Which of course is all illegal. Of course you could buy the 5 license Corporate version for a lot more money and have it installable on 5 PCs....
10-23-2009, 12:05 AM
Maggot Wrote:[user=116]SyberBitch[/user] wrote:Yeah, unfortunately, the last version of Windows you could really use to get away with that trick was '98. However, like I said, you MIGHT be able to buy a retail version and install it on two different computers. You can do that a few times with retail XP (although it's really not a good idea, because eventually you have to reinstall and you end up running out of authorizations), but I don't know whether Windows 7 will allow you to do that or not. I would say 'don't count on it'. 
10-23-2009, 05:26 AM
I had XP on my first laptop...I never had one single problem with that puppy & she's still going strong...Unfortunately, I gave it away when I bought my dream laptop that lasted all of 8 months...Ima gonna be moaning about that bitch for a long time...I hate Dell now. ::finger::
![[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Zy3rKpW.png)
10-23-2009, 09:03 AM
I don't know what kind of probs everyone is having with Vista but my desktop came with it and I have had no issues.
![[Image: alcatraz-prison-picture2-1.jpg]](http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b78/lktraz/Sigs%20and%20Avs/alcatraz-prison-picture2-1.jpg) ![[Image: what_manner.gif]](http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b78/lktraz/Sigs%20and%20Avs/what_manner.gif)
10-23-2009, 01:02 PM
LKTraz Wrote:I don't know what kind of probs everyone is having with Vista but my desktop came with it and I have had no issues.Try playing Mechwarrior 3 on it. A game designed for XP. Things designed for the previous version of an OS should work on the next. Backwards compatibility ONE version should be pretty standard. But this is Micro$uck. They just don't care. And thats only the tip of the berg. Lets see, UAC is annoying as fuckall. And most users aren't savvy enough to turn it off. Basically they tried improving their security to the point of UNIX/Linux/Mac level. They not only failed miserably, BUT made the OS far more annoying in the process. Then there is the WinSXS folder. Its pure bloat. I've expoused about this before here. Search for WinSXS. Trust me. Vista is shit. If I wanted over 20GB of my hard drive filled with worthless bloat I'd download movies I'll never watch.
10-23-2009, 01:41 PM
Ah, that explains it. I don't play computer games so therefore I don't have those issues.
10-23-2009, 01:56 PM
LKTraz Wrote:Ah, that explains it. I don't play computer games so therefore I don't have those issues.Translated to mean: "Ah, that explains it. I'm not a big fucking geek without a life so therefore I don't have those issues."
10-23-2009, 02:26 PM
LuMPyPussy Wrote:Only ONE of the 3 issues I listed had anything to do with games. The SXS folder will bloat regardless. My WinSXS folder was taking up more space than my Program Files folder. That. Is. Wrong. And is my biggest issue with windows.LKTraz Wrote:Ah, that explains it. I don't play computer games so therefore I don't have those issues.Translated to mean: Just because we have huge hard drives and massive amounts of RAM is NOT an excuse for an OS to be bloatware and a resource hog. It makes me want to VOMIT. Take my favorite Windows vs. Linux comparison. Exact same system hardware wise. 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 CPU and 3GB of DDR333 for RAM. System 1 is Windows XP System 2 is Mandriva Linux 2008 Both running the most recent command line version of folding @ home with the same options. Windows uses 13-17% more CPU, 29-33% more RAM, and generates 40-60% more waste heat from the CPU, RAM, and PSU (combined). Umm... wtf? Answer: OS efficiency. And thats Windows XP. Vista performed worse, but I don't have the test results memorized. As far as Windows goes, I will NOT use Vista. 7, Maybe. If its improved as much as it should be with the amount of time they've taken.
10-23-2009, 02:27 PM
Oh yeah, and thanks Lumpy, always nice to know that the whole 10 hours or less a week I play games these days still qualifies as having no life
10-23-2009, 02:37 PM
D Wrote:Would this be considered "verbal foreplay" between you & Syber ? ::gigg::
10-23-2009, 02:57 PM
Good one Duchess. But sorry, no
10-23-2009, 07:38 PM
Duchess Wrote:::finger::D Wrote:Would this be considered "verbal foreplay" between you & Syber ? ::gigg:: ::bigg::
10-23-2009, 07:43 PM
LKTraz Wrote:Ah, that explains it. I don't play computer games so therefore I don't have those issues.The main reason I don't like Vista... Well, MOST of the major bugs have been worked out of now, so that's not really a complaint anymore, but when it first hit the scene, I was seeing some crashing and some REALLY nasty Vista-specific viruses. I also detest the idiotic UAC (that little box that pops up every time you try to open something, run something, change a setting, etc) and I always offer to disable it for people. But the worst crime to me is the fact that Vista is such a resource hog, that you pretty much need to have a dual-core processor and 4G RAM just to get started. And it STILL doesn't run 'fast'. You basically have to have twice the power to get the same or worse performance results. Strip that bloated crap off your machine and put XP on it instead, and you'll have a sleek, fast machine with very few problems. Oh, and I also don't like the way Vista is set up. I don't think it's 'user friendly' at all. At least on XP, stuff is nice and logical. On Vista, you have to know 'where to look' to find certain things (like, certain network settings, for example).
10-23-2009, 10:42 PM
*Spanks Syber on the ass*
Didn't I mention the severe bloat and resource hog issues already And UAC for that matter?  I did forget the "user" friendly part of it, because to me almost anything on a computer is "user friendly".. I just "get it". But looking at it from the PoV of a customer, Syber is right. It isn't very user friendly. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
