Main > Main Forum

First MAME cabinet--Questions

<< < (5/6) > >>

krick:

--- Quote from: rsoandrew on June 03, 2004, 08:15:21 am ---
--- Quote from: krick on June 02, 2004, 07:11:01 pm ---
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.

--- End quote ---

Or you could go to this unpublished site for a corportate XP key that doesn't require activation.

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: krick on June 02, 2004, 07:11:01 pm ---
(No-one should use 95, 98 or ME if they can help it)
--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: FractalWalk on June 03, 2004, 12:30:30 pm ---
--- Quote from: krick on June 02, 2004, 07:11:01 pm ---
(No-one should use 95, 98 or ME if they can help it)
--- End quote ---

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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version