Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 20:10:53 10/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2001 at 06:46:25, Ed Schröder 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
>
>
>I think what is the main concern is the MS domination of the market plus
>the fact that MS has a bad reputation as a monopolist. I believe I don't
>have to be specific here.
It's not a reputation. It has been stated by a US court, and later confirmed by
the US appeals court. Hard to argue on this now.
Microsoft is a monopoly and has illegally used his monopoly. This is an official
sentence from a justice court.
>Just realize the power of MS, if they want to stop all PC's from working
>one day they can do it. I know this is extreme but that is not important.
>Important is if it is desirable a company to have so much power.
>
>Then when a new OS comes that is even more dominant ignoring the concerns
>that are among people and that follows the same "more power to MS" principles
>it is not so difficult to understand new criticism. Keyword is fear. And not
>unjustified as MS presents itself as a company hungry for power.
I 100% agree.
Christophe
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.