Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 16:12:03 10/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 2001 at 17:21:16, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>On October 26, 2001 at 02:10:40, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On October 24, 2001 at 14:59:48, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>
>>>On October 24, 2001 at 13:31:20, Torstein Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>>On October 24, 2001 at 00:23:56, William Penn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I wonder if you considered the privacy issue with Windows XP? You must "phone
>>>>>home" to activate it, and you cannot reinstall it without doing the same.
>>>>>Microsoft accesses and stores in their archives certain private information
>>>>>about you and your computer system, then has the ability to grant or deny you
>>>>>access to Windows XP and your own computer! At least that is what I hear, so I
>>>>>am leary of it.
>>>>>WP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have planned to let XP rest for a while and let others buy a MS xx.00 product.
>>>>Then perhaps I can see where this privacy issue is going and get some
>>>>"experience reports".
>>>
>>>XP is a refresh of Win2k, which has been lauded as an incredibly stable,
>>>full-featured OS. It is hardly a xx.00 product.
>>>
>>>-Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>Are you working at or for Microsoft, Tom?
>
>Yes. :)
>
>>Are you willing to take responsability for whatever problem people will have
>>using the new RAM-eater from the "micro" soft (sic) company?
>
>Funny you should mention that, WinXP uses less memory than Win2k. (Although more
>than Win9x.) Runs fine with 64MB. Doing a darn sight better than, say, Apple's
>OS X. :)
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.
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 think that the wait-and-see attitude is the wisest thing to do in this case.
>>The concerns expressed by William and Torstein sound extremely justified to
>>me.
>
>Concerns don't bother me. Concerns based on bad information bother me. Like the
>idea that XP is a x.0 product, that Microsoft keeps a database of personal
>information about you, that you have to call up MS every time you want to
>reinstall the product or change your hardware. Concerns about all of this are
>invalid.
If I leave the door of my house open 24h a day, 7 days a week, I have very
little chances, where I live, to be killed by a burglar in the middle of my
sleep.
But I close my door all the time.
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.
It's my computer, it's my stuffs, and they are already forcing me to do a lot of
things I would not like to have to do, so it's already going much too far right
now with Windows 98 or Windows Me.
It's really funny that people who want to keep some privacy are the ones who
need to justify themselves nowadays.
"I don't want you to have a look at my private data"
"Why? Trust me, I'm not going to use it anyway. Are you paranoid? Come with me,
you need to be examined by a specialist"
or
"Why? Do you have something to hide? So you could be a terrorist then..."
>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.
A few months ago I was joking with Eugene and mentionned that some day your
Windows CE or PocketPC coffee machine will need an Internet connection to
download software updates on a regular basis (or it will stop working).
Who wants to bet on the year this is going to happen?
Christophe
This page took 0.02 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.