From: "Rich Gauszka" 

I didn't mean to imply that.

If I were a business and I could look past vista's version of  wga, laptop
TPM/BitLocker drive encryption would seem quite beneficial. Something like
that should be mandatory for laptops with sensitive data

"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:456119c7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >I don't have any reason/wish  to migrate to a DRM os.
>
> That's certainly not why I'm running Vista either!
>
> --
> Bob Comer
>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:45610834{at}w3.nls.net...
>>I had thought of doing something like that. I also would like to test and
>>see if there are any difficulties using the Vista BCD store entries in a
>>non vm environment. I'll do it on a secondary pc to minimize any damage.
>>It's just a learning exercise as I don't have any reason/wish  to migrate
>>to a DRM os.
>>
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&arti
cleId=9005047&pageNumber=2
>> As Rosoff's statement implies, many of Vista's DRM technologies exist not
>> because Microsoft wanted them there; rather, they were developed at the
>> behest of movie studios, record labels and other high-powered
>> intellectual property owners.
>>
>>
>> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
>> news:4560fed0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>I keep XP and Vista totally separated and put them both on primary
>>>partitions. (so the boot managers don't see each other) and then boot
>>>between them via a utility that comes with bootmagic called pqboot32.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob Comer
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
>>> news:4560d52b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>I played with RC2 when I was building this PC now I'm about
ready to set
>>>>up a dual-boot XP/Vista setup  ( XP already installed ).  - keeping
>>>>fingers crossed that the Vista boot manager won't become a
boot mangler.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Robert Comer" 
wrote in message
>>>> news:4560bdb7$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>I run Ultimate.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bob Comer 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>>>>> news:456075b4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>> Which Vista?  ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Robert Comer"
 wrote in message
>>>>>> news:45606490$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>> Vista runs just fine in less than 1G...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's true it takes more machine than XP did,
but XP takes more
>>>>>>> machine than W2K does, as W2K takes machine than NT4 ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Geo"  wrote
in message news:455ff848{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>> "Adam"
<""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near the
bridge">
>>>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>>> message news:455dc888{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's bugger all diff till you get
to large memory requirements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have a large (many GB) database
you want to operate on in
>>>>>>>>> RAM?
>>>>>>>>> Are you doing nuclear simulation or
rendering massive graphics
>>>>>>>>> files?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well vista want's 2 gig just to run
acceptably, if you run the beta
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> next version of windows you probably need
64 bit just to load the
>>>>>>>> damn
>>>>>>>> graphics driver..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5