>>55
No, I actually use a heavily tuned version of Windows 2000 (legal BTW) as my primary OS.
>>56
With this statement you show your ignorance or bad intentions. It's a terrible security policy (security by obscuring, and security the one in charge of a computer can't control or override) which is bad for everyone including corporations; it's a violation of several rights which is bad for everyone including corporations (although bullshit lawyers don't seem to care for this one); it's a lame obstacle and a pain in the arse for developers and techs - the ones who matter most as they are writing the software everyone else uses; and it's crappy and unfair especially for the legit home user who does nothing wrong and is still controlled, slowed down, and disturbed by all this shit.
microsoft just wants a dream machine who will only run "trustworthy software", as in "microsoft software" and "digital rights infringement". Everything else is "unsafe". Maybe this model is fine for worthless lusers who may very well get a simple box to run Windows XP and browse their interweb with MSIE. But you can't do this to PCs. PCs are used for much, much more than this luser bullshit, and just because the world is full of lusers who make up for 60% of users, we can't fag up PCs and screw the rest. You know why? Because the ones doing software - including that shitty MSIE you love to use - NEED a real computer without that microsoft shit (tm) to work.
If you can't see this, your opinion in this thread is worth nothing, gb2/partners.microsoft.com and enjoy your security. (We all know microsoft was always famous for their strong, well thought security policies and reliability, so it must be trusted the security of every computer in the world.)