OEM vs Retail XP Pro

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?)

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?)

"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?)

"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?)

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?)

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?)

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?)

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?)

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-homebuilt (More info?)

dawg wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:k6be611ulfinnl6tmrfelelb5b177bhivo@4ax.com...
>
>>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.
>
>
> A warning about OEM versions Microsoft programs. This is what Microsoft says
> they plan to do. It's not been implemented yet.
> Soon, Microsoft will not allow OEM versions to be upgraded through Service
> packs or patches downloaded from their websites. All oem version will have
> to be updated through the vendor you bought the PC from. If you have a gray
> market oem Windows product you bought with a cable or floppy drive
> etc.,you'll be SOL.
>
>

That's not completely true they are planning to withdraw the oem
activation codes for the top 20 pc manufacturers, if however you own a
legitimate copy you will be redirected to a activation telephone number
where you will have to answer a few questions, after that you can use it
as normal for updates etc.


"Starting February 28, Microsoft will indefinitely begin to disable
Internet product activation on OEM keys used by the top 20 worldwide PC
makers.

If a customer attempts to activate Windows XP with an OEM key from a
COA, they will be directed to call customer support specialists to
obtain an override code - provided they can prove that their copy is
legitimate by answering a series of questions." -
http://www.betanews.com/article/Mi [...] 1109293194

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

JD writes:

> 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!

There are virtually no viruses for the Mac, either, and it is a thousand
times easier to set up than any distribution of Linux.

Additionally, Windows has a much more extensive and complex system of
user identification than a simple user/root philosophy. Under Windows,
each of any number of users can be assigned any of dozens of different
privileges individually, ranging from no privilege at all (essentially a
guest account) to a full local or domain administrator. In corporate
environments, Windows can be very easily locked down in this way, with
centralized control of access to all individual PCs.

> ... 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.

The vast majority of microcomputer applications today run under Windows,
and only under Windows.

> you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many
> Windows emulators ...

You can run them much more easily under Windows.

> 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.

UNIX is even less suitable as a desktop, with the sole exception of Mac
OS X, which has been so heavily modified with respect to the user
interface that it isn't even recognizable as UNIX. Eventually OS X will
no longer contain any UNIX, anyway.

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

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

"dawg" <don't look@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> Soon, Microsoft will not allow OEM versions to be upgraded through Service
> packs or patches downloaded from their websites. All oem version will have
> to be updated through the vendor you bought the PC from. If you have a gray
> market oem Windows product you bought with a cable or floppy drive
> etc.,you'll be SOL.

Since I typically never upgrade an OS after installing it, this is not a
very big issue.

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

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

John Doe writes:

> And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft
> threatened to stop making Office for the Mac.

Apple has always been so poorly managed as a company that I'm
continually amazed by its survival.

> Apple is dependent on Microsoft.

I don't know ... maybe. Certainly the Office suite is the leading
application for the Mac.

> People who promote Linux to unwise desktop users end
> up making very bad public relations for Linux. I guess they do that
> out of plain ignorance.

Plain ignorance, and unbridled emotion. Most Linux fans are in fact
Microsoft-haters who want something that looks, feels, and behaves like
Windows, but don't want Microsoft's name on it. They've latched on to
Linux and they are trying to make Linux into an ersatz Windows. This is
an exercise in futility, since nothing will ever do Windows as well as
Windows itself does Windows. Promoting Linux as a serious alternative
to Windows leads many unsuspecting people down a path to certain
disappointment and frustration, and it also guarantees that Linux will
never be anything more than an inferior and largely useless substitute
for Windows.

A few Linux users understand this and promote Linux as an environment in
itself, rather than as an alternative to Windows, but they are small
voices in a large and noisy crowd. Additionally, the massive emphasis
on the desktop that most distributions seem to put on Linux is really
trying to put a round peg into a square hole. UNIX and clones such as
Linux are not ideal desktop operating systems; they work better as
servers.

--
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:

> There are virtually no viruses for the Mac, either, and it is a thousand
> times easier to set up than any distribution of Linux.

I don't know when you last looked at Linux but most distro's now have a
Full GUI setup environment that automatically partitions your hard
drives, detects and sets up your hardware (admitedly some hardware still
lacks support). Macs are obviously a thousand times easier to setup
because they come pre-installed.

> Additionally, Windows has a much more extensive and complex system of
> user identification than a simple user/root philosophy.

I meant by "simple" that a Linux user will not use root as default all
distro's by default DON NOT allow root to log in remotely some even go
as far as not letting root log in localy, in that case you would use the
superuser command to change to root privileges which only certain
users can do depending on what "group" they are in.

Under Windows,
> each of any number of users can be assigned any of dozens of different
> privileges individually, ranging from no privilege at all (essentially a
> guest account) to a full local or domain administrator. In corporate
> environments, Windows can be very easily locked down in this way, with
> centralized control of access to all individual PCs.
>

This setup is standard in Linux/UNIX, Linux/UNIX was built with security
firmly in mind whereas windows security was an afterthought! EVERYTHING
in Linux is a file be it a text document or hard-drive / cdrom, Every
file has permissions "Owner Group Other" which can be set to any
combination of "Read Write and Execute" (in actual fact there are more
permissions than that, for folders) and I'm not even going to touch on
CHROOT's and Jails.

Going back to my comment on Windows security as an afterthought.. the
new longhorn version of windows is supposedly built from the ground up
with security in mind, so we will wait and see what this brings.

Going back to your comment on windows privileges and locking down,
Speaking from real world experience here how many people do you know
that don't use the admin account? the simple fact that many users are
simply lazy and "cant be bothered" to log out a user account and log in
as administrator (or use the RUN AS command) is astonishing and its not
all there fault ether, some programs refuse to work properly without
admin privileges (Nero Burning rom as an example, it is fixed now however)

>
>>... 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.
>
>
> The vast majority of microcomputer applications today run under Windows,
> and only under Windows.

Rubbish again I have word processors, graphics applications, sound
editing, dvd authoring, cd/dvd writing in actual fact there is very
little Linux cannot do and at NO/LITTLE COST.

>
>>you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many
>>Windows emulators ...
>
>
> You can run them much more easily under Windows.

That's obvious they were designed for that.

>
>>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.
>
>
> UNIX is even less suitable as a desktop, with the sole exception of Mac
> OS X, which has been so heavily modified with respect to the user
> interface that it isn't even recognizable as UNIX. Eventually OS X will
> no longer contain any UNIX, anyway.
>

I agree to some extent with you there my point was that I use UNIX as my
main OS and I am still able to use my word processors,Graphics,cd/dvd
players and Linux is far more versatile. UNIX machines are renowned for
there stability that's why they are commonplace in servers.

You are seriously underestimating Linux.

This post I fear has seriously went OT however I have enjoyed the
conversation however I will not be able to respond/read posts until
Sunday evening as I am going away for the weekend.

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

If you love playing with the OS and using your mind to come up with
creative ways to run almost everything - in one form or another - Linux
is great.

If you never want to be bothered with the OS and just want to get your
work done reliably and simply without too many application choices, get
a Mac and run OS X.

If you want to run just about anything and have lots of choices in
applications and do it relatively easily without having to bother with
compatibility, run Windows XP.

I have run all of them at one time or another on desktop computers.
Right now, I only have XP on my computers.

Clyde

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

> USB wireless: negative. PCI DSP: negative. Dual display support: negative. I never even got to the point of trying printers or scanners. I'm as open-minded as anybody about what OS to use. But ultimately I want it to give me the flexibility use any harware I want to do stuff, not force me work- around solutions (or be left with no options at all).
>
> Until I find a Linux distro that plays well with the hardware I'm already using..I'll keep a probably patched and unpdated Windows machine running, back up regularly, and reformat/reload as needed (about every 18 months is what I've needed for XP). Linux fought back hard against this user, and for the most part I know what I'm doing. I can't imagine what it would mean for the totally clueless.....

Unless Linux can be made to recognize and work with common
hardware, it isn't going anywhere on the desktop, no matter what
Linux apologists say. Try Ubuntu. It seems to be the most
friendly, from what I've heard lately. I tried it. It wouldn't
handle Winmodems on both my computers, and wouldn't recognize my
Epson scanner on my main computer. Still, you might want to try it.

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

Al Smith wrote:

> Unless Linux can be made to recognize and work with common
> hardware, it isn't going anywhere on the desktop, no matter what
> Linux apologists say. Try Ubuntu. It seems to be the most
> friendly, from what I've heard lately. I tried it. It wouldn't
> handle Winmodems on both my computers, and wouldn't recognize my
> Epson scanner on my main computer. Still, you might want to try it.

Kubuntu would be a better choice for a first time Linux user, as it's Ubuntu
based on KDE rather than Gnome. However, once installed, you can install
either KDE or Gnome to the other and it's all the same.

I have a big problem with Ubuntu/Kubuntu: When logged in as user, and you
need to do something administrative, it asks for your _user_ password - not
your _root_ password. This seems to almost be as wide open as Windows...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't like it at all. I'm sure there's a way to
change it, but I just didn't bother to dig that deep.

Ubuntu/Kubuntu is based on Debian Sid, which Knoppix/Gnoppix and Mepis are
too. Though Kubuntu was more visually pleasing, and it got my onboard Via
sound to work (minor problem), I thought Mepis was a better distro. They
all have their shortcomings...

The Linux community is predicting that based on growth rates and projecting
that at a certain marketshare, OEM's will be forced to come onboard and
support their hardware. At that point, the issue of working or not on your
computer should become moot.

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

Ruel Smith wrote:

> ropeyarn@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>This is the problem with Linux. I have actual work to do...and can't do
>>it without a printer and wireless Internet access. I can piddle around
>>with innards of an OS that is supported only via the best guesses of
>>kindly geeks, or I can stick with Windows, which simply works. My SO was
>>certainly delighted when I hauled out 100 feet of CAT 5 cable to see if
>>Suse would work with wired ethernet..which it did:-)
>
>
> Like I said, SuSE 9.3 should have the new kernel with wireless connectivity.
> The new Mandrake, 2005LE, has the 2.6.10 kernel, but I'm willing to bet
> that it backported the wireless stuff.
>
> You might try and install the newest version of SuSE and maybe get the
> wireless going.
>
> Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering so
> much is incredibly fun. Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
> Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff. )

Yes we do. That's why I have a Linux toy boxes and a Windows work boxes.

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

ropeyarn@gmail.com writes:

> This is the problem with Linux. I have actual work to do...and can't do
> it without a printer and wireless Internet access. I can piddle around
> with innards of an OS that is supported only via the best guesses of
> kindly geeks, or I can stick with Windows, which simply works. My SO was
> certainly delighted when I hauled out 100 feet of CAT 5 cable to see if
> Suse would work with wired ethernet..which it did:-)

Linux advocates, like so many geeks, don't understand that the vast
majority of people with computers today just use the computers as tools
to get things done ... they don't play with computers for the sake of
playing with a computer. And when one has actual work to do, the only
realistic choices for the desktop are Windows or a Mac (usually the
former, since more applications are available for it).

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

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

Ruel Smith writes:

> The Linux community is predicting that based on growth rates and projecting
> that at a certain marketshare, OEM's will be forced to come onboard and
> support their hardware.

The Linux community doesn't necessarily have a realistic view of the
computer world.

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

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

John Doe writes:

> That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
> users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
> mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
> of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
> operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.

All versions of UNIX and clones (such as Linux) are essentially server
operating systems, even if Apple managed to cobble together a desktop OS
out of one of them (with tremendous coding effort).

On the desktop, I recommend Windows. On servers, I recommend UNIX
(FreeBSD, specifically). I don't recommend Linux for anything, since
it's a wannabe desktop that is dramatically inferior to Windows, and the
emphasis on desktop use makes it less than ideal for servers as well.

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

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

John Doe writes:

> You recommend server software?

If a server is what someone wants, yes.

> I don't think Linux has an emphasis on desktop use, except by
> Linux groupies.

Almost all users of Linux are Linux groupies. The entire Linux movement
is driven by them. People who aren't groupies and just want servers
knew about UNIX long before Linux came along, and versions of UNIX that
make superior servers have existed for years.

> Take Red Hat Linux for example, the only profitable Linux Corp. so
> far.

Gee, and I thought Linux was supposed to be _free_.

> Here is its business summary. "Provides an enterprise
> operating system and related systems management services based on
> open source technology for the information technology
> infrastructure requirements of large enterprises."

What would you expect it to say?

> Linux is doing well as a server operating system. Linux does have
> the backing of many large companies. Linux also has the backing of
> many governments, including some of our (United States)
> governments. The greatest threat to Windows, in my estimation, is
> the banding together of other countries to thwart Microsoft's
> dominance of computing (Microsoft is a giant, powerful
> corporation). Linux appears to be the weapon of choice. Linux has
> been and continues to be gaining ground on other forms of UNIX.

Linux is technically inferior to most flavors of UNIX; it advances only
because of some of the same hype that originally caused Windows to
advance.

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

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

Ruel Smith wrote:
>>Linux is like a new car that is small, fast, handles super, and almost
>>free. However, they haven't padded the seats in it yet and no one makes
>>tires for it yet. If you never wear out the OEM tires and bring your own
>>seat cushion, it's fine. However, you wouldn't get very many people to
>>get on board.
>
>
> Linux is like a kit car. You can get one that needs complete assembly
> (Gentoo), one that comes with a rolling chassis but still needs some work
> from the buyer to get roadworthy (Debian), or a turnkey one the will run
> great, provided you stick the right key in (SuSE, Mandrake). You can
> install your own engine (custom kernel) and really soup it up or provide it
> with a custom built engine (prepackaged custom kernel), provided you have
> the muster to do it. You can even get a rental (Knoppix)...
>
>

The market for kit cars has always been very small, but enthusiastic. It
is right for a handful of people, but not even close for most. Have fun!

Clyde

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

>>Unless Linux can be made to recognize and work with common
>>> hardware, it isn't going anywhere on the desktop, no matter what
>>> Linux apologists say. Try Ubuntu. It seems to be the most
>>> friendly, from what I've heard lately. I tried it. It wouldn't
>>> handle Winmodems on both my computers, and wouldn't recognize my
>>> Epson scanner on my main computer. Still, you might want to try it.
>
>
> Kubuntu would be a better choice for a first time Linux user, as it's Ubuntu
> based on KDE rather than Gnome. However, once installed, you can install
> either KDE or Gnome to the other and it's all the same.
>
> I have a big problem with Ubuntu/Kubuntu: When logged in as user, and you
> need to do something administrative, it asks for your _user_ password - not
> your _root_ password. This seems to almost be as wide open as Windows...
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't like it at all. I'm sure there's a way to
> change it, but I just didn't bother to dig that deep.

I've heard about Kubuntu but haven't run across a copy yet (I
can't download since I'm on dial-up). It's Ubuntu with KDE added,
right? I like KDE, which I got used to in Mandrake, but really, I
find that the simplicity of Gnome is not bad. It seems more
transparent to me, somehow.

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

Al Smith wrote:

> I've heard about Kubuntu but haven't run across a copy yet (I
> can't download since I'm on dial-up). It's Ubuntu with KDE added,
> right? I like KDE, which I got used to in Mandrake, but really, I
> find that the simplicity of Gnome is not bad. It seems more
> transparent to me, somehow.

Yes, Kubuntu is Ubuntu with KDE instead of Gnome as the desktop. The
repositories are all the same, so you can install Gnome as well, or KDE in
the case of Ubuntu and end up in the same place.