Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
John.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jeh <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote:

> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions
> of xp pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing
> upgrading here and there occasionally you might run into
> problems with oem versions.

I think the only difference is that you must do a clean install with
the OEM version. I never do an upgrade install anyway (maybe once a
long time ago), so OEM is fine.

In direct answer to your question, No, I don't think there is any
difference in that way. If you do upgrade installations with the
retail version, you are more likely to run into problems. Doing
clean installs is more work upfront. It's up to you.

This might be more advanced than the options you need, but the real
way to install Windows is to make incremental backup copies and keep
copies you can revert to when things go wrong. Even now with XP's
stability, I wouldn't do without a disk manager.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jeh wrote:
> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
> there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
> John.

the main difference between OEM and Retail is that OEM has no packaging
or instructions (other than a quick start), there is no product support
and you cannot transfer the operating system to another pc eg. you buy a
new computer without windows you cannot install a previously installed
OEM version on it (well your not supposed to)

Retail version has product support, packaging and you can transfer it to
another computer.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JD wrote:

> jeh wrote:
>
>> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
>> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
>> there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
>> John.
>
>
> the main difference between OEM and Retail is that OEM has no packaging
> or instructions (other than a quick start), there is no product support
> and you cannot transfer the operating system to another pc eg. you buy a
> new computer without windows you cannot install a previously installed
> OEM version on it (well your not supposed to)

Which is also why the OEM version does not support 'upgrading' a prior O.S..


> Retail version has product support, packaging and you can transfer it to
> another computer.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:
> jeh <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions
>>of xp pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing
>>upgrading here and there occasionally you might run into
>>problems with oem versions.
>
>
> I think the only difference is that you must do a clean install with
> the OEM version. I never do an upgrade install anyway (maybe once a
> long time ago), so OEM is fine.
>
> In direct answer to your question, No, I don't think there is any
> difference in that way. If you do upgrade installations with the
> retail version, you are more likely to run into problems. Doing
> clean installs is more work upfront. It's up to you.
>
> This might be more advanced than the options you need, but the real
> way to install Windows is to make incremental backup copies and keep
> copies you can revert to when things go wrong. Even now with XP's
> stability, I wouldn't do without a disk manager.

Sounds like you have a lot of problems with XP. I've been doing pretty
good with 98, and I'm sort of hesitant to change, but I do some work
online with various companies and they are starting to require a more
updated os for the security aspect of it. Think I should wait for Longhorn?
Thanks.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:116bokneipv1s5a@corp.supernews.com...
> JD wrote:
>
>> jeh wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
>>> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
>>> there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
>>> John.
>>
>>
>> the main difference between OEM and Retail is that OEM has no packaging
>> or instructions (other than a quick start), there is no product support
>> and you cannot transfer the operating system to another pc eg. you buy a
>> new computer without windows you cannot install a previously installed
>> OEM version on it (well your not supposed to)
>
> Which is also why the OEM version does not support 'upgrading' a prior
> O.S..
>
I have updated a Toshiba laptop of mine that had a Toshiba version of XP
Home with an OEM version of XP Pro and it worked just fine. As far as
updating from 98 or ME I don't know because back then I upgraded with a
retail version. I wound up reinstalling XP Pro clean after deciding I didn't
want or need all the junk that Toshiba installs with it's version of XP
Home.
>
>> Retail version has product support, packaging and you can transfer it to
>> another computer.
>
The above OEM XP Pro that I installed on the Toshiba was previously
installed on a Sony Vaio laptop that bit the dust. I didn't even need to
call MS to activate. It activated just as a retail version would. I think
the largest difference is the packaging and lack of product support. If you
can do without those, I think the OEM version is a good deal. Of course, you
must purchase a major computer component (supposedly) to get an OEM copy. I
have an OEM version of XP Pro on this system and it is my "test" system
(guinea pig if u will) and have changed virtually everything in it and have
had to make the 10 min call to MS on a few occasions but just telling them I
upgraded, which is true, and they just reactivated normally.

Ed

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

If your hardware is up to the challenge, you will find that XP is a big
improvement over W98, such as for the security enhancements that you
mentioned.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"jeh" <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote...
> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and there
> occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.

Included drivers.

Support -- none from MS on an OEM serial number.

Lack of some add-ons (e.g., NetBEUI).

You may not get a CD for OEM.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jeh <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:

>> I think the only difference is that you must do a clean install
>> with the OEM version. I never do an upgrade install anyway
>> (maybe once a long time ago), so OEM is fine.
>> In direct answer to your question, No, I don't think there is
>> any difference in that way. If you do upgrade installations
>> with the retail version, you are more likely to run into
>> problems. Doing clean installs is more work upfront. It's up to
>> you.
>> This might be more advanced than the options you need, but the
>> real way to install Windows is to make incremental backup
>> copies and keep copies you can revert to when things go wrong.
>> Even now with XP's stability, I wouldn't do without a disk
>> manager.
>
> Sounds like you have a lot of problems with XP. I've been doing
> pretty good with 98, and I'm sort of hesitant to change, but I
> do some work online with various companies and they are starting
> to require a more updated os for the security aspect of it.
> Think I should wait for Longhorn?

I put my personal computer to the test, persistently. Currently, I
am beginning what in my little world is a new era of speech
recognition, integrating that into the whole. I am looking forward
to integrating speech into my system wide macro recorder, to make
Windows dance on my verbal command.

Even if you do little with your computer, a disk manager probably
is useful. Apparently you do enough, since you are concerned
enough to ask about OEM versus retail versions of Windows XP.

If you don't mind the hassles, stick with Windows 98. I wouldn't
recommend Windows XP because I want to increase Microsoft's
wealth. You just have to keep paying personal computer user dues
if you want a smooth running system.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:16:56 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
wrote:

.. Currently, I
>am beginning what in my little world is a new era of speech
>recognition, integrating that into the whole. I am looking forward
>to integrating speech into my system wide macro recorder, to make
>Windows dance on my verbal command.
>
If you're into C++. here's a great page on making speech reco
programs. http://www.generation5.org/content/2001/sr00.asp
and
http://www.generation5.org/article [...] ecognition

I wrote a speech-driven Windows Media Player. Just say "Play ..." and
it does (most of the time!)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

The OEM version is cheaper because it is meant to be sold with a hardware
system and does NOT come with Microsoft support.

--
DaveW



"jeh" <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote in message
news139d$42659e90$4ee038a$18368@ALLTEL.NET...
> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and there
> occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
> John.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

sdeyoreo@hotmail.com wrote:
> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Currently, I am beginning what in my little world is a new era
>> of speech recognition, integrating that into the whole. I am
>> looking forward to integrating speech into my system wide macro
>> recorder, to make Windows dance on my verbal command.

> If you're into C++. here's a great page on making speech reco
> programs. http://www.generation5.org/content/2001/sr00.asp and
> http://www.generation5.org/article [...] ic=Speech%
> 20Recognition
> I wrote a speech-driven Windows Media Player. Just say "Play
> ..." and it does (most of the time!)

My impression of the personal computer user interface is that it
must work nearly 100% of the time to be practical/acceptable. That
goes for macroing and speech recognition. Currently, I am using
Dragon NaturallySpeaking. It is by far the most accurate speech to
text I have found. I would like to apply speech recognition to my
macroer but I won't be writing the speech recognition part.
Thinking mainly for gaming, I don't want to use NaturallySpeaking
because its overhead is high, and only the Pro version will do
speech to keyboard keystrokes. I tried Shoot but I'm not sure it
will be accurate enough. Microsoft's effort at accurate speech
recognition looks like a failure so far.

That's not meant to be a very meaningful reply to your advice, just
my thoughts. Thanks.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

DaveW writes:

> The OEM version is cheaper because it is meant to be sold with a hardware
> system and does NOT come with Microsoft support.

Given how useless MS support can be sometimes, that's a pretty good
deal.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jeh wrote:

>
> Sounds like you have a lot of problems with XP. I've been doing pretty
> good with 98, and I'm sort of hesitant to change, but I do some work
> online with various companies and they are starting to require a more
> updated os for the security aspect of it. Think I should wait for
> Longhorn?
> Thanks.

If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security functions
of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure than Windows and
all the popular web tools are there. Its also free and as you are still
using win9x its fair to assume that your hardware is dated also, another
good point about using linux is it runs well on older hardware. check
out Suse (www.suse.com),Ubuntu (www.ubuntu.com),Gentoo (www.gentoo.org)
and Fedora Core (redhat - www.fedora.redhat.com) you can purhase,
download or even get a copy on magazines such as linux format , linux
magazine.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JD writes:

> If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security functions
> of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure than Windows and
> all the popular web tools are there.

Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> JD writes:
>
>
>>If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security functions
>>of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure than Windows and
>>all the popular web tools are there.
>
>
> Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
> as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
> Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.
>

The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux and the
strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows! and as
far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish as long as you
don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing you can do on
windows that you cannot do on Linux. you can even run windows programs
on Linux using one of the many Windows emulators you can even play
Halflife2 and Doom3 on Linux.

and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:16:26 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
>as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
>Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.

And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD.
Almost the same thing.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Aldwyn Edain wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:16:26 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
>>as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
>>Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.
>
>
> And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD.
> Almost the same thing.

I meant to put that in the end of my other post .. it uses a heavily
modified version of the FreeBSD kernel as far as im led to belive.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-h