Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:15:41 10/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2001 at 04:19:47, Christophe Theron 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. > > > >Hey, you finally got it! > > > > >>Same for any other operating >>system you might use. > > > >Please mention another operating system I could use. There is an alternative. I don't run windows on _anything_ I personally use. From the laptop I am using right now to post this, to the quad in my office, to the file servers and firewalls at the office, to the workstations used by faculty there... > >Hint: there is no other alternative. > >Still not understanding my concerns? > > > > >> 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. > > > >If I express my concerns so loudly it is precisely because I do not opt to live >in the woods and act as you say. > >It beats me to see how the sheep tries desperately to protect the wolf. > >Stockholm syndrom? > > > > > Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.