BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Database Screenshots Gallery Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 44d, 17h, 26m | CPU: 35% | MEM: 5443MB of 11393MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Forum rules


Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:19 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Well, I'm an NT user since 1995 and a Win2000 (beta) user since 1999 and I've gotten used to its look&feel. When I installed XP for the first time (in a dual-boot with 2000 of course), I immediately disabled that themes crap. Later, I've begun using other, more decent and "professional" themes, but I absolutely hate the default XP eyecandy.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:40 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:17 am

Posts
920

Favourite OS
6.0.5219
That didn't take long did it? :lol:


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:57 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
wouldn't think it would as once it gets to the manufacturing plant, it is only a matter of time before someone takes a copy home. How long did XP take to leak?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:36 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
A leak Version with the legendary FCKGW-Key was leaked a month before XP was released by MS on 25th october 2001

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:38 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
anyone still got that image?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 10:06 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:05 pm

Posts
698

Location
Or-stray-liagh
___ wrote:
anyone still got that image?


Image
Google Images! :D

_________________
pr0gram the pr0grammer
BetaArchive retiree | OSBA Expat


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:05 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
I love this picture :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:07 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Yeah, it's very embarrassing for MS. But it was clear this was going to happen.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:56 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
But today it is not so tragic for MS, because all extras (motionDesktop, Desktop Manager Animations and so on) are not included in the RTM and will be released in Januar as updates.

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:03 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Luckie wrote:
But today it is not so tragic for MS, because all extras (motionDesktop, Desktop Manager Animations and so on) are not included in the RTM and will be released in Januar as updates.


Windows Update seems to work with the "magic key" that is integrated into the DVD though, so no problems there ;)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:28 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
But you can't be 100% sure that these updates Luckie mentioned will work as well, can you? Well, looking at Vista Enterprise and its KMS system, it seems as if MS has at least managed to learn something from the XP VLK thing, hasn't it? :lol:


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:05 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
But you can't be 100% sure that these updates Luckie mentioned will work as well, can you? Well, looking at Vista Enterprise and its KMS system, it seems as if MS has at least managed to learn something from the XP VLK thing, hasn't it? :lol:


I think you get them through Windows Update (because it says "Windows Update with Windows Ultimate Extras", and these are the Ultimate Extras, which are the replacement for the old Plus! packs) so hopefully they will work - it will probably just validate your key in the same way (they could in theory block the magic key if lots of people use it for more than the 30 days, although then the behind-your-back WGA will flag your Vista as "not genuine" too, and as it's legitimate to install using the magic key it's hard to see how they can do that).

Yeah, it's so annoying that they spent so much effort putting in all this licence nonsense, when they could have spent it making Vista less buggy instead. Completely pointless, as it's not going to make anyone buy it instead of pirate it. They should just make it like Mac OS X, where there's not even a serial to enter, let alone "validation" every time you boot up without you knowing about it - I'm sure it wouldn't actually make more people pirate Windows, it would just make life easier for everyone (pirates and non-pirates alike).

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:32 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
I think the Extras won't be availible if you are not genuine. MS already said, they will block Beta2-Keys, so that you can't load the xtras with a Beta2/RC-Key.

Perhaps a good cracker with great skills with IDA or other tools will release a crack for this.

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:32 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
I tend to agree with you. But, concerning Mac OS X: You don't have to enter a serial in the client versions of it, but the server versions require you to enter a serial after installing. And AFAIK they will contact an Apple server to verify the serial after some time or something like that. At least that's what my Mac OS X Server install did. But you can easily prevent it from doing that by closing some ports in your firewall/router for that system, IIRC.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:45 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
I tend to agree with you. But, concerning Mac OS X: You don't have to enter a serial in the client versions of it, but the server versions require you to enter a serial after installing. And AFAIK they will contact an Apple server to verify the serial after some time or something like that. At least that's what my Mac OS X Server install did. But you can easily prevent it from doing that by closing some ports in your firewall/router for that system, IIRC.


Urgh, I hope they don't put that in the normal version of OS X.

Do you run OS X Server on your Macs then? Is it any different to the normal versions, except for the addition of server features? What happens if it contacts Apple and your serial is deemed invalid - does it lock you out or just display an annoying message?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:39 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
pr0gram the pr0grammer wrote:
___ wrote:
anyone still got that image?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/p ... _FCKGW.jpg
Google Images! :D

never gets old :D


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:21 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
empireum wrote:
I tend to agree with you. But, concerning Mac OS X: You don't have to enter a serial in the client versions of it, but the server versions require you to enter a serial after installing. And AFAIK they will contact an Apple server to verify the serial after some time or something like that. At least that's what my Mac OS X Server install did. But you can easily prevent it from doing that by closing some ports in your firewall/router for that system, IIRC.


Urgh, I hope they don't put that in the normal version of OS X.

Do you run OS X Server on your Macs then? Is it any different to the normal versions, except for the addition of server features? What happens if it contacts Apple and your serial is deemed invalid - does it lock you out or just display an annoying message?

I run OS X Server on one of my two Macs, yes, but as a dual-boot to the normal OS X. My other Mac, the notebook, only runs the "client" OS X. Yes, there are some differences (but not in the kernel AFAIK). It has a nice GUI for all the server stuff, some additional servers, a really good set of admin tools and so on. I don't know what happens if my serial is rejected.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:34 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
I run OS X Server on one of my two Macs, yes, but as a dual-boot to the normal OS X. My other Mac, the notebook, only runs the "client" OS X. Yes, there are some differences (but not in the kernel AFAIK). It has a nice GUI for all the server stuff, some additional servers, a really good set of admin tools and so on. I don't know what happens if my serial is rejected.


Is there anything missing from Server that is in the normal version? I was just wondering whether it would be worth trying if I ever manage to get hold of an OSX-capable Mac, as if it offers everything the normal version does plus more, then it would be worth installing.

Do you have a real (ie legit) copy then, or did you just manage to stop it checking your serial before it had a chance to? Aren't legit copies crazily expensive?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:04 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
Is there anything missing from Server that is in the normal version? I was just wondering whether it would be worth trying if I ever manage to get hold of an OSX-capable Mac, as if it offers everything the normal version does plus more, then it would be worth installing.

Can't think of anything the non-Server OS X has where the Server hasn't, there are some changes in the user interface, though. For example, you can't configure the firewall in the System Preferences anymore, this is done by the Server Admin. And so on. And some programs like iLife refuse to install on a server. I'm just playing around with it because I still have my normal OS X client install available where I do my daily work (where this post is written, for example). Server just has some cool features (cool for me, at least) to try out, like the ability to NetBoot other Macs with an OS X image. I just like playing around with these features.

But you can't compare the client and server versions of OS X like you can compare XP and Server 2003. For example, all OS X versions share the same kernel, regardless of being Server or not. So, there's no difference cncerning that.

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
Do you have a real (ie legit) copy then, or did you just manage to stop it checking your serial before it had a chance to? Aren't legit copies crazily expensive?

Ahem... I had it stop checking my serial. Is this enough for an explanation? :wink: The thing is I want to get used to OS X Server because we run it at school and one of the companies where I might start working later might run OS X. on their server, who knows.. .

A version of OS X server I really want to check out is 1.x. Guess why? Very simple... It's Rhapsody! :D


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:53 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
Ahem... I had it stop checking my serial. Is this enough for an explanation? :wink:


Yep, that's enough of an explanation ;) I just wondered if you had a legit version (and if so, where you got it from), as that would be a really cool thing to have :)

empireum wrote:
A version of OS X server I really want to check out is 1.x. Guess why? Very simple... It's Rhapsody! :D


That would be an interesting on to try - I suppose again a G3 or later is needed though? Which ones are Rhapsody and which are OS X as we know it (ie with Aqua and everything)? I know where you can download OS X Server 1.5 and 2.0, but I don't know if they're both the Platinum/Rhapsody ones or not. Trying some of the early OS X betas (DR1 and 2) would be interesting as well, as they also had the old Platinum interface - might be hard to find though, I can only find DR4, which was the one before Public Beta (and was pretty similar I think). I’m sure DR1 and 2 were on one of the old servers, but I can’t find them now. I actually have the official OS X Public Beta pack (got it for £3 including shipping from eBay, including a 10.0 pack too :)), but again no suitable Macs to try it with :(

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:35 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
empireum wrote:
Ahem... I had it stop checking my serial. Is this enough for an explanation? :wink:


Yep, that's enough of an explanation ;) I just wondered if you had a legit version (and if so, where you got it from), as that would be a really cool thing to have :)

No, I can't afford a copy of OS X Server 10.4, it's too expensive. Older versions would probably be cheaper, but if I'm missing some stuff, that's not really good for learning...


Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
That would be an interesting on to try - I suppose again a G3 or later is needed though? Which ones are Rhapsody and which are OS X as we know it (ie with Aqua and everything)? I know where you can download OS X Server 1.5 and 2.0, but I don't know if they're both the Platinum/Rhapsody ones or not. Trying some of the early OS X betas (DR1 and 2) would be interesting as well, as they also had the old Platinum interface - might be hard to find though, I can only find DR4, which was the one before Public Beta (and was pretty similar I think). I’m sure DR1 and 2 were on one of the old servers, but I can’t find them now. I actually have the official OS X Public Beta pack (got it for £3 including shipping from eBay, including a 10.0 pack too :)), but again no suitable Macs to try it with :(

There is no OS X Server 1.5 or 2.0. And, for Rhapsody PPC or OS X Server 1.x, a G3 is the maximum. I think a PowerPC 603 or 604 would be perfect for it, IIRC OS X Server 1.2 (and 1.0 maybe) can run on some early G3s. The following versions exist AFAIK:

    Rhapsody
    Rhapsody 5.0 --> Rhapsody DR1
    Rhapsody 5.1 --> Rhapsody DR2
    Rhapsody 5.2 --> never released
    Rhapsody 5.3 --> Mac OS X Server 1.0
    Rhapsody 5.4 --> Mac OS X Server 1.0.1
    Rhapsody 5.5 --> Mac OS X Server 1.0.2
    Rhapsody 5.6 --> Mac OS X Server 1.2

    OS X (Mach)
    Cheetah (Darwin 1.3) --> Mac OS X (Server) 10.0
    Puma (Darwin 1.4) --> Mac OS X (Server) 10.1
    Jaguar (Darwin 6.x) --> Mac OS X (Server) 10.2
    Panther (Darwin 7.x) --> MAc OS X (Server) 103
    Tiger (Darwin 8.x) --> Mac OS X (Server) 10.4
    Leopard (Darwin 9.x) --> Mac OS X (Server) 10.5


BTW, if you're interested in Rhapsody, go to http://www.rhapsodyos.org/. I bet this is the most complete information on Rhapsody that you can get! :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:46 am 
Reply with quote
I'll try it out on my other HDD, but I'll still be sticking with a dual boot of Ubuntu Linux and Win2k Pro as my primary tools.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:37 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
There is no OS X Server 1.5 or 2.0.


That's strange then - there's definitely a CD image on this Hotline server labelled as OS X Server 2.0 (I must confused 1.2 for 1.5 - I can only find 1.2 and 2.0 on there now) - wonder what it is? :) I think it does actually say "untested file" by it so it may well have been labelled wrong and is actually 1.0 or 1.2 or something.

empireum wrote:
BTW, if you're interested in Rhapsody, go to http://www.rhapsodyos.org/. I bet this is the most complete information on Rhapsody that you can get! :)


Lots of useful stuff there :) They seem to say that Rhapsody only works well on hardware the same age - guess that's why I didn't have much luck with it!

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Vista RTM        Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:58 am 
Reply with quote
Speaking of which, anyone on connect got an update regarding the RTM keys availability to the vista beta testers? its getting late now, and i only have like 15 days to activate...


Top
 PostPost subject: Re: Vista RTM        Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:12 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
StormZ wrote:
Speaking of which, anyone on connect got an update regarding the RTM keys availability to the vista beta testers? its getting late now, and i only have like 15 days to activate...


If you run out of time, just go to Start > Run and execute "rundll32 slc.dll,SLReArmWindows" (without the quotes, the capital letters ARE needed) to get another 30 days (you can only do this a maximum of 3 times though - I have found a file that claims to make the restriction 10000 times rather than 3, so you could set it to rearm on every shutdown, but I kinda doubt that it actually works!)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2019

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS


Affiliate