Very Computer

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-956152.html

"Microsoft made a similar move with its Office XP Service Pack 2, which
the company released last week. The update will not install on some
pirated copies of the software suite. Microsoft estimates that about i
half of the 300 million copies of Office in use are pirated."

Heh.

--
General Protection Fault

 12:05pm  up 4 days, 14:30,  2 users,  load average: 0.01, 0.01, 0.00
Linux nitrogen.ertw.com 2.4.9-34 #1 Sat Jun 1 06:32:14 EDT 2002 i586 unknown

Error Log for Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:01:04 +0000: segfault in module
"GeneralPF" - dump details are as follows...

Quote:> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-956152.html

> "Microsoft made a similar move with its Office XP Service Pack 2, which
> the company released last week. The update will not install on some
> pirated copies of the software suite. Microsoft estimates that about i
> half of the 300 million copies of Office in use are pirated."

> Heh.

To be honest, out of the 10-15 people that I know that run WinXP, not one of
them is a legit copy.

They all either snagged it from work, or online.  I've been offered pirated
copies of it so much I feel I should start handing out eyepatches!

Arrr Matey!

--
rapskat -   1:40pm  up  3:32,  1 user,  load average: 0.31, 0.27, 0.29
71 processes: 69 sleeping, 2 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 19.0% user,  3.9% system,  0.0% nice, 76.9% idle
drop the hot to mail me

Everything ends badly.  Otherwise it wouldn't end.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 13:45:18 -0400, rapskat assert()ed:

Quote:> Error Log for Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:01:04 +0000: segfault in module
> "GeneralPF" - dump details are as follows...

>> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-956152.html

>> "Microsoft made a similar move with its Office XP Service Pack 2, which
>> the company released last week. The update will not install on some
>> pirated copies of the software suite. Microsoft estimates that about i
>> half of the 300 million copies of Office in use are pirated."

>> Heh.

> To be honest, out of the 10-15 people that I know that run WinXP, not one of
> them is a legit copy.

> They all either snagged it from work, or online.  I've been offered pirated
> copies of it so much I feel I should start handing out eyepatches!

> Arrr Matey!

So there are in fact people who voluntarily want Windows XP.  Huh.

--
General Protection Fault

 12:55pm  up 4 days, 15:20,  2 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.06, 0.03
Linux nitrogen.ertw.com 2.4.9-34 #1 Sat Jun 1 06:32:14 EDT 2002 i586 unknown

GeneralPF wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy the following drivel:

Quote:> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 13:45:18 -0400, rapskat assert()ed:
>> Error Log for Wed, 04 Sep 2002 17:01:04 +0000: segfault in module
>> "GeneralPF" - dump details are as follows...

>>> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-956152.html

>>> "Microsoft made a similar move with its Office XP Service Pack 2, which
>>> the company released last week. The update will not install on some
>>> pirated copies of the software suite. Microsoft estimates that about i
>>> half of the 300 million copies of Office in use are pirated."

>>> Heh.

>> To be honest, out of the 10-15 people that I know that run WinXP, not one
>> of them is a legit copy.

>> They all either snagged it from work, or online.  I've been offered
>> pirated copies of it so much I feel I should start handing out
>> eyepatches!

>> Arrr Matey!

> So there are in fact people who voluntarily want Windows XP.  Huh.

Skr1pt k1dd13z.... ;)

--
Donovan Hill

Linux: Because you can!
All Rise for the Microsoft Anthem: "BAAAAAH!"

comp.os.linux.advocacy to propose the following:

Quote:> http://news.com.com/2100-1001-956152.html

> "Microsoft made a similar move with its Office XP Service Pack 2, which
> the company released last week. The update will not install on some
> pirated copies of the software suite. Microsoft estimates that about i
> half of the 300 million copies of Office in use are pirated."

well that blows the hack that fooled the Demo version of Office XP (came
out last year on that *special* official MS magazine over here in the
UK) into thinking it had been activated...

Strange how that *cracking* program appeared so fast... anyone /might/
have reasonable grounds to think it had been put out through the back
door to rapidly increase the install base of the new version...

--
Paul Cooke
  Registered Linux user 273897 Machine registration number 156819
  Linux Counter: Home Page = http://counter.li.org/

But they do not seem to think it is worth paying for.

It could be that there are people out that want to give MS the benefit
of doubt, but don't want to risk paying $100-$200 for an eventual coaster.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 18:44:08 GMT, Francesca assert()ed:

IMHO, Windows 2000 was the first and last good OS Microsoft ever produced.

--
General Protection Fault

  1:55pm  up 4 days, 16:20,  2 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Linux nitrogen.ertw.com 2.4.9-34 #1 Sat Jun 1 06:32:14 EDT 2002 i586 unknown

Error Log for Wed, 04 Sep 2002 18:50:45 +0000: segfault in module
"GeneralPF" - dump details are as follows...

Indeed.  I wouldn't even go so far as to say "good", but it is acceptable if
you've got to run Windows.

--
rapskat -   2:55pm  up  4:47,  1 user,  load average: 0.31, 0.41, 0.37
71 processes: 70 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: 19.5% user,  4.0% system,  0.0% nice, 76.4% idle
drop the hot to mail me

Seeing is believing.  You wouldn't have seen it if you hadn't believed it.

On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 15:00:24 -0400, rapskat assert()ed:

I dunno.  It's never crashed on me, it's always been responsive, it runs
all the latest games (which I infrequently play), and it's flexible.  Mind you,
I do have fairly generic hardware and I don't install junk I download from
the Internet, and I do maintain my system.

Flame away.

--
General Protection Fault

  2:15pm  up 4 days, 16:40,  2 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Linux nitrogen.ertw.com 2.4.9-34 #1 Sat Jun 1 06:32:14 EDT 2002 i586 unknown

<snip>

Quote:>>> IMHO, Windows 2000 was the first and last good OS Microsoft ever produced.

>> Indeed.  I wouldn't even go so far as to say "good", but it is acceptable if
>> you've got to run Windows.

> I dunno.  It's never crashed on me, it's always been responsive, it runs
> all the latest games (which I infrequently play), and it's flexible.  Mind you,
> I do have fairly generic hardware and I don't install junk I download from
> the Internet, and I do maintain my system.

Ditto, once I stopped people installing things themselves I never really
had any problems with our NT 5 workstations that wasn't hardware related.
A little slow on some of the older machines but quite stable. So far I've
found the NT 5.1 (when's a new OS not a new OS? When it's a point release)
installation I've got at home to be reasonable too. It's not like I use it
a lot though, I've not been playing games much recently...

Quote:> Flame away.

If you insist.

--
Ian Potter
"There is such a thing as acceptable losses,

Agreed, however, Microsoft is like a bell curve. Windows 2000 being at
the top, and everything following going down hill.

Funny how that isn't the case with any of the other software I have run,
such as Lotus Smart Suite 9.7, Wordperfect 2002 etc.

Matthew Gardiner

Quote:>>>>IMHO, Windows 2000 was the first and last good OS Microsoft ever produced.

>>>Indeed.  I wouldn't even go so far as to say "good", but it is acceptable if
>>>you've got to run Windows.

>>I dunno.  It's never crashed on me, it's always been responsive, it runs
>>all the latest games (which I infrequently play), and it's flexible.  Mind you,
>>I do have fairly generic hardware and I don't install junk I download from
>>the Internet, and I do maintain my system.

> Ditto, once I stopped people installing things themselves I never really
> had any problems with our NT 5 workstations that wasn't hardware related.
> A little slow on some of the older machines but quite stable. So far I've
> found the NT 5.1 (when's a new OS not a new OS? When it's a point release)
> installation I've got at home to be reasonable too. It's not like I use it
> a lot though, I've not been playing games much recently...

Agreed. Those who had constant BSOD's have *hardware to begin with.
Having run both Windows 2000 and Windows XP, both are very stable,
however, they're stable when you stick to *quality* hardware, not these
$20 motherboards, and el-cheapo reconditioned CPU's.

I have a 440BX chipset, 768MB of name brand memory, 60gig Maxtor
Harddisk, Matrox Graphics Card (which wasn't cheap), SoundBlaster Live!
card etc. and suffer from no instability issues. Linux is a little more
tolerable of shitty hardware, however, at the end of the day, when your
computer crashes heaps, first check out what hardware you have, then
move back until you reach the OS.

Matthew Gardiner

The legal version I have is Office 97 patched to SR2b.  I will try my best
not to purchase an upgrade.  Though when Office 2006 doesn't support the 97
format any more, I may be shafted.  Maybe Open Office will be ready for
prime time then.  We'll see.

NT4 after SP4 was pretty good, IMHO