[geeks] Re: Windows XP?

[Kurt Huhn]

Lionel Peterson <lionel4287 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Win2K is the end of one thread for an OS, as is Win98/ME, WinXP is an
> effort to bridge the two together, IIRC. As was mentioned earlier, my
> son's PC runs WinXP, and has great flexibility for running odd/older
> DOS Windows applications - Win2K does not...
> 

Well, I decided to go with Win2k.
 - I know the OS, and know where all the admin tools are
 - I have an 'upgrade' license and a full license of another valid OS
 - I know how to lock the OS down and make it 'secure'
 - It does well on the games that I want to play
 - I'm not giving MS any more of my money
 - Win2k won't decide to stop working if you add or remove hardware
 - Win2k doesn't have an "activate me or I won't work" feature

That last two points really burn me up.  I mean, fuck them.  Really. 
Activate indeed.

<Rant>
Since when does MS get to decide what the fuck I can do with my system?  So
I add RAM, add a DVD drive, and remove the older CD drive in favor of a
faster CDRW - suddenly Windows decides that it must be on another computer
and needs to be reactivated?!?!  Not kidding, this actually happened to
someoen I worked with.

Furthermore, why should I trust an OS that MS says tries to keep record of
all the software that gets installed on it, as well as digital media and
other content?  What to prevent that 'license manager' from breaking and
fucking up my media, my software, and my data?

Yes I know it can be cracked, but why should I spend my time trying to find
a way around MS's b0rken software?

Greedy motherfuckers....
</Rant>

-- 
Kurt                 " Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to flagellate 
kurt at k-huhn.com        myself with a soldering iron."
                                                   --Kris Kirby