First MAME cabinet--Questions

[Wackychimp]

Getting ready to build my first MAME cabinet and since I'm still in the planning stage I'm wondering a few things:

MAME runs all the classic stuff on my home PC just fine(PIII500MHZ 256RAM 16MB AGP card) but the newer games like Mortal Kombat 3 run so slow that they're unplayable.  In the cabinet, I'm shooting for a new 1GHz machine with 265RAM and at least a 16MB AGP card -- will this run the newer stuff or do I need to get a "bigger" PC?

Does everyone around here prefer Athalon or Pentium PCs?

Does everyone around here prefer Win2000, Win98, or something else (like what)?

Who will send me $1000 so that I can afford to do this?  

Thanks,
Dave

[SNAAAKE]

well...

i think you will be fine with 1ghz..but mame has it that you need 1.2ghz to run everything 100%..i saw it somewhere.cant remember..i have 1.4 ghz..only paid $110 with shiping..they run cheap these days..so get 1.4 ghz for future stuff..also for powerfull pc games..256 ram is more then enough for mame..and amd is better..cheap.while its the same thing as pentium..maybe some difference we wont ever notice.

i had 16 mb pci card before and i did not do full screen so i got a 32mb rage fury pro AGP..everyhing is solid now..runs anything 1000%..make sure you get motherboard with agp slot.pci is crap to be honest..the cards cost a lot and they are no good.also windows 98 is the best for mame.i ran xp...it look super blocky and jaggy on my vga arcade monitor..DONT USE XP!!!

[SirPoonga]

Athlons are better than pentiums.

Look at price per performance on pricewatch.com.  You'll probably end up getting a Athlon XP 1800.As mame gets more newer games in it the more horsepower it will need.  So right now get the fastest you can afford.

[Lilwolf]

1st... AMD Athlon all the way... faster per $ in all cases... but even more so in Emulation (since it is faster with programs that use a lot of integer computation)...

ie, a 1ghz Athlon outperforms a 1ghz Intel more in emulation then everywhere else.

Next... goto www.pricewatch.com and get the best price/performance.  1ghz will run most games at 100%... just some of the new ones wont... but for 20 bucks more you can get a 1.4ghz... and for 20bucks more you can get a 1.8... I think the 2ghz one is only about 80 bucks more then a 1ghz machine... WORTH IT!.

Win98 is the best for all out speed and compatibility.  If you are going to do anything else with it, consider going with XP (MUCH better OS for everything other then games)

1k for the computer alone?  or with all the arcade stuff?

You should be able to with np... depends on what you get for your cabinet.  

btw, what video option are going with

[Wackychimp]

Ok so 1 vote for XP and 1 against.  I have a copy of Win2000 is that worth it with MAME?  Maybe I"ll just buy a machine with Win98 -- I've always thought that Win98 crashes a lot.

Thanks for the info on Athalon vs. Pentium.  I'm going AMD.  

I'm thinking that I'll just use a computer monitor since there will be less issues & wiring.  However, I've heard that hooking it to a TV looks good too (and is cheaper).  Is there an easy solution for PC to TV?  I haven't seen one around here.

Thanks!

[Wackychimp]

Ok so I just looked into the Rage Fury Pro 32MB and see that there is an option for Video In/Video Out.  Anyone using this to display to a TV instead of a monitor?

Wondering if it's reliable.

[SNAAAKE]

yeah is reliable..i have used it..but not reliable enough...it could be just me...but tv SUCK..end of story..i dont like it at all..it will ruin your eyes..i rather have one 19" vga arcade monitor then a tv..i tried 2 different tv..sony and toshiba both with s-video...its crap..its not pure signal..i saw a vga arcade monitor 19" on ebay..try and getting that one..i am using eygo..but that will also do the trick...TRUST ME...i only paid 175$ shiped for mine...i am more then happy...i was ready to pay a lot but i got lucky..its EBAY...we love ebay...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2120239509

i am using eygo,which is the lowest...640x480...but everything look excellent..even pc games...and one little detail,DREAMCAST GAMES LOOK UNIMAGINEABLE...i just keep wondring how is this kind of display even possible to make.also why do you think a vga arcade monitor cost like $500.the 27" onces...they are worth it..but my cabinet wont fit so i am very very satisfied with mine.good luck..and post which way to went.. ...

also it goes right into your computer vga port.no wiring or anything...GO GO GO WITH VGA ARCADE.

[Lilwolf]

The rage pro is a great choice for tv-out cards... wont play many 3d games... so if you want to get zinc running, you might go with a radeon (make sure its "made my ati" instead of "powered by ati")... it so, it will have the same TV out chip.  btw, I've seen them for 35 bucks in the last week... search around on www.pricewatch.com... but I found it looking for a harddrive....

next... I love XP... best OS microsoft has come up with... very nice and stable... but slower then 98... not by much, but it is.  Why?  it has protected memory... an appliciation can't access memory outside it's range... adds overhead... but MUCH more stable.

So if it's 100% mame machine... go 98 all the way.

There are some driver issues with XP (they have to be rewritten)... this might be the cause of the snaaakes problems... but it also sounds like he never got hardware stretching working.

btw, dont' use 2000.  I use it at the office and its a ton slower then my home machine with the same specs running mame....not...that...I...run...mame...at....the...office...

good luck

[Xenepp]

yeah is reliable..i have used it..but not reliable enough...it could be just me...but tv SUCK..end of story..i dont like it at all..it will ruin your eyes..i rather have one 19" vga arcade monitor then a tv..i tried 2 different tv..sony and toshiba both with s-video...its crap..its not pure signal..i saw a vga arcade monitor 19" on ebay..try and getting that one..i am using eygo..but that will also do the trick...TRUST ME...i only paid 175$ shiped for mine...i am more then happy...i was ready to pay a lot but i got lucky..its EBAY...we love ebay...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2120239509

i am using eygo,which is the lowest...640x480...but everything look excellent..even pc games...and one little detail,DREAMCAST GAMES LOOK UNIMAGINEABLE...i just keep wondring how is this kind of display even possible to make.also why do you think a vga arcade monitor cost like $500.the 27" onces...they are worth it..but my cabinet wont fit so i am very very satisfied with mine.good luck..and post which way to went.. ...

also it goes right into your computer vga port.no wiring or anything...GO GO GO WITH VGA ARCADE.

Just for anyone browsing through the archives (like me), if you'r in Europe you more than likely have a SCART TV (most TVs over 21"). SCART is capable of handling pure RGB which is 100 times better quality wise than s-video. It basicly makes for a poor man's arcade monitor which isn't a bad substitute and a fraction of the price (plus far more common).

Sorry to all our American friends, this is ONE thing the Brits have going for them!  

[etumor]

Ok so 1 vote for XP and 1 against.  I have a copy of Win2000 is that worth it with MAME?  Maybe I"ll just buy a machine with Win98 -- I've always thought that Win98 crashes a lot.

Thanks for the info on Athalon vs. Pentium.  I'm going AMD.  

I'm thinking that I'll just use a computer monitor since there will be less issues & wiring.  However, I've heard that hooking it to a TV looks good too (and is cheaper).  Is there an easy solution for PC to TV?  I haven't seen one around here.

Thanks!

My 2 cents:

AMD over Intel every day of the week and twice on Sunday.  As everyone has pointed out, more power for less money.  Plus Intel is evil.

As far as the video goes, I've used a PC monitor, a TV, and an arcade monitor.  You can't beat an arcade monitor, but if it isn't in your price range, than the TV and PC solutions both work.  I personally find TV's to be more trouble than they're worth -- I had trouble with several TV's because mounting them at an angle caused a color-bleed over time (has something to do with the Earth's magnetic fields, but I won't get into that here).  If you do use a TV, definitely use an ATI card (I've tried nVidia cards, but the video out on the ATI is definitely superior).  I tried the Rage Fury Pro, but had problems with it (don't remember what), so I ended up using a Radeon, and it worked very well with the TV.  But with most TVs you have to worry about how to turn them on and off (they usually have a soft-power switch, so they can't be turned on with a powerstrip), they suffer from the aforementioned color bleed, and using Windows on them is nearly impossible.

Alternatively, using a PC monitor can work very well if you use a good video card and enable hardware stretching in MAME.  This blurs the pixels a bit, which makes it look a little more like an arcade monitor.  Or if you want to fight with AdvanceMame, you can get some nice scanline effects.

Really consider spending a few extra bucks to get an arcade monitor, either the U3100 (19") or the D9200 (27") from Wells Gardner -- it costs more than a TV, but less than a PC monitor, and the results are worth the money.

On the OS, I use Win2k on my MAME cab, and it works.  However, Win98SE is clearly the better choice for MAME (much better performance, and the ability to run DOS programs gives you a lot more options).  The only reason that I use Win2k is that it has better compatibility with Daphne.  I am in the process of building a dedicated Daphne cab, and when it is done, I am considering reverting my other cab back to Win98SE.

-Jeff "etumor" Allen

[fredster]

You need more video card.  64 mb min to run the new games.

[sTyLeS]

I'm using a 27" TV, with a GeForce2 card with s-vid out. I really like the size of the screen and just the "look and feel" of it better than playing on a PC monitor.
I would say that any mid-level ATI or nVidia card with TV-Out would work just fine if you were planning on hooking up to a TV. I've tried a few other lower-end brand cards with TV-Out, and they don't work very well...like they won't boot up to the TV, only a monitor and then you have to switch it manually once Windows loads. Not very good if you only have a TV hooked up to it.

[krick]

My $0.02 on the OS debate...

If you plan to run windows, you have 3 real choices...

Windows 98SE
Windows 2000
Windows XP
(No-one should use 95, 98 or ME if they can help it)


Each of the three have plusses and minuses....


XP has annoying product activation.

98SE has better support for older hardware.

XP and 2000 support more memory and larger hard drives along with the NTFS file system for greater resistance to fragmentation and

98SE (being built on top of DOS) can be stripped down to boot much faster.  However being built on top of DOS is also a liability because poorly written drivers or applications can completely crash the OS much easier than on 2000 and XP.

XP will officially support an Intel processor with HyperThreading.  Windows 2000 will work but will just show up as two separate processors.  I don't know if 2000 will take full advantage of the CPUs abilities or not.
(Note: I THINK you need XP or 2000 Professional to support a HyperThreading CPU.)

The startup and shutdown screens are easier to customize on 98SE to help hide the fact that you're running windows in your cabinet.

If you want to play games that require dual trackballs (mice) then you have to run 98SE or XP.  Windows XP supports dual mice via the RawMouse API. Windows 2000 doesn't support multiple mice (at least without a lot of work and special drivers).

If you want to use an ArcadeVGA with a 15KHz arcade monitor and take advantage of the non-interlaced "virtual desktop" features in the ATI drivers to run 640x480 or higher resolutions, you'll have to run Windows 2000 or XP.  98SE doesn't support it.

I'm sure there are more.  These are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.


Personally, I like the fact that 98SE is closer to the hardware.  2000 and XP try to hide all the actual IRQ assignment from you and will actually tolerate (somewhat) an incorrectly configured system leading to poor performance and instability.

However, I can't live without the ArcadeVGA virtual desktop and the large drive support so I'm stuck with Windows 2000 or XP.

I'm currently using windows 2000 because I hate the XP product activation so much, but I'm considering installing XP Home to get the dual mouse support.

Confused yet?  Me too.

[etumor]

Krick,

Fantastic summary of the OS issues involved!  I wasn't aware of the ArcadeVGA limitation in Win98SE.  This is something that I need to take into account.

Let me ask you a related question.  Do the drivers for the ArcadeVGA support rotating the desktop?  Yes, I know I can use a frontend that displays vertically (ArcadeOS), but I am exploring all possible options for a future cocktail cabinet.

I did some experimenting with my nVidia card, and found an unexpected behavior when using nVidia's "nView rotate" to rotate the desktop.  Using WinXP, I took a major performance hit after rotating the desktop (and this is on a blazingly-fast system).  This performance problem manifested both on the desktop, and when I ran MAME.  It was completely unacceptable.  I rebooted into Win98SE on the same machine, and saw absolutely no performance problem when I rotated the desktop.  Obviously this is a driver issue.

Anyway, I think I understand that the ArcadeVGA card uses ATI-based drivers, and I think ATI also includes a desktop rotating utility.  Since you have one, I was wondering if you've seen it or played with it?

-etumor

[krick]

First off, a correction to my last post...
Windows XP Home DOES support Hyperthreading CPUs.

Anyhoo...
On my 15KHz arcade monitor, when running windows, the interlaced 640x480 and interlaced 800x600 are almost impossible to look at.  They hurt my eyes something fierce.  The 640x288 non-interlaced mode is MUCH easier on the eyes, even with the 60Hz refresh rate.

The thing is, if you don't run at least 640x480 (interlaced or virtual desktop on XP & 2K), you can't configure windows at all.  Almost all properties dialogs are too tall for the 640x288 non-interlaced mode.  You can't see the bottom third of the dialog and you can't get to the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons.

I keep the desktop in 640x288 non-interlaced most of the time.  If I need to configure Windows or I'm trying to look something up on the internet, I switch to the virtual desktop 640x480 (which is also non-interlaced) and just pan up and down as necessary.

As for desktop rotation, I'd never tried it until tonight.  I'm happy to tell you that it's as simple as right clicking on the ATI icon in the tray and selecting "rotation".  Then you're given the choice of rotations... 90* left, 90* right, 180*, or standard.  It's kind of disorienting when you rotate it sideways because the mouse rotates with the screen.  But, yep, it seems to work as advertised on the Ultimarc site
(http://www.ultimarc.com/avgainst.html) ...

Rotating the desktop for vertical monitors in Windows XP and 2000:
This feature is only supported in Windows XP and Windows 2000. Right-click on the ATI taskbar icon. Select "Rotation" choose correct value.


As for possible performance issues, I'm not really sure how to test that.  On my computer,  MAME (and Mamewah front end) is set up for horizontal orientation.  If you want to give me explicit command line instructions for running a game "vertically" under MAME, I'll be glad to do the testing for you and report back with framerates.

If you're wondering, I run vertical games on my horizontal monitor and they look awesome.  My monitor is 25" so when running a vertical game, the image is about the same size as as on a 19" monitor.  There's black bars on the sides.  Kinda like reverse letterboxing.

I've tweaked my monitor so the vertical games aren't cut off at the top and bottom, this has the effect of slightly squishing some of my horizontal games but it's really not that noticeable unless I pointed it out to you.

[etumor]

Thanks for the info so far.  Testing the performance wouldn't be difficult.  Run any game (I was using Xevious as my test) and notice whether or not is moves slower than when the desktop isn't rotated.  It shouldn't matter whether or not you rotate the game itself -- the problem doesn't seem to be related to whether or not the game is rotated, but rather just whether the desktop is rotated.  But if you want to try rotating the game, the switch to use is -screen_aspect 3:4 (you shouldn't actually need to rotate the game, it should automatically rotate because the desktop is rotated, but if you want to try the switch for that, it is -ror).

As for judging whether or not it runs slower, that's easy.  We're talking about a huge performance problem.  Watch the star that moves across the word "Xevious."  Under normal conditions, this is a smooth movement.  On my system with it rotated, this is choppy and slow.  You couldn't miss it.  If you rotate the desktop, run the game, and you "perceive" it to be running at the same speed, then you aren't seeing the same problem that I am.

My suspicion is that the problem that I'm seeing is related to the nVidia drivers.  It may even be related only to the current version of the nVidia drivers.  If the feature is supported under the ATI drivers at all, then it probably works properly.

Thanks for checking for me.

-Jeff

[krick]

OK, back from some testing.

I've got good news, and bad news.

First, the good news:
It doesn't run slower.

Now the bad news:
1) It seems like it might actually run FASTER.  When I compare the speed of the blinking colors behind the Xevious logo on the start screen, it seems like the colors flash about twice as fast when running vertically.  However, while playing, it doesn't seem to be any faster.

2) The colors on the startup screen seem ok, but the in-game colors of the grass and the ships are definitely wrong.  The grass is brown and the ships are more blue than grey.

Why either of these things are happening makes absolutely no sense to me.  The screen orientation shouldn't have an effect on either of these things.

One possible issue MIGHT be that I may have custom resolution settings for Xevious in a config file somewhere.  I ran a utility that configures all the games in MAME to run at the optimal ArcadeVGA resolutions and refresh rates.  I think that it generates different config files based on whether you tell it you have a vertical or horizontal monitor.  It's kinda late for me to get into that tonight but I'll try to look into it tomorrow night sometime.  Though for the life of me, I can't see how resolution settings would have anything to do with the issues I'm seeing.

...
Bill

[seibu]

Hey, can I suggest AdvanceMAME with Linux?

Sorry to be so nerdy, but I've got maybe 30% faster than WinXP or 98 on my lowly P3 800. I use a 2.6 Kernel compiled with optimisation for my hardware and run AdvanceMAME with the SVGALIB direct from the console (no X-Windows or anything).

It practically flies off the desk! 60/60 on anything up to and including CPS2, and that's all I'm interested in really. Still need to try some NeoGeo games, admittedly.

Can I also reccommend a proper arcade monitor or SCART TV? You'll save a lot of CPU not having to run fake scanlines and stretching, and AdvanceMAME has the best support for video modes and refresh rates. I was tearing my hair out trying to run Pacland without tearing or broken parallax under XP. Perfect first time under AdvanceMAME, even without hacking the refresh to 60Hz.

[Gameboy.au]

If you are still looking for a OS and are stil unsure, have you tried 98lite from http://www.litepc.com/ ?

You can get the free copy and it basically cuts IE outta the OS and lets you trim it down big time.  Very off for a Windows 98 machine, but I have had it running well over 2 weeks (I just leave it on) and all the system resources are fine.  No crashing, nothing.  I have also found that because nothing is really chewing up RAM anymore, that certain games run quicker.

To download a copy and have a look, click http://www.litepc.com/98lite.html and click download preview.  That's all I used and I was very suprised at how well it worked.

Just a suggestion anyway.

[rsoandrew]

My $0.02 on the OS debate...

XP has annoying product activation.
......
I'm currently using windows 2000 because I hate the XP product activation so much, but I'm considering installing XP Home to get the dual mouse support.

Or you could go to this unpublished site for a corportate XP key that doesn't require activation.

[krick]

I'm currently using windows 2000 because I hate the XP product activation so much, but I'm considering installing XP Home to get the dual mouse support.

Or you could go to this unpublished site for a corportate XP key that doesn't require activation.

Now there's an idea.  I have absolutely no problem with buying a LEGAL copy of XP.  I just hate the thought that every time I change my hardware (like adding a faster CPU, more memory, or a larger hard drive), I'll have to re-activate it.  What a pain in the @ss.

[Pasqualz]

Krick, just an observation on the Win XP activation issue. I'm an IT manager in a medium sized company (110 PCs) all running Win XP Pro. My techs have performed dozens of upgrades on these PCs (Dell Inspirons) and have never once been prompted to re-activate. We definetly do not have Enterprise licenses, just regular old individual licenses. My feeling is that the activation issue was trumped up by MS Haters and people who worry too much about Big Brother Bill!

[etumor]

Pasqualz,

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that in the strongest possible terms.  I have hated the "concept" of activation from day one, particularly since I was a legitimate customer willing to pay for my Microsoft software.  But this problem isn't just hypothetical.  I was running (legally purchased) WinXP Home Edition on my home system.  Now I re-install occassionally, because of system instabilities, because I like to have a fresh install when I install new hardware, and because I change my configuration from time to time (setting up dual boot environments for testing and such).  Yes, I may be a freak for needing to re-install all the time, but it is my choice to make.

So the first couple of re-installs that I did went off without a hitch.  Then about a month after one of my re-installs, I was putting in a fire-wire card.  I was having some trouble, so as a troubleshooting step, I disconnected one of my CD-ROM drives (the problem was a conflict with my Promise IDE controller).  After a little fiddling, I solved my problem and plugged my CD-ROM drive back in.

Upon booting, Windows informed me that my product had been de-activated.  I attempted to re-activate automatically, but it refused, forcing me to call Microsoft.  I was then forced to explain why I had re-activated so much, and to justify the fact that I had swapped some hardware in my system.  They agreed to give me a re-activation code, but not without giving me a stern warning that I would have problems if I continued to change hardware in my system.

The next day I acquired a pirated corporate version of WinXP that doesn't require activation.  This isn't a hypothetical complaint, this is a practical matter.  MS Activation (and unfortunately, Adobe is now doing it too) punishes legitimate customers by limiting what they are allowed to do with their own systems.  It really burns me that I have paid for every version of Windows since 98, and I am still forced to go out and find pirated copies.

Incidentally, I no longer use Windows machines for anything but emulation.  I switched to Mac because of this and a hundred other complaints about MS.  And just so that you know I'm not just a "Microsoft basher," I am an MSCE, have been an NT administrator at a Fortune 500 company, and have been a developer of software for Windows since 1997.  There was a time when I preached Windows technologies as the end-all solution to every problem.  They had me and they lost me.

Don't want to turn this into an anti-Microsoft fest, just wanted to re-assure you that this isn't a "trumped up" issue.

-etumor

[FractalWalk]

(No-one should use 95, 98 or ME if they can help it)

It seems to me that OS debates usually have nothing to do with the average user. For example, I use my computer for internet access, e-mail, running Word, Excel, ripping & burning CDs, playing classic games in MAME and that's about it.

Tell me why I shouldn't use Windows 98 if I can help it. I've had it for years with no problems.

[krick]

(No-one should use 95, 98 or ME if they can help it)

It seems to me that OS debates usually have nothing to do with the average user. For example, I use my computer for internet access, e-mail, running Word, Excel, ripping & burning CDs, playing classic games in MAME and that's about it.

Tell me why I shouldn't use Windows 98 if I can help it. I've had it for years with no problems.

I've built many, many computers for friends and family members.  I've had experience with every version of windows since Win 3.1 and in my experience, 98SE and 2000/XP are the most stable and have the least compatibility problems.

In my post I was adressing their fitness for use in a MAME cabinet.  If you are building a computer especially for this purpose, then you have a choice of what OS to install.  Obviously, there are cases where one has to run Windows 95 because they have really old hardware and/or low memory.  And I did say, "if they can help it".  Obviously, some people do not have a choice.  However, if they DO have a choice of which OS to use, they should avoid 95, 98, and ME.

Some of the bigger problems...
Windows 95 has no USB support other than via drivers provided by the hardware manufacturers.
Windows 95 doesn't recognize partitions larger than 2GB.
Windows 98 (original) has OS level USB support, but it is poorly implemented.
Windows ME is just an all around buggy piece of crap and is universally hated.

However, all versions of Windows 9x cannot address hard drives larger than 137GB.

Generally, Windows 98SE is the most stable Windows 9x version and is more compatible with new hardware.

One thing to keep in mind is that ALL of the Windows 9x versions have problems using more than 512MB of memory.

And if you have a motherboard with USB 2.0 or a CPU with HyperThreading, and you want to use these features, you have to use Windows 2000/XP.

Another thing to consider that a large percentage of new hardware doesn't have driver support for versions of Windows older than 98SE because of the new WDM drivers.  In a few years, 98SE won't even be supported.


Anyway, these are just my opinions.  People are always free to do whatever they want.

[FractalWalk]

krick:

Thanks for the info. I'm fairly OS ignorant.

Most discussions I've read talk about how you can't do things that I would never do. I'm not a software developer, I don't network my machines and I don't use high-end graphics/imaging programs. But you've brought up some good points that could potentially affect me down the road.

[Tiger-Heli]

The next day I acquired a pirated corporate version of WinXP that doesn't require activation.  This isn't a hypothetical complaint, this is a practical matter.  MS Activation (and unfortunately, Adobe is now doing it too) punishes legitimate customers by limiting what they are allowed to do with their own systems.  It really burns me that I have paid for every version of Windows since 98, and I am still forced to go out and find pirated copies.

Some quick questions -

I have a laptop that came delivered with XP and I would like to upgrade some of my other computers to XP.

Is the pirated Corporate Version of XP, different from the retail version, or the OEM version, or do they just use different activation keys.

I had heard that I could legally buy a Certificate of Authenticity for about $50, with an activation key and use this with the OEM CD.  But I would like to avoid the PC Hardware de-activation/re-activation problems.

Is there a legal way to buy the Corporate COA and use this with the OEM CD?  Anyone know how much it costs?

[etumor]

Don't really want to answer any questions about pirated copies of software, specifically.  But I will tell you that generally speaking, there are versions of XP that don't run the activation, no matter what CD-Key you put in (you still have to have a valid key, however, and Microsoft re-checks this key when Service Packs are applied).  Since I don't handle corporate licensing (and never have, that has always been the IT department's job), I can't tell you how Microsoft is packaging it these days, or what they call it.  But it is the exact same software that you can buy in the store, it just doesn't run the activation check.

As far as obtaining keys independant of the media, I couldn't give you the complete answer.  It is true that Microsoft will sell new licenses to corporate customers to use with existing media.  How they handle this with individuals, I couldn't tell you (I doubt that they do, but you'd have to ask them).

And I understand that you aren't asking this, but let me re-iterate: I'm not encouraging piracy.  I'm complaining about how anti-piracy measures can affect a legitimate customer.

-etumor

[AlexSledge]

As far as corporate licensing goes, we get a web page with an "activation key" on it (same as a CD key). Then we buy (~$20) a Corporate Media Kit (whatever the official term may be) aka WinXP CD.

Using the corp. version of WinXP, and our key, we can install as many copies of XP as we want to. However, if we go over the number we have purchased and they catch us, hefty fines are in store.

I'd recommend linux also (even though I am even currently a Win SysAdmin), but I'm not aware of any possible issues surrounding the ArcadeVGA & linux support (it's an ATI card technically, so I'd imagine there's a solution - something I still need to research myself).