.com.unity Forums - OT: Which is better: XP or 2000?

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=10807)

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JayBdey:
If someone has two cars and I steal one of them, then the owner now only has one car. If I make a copy of a song, the original still exists and is still usable.

Yes, they are different. It's just as illegal as stealing but it is a separate and different crime.

Your examples are irrelevant because they are trying to compare apples and oranges... repeating them 27 times is not going to change the fact that taking someone else's intellectual property without consent is stealing it. Let's get some dictionary definitions here:
<hr /></blockquote>Ok. Intellectual Property: A term invented by lawyers of megacorporations in the late 20th century, for the purpose of gaining acceptance for a concept that would let them solidify their trade cartels of products which cost practically nothing to produce and distribute. An item of "Intellectual Property" can be practically any concept (or practically any data type) which is claimed as the sole property of a party which wishes to distribute it for sale and assert exclusive rights to do so.

PvK

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

So? You have no right to any piece of data that someone else created unless they give you a right to use it. They have right to receive compensation for their hard work if they so choose.

[ December 02, 2003, 21:41: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Almost always such restrictions have been empty power grabs by contract lawyers which have been ignored in practice, however. Humane companies would not cause a stink, for instance, if you want to install, say, a game both on your desktop and your laptop, etc. XP goes one step further and actually tries to sabotage itself by analyzing your machine, using your Internet connection to phone home to the M$ Mother Ship, etc. That's not a practice I care to support by paying someone hundreds of dollars for XP. No way, Jose.

No... almost always such restrictions have been how software is sold. It has nothing to do with being humane. Note that I said RUN, not INSTALL. There is a world of difference between having a piece of software installed on two computers and only using one at a time, and then having that software installed on two computers and using both installs at the same time (such as pirating an OS by installing it on more than one computer).
<hr /></blockquote>So you're saying the XP activation scheme intentionally lets you install one copy of XP on multiple computers, as long as you only run one at a time? That certainly wasn't my understanding.

Quote:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />there are cases, who knows why, when it just fails to find files that are there. I've tested and had XP search and find nothing, followed by another search program running the same search, which finds files.

I have used the XP search extensively and it has never once failed to find a file that was there. I have used it on other computers without a hitch as well. You might have gotten your copy of XP from a OEM manufacturer that did something to the kernals to alter the search function.
<hr /></blockquote>I've seen this problem on three computers I've worked with, one of which I installed the OS myself with install disks directly from M$.

Again, it seems pretty silly for you to tell me how many times you haven't noticed that some files aren't found by the XP search. After all, it's only noticeable if you know a file is there, and it fails, which only happens every so often. However, the fact that it fails makes the search useless for the purpose of conducting an exhaustive search, such as for insuring that a certain virus file is not on a computer. At least this provides a good reason to find a 3rd party search program and never use the annoying-as-heck XP search interface.

Quote:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Of course you can have it re-sort manually. That's not a fix, though, it's a known work-around.

That is assuming that the order you want it sorted is the only correct order. They had to pick an order. That is not a bug in any shape or form.
<hr /></blockquote>I'm sure that you prefer that "sort by date" show you the oldest files first, right? I suppose you really like being force-fed BS, since you like XP so much, so it's no wonder you figure "they had to pick an order". Sure it's "by design" and not a "bug", but it is something I don't like about the interface, which is what the topic was. If they can go to the trouble to reverse the sort order, and to provide options like "hey, would you like to be annoyed by an animated puppy?", then why not have an option to sort either way by default?

Quote:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Sure. You must've turned it off, but by default, every few days or weeks, XP decides to launch a wizard in the user's face, perhaps with a hateful cartoon character and cutesy "speach bubble", saying something like, "Hey, XP has noticed you haven't used some of your desktop icons in a while. Would you like to stop what you're doing, and go through a wizard that asks you about all of them, and gives an option to delete them?" Yeah, there's a way to turn it off, but it's just an example of the many annoying goofball innovations of XP.

Hmm... I have never once turned that off, nor even heard of such a feature. Must only be in some Versions of XP home...<hr /></blockquote>I've never run XP Home. I have seen it on XP Pro, XP Tablet, and XP MCE. Maybe there's a way to get it to shut up for good, and you shut it off when you were first disabling all the default nonsense.

Quote:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I do that on my own XP box at work, but there is still some crud left over that is not on 2K or 98. And the extra 2K stuff isn't particularly useful, except for disabling as many as possible of the unwanted default processes that launch and waste resources and CPU.

It is quite easy to customize what is in the start menu (especially easy to do in XP). Again, how you want it to look is most certainly not the "right" way to do it, nor the only way. Just because you don't like the default start meny does NOT mean that there is anything wrong with it, just that you don't like it and need to customize it.<hr /></blockquote>Again, I was replying to one or more questions of the nature "PvK, what don't you like about the XP interface?" I wasn't standing on a soapbox telling everyone that it was wrong for everyone. I'd recommend XP to simple casual Users who want to blow a bunch of money or are getting it relatively free somehow. After all, it's "user friendly" to a saccharine fault.

And no, I don't "need" to learn how to exorcize all the crud. That would be an annoyance in itself. I do fine by just killing the crap that I've already seen how to kill, and avoiding XP as much as I can. After all, my 98SE boxes give me no problems and run faster than my XP box at work, so I rarely need to use XP at all.

Quote:

...
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I suppose it reoccurs because of the frequent "updates" which sometimes reset default system options, such as the existance and IE association of MS Outhouse Express.

You can easily remove those two programs, and they do stay removed if you do so.
<hr /></blockquote>I did do that. I always remove all signs of Outhouse from any computer I'm allowed to do so on. As I explained before, this didn't help - it came back, apparently in one of those poorly-documented automatic updates. The only "proper" way I might kill it now appears to be to uninstall the update. Though, it's always fun to find the Outhouse folder and delete it. Too bad that method tends to leave turds in the registry, etc.

PvK

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
So? You have no right to any piece of data that someone else created unless they give you a right to use it. They have right to receive compensation for their hard work if they so choose.

Media cartels do very little, if any, hard creative work outside of cunning new legal contracts to stiff the actual creators.

Data isn't being stolen from creators. The file sharing issue involves creators who have sold their rights for very little to megacorps, and the megacorps are crying because their old distribution and sales model is becoming obsolete. You know, the one with which they've been making themselves obscenely rich for decades (while exploiting the actual creators).

The real question is what forms of control of data are reasonable or unreasonable, and what options a creator of data has for distribution and compensation.

PvK

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

About windows install,.. the only Version of windows that gave me any kind of trouble was Windows ME. (and the problem was mostly incompatibility, and many programs not running properly.)

Whenever I install Windows, I always do a typical install, then once everything is up and running, I go to the Add/Remove Programs in the control panel and click on the Windows Setup tab (add remove windows components icon in XP) and remove all the junk I don't want. Accessability, Outlook Express, etc, etc..

I found out that this is actually the 'Best' way to customize the windows install. if you do a 'Custom Install' at the beginning of the install process, many things needed by the system don't get installed. The same is true for hardware drivers. when windows installs, there is no such thing as Plug-and-play, it only exists 'After' windows has installed. so many of the hardware devices are just 'best-guess' placeholders. I go to the hardware manager and delete/remove the various '!' tagged devices. when I reboot, windows always finds the devices an installs the correct drivers.

So, in fact it's kind of like you need to install windows in a 3 step process. A pain in the but to say the least, but once you know the routine, most of the annoying bugs seem to magically disapear.

another 2 cents of info for the pot..

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

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

Quote:

So you're saying the XP activation scheme intentionally lets you install one copy of XP on multiple computers, as long as you only run one at a time? That certainly wasn't my understanding.

Umm... no. It is a method to prevent you from stealing software by just getting one copy and running it on multiple computers...

Quote:

I've seen this problem on three computers I've worked with, one of which I installed the OS myself with install disks directly from M$.

Again, it seems pretty silly for you to tell me how many times you haven't noticed that some files aren't found by the XP search. After all, it's only noticeable if you know a file is there, and it fails, which only happens every so often. However, the fact that it fails makes the search useless for the purpose of conducting an exhaustive search, such as for insuring that a certain virus file is not on a computer. At least this provides a good reason to find a 3rd party search program and never use the annoying-as-heck XP search interface.

That is some rather creative reading on your part... let me repeat myself: I have never had the search feature fail to find a file that I know is there. So, I know where the file is, I run the search, it always finds it.

Quote:

I'm sure that you prefer that "sort by date" show you the oldest files first, right? I suppose you really like being force-fed BS, since you like XP so much, so it's no wonder you figure "they had to pick an order". Sure it's "by design" and not a "bug", but it is something I don't like about the interface, which is what the topic was. If they can go to the trouble to reverse the sort order, and to provide options like "hey, would you like to be annoyed by an animated puppy?", then why not have an option to sort either way by default?

Ok... this is just *****ing. It is not a productive complaint at all. Of course they had to pick how the OS works! That is how you design software. So you prefer the opposite sort order. Big deal. They decided to go the other way by default. That is not in any way a bug, and can not in any reasonable way be construed as a bug, UNLESS it is marketed to sort in the opposite order that it does by default. Otherwise, you have to grounds for complaint here.

Quote:

I suppose you really like being force-fed BS, since you like XP so much

Obviously me consistently telling people to go with 2000 over XP was lost somewhere along the way... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Quote:

I've never run XP Home. I have seen it on XP Pro, XP Tablet, and XP MCE. Maybe there's a way to get it to shut up for good, and you shut it off when you were first disabling all the default nonsense.

Nope. I would have remembered such a feature. Maybe it got disabled when I disabled that "show latest additions to the start menu" option, but I don't think so, as I never saw that before I had disabled that feature (after running XP for a while, of course). Rather strange.

Quote:

And no, I don't "need" to learn how to exorcize all the crud. That would be an annoyance in itself. I do fine by just killing the crap that I've already seen how to kill, and avoiding XP as much as I can. After all, my 98SE boxes give me no problems and run faster than my XP box at work, so I rarely need to use XP at all.

That would depend on what the computers you are comparing are, of course. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Quote:

Media cartels do very little, if any, hard creative work outside of cunning new legal contracts to stiff the actual creators.

Media cartels have nothing to do with the concept of being compensated for your work PvK... whether such alleged cartels are around or not has no bearing on whether people should receive compensation for their work if they so choose.

Quote:

Data isn't being stolen from creators. The file sharing issue involves creators who have sold their rights for very little to megacorps, and the megacorps are crying because their old distribution and sales model is becoming obsolete. You know, the one with which they've been making themselves obscenely rich for decades (while exploiting the actual creators).

Either way, the shared files are still being stolen. It does not matter who has the rights to it, as long as it is not released to the public domain, downloading such files is still stealing them. That, and there are plenty of creators that are not part of megacorps that are being stolen from in the file sharing issue as well.

Quote:

if you do a 'Custom Install' at the beginning of the install process, many things needed by the system don't get installed.

Erm... that is, if you don't choose to install them, they don't get installed... Windows always works fine for me when I do custom installs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ December 02, 2003, 22:47: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

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

The old business model of making, marketing, and selling products is fading fast. It was a good system back when it took time and money to produce new products. Now, production costs for music and software are shrinking, and distribution costs have almost disappeared completely. When it costs nothing (or next to nothing) to make something, and your still selling at the same bloated price be prepared when people get angry and start using your work without paying you.

History has shown that what is right and what is legal are not always one in the same. Laws are being passed by corrupt politicians influenced by the entertainment/software industry, that benefit big business and keep an outdated, inefficient system going.

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

Umm... it still costs quite a bit of money to make the songs in the first place... and, of course, none of that justifies the theft of said music.

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

Given the choice of paying for a song and the artist getting a little but the label taking most of it, and not paying at all and helping to form a new system were the artist gets ALL the money, I'm going to pick that.

If we stop paying NOW, in the future artists will be getting all (or most of) the money.

Songs could be sold for $.25 cents a piece and the artist would be making more than they do now. The consumer pays less, the artist gets more.

I can't find a downside to that. The only people that loose are the labels and the RIAA, and they deserve it.

[ December 02, 2003, 23:37: Message edited by: JayBdey ]

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

If you object to the current model, then stealing is no way to protest. Do not acquire their music at all. Don't buy it. But don't steal it either. Stealing it just makes you a petty crook and destroys any validity you might have had otherwise with your complaints.

[ December 02, 2003, 23:39: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]