Author: Ian Aston
Date: 09:20:28 10/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2001 at 11:13:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 26, 2001 at 20:43:14, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On October 26, 2001 at 19:12:03, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>OK, then you definitely work for MS. Most observers mention the need to have >>>256Mb of memory and a very fast processor in order to run XP. >> >>Question the observers. Most memory companies have gone so far as to say that XP >>will only run well with 512MB RAM or more. Hmm, I wonder why they say that? And >>if you see an article saying something similar, ask if the author is only saying >>it because of the noise that memory companies have made. The Register has >>written a few columns on how much memory XP really needs, and the consensus is >>that it will perform just fine with 64MB, which I have witnessed personally and >>consider to be true. >> >>>Windows 95 runs on my 386sx 20MHz, and it has only 5Mb of memory. I just have >>>to >>>wait a little minute every time I want to open an explorer window. But I swear >>>W95 works on my 386sx 20MHz notebook. >> >>I don't doubt that. But I remember running 95 on a 486/80 (WAY faster than a >>386sx) with 8MB RAM and it was a DOG when running any more than one program. >> >>WinXP will run just fine on any Pentium (including 60MHz) with 64+MB RAM. I have >>seen it myself running just fine on a P5/133 and a P5/60 isn't so much slower as >>to make it unusable. >> >>>Why should I let a chance to Microsoft to have a look at what's going on >>>inside >>>my computer? >>> >>>The question "are they going to have a look or not" is totally secondary. >> >>By running a Microsoft OS, you are giving MS the opportunity to do that no >>matter what, whether you like it or not. MS could upload every single keystroke >>you enter without your knowledge, if it wanted. Same for any other operating >>system you might use. The question is not whether or not you're giving them a >>chance to do it, it's what they're actually doing. And it has been independently >>confirmed that MS is NOT uploading personal information about you. Just a hash >>of your hardware. >> >>>>I'm the last person to tell somebody to use Windows, but if you don't use it, >>>>I'd prefer that your reasons be based on accurate information. :) >>> >>>Come on. I have seen where Microsoft is taking us over the years, and as the >>>justice is not willing to stop them, the only way to keep a little bit of >>>privacy and control over our information systems is to realize what's going on >>>and to resist. >> >>Or just use something else. I don't see why you're getting so worked up about >>this product activation scheme (which is presumably what you're talking about). >>Look at it from other viewpoints. >> >>1. A lot of the more expensive software requires dongles. Would you prefer a >>dongle over a fairly harmless/painless "product activation" scheme? Or how about >>programs that require you to insert the CD every few times you use them? >>Microsoft doesn't make you do that, either. In terms of copy protection, the >>product activation scheme is not as bad as many alternatives in use by companies >>that you would probably consider less evil than MS. >> >>2. If MS does not take actions within their means to prevent piracy, it becomes >>legally very difficult to prosecute pirates. In effect, our legal system is >>_forcing_ MS to do something in the vein of product activation. >> >>I often enjoy reading your posts a lot because I think they are very well >>thought-out, balanced, and objective, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. >>If you really believe in all this Brave New World, Orwellian sort of stuff about >>Microsoft, you are free to go live in the woods and send letter bombs to people. >> >>-Tom > > >You overlook a couple of important issues. > >1. Go to any national lab (LLNL, LANL, ORNL, ANL, etc) and try to establish >a connection from a PC _inside_ the lab to MS product activation. You won't. >Come to my department and try to establish a connection from any machine >inside our firewall to some machine outside our firewall. You won't. > >2. There are plenty of businesses with (a) firewalls and (b) enough security >consciousness, that they don't allow just any old connections to be established >for lots of obvious reasons. > >3. We have labs where we control outside access (do not allow it) so that >students can't import assignments from others; can't browse on the internet >during class; can't even communicate with other machines in the same lab >during lab exams. > >That is causing us to consider other (non-MS) options. Depending on what MS >chooses to do with their site-licenses. If we are _required_ to allow >connections to remote sites, we will be _forced_ to move to linux completely. >That is a _big_ point of discussion here (and at other locations) on a daily >basis. It isn't an unreasonable idea, of course. But making it absolutely >unavoidable is going to have some repercussions that might not be obvious to >someone sitting in the northwest part of the USA. :) > >Piracy is a big issue, no doubt. _privacy_ is also. IE "inside the fence" >at livermore lab, you can buy a laptop. But there is no external access to >a LAN that reaches to the internet. You can not connect a modem to a phone >line either. What to do there? I don't use windows at all, so I don't follow >all the discussions about this stuff very closely. I watch from a distance >because we currently have 4 labs with about 20-25 PCs in each one and we are >running win2K pro on them. If the site license facility _still_ requires a >connection back to redmond, I can think of several thousand machines that >are going to have to run some alternative system here because trying to handle >the remote validation connection will be a pain... > >food for thought. Not everyone has direct access to the internet via >either LAN or modem. Not because they can't afford it, but because they >don't _want_ it for other reasons... That's no problem, all they have to do is phone Microsoft. Perhaps they will only have to endure an hour or so of piped music before they get through. :) IA
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.