StarDestroyer.Net BBS

When I start my wife's pc, it says that Windows has to activated with Microsoft before it can log on. If I click 'activate,' then it says it already has and starts this process over. If I click, "no" then it won't let me on.

This copy has been registered a long time ago. Also, I can get in via safe mode, but I'm not sure what to do from there to fix this.

Any ideas?

Thanks!

Fucking windows... How advanced does one have to be to use Linux?

Sounds like a damaged registry.

Try running Registry Mechanic, that MIGHt help.

otherwise, call Microsoft

Back up any files and emails you want to save and reinstall the whole machine, then restore the backup data to its appropriate place. That's probably the easiest way to fix this issue.

Edi

Superman wrote:Fucking windows... How advanced does one have to be to use Linux?

Not very. Depending on what Linux distribution you choose, (I highly recommend Freespire) you may never run into a difference between it and Windows.

If the only thing you use it for is surfing the internet, it's probably a better choice for you.

Superman wrote:

Fucking windows... How advanced does one have to be to use Linux?

Mandriva One is a fairly easy to use distro, and it can be installed with a few clicks. If the most you plan on doing is surfing the web, email and the occasional word document, it's a snap to pick up. Though anything more complicated and I'd probably recommend sticking to Windows.

Ubuntu is also a fairly good and user-friendly distribution.

There is a suggestion for dealing with a Windows product activation loop here.

Summary:

If you are lucky enough to have made a past backup of your hard drive files, you could in safe mode copy back the wpa.dbl file in windows\system32.

If you don't have such a backup, you could in safe mode simply delete the wpa.dbl and wpa.bak files in the windows\system32 directory, as that should make Windows reactivate and theoretically remember once you reactivate it.

If it's just Windows activation troubles, then join the club. We've all had them and they can often be easily remedied, if inconvenient all the same.

If you're really certain about ditching Windows, weigh up the pros and cons of converting to another OS. Don't just rush out and download a random distro of Linux, perhaps even consider Apple. If you expect to get Windows but with a different look on these other OSes, then I strongly urge you to read up on them first. Depending on what you want to do and your dedication to it, you may or may not want to migrate from Microsoft's platform.

On the plus side, you can try Linux without getting rid of Windows anyway, so if it is a mistake, no harm done.

Dominus Atheos wrote:

Superman wrote:Fucking windows... How advanced does one have to be to use Linux?

Not very. Depending on what Linux distribution you choose, (I highly recommend Freespire) you may never run into a difference between it and Windows.

If the only thing you use it for is surfing the internet, it's probably a better choice for you.

By that you mean a graphical user-interface over command lines I presume?

Anyway, on a slight tangent, since it's free, what REALLY prevents a Dell or HP or more niche gaming PC makers from selling computers with Linux pre-installs? Does MS pay the PC manufacturers to get the guaranteed market share?

SPC Brungardt wrote:Anyway, on a slight tangent, since it's free, what REALLY prevents a Dell or HP or more niche gaming PC makers from selling computers with Linux pre-installs? Does MS pay the PC manufacturers to get the guaranteed market share?

It isn't called the Windows tax for nothing.
Those manufacturers pay for a Windows install on every computer they produce or they don't get Windows. And this is regardless of what they put on the computer.

Destructionator XIII wrote:What prevents them from preinstalling Linux is the fact that Linux sucks for the general market.

What the fuck would a gaming PC maker want with Linux? Games are made for Windows. Selling a gaming PC with Linux on it is just stupid.

Which is circular reasoning. If they started selling Linux boxes more, then companies would start supporting the OS more rather than being somewhat lax with it.

With regular people, none of them want to go through the hassle of Linux. It is a different system, and it takes time to learn. Even then, a great deal of the software on it aimed toward general audiences either doesn't exist or outright sucks. Why would a person buy a computer they don't have the slightest idea how to use or can't do the work they want to do?

Linux is not Windows with the malware ripped out. It is very different, and not right for most people. A Linux machine simply wouldn't sell very well.

That's because people are stupid and expect a PC to be as easy to use as a CD player. There are people out there who can't even program a VCR, so they have to accomodate the lowest common denominator, which is, in my mind, one of the many reasons I don't use Windows now. It's just too dumbed down now. Besides, computer suppliers are now selling far more boxes either empty or with another OS preloaded because people have cottoned on to the fact that Windows isn't the only OS out there and forking out for a Mac isn't the only other option. The rise in Ubuntu's popularity alone is testament to the number of people with practically zero computing knowledge being able to use Linux.

If you seriously think Linux is even what it was like at the turn of the millennium, I'f think again. A market share that is ever growing can't be bad, especially when other open source apps are following suit. Variety is what you want, not "Why bother with anything that isn't Windows if it's hard to learn?" bullshit.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Which is circular reasoning. If they started selling Linux boxes more, then companies would start supporting the OS more rather than being somewhat lax with it.

You mean if there was demand for Linux gaming that gave a reasonable ROI then those companies would start supporting that platform? That demand doesn't look like it's there.

That's because people are stupid and expect a PC to be as easy to use as a CD player. There are people out there who can't even program a VCR, so they have to accomodate the lowest common denominator, which is, in my mind, one of the many reasons I don't use Windows now.

Speaking as a CS major, it should be that easy. The power should be available, yes, but there is absolutely no reason why computers cannot be that easy to use (roughly speaking). It turns on, it does what you want, without mysterious and weird errors? Is that so much to ask for?

It's just too dumbed down now. Besides, computer suppliers are now selling far more boxes either empty or with another OS preloaded because people have cottoned on to the fact that Windows isn't the only OS out there and forking out for a Mac isn't the only other option. The rise in Ubuntu's popularity alone is testament to the number of people with practically zero computing knowledge being able to use Linux.

Yeah, but the big OEMs and ISVs - those who sell the most computers, like Dell, HP/Compaq, etc. - are still mostly selling Windows boxes. Ubuntu's popularity, IMHO, isn't because it is a replacement for Windows but rather that it's a better Linux distribution for the desktop than most others. Thus, it's gaining marketshare within the Linux community.

If you seriously think Linux is even what it was like at the turn of the millennium, I'f think again. A market share that is ever growing can't be bad, especially when other open source apps are following suit. Variety is what you want, not "Why bother with anything that isn't Windows if it's hard to learn?" bullshit.

Tell that to the average user, who defines and controls the desktop market, or to the corporation who doesn't want to have to retrain tens of thousands of users on a new OS. And, frankly, Linux On The Desktop is going nowhere fast in the greater scheme of things. Is it better? Yes. Is it winning marketshare versus Windows? No.

phongn wrote: You mean if there was demand for Linux gaming that gave a reasonable ROI then those companies would start supporting that platform? That demand doesn't look like it's there.

As I say, that's down to the vast monopoly MS has on what people use on their PCs. So it's hard to get gaming support for Linux or Macs when everyone seems to be using Windows and we all know the scuffles over OpenGL and DirectX didn't help.

Speaking as a CS major, it should be that easy. The power should be available, yes, but there is absolutely no reason why computers cannot be that easy to use (roughly speaking). It turns on, it does what you want, without mysterious and weird errors? Is that so much to ask for?

It should be that easy, yes, but realistically, you have to know what to do when something goes wrong. It's nice that we have the web and support forums and bug reporting tools now, but in the end, it wouldn't hurt to have everyone know basic computing skills across more than just the common MS software suites. My CS tutors always ranted on about this. Course, at that time I was oblivious to Linux and didn't give a shit.

Yeah, but the big OEMs and ISVs - those who sell the most computers, like Dell, HP/Compaq, etc. - are still mostly selling Windows boxes. Ubuntu's popularity, IMHO, isn't because it is a replacement for Windows but rather that it's a better Linux distribution for the desktop than most others. Thus, it's gaining marketshare within the Linux community.

Which, hopefully, will trickle down into the common market and help people looking for something outside of Windows to decide to switch. There are still plenty of people trying it, then going back to Windows, though they at least tried and often leave comments on what they'd like for them to ditch Windows permanently and take up an open source OS instead. You won't see a revolution overnight, however, it's vastly more likely to get someone you know into a Linux distro now than it was even five years ago.

Tell that to the average user, who defines and controls the desktop market, or to the corporation who doesn't want to have to retrain tens of thousands of users on a new OS. And, frankly, Linux On The Desktop is going nowhere fast in the greater scheme of things. Is it better? Yes. Is it winning marketshare versus Windows? No.

I don't know about "better". That really depends on what you want. We know UNIX systems dominate a lot of the server side of things, but when it comes to desktops they're still floundering relatively next to MS along with Apple. If companies offer more support and the community keeps advancing like it has done in the past few years, then a good PR campaign will at least get people thinking about something other than what Vista upgrade to buy next.

Update: PC reformatted and running with no data loss. I just copied her stuff onto my 2 gig usb drive in safe mode, then reformatted and reinstalled Windows.

I am checking into that other software. Thanks.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:As I say, that's down to the vast monopoly MS has on what people use on their PCs. So it's hard to get gaming support for Linux or Macs when everyone seems to be using Windows and we all know the scuffles over OpenGL and DirectX didn't help.

Well, yes, but that's the very point. Even if the DOJ broke up Microsoft tomorrow, it still doesn't change the point - Windows is the dominant computer gaming platform. No gaming company is going to make the investment until the ROI is good enough and for that to happen Linux needs to make real penetration figures at home and that isn't happening.

It should be that easy, yes, but realistically, you have to know what to do when something goes wrong. It's nice that we have the web and support forums and bug reporting tools now, but in the end, it wouldn't hurt to have everyone know basic computing skills across more than just the common MS software suites. My CS tutors always ranted on about this. Course, at that time I was oblivious to Linux and didn't give a shit.

Yeah, but you just went on about how users expected PCs to be nice simple boxes. Stuff shouldn't go wrong as often as it does now. No other engineering field gets away with the stuff that mainstream software engineering does. Even basic computer skills isn't of much use once problems start rolling in.

Which, hopefully, will trickle down into the common market and help people looking for something outside of Windows to decide to switch. There are still plenty of people trying it, then going back to Windows, though they at least tried and often leave comments on what they'd like for them to ditch Windows permanently and take up an open source OS instead. You won't see a revolution overnight, however, it's vastly more likely to get someone you know into a Linux distro now than it was even five years ago.

I beg to differ, and with due respect you're in the sciences and thus your view of things might be quite skewed there. People in our fields are more likely to try strange thinks like Linux. The average Joe or Jane - which is what the gaming market is catering more towards - won't deal with Linux*. And there aren't really all that many "switchers;" most of those that are seem to be going OS X anyways.

* Hell, I won't deal with Linux in the long term. I've done it half a dozen times and I always go back to Windows, because it does what I need it to do, and does it well. Just getting WLAN access to work without jumping through hoops did it for me.

I don't know about "better". That really depends on what you want. We know UNIX systems dominate a lot of the server side of things, but when it comes to desktops they're still floundering relatively next to MS along with Apple. If companies offer more support and the community keeps advancing like it has done in the past few years, then a good PR campaign will at least get people thinking about something other than what Vista upgrade to buy next.

I meant that Linux on the Desktop is better than ever but it isn't enough. And, frankly, none of the Linux vendors have the marketing muscle to pimp it well. Only Apple has - and they don't even bother talking about their UNIX roots to the masses but rather ease-of-use and the platform integration Apple provides.