In article ,
10 says...
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 10:35:08 -0400, krw wrote:

In article .com,
says...

Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:32:39 -0700, "Jim McLaughlin" jim.mclaughlin
wrote:

Lots of folks have no use for XP.


I started avoiding XP before if became available, when I heard about
the "product activation" unfeature which gives MS ultimate control
over your OS. I never wanted to get dependant on such a thing.

Since then, I've found various other reasons not to use XP.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

I dragged my feet on XP for a long time, for similar reasons, i.e.
microsoft's real power grab of your machine via XP. In the end when I
did upgrade (the cheapo old dell described previously) i was happy, in
that it cured numerous bugs and memory leaks i was seeing with 98.

I wish I could have stayed with Win2K. It's far better than XP.
Win98 sucked. In fact the whole Win9x line was garbage.

At least they were better than 3.x (and DOS 4, if you want thinks that
suck).

But it *wasn't* better than OS/2.

I wouldn't
use any of them on a bet. Win2K was the only OS from M$ I've been
happy with.

Why couldn't you stay with w2k? If you're thinking of a new computer,
the first thing I do is reformat and install 2k (that is after getting
a suitable driver for the on-board NIC).

New laptop. It's flaky enough without being out on a ledge on my
own with Win2K.

--
Keith