SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure [LWN.net]

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 24, 2010 19:04 UTC (Thu) by cmccabe (guest, #60281)
In reply to: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure by jschrod
Parent article: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

> OK, that shows that you are not a professional. This is bullshit, plain
> and simple: For private and SOHO users, WGA may trigger reactivation, but
> no reinstall. (Enterprise-class users use deployment tools anyhow and do
> not come in such a situation.)

Thank you for the correction. I do not use Windows at work. It's not even installed on my work machine. So I'm not familiar with enterprise deployment tools for Windows. I wasn't trying to spread FUD-- just genuinely did not know there was a way around WGA in this case.

However, the point I was trying to make is that most home users expect that new computer == new OS install. Some people in this thread have been claiming that Linux distributions need to support moving a hard disk between 32 and 64 bit machines in order to be a serious contender for desktop operation system. (And they're unhappy with the obvious solution of using 32-bit everywhere.)

I do not think that most home users, especially nontechnical ones, are aware that this is even possible with Windows. I certainly don't think they would view it as a reason not to switch.

(Log in to post comments)

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 24, 2010 19:50 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link]

It is much simpler than that: Very few people do move disks from one computer to the next. And those who do have the technical savvy to handle any resulting mess.