Two GPUs, one way more power efficient? How?...

[Ricky]

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 8:49:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2022 00:36:16 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:05:00 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 23:37:23 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 6:13:15 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:53:56 +0100, John Walliker <jrwal...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 11:36:32 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:31:56 +0100, John Walliker <jrwal...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 11:22:40 UTC+1, Joel wrote:

If no one bought Windows, you\'d be stuck with Linux.

That would be a major improvement.
No it wouldn\'t. I tried Linux twice. It took me 8 hours to install one program and fail to
configure it. First of all it refused to run because it didn\'t know an executable was a program

Do you mean a file with a .exe suffix or one with the executable bit set?
Now you see that nonsense doesn\'t happen with windows. Look I just downloaded the file from the website ok? If it doesn\'t run as is, something is fucked.
and thought it should open in a text editor which couldn\'t handle such a large file. After messing
around, and having to resort to the command line and a google search on several occasions,
I got it to launch, again having to use the command line. Then there were missing libraries,
which I had to find myself. Then I wanted to change something in the program\'s ini file. But I\'m
not allowed to access that file, it\'s a system protected file. It\'s my own computer!!! So log on as
root? Oh no, that\'s against the law. Found hundreds of people asking how to do it, but every
response was either \"don\'t\" or \"you can\'t\". Bugger that, I\'m using Windows.

My latest fun with Windows was a recent update which failed. I couldn\'t do any more updates
until this one had succeeded. I have spent hours searching for fixes, including various
different recommendations from Microsoft, none of which work. One of the Microsoft
recommended fixes broke it even more, so the machine is unusable at the moment. The only
thing left is to extract the data I want from it and re-install Windows. I\'ll stick with Linux Mint
(and Rocky for some servers) for as many things as possible. If a file needs to be made
executable there is no need to use the command line - just click on an option in the file
permissions window. I\'ve never had a problem becoming root either..
Strangely using 20 of my own computers and a few thousand at two places of work, I have never ever broken a windows update. You just click yes and it installs it. How you managed to do that wrong I have no idea.

This is the problem. You have little understanding of the problem. You think updating software is the same as turning on a lightbulb because it has always worked for you. MS did an update some years ago where they were bricking computers left and right. They offered advice, but took no responsibility. Some people were able to recover their computers, some didn\'t.

One must always be cognizant of the fact that a PC is a finite state machine with the number of states as 2**(billions of memory bits, plus the many CPU internal bits). That\'s a hard machine to diagnose or to modify.
If it\'s broken 0 of my 3000 machines, it\'s either very rare, or it something stupid you\'re doing. 3000 is a big enough data set to call the problem insignificant.
Yes, other people\'s problems are always insignificant. I think we understand you pretty well now.
I see you have a poor grasp of English comprehension. If 3000 machines in my care had no problems, 0 machines in my care had problems, and there\'s no reason to believe anyone else is more likely to have problems than me, that\'s a bloody small number of people who will have problems. Nothing to do with selfishness.

I see you have a poor grasp of reality. I won\'t debate this with you further. You are the sort of intransigent non-thinker this group seems to have in excess. The world does not revolve around you and your personal experiences. 1 in 3,000 is not a small number when dealing with many millions or billions of machines.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 10:49:11 AM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sun, 01 May 2022 00:36:16 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:05:00 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 23:37:23 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 6:13:15 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:53:56 +0100, John Walliker <jrwal...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 11:36:32 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:31:56 +0100, John Walliker <jrwal...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 11:22:40 UTC+1, Joel wrote:

<snip>

This is the problem. You have little understanding of the problem. You think updating software is the same as turning on a lightbulb because it has always worked for you. MS did an update some years ago where they were bricking computers left and right. They offered advice, but took no responsibility. Some people were able to recover their computers, some didn\'t.

One must always be cognizant of the fact that a PC is a finite state machine with the number of states as 2**(billions of memory bits, plus the many CPU internal bits). That\'s a hard machine to diagnose or to modify.

If it\'s broken 0 of my 3000 machines, it\'s either very rare, or it something stupid you\'re doing. 3000 is a big enough data set to call the problem insignificant.
Yes, other people\'s problems are always insignificant. I think we understand you pretty well now.

There\'s no problems so large on somebody else\'s computer that Commander Kinsey can\'t ignore it.

> I see you have a poor grasp of English comprehension. If 3000 machines in my care had no problems, 0 machines in my care had problems, and there\'s no reason to believe anyone else is more likely to have problems than me, that\'s a bloody small number of people who will have problems. Nothing to do with selfishness.

It depends how you define \"problem\". Commander Kinsey clearly thinks that anything that doesn\'t inconvenience him, personally, isn\'t a problem.

Other people can bleat as much as they like, but he doesn\'t see their - doubtless imaginary - \"problems\" as something he has to worry about.

Being as thick as a brick does have its advantages, if only for the thicko himself.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 01 May 2022 03:19:51 +0100, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On 04/30/2022 05:03 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 23:34:10 +0100, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de
wrote:

Am 01.05.22 um 00:13 schrieb Commander Kinsey:

Strangely using 20 of my own computers and a few thousand at two places
of work, I have never ever broken a windows update. You just click yes
and it installs it. How you managed to do that wrong I have no idea.

Yes, and when it decides it is the time to reboot at 4 am
it kills my QuestaSim run with the regression tests.
15 hours of simulation time gone.

I limit a Windows machine to a virtual VMware thing.
No internet access, no reboot. No more begging to
postpone a reboot.
Just a few hours, please, pretty please?

This is a thing millions of people complain about. It has cost people
money. It doesn\'t even save open documents. Nobody knows why MS is so
forceful with updates, it doesn\'t benefit them whatsoever. But I just
switched them off. I check manually every few months.

We had a client who complained about our system crashing at around 2 AM.
It was Windows Server rebooting for updates. You can easily turn
automatic updates off (at least with that generation of Server) but why
MS though the default should be automatic is beyond me.

The downside is many of our clients NEVER update server. When push comes
to shove and the last few years of updates have to be applied there may
be an hour of two of downtime.

Better to have an hour or two of scheduled downtime than to do it randomly in the middle of important things going on. Imagine a Microsoft car - you\'re driving along the motorway at 100mph and.... just a moment, updating software, you can use the steering wheel again in a few minutes....

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 01 May 2022 03:20:37 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 8:49:11 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2022 00:36:16 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 7:05:00 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 23:37:23 +0100, Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, April 30, 2022 at 6:13:15 PM UTC-4, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:53:56 +0100, John Walliker <jrwal...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 11:36:32 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:31:56 +0100, John Walliker <jrwal...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 30 April 2022 at 11:22:40 UTC+1, Joel wrote:

If no one bought Windows, you\'d be stuck with Linux.

That would be a major improvement.
No it wouldn\'t. I tried Linux twice. It took me 8 hours to install one program and fail to
configure it. First of all it refused to run because it didn\'t know an executable was a program

Do you mean a file with a .exe suffix or one with the executable bit set?
Now you see that nonsense doesn\'t happen with windows. Look I just downloaded the file from the website ok? If it doesn\'t run as is, something is fucked.
and thought it should open in a text editor which couldn\'t handle such a large file. After messing
around, and having to resort to the command line and a google search on several occasions,
I got it to launch, again having to use the command line. Then there were missing libraries,
which I had to find myself. Then I wanted to change something in the program\'s ini file. But I\'m
not allowed to access that file, it\'s a system protected file. It\'s my own computer!!! So log on as
root? Oh no, that\'s against the law. Found hundreds of people asking how to do it, but every
response was either \"don\'t\" or \"you can\'t\". Bugger that, I\'m using Windows.

My latest fun with Windows was a recent update which failed. I couldn\'t do any more updates
until this one had succeeded. I have spent hours searching for fixes, including various
different recommendations from Microsoft, none of which work. One of the Microsoft
recommended fixes broke it even more, so the machine is unusable at the moment. The only
thing left is to extract the data I want from it and re-install Windows. I\'ll stick with Linux Mint
(and Rocky for some servers) for as many things as possible. If a file needs to be made
executable there is no need to use the command line - just click on an option in the file
permissions window. I\'ve never had a problem becoming root either.
Strangely using 20 of my own computers and a few thousand at two places of work, I have never ever broken a windows update. You just click yes and it installs it. How you managed to do that wrong I have no idea.

This is the problem. You have little understanding of the problem. You think updating software is the same as turning on a lightbulb because it has always worked for you. MS did an update some years ago where they were bricking computers left and right. They offered advice, but took no responsibility. Some people were able to recover their computers, some didn\'t.

One must always be cognizant of the fact that a PC is a finite state machine with the number of states as 2**(billions of memory bits, plus the many CPU internal bits). That\'s a hard machine to diagnose or to modify.
If it\'s broken 0 of my 3000 machines, it\'s either very rare, or it something stupid you\'re doing. 3000 is a big enough data set to call the problem insignificant.
Yes, other people\'s problems are always insignificant. I think we understand you pretty well now.
I see you have a poor grasp of English comprehension. If 3000 machines in my care had no problems, 0 machines in my care had problems, and there\'s no reason to believe anyone else is more likely to have problems than me, that\'s a bloody small number of people who will have problems. Nothing to do with selfishness.

I see you have a poor grasp of reality. I won\'t debate this with you further. You are the sort of intransigent non-thinker this group seems to have in excess. The world does not revolve around you and your personal experiences. 1 in 3,000 is not a small number when dealing with many millions or billions of machines.

It\'s 0 in 3000, and you\'ve again missed the point that it\'s stats and not selfishness we\'re discussing, and you can\'t understand percentages. 1 in 3000 is the same as 1000 in 3 million.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:39:49 +0100, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

\"Commander Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

When did you ever buy your copy?

I didn\'t. I have never ever paid for Windows.

So how is that anything but shameless theft? I did wrongly believe I
could install one legal copy on two computers, but I learned better.
But you never paid for any copy.

Theft deprives somebody of something. If I couldn\'t pirate Windows, I\'d use Linux.

You *are* depriving Microsoft of the cost of supporting your pirated
copy of their OS. It costs money to update it.

Did you read what I wrote? If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me. So what harm is it to them if I use Windows for free?

My point is that you seem to think it\'s like a game. You think that
Microsoft is this corporate entity to be taken advantage of, because
you\'re the little guy, but in reality, if no one paid for software,
you\'d be stuck with only free software. You\'re trying to have it both
ways.

No, I know there are morons like you that will pay for me.

But that\'s the thing, I *didn\'t* pay for you, I paid for my copy. It\'s
a delusion to think Microsoft is somehow getting anything for your
copy. The $200 I paid for Windows Pro really is the value of one
copy, they are taking a loss when people pirate it. You may not care,
but it\'s tantamount to theft. It\'s not possible to support commercial
software without money. They have to develop updates and new
versions. If no one bought Windows, you\'d be stuck with Linux.

If I didn\'t copy it, your price would have been lower, ha!

Nope. $200 is the true retail value of Windows Pro. It is absolutely
a good deal, for what one gets, I could\'ve saved about $50 by getting
the OEM version, but it was simpler to just buy the retail product key
online, and make my own media to install from.

$200 is absurd, considering it\'s one of a billion copies sold. So you\'re saying Windows cost $200 billion to write?

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, May 1, 2022 at 6:33:45 PM UTC+10, Commander Kinsey wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:39:49 +0100, Joel <joel...@gmail.com> wrote:

\"Commander Kinsey\" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

You *are* depriving Microsoft of the cost of supporting your pirated
copy of their OS. It costs money to update it.

Did you read what I wrote? If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me. So what harm is it to them if I use Windows for free?

It\'s a sale they should have made. Linux isn\'t and wasn\'t developed on a commercial basis, so they don\'t care. All the developers want is admiration.

My point is that you seem to think it\'s like a game. You think that
Microsoft is this corporate entity to be taken advantage of, because
you\'re the little guy, but in reality, if no one paid for software,
you\'d be stuck with only free software. You\'re trying to have it both
ways.

No, I know there are morons like you that will pay for me.

And we\'ll shop you to Microsoft if we get half a chance.

But that\'s the thing, I *didn\'t* pay for you, I paid for my copy. It\'s
a delusion to think Microsoft is somehow getting anything for your
copy. The $200 I paid for Windows Pro really is the value of one
copy, they are taking a loss when people pirate it. You may not care,
but it\'s tantamount to theft. It\'s not possible to support commercial
software without money. They have to develop updates and new
versions. If no one bought Windows, you\'d be stuck with Linux.

If I didn\'t copy it, your price would have been lower, ha!

Nope. $200 is the true retail value of Windows Pro. It is absolutely
a good deal, for what one gets, I could\'ve saved about $50 by getting
the OEM version, but it was simpler to just buy the retail product key
online, and make my own media to install from.

$200 is absurd, considering it\'s one of a billion copies sold. So you\'re saying Windows cost $200 billion to write?

Scarcely. There have been a lot of versions of Windows (going back to 3.1). and each one had to be extensively rewritten to offer the next generation of bells and whistles. Some versions were totally hopeless and may not have recovered the cost of writing them.

As the existence of Linux demonstrates, the Windows commercial model isn\'t a good one, but it has been good enough to make a lot of money for Bill Gates, and it keeps a lot of users happy enough to avoid the extra work it takes to get Linux running on your computer - not a lot in my experience, but enough to be off-putting for the less skillful.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Joel]

\"Commander Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Theft deprives somebody of something. If I couldn\'t pirate Windows, I\'d use Linux.

You *are* depriving Microsoft of the cost of supporting your pirated
copy of their OS. It costs money to update it.

Did you read what I wrote? If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me. So what harm is it to them if I use Windows for free?

That\'s not the issue, the issue is that it\'s rationalization to think
that piracy is a victimless crime. It\'s their intellectual property,
they get to set the price.

If I didn\'t copy it, your price would have been lower, ha!

Nope. $200 is the true retail value of Windows Pro. It is absolutely
a good deal, for what one gets, I could\'ve saved about $50 by getting
the OEM version, but it was simpler to just buy the retail product key
online, and make my own media to install from.

$200 is absurd, considering it\'s one of a billion copies sold. So you\'re saying Windows cost $200 billion to write?

Nope, very few people, statistically speaking, do what I did. Most
people who assemble their own computers are buying resold product keys
from a third party, but I wouldn\'t be comfortable with that, even
though it\'s so cheap.

--
Joel Crump

 

[John Walliker]

On Sunday, 1 May 2022 at 08:00:00 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:

I see you have a poor grasp of English comprehension. If 3000 machines in my care had no problems, 0 machines in my care had problems, and there\'s no reason to believe anyone else is more likely to have problems than me, that\'s a bloody small number of people who will have problems. Nothing to do with selfishness.

I see you have a poor grasp of reality. I won\'t debate this with you further. You are the sort of intransigent non-thinker this group seems to have in excess. The world does not revolve around you and your personal experiences. 1 in 3,000 is not a small number when dealing with many millions or billions of machines.
It\'s 0 in 3000, and you\'ve again missed the point that it\'s stats and not selfishness we\'re discussing, and you can\'t understand percentages. 1 in 3000 is the same as 1000 in 3 million.

I find it hard to believe that you personally updated 3000 machines, so you may not have got to
hear about all the problems. The last time I worked for a company with many thousands of PCs
they also avoided problems with Windows updates.
All new PCs were wiped and a special corporate Windows image was installed which included
all the usual office products and the main corporate software. Normal users were prevented
from installing updates - or from doing anything else which required administrator permissions.
All updates were tested for a week or so before being rolled out, usually overnight.
If users wanted to install other software, special permission was required. The condition
was that if there were problems the machine would be re-imaged with a clean copy of
Windows. Nothing could be connected to the network without explicit permission.
Notebook computers used at home could only access the internet through a VPN linked to
the corporate network.
Even with all these draconican measures there were still problems from time to time.

John

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 01 May 2022 11:21:02 +0100, John Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, 1 May 2022 at 08:00:00 UTC+1, Commander Kinsey wrote:

I see you have a poor grasp of English comprehension. If 3000 machines in my care had no problems, 0 machines in my care had problems, and there\'s no reason to believe anyone else is more likely to have problems than me, that\'s a bloody small number of people who will have problems. Nothing to do with selfishness.

I see you have a poor grasp of reality. I won\'t debate this with you further. You are the sort of intransigent non-thinker this group seems to have in excess. The world does not revolve around you and your personal experiences. 1 in 3,000 is not a small number when dealing with many millions or billions of machines.
It\'s 0 in 3000, and you\'ve again missed the point that it\'s stats and not selfishness we\'re discussing, and you can\'t understand percentages. 1 in 3000 is the same as 1000 in 3 million.

I find it hard to believe that you personally updated 3000 machines, so you may not have got to
hear about all the problems.

They obviously weren\'t mine, they belonged to two places of work. Why would you find it surprising there were that many machines?

The last time I worked for a company with many thousands of PCs
they also avoided problems with Windows updates.
All new PCs were wiped and a special corporate Windows image was installed which included
all the usual office products and the main corporate software. Normal users were prevented
from installing updates

ARGH! I detest admins like that. I was loved for being very liberal. Anyone could do anything they wanted with their machine. Topless models on the desktop, install their own software, whatever they liked. Not fast enough? Here\'s a stick of RAM. Communism makes everything the same. In the free world, users are the ones that do the work in the company, they should be happy and efficient. Power hungry admins just piss everyone off and slow everything down.

> - or from doing anything else which required administrator permissions.

All users were admins on their own machine where I worked. Why waste my time installing software when half of them could manage it themselves?

> All updates were tested for a week or so before being rolled out, usually overnight.

No need, since they all just worked.

> If users wanted to install other software, special permission was required.

Heil Hitler!

The condition
was that if there were problems the machine would be re-imaged with a clean copy of
Windows. Nothing could be connected to the network without explicit permission.

WTF?!?!

Notebook computers used at home could only access the internet through a VPN linked to
the corporate network.
Even with all these draconican measures there were still problems from time to time.

draconian

You got that right.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 12:34:58 +0100, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

\"Commander Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:25:39 +0100, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
David Brooks <DGB@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 30/04/2022 09:15, Commander Kinsey wrote:

No, I know there are morons like you that will pay for me.

You should apologise to Joel

I don\'t want an apology, really - what I want is for the Commander to
acknowledge that there is something wrong with what he\'s doing.

Only if you acknowledge that you deliberately broke the law and only stopped because you realised MS could catch you out.

I was wrong in thinking it would be OK to install one copy on two
computers. I have not been unclear about that. I learned from it.

You don\'t need to learn stealing is wrong. I don\'t care if I steal. A lot of people say it\'s wrong. But you don\'t make any sense. You once did it and now you don\'t. Are you a bad guy or not? And don\'t give me the I saw god and changed my ways bullshit.

And also admit that you\'re rubbish at piracy because you didn\'t get away with it and I did.

Oh, yes, I definitely admit being bad at piracy, because I don\'t trust
warez. Casual copying isn\'t quite the same thing, but I also haven\'t
done that in a long time. But as far as thinking that using warez is
somehow clever, I don\'t, I think it\'s risky at best.

It\'s never caused me any harm, so clearly you did it wrong.

I\'ve been hearing the same BS from warezers for decades, and it always
seemed ridiculous to me, frankly. I don\'t understand how someone
could think pirating an *operating system* is sensible. The OS has
*complete* control of the machine. It\'s playing with fire.

Only if you don\'t know what you\'re doing.

But this is the point: Microsoft *does* know you pirated it. They\'re
tolerating it, but you can\'t claim to have somehow fooled them.

In MS\'s case perhaps, as their theory is to get people using pirated Windows at home and like it, then want to use it at work where they do enforce licensing.... But game and film manufacturers do not tolerate piracy in any way whatsoever. But they can\'t stop it.

 

[Joel]

\"Commander Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

I don\'t want an apology, really - what I want is for the Commander to
acknowledge that there is something wrong with what he\'s doing.

Only if you acknowledge that you deliberately broke the law and only stopped because you realised MS could catch you out.

I was wrong in thinking it would be OK to install one copy on two
computers. I have not been unclear about that. I learned from it.

You don\'t need to learn stealing is wrong. I don\'t care if I steal. A lot of people say it\'s wrong. But you don\'t make any sense. You once did it and now you don\'t. Are you a bad guy or not? And don\'t give me the I saw god and changed my ways bullshit.

At the time I attempted to do this, I didn\'t think of it as stealing
or piracy - I was wrong. I admitted that multiple times. I don\'t
know why you aren\'t hearing that.

And also admit that you\'re rubbish at piracy because you didn\'t get away with it and I did.

Oh, yes, I definitely admit being bad at piracy, because I don\'t trust
warez. Casual copying isn\'t quite the same thing, but I also haven\'t
done that in a long time. But as far as thinking that using warez is
somehow clever, I don\'t, I think it\'s risky at best.

It\'s never caused me any harm, so clearly you did it wrong.

No, I simply didn\'t do it *at all*. Downloading software in that
manner is *unsafe*. You have no idea what could be embedded in it.

I\'ve been hearing the same BS from warezers for decades, and it always
seemed ridiculous to me, frankly. I don\'t understand how someone
could think pirating an *operating system* is sensible. The OS has
*complete* control of the machine. It\'s playing with fire.

Only if you don\'t know what you\'re doing.

But this is the point: Microsoft *does* know you pirated it. They\'re
tolerating it, but you can\'t claim to have somehow fooled them.

In MS\'s case perhaps, as their theory is to get people using pirated Windows at home and like it, then want to use it at work where they do enforce licensing.... But game and film manufacturers do not tolerate piracy in any way whatsoever. But they can\'t stop it.

That\'s an entirely different issue, though - media piracy doesn\'t have
*control of your computer*. Software, *especially* an operating
system, does.

--
Joel Crump

 

[Chris]

Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

In MS\'s case perhaps, as their theory is to get people using pirated
Windows at home and like it, then want to use it at work where they do
enforce licensing.... But game and film manufacturers do not tolerate
piracy in any way whatsoever.

Of course they do. They know it goes on and there\'s not a lot they can do
about it.

> But they can\'t stop it.

They can make getting their content easier than the pirated version. Which
is what they didn\'t understand in the early days of napster. It wasn\'t just
that it was free that people liked, it was the convenience factor which was
huge.

Spotify, Netflix, etc are so convenient and not that expensive so people on
the whole can\'t be bothered to pirate.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Sun, 01 May 2022 10:53:33 +0100, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

\"Commander Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Theft deprives somebody of something. If I couldn\'t pirate Windows, I\'d use Linux.

You *are* depriving Microsoft of the cost of supporting your pirated
copy of their OS. It costs money to update it.

Did you read what I wrote? If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me. So what harm is it to them if I use Windows for free?

That\'s not the issue, the issue is that it\'s rationalization to think
that piracy is a victimless crime. It\'s their intellectual property,
they get to set the price.

Of course it\'s victimless. Re-read what I wrote and use a calculator if necessary. \"If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me.\"

If I didn\'t copy it, your price would have been lower, ha!

Nope. $200 is the true retail value of Windows Pro. It is absolutely
a good deal, for what one gets, I could\'ve saved about $50 by getting
the OEM version, but it was simpler to just buy the retail product key
online, and make my own media to install from.

$200 is absurd, considering it\'s one of a billion copies sold. So you\'re saying Windows cost $200 billion to write?

Nope, very few people, statistically speaking, do what I did.

Because very few people are as stupid as you.

Most people who assemble their own computers are buying resold product keys
from a third party, but I wouldn\'t be comfortable with that, even
though it\'s so cheap.

Apparently that\'s a bit naughty - the place I bought 100 of those from (for building machines for others) was told by Microsoft to \"please stop doing that\".

 

[Joel]

\"Commander Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Theft deprives somebody of something. If I couldn\'t pirate Windows, I\'d use Linux.

You *are* depriving Microsoft of the cost of supporting your pirated
copy of their OS. It costs money to update it.

Did you read what I wrote? If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me. So what harm is it to them if I use Windows for free?

That\'s not the issue, the issue is that it\'s rationalization to think
that piracy is a victimless crime. It\'s their intellectual property,
they get to set the price.

Of course it\'s victimless. Re-read what I wrote and use a calculator if necessary. \"If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me.\"

Then put your (lack of) money where your mouth is - switch to Linux.
But you won\'t do that, will you? You\'re just a shameless warezer.

If I didn\'t copy it, your price would have been lower, ha!

Nope. $200 is the true retail value of Windows Pro. It is absolutely
a good deal, for what one gets, I could\'ve saved about $50 by getting
the OEM version, but it was simpler to just buy the retail product key
online, and make my own media to install from.

$200 is absurd, considering it\'s one of a billion copies sold. So you\'re saying Windows cost $200 billion to write?

Nope, very few people, statistically speaking, do what I did.

Because very few people are as stupid as you.

And again, insulting people who do the honorable thing. Utter
stupidity.

Most people who assemble their own computers are buying resold product keys
from a third party, but I wouldn\'t be comfortable with that, even
though it\'s so cheap.

Apparently that\'s a bit naughty - the place I bought 100 of those from (for building machines for others) was told by Microsoft to \"please stop doing that\".

Good point, apparently I was right not to go that route.

--
Joel Crump

 

[John Walliker]

On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 19:43:08 UTC+1, Joel wrote:

\"Commander Kinsey\" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:

Theft deprives somebody of something. If I couldn\'t pirate Windows, I\'d use Linux.

You *are* depriving Microsoft of the cost of supporting your pirated
copy of their OS. It costs money to update it.

Did you read what I wrote? If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me. So what harm is it to them if I use Windows for free?

That\'s not the issue, the issue is that it\'s rationalization to think
that piracy is a victimless crime. It\'s their intellectual property,
they get to set the price.

Of course it\'s victimless. Re-read what I wrote and use a calculator if necessary. \"If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me.\"
Then put your (lack of) money where your mouth is - switch to Linux.
But you won\'t do that, will you? You\'re just a shameless warezer.
If I didn\'t copy it, your price would have been lower, ha!

Nope. $200 is the true retail value of Windows Pro. It is absolutely
a good deal, for what one gets, I could\'ve saved about $50 by getting
the OEM version, but it was simpler to just buy the retail product key
online, and make my own media to install from.

$200 is absurd, considering it\'s one of a billion copies sold. So you\'re saying Windows cost $200 billion to write?

Nope, very few people, statistically speaking, do what I did.

Because very few people are as stupid as you.
And again, insulting people who do the honorable thing. Utter
stupidity.
Most people who assemble their own computers are buying resold product keys
from a third party, but I wouldn\'t be comfortable with that, even
though it\'s so cheap.

Apparently that\'s a bit naughty - the place I bought 100 of those from (for building machines for others) was told by Microsoft to \"please stop doing that\".
Good point, apparently I was right not to go that route.

Its not quite that simple. In the EU it is perfectly legal to use a software license
that is no longer being used by the original purchaser. For example, if Windows
was supplied with a PC that has been scrapped, then that Windows license can be
sold to somebody else who is entitled to use it on another machine.
Microsoft don\'t like it, which is why they ask you nicely not to do it.
In the UK it is probably still legal, because all EU law became incorporated into
UK law after Brexit unless specifically changed.
I have no idea about the situation in the USA.
John

 

[server]

John Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a7cdc579-a748-43e3-823d-c9156b34e118n@googlegroups.com:

On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 19:43:08 UTC+1, Joel wrote:
\"Commander Kinsey\" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:

Theft deprives somebody of something. If I couldn\'t pirate
Windows, I\'d use Linux.

You *are* depriving Microsoft of the cost of supporting your
pirated copy of their OS. It costs money to update it.

Did you read what I wrote? If I changed to Linux, they\'d
still get no money form me. So what harm is it to them if I
use Windows for free?

That\'s not the issue, the issue is that it\'s rationalization
to think that piracy is a victimless crime. It\'s their
intellectual property, they get to set the price.

Of course it\'s victimless. Re-read what I wrote and use a
calculator if necessary. \"If I changed to Linux, they\'d still
get no money form me.\"
Then put your (lack of) money where your mouth is - switch to
Linux. But you won\'t do that, will you? You\'re just a shameless
warezer.
If I didn\'t copy it, your price would have been lower, ha!

Nope. $200 is the true retail value of Windows Pro. It is
absolutely a good deal, for what one gets, I could\'ve saved
about $50 by getting the OEM version, but it was simpler to
just buy the retail product key online, and make my own
media to install from.

$200 is absurd, considering it\'s one of a billion copies
sold. So you\'re saying Windows cost $200 billion to write?

Nope, very few people, statistically speaking, do what I did.

Because very few people are as stupid as you.
And again, insulting people who do the honorable thing. Utter
stupidity.
Most people who assemble their own computers are buying resold
product keys from a third party, but I wouldn\'t be comfortable
with that, even though it\'s so cheap.

Apparently that\'s a bit naughty - the place I bought 100 of
those from (for building machines for others) was told by
Microsoft to \"please stop doing that\".
Good point, apparently I was right not to go that route.


Its not quite that simple. In the EU it is perfectly legal to use
a software license that is no longer being used by the original
purchaser. For example, if Windows was supplied with a PC that
has been scrapped, then that Windows license can be sold to
somebody else who is entitled to use it on another machine.
Microsoft don\'t like it, which is why they ask you nicely not to
do it. In the UK it is probably still legal, because all EU law
became incorporated into UK law after Brexit unless specifically
changed. I have no idea about the situation in the USA.
John

Very doubtful. Windows license is tied to the machine it is sold
with. AND it will not operate on other hardware without illegal
manipulations. You may not like it, but you are not correct.What you
have no idea about is how an OS can be tied to the serialization of
the machine it is installed onto.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 05 May 2022 22:41:46 +0100, John Walliker <jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 19:43:08 UTC+1, Joel wrote:
\"Commander Kinsey\" <C...@nospam.com> wrote:

Theft deprives somebody of something. If I couldn\'t pirate Windows, I\'d use Linux.

You *are* depriving Microsoft of the cost of supporting your pirated
copy of their OS. It costs money to update it.

Did you read what I wrote? If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me. So what harm is it to them if I use Windows for free?

That\'s not the issue, the issue is that it\'s rationalization to think
that piracy is a victimless crime. It\'s their intellectual property,
they get to set the price.

Of course it\'s victimless. Re-read what I wrote and use a calculator if necessary. \"If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me.\"
Then put your (lack of) money where your mouth is - switch to Linux.
But you won\'t do that, will you? You\'re just a shameless warezer.
If I didn\'t copy it, your price would have been lower, ha!

Nope. $200 is the true retail value of Windows Pro. It is absolutely
a good deal, for what one gets, I could\'ve saved about $50 by getting
the OEM version, but it was simpler to just buy the retail product key
online, and make my own media to install from.

$200 is absurd, considering it\'s one of a billion copies sold. So you\'re saying Windows cost $200 billion to write?

Nope, very few people, statistically speaking, do what I did.

Because very few people are as stupid as you.
And again, insulting people who do the honorable thing. Utter
stupidity.
Most people who assemble their own computers are buying resold product keys
from a third party, but I wouldn\'t be comfortable with that, even
though it\'s so cheap.

Apparently that\'s a bit naughty - the place I bought 100 of those from (for building machines for others) was told by Microsoft to \"please stop doing that\".
Good point, apparently I was right not to go that route.


Its not quite that simple. In the EU it is perfectly legal to use a software license
that is no longer being used by the original purchaser. For example, if Windows
was supplied with a PC that has been scrapped, then that Windows license can be
sold to somebody else who is entitled to use it on another machine.
Microsoft don\'t like it, which is why they ask you nicely not to do it.
In the UK it is probably still legal, because all EU law became incorporated into
UK law after Brexit unless specifically changed.
I have no idea about the situation in the USA.

Why would that not be legal anywhere?!

Ah hang on.... is this the same as Tesla getting away with saying the extra they switched on in your car, which you then sold to me, has to be paid for again? American law is fucked up.

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Thu, 05 May 2022 19:43:01 +0100, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

\"Commander Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Theft deprives somebody of something. If I couldn\'t pirate Windows, I\'d use Linux.

You *are* depriving Microsoft of the cost of supporting your pirated
copy of their OS. It costs money to update it.

Did you read what I wrote? If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me. So what harm is it to them if I use Windows for free?

That\'s not the issue, the issue is that it\'s rationalization to think
that piracy is a victimless crime. It\'s their intellectual property,
they get to set the price.

Of course it\'s victimless. Re-read what I wrote and use a calculator if necessary. \"If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me.\"

Then put your (lack of) money where your mouth is - switch to Linux.
But you won\'t do that, will you? You\'re just a shameless warezer.

I\'ve already explained to you that switching to Linux wouldn\'t profit MS, so why should I do it?

If I didn\'t copy it, your price would have been lower, ha!

Nope. $200 is the true retail value of Windows Pro. It is absolutely
a good deal, for what one gets, I could\'ve saved about $50 by getting
the OEM version, but it was simpler to just buy the retail product key
online, and make my own media to install from.

$200 is absurd, considering it\'s one of a billion copies sold. So you\'re saying Windows cost $200 billion to write?

Nope, very few people, statistically speaking, do what I did.

Because very few people are as stupid as you.

And again, insulting people who do the honorable thing. Utter stupidity.

Honourable. And yes it\'s stupid to do something that costs you money.

Most people who assemble their own computers are buying resold product keys
from a third party, but I wouldn\'t be comfortable with that, even
though it\'s so cheap.

Apparently that\'s a bit naughty - the place I bought 100 of those from (for building machines for others) was told by Microsoft to \"please stop doing that\".

Good point, apparently I was right not to go that route.

Since the shop was not charged, it was just MS throwing it\'s weight around.

 

[Joel]

\"Commander Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

Of course it\'s [pirating Windows] victimless. Re-read what I wrote and use a calculator if necessary. \"If I changed to Linux, they\'d still get no money form me.\"

Then put your (lack of) money where your mouth is - switch to Linux.
But you won\'t do that, will you? You\'re just a shameless warezer.

I\'ve already explained to you that switching to Linux wouldn\'t profit MS, so why should I do it?

Because that would be the right thing to do, if you don\'t want to pay
for software.

Nope, very few people, statistically speaking, do what I did [pay the retail price for Windows].

Because very few people are as stupid as you.

And again, insulting people who do the honorable thing. Utter stupidity.

Honourable. And yes it\'s stupid to do something that costs you money.

Nope, it\'s being honest.

Most people who assemble their own computers are buying resold product keys
from a third party, but I wouldn\'t be comfortable with that, even
though it\'s so cheap.

Apparently that\'s a bit naughty - the place I bought 100 of those from (for building machines for others) was told by Microsoft to \"please stop doing that\".

Good point, apparently I was right not to go that route.

Since the shop was not charged, it was just MS throwing it\'s weight around.

Sure, but I\'d still rather avoid such a scene.

--
Joel Crump

 

[Commander Kinsey]

On Wed, 04 May 2022 13:34:22 +0100, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

\"Commander Kinsey\" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

I don\'t want an apology, really - what I want is for the Commander to
acknowledge that there is something wrong with what he\'s doing.

Only if you acknowledge that you deliberately broke the law and only stopped because you realised MS could catch you out.

I was wrong in thinking it would be OK to install one copy on two
computers. I have not been unclear about that. I learned from it.

You don\'t need to learn stealing is wrong. I don\'t care if I steal. A lot of people say it\'s wrong. But you don\'t make any sense. You once did it and now you don\'t. Are you a bad guy or not? And don\'t give me the I saw god and changed my ways bullshit.

At the time I attempted to do this, I didn\'t think of it as stealing
or piracy - I was wrong. I admitted that multiple times. I don\'t
know why you aren\'t hearing that.

Same reason you didn\'t? Practise what you preach you crazy religious nut.

And also admit that you\'re rubbish at piracy because you didn\'t get away with it and I did.

Oh, yes, I definitely admit being bad at piracy, because I don\'t trust
warez. Casual copying isn\'t quite the same thing, but I also haven\'t
done that in a long time. But as far as thinking that using warez is
somehow clever, I don\'t, I think it\'s risky at best.

It\'s never caused me any harm, so clearly you did it wrong.

No, I simply didn\'t do it *at all*. Downloading software in that
manner is *unsafe*. You have no idea what could be embedded in it.

I know exactly what\'s in it, there are things called virus checkers.

I\'ve been hearing the same BS from warezers for decades, and it always
seemed ridiculous to me, frankly. I don\'t understand how someone
could think pirating an *operating system* is sensible. The OS has
*complete* control of the machine. It\'s playing with fire.

Only if you don\'t know what you\'re doing.

But this is the point: Microsoft *does* know you pirated it. They\'re
tolerating it, but you can\'t claim to have somehow fooled them.

In MS\'s case perhaps, as their theory is to get people using pirated Windows at home and like it, then want to use it at work where they do enforce licensing.... But game and film manufacturers do not tolerate piracy in any way whatsoever. But they can\'t stop it.

That\'s an entirely different issue, though - media piracy doesn\'t have
*control of your computer*. Software, *especially* an operating
system, does.

You claim this, yet it\'s never happened. Probably because two wrongs don\'t make a right. In civilised countries (that\'s anywhere except the US), if you broke into my house and I killed you, I would be in the wrong too. In fact you\'d be in trouble for breaking and entering, and I\'d be in trouble for murder. So MS won\'t do that.