Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
 

I have XP and I never had to register it. I have changed my GFX card and it never asked my to register XP either.

And if it did, I could EASILY find a way to "circumvent" the registration.

Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
 

Did XP perhaps activated itself "for" you? I'd be interested to hear if it complains if you try installing the same copy on another machine.

This is a typical strategem for gradual changing of rules and laws, though. They introduce new ones but try to make it as painless as possible, so that people will accept them, and to test the waters. Since they're being nice about it, people don't complain. Eventually they get more and more serious about it, until they eventually gain acceptance for paying monthly subscriptions per computer, per user, whatever they can get away with, for every piece of M$ software. They can take their time at it, since they have a monopoly and enough income from interest on cash reserves that they can make a profit without selling anything at this point.

I don't disdain XP activation because I think it would cause me great inconvenience. I disdain it because I don't like the proposed contract "you can install it on one machine only".

PvK

Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I try not to think about them, but I remember the frequency with which I groan. Yes, although it is a pain in itself, one can evict a lot of the crap. The Search is still crap (annoying, clunky and doesn't always work, even once you kill the animated characters). You can get it to stop creating thumb.db files too... Sorting files by date backwards - any way to fix that? There is weird stuff going on with the "My ..." folders - they are trying to force you to use them with shortcuts that I haven't figured out how to destroy, but if you rename some of them, they will appear with one name in one place, but the "My..." name in others. The "My..." items appearing as default in the Explorer windows, and as if they were their own hierarchy seperate from the actual C: D: etc. The "you have some unused icons on your desktop" wizards. The further attempts to pretend like there is no DOS, thereby breaking some DOS program compatibility. The annoying features I haven't figured out yet how to exorcise from the new "Start Christmas tree". I already mentioned the way the auto-updater is trying to force me to have the virus-target MS Outhouse Express on my computer, even though I turned it off in Windows Components. The updates every few days about the endless security bugs which could let someone take complete control of my XP computer are ... well, they have good comic value.

I expect I could reduce more of the annoyances by devoting more time to learning how to kill them, hanging out on Annoyances.org more, etc. However, I'd rather be gaming than dealing with new innovations from M$.

PvK

[ November 27, 2003, 19:43: Message edited by: PvK ]

Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
 

Windows XP has to be activated here and complains heavily if you don't. (It almost threatens you to destroy your computer if you persist in your efforts not to register. We all know how these Messages look like, don't we? *Thinks of the red alert when you try to install a non-standard driver*)

I wonder why you didn't have to. Was your connection Online during the installation? It could have happened while you weren't watching over XP. Otherwise I have to admit I am puzzled. Or Microsoft sent special Versions in France. *Smirks*

PvK, it did complain for me when I tried to install it on one computer while it was registered on another. I was asked to phone Microsoft if it was a technical problem due to extensive hardware changes. It worked fine when XP wasn't registered on the first computer though. Yes, I was somewhat bored to install Windows on two computers just to run tests.

Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
 

I see what you mean about XP, quite a lengthy list if I may say so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I managed to get rid of quite a few of these, but not of all. Not yet. (The Search function is still not really working, and I couldn't bring the DOS back to life, as it should still be there, lurking in deep waters)

I didn't run into some of the other issues you mentioned, so I gather I should knock on wood. (Especially the part with the My folders, probably because I regard them as a bane for humanity) But I have met some other "options that do want to help you, but which turn to be really harassing in the end" you haven't spoke about, so I guess we are even. (Such as my keyboard going to and fro from Azerty to Qwerty, some accessibility wizards opened by pressing five times the caps key for example, a save option for hard drives which destroys Mozilla settings files, and so on. (Strange that only Mozilla files would be affected out of 40 gigas of data, isn't it?)) I should stop the list here, as someone else will likely add a few other items to it.

Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is how software has always been though... very few software packages are sold on a license that allows you to run them on multiple computers at once.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It has always worked perfectly for me. I have never had it fail to find a file I was searching for before (unless that file didn't exist, of course). And, it is hardly clunky...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Click the sort button for date again, and it reverses the order it sorts them.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Get the power toys and you can disable ALL of those folders; just set them to whatever folder you want (even on other drives!) and it stops using them altogether. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I don't recall ever seeing that. Can you elaborate?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There is nothing pretend about it. There simply is no DOS kernal in XP. Go get that FreeDos or whatever it was to have a nice Version of "DOS" running when you need it. Or make a Win98 partition to run those old DOS games. Very simply fix.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Just use the "Classic" start menu, and it is identical to the start menu in 2000 (and I think it is the same as in 98, but with the control panel stuff added, which is a good thing http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That is because you chose to set up the accessibility wizards when you installed the OS. Just remove them and that will stop. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What? When did you ever get that to happen? I have never seen anything bad happen to my Mozilla files. Granted, I am using Firebird rather than the standard Mozilla, but it is the same basic thing.

[ November 27, 2003, 20:40: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
 

No question - use 2000. XP only if you are an expert and know every option and how to turn them off (some of them are carefully mis-phrased and look like turned off when actually on). Or if you don't mind to be spied upon more than any trojan virus does, forced unwanted "updates" on you, and suffer random disabling of non-M$ programms.
Do not forget you cannot even turn off many spyware functions - even if they are made to appear to be off or non-working (like that "unregistered" XP JayBDay wrote about that has phoned home for sure). You have to install XP antispy to be at least a bit safe. Otherwise, M$ can reconfigure any of your settings as they like. I refuse to service any XP computer without antispy on it, and without expertly disabled update options. Apart from the overall personal security, such blatant violation of consumer rights should not be supported, IMHO.

Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Extremely easy to disable. Just turn off hte "keep me up to date automatically" feature.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Uh huh... I have never seen that happen to anyone.

Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
 

I've have 98SE, W2K & XP on different machines, and Win98 is the most stabilist. I never turn that machine off, just standby, do almost all my work on it, and I haven't had to rebuild it since I first built the computer 5 years ago.

W2K would be my second choice. Once you patch the security holes, it just runs what it is told to run.

XP seems better for running games, for the simple fact that you can tell the game to run in different operating system mode. ie. Run this game in Win95 mode. But the first thing I also do, it remove allthe 'user friendly' crap M$ put on it. Make it look like 98, and away you go.

Not sure where the information came from about W2K not being supported or sold. Microsoft's "hard drop-dead dates" for Win2000 are:-
No non-security hotfixes after 1/1/2004
No paid Online support after 1/1/2005

Re: OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion
 

You have been extremely lucky with Win 98 if you have been running it for 5 years without rebooting it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif If you don't install and uninstall stuff all the time, there is rarely ever a need to reinstall Windows. I only installed 2000 once and used it for nearly 2 years (with the occasional reboot) before going XP.

[ November 28, 2003, 00:30: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]