kony wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:36:59 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Cyde Weys wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alright guys I've sorted out my troubles. I was able to pretty much
>>>rule out everything except the mobo as not working, so I bought the
>>>mobo kony suggested, I just installed it, and I'm now running memtest86
>>>and not getting the errors.
>>>
>>>Windows isn't booting, mind you, but that's a Windows driver issue, not
>>>a hardware issue.
>>>
>>>Grrrr, stupid Windows. It should be able to hot-swap mobos.
>>>
>>
>>Why should it? A motherboard is not a 'mobile' item and, in fact,
>>considered essentially 'the computer' (with a processor and memory).
>>Everything else is an 'add-on' to it.
>
>
> Because it's a desirable feature, to many even if you don't
> care either way.

Not to 'many'. To a comparatively small few.

> Because what they "have" to allow is the
> opposite of what they would allow, in a free market to
> remain competitive.

There is no 'market incentive' to provide features, at significant cost,
that only a handful of people would even care about. And, just as it might
be 'convenient' to a hand full of car 'enthusiasts' if automobiles came
with a sufficiently sized engine compartment, 'self configuring' electrical
systems, 'auto-fit' exhaust piping, 'universal' cooling, 'infinitely
variable' transmission ratios, and built in mounts to hold every motor made
so they can 'hot swap' a 'vette 454 for a Ford 289 in 10 minutes, it's
ridiculously cost prohibitive.


> Full retail licenses are not tied to "the computer", only
> one system which would obviously not be the case here.

I didn't say a thing about licenses.

> They
> would have the feature because without it the customer will
> spend a minimum of 1/2 hour if not more (actually a LOT more
> time if a person is prudent and makes system backups
> inbetween the windows updates as they should've previously).
> Their choice to cost customers time is clearly a disregard
> for them.

That is simply nonsense. It isn't done for the reason I just stated. It
would be an incredibly complex 'feature', costing significant time and
money to implement (if even possible), for a hand full of 'enthusiasts' who
exchange motherboards, or the rare failure, and all to simply save an hour
or so of time for those few. Not to mention it's doubtful it would even
save time because the process of redetecting and installing everything
would still need to take place.

But then you'd bitch incessantly about the "software bloat" needed to
support a 'feature' that perhaps 1 out of a thousand use once every 10 years.

Actually, the capability exists. It's called a 'repair install'.