amoiseyev
Went For Beer
join:2000-11-14
Worcester, MA
|  M$ want more M$$
This is just one more M$ trick to force people to buy new OS and new computers. It is not going to stop spam, hackers, piracy and p2p, but it will make much more difficult to legitimate users to utilize their "fair use" rights. And it will cost users a lot of extra money, eat much more computer power and give M$ much more control for what user does on the computer.
I would rather say it's against privacy, not for safety.
--
Alex
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. - Murphy's law |
|
SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA
| I have used all the MS Windows from 3.1 to XP and although XP is not perfect I think it is good OS, far and away the best in their line. They make many fine products although none are perfect and some of those imperfections are a result of irresponsibility of MS and some are just a result of no one is perfect. I've use many if not most of them.
Although MS is guilty of a great deal of what they are criticized for and prosecuted in court for they are also separately unfairly piled on, criticized in certain areas, and politically persecuted and lied about. A mixed bag.
But one thing for sure is in my opinion is they are habitual liars and overall usually don't deal in good faith. They just practice crisis management and spin.
The bottom line is you can't trust or put a lot of believe in anything they say. Anything. That doesn't mean they are lying all the time but neither are they telling the truth. To them business is war. A total don't take prisoners war that they will do or say whatever is necessary to win, whether it is lie or tell the truth. Whichever they conclude will serve their needs at the time.
[text was edited by author 2002-06-28 14:08:30] |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| All very true.
I'm not really a specific MS hater. I'm generally a corporation hater in general.
But I don't believe that MS is right for this job....and I don't like their ulterior motives.
--
Palpatine for Senate |
|
SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA | Ditto! |
|
xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs: 
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Comcast
| reply to SAM Hunter$
said by Lost in Space:
I have used all the MS Windows from 3.1 to XP and although XP is not perfect I think it is good OS, far and away the best in their line.
Most of that sounded good, but I have to disagree with the above statement. 2K was much better. |
|
SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA
| said by Linuvas:
Most of that sounded good, but I have to disagree with the above statement. 2K was much better.
I agree 2k is a great OS and it came out of the box with less glitches and patches needed than XP. So in that regard it is currently better. But XP should correct that with the appropriate service patch. Remember in terms of design function 2k was designed more for an upgrade or replacement of NT instead of the 95/98/Me family.
The only problem with 2k is its relatively limited or weak hardware support (it tends to like the newer and high end hardware) and it lack of home or consumer software support. For instance forget about gaming specifically and many other home type software.
However, if you are a business with high end or relatively new hardware all around AND you don't want to learn XP's new and different interface 2K is a great choice! However, MS is no doubt not going to pump much if any improvements and upgrade into 2k but XP instead has they see XP as the bridge between and replacement for all previous OS programs. So MS in that respect will eventually functionally kill off support for 2000 as well as NT and so on.
But as far as what is the best OS it is just a matter of what the user's need are. But no doubt 2k is great.
[text was edited by author 2002-06-28 19:46:44] |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to xrobertcmx
Aren't they essentially the same technology with slightly modified GUI's?
--
Palpatine for Senate |
|
SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA
| said by Leviathan:
Aren't they essentially the same technology with slightly modified GUI's?
Yes to the GUI but a totally different code or "technology". I am a lightweight intermediate in computers but the general lightweight answer to your question is that Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP have has some type of foundation element in their code known as a kernel which depending upon the type is THE key to stability and indirectly how smart you can make the OS and how much demands you can put on it. Windows 95/98/Me were not on the same kernel or foundation code. So, that is why inherently they always have applications crash, or Windows freezes or the infamous blue screen of death.
With XP I have not had a single lock up, freeze, or blue screen of death since I got it about six months ago. And I use it a lot. I am on the computer at least 8 and not unusual 12 hours a day. Been online continuously since 9 AM so far. Also, if you do have an individual program under XP crash you can just "end task" and it will not effect anything else on your computer. Sometimes you then can just restart the previously "end task" program it will come back up okay. That sure wasn't the way with 95/98/Me. XP is also is a lot more powerful, (with the requisite memory and CPU demands), and smarter. A whole Lot smarter.
I am sure there are about 100,000 other DSLR members who will if they see your post give you a more detailed and precise explanation.
Hope this was some help.
[text was edited by author 2002-06-29 00:27:40] |
|
CFeicht4
join:2000-09-01
Oley, PA | reply to Karl Bode
"I'm generally a corporation hater in general."
You shouldn't be, if you like working.
--
"The Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact." ---Andrew Jackson |
|
SAM Hunter$
join:2001-05-11
USA
| said by CFeicht quoting Leviathan:
"I'm generally a corporation hater in general." CFeicht's reply: "You shouldn't be, if you like working."
I wouldn't presume to speak for Leviathan but I suspect he more accurately means he hates the way many if not most large corporations do business and how they treat their employees. |
|
CFeicht4
join:2000-09-01
Oley, PA | If that's what he meant then I retract, but it didn't look that way to me. |
|
xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to SAM Hunter$
said by Lost in Space:
The only problem with 2k is its relatively limited or weak hardware support (it tends to like the newer and high end hardware) and it lack of home or consumer software support. For instance forget about gaming specifically and many other home type software.
That is an interesting concept. I've used 2K and XP. I've had more hardware support issues with XP. My DVD Drive won't work in DMA, and there is no fix, but it worked fine in 2K.
Also the interface on XP is nearly the same, or at least instictual if you have used windows, not to mention that I set it to classic.
And I think you are right in that MS will kill off 2K, even though sales of 2K will remain higher then XP for another year. |
|
xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to SAM Hunter$
said by Lost in Space:
Yes to the GUI but a totally different code or "technology". I am a lightweight intermediate in computers but the general lightweight answer to your question is that Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP have has some type of foundation element in their code known as a kernel which depending upon the type is THE key to stability and indirectly how smart you can make the OS and how much demands you can put on it. Windows 95/98/Me were not on the same kernel or foundation code. So, that is why inherently they always have applications crash, or Windows freezes or the infamous blue screen of death.
That's interesting. My understanding was that 95/98/ME shared similar Kernals, and that 2K was a new OS built from the ground up off of NT technology. I know that NT/2K/XP all share the same file system NTFS or at least support for it, and that XP was built off of 2K. |
|
RainWind-Work
| reply to amoiseyev
Yes, of course. Now only pirates and hackers will be able to use their computers.  Sorry all you people who like doing things the legit and legal ways, you are no longer allowed to surf the internet or have fun with your computer. You must now spend 13 hours a day working in word or excel, and then you may spend 5 minutes going to msn, but not dslreports, since they aren't 100% "Microsoft Friendly", so of course if they aren't "Microsoft Friendly" they can't be secure. :P |
|
jer2
join:2001-01-16
Dearborn Heights, MI
| reply to CFeicht4
Corporations are not the only ways to get work. I work for a small (3 man at the moment) company. Our job? Tell big corps how slow and wasteful their stovepiped structure has made their business, essentially...
It's a very generalized view of the world to indicate that corporations are necessary for employment...and it's an incorrect generalization. |
|
CFeicht4
join:2000-09-01
Oley, PA
| Well, maybe I should have been more clear.
BUSINESSES (which includes corporations) are necessary for the little guy to work. Nothing general about that.
--
"The Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact." ---Andrew Jackson |
|
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA
·Verizon FIOS
·Comcast
| reply to Karl Bode
it is seeming to me that the more i read this, i come to the conclusion that they(MS) realize there is much more money doing this to make sure the other huge corporations that have the bazillion dollar bank accounts have to give MS the money for this new platform. they know the consumer wont buy this unless forced, so they will take this and lobby the hell out of it and cram this down our throats too. how ironic is it that a company bent on eliminating unlicensed( read unpaid, illegal) copies of their software from the marketplace has devised a way for huge record companies and the riaa and the mpaa to protect what they own too? so i for one have enough spare parts lying around to keep my box humming for a looooooooooong time. this sounds like another evil plan by the people in redmond, otherwise known as the borg.
--
"so you say you want revolution?"-Lennon/McCartney |
|
