Author: Will Singleton
Date: 19:08:55 10/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
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 Oops, a bit over the edge. BTW, I want to buy a new computer with the latest AMD cpu. What manufacturers are selling the Athlon? And, should I go with XP home edition, or Pro? Will
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.