Windows 2K or Windows XP?

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.co..._microsoft.htm

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

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!

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.

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.

SunSpot wrote:

"dizzlin" wrote in message
news
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.

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.

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.

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.co..._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...

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.

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.

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.

PaulC wrote:

WTF? Cola?

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

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.co..._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...

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

"dizzlin" wrote in message
news
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.

"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