WinXP - or not?

At the last computer show I was ready to get my WinXP CD, when someone next
to me mentioned, that with all Windows Systems, except 'Win2000', there
would be a refusal to reinstall in case of a crash. For that specific reason
the Europeans (Germans) adopted the free Linux System instead and, happily
so. Does this reflect reality?
I already have the CD for the Linux System, to be installed on a single and
seperate 80GB HD.
Would or should I want more?

Harry.

Hello, webster72n!

I have decided a long time ago that should I ever need to replace my WinME
pc, I'll simply opt for a barebone kit (no O/S) and plop in Ubuntu. I've
played with Ubuntu long enough to see that it will do everything I need. I
have one XP pc (an eMachines), but I have it primarily ONLY to support
Quickbooks.


You wrote on Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:22:25 -0400:

w At the last computer show I was ready to get my WinXP CD, when
w someone next to me mentioned, that with all Windows Systems, except
w 'Win2000', there would be a refusal to reinstall in case of a crash.
w For that specific reason the Europeans (Germans) adopted the free
w Linux System instead and, happily so. Does this reflect reality?
w I already have the CD for the Linux System, to be installed on a
w single and seperate 80GB HD.
w Would or should I want more?

webster72n wrote:
At the last computer show I was ready to get my WinXP CD, when someone next
to me mentioned, that with all Windows Systems, except 'Win2000', there
would be a refusal to reinstall in case of a crash.

Not true. You can reinstall XP as many times as you like. You can also
update the hardware as much as you like. It's the best thing MS has done
so far, including Vista. That said, XP may not be sold in many places
soon so get a copy while you can.

For that specific reason
the Europeans (Germans) adopted the free Linux System instead and, happily
so. Does this reflect reality?

I have one computer with XP Pro on one hard drive and Ubuntu on another
hard drive. Best of both worlds :-)

I already have the CD for the Linux System, to be installed on a single and
seperate 80GB HD.
Would or should I want more?

Harry.

Depends what you want to do with the computer.

Alias

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:22:25 -0400, "webster72n"

At the last computer show I was ready to get my WinXP CD, when someone next
to me mentioned, that with all Windows Systems, except 'Win2000', there
would be a refusal to reinstall in case of a crash. For that specific reason
the Europeans (Germans) adopted the free Linux System instead and, happily
so. Does this reflect reality?

Nope. Product Activation requires MS's servers or human services to
be available to nod you through the process within 30 days of
installation, and is unlikely to be refused in XP; with Vista, YMMV.

I don't think this is the (only) reason they went with Linux rather
than Windows, though it is a good one (what happens if no MS services
or servers are available?).

At the level of competing and potentially conflicting states and
multi-national corporations, the commercial closed-source model
becomes a problem when the original code has to be left open for
vendor-driven updates.

Normally, you'd verify open-source sware by inspeacting the source
before compiling it, and you'd verify closed-source sware by observing
its behavior in a well-boxed test environment before use.

This becomes difficult when the code base is expected to be updated by
the vendor in real time, under threat of exploitation of unpatched
defects. You are in effect expected to give the vendor blank-cheque
trust, which would be inappropriate at the level of states and
competing corporations.

For anything below this level, the issue doesn't apply as much,
because below this level, you're unlikely to have the resources needed
to review source code or do closed-box pre-deployment testing.

In particular, if I were using these OSs for defense force
infrastructure, I'd want the ability to install the OS without any
Internet connection (possible with XP but impossible with IE 7),
without any dependency on 3rd-parties (impossible in XP, in view of
phone activation) and without being chained to particular OEMs.

The only way XP can approach that is via the large organization
license model, which mimics large OEM in that there's no activation.
But I'd still have to be online to install IE 7, and when patching
support for IE 6 ends, that is going to be a problem, particularly
since HTML is so internally pervasive and IE can't be ripped out.

Really, for those purposes (e.g. military-grade use), you want to own
your own source code; anything short of that is negligence IMO.



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke:
This detailed explanation surely is helpful, given the amount of wrong or
distorted information floating around these days.
Thanks for the insight.

Harry.

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:22:25 -0400, "webster72n"

At the last computer show I was ready to get my WinXP CD, when someone
next
to me mentioned, that with all Windows Systems, except 'Win2000', there
would be a refusal to reinstall in case of a crash. For that specific
reason
the Europeans (Germans) adopted the free Linux System instead and,
happily
so. Does this reflect reality?

Nope. Product Activation requires MS's servers or human services to
be available to nod you through the process within 30 days of
installation, and is unlikely to be refused in XP; with Vista, YMMV.

I don't think this is the (only) reason they went with Linux rather
than Windows, though it is a good one (what happens if no MS services
or servers are available?).

At the level of competing and potentially conflicting states and
multi-national corporations, the commercial closed-source model
becomes a problem when the original code has to be left open for
vendor-driven updates.

Normally, you'd verify open-source sware by inspeacting the source
before compiling it, and you'd verify closed-source sware by observing
its behavior in a well-boxed test environment before use.

This becomes difficult when the code base is expected to be updated by
the vendor in real time, under threat of exploitation of unpatched
defects. You are in effect expected to give the vendor blank-cheque
trust, which would be inappropriate at the level of states and
competing corporations.

For anything below this level, the issue doesn't apply as much,
because below this level, you're unlikely to have the resources needed
to review source code or do closed-box pre-deployment testing.

In particular, if I were using these OSs for defense force
infrastructure, I'd want the ability to install the OS without any
Internet connection (possible with XP but impossible with IE 7),
without any dependency on 3rd-parties (impossible in XP, in view of
phone activation) and without being chained to particular OEMs.

The only way XP can approach that is via the large organization
license model, which mimics large OEM in that there's no activation.
But I'd still have to be online to install IE 7, and when patching
support for IE 6 ends, that is going to be a problem, particularly
since HTML is so internally pervasive and IE can't be ripped out.

Really, for those purposes (e.g. military-grade use), you want to own
your own source code; anything short of that is negligence IMO.



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Quirke, you have hit upon other rational reasons for what Germany did, I
think. That is requiring at least 50% of the countries computers run an
alternate system. Expensive, shaking out the alternates, but fairly quick if
you've got the whole country testing them.
I feel very certain the 16 flight control computers on the B-2 are
proprietary and likely all the other ones. It would be stupid indeed to give
the enemy a head start on breaking the system by letting them know the OS.
It would just be a matter of time before they come up with some method bad
for us. Russians listening to us for years before we figured out they were
doing it by the sound pressures against the walls. And even a backwards
country like Vietnam. It was not until many years after that war ended that
they decided the McCain incident aboard the Forrestal was because of high
intensity pulses aimed at the ship. They caused the circuitry to ignite a
missile aboard his A-4 and damn near sent the carrier to the bottom.
But beside the defense reasons, I strongly suspect their legislators was
looking at the line item of how much they were paying the MSGOD.
Norman
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:22:25 -0400, "webster72n"

At the last computer show I was ready to get my WinXP CD, when someone
next
to me mentioned, that with all Windows Systems, except 'Win2000', there
would be a refusal to reinstall in case of a crash. For that specific
reason
the Europeans (Germans) adopted the free Linux System instead and,
happily
so. Does this reflect reality?

Nope. Product Activation requires MS's servers or human services to
be available to nod you through the process within 30 days of
installation, and is unlikely to be refused in XP; with Vista, YMMV.

I don't think this is the (only) reason they went with Linux rather
than Windows, though it is a good one (what happens if no MS services
or servers are available?).

At the level of competing and potentially conflicting states and
multi-national corporations, the commercial closed-source model
becomes a problem when the original code has to be left open for
vendor-driven updates.

Normally, you'd verify open-source sware by inspeacting the source
before compiling it, and you'd verify closed-source sware by observing
its behavior in a well-boxed test environment before use.

This becomes difficult when the code base is expected to be updated by
the vendor in real time, under threat of exploitation of unpatched
defects. You are in effect expected to give the vendor blank-cheque
trust, which would be inappropriate at the level of states and
competing corporations.

For anything below this level, the issue doesn't apply as much,
because below this level, you're unlikely to have the resources needed
to review source code or do closed-box pre-deployment testing.

In particular, if I were using these OSs for defense force
infrastructure, I'd want the ability to install the OS without any
Internet connection (possible with XP but impossible with IE 7),
without any dependency on 3rd-parties (impossible in XP, in view of
phone activation) and without being chained to particular OEMs.

The only way XP can approach that is via the large organization
license model, which mimics large OEM in that there's no activation.
But I'd still have to be online to install IE 7, and when patching
support for IE 6 ends, that is going to be a problem, particularly
since HTML is so internally pervasive and IE can't be ripped out.

Really, for those purposes (e.g. military-grade use), you want to own
your own source code; anything short of that is negligence IMO.



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 08:10:35 -0400, "Norman"

Quirke, you have hit upon other rational reasons for what Germany did, I
think. That is requiring at least 50% of the countries computers run an
alternate system. Expensive, shaking out the alternates, but fairly quick if
you've got the whole country testing them.

It's also quite a good solution if you are low in cash and need to
build internal skills, tho it's also a bit of a gamble in case the
results just don't work well enough.

I feel very certain the 16 flight control computers on the B-2 are
proprietary and likely all the other ones. It would be stupid indeed to give
the enemy a head start on breaking the system by letting them know the OS.

Yep. IT's really been a significant part of conflicts since the Nazis
relied on "unbreakable" Enigma machines, through guerilla use of
Iridium mobile phones, to the hi-tech matter of whether your AI can
mask you from getting whacked.

I remember reading the Soviets were using valves for thier fighter's
radar and avionics, and wondered how these fragile glass things would
hold up in a vibrating environment. Then again, fat 350VDC signals
are more likely to shrug off nuke radiation noise than 5V TTL, and
it's not as if there's a power shortage to drive the stuff ;-)

But beside the defense reasons, I strongly suspect their legislators was
looking at the line item of how much they were paying the MSGOD.

There's that, too; large-scale royalties (e.g. if MS were to adopt
..PDF) and license fees (e.g. to equip a national infrastructure with
Windows) start to rival in-house development in costs - and in-house
development means skills and jobs, which is good.

Factor in a language barrier, potential continent- and/or
language-wide exports, and significant commercial competition (e.g.
Airbus vs. Boeing) and it begins to make more sense.

There's always been a suspicion that ostensibly "military"
intelligence resources may be used for trade espionage. One wonders
what was going on in that downed EWACS (?) in China... you can also
guess at the possible political levers, e.g. "show us a peacetime
benefit, and your security budget requests may go through".



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Haven't read all this, Chris. But I just want to say I recently tried IE7 -
for the first time since deciding the beta was awful. ANd I think the final
version is awful! Thankfully this new machine is fast enough that FF loads
much more quickly than it did on the lat one - though I'm also trialling
Opera. Good god though, IE7 is weak!


Shane


cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:22:25 -0400, "webster72n"

At the last computer show I was ready to get my WinXP CD, when
someone next to me mentioned, that with all Windows Systems, except
'Win2000', there would be a refusal to reinstall in case of a crash.
For that specific reason the Europeans (Germans) adopted the free
Linux System instead and, happily so. Does this reflect reality?

Nope. Product Activation requires MS's servers or human services to
be available to nod you through the process within 30 days of
installation, and is unlikely to be refused in XP; with Vista, YMMV.

I don't think this is the (only) reason they went with Linux rather
than Windows, though it is a good one (what happens if no MS services
or servers are available?).

At the level of competing and potentially conflicting states and
multi-national corporations, the commercial closed-source model
becomes a problem when the original code has to be left open for
vendor-driven updates.

Normally, you'd verify open-source sware by inspeacting the source
before compiling it, and you'd verify closed-source sware by observing
its behavior in a well-boxed test environment before use.

This becomes difficult when the code base is expected to be updated by
the vendor in real time, under threat of exploitation of unpatched
defects. You are in effect expected to give the vendor blank-cheque
trust, which would be inappropriate at the level of states and
competing corporations.

For anything below this level, the issue doesn't apply as much,
because below this level, you're unlikely to have the resources needed
to review source code or do closed-box pre-deployment testing.

In particular, if I were using these OSs for defense force
infrastructure, I'd want the ability to install the OS without any
Internet connection (possible with XP but impossible with IE 7),
without any dependency on 3rd-parties (impossible in XP, in view of
phone activation) and without being chained to particular OEMs.

The only way XP can approach that is via the large organization
license model, which mimics large OEM in that there's no activation.
But I'd still have to be online to install IE 7, and when patching
support for IE 6 ends, that is going to be a problem, particularly
since HTML is so internally pervasive and IE can't be ripped out.

Really, for those purposes (e.g. military-grade use), you want to own
your own source code; anything short of that is negligence IMO.



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:15:08 +0100, "Shane"

Haven't read all this, Chris. But I just want to say I recently tried IE7 -
for the first time since deciding the beta was awful. ANd I think the final
version is awful! Thankfully this new machine is fast enough that FF loads
much more quickly than it did on the lat one - though I'm also trialling
Opera. Good god though, IE7 is weak!

What's awful about IE 7, i.e. what defects do you see in it?

BTW, prolly not yet relevant in an age before we use DEP for 3rd-party
apps, but still... the way the Opera executable is built, precents DEP
from working with it, and (here's the catch) XP will silently exclude
it from DEP protection even if you set DEP to apply to "everything
unless I add as exception" (and here's the really crappy catch 2)
without displaying it as an excepted app in the list.

For an edge-facing app, this is rather bad news, because you'd expect
a non-excepted Opera to have DEP protection under the above
circumstances, and it (silently) lacks that protection.

But please - do let us know what's bad in IE 7, as so far it's been
working well for me. I'd really hate to go back to a one-lung browser
like IE 6, ever again - MDI as tabbed browsing is a must-have, IMO.



---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:15:08 +0100, "Shane"

Haven't read all this, Chris. But I just want to say I recently
tried IE7 - for the first time since deciding the beta was awful.
ANd I think the final version is awful! Thankfully this new machine
is fast enough that FF loads much more quickly than it did on the
lat one - though I'm also trialling Opera. Good god though, IE7 is
weak!

What's awful about IE 7, i.e. what defects do you see in it?

BTW, prolly not yet relevant in an age before we use DEP for 3rd-party
apps, but still... the way the Opera executable is built, precents DEP
from working with it, and (here's the catch) XP will silently exclude
it from DEP protection even if you set DEP to apply to "everything
unless I add as exception" (and here's the really crappy catch 2)
without displaying it as an excepted app in the list.

For an edge-facing app, this is rather bad news, because you'd expect
a non-excepted Opera to have DEP protection under the above
circumstances, and it (silently) lacks that protection.

But please - do let us know what's bad in IE 7, as so far it's been
working well for me. I'd really hate to go back to a one-lung browser
like IE 6, ever again - MDI as tabbed browsing is a must-have, IMO.


I'll get back to you later on this, Chris. But to generalise I think it's an
attempt to do what FF does but FF does it much better. Yes, I agree about
tabbed browsing. I use FF, then IE7, and I go back to FF and think the IE7
implementation is a joke by comparison. I used to use IE6 more because FF
started too slowly, but now I have a faster machine and it's more bearable.
So I use IE6 for Windows Update only - which anyhow I'm just about to stop
using because I've had the WGA BS up to virtual 'here'. I'll get the Sec Ups
from the Corporate site or Technet and sod the rest. MS are about on a par
with Symantec, I reckon, as far as producing snake oil made from crap goes,
anyway, and I want no more of it.

Shane