Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:20:45 10/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2001 at 15:52:50, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On October 27, 2001 at 23:31:12, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>We did not wait to hear about product activation to have big concerns about >>Microsoft, you know. >> >>This stuff is like cherry on the cake, but I fear there will be some other >>cherries on top of this one in the future. >> >>Where Microsoft is taking us all is quite clear. I can almost guess what their >>next steps are going to be. > >You have been posting a lot about your concerns re: MS and I consider all of >them unjustified. > >You keep writing, over and over, that MS produces bloatware to drive people to >upgrade their hardware. What evidence do you have? Some FUD that WinXP requires >256MB and a fast processor to run? Do you really think that MS quadrupled the >memory requirement of Win2k in a year? What incentive does MS have to make >software that does not run well on the customers' computers? Are you a >conspiracy theorist who believes Intel slipped MS some money to put delay loops >in the code? Moreover, you seem immune to the idea that other operating systems >that provide similar functionality require just as much or more memory. OS X is >the easy target, but it has been true in the past that it takes more memory to >run Linux (with a window manager) than Windows. That is going _way_ too far. I have linux + X running on an 8 meg 75 mhz pentium. And it runs just fine. I have it running on a 16 meg P5/133 as well. Win2k won't even _install_ on either of those two machines. > >Next up is your concern about product activation and privacy. You still seem to >think that it's an invasion of your privacy but have yet to explain exactly how. >If you knew anything about the product activation process, you would know that >it's anonymous. The install program only asks for your name and company when >installing the OS, and it has no way to verify that this information is correct >even if it did want to send it back to MS. You can activate the product right >after installing it. > >Now you're complaining that MS drives you to use MS services with its OS, or the >services of its partners. Where? Yeah, if you want to use Messenger, MSN Chat, >or Hotmail, you will have to get a Passport. That's the only example I can think >of, and I can hardly imagine that it's a concern to you, because you seem >hellbent on not using software bundled with Windows. I just installed WinXP >recently on my home PC and I was never once prompted to use MSN, Messenger, or >anything else. Setting up my Earthlink dial-up connection was pathetically easy >and didn't even require the Earthlink software. (Hmm, is Microsoft making things >easier for its competition?) I also had _absolutely no problems_ downloading and >installing ICQ and WinAmp and using them instead of Messenger and WMP. > >The last of your concerns that I can remember right now is about .NET and >software subscription fees. I can't imagine how you're already getting so worked >up about software that hasn't been released and a fee schedule that hasn't been >implemented. For all you know, you'd think these things were great if you gave >them a chance. Or they might not take off at all and you'll never be affected by >them in the slightest. > >Which companies do you prefer over MS? Apple or Sun? Apple has been screwing its >customers almost since day 1. OS X requires a recent Apple G3 computer and 128MB >of RAM to run, and it doesn't have drivers for maybe half of the Mac hardware >out there. Apple overprices their hardware by hundreds/thousands of dollars. A >few months ago they released a firmware patch that disabled most peoples' 3rd >party memory in the name of "system stability." The list goes on. If you want to >be a Mac user, you have to jump through a million Apple hoops and hand over your >retirement fund to Apple. Now that's a monopoly. How about Sun? They overcharge >you for extra-slow processors and crap graphics. They went after MS legally for >bundling a JVM with IE that passed Sun's own JVM compatibility tests when Sun's >JVM didn't. Now they're going after MS for not bundling a JVM. And they had a >bug in the L2 cache of their more expensive servers that would cause errors and >data loss that they tried to _cover up_ for more than a year. All companies pull >crap like this; you're just singling out MS because they're the biggest target. > >-Tom
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.