Windows 2000 part II

[xyle_one]

umm. i really hate to say this. okay. here goes.
my 2000 machine at home is running like a champ. i have not crashed in a long time. and i let a render go using 100% resources for 259 hours and it didnt hiccup. can someone please point out what exactly is wrong with window 2000 (not microsoft the company, we all know they are fucked up, just this product). i feel dirty writing this post. think of this as arguments for debate over windows vs whatever.

dont get me wrong. i dont like microsoft or gates, but i find my arguments are getting kinda weak when i talk to my windows friend about the pros of unix.

[Ice-9]

Well, Win2K is easily the best version of Windows out there.
But the thing is, with each service pack and each update Microsoft tries to add the "XP functionalities" to Win2K (read spyware)

Just tell your friends to install a Firewall and watch Windows Explorer try to connect to the Web - wtf does Windows Explorer need to connect to Internet anyway?

My Win2K machine ran perfectly fine for 1 1/2 years, but it took me a lot of effort to keep it running fine, and a lot of tweaking to disable services which I first disabled and were re-enabled by a service pack (automatic updates, remote registry manipulation, etc ....)

Tell them to believe Microsoft when thery're doing a Windows Update and the message on the screen tells them "This is done without sending information to Microsoft"!
They even collect your information when you watch a movie or listen to an mp3 ffs!!

Who would feel safe, knowing Microsoft's history,  with Windows having remote registry manipulation enabled?

You don't know what Windows does nor when it does it

[ January 24, 2003: Message edited by: Ice9 ]

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by X11: Doing YA MUM:
http://voidmain.kicks-ass.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31

I dont get it, that link doesn't go to anywhere relating to this thread. is this a mistake or am i crazy?

[Stryker]

quote:Originally posted by Xyle: iGeek...:
umm. i really hate to say this. okay. here goes.
my 2000 machine at home is running like a champ. i have not crashed in a long time. and i let a render go using 100% resources for 259 hours and it didnt hiccup. can someone please point out what exactly is wrong with window 2000 (not microsoft the company, we all know they are fucked up, just this product). i feel dirty writing this post. think of this as arguments for debate over windows vs whatever.

dont get me wrong. i dont like microsoft or gates, but i find my arguments are getting kinda weak when i talk to my windows friend about the pros of unix.

It is possible to have a good working windows machine, it's just rare. but this won't last very long for you. eventually you will be forced to upgrade to be able to communicate effectively with other windows users. If you use office I wouldn't expect this to take very long. But I'm sure no matter how well windows may be running for you, something else will be better.

something doesn't have to be bad for something else to be better.

[ January 24, 2003: Message edited by: Stryker ]