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

David E. Gervais · #1 December 3rd, 2003, 12:23 AM

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!

Fyron · #2 December 3rd, 2003, 12:46 AM

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...

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.

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.

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

JayBdey · #3 December 3rd, 2003, 01:08 AM

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.

Fyron · #4 December 3rd, 2003, 01:15 AM

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.

JayBdey · #5 December 3rd, 2003, 01:36 AM

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 ]

Fyron · #6 December 3rd, 2003, 01:38 AM

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 ]

PvK · #7 December 3rd, 2003, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
...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.

So it's not frequent that it fails, or maybe it even never fails when doing the sorts of searches that you do. May your luck hold out.

Quote:

quote:
...

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.

I never said it was a bug. Again, the topic I was responding to was a question about what I personally didn't like. It annoys me to change the sort order and not offer any option to use the old (sensible) sort order. Why would I want to see the oldest files by default?

Quote:

...

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.

They do have something "to do with the concept of being compensated for your work" when the worker and the person demanding compensation are two different parties, and when the demander is a megacorp demanding that everyone pay them as often as they can get away with, for as long as they can get away with, when it's utterly impractical and counterproductive to assert such rights in the face of the realities of broadcast media and ubiquitous technology such as computers on a worldwide network.

Quote:

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.

I do not agree. Sharing ideas is not stealing, even if you heard the idea from someone else, as long as you don't claim the idea was thought up by you. Creative people should be rewarded for sharing their ideas, art, music (etc), in the first place, and if they can think of reasonable and practical ways to limit the way they share their work with others so as to make more money from them, fine. However, I believe that in general it should be the resonsibility of the vendor (not the government) to maintain control of their own media.

With media such as pop music, the crap is broadcast via radio throughout the planet, including into private houses, and it is played in public places. In neither case is there a contract between the sender and receiver. Pop music is practically inescapable - we're bombarded with it and have little choice about it. Reception and recording devices are not illegal to own and use (yet?). The original creator has already received their miniscule fraction of a percent. It's silly to say someone can't tape a broadcast and replay it. Illegal to fast forward past ads? BS! When does it ever become something that the public is allowed to share? Never?

PvK