So, here's something to chew on...

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Masha Ku'Inann » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 08:23:51



So, under Windows 2000 Pro, i was merrily surfing along with 256M RAM, and
ICQ, AIM and Outlook Expres, and Livejournal's client running in the
background..

Went to start Musicmatch Jukebox, and things started to act odd..so, i
closed MM. Things were still acting odd. CTRL-ALT-DELETE, brought up the
"taskmanager" and found t he PID for Windows Explorer was using 95-100% CPU
time.

Time to kill it.

Clicked "Kill Process."

"Action denied."

What the *?..

Clicked it again.

"Action denied."

Grr..

Logged out of my non-admin user account, and tried as Administrator.

"Action denied."

Grr!!!..

Logged back into the non-admin account. Still had the same processes in the
background. Still frozen at 95-100% CPU time.

Now, I assume that Windows will refuse to let one disable things and turn
off things, to maintain system stability. But when you have a runaway
process like that, you've got to try to kill it, and restart it again,
right? I mean, under the UNIX world, I can always hit a keystroke, log into
another console, and ps all i like to find the runaway process, and kill it
by process id, log back out, and carry on my merry day, right?

I mean, rebooting is a sign of surrender, isn't it? When you've exhausted
everything you can think of, you reboot.

So, in so many words, I have an operating system that tells me "No, *,
you cannot do that because *I* know that if you disable that I will lock up,
crash, or grow unstable." Even though I realize the implications, and also
realized that it had already grown unstable, and found out what was burning
up CPU time.

Even though it was already unstable? I could not go in and try to remove
what was causing the problem, because my OS said it would not allow me to do
it?

At least with UNIX, there never is a question to whether or not your
computer will flat out refuse to do something that you tell it, as root. It
can question, but it will not refuse, to the best of my knowledge. It does
not assume to know more about what you need to do than you know. If you tell
it to do something boneheaded, by gosh, it will do exactly that.

I have never had to wrestle with a UNIX system because of simple problems. I
have never had to wonder if my computer will deny me access to something
because it felt it should not do such a thing. My only worry was because I
do not know UNIX enough, that I will type the wrong command and toast root.
Or /usr/sbin. or /usr anything. But that is because the fault would lie
squarely on my shoulders if something stupid were to happen.

So, I rebooted.

Uptime for Win2k Pro -- three hours.

-------------------------------------------------------
  Adrian Feliciano

         ***
  Do What thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
  Love is the law, love under will
        -Aleister Crowley

  Harm None
        -Wiccan Law

  As above, so below
        -Hermetic Philosophy
-------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Joel Barnet » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 09:37:25



Quote:> So, under Windows 2000 Pro, i was merrily surfing along with 256M RAM, and
> ICQ, AIM and Outlook Expres, and Livejournal's client running in the
> background..

> Went to start Musicmatch Jukebox, and things started to act odd..so, i
> closed MM. Things were still acting odd. CTRL-ALT-DELETE, brought up the
> "taskmanager" and found t he PID for Windows Explorer was using 95-100%
CPU
> time.

> Time to kill it.

> Clicked "Kill Process."

> "Action denied."

> What the *?..

> Clicked it again.

> "Action denied."

> Grr..

> Logged out of my non-admin user account, and tried as Administrator.

> "Action denied."

> Grr!!!..

> Logged back into the non-admin account. Still had the same processes in
the
> background. Still frozen at 95-100% CPU time.

> Now, I assume that Windows will refuse to let one disable things and turn
> off things, to maintain system stability. But when you have a runaway
> process like that, you've got to try to kill it, and restart it again,
> right? I mean, under the UNIX world, I can always hit a keystroke, log
into
> another console, and ps all i like to find the runaway process, and kill
it
> by process id, log back out, and carry on my merry day, right?

> I mean, rebooting is a sign of surrender, isn't it? When you've exhausted
> everything you can think of, you reboot.

> So, in so many words, I have an operating system that tells me "No,
*,
> you cannot do that because *I* know that if you disable that I will lock
up,
> crash, or grow unstable." Even though I realize the implications, and also
> realized that it had already grown unstable, and found out what was
burning
> up CPU time.

> Even though it was already unstable? I could not go in and try to remove
> what was causing the problem, because my OS said it would not allow me to
do
> it?

> At least with UNIX, there never is a question to whether or not your
> computer will flat out refuse to do something that you tell it, as root.
It
> can question, but it will not refuse, to the best of my knowledge. It does
> not assume to know more about what you need to do than you know. If you
tell
> it to do something boneheaded, by gosh, it will do exactly that.

> I have never had to wrestle with a UNIX system because of simple problems.
I
> have never had to wonder if my computer will deny me access to something
> because it felt it should not do such a thing. My only worry was because I
> do not know UNIX enough, that I will type the wrong command and toast
root.
> Or /usr/sbin. or /usr anything. But that is because the fault would lie
> squarely on my shoulders if something stupid were to happen.

> So, I rebooted.

> Uptime for Win2k Pro -- three hours.

If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k sucks", I
guess you came to the right place.

jbarntt

- Show quoted text -

> -------------------------------------------------------
>   Adrian Feliciano

>          ***
>   Do What thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
>   Love is the law, love under will
>         -Aleister Crowley

>   Harm None
>         -Wiccan Law

>   As above, so below
>         -Hermetic Philosophy
> -------------------------------------------------------


 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Reefe » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 10:23:20


[SNIP]

blablablabla....

[/SNIP]

Trolling...and a bad one to...

> -------------------------------------------------------
>   Adrian Feliciano

>          ***
>   Do What thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
>   Love is the law, love under will
>         -Aleister Crowley

>   Harm None
>         -Wiccan Law

>   As above, so below
>         -Hermetic Philosophy
> -------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Ray Chaso » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:57:20



>If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
>alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
>something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k sucks", I
>guess you came to the right place.

But isn't Windoze supposed to be the OS that doesn't require you to RTFM?

--
 --------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
         PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
                            Delenda est Windoze

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Bryant Charleston, MCS » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 13:12:28


Cold boot time, buddy! :-(


> So, under Windows 2000 Pro, i was merrily surfing along with 256M RAM, and
> ICQ, AIM and Outlook Expres, and Livejournal's client running in the
> background..

> Went to start Musicmatch Jukebox, and things started to act odd..so, i
> closed MM. Things were still acting odd. CTRL-ALT-DELETE, brought up the
> "taskmanager" and found t he PID for Windows Explorer was using 95-100%
CPU
> time.

> Time to kill it.

> Clicked "Kill Process."

> "Action denied."

> What the *?..

> Clicked it again.

> "Action denied."

> Grr..

> Logged out of my non-admin user account, and tried as Administrator.

> "Action denied."

> Grr!!!..

> Logged back into the non-admin account. Still had the same processes in
the
> background. Still frozen at 95-100% CPU time.

> Now, I assume that Windows will refuse to let one disable things and turn
> off things, to maintain system stability. But when you have a runaway
> process like that, you've got to try to kill it, and restart it again,
> right? I mean, under the UNIX world, I can always hit a keystroke, log
into
> another console, and ps all i like to find the runaway process, and kill
it
> by process id, log back out, and carry on my merry day, right?

> I mean, rebooting is a sign of surrender, isn't it? When you've exhausted
> everything you can think of, you reboot.

> So, in so many words, I have an operating system that tells me "No,
*,
> you cannot do that because *I* know that if you disable that I will lock
up,
> crash, or grow unstable." Even though I realize the implications, and also
> realized that it had already grown unstable, and found out what was
burning
> up CPU time.

> Even though it was already unstable? I could not go in and try to remove
> what was causing the problem, because my OS said it would not allow me to
do
> it?

> At least with UNIX, there never is a question to whether or not your
> computer will flat out refuse to do something that you tell it, as root.
It
> can question, but it will not refuse, to the best of my knowledge. It does
> not assume to know more about what you need to do than you know. If you
tell
> it to do something boneheaded, by gosh, it will do exactly that.

> I have never had to wrestle with a UNIX system because of simple problems.
I
> have never had to wonder if my computer will deny me access to something
> because it felt it should not do such a thing. My only worry was because I
> do not know UNIX enough, that I will type the wrong command and toast
root.
> Or /usr/sbin. or /usr anything. But that is because the fault would lie
> squarely on my shoulders if something stupid were to happen.

> So, I rebooted.

> Uptime for Win2k Pro -- three hours.

> -------------------------------------------------------
>   Adrian Feliciano

>          ***
>   Do What thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
>   Love is the law, love under will
>         -Aleister Crowley

>   Harm None
>         -Wiccan Law

>   As above, so below
>         -Hermetic Philosophy
> -------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Aaron Kulki » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 13:24:42





> > So, under Windows 2000 Pro, i was merrily surfing along with 256M RAM, and
> > ICQ, AIM and Outlook Expres, and Livejournal's client running in the
> > background..

> > Went to start Musicmatch Jukebox, and things started to act odd..so, i
> > closed MM. Things were still acting odd. CTRL-ALT-DELETE, brought up the
> > "taskmanager" and found t he PID for Windows Explorer was using 95-100%
> CPU
> > time.

> > Time to kill it.

> > Clicked "Kill Process."

> > "Action denied."

> > What the *?..

> > Clicked it again.

> > "Action denied."

> > Grr..

> > Logged out of my non-admin user account, and tried as Administrator.

> > "Action denied."

> > Grr!!!..

> > Logged back into the non-admin account. Still had the same processes in
> the
> > background. Still frozen at 95-100% CPU time.

> > Now, I assume that Windows will refuse to let one disable things and turn
> > off things, to maintain system stability. But when you have a runaway
> > process like that, you've got to try to kill it, and restart it again,
> > right? I mean, under the UNIX world, I can always hit a keystroke, log
> into
> > another console, and ps all i like to find the runaway process, and kill
> it
> > by process id, log back out, and carry on my merry day, right?

> > I mean, rebooting is a sign of surrender, isn't it? When you've exhausted
> > everything you can think of, you reboot.

> > So, in so many words, I have an operating system that tells me "No,
> *,
> > you cannot do that because *I* know that if you disable that I will lock
> up,
> > crash, or grow unstable." Even though I realize the implications, and also
> > realized that it had already grown unstable, and found out what was
> burning
> > up CPU time.

> > Even though it was already unstable? I could not go in and try to remove
> > what was causing the problem, because my OS said it would not allow me to
> do
> > it?

> > At least with UNIX, there never is a question to whether or not your
> > computer will flat out refuse to do something that you tell it, as root.
> It
> > can question, but it will not refuse, to the best of my knowledge. It does
> > not assume to know more about what you need to do than you know. If you
> tell
> > it to do something boneheaded, by gosh, it will do exactly that.

> > I have never had to wrestle with a UNIX system because of simple problems.
> I
> > have never had to wonder if my computer will deny me access to something
> > because it felt it should not do such a thing. My only worry was because I
> > do not know UNIX enough, that I will type the wrong command and toast
> root.
> > Or /usr/sbin. or /usr anything. But that is because the fault would lie
> > squarely on my shoulders if something stupid were to happen.

> > So, I rebooted.

> > Uptime for Win2k Pro -- three hours.

> If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
> something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k sucks", I
> guess you came to the right place.

Translation:
Windows is just as difficult to administrate as Unix,
without the benefit of system stability.

--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642

K: Truth in advertising:
        Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
        Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
        Special Interest Sierra Club,
        Anarchist Members of the ACLU
        Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
        The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
        Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,

J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
   The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
   also known as old hags who've hit the wall....

I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
   challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
   between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
   Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole

H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
    premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
    you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
    you are lazy, stupid people"

G:  Knackos...you're a retard.

F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
   *ery while concurrently committing *ery with Tammy Hahn.

E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
   her behavior improves.

D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
   ...despite (C) above.

C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.

B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
   method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
   direction that she doesn't like.

A:  The wise man is mocked by fools.

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Joel Barnet » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 16:02:13




> >If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> >alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
> >something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
> >sucks", I guess you came to the right place.

> But isn't Windoze supposed to be the OS that doesn't require you to RTFM?

No matter what OS you use, you should read the manual.

jbarntt

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Joel Barnet » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 16:17:25







<snip lengthy diatribe against W2k>

Quote:

> > If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> > alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to
> > do something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
> > sucks", I guess you came to the right place.

> Translation:
> Windows is just as difficult to administrate as Unix,
> without the benefit of system stability.

Better translation:
AK likes *nix OSen, dislikes MS OSen, therefore (erroneously) concludes
that *nix OSen are better than MS OSen. Of course the conclusion does
follow if we redefine 'better' to mean 'what AK likes'.

jbarntt

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Perry P » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 16:27:36


On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:02:13 -0800,




>> >If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
>> >alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
>> >something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
>> >sucks", I guess you came to the right place.

Why don't you tell us what he should have done and what "help" he
would have gotten on alt.os.windows2000 other that being told to
reboot. It seems an offending process was eating 95-100% CPU and
Windows simply wouldn't let him kill it.

Quote:

>> But isn't Windoze supposed to be the OS that doesn't require you to RTFM?

>No matter what OS you use, you should read the manual.

With Win2K you have to pay extra for decent documention, and you still
don't have access to the OS internals. A sad story for an OS already costs
more, is less stable, and is at least as difficult to administer.
 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Aaron Kulki » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 16:38:10







> <snip lengthy diatribe against W2k>

> > > If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> > > alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to
> > > do something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
> > > sucks", I guess you came to the right place.

> > Translation:
> > Windows is just as difficult to administrate as Unix,
> > without the benefit of system stability.

> Better translation:
> AK likes *nix OSen, dislikes MS OSen, therefore (erroneously) concludes
> that *nix OSen are better than MS OSen. Of course the conclusion does
> follow if we redefine 'better' to mean 'what AK likes'.

I've used DOZENS of different operating systems (non-Unix)

Microsoft is not merely at the bottom of the heap...it's down in the sewer.

Quote:

> jbarntt

--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642

K: Truth in advertising:
        Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
        Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
        Special Interest Sierra Club,
        Anarchist Members of the ACLU
        Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
        The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
        Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,

J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
   The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
   also known as old hags who've hit the wall....

I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
   challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
   between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
   Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole

H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
    premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
    you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
    you are lazy, stupid people"

G:  Knackos...you're a retard.

F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
   *ery while concurrently committing *ery with Tammy Hahn.

E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
   her behavior improves.

D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
   ...despite (C) above.

C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.

B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
   method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
   direction that she doesn't like.

A:  The wise man is mocked by fools.

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Masha Ku'Inann » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:11:23


<snip>

Quote:> If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
> something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k sucks",
I
> guess you came to the right place.

> jbarntt
> Better translation:
> AK likes *nix OSen, dislikes MS OSen, therefore (erroneously) concludes
> that *nix OSen are better than MS OSen. Of course the conclusion does
> follow if we redefine 'better' to mean 'what AK likes'.

> jbarntt

Actually, they both have their pros and cons, as i use them both (obviously,
since I am on Outlook Express with this posting). I just find it amazing
that for an expensive OS, there is such a lack of complete and total control
given to the user/administrator where on one that most pro-Windows users
feel is "70's based technology" there is a greater sense of control over
more minute aspects of the OS, including the option to disable what you
will, consequences be damned.

I like one for its so-called "multimedia" aspects (right now I am converting
a few CD's to mp3 format) and over all game playability, but would NEVER
trust it in something as simple as word-processing, or IM'ing, or posting to
Livejournal -- at the same time -- regardless of "mission-critical" work or
not. How can it be considered "multitasking" when the very act can often
times cripple the entire system?

Hell, I miss my old Amiga. :>

Frustration between both OS's keeps me looking at other ways to accomplish
said tasks. I like Windows for its overall useability for someone not used
to a CLI, but abhor its so-called "rock solid stability." Especially when it
simply cannot compare to the stability and control that a free OS gives
anyone willing to tackle it on its own terms -- a formidable learning
curve -- to someone trying to wean himself from the GUI.

Day by day, I trust myself with UNIX more and more, and day by day I grow
less and less dependant on Microsoft in that growing trust. I am pretty
proud of the level I have reached in that regard, considering I have had no
real "mentoring" in UNIX, no CompSci background, hardly the patience to deal
with "multivariate calculus" and would rather write poetry in my spare time
than hash out scripting in bash or Perl. I have a stack of reference books,
and a *load of time behind me. That's it.

Is posting about that sort of frustration to a Linux/UNIX advocacy group
"trolling" when it was meant to point out one person's belief in the
technical superiority of an OS, especially from someone not so technically
inclined and one trying to learn better, in order to one day run FAT free?

I believe both systems have their merits, and for some, particularly for
Microsoft's attempt, it just does not live up to the hype surrounding it,
when you compare it to the sense of stability and control you are given with
an OS that is considered rooted (pun intended) in "passe" technology. To buy
into that marketted notion is completely beyond me, at this point, and
looking at things from a UNIX perspective, I cannot grasp how so many people
can be fooled by one company that is 75% hype, and maybe 20% delivery with
5% credibility -- at best.

It truly MUST be cool to be fooled.

Desktop/server "supremacy" debates aside, I'm more than ready and willing to
give Linux and/or FreeBSD my endor*t as a superior product to
Microsoft's offering anyday, feature for feature, but obviously from one not
so technically-inclined -- but does my lack of "technical" expertise in
their operations lend less credibility to that opinion?

FreeBSD and Linux users seem, in general, to be caught up in the whole
"cliquish" mentality that seems to further frustrate users looking go FAT
free. Or the whole "members-only" mentality that seems to crop up whenever
someone's "alternative" suddenly is becoming more and more visible, and
accepted by a greater number of people.

Generally the discussion tone here has been ridiculously amusing, but from
time to time, there is just this incredible sense of pretention that is
incredibly overbearing, from a few (drug innnuendo aside) tragically-named
people.

It's a shame, sometimes, that what is seen by the public as a niche-OS has
people within the community of that very OS who'd prefer to see it remain a
niche-OS, just because they cannot stand to see anyone else interested in an
OS that they feel should remain "theirs".

Still, the overall level of intelligent and spirited debate in this place
beats most pro-Microsoft sites anyday. :>

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Karel Jansen » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 19:38:50



> [SNIP]

> blablablabla....

> [/SNIP]

> Trolling...and a bad one to...

Please look up the definition of "trolling".

--
Regards,

Karel Jansens
]]]  "Go go gadget linux!" Zzzooommm!!  [[[

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Karel Jansen » Sat, 03 Mar 2001 19:36:56



> If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
> something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k sucks",
> I guess you came to the right place.

Yes, he did come to the right place:  A post about the shortcomings of
Windows, compared to linux, posted to c.o.l.a. (no crosspostings detected
AFAIK) and no cry for help.

That's a nice piece of (negative) advocacy, if I may say so.

Now, if he had posted this to one of the Windows fora, it would have been a
different story alltogether.

--
Regards,

Karel Jansens
]]]  "Go go gadget linux!" Zzzooommm!!  [[[

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Brent » Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:10:27





> > >If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> > >alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
> > >something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
> > >sucks", I guess you came to the right place.

> > But isn't Windoze supposed to be the OS that doesn't require you to RTFM?

> No matter what OS you use, you should read the manual.

But, with Windows, TINFM. There Is No Fscking Manual. When you buy a MS
product (which I don't know anyone who has), all you get is a giant box
with one CD and a tiny little pamphlet telling you how to cut and paste.
It hardly let's someone go to the depth that they may desire.

--
Happy Trails!

-Brent

http://rotten168.home.att.net

 
 
 

So, here's something to chew on...

Post by Craig Kelle » Sun, 04 Mar 2001 01:02:43



> So, under Windows 2000 Pro, i was merrily surfing along with 256M RAM, and
> ICQ, AIM and Outlook Expres, and Livejournal's client running in the
> background..

> Went to start Musicmatch Jukebox, and things started to act odd..so, i
> closed MM. Things were still acting odd. CTRL-ALT-DELETE, brought up the
> "taskmanager" and found t he PID for Windows Explorer was using 95-100% CPU
> time.

> Time to kill it.

> Clicked "Kill Process."

> "Action denied."

NT has the (imho, mistaken) VMS-like notion that the human using the
computer it too stupid to be allowed to do certain things.  There is a
user known as SYSTEM that owns many processes and files.  The
Administrator user is in a rung *below* the SYSTEM user, and cannot do
anything that the SYSTEM user does not explicitly allow them to do.

It's *really* fun when you're playing with beta database systems and
their services frequently go bonkers, because the SYSTEM user (in it's
infinite wisdom) won't allow you to stop the service because you're
too stupid to use a computer (obviously, at least to Dave Cutler
anyway).  Many such services allow you to start the service as a
different user, but many don't allow the same thing.

Things like this made me quit using Windows.  That IE now runs with
SYSTEM privileges is just plain funny; I suppose that's the price you
pay for all that innovative *integration* that they keep yamming on
about.

--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.