Windows 2K or Windows XP?

[mad amoeba]

I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while so i
need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you guys
would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000 seems to
have better registration policy and is probably significantly lighter on
system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother interface and
probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two is
negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start from
$90 and $130.
I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things I've
read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot of
information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems to be
the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i should do?

thanx

[SunSpot]

"mad amoeba" > wrote in message
.net...
> I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while so i
> need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you guys
> would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000 seems
to
> have better registration policy and is probably significantly lighter on
> system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother interface and
> probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two is
> negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start from
> $90 and $130.
> I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
> concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things I've
> read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot of
> information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems to be
> the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i should do?
>
> thanx
>

Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my choice.
As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.


>

[mad amoeba]

I reinstall operating systems very often on the machines that i have. With
winxp does it mean that i'll have to call them up everytime to reregister it
since the software will think that i am trying to reinstall the os on a
different machine illegally.

thank you for replying.

"SunSpot" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mad amoeba" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while so i
> > need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you guys
> > would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000
seems
> to
> > have better registration policy and is probably significantly lighter on
> > system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother interface
and
> > probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two is
> > negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start
from
> > $90 and $130.
> > I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
> > concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things
I've
> > read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot of
> > information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems to
be
> > the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i should
do?
> >
> > thanx
> >
>
> Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my
choice.
> As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
>
>
> >
>
>

[Tom Shelton]

mad amoeba wrote:
> I reinstall operating systems very often on the machines that i have. With
> winxp does it mean that i'll have to call them up everytime to reregister it
> since the software will think that i am trying to reinstall the os on a
> different machine illegally.
>
> thank you for replying.

Well, I recently had to re-install WinXP on a box and it reactivated
fine - I didn't have to call them. I guess it depends how often, and if
hardware has changed or not. ..

Tom Shelton

[Michael Solomon \(MS-MVP Windows Shell/User\)]

Registration and Activation are two different things. You never have to
register XP, that is optional. Activation is different. Reinstalling XP
won't even trigger activation unless enough hardware has been changed. If
you reformat and reinstall, activation will be necessary but it is a normal
step during installation and if you haven't reached the number of hardware
changes necessary to require a phone call, activation is essentially a
handshake between two computers over the Internet.

Activation is meant to prevent the user from installing their copy of XP on
more than one machine. If you are thinking of buying one copy and
installing it on more than one machine, then you will have issues and while
the installation probably will take place, you won't be able to activate it.

You can only activate on a single machine unless you have a volume license
or have purchased additional licenses for yourself.

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"mad amoeba" > wrote in message
.net...
> I reinstall operating systems very often on the machines that i have. With
> winxp does it mean that i'll have to call them up everytime to reregister
it
> since the software will think that i am trying to reinstall the os on a
> different machine illegally.
>
> thank you for replying.
>
> "SunSpot" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "mad amoeba" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> > > I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while so
i
> > > need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you
guys
> > > would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000
> seems
> > to
> > > have better registration policy and is probably significantly lighter
on
> > > system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother interface
> and
> > > probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two is
> > > negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start
> from
> > > $90 and $130.
> > > I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
> > > concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things
> I've
> > > read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot of
> > > information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems to
> be
> > > the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i should
> do?
> > >
> > > thanx
> > >
> >
> > Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my
> choice.
> > As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Ken Blake]

In , mad amoeba
wrote:

> I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a
while
> so i need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro.

> I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am
really
> concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the
things
> I've read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and
exchanges
> alot of information.


It sounds like most of what you've read about is FUD. As far as
I'm concerned there are no worries in that regard.


> Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it
> seems to be the best of what mssoft offers. What is your
opinions on
> what i should do?


The two are very similar (under the hood Windows 2000 is Windows
NT 5.0 and XP is Windows NT 5.1). If you already had 2000 and
were questioning whether it was worth the money to upgrade to XP,
that would be a legitimate concern, and the answer might well be
no.

But for anyone asking which to buy, in my view it's a no
brainer--go with the newer, better model, Windows XP.

(Follow-ups to the linux newsgroup removed, since it has nothing
to do with the question and is likely to do nothing but start a
flame war.)

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

[mad amoeba]

so then it means that os is sending data about my computer to some ms server
which has data about my computer stored on it already. otherwise how would
ms know whether or not ive changed enough hardware for the installation to
be suspect of using pirated software.
I have no plans of adding any software or hardware in the near future but
when i do i really dont want to go through the nightmare(that's what some
people are describing it as) of reactivating the OS.
Just after reading the following review it seems like reactivating is a
nightmarish process:
http://www.epinions.com/content_46060899972
"Michael Solomon (MS-MVP Windows Shell/User)" > wrote in
message ...
> Registration and Activation are two different things. You never have to
> register XP, that is optional. Activation is different. Reinstalling XP
> won't even trigger activation unless enough hardware has been changed. If
> you reformat and reinstall, activation will be necessary but it is a
normal
> step during installation and if you haven't reached the number of hardware
> changes necessary to require a phone call, activation is essentially a
> handshake between two computers over the Internet.
>
> Activation is meant to prevent the user from installing their copy of XP
on
> more than one machine. If you are thinking of buying one copy and
> installing it on more than one machine, then you will have issues and
while
> the installation probably will take place, you won't be able to activate
it.
>
> You can only activate on a single machine unless you have a volume license
> or have purchased additional licenses for yourself.
>
> --
> Michael Solomon MS-MVP
> Windows Shell/User
> Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
> DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/
>
> "mad amoeba" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > I reinstall operating systems very often on the machines that i have.
With
> > winxp does it mean that i'll have to call them up everytime to
reregister
> it
> > since the software will think that i am trying to reinstall the os on a
> > different machine illegally.
> >
> > thank you for replying.
> >
> > "SunSpot" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "mad amoeba" > wrote in message
> > > .net...
> > > > I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while
so
> i
> > > > need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you
> guys
> > > > would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000
> > seems
> > > to
> > > > have better registration policy and is probably significantly
lighter
> on
> > > > system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother
interface
> > and
> > > > probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two
is
> > > > negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start
> > from
> > > > $90 and $130.
> > > > I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
> > > > concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things
> > I've
> > > > read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot
of
> > > > information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems
to
> > be
> > > > the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i
should
> > do?
> > > >
> > > > thanx
> > > >
> > >
> > > Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my
> > choice.
> > > As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[mad amoeba]

the reason i posted to linux ng is because I wanted to get opinions from
people who most likely hate MS and will therefore will tell me all the
negative things i need to know about it. But on second thought you are
absolutely right. This might just start an uncecessary flame war.
thank you for replying.

"Ken Blake" > wrote in message
...
> In , mad amoeba
> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a
> while
> > so i need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro.
>
> > I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am
> really
> > concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the
> things
> > I've read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and
> exchanges
> > alot of information.
>
>
> It sounds like most of what you've read about is FUD. As far as
> I'm concerned there are no worries in that regard.
>
>
> > Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it
> > seems to be the best of what mssoft offers. What is your
> opinions on
> > what i should do?
>
>
> The two are very similar (under the hood Windows 2000 is Windows
> NT 5.0 and XP is Windows NT 5.1). If you already had 2000 and
> were questioning whether it was worth the money to upgrade to XP,
> that would be a legitimate concern, and the answer might well be
> no.
>
> But for anyone asking which to buy, in my view it's a no
> brainer--go with the newer, better model, Windows XP.
>
> (Follow-ups to the linux newsgroup removed, since it has nothing
> to do with the question and is likely to do nothing but start a
> flame war.)
>
> --
> Ken Blake
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>

[Timothy]

"mad amoeba" > wrote in message
.net...
> I reinstall operating systems very often on the machines that i have. With
> winxp does it mean that i'll have to call them up everytime to reregister
it
> since the software will think that i am trying to reinstall the os on a
> different machine illegally.
>
> thank you for replying.
>
> "SunSpot" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "mad amoeba" > wrote in message
> > .net...
> > > I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while so
i
> > > need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you
guys
> > > would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000
> seems
> > to
> > > have better registration policy and is probably significantly lighter
on
> > > system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother interface
> and
> > > probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two is
> > > negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start
> from
> > > $90 and $130.
> > > I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
> > > concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things
> I've
> > > read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot of
> > > information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems to
> be
> > > the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i should
> do?
> > >
> > > thanx
> > >
> >
> > Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my
> choice.
> > As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
it is my exsperience that if you zero your hd you can install xp as much as
you want....lol if you dont mind waiting for hrs on end usualy about 4
depending on the size.

but if install i think more than twice on one machine after you have put new
hard ware on it yes i would think you would have to get a new registration
ID to activate but it doesnt cost anything .... as long as 75% of the
components are the same component.....

of course i may be wrong....
tim

[Tom Shelton]

mad amoeba wrote:

> so then it means that os is sending data about my computer to some ms server
> which has data about my computer stored on it already. otherwise how would
> ms know whether or not ive changed enough hardware for the installation to
> be suspect of using pirated software.
> I have no plans of adding any software or hardware in the near future but
> when i do i really dont want to go through the nightmare(that's what some
> people are describing it as) of reactivating the OS.
> Just after reading the following review it seems like reactivating is a
> nightmarish process:
> http://www.epinions.com/content_46060899972

That article is like 2 years old dude... There have been a lot of
changes since then. Like Michael said, when you reinstall if the
hardware hasn't changed significantly then it will reactivate without a
phone call to MS - I just had to do this a few weeks ago, and it wasn't
a problem.

It dosn't matter about what software you have installed, all the
activation program does is generate a key based on your hardware config.
There is no personal information sent - since you don't have to
register the product, you only have to activate it.

Tom Shelton

[Harry Ohrn]

Check this site for good information about Windows Product Activation
http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm

--

Harry Ohrn - MS MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"mad amoeba" > wrote in message
.net...
> I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while so i
> need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you guys
> would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000 seems
to
> have better registration policy and is probably significantly lighter on
> system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother interface and
> probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two is
> negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start from
> $90 and $130.
> I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
> concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things I've
> read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot of
> information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems to be
> the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i should do?
>
> thanx
>
>

[dizzlin]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:56:17 -0400, SunSpot wrote:

>
> Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my choice.
> As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.

How stupid do you have to be to trust M$?

[Timothy]

"mad amoeba" > wrote in message
.net...
> the reason i posted to linux ng is because I wanted to get opinions from
> people who most likely hate MS and will therefore will tell me all the
> negative things i need to know about it. But on second thought you are
> absolutely right. This might just start an uncecessary flame war.
> thank you for replying.
>
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In , mad amoeba
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a
> > while
> > > so i need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro.
> >
> > > I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am
> > really
> > > concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the
> > things
> > > I've read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and
> > exchanges
> > > alot of information.
> >
> >
> > It sounds like most of what you've read about is FUD. As far as
> > I'm concerned there are no worries in that regard.
> >
> >
> > > Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it
> > > seems to be the best of what mssoft offers. What is your
> > opinions on
> > > what i should do?
> >
> >
> > The two are very similar (under the hood Windows 2000 is Windows
> > NT 5.0 and XP is Windows NT 5.1). If you already had 2000 and
> > were questioning whether it was worth the money to upgrade to XP,
> > that would be a legitimate concern, and the answer might well be
> > no.
> >
> > But for anyone asking which to buy, in my view it's a no
> > brainer--go with the newer, better model, Windows XP.
> >
> > (Follow-ups to the linux newsgroup removed, since it has nothing
> > to do with the question and is likely to do nothing but start a
> > flame war.)
> >
> > --
> > Ken Blake
> > Please reply to the newsgroup
> >
> >
>
>
mad omeba... it is god to have a debate on wich users find which operation
system easier to use or more functional. how dare microsoft discriminate....

uncle sam would not be proud ...lol

then again i may be wrong

tim

[Erik Funkenbusch]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:54:00 GMT, mad amoeba wrote:

> so then it means that os is sending data about my computer to some ms server
> which has data about my computer stored on it already. otherwise how would
> ms know whether or not ive changed enough hardware for the installation to
> be suspect of using pirated software.

Read:

http://www.licenturion.com/xp/fully-licensed-wpa.txt

It uses a one-way hash to detect if certain hardware changes, with no way
for MS to know exactly what hardware that is.

> I have no plans of adding any software or hardware in the near future but
> when i do i really dont want to go through the nightmare(that's what some
> people are describing it as) of reactivating the OS.

Gee, you click a button. Big deal. First, if the hardware hash never
changes, you don't have to wory (ie, you can reinstall all day long and
never run out of activations.) Second, it allows you to change several
items of hardware before having to reactivate. Third, if you do have to
reactivate, the count gets reset every 6 months, and you they allow several
activations before having to call in. Fourth, even if you manage to exceed
all these things, you need only call the MS call center and tell them why
you are legally re-activating so often, and they'll reset you.

> Just after reading the following review it seems like reactivating is a
> nightmarish process:
> http://www.epinions.com/content_46060899972

That review is so out there, it's hard to believe. As i said, XP won't
make you call MS unless the hardware changes. I've done this. In fact,
I've installed it on the same PC dozens of times because I needed a clean
PC to test software installs on. I've not seen this kind of review from
any credible source. If this were even remotely true, you'd see these
kinds of reviews all over the place, and from credible sources as well.

Second, I have had to call MS twice about reactivations and they've always
activated me without argument of any kind. I've never been told i'd have
to repurchase anything.

I could believe that on one call, he might get a confused or beligerant
help desk operator, but twice? I don't buy it.

There was a bug in Office XP that has been fixed in a service pack that
could cause a reactivation on laptops used with docking stations, but other
than that, ive not heard any real complaints.

[Linønut]

While restarting Outlook, mad amoeba grumbled:

Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!

[Ted]

"Timothy" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> it is my exsperience that if you zero your hd you can install xp as =
much as
> you want....lol if you dont mind waiting for hrs on end usualy about 4
> depending on the size.

Bwahahahahaha!

>=20
> but if install i think more than twice on one machine after you have =
put new
> hard ware on it yes i would think you would have to get a new =
registration
> ID to activate but it doesnt cost anything .... as long as 75% of the
> components are the same component.....

PMSL!

>=20
> of course i may be wrong....

Understatement!

[Ted]

"Lin=F8nut" > wrote in message =
...
> While restarting Outlook, mad amoeba grumbled:
>=20
> Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!

GNU ( and linux) make you stupid!

[Ken Blake]

In , mad amoeba
wrote:

> the reason i posted to linux ng is because I wanted to get
opinions
> from people who most likely hate MS and will therefore will
tell me
> all the negative things i need to know about it. But on second
> thought you are absolutely right. This might just start an
> uncecessary flame war.
> thank you for replying.


You're welcome.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup


>
> "Ken Blake" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In , mad
amoeba
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a
>> while
>>> so i need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro.
>>
>>> I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am
>> really
>>> concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the
things
>>> I've read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and
>> exchanges
>>> alot of information.
>>
>>
>> It sounds like most of what you've read about is FUD. As far
as
>> I'm concerned there are no worries in that regard.
>>
>>
>>> Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it
>>> seems to be the best of what mssoft offers. What is your
>> opinions on
>>> what i should do?
>>
>>
>> The two are very similar (under the hood Windows 2000 is
Windows
>> NT 5.0 and XP is Windows NT 5.1). If you already had 2000 and
>> were questioning whether it was worth the money to upgrade to
XP,
>> that would be a legitimate concern, and the answer might well
be
>> no.
>>
>> But for anyone asking which to buy, in my view it's a no
>> brainer--go with the newer, better model, Windows XP.
>>
>> (Follow-ups to the linux newsgroup removed, since it has
nothing
>> to do with the question and is likely to do nothing but start
a
>> flame war.)
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake
>> Please reply to the newsgroup

[D. C. Sessions]

In >, mad amoeba wrote:

> I reinstall operating systems very often on the machines that i have. With
> winxp does it mean that i'll have to call them up everytime to reregister it
> since the software will think that i am trying to reinstall the os on a
> different machine illegally.

Do yourself a favor and plonk down the $$$ for VMWare.
For one thing, it lets you firewall the little sucker
so that you _know_ it's not talking out of school.
For another, you can snapshot and restore with simple
file copies, which will save you those $$$ in no time
compared to reinstalling all the time.

Finally, MSWin seems to run more reliably on VMWare
than on bare metal. As long as you don't need low-level
I/O (read gaming) MS on VMWare on Linux also runs faster.
Doesn't make sense, but there you have it.

--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
end

[Ken Blake]

In , Timothy wrote:


>> the reason i posted to linux ng is because I wanted to get
opinions
>> from people who most likely hate MS and will therefore will
tell me
>> all the negative things i need to know about it. But on second
>> thought you are absolutely right. This might just start an
>> uncecessary flame war.
>> thank you for replying.

>>> (Follow-ups to the linux newsgroup removed, since it has
nothing
>>> to do with the question and is likely to do nothing but start
a
>>> flame war.)

> mad omeba... it is god to have a debate on wich users find
which
> operation system easier to use or more functional. how dare
microsoft
> discriminate....


Regardless of good it may be to have such a debate, there are
appropriate pleaces for such debates and inappropriate places. A
Windows newsgroup is an inappropriate place, just as a linux
newsgroup is an inappropriate place.


--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

[The Troll]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:06:40 +0000, The Troll's next target is Ted.

> GNU ( and linux) make you stupid!

Obviously not as stupid as running Windows where users know absolutely
nothing....including how not to crosspost to other newsgroups having
nothing to do with Windows. Where are the infamous microsoft.public
moderators who filter out anything crossposted? Oh yeah, they're
rebooting their machine and making tweaks to their systems that they don't
understand.

Running Windows is suicide.

Now get the hell off of comp.os.linux.advocacy.

[Donald Link]

I think you are comparing XP Home with Win2k by the price quoted. Win 2000
does not have as much device support as XP, but Win2000 does have support
for more older devices. Not an expert, but have both Win2000 and XP Pro
installed and have settled mostly on XP. Used Win2000 at work and really
runs fine, but there is a workstation an server edition.



"mad amoeba" > wrote in message
.net...
> I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while so i
> need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you guys
> would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000 seems
to
> have better registration policy and is probably significantly lighter on
> system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother interface and
> probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two is
> negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start from
> $90 and $130.
> I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
> concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things I've
> read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot of
> information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems to be
> the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i should do?
>
> thanx
>
>

[Freeride]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:08:17 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> Second, I have had to call MS twice about reactivations and they've always
> activated me without argument of any kind.


Try that in a large Office! What about imaging system? Say some poor admin
has to do this **** on 100 systems? How much fun would that be?

[Erik Funkenbusch]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:24:43 -0700, Freeride wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:08:17 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> Second, I have had to call MS twice about reactivations and they've always
>> activated me without argument of any kind.
>
> Try that in a large Office! What about imaging system? Say some poor admin
> has to do this **** on 100 systems? How much fun would that be?

Corporate clients have versions that do not require activation, the so call
"volume licensing" versions.

[jabailo]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:39:40 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> Corporate clients have versions that do not require activation, the so call
> "volume licensing" versions.

Do we care?

I remember discussing Microsoft's 'great plans' with Nathan Myrvold back
in 1991. It was all going to be this fantastic scheme of selling software
by subscription, backed up by an elaborate verification and licensing
scheme.

Guess what Genius? You forgot to read Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions'. These epicycling licensing schemes of wheels
within wheels have just been destroyed by a new paradigm -- G P L -- that
is, there is no license.

No wonder, Il Papa, Bill Gates, is sending Cardinal Richeleau McBride to
burn the witches and impale the blasphemers! Martin Luther just posted
his 95 thesis on the church door -- but you lazy ass Redmond ho's were
just too damn ignorant to read it.

[Freeride]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:39:40 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:24:43 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:08:17 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> Second, I have had to call MS twice about reactivations and they've always
>>> activated me without argument of any kind.
>>
>> Try that in a large Office! What about imaging system? Say some poor admin
>> has to do this **** on 100 systems? How much fun would that be?
>
> Corporate clients have versions that do not require activation, the so call
> "volume licensing" versions.


Volume licensing for a 20 to 100 desktop company?

[PaulC]

First, get what ever large object that may be, out of your ass.
Second, I don't see you offering any good advice.
And Third, there's no reason to rip on someone who's just trying to help.
"jabailo" > wrote in message
s.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:39:40 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Corporate clients have versions that do not require activation, the so
call
> > "volume licensing" versions.
>
> Do we care?
>
> I remember discussing Microsoft's 'great plans' with Nathan Myrvold back
> in 1991. It was all going to be this fantastic scheme of selling software
> by subscription, backed up by an elaborate verification and licensing
> scheme.
>
> Guess what Genius? You forgot to read Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of
> Scientific Revolutions'. These epicycling licensing schemes of wheels
> within wheels have just been destroyed by a new paradigm -- G P L -- that
> is, there is no license.
>
> No wonder, Il Papa, Bill Gates, is sending Cardinal Richeleau McBride to
> burn the witches and impale the blasphemers! Martin Luther just posted
> his 95 thesis on the church door -- but you lazy ass Redmond ho's were
> just too damn ignorant to read it.
>
>
>

[jabailo]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 01:45:12 -0400, PaulC wrote:

> First, get what ever large object that may be, out of your ass.

thanks. it was your egregiously large ego. here is its back, mr.top
poster.

> Second, I don't see you offering any good advice.

advice is simple: use Linux. Or can't you read.

> And Third, there's no reason to rip on someone who's just trying to
>help.

There's helping, and there's apologizing. Being an apoligist for
Saddam Hussein would invite derision, dontcha think?


> "jabailo" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:39:40 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Corporate clients have versions that do not require activation, the so
> call
>> > "volume licensing" versions.
>>
>> Do we care?
>>
>> I remember discussing Microsoft's 'great plans' with Nathan Myrvold back
>> in 1991. It was all going to be this fantastic scheme of selling software
>> by subscription, backed up by an elaborate verification and licensing
>> scheme.
>>
>> Guess what Genius? You forgot to read Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of
>> Scientific Revolutions'. These epicycling licensing schemes of wheels
>> within wheels have just been destroyed by a new paradigm -- G P L -- that
>> is, there is no license.
>>
>> No wonder, Il Papa, Bill Gates, is sending Cardinal Richeleau McBride to
>> burn the witches and impale the blasphemers! Martin Luther just posted
>> his 95 thesis on the church door -- but you lazy ass Redmond ho's were
>> just too damn ignorant to read it.
>>
>>
>>

[Erik Funkenbusch]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:17:24 -0700, Freeride wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:39:40 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:24:43 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:08:17 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>> Second, I have had to call MS twice about reactivations and they've always
>>>> activated me without argument of any kind.
>>>
>>> Try that in a large Office! What about imaging system? Say some poor admin
>>> has to do this **** on 100 systems? How much fun would that be?
>>
>> Corporate clients have versions that do not require activation, the so call
>> "volume licensing" versions.
>
> Volume licensing for a 20 to 100 desktop company?

Yes, actually. You only need 5 desktops to participate in volume
licensing.

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/

[SunSpot]

"dizzlin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:56:17 -0400, SunSpot wrote:
>
> >
> > Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my
choice.
> > As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
>
> How stupid do you have to be to trust M$?
>
No one said anything about trusting Microsoft, but why should anyone trust
what is posted on the net? At least half of what is posted is pure fiction.

[GreyCloud]

SunSpot wrote:
>
> "mad amoeba" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while so i
> > need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you guys
> > would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000 seems
> to
> > have better registration policy and is probably significantly lighter on
> > system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother interface and
> > probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two is
> > negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start from
> > $90 and $130.
> > I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
> > concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things I've
> > read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot of
> > information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems to be
> > the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i should do?
> >
> > thanx
> >
>
> Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my choice.
> As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
>

Guffaw!!

http://encryption_policies.tripod.com/industry/campbell_270400_microsoft.htm

This may be a bit old, but why did M$ not comment?? Gee, is
it because Big Brother likes to watch?

[GreyCloud]

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:54:00 GMT, mad amoeba wrote:
>
> > so then it means that os is sending data about my computer to some ms server
> > which has data about my computer stored on it already. otherwise how would
> > ms know whether or not ive changed enough hardware for the installation to
> > be suspect of using pirated software.
>
> Read:
>
> http://www.licenturion.com/xp/fully-licensed-wpa.txt
>
> It uses a one-way hash to detect if certain hardware changes, with no way
> for MS to know exactly what hardware that is.
>
> > I have no plans of adding any software or hardware in the near future but
> > when i do i really dont want to go through the nightmare(that's what some
> > people are describing it as) of reactivating the OS.
>
> Gee, you click a button. Big deal. First, if the hardware hash never
> changes, you don't have to wory (ie, you can reinstall all day long and
> never run out of activations.) Second, it allows you to change several
> items of hardware before having to reactivate. Third, if you do have to
> reactivate, the count gets reset every 6 months, and you they allow several
> activations before having to call in. Fourth, even if you manage to exceed
> all these things, you need only call the MS call center and tell them why
> you are legally re-activating so often, and they'll reset you.
>
> > Just after reading the following review it seems like reactivating is a
> > nightmarish process:
> > http://www.epinions.com/content_46060899972
>
> That review is so out there, it's hard to believe. As i said, XP won't
> make you call MS unless the hardware changes.

Does more than that Ewik. Way much more. Are you that
clueless to be that blind?
How about a clue-by-four??

> I've done this. In fact,
> I've installed it on the same PC dozens of times because I needed a clean
> PC to test software installs on. I've not seen this kind of review from
> any credible source. If this were even remotely true, you'd see these
> kinds of reviews all over the place, and from credible sources as well.
>

The how come an AP report called M$ on the carpet about
phoning home?
And howcome M$ admitted that it does phone home, but that it
was only marketing information?
And howcome when asked that M$ didn't know what they were
going to do with the marketing information?

Our one and only M$ sock-puppet.

> Second, I have had to call MS twice about reactivations and they've always
> activated me without argument of any kind. I've never been told i'd have
> to repurchase anything.
>
> I could believe that on one call, he might get a confused or beligerant
> help desk operator, but twice? I don't buy it.
>
> There was a bug in Office XP that has been fixed in a service pack that
> could cause a reactivation on laptops used with docking stations, but other
> than that, ive not heard any real complaints.

So, the hash part, and you actually believed everything M$
told you eh?

Guffaw!

[GreyCloud]

PaulC wrote:
>
> First, get what ever large object that may be, out of your ass.
> Second, I don't see you offering any good advice.
> And Third, there's no reason to rip on someone who's just trying to help.

And lookee at the headers... gee, COLA. You're in the wrong
group.
As a public service to all XP users... beware of M$, they
aren't what they seem to be.
And Ewik Fudd offers no help at all, but just parrots M$
usual junk.

[GreyCloud]

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 22:17:24 -0700, Freeride wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:39:40 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:24:43 -0700, Freeride wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 18:08:17 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Second, I have had to call MS twice about reactivations and they've always
> >>>> activated me without argument of any kind.
> >>>
> >>> Try that in a large Office! What about imaging system? Say some poor admin
> >>> has to do this **** on 100 systems? How much fun would that be?
> >>
> >> Corporate clients have versions that do not require activation, the so call
> >> "volume licensing" versions.
> >
> > Volume licensing for a 20 to 100 desktop company?
>
> Yes, actually. You only need 5 desktops to participate in volume
> licensing.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/

And just for the sake of fairness, Linux requires none.

[GreyCloud]

SunSpot wrote:
>
> "dizzlin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:56:17 -0400, SunSpot wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my
> choice.
> > > As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
> >
> > How stupid do you have to be to trust M$?
> >
> No one said anything about trusting Microsoft, but why should anyone trust
> what is posted on the net? At least half of what is posted is pure fiction.

Then maybe you haven't let it soak in yet that M$ is a
monopoly. And monopolies don't need an incentive to write
good software... just charge a high price for it.

[GreyCloud]

mad amoeba wrote:
>
> I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while so i
> need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you guys
> would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000 seems to
> have better registration policy and is probably significantly lighter on
> system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother interface and
> probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two is
> negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start from
> $90 and $130.
> I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
> concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things I've
> read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot of
> information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems to be
> the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i should do?
>
> thanx

Cross-posting troll.

[GreyCloud]

Ted wrote:
>
> "Linønut" > wrote in message ...
> > While restarting Outlook, mad amoeba grumbled:
> >
> > Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!
>
> GNU ( and linux) make you stupid!

Winbloze makes you a moron.

[chrisv]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:38:59 -0700, GreyCloud >
wrote:

>> Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my choice.
>> As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
>>
>
>Guffaw!!
>
>http://encryption_policies.tripod.com/industry/campbell_270400_microsoft.htm
>
>This may be a bit old, but why did M$ not comment?? Gee, is
>it because Big Brother likes to watch?

Did you see this bit that M$ wrote:
"Every third-party's cryptographic implementation would likely have a
different calling interface, so an application that used such an
implementation would be "locked in" to the particular third-party
software."

Considering the Microsoft's #1 GOAL is to lock you into THEIR
proprietary software, it takes a lot of guts to list this as a
disadvantage of using third-party cryptographic software...

[PaulC]

If you don't like M$, then don't use their products.
"GreyCloud" > wrote in message
...
> PaulC wrote:
> >
> > First, get what ever large object that may be, out of your ass.
> > Second, I don't see you offering any good advice.
> > And Third, there's no reason to rip on someone who's just trying to
help.
>
> And lookee at the headers... gee, COLA. You're in the wrong
> group.
> As a public service to all XP users... beware of M$, they
> aren't what they seem to be.
> And Ewik Fudd offers no help at all, but just parrots M$
> usual junk.

[PaulC]

WTF? Cola?
"GreyCloud" > wrote in message
...
> PaulC wrote:
> >
> > First, get what ever large object that may be, out of your ass.
> > Second, I don't see you offering any good advice.
> > And Third, there's no reason to rip on someone who's just trying to
help.
>
> And lookee at the headers... gee, COLA. You're in the wrong
> group.
> As a public service to all XP users... beware of M$, they
> aren't what they seem to be.
> And Ewik Fudd offers no help at all, but just parrots M$
> usual junk.

[GreyCloud]

PaulC wrote:
>
> If you don't like M$, then don't use their products.

I don't. And I also post to cola, but I think your response
is due in part to some other cross-poster.

[GreyCloud]

PaulC wrote:
>
> WTF? Cola?

comp.os.linux.advocacy... that's what I subscribe to. It
was the original poster that caused the cross-post.

[GreyCloud]

chrisv wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:38:59 -0700, GreyCloud >
> wrote:
>
> >> Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my choice.
> >> As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
> >>
> >
> >Guffaw!!
> >
> >http://encryption_policies.tripod.com/industry/campbell_270400_microsoft.htm
> >
> >This may be a bit old, but why did M$ not comment?? Gee, is
> >it because Big Brother likes to watch?
>
> Did you see this bit that M$ wrote:
> "Every third-party's cryptographic implementation would likely have a
> different calling interface, so an application that used such an
> implementation would be "locked in" to the particular third-party
> software."
>
> Considering the Microsoft's #1 GOAL is to lock you into THEIR
> proprietary software, it takes a lot of guts to list this as a
> disadvantage of using third-party cryptographic software...

LOL!! The big problem tho, is that a small group at M$ can
easily have embedded a call back mechanism that is never
documented that routes certain traffic to NSA and one of M$
servers that collects marketing information. Seeing that
nobody can look at the source anyway...

[dizzy]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:47:33 -0400, "SunSpot" >
wrote:

>"dizzlin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:56:17 -0400, SunSpot wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my
>choice.
>> > As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
>>
>> How stupid do you have to be to trust M$?
>>
>No one said anything about trusting Microsoft,

Idiot.

>but why should anyone trust
>what is posted on the net? At least half of what is posted is pure fiction.

When it comes to M$ doing immoral things, you don't even see half of
it.

[Alex M]

"GreyCloud" > wrote in message
...


> Then maybe you haven't let it soak in yet that M$ is a
> monopoly.

Does this mean you have no other choice of operating systems or applications
software in the marketplace?


> And monopolies don't need an incentive to write
> good software... just charge a high price for it.

And as customers currently have a choice, they can pay the asking price or
take their custom elsewhere.


AM

[paul s]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:06:40 +0000, Ted wrote:

>
> "Linønut" > wrote in message
> ...
>> While restarting Outlook, mad amoeba grumbled:
>>
>> Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!
>
> GNU ( and linux) make you stupid!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

Stupid boy.
--
Paul S

[paul s]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:25:10 -0400, PaulC wrote:

> WTF? Cola?

comp.os.linux.advocacy , one of the more lively newsgroups around.

--
Paul S

[Linønut]

While restarting Outlook, Ted grumbled:

> "Linønut" > wrote in message news:GqacnU7MHazbMLiiXTWJjA
>>
>> Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!
>
> GNU ( and linux) make you stupid!

Ahhhh, thus speaks the Pure White Light of Stupidity!

--
Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!

[Liam Slider]

Alex M wrote:
> "GreyCloud" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>
>>Then maybe you haven't let it soak in yet that M$ is a
>>monopoly.
>
>
> Does this mean you have no other choice of operating systems or applications
> software in the marketplace?

Pre-loaded and in almost any store? No, you have no choice.


--
"One day I woke up, and I realized I was never going to be normal...I
said so be it." --Hard Harry, Pump Up the Volume

[SunSpot]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:47:33 -0400, "SunSpot" >
> wrote:
>
> >"dizzlin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:56:17 -0400, SunSpot wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my
> >choice.
> >> > As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
> >>
> >> How stupid do you have to be to trust M$?
> >>
> >No one said anything about trusting Microsoft,
>
> Idiot.

WOW! Is that the best you can do?
I knew Linuxfuxs where slow, but I did not think they where THAT slow!


>
> >but why should anyone trust
> >what is posted on the net? At least half of what is posted is pure
fiction.
>
> When it comes to M$ doing immoral things, you don't even see half of
> it.
>

[SunSpot]

"paul s" > wrote in message
om...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:06:40 +0000, Ted wrote:
>
> >
> > "Linønut" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> While restarting Outlook, mad amoeba grumbled:
> >>
> >> Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!
> >
> > GNU ( and linux) make you stupid!
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA.
>
> Stupid boy.
> --
> Paul S

Don't worry about it Paul,
Wait till SCO gets through with the LinuxFuxs. ;-)

[Sinister Midget]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:42:37 +0100, blathered and smoked:

>
> "GreyCloud" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> Then maybe you haven't let it soak in yet that M$ is a
>> monopoly.
>
> Does this mean you have no other choice of operating systems or applications
> software in the marketplace?

There are more facets to "being a monopoly" than simply owning
everything. There's also wielding power and wealth in a way to harm
others by putting them out of business (legally or illegally), forcing
them to spend inordinate amounts of money or other assets to maintain a
minor level of compatibility, shutting them out through various
commercial venues (like having "partners" that play your game or they
find themselves closed off to access to products or services),illegally
bundling things in a way designed to make it difficult or impossible
for competitors to make their products easily accessible to consumers
(like, say, Netscape, Word Perfect and several others) and a whole
assortment of other tactics. All of these have been done by MICROS~1.
In fact, MICROS~1 has been found in violation on all of these points,
and many others, too. This resulted in a finding of them being an
illegal monopoly, a finding that was upheld on appeal. You may have
missed it.

>> And monopolies don't need an incentive to write
>> good software... just charge a high price for it.
>
> And as customers currently have a choice, they can pay the asking price or
> take their custom elsewhere.

A limited choice when the monopoly works to make sure consumers need to
make more effort to avoid the monopoly than they have to exercise by
simple acquiesence. The monopoly ensures their products are pushed in
the faces of all, or nearly all, consumers, forces consumers to often
have to pay for the product whether they ever use it or not, and
ensures OEMs and others are given terrible deals (while the OEMs'
competitiors get sweetheart prices) when they don't play along.

You may have missed those findings and rulings as well. Those are the
types of things monopolies do, irrespective of the amount of market
share they have.

Unless one builds their own machines or finds a shop that doesn't put
Winders Inside(tm) most everybody ends up paying the Micro-Soft Tax if
they buy the x86 architecture.

(You'd think, as many times as these points have been made, in as many
places as these things have all been mentioned and discussed, there
couldn't still be people who either don't know about any of this, or
people who still think it was all a rig-job.)

--
Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. The answer is NO!

[Sinister Midget]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:54:03 -0400, blathered and smoked:

>
> "paul s" > wrote in message
> om...
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:06:40 +0000, Ted wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Linønut" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> While restarting Outlook, mad amoeba grumbled:
>> >>
>> >> Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!
>> >
>> > GNU ( and linux) make you stupid!
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHA.
>>
>> Stupid boy.
>> --
>> Paul S
>
> Don't worry about it Paul,
> Wait till SCO gets through with the LinuxFuxs. ;-)

I can hardly wait until it's over. I wanna see what new slogan and
excuse you Micro-Softies are going to invent to explain why Billy and
the Buttcrusts are still worried about linux.

--
The three Rs of Microsoft support: Retry, Reboot, Reinstall.

[GreyCloud]

Alex M wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Then maybe you haven't let it soak in yet that M$ is a
> > monopoly.
>
> Does this mean you have no other choice of operating systems or applications
> software in the marketplace?
>

Show me where in the stores that you can buy something other
than M$.
I sure don't see anything else in our town. Nothing but M$
PCs.

> > And monopolies don't need an incentive to write
> > good software... just charge a high price for it.
>
> And as customers currently have a choice, they can pay the asking price or
> take their custom elsewhere.
>

On the store shelves... show me the choice. All I see is
software written for M$ windows o/s. I don't see any
alternatives in the stores. I am aware of what is out there
only because I went to vendor schools for the Gov. The rest
really don't have any idea.

[GreyCloud]

SunSpot wrote:
>
> Don't worry about it Paul,
> Wait till SCO gets through with the LinuxFuxs. ;-)

Do you actually believe SCOs FUD?? Remarkable.

[rifleman]

In article >, says...
> Alex M wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Then maybe you haven't let it soak in yet that M$ is a
> > > monopoly.
> >
> > Does this mean you have no other choice of operating systems or applications
> > software in the marketplace?
> >
>
> Show me where in the stores that you can buy something other
> than M$.
> I sure don't see anything else in our town. Nothing but M$
> PCs.
>
> > > And monopolies don't need an incentive to write
> > > good software... just charge a high price for it.
> >
> > And as customers currently have a choice, they can pay the asking price or
> > take their custom elsewhere.
> >
>
> On the store shelves... show me the choice. All I see is
> software written for M$ windows o/s. I don't see any
> alternatives in the stores. I am aware of what is out there
> only because I went to vendor schools for the Gov. The rest
> really don't have any idea.
>
I heard that Walmart were selling Linux pc's....
--
(I may be wrong...I usually am....)
Google is your Friend
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam:
www.gbpcomputing.co.uk

[Sinister Midget]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:19:14 -0700, blathered and smoked:

> SunSpot wrote:
>>
>> Don't worry about it Paul,
>> Wait till SCO gets through with the LinuxFuxs. ;-)
>
> Do you actually believe SCOs FUD?? Remarkable.

He doesn't go by BrownSpot for nothing.

--
Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. The answer is NO!

[GreyCloud]

rifleman wrote:
>
> In article >, says...
> > Alex M wrote:
> > >
> > > "GreyCloud" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Then maybe you haven't let it soak in yet that M$ is a
> > > > monopoly.
> > >
> > > Does this mean you have no other choice of operating systems or applications
> > > software in the marketplace?
> > >
> >
> > Show me where in the stores that you can buy something other
> > than M$.
> > I sure don't see anything else in our town. Nothing but M$
> > PCs.
> >
> > > > And monopolies don't need an incentive to write
> > > > good software... just charge a high price for it.
> > >
> > > And as customers currently have a choice, they can pay the asking price or
> > > take their custom elsewhere.
> > >
> >
> > On the store shelves... show me the choice. All I see is
> > software written for M$ windows o/s. I don't see any
> > alternatives in the stores. I am aware of what is out there
> > only because I went to vendor schools for the Gov. The rest
> > really don't have any idea.
> >
> I heard that Walmart were selling Linux pc's....

Not in our neck of the woods. But I do know that it can be
purchased over the net.

[Linønut]

While restarting Outlook, SunSpot grumbled:

>> Idiot.
>
> WOW! Is that the best you can do?
> I knew Linuxfuxs where slow, but I did not think they where THAT slow!

Not slow. Why waste words on putzes like you?

--
Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!

[Linønut]

While restarting Outlook, Sinister Midget grumbled:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:19:14 -0700, blathered and smoked:
>
>> SunSpot wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't worry about it Paul,
>>> Wait till SCO gets through with the LinuxFuxs. ;-)
>>
>> Do you actually believe SCOs FUD?? Remarkable.
>
> He doesn't go by BrownSpot for nothing.

Sunspot is the "wrinkled star".

--
Rejuvenate your hardware with GNU/Linux!

[dizzlin]

<html><input type crash></html>
begin SunSpot wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 08:50:57 -0400, SunSpot wrote:

>
> "dizzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:47:33 -0400, "SunSpot" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"dizzlin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:56:17 -0400, SunSpot wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my
>> >choice.
>> >> > As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
>> >>
>> >> How stupid do you have to be to trust M$?
>> >>
>> >No one said anything about trusting Microsoft,
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> WOW! Is that the best you can do?
> I knew Linuxfuxs where slow, but I did not think they where THAT slow!

Idiot.

[PaulC]

Abuse report for Dizzy's "<html><input type crash></html>" sent to

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 09:47:33 -0400, "SunSpot" >
> wrote:
>
> >"dizzlin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:56:17 -0400, SunSpot wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Either one is a good choice. XP is the most stable, and would be my
> >choice.
> >> > As the the privacy issues, don't believe everything you read.
> >>
> >> How stupid do you have to be to trust M$?
> >>
> >No one said anything about trusting Microsoft,
>
> Idiot.
>
> >but why should anyone trust
> >what is posted on the net? At least half of what is posted is pure
fiction.
>
> When it comes to M$ doing immoral things, you don't even see half of
> it.
>

[nospam]

"dizzlin" > wrote in message ...
><html><input type crash></html>
What's that html dooing here? I thought that linboys don't like people posting anything but plain
text

[Frank]

GreyCloud wrote:
| Alex M wrote:
||
|| "GreyCloud" > wrote in message
|| ...
||
||| Then maybe you haven't let it soak in yet that M$ is a
||| monopoly.
||
|| Does this mean you have no other choice of operating systems or
|| applications software in the marketplace?
||
|
| Show me where in the stores that you can buy something other
| than M$.
| I sure don't see anything else in our town. Nothing but M$
| PCs.
|
||| And monopolies don't need an incentive to write
||| good software... just charge a high price for it.
||
|| And as customers currently have a choice, they can pay the asking
|| price or take their custom elsewhere.
||
|
| On the store shelves... show me the choice. All I see is
| software written for M$ windows o/s. I don't see any
| alternatives in the stores. I am aware of what is out there
| only because I went to vendor schools for the Gov. The rest
| really don't have any idea.

You don't need a store. All you need is a good internet
connection.


--
Tampa Bay

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, nospam
>
wrote
on Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:19:49 +0200
>:
>
> "dizzlin" > wrote in message ...
>><html><input type crash></html>
> What's that html dooing here? I thought that linboys don't like
> people posting anything but plain text

begin long-and-tedious-explanation-for-the-ignorant.vbs

We don't. However, we've noticed that this gives some of the
slightly wackier WinLoonies pause. Until some time back it
crashed IE (and, by extension, OE). It may still be crashing
IE for all I know.

Of course, most of the smarter individuals have now switched to
Forte, which is of course unaffected by either bug, as is SLRN,
Pan, Mozilla, and just about every other Linux newsreader as far
as I know.

end

--
#191, -- if this post is empty, try "view source"
It's still legal to go .sigless.

[Jim Richardson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 03:41:24 GMT,
The Ghost In The Machine > wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, nospam
>
> wrote
> on Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:19:49 +0200
>:
>>
>> "dizzlin" > wrote in message ...
>>><html><input type crash></html>
>> What's that html dooing here? I thought that linboys don't like
>> people posting anything but plain text
>
> begin long-and-tedious-explanation-for-the-ignorant.vbs
>
> We don't. However, we've noticed that this gives some of the
> slightly wackier WinLoonies pause. Until some time back it
> crashed IE (and, by extension, OE). It may still be crashing
> IE for all I know.
>
> Of course, most of the smarter individuals have now switched to
> Forte, which is of course unaffected by either bug, as is SLRN,
> Pan, Mozilla, and just about every other Linux newsreader as far
> as I know.
>
> end
>

Amusingly enough, I tried IE under wine when that bug first showed up,
it was unaffected by it. So if you must stick with MICROS~1 apps for
that, then I recommend you run Linux, and use them with Wine :)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/K2pnd90bcYOAWPYRAiNwAJ9v4ooenOXBVxpeqOHkQhQUama8uQ CfT6oe
JaIGM5oylvlu+IthQGVEMTg=
=6k6N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock

Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork()

[nospam]

I tried forte and didn't like it. I think I will stick with oe for the time beeing....


"The Ghost In The Machine" > wrote in message
...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, nospam
> >
> wrote
> on Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:19:49 +0200
> >:
> >
> > "dizzlin" > wrote in message ...
> >><html><input type crash></html>
> > What's that html dooing here? I thought that linboys don't like
> > people posting anything but plain text
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>
> --
> #191, -- if this post is empty, try "view source"
> It's still legal to go .sigless.

[d2003xx]

"mad amoeba" > wrote in message >...
> I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while so i
> need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you guys
> would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000 seems to
> have better registration policy and is probably significantly lighter on
> system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother interface and
> probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two is
> negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start from
> $90 and $130.
> I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
> concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things I've
> read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot of
> information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems to be
> the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i should do?

qnx!

[Alex Perez]

It is your call, if you are goint to work with a lot of media files; audio,
video etc, them go XP. Security is the same on both versions(alwyas open)
Jajajajaja, but XP pro has a buil in firewall that will make things a little
bit more difficult to hackers. If you are in a corporate environment and
under a windows server, then go 2000, That's what I wuould do!!
"d2003xx" > wrote in message
om...
> "mad amoeba" > wrote in message
>...
> > I'm going to have to work on a windows operating system for a while so i
> > need to purchase either win2k or winxp pro. I was wondering if you guys
> > would help me figure out which one is the better deal. Windows 2000
seems to
> > have better registration policy and is probably significantly lighter on
> > system resources than xp. XP on the other hand has smoother interface
and
> > probably less hadrware issues. The price difference between the two is
> > negligible as far as i concerned. OEM versions on pricegrabber start
from
> > $90 and $130.
> > I would probably just go for newer and better winxp but I am really
> > concerned about how it will handle my privacy as from all the things
I've
> > read about it, it communicates alot with mssoft and exchanges alot of
> > information. Overall I guess I am leaning towards win2k as it seems to
be
> > the best of what mssoft offers. What is your opinions on what i should
do?
>
> qnx!

[The Troll]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 00:06:40 +0000, The Troll's next target is Ted.

> GNU ( and linux) make you stupid!

Obviously not as stupid as running Windows where users know absolutely
nothing....including how not to crosspost to other newsgroups having
nothing to do with Windows. Where are the infamous microsoft.public
moderators who filter out anything crossposted? Oh yeah, they're
rebooting their machine and making tweaks to their systems that they don't
understand.

Running Windows is suicide.

Now get the hell off of comp.os.linux.advocacy.