Do i need to buy a opperating system when i buy a computer?

So i'm looking at the sager NP8662 from xoticpc and i have to pay an extra 97$ for vista home premium 64bit

So how would i be able to download 64bit vista after i get the laptop without paying the 97$?

It says it comes with drivers and utility software only if i don't buy the operating system.

I have absolutely no experience with downloading operating systems and the such so how easy would it be?

thanks =x

 

You should buy the OS from them.
It is not included because the laptop is built by them (they get a barebone from the mfg and add processor, ect).

So, adding an OS is costing them money, this costing you money (but you have the choise)

there are illegal ways of obtaining an OS, but that is:
A. Illegal
B. Bad for the corporations that make the software
C. Immoral


Just shell out the $97 imo

 

I think you can buy Vista 32-bit and swap to 64-bit for free; or maybe that was only on Vista Ultimate..

but there is no where that you can get Windows Vista for free.

 

You can always use windows 7 RC for a year. Then download Windows 7 trial and reinstall it every 90 days. That way, it's legal and it's free.

 

Home Premium also works going from 32-bit to 64-bit with the same license key.

To be honest, OP, $97 ain't too bad a price for Windows Vista. Unless you want to wait a few months and go without an official operating system until Windows 7 is released. In the meantime, you can use the release candidate.

 

$97 really isn't a bad price. I paid $50 for XP on eBay. And there's always Linux, as far as free OSes go.

 

Oh yeah, good point. Then when Win 7 becomes available, you can buy it, and you'll get Win 7 without having to pay twice.

 

You can always ask for a windows xp license in the giveaway thread in the buy and sale section. I got a free windows xp license (retail version) for free.

 

In your position, you really should buy an OS with the Sager you're going to buy, unless you happen to have an unused copy of an OS you're familiar with lying around.

Windows-based OSes cannot be (legally) downloaded by the general public; they have to be purchased on media or pre-installed by an OEM.

Other OSes, typically one of the luxuriant varieties of linux, can be downloaded, but you need to have some solid experience working with OSes, and a deal of patience, before you can get a linux OS up and running to the point where you can do things on it without a worry.

Since you don't seem to have a lot of experience getting your hands dirty poking through the guts of an OS, you would probably be better off buying your Sager with a pre-installed OS so that you can at least use the thing without too much trouble out of the box; after that, you can (and should) experiment to your heart's content with various OSes and with rolling your own with linux, as it's sometimes called.

 

Free, yes. Legal, not after the initial trial period expires.

Gary

 

Microsoft, the company that develops the Windows operating system, sells it as a product they make a profit on. If you plan to run the Windows operating system, you're expected to pay for it.

 

That's why I told him to reinstall the trial OS so he gets another 3 month for free.

 

It's against the EULA, but it is no illegal. You couldn't get charged for that. Using a time bomb or something could be, but just reinstalling the OS? no.

 

Doing so is a violation of the licensing agreement. You are only allowed one 3 month trial period.

Gary

 

You don't need to buy the OS from them if you have your own copy (retail XP or Vista etc...not OEM).

 

Interesting...what's your definition of "illegal"?

 

Well I'm not too picky about what operating system i have as long as i can play any game i buy and use any program i want on it.(Word, iTunes, etc.) and has no ram restrictions and stuff(Windows vista 32bit).
A friend at school has Ubuntu on his laptop and it looks okay. So if i decide to be a giant cheapo and not buy the operating system how easy would it be to download a Linux operating system?

Would i just download and burn it onto a CD using another computer and put it into the CD drive on my Sager and install it or is it alot more complicated than that? I don't mind learning a bit more about operating systems and Linux.

Thanks

 

If you're looking for a system that will play most commercially available games, and run commercially available apps like Word, you may want to take a very careful look at linux - game companies do not have the best of reputations for supporting linux variants, and Word will have a tough time running (you have to run a second linux app - Wine - which allows you to run certain Windows/DOS based applications; but it is not flawless (not surprising considering that Microsoft's stuff is closed source).

In terms of the actual details of how easy it is to get a linux variant installed and running well on a Sager - you'd have to ask that question in the linux forum; the Win forum is unlikely to provide any useful answers, and the Sager forum is unlikely to as well. There are some NBR members who have installed a linux-based OS on their Sagers, and you'd be most likely to get their attention with a new posting in the linux forum. That being said, the default position to take in the absence of specific information, is to assume that you will have at least some difficulty getting everything up and running smoothly, mainly because you will probably have to hunt around for drivers for one or two of your components.

And FYI to everyone else - I'm not knocking linux in the least here, just trying to make sure the OP has reasonable expectations about what he can do with it right out of the box. After all, as some are wont to say, linux is not Windows.

 

Okay,
Ill probably end up just buying windows with the laptop then and learning how to dual boot or whatever later so i can try Linux.
Thanks for the help.

 

EULA is not law. Also, nothing immoral about piracy.

 

Downloading Linux is easy, burning the CD is easy, nowadays installing is easy, is only using it where you'll have to learn a bit - if you do, Linux is more powerful than Windows.

EULA is a legal agreement - a contract. If you break a contract you are liable to fines, reparation etc.
And there is plenty that is immoral about piracy.

 

In this case, it would not violate any statute or regulation. It would violate a contract, as the software was legally downloaded and installed but then used in a manner inconsistent with the contract in the EULA. There is no criminal offense, but the user would be liable in civil court. So it would not be "illegal" but would still be wrong, and could lead to legal repercussions.

To the OP: You are best off buying the OS from Sager with the laptop unless you really want a free OS and want to learn Linux or BSD. Even then, there are times that having Windows installed is handy.

 

Ooooh, I really looooove fancy little rhetorical minuets that are designed to trap the unwary and naive.

It may salve your conscience to tell yourself that you've done nothing "illegal" because you only violated the terms of a contract you agreed to; however, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya:

Bouvier's Law Dictionary (14th Ed., J.B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, 1874) provides a reasonably succinct definition of "illegal" by way of reference to that which is not-legal or not-lawful, as can be read on google books here.

In summary form, according to Bouvier's, a thing is "illegal" if, in its substance (i.e., substance over form) it is sanctioned or prohibited by the law.

Bouvier's further provides a useful definition of the term "law" - useful inasmuch as we need to know at least somewhat the characteristics of a sanction or prohibition that constitutes "law" (as opposed to, say, mere opinion or private conduct). Google books provides the definition here.

Briefly, according to Bouvier's, "law" consists of

In summary form, according to Bouvier's, a "law" is any rule or principle of conduct that regulates, limits, or protects the conduct of a person subject to the jurisdiction of the governing power that has adopted such. In particular, for our purposes, the term "law" includes the rules and principles of the common law.

Thus, unpacking the terms "illegal" and "law" we see that an act is "illegal" if it violates or contravenes the rules and principles of conduct enforced by the governing power with jurisdiction over the actor or the act. In particular, "illegal" includes a violation of the rules and principles of conduct of the common law. The law of contracts is, in general, a coherent set of rules and principles that is founded on the common law, but which contains many statutory ingredients in its superstructure. Thus, the law of contracts constitutes "law" for our purposes, and a violation of the law of contracts is therefore an "illegal" act.

Thus, it is neither necessary that the conduct in question be criminal, nor that it be regulated pursuant to statute or legislation; it need merely be an act the doing of which will be sanctioned or punished by the appropriate courts, which - without getting even further into Bouvier's - would include the imposition of an obligation to pay a sum certain as damages for breach of a valid, binding contract.

The law of contracts provides, as a general rule, that every competent individual who has reached the age of majority has a duty to comply with the terms of any and all valid, binding contracts into which such a person has entered.

Thus, the law imposes on you a duty to abide by the terms of that contract. If you violate the terms of that contract, then you have violated the duty imposed upon you under the law of contracts, and your actions are therefore illegal.

To put it more simply - it is illegal to violate the terms of a contract to which you are subject, and such violation will result in sanctions or punishment, typically in the form of an order to pay a sum certain as damages for breach of that contract.

How about we stop trying to impress and hoodwink the unwary with overly formalistic rhetorical move, and pay attention to the substance of things, hmmm?

 

Really? Cool. I'll be stopping by your house tomorrow to grab that nice laptop I have been wanting.

Gary

 

Oops! irrational - 0; reality - 2.

A EULA is an agreement - a private contract - which, if you are subject to its terms, is so-called private law that governs your actions and with respect to which a violation is "illegal." So, once you accept the benefits of a piece of software, and thus become subject to the EULA that goes along with it, that EULA becomes "law" insofar as you and your actions are concerned.

Boy, I just love the tortured, gymnastic rationalization that gets packed into every statement that piracy is not immoral. What is piracy? In very simple terms, it's taking something that doesn't belong to you and treating it as if it did. Now, let's try that general definition out on some other subject matters:
(i) What if I grab your computer - the one you're using to access this forum - walk off to the local pawn shop with it, and pawn it for some beer money, have I acted immorally? That is, have I done something that society says I ought not do, even if there aren't any formal rules that would sanction my conduct?

(ii) What if I walk up behind you and, while you're distracted, pluck your wallet out of your back pocket (or purse, or whatever), walk off with it and start spending your money to buy me and my mates a few rounds of beer? What if I used your credit card to buy unlimited rounds for everyone in the bar that night? Have I done something that is inherently wrong, and which society would say I should not have done, even if there were no enforceable rules or principles of conduct (i.e., "laws") pursuant to which I could be sanctioned or punished, say by being forced to repay that money to you?

Let's stop playing rhetorical games, hmm? If you take something that you are not entitled to, and use it as if it belonged to you - as if you had the right to use it for your own purposes - in short, if you commit piracy - then you are committing an immoral act. Thus, piracy is immoral. QED.

 

Not if I get there first!

 

You seem to have missed my point. Try the part where i say, explicitly, that it is wrong. I don't consider that to be salving anyone's conscience: in fact, I told the OP immediately below that to buy an OS. Words do have different meanings according to their context, and I am not familiar with nineteenth century legal philosophy, but I don't find that particularly relevant here. Look again at the post I made, and tell me if you disagree with the gist: Installing Windows 7 past the initial trial period is a civil, not criminal, matter. Either way, it is wrong.

Assuming we have the same purposes. I was discussing the difference between civil and criminal liability. As I said in my post, either way there are repercussions, but there are important distinctions between them.

1: The law is formalistic.

2: Pot. Kettle. Low reflective value.

 

IMO, if you have the money, shell out the extra dough for a Mac. powerful, little worry, easy to use and setup, and now you can put Windows on a Mac drive as well, so its a win win. Go for XP tho, don't even consider Vista.

 

a) Macs don't support mainly their own proprietarty little hardware pool - whichever way you look at it, they support fewer devices than Windows.

b) Why XP over Vista? Vista is the better OS if you buy a new computer, and that's what the OP is doing.

Search the forum a bit, you'll find a few threads as to why Vista is better - if it isn't for you, then your computer isn't good enough for it.

 

That assumes you had a point to make

Fair enough - you did, in fact, state that it was "wrong, and could lead to legal repercussions" - which is more akin to da(m)ning with faint praise than anything else - right after you stated "So it would not be "illegal'" - Oops.

In that case, you really don't know much of anything about contemporary law, particularly the law of contracts (and of property, and trusts & estates, and .... need I continue?). The scope and fundamental principles of the law of contracts were established back in the hoary mists of time, and thus nineteenth century legal doctrine (I was not citing philosophy, but doctrine, rules, and principles - there is a difference, as you ought to know.

Duh. I don't recall having claimed that it was anything other than a civil wrong - what I demonstrated beyond peradventure is that it is, nonetheless, "illegal" notwithstanding that it is a civil rather than a criminal wrong.[/quote]

Assuming we have the same purposes. I was discussing the difference between civil and criminal liability. As I said in my post, either way there are repercussions, but there are important distinctions between them.[/quote]

No, you weren't. You specifically stated that violating a EULA was not illegal, and then "justified" that conclusion with the irrelevant statement that this was the case because the violation was civil, not criminal - thereby assuming, without any proof or justification, that "illegal" means only criminal, not civil.

Yes, you did; go back and read what you wrote.

Hee, hee - you know, that statement only scares One-Ls, and I ain't a One-L

About the only thing that comes to mind here is: do you honestly think you're being the least bit creative, or insulting, here?

 

Linux mint....nuff said!

 

Unlike some on these forums, my intent is not to be insulting, and humor is a highly subjective matter. You should perhaps apply this question to your line above, which makes no sense whatsoever to me. But perhaps that's just an artifact of different popular culture references from those that I am familiar with.

On a constructive note, you do have a valid point about the meaning of the word "illegal" which could have lead to a useful discussion. Instead you chose to insult me and either deliberately or unintentionally misconstrue my posts. I did have a point, even if you did not agree with it, and I do agree with your basic premise that the action under discussion is wrong. Attacking those who agree with you is usually a poor rhetorical device.

 

The one-l lama,
He's a priest.
The two-l llama,
He's a beast.
And I will bet
A silk pajama
There isn't any
Three-l lllama.*

-- Ogden Nash

 

Hmmm, Ogden Nash, I know, would have understood the reference; for you I'll make it obvious - "the law is formalistic" only scares first-year law students, and I ain't a first-year law student - got it?