Jump to content
  • 0
marlinsinger

So you want to fax from Vista - don't count on it

Question

34 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Yes, it is a power hog compared to XP. However, when XP came out, and most people were running 98 with 64 megs of RAM, IT was a power hog, too. Besides, as I said, when your machine's base score is 5.2, you really see any slowdown.

I have had 320MB RAM in the Win98 SE (recently upped to 384); 512MB RAM in the Win2K; 768MB RAM in the WinXP.

 

I don't think 64MB RAM will do a lot more than turn the computer on :)

 

For Vista ... now, for that I'd suggest starting at 1.5 GB RAM.

 

Lynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Wraith - regarding MS having the authority to disable your system, read the EULAS - you GAVE them authority to do that. All they have to do is disallow activation when it asks - and you are left with a dead machine.

 

You also gave them the right to 'hack' into your system.

 

"...If for some reason the software “phones home” back to Redmond, Washington, and gets or gives the wrong answer - irrespective of the reason - it will automatically disable itself. That's like saying definitively, “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that...” Unless you can prove to the satisfaction of some automoton that the software is “Genuine,” or more accurately, that under the relevant copyright laws that you have satisfied the requirements of the copyright laws and all of the terms of the End User License Agreement, the software will, on its own, go into a “protect Microsoft” mode..."

 

Article here

Edited by gi7omy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
I have had 320MB RAM in the Win98 SE (recently upped to 384); 512MB RAM in the Win2K; 768MB RAM in the WinXP.

 

I don't think 64MB RAM will do a lot more than turn the computer on :)

 

For Vista ... now, for that I'd suggest starting at 1.5 GB RAM.

 

Lynn

 

Yea, and I had 1.5 gigs on my XP machine. But most people have 512, which is why Vista seems like you have to get upgrades.

 

Similarly, in 2001, just before XP was released, the vast, vast majority of people had 64 megs, and people were freaking when XP came out and it required 128 as a minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And all that from a guy who said '640K is enough for anyone' :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Wraith - regarding MS having the authority to disable your system, read the EULAS - you GAVE them authority to do that. All they have to do is disallow activation when it asks - and you are left with a dead machine.

 

You also gave them the right to 'hack' into your system.

 

"...If for some reason the software "phones home" back to Redmond, Washington, and gets or gives the wrong answer - irrespective of the reason - it will automatically disable itself. That's like saying definitively, "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that..." Unless you can prove to the satisfaction of some automoton that the software is "Genuine," or more accurately, that under the relevant copyright laws that you have satisfied the requirements of the copyright laws and all of the terms of the End User License Agreement, the software will, on its own, go into a "protect Microsoft" mode..."

 

Article here

 

Gross misinterpretation. The WGA is Vista is basically the same as it is in XP, and for that matter just about any other software that requires activation these days. That is, if you don't activate it within a certain time, it stops working until you do. Once you've activated it, the only thing you can't do is get updates. It's not going to suddenly stop working or prevent you froma accessing your files. That isn't in the EULA, and that isn't in Vista's code. This guy is way, WAY off. He's probably one of the same people that swore that the serial numbers in Pentium II's (PIII's?) could allow Intel to take control of your machine.

Edited by wraithtdk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If he's wrong, so are a LOT of lawyers who actually READ the EULA

 

Try reading it instead of just clicking 'accept'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I also feel it's doubtful that MS would do what's mentioned in the article but during a beta chat session on WGA, while they didn't come out and say in plain English that they could do what's discussed, they did basically admit as much. I wish I still kept the transcipts from that chat but it was a bit scary.

Still, many have a mistrust of MS (or any big organization) and why leave this to chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
He's probably one of the same people that swore that the serial numbers in Pentium II's (PIII's?) could allow Intel to take control of your machine.

The serial numbers come with PIII. They are turned off by default since the dust-up over it.

 

Lynn

Edited by lynn98109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
And all that from a guy who said '640K is enough for anyone' :lol:

 

Still my second favorite tech story (next to Sony's 9 mil protection scheme that people figured out the could bypass with a thirty cent sharpy.

 

 

I should mention that today I setup a pfsc (about twenty bucks more than the typical printer/scanner/copier combo) today, and it reminded me that you don't need to print something to scan it with one of those. If you have something on your pc that you want to fax, you can just send it to the pfsc, and it will fax it directly. It's as easy as sending an email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×