"A replacement for XP" is doubtful for most older machines - the requirements are obviously too high for anything less than 2GHz processor, 1Gig ram. It does detect hardware a lot better than I ever thought possible, acts speedier and less buggy than any MS OS to date, imo. I love it lots thus far.

We are witnessing the cusp from 32-bit into 64-bit operating systems, hardware and most importantly software. If only we could still do solid state OS eprom like we were in the 80's things would really fly..

Red,

You are correct that many existing computers are not able to upgrade to Windows 7. Microsoft will continue to support XP for now so those machines are just fine to use as is.

What I am saying is that since Vista, a LOT of people have either been not buying PC's or they have been requesting XP loaded.

Vista has had a dampening affect on PC sales. That is unless you're into Apple in which case you wouldn't care.

People who are reluctant to buy a new machine lest they get stuck with an OS they aren't comfortable using, can now feel free to move into the next generation of microcomputers.

What I am saying is that since Vista, a LOT of people have either been not buying PC's or they have been requesting XP loaded.

When Spud bought a new PC last year the salesguy tried to push Vista on Spud but only tepidly. He readily agreed to to XP when Spud sed Vista was a dealbreaker.

He mentioned over the ringing up part that a lot of folks were doing the same.

Everybody Spud knows who installed it sez it's a superior product to Vista but Spud'll stick to using XP fer now.

Be Well.

Vista made me get an Apple. I don't think I'll ever go back to a Windows machine. Although I guess I do miss the gaming a little bit, but if I missed it bad enough I'd just install a Microsoft OS on my Apple. CNet and/or Consumer Reports said an Apple runs Windows better than a regular PC anyway.

Unless you play games, buy a mac.

Everybody Spud knows who installed it sez it's a superior product to Vista but Spud'll stick to using XP fer now.

#3 | Posted by dethspud

Also note that if you have Office 2003 (Word, Powerpoint, Excel, etc.), you can shit-can it when "upgrading" to 7: Office 2003 is incompatible with 7. That's makes me vewy, vewy angwy!

I've been compelled to use Office 2007 a few times. I want to find the developer(s) of the interfaces and do terrible things to him/her/them. Terrible things.

I'm sticking to Windows 3.1.

I'm sticking to Windows 3.1.

I'm still with MS DOS 3.1. I heard that ver 3.3 is a POS, so I'm not upgrading

I've been running 7 since the day MS released the final code to manufacturers. It is the best OS they have ever made and it runs fine on older systems. I would recommend at least 1 GB of RAM but I said the same about XP.

Also note that if you have Office 2003 (Word, Powerpoint, Excel, etc.), you can shit-can it when "upgrading" to 7: Office 2003 is incompatible with 7. That's makes me vewy, vewy angwy!

Says who? I took a look online and could not see anywhere that said office 2k3 doesn't work...unless you're running a pirated copy.

Bill, don't like Office2k7, try Openoffice.org. Openoffice has full support for Microsoft file types. The only problems you might have with Oo is if you have plug-ins or custom code such as macros for Office apps that may not be compatible with Oo.

Will Windows 7 support my Radeon 2400 series Graphics card? I am not willing to sacrifice nipple quality over a new operating system.

I took a look online and could not see anywhere that said office 2k3 doesn't work...unless you're running a pirated copy.

#10 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Thank you for intimating that I am a thief.

My preference for Linux is Fedora mainly because Red Hat is the preferred flavor of Corporate America and Fedora keeps you out in front of where that is headed. I keep it on my flash drive and carry it everywhere I go in case I need to use someone else's PC. I can just boot from the Flash and have an an environment that has all the apps I know I'll need and I don't have to worry about what kind of junk they have installed on their computer.

But yes, Ubuntu is a very good OS for home use as long as the user understands they in many cases will have to seek out alternative applications to replace what they have probably traditionally used on other platforms. And sometimes they may not have alternative available, especially if they use their pc for work.

I am sure there will be all kinds of issues with printers, scanners and video cards. It seems like every new release of Windows there are always compliance problems with certain manufacturers. I wonder if they gave their kickbacks to MS?

No worries Wis, those nips will be more glorious than ever.

Linux Ubuntu is free and all the apps are too!

#12 | Posted by Unclesam

I've been attempting to play that game with Ubuntu on a separate internal drive. Jaunty Jackalope does not play nice right off with video drivers/multi monitors. Got some window freeze on the Display Manager. Went through various suggested fixes, now can't get the OS to reload: GRUB 1.5 Error 22.

You would be surprised US. I installed 7 on my oldest PC, probably bought the thing in 2002, it has an old wireless NIC, a newer video card that Vista had trouble with, a no-name handwriting tablet, and a 10 year old Canon printer/scanner. After Windows update ran the first time every single driver was installed.

I was thoroughly impressed after remember the pain that Vista caused me on that machine.

Thank you for intimating that I am a thief.

Actually I was intimating you don't know what the fuck you're doing. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

XP Pro works. Why bother with creating a new OS every 3 years? People are going to keep buying new machines that are outfitted with whatever OS Windows is putting out there. How do they stand to make more by creating things that suck, like Vista?

WHAT SPUD SAID.

Maybe Windows 7 is better than vista but that still aint saying much.

Ubuntu is a great OS. It makes older hardware sing with speed.

Actually I was intimating you don't know what the fuck you're doing. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

#20 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

The fact that I read a while back while 7 was in dev Office 2003 would not be compatible couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

Now, in your jerkwad little world where demeaning people is routine, I don't know "what the fuck I'm doing" even though I haven't done anything yet.

Of course, you could have simply said, "You know, you may be wrong about that. I read that..."

More fun for you though, eh?

XP Pro works. Why bother with creating a new OS every 3 years? People are going to keep buying new machines that are outfitted with whatever OS Windows is putting out there. How do they stand to make more by creating things that suck, like Vista?

If you want to get proper utilization of multi-core processors, you need a new OS. XP doesn't cut it in that department.

If you want to utilize more than 4 gig of RAM, you need a new OS. Xp doesn't cut it there either.

But true, if you're a general web surfing, email checking user, you will not see much benefit from 7.

#15 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2009-10-22 08:15 AM | Reply | Flag: Lives in RPM hell and loves it.

My aunt asked me to upgrade her new Vista box to 7 because she hates the Vista, Best Buy had a deal when she bought it that it could be upgraded, I've never used Vista and don't want to.

Using PuppyLinux 4.3.1 now, it's free and fast and does everything I need.

The fact that I read a while back while 7 was in dev Office 2003 would not be compatible couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

Now, in your jerkwad little world where demeaning people is routine, I don't know "what the fuck I'm doing" even though I haven't done anything yet.

Of course, you could have simply said, "You know, you may be wrong about that. I read that..."

More fun for you though, eh?

Jesus Christ...you're the one who said it didn't work. I simply stated that the only people having problems were those with pirated copies of Office. You're the one who got indignant and suggested I was calling you a thief. (As if I give a fuck whether or not you've stolen a copy of an old version of Office) You could have just said, you hadn't actually checked and didn't mean to spread misinformation, but you were referring to what you had read in dev.

See how that works?

Steve Jobs must be LHAO! Another defective Microsoft product that will require many, many updates and patches to come.

I'm liking VISTA on our new laptop, and will keep XP on the other three p.c.'s. Still getting used to it - if it works don't fix it.

Guess I don't know enough about computers to really care what I have. I got Vista last year, my college has been using 7 since the beginning of the school year. I can manage my fantasy football team fine with either.

"Steve Jobs must be LHAO!"

Yes, he must be very happy with his 10% of the market. Actually Steve Jobs shouldn't be concerned with what MS is doing since Apple & Microsoft are not truly competitors in the PC market in my opinion.

IMO, the company Apple needs to be watching out for is Google. Android cleans iPhone's clock on functionality and is beginning to take market share from Apple. Recent projections from Gartner expect Android to surpass Apple in market share in the handheld computing market by 2012.

Once Google released ChromeOS both Microsoft and Apple had better watch out. Google is the company that appears to be succeeding where MANY MANY others have fell short and that is in bringing open architecture software to the masses. Not only do they produce great software, they have the brainpower to market it correctly and the money to subsidize the early stages when they will be losing big dollars on it until wide spread adoption occurs.

"XP Pro works. Why bother with creating a new OS every 3 years?"
#21 | Posted by JOE

Because XP Pro doesn't work if you want to take full advantage of new hardware and require more memory. XP Pro also doesn't work out of the box if you want to encrypt your hard drive and removable media, be able to be a power user while not have to login with admin rights or use Run As every time you want to do something. Because XP Pro does not work if you are a gamer and want to take advantage of the latest DirectX technology.

XP is still a good OS but the crows feet and laugh lines are getting more and more difficult to cover up with each passing day.

I've got Vista on my Laptop and XP on my old desk-top. Vista seems to be working fine and you lose a lot of useful stuff with 7, like Office 2003. Just a scam to sell more software.

If only we could still do solid state OS eprom like we were in the 80's things would really fly..

You can, sort of. But an SSD (Solid State Disk). It's actually semi-affordable, say a few hundred dollars for enough SSD space for your OS and your apps. It's an order of magnitude faster than even the fastest traditional desktop hard drives.

***

With respect to Windows 7, I will wait for SP1 if I go at all. Scratch that, I will go when a game comes out that I must play that doesn't run on XP.

Nothing about Windows 7 compels me to leave XP. All the cool shit they hyped that was supposed to be in Vista isn't even in Windows 7 yet. Multi-core support isn't really any better. The file system is still shit. I won't be surprised if there's still a motherfucking Jet database full of WINS entries somewhere in there. :(

XP Pro works. Why bother with creating a new OS every 3 years?

It's called planned obsolescence. It's how they get your money even when the product you bought still works fine.

Now....hopefully Microsoft will do something about their other major screw-up, MSNBC.

Vista was fine. I have the system builder's 64-bit version for my gaming rig.

Sure, it's not the best OS, but if you can't make that shiz work for you, go back to carrier pigeons, because you don't deserve living in our age of technology and computers.

"go back to carrier pigeons"

It's called planned obsolescence. It's how they get your money even when the product you bought still works fine.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-22 10:22 AM

Always a conspiracy.

I'm still on the first ZI Computer that Konrad Zuse gave me for my 68th Birthday. 1938 was the best birthday ever. -Herm

Great PR. But this is the 7th time we're hearing the same old crap:
FASTER, SAFER, MORE SECURE. Oh God, who believes that shit anymore? Get ready to update ALL your programs, buy a new machine just to run it, invest in more antivirus, antispyware, antiworms, antitrojans, antiopenbackdoor. Get the always present NEW Internet Explorer with is about as secure as the future of the dollar, and all you get is a stripped down Winblows with a new look, new name and all the constant baggage EVERY edition of this pig carries.
Hey, doesnt Obama have a Windows stimulus plan so that nobody other than whites have to pay for it?

As I stated before: if you don't play games, get a mac.

I've always thought the Mac is the perfect machine for those who simply want to use a computer without ever learning what is going on under the covers. Apple's Andy Hertzfeld (a key designer of the Mac o/s) told me at the '91 Fall Comdex that the reason Mac mouse had only one button was, according to the inside jokes at Apple, that the Mac was basically aimed at a market that was likely to have trouble telling left from right. He also said that the biggest mistake they made in designing the Mac is that they aimed for learner-friendly and lost sight of user-friendly (particularly power-user-friendly). Hence the very quiet theft of the PC's Control key (by adding the Apple Key, also called the Command Key) to make possible PC-style keyboard shortcuts to avoid the annoyance of mousing through menus for everything. Since then Apple has added the Control and Option/Alt key to make it even more PC-like in ease-of-use.

I am a software consultant who has been designing and developing systems on MS-DOS, Windows, UNIX, Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, VMS, and a number of other operating environments using primarily C, C++, Core Java, J2EE, and assembly. I've played with Macs, but found them too niche-oriented - in some of the commercial digital video contracts I've had, they were the favorite of the art and graphics people, but nobody else would touch them for anything serious.

I usually work from home for top-tier clients on Wall Street, the telecom industry, and next-generation IPTV digital video. I do my work on an HP machine with 2GB RAM, 1.5TB disk, and 2 separate (not multi-core) Intel 3.4GB processors and run XP SP3. I have a virtual installation of Kubuntu Linux (I confess to preferring the KDE interface) and, in addition to an XP laptop, have a dual-processor laptop running SuSE Linux.

I wouldn't get near enough to Vista to f**k it with my worst enemy's d*ck. As for Windows 7, the jury is going to be out for a while - at least for those who make their living programming. Maybe by SP1 or SP2, if my client base requires it. Right now, they mostly use PCs with XP for developer workstations and create software to run on either Solaris or Linux boxes. This is just as true for C++ as it is for J2SE 5, Java SE 6 and Java EE 5.

Though I use Firefox 3.5.x as my primary browser, I still keep a copy of IE 6.0 on hand and have seen no earthly reason to upgrade it.

Unless you are either the type who just HAS to have the newest and shiniest toys, or actually needs to exploit any of the new features in Windows 7, there doesn't seem to be any need to upgrade. I'd leave well-enough alone.

BTW, on the question of whether the Mac O/S is less vulnerable than Windows, the truth is that it is no less vulnerable. It is just not a popular enough target for the virus writers, given its small share of the total computer market. The most vulnerable O/S, and the most often attacked, BTW, is not Windows, but UNIX (including Solaris, Linux, etc.). This is in large part because of its dominance on servers and the fact that most UNIX implementations are open source, so the hacker can study the source code looking for weaknesses (like Robert Morris's famous buffer overflow attack using the UNIX C library function gets() - which doesn't bounds-check its input - in the fingerd daemon).

Of course now that Apple is using OS X on the Mac, which originated from NextStep, which itself was built on elements from the Mach kernel and 4.3 BSD UNIX (later enhanced with FreeBSD UNIX) the Mac inherits many of UNIX's attack points. Its only saving grace is who wants to spend time, energy, and effort creating malware for only 10% of the total target market.

CNet and/or Consumer Reports said an Apple runs Windows better than a regular PC anyway.

Obviously not a PC user who has tried it, but I can understand a Mac user thinking that is the case. After the highly limited Mac OS anything would seem better.

I totally agree with bluesun. I do a lot of graphic arts work and keep three computers going at times. All are high speed and run 2Gb ram. Two are AMD single core 64bit screamers. One is an Intel duo core2. It's the buggiest computer I ever used, but it's better as a multimedia player and can still act as a render cow, so I keep babying it along.

I bought a used parts computer with a Vista Ultimate license on it mainly for the motherboard. I stuck with the XP license from the old box I was upgrading.

There is one version of XP I would recommend everyone avoid like Vista and that is Windows XP Media version. There is no way to get rid of the useless built in media player and it sucks royally with any large music collection. I have a AMD 4200+ in that box and use it only as a render cow because that OS sucks so bad.

I too will wait until sp2 before buying any new MS os.

In more important news, Mac's OS X 10.6.1 update is available for download.

I wouldn't get near enough to Vista to f**k it with my worst enemy's d*ck.

#44 | Posted by BlueSun

Tell us you really feel...

Hey, doesnt Obama have a Windows stimulus plan so that nobody other than whites have to pay for it?

#42 | Posted by outbacker at 2009-10-22 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

No worries.....you can still use any browser you choose to access Stormfront.org or any of your other hate-group sites.

What I am saying is that since Vista, a LOT of people have either been not buying PC's or they have been requesting XP loaded.
When Spud bought a new PC last year the salesguy tried to push Vista on Spud but only tepidly. He readily agreed to to XP when Spud sed Vista was a dealbreaker.
He mentioned over the ringing up part that a lot of folks were doing the same.
Everybody Spud knows who installed it sez it's a superior product to Vista but Spud'll stick to using XP fer now.
Be Well.
#3 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-10-22 05:42 AM

Yes, you will love it too. I'm a rather paranoid, harsh critic of all things Microsoft, never downloaded or installed Vista having watched too many laptop's issues turn ugly for students. That said, 7 appears to be very similar in appearance, imo is far more stable (actual bugs are rare to date) and is quite pretty. I download and test many, many, MANY XP - my OS of choice - German, French, SP1, SP2, SP3, Black Edition, Superior Edition, Professional, Work Perfect Edition, etc, and the very best Ultimate XP. I test both 32-bit and the 64-bit on multiple machines (I just gave seven boxes away) under different hardware and can easily backup any and all information from an XP box - the drivers are another story, but a careful examination of your Devices and driver download prior to re-installation typically works best. 7 makes a majority of driver hunting obsolete - I tested with old cards of every stripe - SCSII controllers, USB controllers, NICs, modems, audio, video, cameras, printers and even digital I/O cards - 7 correctly discovers 90% of them. When you are ready to test it out, I want to know your thoughts.

Strangely, a couple of the large manufacturers such as Lexmark haven't gotten their drivers updated, so Windows 7 might have problems. Cameras also appear to have the least driver support. Otherwise, I'm always scouring for new compatibility issues.

The Office suite problem - I do use ripped copies that have been simplified and compacted for portability. There is a Windows 7 specific problem that the environment claims is "not enough memory", and I'm uncertain if this is purposeful. Other people have problems with Office 2007 - which seems typical for Microsoft to develop incompatibilities directly into their flagship OS. Since I'm not in a class that requires Office I re-tired OpenOffice at a fellow Drudge recommendation and it works just fine for me. In order to support my bevy of friends I will find the Office answer this weekend.

What's quite funny is that Microsofts Medical Office Simulation Software doesn't install on Windows machines correctly. So yesterday I wrote a 51-line instruction for installation on any MS OS that meets minimum requirements and sent it to my mom's school. An entire years worth of students are not even getting support from Microsoft itself.. how unexpected.

Microsoft eventually will suddenly stop supporting XP, just as they have done 98, ME, and 2000 - even as just the week prior they made a deal with Dell to cut the costs on business machines just to eliminate the 2000 boxes. Quite evil.

I'm sticking to Windows 3.1.
#7 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-10-22 07:50 AM

Windows 3.11 is the first commercial OS with networking. As a minimum platform it can't be beat.

BlueSun - you can trust me, Windows 7 is worth it and I don't ever mean to shill for Microsoft. It's very pretty, very straightforward, secure and stable. Try any release candidate on an older 2GHz desktop you prolly have stored in your spare bedroom. As for video conferencing I have no idea what software you use, but am certain 7 won't degrade the experience. XP rocks, but is not taking advantage of the newer hardware options in the manner that 7 does.

Now....hopefully Microsoft will do something about their other major screw-up, MSNBC.
#37 | Posted by citizen_x at 2009-10-22 10:23 AM

Woah, I almost missed this. TOTALLY, they still don't have streaming corrected. Fuck 'em. I really like a couple of their hosts (Maddow, Olberman) but it's irrelevant if they aren't interested in the online community.

"Also note that if you have Office 2003 (Word, Powerpoint, Excel, etc.), you can shit-can it when "upgrading" to 7: Office 2003 is incompatible with 7. That's makes me vewy, vewy angwy!"

If you're using Office 2003 and want to read and edit Office 2007 docs, all you need to do is load Microsoft's Compatibility Pack into Office 2003.

Windows 7 is compatible with Office 2003.

Trying copying the contents of the cd to the harddrive first, and install from that.

Damned, I just saw the Fry's ad - $300 for Windows 7 Ultimate. They don't even specify 32 or 64 bit! Fuck that, contact a geek and get a ripped copy. Any software over $50 is an obvious ripoff.

The activation hack will come along shortly.

The activation hack will come along shortly.

Does that mean you will be stealing it, robot, instead of paying for it?

Any software over $50 is an obvious ripoff.

So don't use it. duh

I think caviar is a rip off. So I don't eat it. I don't steal it and try to justify my theft as "it costs too much"

I have zero respect for thieves.

Any software over $50 is an obvious ripoff.

So write your own OS or use Linux. Don't steal Windows, thief.

Goat nobody here has any respect for you either.

I'll be boosting a copy myself. The black market will have this available in a flash

"nobody here has any respect for you "

Actually his performance evaluations are pretty good.
It's testimony to his competence at maintaining his portfolio of instruments that he has so much spare time to post here. You notice when he's on shore he ain't here.
In a real life or death shitstorm I'd share a foxhole with Goatman.

So many Social Psychology PhD's, so little time.

Goat nobody here has any respect for you either.

#59 | Posted by jackass at 2009-10-22 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose) Oh The Incongruity Of It All

Goat nobody here has any respect for you either.

Maybe so. But where you proudly proclaim to be a thief, I proudly proclaim that I'm not.

"The activation hack will come along shortly."

Does that mean you will be stealing it, robot, instead of paying for it?
#56 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-22 06:57 PM

That means that I will be using a copy with an activation key that I didn't shell out $300 for.

Theft isn't the way we intended to address this problem. However, extortion from overpriced software isn't either.

The Windows that I typically use have been hacked and cracked by several global groups efforts throughout the years, refining and updating security issues, compatibility and hardware requirements. Some of these OS's are re-designed entirely or include software that is mostly compatible under obvious circumstances. This means I have less work to perform, but for people who don't have their original disc they now can re-install and once again have a useful computer, instead of paying a couple hundred to "Geek Squad" or whathaveyou just to have their personal data destroyed. Most people have no experience or understanding of the intricacies involved with preparation for re-installation.

What I do provide is free technical advice and support to anyone who needs it. I regularly fix machines and don't ask for compensation, and often donate hardware that I've got on hand.

You can see me as lowly, which is fine, but please consider the data I provide as honest and potentially helpful. Friends?

In a real life or death shitstorm I'd share a foxhole with Goatman.
#61 | POSTED BY ZATOICHI AT 2009-10-22 07:08 PM | REPLY

I wouldn't

That means that I will be using a copy with an activation key that I didn't shell out $300 for.

IOW, you admit to being a thief.

However, extortion from overpriced software isn't either.

It's not extortion. No one is forcing you to buy it. You try to justify being a thief, but it doesn't fly, robot. You, like all thieves, are scum.

What I do provide is free technical advice and support to anyone who needs it.

I too engage in charitable acts. But as far as I know, this doesn't give me carte blanche to steal that which I deem to be overpriced.

Here's the hard cold reality for people who work in the IT support field.

They must be familiar with and know how to use far more software than they could ever afford to purchase.

Were it not for illegal copies, there are many programs that would suffer from a lack of knowledgable support.

The same goes with operating systems. At times they have little choice except to load hacked copies for learning purposes.

That being said, my personal machines always run a legal OS.

I can't say that for everything else, though.

Goat,

When people buy and sell used PC's, where do you think the OS comes from?

More often than not, a perfectly decent used machine that simply needs the OS reloaded gets a questionable copy of XP or Windows 2000.

When techs buy and sell and trade, etc PC's they certainly can't afford to purchase a new OS license for the machine before they sell it, if the machine had crashed and the license was unobtainable.

ORRRR....do you suggest this perfectly fine machine be tossed in the trash or robbed for parts just because it doesn't have a legal OS?

Were it not for older used machines that are traded-in, traded-up, etc running with hacked copies of XP, there are a LOT of people who could not afford to use the Internet, have word processing, email, or anything else.

To all the anal annies out there who think all software should be legit, join reality.

You can be sure companies are well aware that a certain degree of illegal software is the norm.

Granted, if everyone worked like that all the time the whole software industry would fail. Many software companies put a great deal of effort into fighting piracy so that they aren't losing too much money.

Then again, there's some companies that have completely joined the shareware world and give it away freely for personal use because they know that will increase their market share.

The idea that all software should be bought and paid for just isn't how the software industry has grown and thrived up to this point.

I'll be buying a copy of Windows 7 this week.

Can hardly wait!!

"What I do provide is free technical advice and support to anyone who needs it."

I too engage in charitable acts. But as far as I know, this doesn't give me carte blanche to steal that which I deem to be overpriced.
#67 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-22 07:24 PM

Welly, welly, well... To capitulate to a less-educated, but "correct morality", disusing my informed efforts on no-one, allowing predatory Microsoft to continue hurting the communities.. Which hand to lop off..

These actions don't stem entirely from charity, but moreso from a sense of doing what is right. But I do enjoy it, so if that's selfish so be it.

Those who can't afford healthcare shouldn't receive treatment? Those who can't afford to eat shouldn't? Begrudge me for my many flaws, but never for my acts of kindness. I would but aid those who need whereas you are not even aware of their plight.

Back to theft - I am stealing use of software that I have not paid for. Many kinds, many years. I have a rather large archive of data. I do not and never will sell anything for any sum. That is piracy. Otherwise, let them come for my box, my data and my deeds. If RIAA had their way mix tapes would also be "theft" worthy tens of thousands of dollars per song. If Microsoft were reasonably pricing the very operating system required by most people this would be a non-issue, imo.

"Prepare for imcoming.. repel all boarders!"

So write your own OS or use Linux. Don't steal Windows, thief.

Why shouldn't we steal Windows? It's a free country. If we've committed a crime, there is always the threat of punishment. But we have the freedom to decide if the reward is worth the risk.

Corporations engage in this sort of risk analysis all the time. So do you when you exceed the speed limit on the highway.

Your blind obedience to the law does not put you on the moral high ground. Quite the opposite; you make yourself a slave.

If RIAA had their way mix tapes would also be "theft" worthy tens of thousands of dollars per song.

Goatman commits the very sort of "theft" he decries every time he posts Zappa lyrics.

Goatman is just as much of a thief as anyone who "steals" Windows. It wouldn't really matter except he sanctimoniously lectures us on the morality of the legal regimen his corporate masters have devised.

Blow it out your ass, and the ass of the horse you rode in on, Goatman. You're a fool, and a tool.

He would be handy in a foxhole; that I can see. But I think I might go with a DR non-Atheist, so long as they didn't pray out loud too much.

Hey I just noticed how much I missed Goatman during his absences. Welcome back!

,i>Goatman commits the very sort of "theft" he decries every time he posts Zappa lyrics.

Quoting a lyric then citing the author is not a violation of copyright laws. If you think it is, please link.

There is no sanctimonious lecturing. Would you go into Walmart and steal a boxed copy of Windows 7? How about a recording artist's musid? No? why not? Because of the 25C worth of plastic and cardboard in the packaging? That is he only difference.

Please.

If you download music or software, you are stealing and you are a thief. Period.

Would you go into Walmart and steal a boxed copy of Windows 7? How about a recording artist's musid?
If I were convicted of shoplifting, I would likely just get probation.

However if I were found guilty of downloading I would get a multi-thousand dollar fine.

Explain the difference in punishment for two crimes you claim are equivalent.

However if I were found guilty of downloading I would get a multi-thousand dollar fine.

Then I suggest that as a thief, you choose your M.O. more carefully. Stick to shoplifting.

Explain the difference in punishment for two crimes you claim are equivalent.

Not being a lawmaker or one who wishes to spend couple of hours of research on the reasons these laws are written the way they were, I can't explain.

If you download music or software, you are stealing and you are a thief. Period.

No, it's using copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder which is the crime/tort.

(I download software all the time that I paid for. And you can download songs that you pay for over at iTunes.)

When you post song lyrics without the permission of the copyright holder, you commit the exact same crime as downloading a MP3 from some free site. You obtained access to copyrighted material without permission.

The copyright holder is the one who gets to determine how his copyrighted works are accessed, not you.

Here's an excerpt from the Drudge Retort policy. It does not mention song lyrics but they are copyrighted works.

Copyright Policy

This site respects the rights of copyright holders and complies with the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Users who post links to articles hosted on other sites should not reproduce the full text of the article in their blog entries. When sharing a link, write a headline and a summary that describe the linked article and perhaps include a brief excerpt or quote. Readers can follow the link to read the article in full.

Not being a lawmaker or one who wishes to spend couple of hours of research on the reasons these laws are written the way they were, I can't explain.

And yet you defend a policy you cannot explain. That's why I called you a tool.

Your link had parts I-V. Which one was I supposed to be viewing?

And yet you defend a policy you cannot explain.

I don't defend a policy. I defend the law.

If that makes me a tool, so be it.

I still don't understand why you think it is OK to steal an artist's or software writer's wares, but you (presumably) would not steal from the person who baked your bread or fixed your car.

Are artists and software writers less deserving of pay for the fruits of their labor than mechanics and bakers? Why do you feel this way?

You're a thief, Goatman. You just haven't been punished for your crimes. Which has led you to believe you're not a thief after all.

Such hubris is common in the criminal mind. :)

It's especially strange to me that a lefty defends stealing from an artist, when artists are generally lefties.

The "eat your own" syndrome?

You're a thief, Goatman.

What have I stolen?

After the deflection, please tell answer my #80 -- why it is OK to steal the fruits of labor from a software writer or recording artist, but not a baker or car mechanic.

I don't defend a policy. I defend the law.
If that makes me a tool, so be it.

I would say that's practically the definition.

Are artists and software writers less deserving of pay for the fruits of their labor than mechanics and bakers? Why do you feel this way?

Less deserving? Why are you asking me? I don't set prices.

Like any educated consumer I weigh the cost-value proposition and make my choice from what's offered in the marketplace. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Like any educated consumer I weigh the cost-value proposition and make my choice from what's offered in the marketplace.

Same as I.

But where we differ is that if I don't think a CD or piece of software is not worth the asking price, I do without (same as with everything I own/don't own). You, OTOH, steal it if you think the owner is asking too much.

What have I stolen?

The same thing I stole when I downloaded a MP3 from a file-sharing network without the permission of the copyright holder.

In some schools of thought, you committed a more egregious crime by posting copyrighted lyrics for the entire Internet to see without the permission of the author. This is the "making available" argument -- you didn't just steal one copy from Wal*Mart, you made and distributed as many copies as Drudge Retort has visitors.

But since you can't be bothered to educate yourself about the laws you blindly follow, I won't waste my breath.

I very badly want a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS4. But at $600, I can't justify it. So I settle for the $79 version of Adobe Photoshop Elements even though I could find a pirated version of the CS4.

You, OTOH, would steal the CS4. But you are an admitted thief. I'm not. That's where you and I differ.

The same thing I stole when I downloaded a MP3 from a file-sharing network without the permission of the copyright holder.

Please be specific because to the best of my knowledge I have never stolen anything outside of juvenile petty theft of candy bars rom the 7-11 45 years ago. If you have proof to the contrary, please present it unambiguously

In some schools of thought,

I'm talking about law -- not schools of thought.

Now I ask again -- what have I taken illegally? (stolen)

BTW, I get a kick out of you equating downloading $300 software to quoting a verse from a zappa tune.

But where we differ is that if I don't think a CD or piece of software is not worth the asking price, I do without (same as with everything I own/don't own). You, OTOH, steal it if you think the owner is asking too much.

You certainly don't do without. You post lyrics, and do so without first securing the right to reproduce someone else's copyrighted work.

By your own definition you are a thief.

But you are an admitted thief. I'm not. That's where you and I differ.

The difference is I'm aware of copyright law, and you're too dense to realize you too are a self-described "thief."

If you have proof to the contrary, please present it unambiguously

Here's your admission of guilt:

BTW, I get a kick out of you equating downloading $300 software to quoting a verse from a zappa tune.

Do you? Does breaking the law give you a thrill?

You post lyrics, and do so without first securing the right to reproduce someone else's copyrighted work.

That is not illegal if you quote the author. That is well established in literature as well. If I am wrong, please provide a link to the law. The link you provided above did nothing towards that end

And I still want to know why you think it is OK to steal the fruits of an artist's labor, but not the fruits of your mechanic's labor. Is there a reason you are avoiding this question?

Is it because you think the artist asks too much? So if your mechanic asks too much (and most of us think they do) do you refuse to pay and take the car?

In some schools of thought,

I'm talking about law -- not schools of thought.

As in any academic subject, there are schools of thought in law, Goatman. Your proud ignorance is showing.

That is not illegal if you quote the author.

Are you fucking kidding me?

So if I post a MP3, and say "by the way, this MP3 is by Michael Jackson" have I fulfilled my obligation to "post the author?"

How incredibly wrong you are.

...you're too dense to realize you too are a self-described "thief.",

You keep saying that as if it will magicaly come true, but in reality, it is not theft (plagarism) to quote someone's work as long as you credit them. This is a long established legal principle.

So again I ask -- what have I stolen?

So if I post a MP3,

It is illegal. But if you want to post the lyrics and cite MJ as the author -- no problem.

I still want to know why you think it is OK to steal the fruits of an artist's labor, but not the fruits of your mechanic's labor. Is there a reason you are avoiding this question?

I answered this question. I perform a cost-benefit analysis and make the choice with the highest value proposition for me, within acceptable risk tolerance.

It's a lot like choosing how to invest.

Goatman, discussing copyright law with you when you are utterly ignorant of copyright law is like trying to describe colors to a blind man.

Does breaking the law give you a thrill?

LOL

What law have I broken? It is not illegal to quote a work as long as the author is cited.

But if you want to post the lyrics and cite MJ as the author -- no problem.

Why? Both the song and the lyrics are copyrighted works. Are lyrics somehow less protected than songs?

How about if I posted the entire works of Stephen King, with a note that they were written by Stephen King. Allowed, or not?

By your own definition you are a thief.

???

you must've skipped a few of my posts. In several I said that it is not illegal as long as you cite the author. (and this is true)

I'm not sure where you are getting the "by your own definition" thingy.

It is not illegal to quote a work as long as the author is cited.

Keep repeating it and it still won't be true...

Goatman, discussing copyright law with you when you are utterly ignorant of copyright law is like trying to describe colors to a blind man.

What makes you think I am ignorant of it?

My cousin will soon be named as one of the top 100 lawyers in American next February (she has been in the top 100 in Texas for 3 years). We have talked about this subject a lot. I know what I am talking about. You are a thief.

Why? Both the song and the lyrics are copyrighted works.

Because it is the law. Why is it the law? I don't know. Take it up with the lawmakers.

You are a thief. I am not.

Deal with it or you are even a filthier thief than the others. LOL

By your own definition you are a thief.

You said obtaining copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder was theft. The example cited was downloading software or a song.

You obtained and shared copyrighted material without the permission of the onwer. You posted song lyrics, which are copyrighted.

It doesn't get much simpler than that, Goatman.

Keep repeating it and it still won't be true...

It is true. At least one of the best lawyers in the country says it is.

No offense, but I take her word over yours. Even so, I didn't need her to tell me that. It's common sense.

Still, it is telling that you won't answer my question why you think it is OK to steal the fruits of an artist's labor, but not a mechanic's. Very telling indeed, thief. LOL

Why is it OK to steal from an artist or software engineer, but not a mechanic?

Please quit evading this question, snoofy.

You obtained and shared copyrighted material without the permission of the onwer. You posted song lyrics, which are copyrighted.

It doesn't get much simpler than that, Goatman.

that is legal as long as the source of the work is cited. It doesn't get much simpler than that, snoofy.

that is legal as long as the source of the work is cited. It doesn't get much simpler than that, snoofy.

No, no it's not. Despite your repeated assertion to the contrary.

Why is it OK to steal from an artist or software engineer, but not a mechanic?

Please quit evading this question, snoofy.

Let's let it rest until then, Goatman. This thread has become stupid fifty posts ago.

While were on the subject of your homework, did you ever find out how much your employer contributes to your monthly health insurance premium?

Why is it OK to steal from an artist or software engineer, but not a mechanic?

I've answered this question twice. Do I need to talk about value propositions and risk tolerance a third time?

Someone who purports to support the free market should have no trouble understanding...

No, no it's not. Despite your repeated assertion to the contrary.

You are wrong. It is legal as long as the author is cited.

WHy do you think authors put the citations for their work in the last 30 pages of a book? To make it legal.

Sorry snoofy. You are wrong.

Still waiting for you to justify theft from an artist, but not a mechanic. Your avoidance of this question screams, "Snoofy is wrong!" LOL

Let's let it rest until then, Goatman.

Ansswer the mechanic question, first, then we'll let it rest. You have been avoiding it for almost 35 posts.

Why? Because you know I am right.

How convenient that you want to put it to rest when I have your feet firmly in the fire with my quesiton about the mechanic.

How convenient indeed.

LOL

By the way, your Dangerous Kitchen post was not only a violation of coypright law, it was a violation of Drudge Retort policy I quoted earlier. So not only are you a thief, you have poor netiquette. :)

Zappa may be a bad example for me to hinge my case on, though, as perhaps his estate allows his lyrics to be freely cited. Generally this is not the case, and in all cases it's up to the copyright holder to determine how their copyrighted works are accessed. It's not legal to download MP3s of a CD you already own, for example.

Sleep well.

I've answered this question twice.

Reference the posts please. I stupidly missed them.

By the way, your Dangerous Kitchen post was not only a violation of coypright law, it was a violation of Drudge Retort policy ...

Maybe I violated DR law, but not copyright laws. I know that for a fact.

Still -- you steal software and MP3s. You admit it. Your lyric deflection was noble, but fell flat. Sorry. You are a thief. I am not.

WHy do you think authors put the citations for their work in the last 30 pages of a book? To make it legal.

That is not an accurate statement either. Citations are done because that is how peer-reviewed works are crafted. It makes it easier for your peers to review your work when you cite your references.

Still waiting for you to justify theft from an artist, but not a mechanic.

What makes you think I wouldn't steal from a mechanic?

Sleep well.

Signing off without answering the 'mechanic' question?

I accept your concession.

What makes you think I wouldn't steal from a mechanic?

I guess I wrongly assumed lack of morality had boundaries.

My bad.

Why is it OK to steal from an artist or software engineer, but not a mechanic?

I never said it was okay. I said it's how the market operates.

Citations are done because that is how peer-reviewed works are crafted

That was Joe Biden's excuse too. It didn't work for him, either. LOL He was plagarizing, too.

The peer review process is true. The peers want to make sure what work is original and what is not.

I guess I wrongly assumed lack of morality had boundaries.

For someone who espouses the inherent value of free markets, you have some very out-of-place notions about the role of morality in purchasing decisions.

The market is an amoral place. Do you disagree?

I never said it was okay.

So you do agree with me that it is not OK to steal from an artist or a software engineer?

Plagiarism is not a crime, Goatman. Ask your cousin. Maybe she can explain the First Amendment to you while she's at it.

For someone who espouses the inherent value of free markets, you have some very out-of-place notions about the role of morality in purchasing decisions.

i didn't realize that one had to embrace theft in order to espouse free markets.

Is this some sort of new economic theory that has become popular since I was in college?

The market is an amoral place. Do you disagree?

Yes I do -- just as the entire world is an amoral place.

This doesn't make theft right. Do you agree?

Plagiarism is not a crime, Goatman.

???

Yet you say that my posting of zappa lyrics is illegal even though I cite the author? I guess if I posted them and claimed I wrote them it would be legal?

Odd, to say the least.

Maybe she can explain the First Amendment to you while she's at it.

She's not a Constitutional lawyer. She does corporate appellate law.

But I understan the generalities of the First Amendment.

This doesn't make theft right. Do you agree?

Your question is meaningless in an amoral market and an amoral world. Theft is theft. It is neither right nor wrong, it simply is.

Theft has certain benefits, and carries certain risks.

Theft is theft. It is neither right nor wrong,

wow

I've no response for anything that fucked up.

'night

Yet you say that my posting of zappa lyrics is illegal even though I cite the author?

Yes. You reproduced the copyrighted works of an author without first obtaining the permission to reproduce and distribute their copyrighted work.

Had you passed of Zappa's lyrics as your own, that would also have infringed on copyright. In other words it would have been the exact same crime. The part where you committed plagiarism would have been addressed in the "court of public opinion."

Theft is theft. It is neither right nor wrong,

wow

I've no response for anything that fucked up.

You're the one who said the market is amoral, Goatman.

If the market offers me free MP3s, and I take them, perhaps the problem isn't me, it's this amoral marketplace you endorse.

You're the one who said the market is amoral, Goatman.

Yep. But I never claimed theft wasn't wrong.

That's just fucked up as hell.

it's this amoral marketplace you endorse

Don't put words in my mouth. I never endorsed it. I admitted it existed.

Big difference.

it's a natural consequence of the free market. hate the game, not the player.

I don't think it's been yet mentioned, but I'd like to note that Windows 7 lives on ~6-8 fewer gigabytes of harddrive space than did Vista (SP2). At least it does for my configuration, and I upgraded from Vista SP2 to 7.

As has been previously stated, the upgrade is not necessary unless one needs to squeeze the best performance possible out of recent hardware advances...but with my new octo-core Mac Pro, with more RAM than XP could handle, the upgrade made perfect sense. I was skeptical at first, but 7's performance blows Vista out of the water.

It's somewhat amusing that both Apple's new OS ("Snow Leopard", OSX 10.6) AND the new Windows were, to one degree or another, an attempt to patch over the sore spots from their previous releases. Snow Leopard is certainly less of a retroactive fix than Win 7 was to Vista, but I couldn't be happier about the multicore, 64-bit performance, etc., in both systems.

I've been using Macs for as long as I've been computer-literate, but I must begrudgingly admit that Windows 7 is impressive, and even *gasp* fun to use (although the fact that Google Chrome is currently only available on Windows certainly plays a role).

Bootcamp OWNS!

I very badly want a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS4. But at $600, I can't justify it. So I settle for the $79 version of Adobe Photoshop Elements even though I could find a pirated version of the CS4.
You, OTOH, would steal the CS4. But you are an admitted thief. I'm not. That's where you and I differ.
#87 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-22 10:49 PM

If we can't really be friends, that is too bad. I've always considered myself a fair and just individual. Perhaps I've been deluded since you've accurately labeled me "thief scum".

When I was homeless I stole clothing from a large store so that I could fit into high school unnoticed. I felt horrible and it weighs on me to this day. In order to keep appearances we all can do many stupid things, such as Microsoft introducing back door access to peoples systems via drivers and an open registry. If I were as amoral as Microsoft you would never know what to watch out for because they don't feel guilt, remorse, anguish or sympathy. Corporations are emotionless, and the people they impact are unable to recognize when they have been infiltrated. I might not be legal, but I'm not amoral.

Redlightrobot --

If we can't really be friends, that is too bad. I've always considered myself a fair and just individual. Perhaps I've been deluded since you've accurately labeled me "thief scum".

None of your post was directed to me, including that section, but if I may comment about the "thief scum" comment --

I remember reading a little about what you went through growing up and being homeless for awhile (if I remember correctly) which you wrote about one time on here not too long ago. You didn't seem to have it easy in many ways.

You are not "thief scum" from the little I've gotten to know of you. Words, especially when they can only be written and without the benefit of the person saying them getting to actually use the tone of his or her voice to soften and/or lighten the meaning, can come across much harsher than deserved. You're a good kid and, as I said before, seem as smart as a whip. "Amoral" is probably the last thing I'd accuse you of being. Just my 2 cents.

.. "Amoral" is probably the last thing I'd accuse you of being. Just my 2 cents.
#142 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-10-23 01:16 AM

Wow.. you were the first person I ever posted to. You might not remember it, but I was arguing about energy, cars and UFOs. Good times.:]

I only share this bit about me to show that I'm just as flawed as he claims, but not for the same legal reasons he describes.

Thanks for the reassuring vote of confidence and comradeship.:] I wish I could demonstrate that kind of class in soothing Goat's demand for following the letter of the law, versus it's spirit.

What is your take on the whole copyright/piracy of software? I feel it's sometimes necessary to break the law, but the law isn't perfectly defining the situation for required copyright infringement, such as OS re-installation, multiple home computers or compatibility demands.

RLR, that (your last para) is all covered under the doctrine of first sale.

Publishers hate the doctrine of first sale, for obvious raisins.

What's happening now in IP law is histoircalyy paralleled by Gutnberg inventing a way to mass-produce the Bible and bring literacy to the masses.

There's a big difference between reading the Bible and depending on someone else to tell you what it means.

But on this point, I defer to Nanc and Lisa. And Diablo.

Yet another piece of Swiss Cheese
for Hackers to exploit...

wish Macintosh prices would drop,
might actually do a bit of business...

"bring literacy to the masses."

Hmmmm . . .

I remember that George Bush had a solution for that.

He said

"If everybody would just bend over once day and pick up a scrap, America would not have a literacy problem."

True story. I swear!

"Also note that if you have Office 2003 (Word, Powerpoint, Excel, etc.), you can shit-can it when "upgrading" to 7: Office 2003 is incompatible with 7. That's makes me vewy, vewy angwy!"

If you're using Office 2003 and want to read and edit Office 2007 docs, all you need to do is load Microsoft's Compatibility Pack into Office 2003.

#52 | Posted by BillJohnson

Thanks for the link. Months back there were indications that 7 would not support Office 2003 (plus a lot of other apps), that's what I based my original comment on.

What I would like to avoid is having to spend yet another few hundred bucks on yet another package because MS has put forth yet another OS. Had to play this game going from a 98 box to an XP box. example, had to dump my Visioneer scanner because eventually there were no more patches to support the hardware when I went to XP SP3.

Still, it'll be a while before I go to 7. No need at this point.

Now if i can only solve my probs with Ubuntu 9.04, I'll be happy.

Any software over $50 is an obvious ripoff.

#54 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-10-22 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

The last software company I worked for (Incipient) before going into real estate used to sell its storage virtualization software for roughly $500,000.

No hardware at all. A simple CD with a half-million worth of code.

I'm still reeling from the revelation that Goatman doesn't endorse the free market economy.

Or maybe it's the whisky.