[NoStop]

Leythos wrote:

> What type of machine? Have you tried Fedora Core 3?
>
The guy's an idiot. Send your 14 year old son over to help him out. He's
been spewing ad nausea that Linux isn't ready for the desktop because HE IS
UNABLE TO INSTALL IT ... actually to get a LIVE CD working on his system.

--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Legal Notice And Disclaimer:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/legal.html

[NoStop]

kurttrail wrote:

> Leythos wrote:

> Linux is a very good server OS. As a multimedia OS, it is a child.
>
You're so full of shit, you're turning brown. MythTV has been around longer
than your beloved Windows Multimedia OS, and can do as much and I'm sure
better than Windoze.

> Most average users would be able to do as much with Linux as they can
> with Windows, but that will change. MS's monopoly days are numbered,
> but not over with yet.
>
If MS's monopoly had anything to do with either its innovation or quality of
its products, it would have been gone a long time ago. It's monopoly is due
ONLY to its marketing muscle and the way it has held computer distributors
at ransom forcing them to package that bastardized system with every PC
they sell.

I told you the other day to read the history, but I see that you're unable
to even do that ...

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

You're just a blowhart that fires off with your little mind, and doesn't
have a clue about what you're talking about.



--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Legal Notice And Disclaimer:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/legal.html

[BNR]

> Is that true?

The truth is out there.

Got SP2's supplemental EULA a few minutes ago. I like this part, Mike:

"...YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA."

Its so nice of Microsoft to shout in my face that I have no rights, isn't
it? I find this part deeply disturbing, aswell:

"The OS Software and OS Components include features described below that are
enabled by default to connect via the Internet to Microsoft computer systems
automatically, without separate notice to you."

The only people I allow to connect to, w/o a notice ot me, is my ISP. Also,
it appears that Windows Messenger is not permitted to be turned off. Which
they said it could be, in this EULA. But I can't actually turn msmsgs.exe
off... *HELP*

[Alias]

"T. Waters" <@$%$%#^@jdjgkl.com> wrote

> Violent people do need to be "put somewhere." The problem is, we do not at
> this time have a place other than prisons for the criminally insane (which
> have limited space) and regular prisons.

That's because the prisons are filled with drug users, inordinate long
sentences and people who steal because they're hungry. California's three
strike draconian laws come to mind.

Alias

[Leythos]

In article <6q88819hpulbbqu0v8qr033mvt2klmj4bv@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> Do you not understand what "monopoly" is?

Yes, I do, clearly.

> I never wrote that it's impossible to create a compatible
> document, but your ideas about "won't see many issues" is an
> aside and yet still evidence of the monopoly. If it weren't
> the case, why would you feel "document compatibility issues
> between MS Office" is relevant.

You are correct, the compatibility issues are not relevant to Monopoly
status, but they are the primary reason to use MS Products when working
with businesses in the USA.

> If it weren't for the monopoly, why would anyone be paying
> hundreds for MS Office when there are other free
> alternatives? It's about the $ to support the software, and
> the need for more than mere "almost compatibility".

If you license, with support, those free OS's, there is a fee to
purchase most of them. If you just download without support, burn your
own, and install, then there is no fee for most of them.

There are several boxed Linux installations available for purchase.

It also seems that I can get plenty of support for Fedora, in a number
of places, even without going to RedHat (which is also a viable avenue).
I could visit one of the many Linux support groups or their on-line
forum (much like with MS).

Yes, Linux does not support a good chunk of the newest wiz-bang
devices/toys, but it supports more than enough to have your average home
user on-line, scanning documents, using their digital camera, playing
DVD movies, and printing to many of the common/current printers.

With the install being as painless as Windows XP for ANYONE, it's
already a viable alternative to Windows, and is also available free to
those that have not remained ignorant by choice.

Sure, MS presents some issues when finding systems without Windows
installed, but most of the big vendors provide Linux based computers,
and so do many mom-and-pop shops. Yea, you can't get a linux PC at Best
Buy, but you can at WalMart.

At this point in time, the suggested Monopoly is just due to the already
installed base, as things move forward that will change/be replaced by
others.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Leythos]

In article <7c9881hnspttrsogu71r1fh3ubt831b3iu@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> The information is _N_O_T_ on the outside of the box.
> It could be on the outside of the box. It should be on the
> outside of the box, but isn't.

You are wrong, it's on the box, not all of it is there, but the part
that tells you there are licensing requirements and additional
information about the licensing.

Just because you can't read the entire license where you purchase the
product doesn't make any difference - the information is available on
the web, via mail, through retailers chains, etc.... If you don't read
it, it's a personal choice.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Leythos]

In article <eBiHtE3VFHA.2496@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> >> OEM preinstalled consumer-oriented PC.
> >
> > How is that a monopoly? If the USER makes the choice to pick a Windows
> > based computer when other OS systems are in the same store?
> >
> >> Linux is not ready for all. No distro a Linux Live CD's will run on
> >> my machine.
> >
> > What type of machine?
>
> A Multimedia machine.
>
> > Have you tried Fedora Core 3?
>
> Does it have a Live CD? I ain't gonna try to install any distro on my
> machine until a live CD distro will boot into a GUI desktop.

I don't know if they have a "Live CD" as I just swap drives when I want
to play with a new OS, I never dual/X boot, always a virgin install on a
clean drive.

> Linux is a very good server OS. As a multimedia OS, it is a child.

I agree, as a workstation and server and general home user desktop it's
a fine product at this time (some distro's), as a multi-media rich
desktop it's not a good choice at this time. It will play DVD's and
music just fine, but I would not suggest it for other multi-media
functions at this time - but not many people do more than play
DVD/Music.

> Most average users would be able to do as much with Linux as they can
> with Windows, but that will change. MS's monopoly days are numbered,
> but not over with yet.

It's only a monopoly due to the CURRENTLY installed base, as new systems
are purchased that is changing, so, it's no longer a monopoly, it's just
still popular.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Leythos]

In article <ILVge.368$E_3.52@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
bradrhine1969@earthlink.net says...
> > Tell us, where does MS have a monopoly any more?
>
> HA! Us? I knew Leythos had multiple personalities. I'll wager an answer,
> when all your personalities show me just one keyboard with a "Linux" button?
> Thanks for playing!

Why would you need a Windows button? I've removed the key-cap for the
Windows button off of most of mine as they are a PITA most times.

In order to understand why your question is insignificant you would need
to understand why the Windows key was added to SOME keyboards.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Serial # 19781010]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:58:49 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>
>I would have no problem if the ruling was "Guilty by reason of
>insanity" as a means to identify those people that fit the description.
>It would indicate they ARE guilty (as they really did commit the crime)
>and that they are insane - so, they get treatment, then do time for the
>crime (in any order)....
>
I think you may misunderstand the legal terms "guilty" and "crime".
Forget, for a moment, the issue of the insanity plea.

Say, for instance, your 5 year old was disciplined by her mother and
she was very angry about it. She got into her dad's gun case and shot
her mother dead.

The facts of the case are simple and clear- the 5 year old caused the
death of her mother.

The first legal question is whither or not a crime has been committed.
A crime, in the legal sense, can only be committed by an individual
who can reasonably be expected to understand the consequences of their
actions.

No competent DA in the country would, in this case, attempt to
convince a jury that a 5 year old girl fully understood the
consequences of her actions when she pulled the trigger on her dad's
357 magnum and blew the top of her mother's head off because her
mother would not let her go out and play until she ate all her peas.

The DA would quickly conclude that no crime was committed in the first
place because we are not dealing with a responsible person by anyone's
definition legal or otherwise.

So the verdict "innocent by reason of insanity" makes perfect sense.
Both a five year old and a deeply disturbed psychotic are truly
innocent of committing a crime because they may both be equally
incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. That is
they are legally not capable of committing a crime in the first place.

On the other hand a verdict of "guilty by reason of insanity" is a
contradiction in terms. A person is either guilty (fully responsible
and competent and thus held responsible for their actions) or insane
(not responsible thus not capable of a criminal act in the first
place) but not both at the same time.

As far as the law is concerned, in general, neither a 5 year old, nor
a psychotic nor a rabid mad dog commits crimes only a competent moral
agent can do that.

[kurttrail]

NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> Leythos wrote:
>
>> Linux is a very good server OS. As a multimedia OS, it is a child.
>>
> You're so full of shit, you're turning brown. MythTV has been around
> longer than your beloved Windows Multimedia OS, and can do as much
> and I'm sure better than Windoze.


Which is longer? The list of hardware the Myth runs on or the list of
hardware it won't?

And I didn't know that MythTV is a Linux Distro!

>
>> Most average users would be able to do as much with Linux as they can
>> with Windows, but that will change. MS's monopoly days are numbered,
>> but not over with yet.
>>
> If MS's monopoly had anything to do with either its innovation or
> quality of its products, it would have been gone a long time ago.
> It's monopoly is due ONLY to its marketing muscle and the way it has
> held computer distributors at ransom forcing them to package that
> bastardized system with every PC they sell.

So? And the other thing it did well was repackage the innovation of
others.

>
> I told you the other day to read the history, but I see that you're
> unable to even do that ...
>
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

I skimmed through it.

> You're just a blowhart that fires off with your little mind, and
> doesn't have a clue about what you're talking about.

LOL! Much more than you. I not the one that is a diehard Zealot. I
see good in both. I can't hep it that Linux is not yet ready for the
average computer user. I'm hoping that it will be before MS releases
Longhorn, but right now I'd say it is too close to call.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <eBiHtE3VFHA.2496@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>
>>>> OEM preinstalled consumer-oriented PC.
>>>
>>> How is that a monopoly? If the USER makes the choice to pick a
>>> Windows based computer when other OS systems are in the same store?
>>>
>>>> Linux is not ready for all. No distro a Linux Live CD's will run
>>>> on my machine.
>>>
>>> What type of machine?
>>
>> A Multimedia machine.
>>
>>> Have you tried Fedora Core 3?
>>
>> Does it have a Live CD? I ain't gonna try to install any distro on
>> my machine until a live CD distro will boot into a GUI desktop.
>
> I don't know if they have a "Live CD" as I just swap drives when I
> want to play with a new OS, I never dual/X boot, always a virgin
> install on a clean drive.

And I'm not even gonna do that until a Live CD will boot on my computer.

>
>> Linux is a very good server OS. As a multimedia OS, it is a child.
>
> I agree, as a workstation and server and general home user desktop
> it's a fine product at this time (some distro's), as a multi-media
> rich desktop it's not a good choice at this time. It will play DVD's
> and music just fine, but I would not suggest it for other multi-media
> functions at this time - but not many people do more than play
> DVD/Music.

I watch and record HDTV, create my own DVDs, edit music, . . . . plus
much more.

>
>> Most average users would be able to do as much with Linux as they can
>> with Windows, but that will change. MS's monopoly days are numbered,
>> but not over with yet.
>
> It's only a monopoly due to the CURRENTLY installed base, as new
> systems are purchased that is changing, so, it's no longer a
> monopoly, it's just still popular.

LOL! Like somebody said earlier in this thread, How many keyboards come
with a Linux button?

95% of the market is a monopoly.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[george]

Hi Michael,

Aren't YOU glad you asked a question!
So far 260+ 'opinions' and counting.....
But I get the feeling the jury is still out.....
Don't you just looooove newsnet.....

:-))
george


"Michael C" <me@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42813cae$0$79456$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu,
> memory, video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the
> same was the HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having
> trouble with the internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it
> activated I asked him what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't
> activate. He said that XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be
> activated. In return I asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept
> going around in circles and not answering my question and just stating
> that it has to always remain on the same PC. He never gave me a definition
> of what "same PC" means. In the end I asked if it was more of a policy
> than a technical limitation and he said "thank you for calling microsoft
> to activate your software" and hung up!
>
> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> and will activate ok. Is that true?
>

[NoStop]

kurttrail wrote:

>> NoStop wrote:

>> If MS's monopoly had anything to do with either its innovation or
>> quality of its products, it would have been gone a long time ago.
>> It's monopoly is due ONLY to its marketing muscle and the way it has
>> held computer distributors at ransom forcing them to package that
>> bastardized system with every PC they sell.
>
> So? And the other thing it did well was repackage the innovation of
> others.
>
And in some cases kill the innovation of others after buying them out.

>>
>> I told you the other day to read the history, but I see that you're
>> unable to even do that ...
>>
>> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
>
> I skimmed through it.
>
Had you done more than "skim", I wouldn't have to had to tell you the above.

> LOL! Much more than you. I not the one that is a diehard Zealot. I
> see good in both. I can't hep it that Linux is not yet ready for the
> average computer user.
>
Sorry Kurt, but I just don't believe you. You could not possibly see the
"good in both" if you come up with the absurd statements you are so prone
to do. They are so absurd at times, that I cannot believe that you've ever
actually run Linux, so could not possibly know how good or bad it is.

Your mantra is always "not yet ready for the average computer user". You
justify this perception based on your belief that one has to be on the
command line to do anything with Linux. This is a false statement and had
you actually used a modern Linux distro, you'd know that.

Another poster here relates how his 14 year old son was able to install
Linux without problems and to use it productively and the kid has very
little computer experience. Yet, you continue with your FUD.

You've repeatedly based your conclusions on whether a LIVE distro would run
on YOUR multimedia machine, that you admit has some hardware not found on
the usual type of computers people purchase. You refuse to acknowledge that
drivers for different hardware are proprietory and Linux developers must
reverse engineer this hardware, since they don't have access to the
software code, to get the hardware to work on a different OS. Although they
are making great strides in this department, to the point that Linux will
install without problems on the vaste majority of PCs out there, admittedly
there are cases where particular hardware will not work yet. But that is
true for Windoze as well and we've all seen it and know that there are
system requirements that must be met. The difference in the methologies
between Linux and Windows, is that in the former people are working hard to
get free solutions for the computer community in general rather than
forcing one to pay money for a solution.

From my experience, I'd say that 95% of the participants in this newsgroup
could install Linux on their PCs without any difficulty whatsoever. They'll
then have an OS that works, is not prone to viruses and malware, doesn't
require constant effort to keep running and is a much more productive and
pleasant computer experience than running Windows. They'll then have access
(just a few clicks away) to a vaste storehouse of free quality software. If
saying this makes me a "zealot", then I guess I am one. Linux has proven to
me to be very much superior to Windows in all respects and I am convinced
that anyone using it, wouldn't be plagued with all the problems we see
constantly reported in this newsgroup.

IMHO, as long as people like you spread the FUD, you cost end-users money!
As long as they stick with Windows, they are forced into spending money on
commercial applications because the crap bundled with Windows is so lame.
Because of everything like the "free" Notepad, to CD/DVD burning software,
users who want more in the Windows world have to cough up more cash. This
just isn't the case for Linux users and that is somewhat hard for
inexperienced Windows computer users to understand. Your FUD helps to
perpetuate the myths that serve Micro$soft's commercial interests not the
end-users' interests.

I really think you need to find a more appropriate domain name for your
website. One that doesn't pretend to be anti-Microsoft, while you continue
to spread the M$ FUD. If nothing else this will lend some credibility to
yourself.


--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Legal Notice And Disclaimer:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/legal.html

[kurttrail]

NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>>> NoStop wrote:
>
>>> If MS's monopoly had anything to do with either its innovation or
>>> quality of its products, it would have been gone a long time ago.
>>> It's monopoly is due ONLY to its marketing muscle and the way it has
>>> held computer distributors at ransom forcing them to package that
>>> bastardized system with every PC they sell.
>>
>> So? And the other thing it did well was repackage the innovation of
>> others.
>>
> And in some cases kill the innovation of others after buying them out.
>
>>>
>>> I told you the other day to read the history, but I see that you're
>>> unable to even do that ...
>>>
>>> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
>>
>> I skimmed through it.
>>
> Had you done more than "skim", I wouldn't have to had to tell you the
> above.

Oy! Like I didn't know that until you told me!

You are a fool.

>
>> LOL! Much more than you. I not the one that is a diehard Zealot. I
>> see good in both. I can't hep it that Linux is not yet ready for the
>> average computer user.
>>
> Sorry Kurt, but I just don't believe you.

A Zealot doesn't believe a rational man? LOL! No Sh*t!

> You could not possibly see
> the "good in both" if you come up with the absurd statements you are
> so prone to do. They are so absurd at times, that I cannot believe
> that you've ever actually run Linux, so could not possibly know how
> good or bad it is.

You'd be wrong then.

>
> Your mantra is always "not yet ready for the average computer user".
> You justify this perception based on your belief that one has to be
> on the command line to do anything with Linux. This is a false
> statement and had you actually used a modern Linux distro, you'd know
> that.

How do you download OS updates? Is it the same way for all distros?

>
> Another poster here relates how his 14 year old son was able to
> install Linux without problems and to use it productively and the kid
> has very little computer experience. Yet, you continue with your FUD.

He was able to install it and use a word processor. I doubt my mother
could have done that. She would know how to set of up the BIOS to boot
for CD. As a matter of fact, she has never been in the BIOS.

>
> You've repeatedly based your conclusions on whether a LIVE distro
> would run on YOUR multimedia machine, that you admit has some
> hardware not found on the usual type of computers people purchase.

LOL! And other people would have similar problems with hardware I don't
have.

And even with minimalist hardware detection, they still don't boot. Not
a very good sign at all.

> You refuse to acknowledge that drivers for different hardware are
> proprietory and Linux developers must reverse engineer this hardware,
> since they don't have access to the software code, to get the
> hardware to work on a different OS.

When did I refuse to acknowledge that? That is one of the reasons I
feel that Linux ain't ready for primetime yet! Not enough hardware
drivers have been reversed engineered to make it easy for existing
computers to be upgraded to Linux for the AVERAGE COMUPUTER USER.

> Although they are making great
> strides in this department, to the point that Linux will install
> without problems on the vaste majority of PCs out there, admittedly
> there are cases where particular hardware will not work yet.

And many more cases where hardware only works with seriously reduced
capability.

> But that
> is true for Windoze as well and we've all seen it and know that there
> are system requirements that must be met.

Yep. Wouldn't want to install XP on a PII, not so much because it
wouldn't install, but because it be more interesting to watch molasses
run on a cold day.

> The difference in the
> methologies between Linux and Windows, is that in the former people
> are working hard to get free solutions for the computer community in
> general rather than forcing one to pay money for a solution.

How does that help any average computer user run Linux?

>
> From my experience, I'd say that 95% of the participants in this
> newsgroup could install Linux on their PCs without any difficulty
> whatsoever.

And I'd say that about 95% of those would have to make some trade off on
reduced funtionability.

> They'll then have an OS that works, is not prone to
> viruses and malware, doesn't require constant effort to keep running
> and is a much more productive and pleasant computer experience than
> running Windows. They'll then have access (just a few clicks away) to
> a vaste storehouse of free quality software. If saying this makes me
> a "zealot", then I guess I am one. Linux has proven to me to be very
> much superior to Windows in all respects and I am convinced that
> anyone using it, wouldn't be plagued with all the problems we see
> constantly reported in this newsgroup.

I am not plaqued by all of the problems we constantly see in this
newsgroup.

>
> IMHO, as long as people like you spread the FUD, you cost end-users
> money!

How? I never advocate anyone upgrade unless they are buying a new PC.

> As long as they stick with Windows, they are forced into
> spending money on commercial applications because the crap bundled
> with Windows is so lame.

Many already have the tools that they need, and then there are also some
good freeware alternatives for Windows too. Some of it is even software
from the Open Source community.

> Because of everything like the "free"
> Notepad, to CD/DVD burning software, users who want more in the
> Windows world have to cough up more cash.

Lies! OO is a good freeware word processer. And if you are talking
about text-based only editors there are plenty of them.

And there are freeware alternatives for CD/DVD burning too.

> This just isn't the case

For windows users

> for Linux users and that is somewhat hard for inexperienced Windows
> computer users to understand. Your FUD helps to perpetuate the myths
> that serve Micro$soft's commercial interests not the end-users'
> interests.

LOL! How? I don't advocate upgrading Windows.

>
> I really think you need to find a more appropriate domain name for
> your website. One that doesn't pretend to be anti-Microsoft, while
> you continue to spread the M$ FUD. If nothing else this will lend
> some credibility to yourself.

LOL! Since you need to distort reality to try to persuade people that
Linux is ready for the average user, I'm glad I'm not credible in your
eyes.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[Leythos]

In article <7e4981tbtpm2pb7qhgk73q72deker88fbs@4ax.com>, none@none.net
says...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:58:49 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> >
> >I would have no problem if the ruling was "Guilty by reason of
> >insanity" as a means to identify those people that fit the description.
> >It would indicate they ARE guilty (as they really did commit the crime)
> >and that they are insane - so, they get treatment, then do time for the
> >crime (in any order)....
> >
> I think you may misunderstand the legal terms "guilty" and "crime".
> Forget, for a moment, the issue of the insanity plea.
>
> Say, for instance, your 5 year old was disciplined by her mother and
> she was very angry about it. She got into her dad's gun case and shot
> her mother dead.
>
> The facts of the case are simple and clear- the 5 year old caused the
> death of her mother.
>
> The first legal question is whither or not a crime has been committed.
> A crime, in the legal sense, can only be committed by an individual
> who can reasonably be expected to understand the consequences of their
> actions.

If a 5y/o knows enough to get a gun because she's mad, she knows what
the gun can do, so, like it or not, she knows what she's doing.

> No competent DA in the country would, in this case, attempt to
> convince a jury that a 5 year old girl fully understood the
> consequences of her actions when she pulled the trigger on her dad's
> 357 magnum and blew the top of her mother's head off because her
> mother would not let her go out and play until she ate all her peas.

That's because people don't like to convict kids, even ones that clearly
know what they are doing when they do it. In your example, the kid
should fry as she was fully aware that she was going to injure another
person and with malice and intent.

> The DA would quickly conclude that no crime was committed in the first
> place because we are not dealing with a responsible person by anyone's
> definition legal or otherwise.

Only if he was a liberal do gooder with no sense of honor.

> So the verdict "innocent by reason of insanity" makes perfect sense.
> Both a five year old and a deeply disturbed psychotic are truly
> innocent of committing a crime because they may both be equally
> incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. That is
> they are legally not capable of committing a crime in the first place.

With very few exceptions (and your 5y/o is not one) most everyone knows
they are doing wrong when doing it - even a psychotic at some level can
understand hate/wrong and be responsible for it.

> On the other hand a verdict of "guilty by reason of insanity" is a
> contradiction in terms. A person is either guilty (fully responsible
> and competent and thus held responsible for their actions) or insane
> (not responsible thus not capable of a criminal act in the first
> place) but not both at the same time.

GBRI means they were responsible, take responsibility, and deserve
treatment and prison time.

> As far as the law is concerned, in general, neither a 5 year old, nor
> a psychotic nor a rabid mad dog commits crimes only a competent moral
> agent can do that.

Wrong.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[kony]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:52:50 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <7c9881hnspttrsogu71r1fh3ubt831b3iu@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>says...
>> The information is _N_O_T_ on the outside of the box.
>> It could be on the outside of the box. It should be on the
>> outside of the box, but isn't.
>
>You are wrong, it's on the box, not all of it is there, but the part
>that tells you there are licensing requirements and additional
>information about the licensing.

That isn't the license. Big difference.


>
>Just because you can't read the entire license where you purchase the
>product doesn't make any difference - the information is available on
>the web, via mail, through retailers chains, etc.... If you don't read
>it, it's a personal choice.


It does matter. Pretend it doesn't if you like but
unfortunately you opinion alone isn't a standard for
anything.

[Leythos]

In article <#6j#9v9VFHA.228@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> He was able to install it and use a word processor. I doubt my mother
> could have done that. She would know how to set of up the BIOS to boot
> for CD. As a matter of fact, she has never been in the BIOS.

Kurt,

Most computers come with boot-from-cd set to the first boot device and
then the floppy and then the hard drive.

If your mom's computer is older or if you set it up without a CD as the
first boot device, they are are right, she won't be able to do it.

In my case, I tested many different vendors products on P3 single CPU
systems, P3 Dual CPU systems, a P4 non-HT system and a P4 HT/CPU system
and then a dual Xeon (P4 era) system. All distro's where tested with
those systems and notes taken.

While Mandrake 10 was a very nice install, there were problems with
video on most of them. SUSE and some other version were a mess when I
tried to use the GUI (as I'm not a nix guy) to manage the systems.
RedHat, being one of the best (in my past experience) was tested with
Fedora Core 3 and it included Open Office, Evolution (that let me
directly use my Exchange servers in native mode), and I setup Cross-Over
with Windows Office XP Prof and was able to use Excel, Word, and Power
point without any problems.

I think that Linux is as ready was Windows 95 was in those days, and FC3
is as close as 98/2000.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Leythos]

In article <#ARFdz8VFHA.2928@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
anonymous@discussion.microsoft.com says...
> Hi Michael,
>
> Aren't YOU glad you asked a question!
> So far 260+ 'opinions' and counting.....
> But I get the feeling the jury is still out.....
> Don't you just looooove newsnet.....

Actually, I was able to explain the reason for the re-activation and he
ack'd it.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Curious George]

On Wed, 11 May 2005 04:27:49 GMT, NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote:

>When MS decided
>to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and eventually XP, to continue to
>have a secure system you're either going to upgrade to what MS gives you OR
>you're going to look for an alternative. It's as simple as that. And as
>long as you continue on the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum
>beat because if you're going to use their software, you have no other
>option. So cut the crap about what an independent individual you are. You
>have no independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take

Silly me. I always though a computer was a tool with a limited
useable life & upgradeability (like most other kinds of machines &
tools). I see now I am not an individual unless I'm running a 10 year
old computer and I am inadequate if not running a 10 year old computer
with the latest software. ;)

[Curious George]

On Wed, 11 May 2005 04:27:49 GMT, NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote:

>When MS decided
>to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and eventually XP, to continue to
>have a secure system you're either going to upgrade to what MS gives you OR
>you're going to look for an alternative. It's as simple as that. And as
>long as you continue on the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum
>beat because if you're going to use their software, you have no other
>option. So cut the crap about what an independent individual you are. You
>have no independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take

Silly me. I always though a computer was a tool with a limited
useable life & upgradeability (like most other kinds of machines &
tools). I see now I am not an individual unless I'm running a 10 year
old computer and I am inadequate if not running a 10 year old computer
with the latest software. ;)

[NoStop]

Curious George wrote:

> On Wed, 11 May 2005 04:27:49 GMT, NoStop <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote:
>
>>When MS decided
>>to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and eventually XP, to continue to
>>have a secure system you're either going to upgrade to what MS gives you
>>OR you're going to look for an alternative. It's as simple as that. And as
>>long as you continue on the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum
>>beat because if you're going to use their software, you have no other
>>option. So cut the crap about what an independent individual you are. You
>>have no independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take
>
> Silly me. I always though a computer was a tool with a limited
> useable life & upgradeability (like most other kinds of machines &
> tools). I see now I am not an individual unless I'm running a 10 year
> old computer and I am inadequate if not running a 10 year old computer
> with the latest software. ;)

You're obviously missing my point, so I'll restate it. I think we have
enough of a throw-away society. As long as a tool, in this case a computer,
can do a job, why shouldn't it be, at the very least, passed on to someone
who can use it? A Windoze 98 vintage computer is quite good enough for
reading email or doing word processing. BUT, if one is stuck in the
marketing world of Microsoft, then that corporation makes sure the hardware
becomes obsolete before its time. If M$ decides to stop providing security
patches for Win98 and the computer doesn't have the hardware to run the
"latest and greatest" OS from M$, the computer has been made obsolete, just
so M$ can continue raking in its obscene profits.

Understand now?

--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Legal Notice And Disclaimer:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/legal.html

[kony]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 02:51:09 GMT, NoStop
<nostop@stopspam.com> wrote:

>You're obviously missing my point, so I'll restate it. I think we have
>enough of a throw-away society. As long as a tool, in this case a computer,
>can do a job, why shouldn't it be, at the very least, passed on to someone
>who can use it?

I happen to agree a lot with that. In fact a VERY large
percentage of new system buyers I see did not want anything
more than for their (then) current system to keep running.
Someone with an 700+ MHz system and Win2k or XP doesn't have
a lot of reasons to buy a new system unless their
productivity is tied to income, they're a gamer, or other
less-common tasks are performed like video editing. While
such tasks might be fairly common with participants of these
newsgroups, "Joe Average" is still just getting his feet wet
in many of the more advanced activities.

>A Windoze 98 vintage computer is quite good enough for
>reading email or doing word processing. BUT, if one is stuck in the
>marketing world of Microsoft, then that corporation makes sure the hardware
>becomes obsolete before its time. If M$ decides to stop providing security
>patches for Win98 and the computer doesn't have the hardware to run the
>"latest and greatest" OS from M$, the computer has been made obsolete, just
>so M$ can continue raking in its obscene profits.
>
>Understand now?

What patches are you referring to for Win98?
Win98's security flaws are same as WIn2k and XP and have
same resolution, to use a more secure browser and email
client. That's not to suggest it's perfect otherwise but
can be configured securely. Code or human intrusion to a
system must have an entry point, one can't just wait for
exploits to become known (exploited already) before trying
to be a step ahead. Same with any OS. Main problem
regarding windows was that more recently it'd been marketed
for security while if anything the potential for holes had
increased. Funny how the most traffic many routers see is
messenger spam.

[DevilsPGD]

In message <7e4981tbtpm2pb7qhgk73q72deker88fbs@4ax.com> Serial #
19781010 <none@none.net> wrote:

>On the other hand a verdict of "guilty by reason of insanity" is a
>contradiction in terms. A person is either guilty (fully responsible
>and competent and thus held responsible for their actions) or insane
>(not responsible thus not capable of a criminal act in the first
>place) but not both at the same time.

Which is fair, as long as the insanity defense doesn't get you off the
hook. Rather then prison, there should be mandatory time in a mental
hospital or whatever type of treatment is required to ensure that no
reoffense occurs.

If the defense attorney uses their upbringing/genes/whatever as a
defense (happens a lot on TV, happens occasionally in real life), and
the jury lets them off, fair enough, they can leave the mental hospital
when their upbringing or genes have changed and not a moment sooner.


--
Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts
have no place in organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers

[Alias]

"DevilsPGD" <spamsucks@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:1iod81tl9qn8871klms0dvtgkucr6ks888@news.readfreenews.net...
> In message <7e4981tbtpm2pb7qhgk73q72deker88fbs@4ax.com> Serial #
> 19781010 <none@none.net> wrote:
>
>>On the other hand a verdict of "guilty by reason of insanity" is a
>>contradiction in terms. A person is either guilty (fully responsible
>>and competent and thus held responsible for their actions) or insane
>>(not responsible thus not capable of a criminal act in the first
>>place) but not both at the same time.
>
> Which is fair, as long as the insanity defense doesn't get you off the
> hook. Rather then prison, there should be mandatory time in a mental
> hospital or whatever type of treatment is required to ensure that no
> reoffense occurs.
>
> If the defense attorney uses their upbringing/genes/whatever as a
> defense (happens a lot on TV, happens occasionally in real life), and
> the jury lets them off, fair enough, they can leave the mental hospital
> when their upbringing or genes have changed and not a moment sooner.

The Snake Pit didn't work either. None of you have a clue regarding mental
illness, other than a twisted sense of revenge. Crime and Punishment doesn't
work. All it does is foster more criminals and that's why the revengeful USA
has so many criminals and prisons. Want to learn how to be a good criminal?
Check into any US prison and you will be taught everything from bank robbery
to check kiting. Not only that, there is a good chance you will go in there
a man and come out a woman. The US penal system is one of the most barbaric
systems in the world.

Alias

P.S. If you escape from a mental institution, you can't be charged. Yaknow,
mental patients aren't responsible for their acts.

[Leythos]

In article <eJkJrWTWFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
[snip]
> None of you have a clue regarding mental
> illness, other than a twisted sense of revenge. Crime and Punishment doesn't
> work. All it does is foster more criminals and that's why the revengeful USA
> has so many criminals and prisons.

Wrong, punishment is a deterrent for those on the edge. If we had public
hangings on the local city court-house lawns, left the bodies for 24
hours, there would be a visible sign of punishment for crimes, which
would deter many criminals. There will always be violent criminals that
have no concern for their own lives, but there are many people that know
they can kill someone, get a good attorney, serve a little time, and
they are out on the street again in under 10 years - hardly a deterrent.

> Want to learn how to be a good criminal?
> Check into any US prison and you will be taught everything from bank robbery
> to check kiting.

I think you forgot about all the prison systems outside the USA.
Criminal interaction is possible in all the worlds prisons, which means
that prisoners will talk to each other, which means any prisoner could
learn from the experiences of other prisoners - sort of makes that
comment meaningless.

> Not only that, there is a good chance you will go in there
> a man and come out a woman. The US penal system is one of the most barbaric
> systems in the world.

Never seen a Mexican, Korean, Chinese, Spanish, Turkish, etc.... penal
system I expect.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <#6j#9v9VFHA.228@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> He was able to install it and use a word processor. I doubt my
>> mother could have done that. She would know how to set of up the
>> BIOS to boot for CD. As a matter of fact, she has never been in the
>> BIOS.
>
> Kurt,
>
> Most computers come with boot-from-cd set to the first boot device and
> then the floppy and then the hard drive.

LOL! Her's didn't.

>
> If your mom's computer is older or if you set it up without a CD as
> the first boot device, they are are right, she won't be able to do it.
>
> In my case, I tested many different vendors products on P3 single CPU
> systems, P3 Dual CPU systems, a P4 non-HT system and a P4 HT/CPU
> system and then a dual Xeon (P4 era) system. All distro's where
> tested with those systems and notes taken.
>
> While Mandrake 10 was a very nice install, there were problems with
> video on most of them. SUSE and some other version were a mess when I
> tried to use the GUI (as I'm not a nix guy) to manage the systems.
> RedHat, being one of the best (in my past experience) was tested with
> Fedora Core 3 and it included Open Office, Evolution (that let me
> directly use my Exchange servers in native mode), and I setup
> Cross-Over with Windows Office XP Prof and was able to use Excel,
> Word, and Power point without any problems.
>
> I think that Linux is as ready was Windows 95 was in those days, and
> FC3 is as close as 98/2000.

Good for you! You are not the average user.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <eJkJrWTWFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
> [snip]
>> None of you have a clue regarding mental
>> illness, other than a twisted sense of revenge. Crime and Punishment
>> doesn't work. All it does is foster more criminals and that's why
>> the revengeful USA has so many criminals and prisons.
>
> Wrong, punishment is a deterrent for those on the edge. If we had
> public hangings on the local city court-house lawns, left the bodies
> for 24 hours, there would be a visible sign of punishment for crimes,
> which would deter many criminals. There will always be violent
> criminals that have no concern for their own lives, but there are
> many people that know they can kill someone, get a good attorney,
> serve a little time, and they are out on the street again in under 10
> years - hardly a deterrent.

Public Lynchings! Why not bring back crucifixion?!

>
>> Want to learn how to be a good criminal?
>> Check into any US prison and you will be taught everything from bank
>> robbery to check kiting.
>
> I think you forgot about all the prison systems outside the USA.
> Criminal interaction is possible in all the worlds prisons, which
> means that prisoners will talk to each other, which means any
> prisoner could learn from the experiences of other prisoners - sort
> of makes that comment meaningless.

I think you forget that Alias is outside the US!

>> Not only that, there is a good chance you will go in there
>> a man and come out a woman. The US penal system is one of the most
>> barbaric systems in the world.
>
> Never seen a Mexican, Korean, Chinese, Spanish, Turkish, etc.... penal
> system I expect.

Alias is from Spain.

I suspect you should experience the penal system firsthand!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[Leythos]

In article <OYKA#nUWFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <#6j#9v9VFHA.228@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
> > dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> >> He was able to install it and use a word processor. I doubt my
> >> mother could have done that. She would know how to set of up the
> >> BIOS to boot for CD. As a matter of fact, she has never been in the
> >> BIOS.
> >
> > Kurt,
> >
> > Most computers come with boot-from-cd set to the first boot device and
> > then the floppy and then the hard drive.
>
> LOL! Her's didn't.

And you didn't know how to change that for her?

> > If your mom's computer is older or if you set it up without a CD as
> > the first boot device, they are are right, she won't be able to do it.
> >
> > In my case, I tested many different vendors products on P3 single CPU
> > systems, P3 Dual CPU systems, a P4 non-HT system and a P4 HT/CPU
> > system and then a dual Xeon (P4 era) system. All distro's where
> > tested with those systems and notes taken.
> >
> > While Mandrake 10 was a very nice install, there were problems with
> > video on most of them. SUSE and some other version were a mess when I
> > tried to use the GUI (as I'm not a nix guy) to manage the systems.
> > RedHat, being one of the best (in my past experience) was tested with
> > Fedora Core 3 and it included Open Office, Evolution (that let me
> > directly use my Exchange servers in native mode), and I setup
> > Cross-Over with Windows Office XP Prof and was able to use Excel,
> > Word, and Power point without any problems.
> >
> > I think that Linux is as ready was Windows 95 was in those days, and
> > FC3 is as close as 98/2000.
>
> Good for you! You are not the average user.

So, that means you discounted my 12 y/o non-technical son's ability to
install it and become productive for school work without any difficulty
and without my help? Why would you think that something as simple as
FC3, which you have never tried, would not be ready when the experience
of many suggests that it's one of the easiest to setup, full featured,
and GUI menu based, and has a massive support infrastructure and I would
say the most drivers/hardware support of any of the variants?

I was not evaluating Linux for my own personal use, although I do have
an interest in most OS's as I like to learn all the time, it was being
evaluated for clients desktops and servers in order to provide cost-
point levels and to provide fully workable systems out of the box. The
evaluation proved to me, that almost all my customers could move to FC3
with little or no impact on their ability to perform business functions.
The only issue I can find is retraining support teams, and the
retraining of users to think a "little" differently - the desktop is
simple once you spend 10 minutes looking through the menu's.

Oh, one other thing, being a Partner doesn't mean much, other than
getting free licenses and resources for development - I will be rolling
out our first full linux based office later next month, email server, 3
file servers, 28 workstations, and two branch offices with 4
workstations. Unlike your single mindedness, I've always looked at the
available options and paths and picked the "best" solution for a
scenario, I'm not stuck with only knowing one OS.

Expand your personal awareness, get a spare drive, install it, remove
your old one, try FC3 for a couple days, you will like it.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Alias]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf108b3961f3e26989743@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <eJkJrWTWFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
> [snip]
>> None of you have a clue regarding mental
>> illness, other than a twisted sense of revenge. Crime and Punishment
>> doesn't
>> work. All it does is foster more criminals and that's why the revengeful
>> USA
>> has so many criminals and prisons.
>
> Wrong, punishment is a deterrent for those on the edge. If we had public
> hangings on the local city court-house lawns, left the bodies for 24
> hours, there would be a visible sign of punishment for crimes, which
> would deter many criminals. There will always be violent criminals that
> have no concern for their own lives, but there are many people that know
> they can kill someone, get a good attorney, serve a little time, and
> they are out on the street again in under 10 years - hardly a deterrent.

You're living proof that the penal system in the USA is barbaric.
>
>> Want to learn how to be a good criminal?
>> Check into any US prison and you will be taught everything from bank
>> robbery
>> to check kiting.
>
> I think you forgot about all the prison systems outside the USA.

You mean like Europe?

> Criminal interaction is possible in all the worlds prisons, which means
> that prisoners will talk to each other, which means any prisoner could
> learn from the experiences of other prisoners - sort of makes that
> comment meaningless.

Europe has the lowest crime rate in the world and the penal system is based
on Crime and Rehabilitation. Tell you anything, Atila?
>
>> Not only that, there is a good chance you will go in there
>> a man and come out a woman. The US penal system is one of the most
>> barbaric
>> systems in the world.
>
> Never seen a Mexican, Korean, Chinese, Spanish, Turkish, etc.... penal
> system I expect.

Actually, I have seen a Mexican prison. A friend of mine was busted with
some weed and he got six years. He rented a small hut in the middle of the
courtyard ($US 100 for your entire sentence, so he figured he got a good
deal on his six year lease), ordered his food from a restaurant, had a
stereo, TV, as much weed as he wanted to smoke and all the putas he wanted.
Not only that, he got a python to get rid of all the rats. When I went to
visit him, he was sitting on a lawn chair in front of his hut, stoned on
weed you'll never see and grooving to the sounds of Janis Joplin. 'Course,
if you don't have any money, it's beans and rice and a concrete slab to
sleep on ...

Alias

[Leythos]

In article <#okiHwUWFHA.2692@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <eJkJrWTWFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
> > [snip]
> >> None of you have a clue regarding mental
> >> illness, other than a twisted sense of revenge. Crime and Punishment
> >> doesn't work. All it does is foster more criminals and that's why
> >> the revengeful USA has so many criminals and prisons.
> >
> > Wrong, punishment is a deterrent for those on the edge. If we had
> > public hangings on the local city court-house lawns, left the bodies
> > for 24 hours, there would be a visible sign of punishment for crimes,
> > which would deter many criminals. There will always be violent
> > criminals that have no concern for their own lives, but there are
> > many people that know they can kill someone, get a good attorney,
> > serve a little time, and they are out on the street again in under 10
> > years - hardly a deterrent.
>
> Public Lynchings! Why not bring back crucifixion?!

If they get the death-penalty, hang them on the court-house lawn, it
would put the fear of the law into criminals or wanna-be criminals.

> >> Want to learn how to be a good criminal?
> >> Check into any US prison and you will be taught everything from bank
> >> robbery to check kiting.
> >
> > I think you forgot about all the prison systems outside the USA.
> > Criminal interaction is possible in all the worlds prisons, which
> > means that prisoners will talk to each other, which means any
> > prisoner could learn from the experiences of other prisoners - sort
> > of makes that comment meaningless.
>
> I think you forget that Alias is outside the US!

Nope, I know it and didn't forget it. Statement still stands.

> >> Not only that, there is a good chance you will go in there
> >> a man and come out a woman. The US penal system is one of the most
> >> barbaric systems in the world.
> >
> > Never seen a Mexican, Korean, Chinese, Spanish, Turkish, etc.... penal
> > system I expect.
>
> Alias is from Spain.

Are you suggesting that he works for or is a inmate in that system? If
not, then he may only have a media's representation of what they are
like (which we all know is slanted for the media's benefit).

> I suspect you should experience the penal system firsthand!

I've worked in the Penal system in the US, have experience with it, have
you?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Alias]

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote
>
> Alias is from Spain.

Actually, I live in Spain. I was born in the USA and lived there for a long
time. I have a US passport and a Spanish "green card".
>
> I suspect you should experience the penal system firsthand!

He would be the first one to approach the meanest, baddest man there and say
"Daddy!"

Oh, and speaking of Spanish prisons, they have conjugal visits here so
forced homosexuality is not a problem like it is in the barbaric US prisons.

Alias
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

[Alias]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf11094bd3354fb989749@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <#okiHwUWFHA.2692@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>> > In article <eJkJrWTWFHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> > [snip]
>> >> None of you have a clue regarding mental
>> >> illness, other than a twisted sense of revenge. Crime and Punishment
>> >> doesn't work. All it does is foster more criminals and that's why
>> >> the revengeful USA has so many criminals and prisons.
>> >
>> > Wrong, punishment is a deterrent for those on the edge. If we had
>> > public hangings on the local city court-house lawns, left the bodies
>> > for 24 hours, there would be a visible sign of punishment for crimes,
>> > which would deter many criminals. There will always be violent
>> > criminals that have no concern for their own lives, but there are
>> > many people that know they can kill someone, get a good attorney,
>> > serve a little time, and they are out on the street again in under 10
>> > years - hardly a deterrent.
>>
>> Public Lynchings! Why not bring back crucifixion?!
>
> If they get the death-penalty, hang them on the court-house lawn, it
> would put the fear of the law into criminals or wanna-be criminals.

The death penalty is barbaric and fits right in with the USA's barbaric
revenge penal system that you, a born again Atila the Hun, obviously
condone.
>
>> >> Want to learn how to be a good criminal?
>> >> Check into any US prison and you will be taught everything from bank
>> >> robbery to check kiting.
>> >
>> > I think you forgot about all the prison systems outside the USA.
>> > Criminal interaction is possible in all the worlds prisons, which
>> > means that prisoners will talk to each other, which means any
>> > prisoner could learn from the experiences of other prisoners - sort
>> > of makes that comment meaningless.
>>
>> I think you forget that Alias is outside the US!
>
> Nope, I know it and didn't forget it. Statement still stands.

Europe has the lowest crime rate in the world. The USA has one of the
highest.
>
>> >> Not only that, there is a good chance you will go in there
>> >> a man and come out a woman. The US penal system is one of the most
>> >> barbaric systems in the world.
>> >
>> > Never seen a Mexican, Korean, Chinese, Spanish, Turkish, etc.... penal
>> > system I expect.
>>
>> Alias is from Spain.
>
> Are you suggesting that he works for or is a inmate in that system? If
> not, then he may only have a media's representation of what they are
> like (which we all know is slanted for the media's benefit).

I have met people who have been in a Spanish prison and I would take that
waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the USA's prisons that are straight from the middle
ages.
>
>> I suspect you should experience the penal system firsthand!
>
> I've worked in the Penal system in the US, have experience with it, have
> you?

What did you do, fix the warden's computer?

LOL!

Alias

[Leythos]

In article <eaNHSyUWFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
> Europe has the lowest crime rate in the world and the penal system is based
> on Crime and Rehabilitation. Tell you anything, Atila?

Vatican has highest crime rate in the world!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2639777.stm

England (closely followed by Italy) is the car crime capital of Europe
http://www.rouncefield.homestead.com/files/a_soc_dev_44.htm

Why Europe's Crime Rates Have Surpassed Ours
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.13948/pub_detail.asp

US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European
countries!
http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html

The one message across all reporting agencies and articles that I can
find is that the trend in the US is towards a lower crime rate, while
the trend in Europe (except Germany) is towards an increasing crime
rate.

Now, what do you think about your liberal means of corrections?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Leythos]

In article <#a4H$3UWFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
> > I've worked in the Penal system in the US, have experience with it, have
> > you?
>
> What did you do, fix the warden's computer?

Setup training programs to teach inmates computer skills and programming
that could lead to productive jobs once released. What have you done?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Alias]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf1125627aed6c998974a@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <eaNHSyUWFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> Europe has the lowest crime rate in the world and the penal system is
>> based
>> on Crime and Rehabilitation. Tell you anything, Atila?
>
> Vatican has highest crime rate in the world!
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2639777.stm
>
> England (closely followed by Italy) is the car crime capital of Europe
> http://www.rouncefield.homestead.com/files/a_soc_dev_44.htm
>
> Why Europe's Crime Rates Have Surpassed Ours
> http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.13948/pub_detail.asp
>
> US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European
> countries!
> http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html
>
> The one message across all reporting agencies and articles that I can
> find is that the trend in the US is towards a lower crime rate, while
> the trend in Europe (except Germany) is towards an increasing crime
> rate.
>
> Now, what do you think about your liberal means of corrections?

And you trust these personal web pages???

Please. We don't have gangland shootings. We don't have kids shooting up
schools. We don't have lunatics shooting up McDonald's. We don't have Bush
murdering over 100,000 Iraqis and Afganis.

Not one single school in Spain has or needs to have a metal detector at the
door and cops in the hallways.

Get your facts straight.

Alias

[Alias]

Yaknow, snipping the hell out of my post only makes you look like a fool.

Stop it!

How can they lead productive lives if they will be in prison forever like in
California's barbaric three strikes law?

Alias
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf112e62b20de3e98974b@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <#a4H$3UWFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> > I've worked in the Penal system in the US, have experience with it,
>> > have
>> > you?
>>
>> What did you do, fix the warden's computer?
>
> Setup training programs to teach inmates computer skills and programming
> that could lead to productive jobs once released. What have you done?
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

[Alias]

I guess you agree with the part of my post you snipped?

Alias
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf1125627aed6c998974a@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <eaNHSyUWFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> Europe has the lowest crime rate in the world and the penal system is
>> based
>> on Crime and Rehabilitation. Tell you anything, Atila?
>
> Vatican has highest crime rate in the world!
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2639777.stm
>
> England (closely followed by Italy) is the car crime capital of Europe
> http://www.rouncefield.homestead.com/files/a_soc_dev_44.htm
>
> Why Europe's Crime Rates Have Surpassed Ours
> http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.13948/pub_detail.asp
>
> US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European
> countries!
> http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html
>
> The one message across all reporting agencies and articles that I can
> find is that the trend in the US is towards a lower crime rate, while
> the trend in Europe (except Germany) is towards an increasing crime
> rate.
>
> Now, what do you think about your liberal means of corrections?
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

[Leythos]

In article <#Gq3L9UWFHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cf1125627aed6c998974a@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <eaNHSyUWFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >> Europe has the lowest crime rate in the world and the penal system is
> >> based
> >> on Crime and Rehabilitation. Tell you anything, Atila?
> >
> > Vatican has highest crime rate in the world!
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2639777.stm
> >
> > England (closely followed by Italy) is the car crime capital of Europe
> > http://www.rouncefield.homestead.com/files/a_soc_dev_44.htm
> >
> > Why Europe's Crime Rates Have Surpassed Ours
> > http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.13948/pub_detail.asp
> >
> > US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European
> > countries!
> > http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html
> >
> > The one message across all reporting agencies and articles that I can
> > find is that the trend in the US is towards a lower crime rate, while
> > the trend in Europe (except Germany) is towards an increasing crime
> > rate.
> >
> > Now, what do you think about your liberal means of corrections?
>
> And you trust these personal web pages???
>
> Please. We don't have gangland shootings. We don't have kids shooting up
> schools. We don't have lunatics shooting up McDonald's. We don't have Bush
> murdering over 100,000 Iraqis and Afganis.
>
> Not one single school in Spain has or needs to have a metal detector at the
> door and cops in the hallways.
>
> Get your facts straight.

I just posted what I saw in a simple google search, and it appears the
European way of dealing with criminals is INCREASING the crime rates in
those countries.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Leythos]

In article <OvdpP#UWFHA.1468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
> Yaknow, snipping the hell out of my post only makes you look like a fool.
>
> Stop it!

I will snip anything I want, it's a freedom thing that you may not
understand. I kept what I considered to be relevant to my reply, that's
how usenet has worked for two decades, get use to it.

> How can they lead productive lives if they will be in prison forever like in
> California's barbaric three strikes law?

Well, not everyone gets hit with the three strikes problem, some
actually learn to not commit crimes after the first offense, and some
actually get help, but you've got to want to change in order to change.
Oh, and I don't live in communist california or support most of their
ways/methods.



--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Leythos]

In article <uzOKp#UWFHA.2256@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
> I guess you agree with the part of my post you snipped?

Why, do you agree with every post I've made that you've not replied too?
I guess, following your logic, that you completely agree with all my
posts that you've not disputed.


--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <OYKA#nUWFHA.1796@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <#6j#9v9VFHA.228@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> He was able to install it and use a word processor. I doubt my
>>>> mother could have done that. She would know how to set of up the
>>>> BIOS to boot for CD. As a matter of fact, she has never been in
>>>> the BIOS.
>>>
>>> Kurt,
>>>
>>> Most computers come with boot-from-cd set to the first boot device
>>> and then the floppy and then the hard drive.
>>
>> LOL! Her's didn't.
>
> And you didn't know how to change that for her?

No. The last time I saw her computer she had no need to boot from CD.
And that is beside the point. She wouldn't know how to do it herself,
and even with detailed instructions would not be confident enought to go
playing where she doesn't know anything about.

>
>>> If your mom's computer is older or if you set it up without a CD as
>>> the first boot device, they are are right, she won't be able to do
>>> it.
>>>
>>> In my case, I tested many different vendors products on P3 single
>>> CPU systems, P3 Dual CPU systems, a P4 non-HT system and a P4 HT/CPU
>>> system and then a dual Xeon (P4 era) system. All distro's where
>>> tested with those systems and notes taken.
>>>
>>> While Mandrake 10 was a very nice install, there were problems with
>>> video on most of them. SUSE and some other version were a mess when
>>> I tried to use the GUI (as I'm not a nix guy) to manage the systems.
>>> RedHat, being one of the best (in my past experience) was tested
>>> with Fedora Core 3 and it included Open Office, Evolution (that let
>>> me directly use my Exchange servers in native mode), and I setup
>>> Cross-Over with Windows Office XP Prof and was able to use Excel,
>>> Word, and Power point without any problems.
>>>
>>> I think that Linux is as ready was Windows 95 was in those days, and
>>> FC3 is as close as 98/2000.
>>
>> Good for you! You are not the average user.
>
> So, that means you discounted my 12 y/o non-technical son's ability to
> install it and become productive for school work without any
> difficulty and without my help?

"I game RedHat Fedora Core 3 to my youngest son (14)," - Liethos

Your youngest son got 2 years younger over the last few days!


Why would you think that something as
> simple as FC3, which you have never tried, would not be ready when
> the experience of many suggests that it's one of the easiest to
> setup, full featured, and GUI menu based, and has a massive support
> infrastructure and I would say the most drivers/hardware support of
> any of the variants?
>
> I was not evaluating Linux for my own personal use, although I do have
> an interest in most OS's as I like to learn all the time, it was being
> evaluated for clients desktops and servers in order to provide cost-
> point levels and to provide fully workable systems out of the box. The
> evaluation proved to me, that almost all my customers could move to
> FC3 with little or no impact on their ability to perform business
> functions. The only issue I can find is retraining support teams, and
> the retraining of users to think a "little" differently - the desktop
> is simple once you spend 10 minutes looking through the menu's.
>
> Oh, one other thing, being a Partner doesn't mean much, other than
> getting free licenses and resources for development - I will be
> rolling out our first full linux based office later next month, email
> server, 3 file servers, 28 workstations, and two branch offices with 4
> workstations. Unlike your single mindedness, I've always looked at the
> available options and paths and picked the "best" solution for a
> scenario, I'm not stuck with only knowing one OS.
>
> Expand your personal awareness, get a spare drive, install it, remove
> your old one, try FC3 for a couple days, you will like it.

If you will lie about your children, you will lie about anything! I
will never take anything you have to say seriously ever again. As far
as I'm concerned, everything you write is a lie!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[Leythos]

In article <uKfb4TVWFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Your youngest son got 2 years younger over the last few days!

Addressed in your first reply about this - I made a mistake and typed my
daughters age that time. I suppose you've never mixed up your kids ages
when replying to disinterested people.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <uKfb4TVWFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Your youngest son got 2 years younger over the last few days!
>
> Addressed in your first reply about this - I made a mistake and typed
> my daughters age that time. I suppose you've never mixed up your kids
> ages when replying to disinterested people.

I don't believe you. You are just telling more lies!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <OvdpP#UWFHA.1468@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> Yaknow, snipping the hell out of my post only makes you look like a
>> fool.
>>
>> Stop it!
>
> I will snip anything I want, it's a freedom thing that you may not
> understand. I kept what I considered to be relevant to my reply,
> that's how usenet has worked for two decades, get use to it. <snip>

That's right Alias! He has every right to make himself look like a fool
by snipping without showing that he is snipping!

I even know trolls that acknowledge that they have snipped. You are
lower than a troll, Lameboy!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[Leythos]

In article <ebOdPpVWFHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <uKfb4TVWFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> > dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> >> Your youngest son got 2 years younger over the last few days!
> >
> > Addressed in your first reply about this - I made a mistake and typed
> > my daughters age that time. I suppose you've never mixed up your kids
> > ages when replying to disinterested people.
>
> I don't believe you. You are just telling more lies!

Kurt, did you wake up on the floor today? You seem particular nasty,
even for your norm, today.

I would suggest that you get back in bed, sleep a couple more hours, or
start drinking now and don't stop for a couple hours, it can only
improve your human skills.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Alias]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf1166d17a61cdf98974c@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <#Gq3L9UWFHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1cf1125627aed6c998974a@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> > In article <eaNHSyUWFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> >> Europe has the lowest crime rate in the world and the penal system is
>> >> based
>> >> on Crime and Rehabilitation. Tell you anything, Atila?
>> >
>> > Vatican has highest crime rate in the world!
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2639777.stm
>> >
>> > England (closely followed by Italy) is the car crime capital of Europe
>> > http://www.rouncefield.homestead.com/files/a_soc_dev_44.htm
>> >
>> > Why Europe's Crime Rates Have Surpassed Ours
>> > http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.13948/pub_detail.asp
>> >
>> > US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European
>> > countries!
>> > http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html
>> >
>> > The one message across all reporting agencies and articles that I can
>> > find is that the trend in the US is towards a lower crime rate, while
>> > the trend in Europe (except Germany) is towards an increasing crime
>> > rate.
>> >
>> > Now, what do you think about your liberal means of corrections?
>>
>> And you trust these personal web pages???
>>
>> Please. We don't have gangland shootings. We don't have kids shooting up
>> schools. We don't have lunatics shooting up McDonald's. We don't have
>> Bush
>> murdering over 100,000 Iraqis and Afganis.
>>
>> Not one single school in Spain has or needs to have a metal detector at
>> the
>> door and cops in the hallways.
>>
>> Get your facts straight.
>
> I just posted what I saw in a simple google search, and it appears the
> European way of dealing with criminals is INCREASING the crime rates in
> those countries.

Personal web pages are your idea of authoritative information?

LOL!

Alias

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:

<snipped up>


> If they get the death-penalty, hang them on the court-house lawn, it
> would put the fear of the law into criminals or wanna-be criminals.

Then why is it that countries without the death penalty have lower
murder rates?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[Leythos]

In article <um2c6tVWFHA.2740@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cf1166d17a61cdf98974c@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <#Gq3L9UWFHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >>
> >> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1cf1125627aed6c998974a@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> >> > In article <eaNHSyUWFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> >> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >> >> Europe has the lowest crime rate in the world and the penal system is
> >> >> based
> >> >> on Crime and Rehabilitation. Tell you anything, Atila?
> >> >
> >> > Vatican has highest crime rate in the world!
> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2639777.stm
> >> >
> >> > England (closely followed by Italy) is the car crime capital of Europe
> >> > http://www.rouncefield.homestead.com/files/a_soc_dev_44.htm
> >> >
> >> > Why Europe's Crime Rates Have Surpassed Ours
> >> > http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.13948/pub_detail.asp
> >> >
> >> > US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European
> >> > countries!
> >> > http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html
> >> >
> >> > The one message across all reporting agencies and articles that I can
> >> > find is that the trend in the US is towards a lower crime rate, while
> >> > the trend in Europe (except Germany) is towards an increasing crime
> >> > rate.
> >> >
> >> > Now, what do you think about your liberal means of corrections?
> >>
> >> And you trust these personal web pages???
> >>
> >> Please. We don't have gangland shootings. We don't have kids shooting up
> >> schools. We don't have lunatics shooting up McDonald's. We don't have
> >> Bush
> >> murdering over 100,000 Iraqis and Afganis.
> >>
> >> Not one single school in Spain has or needs to have a metal detector at
> >> the
> >> door and cops in the hallways.
> >>
> >> Get your facts straight.
> >
> > I just posted what I saw in a simple google search, and it appears the
> > European way of dealing with criminals is INCREASING the crime rates in
> > those countries.
>
> Personal web pages are your idea of authoritative information?

It was actually more authoritative than your posting it here with only
your opinion to back you up. At least I posted links to something that
contradicted your position.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Alias]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote


> I would suggest that you get back in bed, sleep a couple more hours, or
> start drinking now and don't stop for a couple hours, it can only
> improve your human skills.

Did you know that you only have one liver and it is permanetly tied to you
body, can't be upgraded or reinstalled? It can be replaced with a used liver
but those don't have very long lifespans.

Alias

[Alias]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf12a7e8967361098975b@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <um2c6tVWFHA.2740@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1cf1166d17a61cdf98974c@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> > In article <#Gq3L9UWFHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> >>
>> >> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.1cf1125627aed6c998974a@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> >> > In article <eaNHSyUWFHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>> >> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> >> >> Europe has the lowest crime rate in the world and the penal system
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> based
>> >> >> on Crime and Rehabilitation. Tell you anything, Atila?
>> >> >
>> >> > Vatican has highest crime rate in the world!
>> >> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2639777.stm
>> >> >
>> >> > England (closely followed by Italy) is the car crime capital of
>> >> > Europe
>> >> > http://www.rouncefield.homestead.com/files/a_soc_dev_44.htm
>> >> >
>> >> > Why Europe's Crime Rates Have Surpassed Ours
>> >> > http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.13948/pub_detail.asp
>> >> >
>> >> > US has a substantially lower crime rate than the major European
>> >> > countries!
>> >> > http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html
>> >> >
>> >> > The one message across all reporting agencies and articles that I
>> >> > can
>> >> > find is that the trend in the US is towards a lower crime rate,
>> >> > while
>> >> > the trend in Europe (except Germany) is towards an increasing crime
>> >> > rate.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, what do you think about your liberal means of corrections?
>> >>
>> >> And you trust these personal web pages???
>> >>
>> >> Please. We don't have gangland shootings. We don't have kids shooting
>> >> up
>> >> schools. We don't have lunatics shooting up McDonald's. We don't have
>> >> Bush
>> >> murdering over 100,000 Iraqis and Afganis.
>> >>
>> >> Not one single school in Spain has or needs to have a metal detector
>> >> at
>> >> the
>> >> door and cops in the hallways.
>> >>
>> >> Get your facts straight.
>> >
>> > I just posted what I saw in a simple google search, and it appears the
>> > European way of dealing with criminals is INCREASING the crime rates in
>> > those countries.
>>
>> Personal web pages are your idea of authoritative information?
>
> It was actually more authoritative than your posting it here with only
> your opinion to back you up. At least I posted links to something that
> contradicted your position.

You base your opinion on a personal web page that agrees with you. I base
mine on living both in Spain and the USA, yaknow, personal experience?

Enough said, we're totally off topic here. Let's leave it you continuing to
live in JesusLand and I'll live in a civilized country.

Alias

[Bruce Chambers]

Alias wrote:

>
>
> Personal web pages are your idea of authoritative information?
>

Why not? Aren't you frequently citing the personal (and biased and
deliberately misleading) web site of your hero, Kurttrail? If it's good
enough for you...


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

[Leythos]

In article <OpZPIxVWFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> <snipped up>
>
>
> > If they get the death-penalty, hang them on the court-house lawn, it
> > would put the fear of the law into criminals or wanna-be criminals.
>
> Then why is it that countries without the death penalty have lower
> murder rates?

Only some do, others have higher murder rates - it's all subjective and
based on what is/isn't reported.

A proper statement would be that "Some countries without the death
penalty have lower murder rates than the US".

Seems that until Turkey decided it wanted to join the EU, it was still
executing people up to 1984.

Turkey has not executed anyone since 1984, although courts regularly
impose death sentences -- 50 people now are on death row.

Interesting information on Spain and prison rates:

A more revealing measure of a country=3Fs imprisonment rate is therefore
the number of prisoners for every 1,000 crimes committed. On this
measure, Britain sends relatively few people to prison. In Britain only
around 12 people are in prison for every 1,000 recorded crimes. The
lowest in Europe is Sweden, with 4.7 per 1,000. Spain imprisons 48
people for every 1,000 crimes and Ireland 33 people for every 1,000
crimes.

What's interesting to me is that it doesn't make any difference what the
crime rate is outside the US as long as they don't ship their criminals
here. If other countries systems worked, with the same socioeconomic
standings as the US, it would be relevant and might be something to look
at. At this time, until we can get rid of all the "politically correct"
types and the ones that want to provide "Excuses" for others, we're
stuck with what we've got.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Leythos]

In article <eIsP9yVWFHA.2540@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote
>
>
> > I would suggest that you get back in bed, sleep a couple more hours, or
> > start drinking now and don't stop for a couple hours, it can only
> > improve your human skills.
>
> Did you know that you only have one liver and it is permanetly tied to you
> body, can't be upgraded or reinstalled? It can be replaced with a used liver
> but those don't have very long lifespans.

LOL - and yes, I do know a lot about the liver. My father has liver
cancer, been through three operations in 5 years, and is actually doing
quite well now that he's started treatment. I should also point out that
I didn't sign an EULA for a liver when I was born, it was already
installed and I can't be bound to something I didn't agree too.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Alias]

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@h0tmail.c0m> wrote
> Alias wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Personal web pages are your idea of authoritative information?
>>
>
> Why not? Aren't you frequently citing the personal (and biased and
> deliberately misleading) web site of your hero, Kurttrail? If it's good
> enough for you...

> Bruce Chambers

Um, I have quoted one page of Kurt's web site a couple of times. Good
advice, advice that works for people who don't think they should have to pay
for something twice. Another site I have cited was from Microsoft,
activation FAQs.

Like I said to Leythos, this is getting off topic. If you're happy living in
the totalitarian JesusLand with a total idiot in the White House, so be it.
If you're happy sending your children to school where metal detectors are at
the door and cops in the hall, so be it. I've been there, done that and worn
out the T-Shirt and am now happily living in a civilized country.

Alias

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <ebOdPpVWFHA.3828@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <uKfb4TVWFHA.2768@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> Your youngest son got 2 years younger over the last few days!
>>>
>>> Addressed in your first reply about this - I made a mistake and
>>> typed my daughters age that time. I suppose you've never mixed up
>>> your kids ages when replying to disinterested people.
>>
>> I don't believe you. You are just telling more lies!
>
> Kurt, did you wake up on the floor today? You seem particular nasty,
> even for your norm, today.

I deliberately show my lack of respect for liars!

>
> I would suggest that you get back in bed, sleep a couple more hours,
> or start drinking now and don't stop for a couple hours, it can only
> improve your human skills.

I wouldn't want your human skills of being able to lie without feeling
guilty about it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[Leythos]

In article <uyFEj8VWFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
> Um, I have quoted one page of Kurt's web site a couple of times. Good
> advice, advice that works for people who don't think they should have to pay
> for something twice. Another site I have cited was from Microsoft,
> activation FAQs.

And not everyone is going to agree with that interpretation of the fair
use act, and that's their right to disagree with him.

> Like I said to Leythos, this is getting off topic. If you're happy living in
> the totalitarian JesusLand with a total idiot in the White House, so be it.
> If you're happy sending your children to school where metal detectors are at
> the door and cops in the hall, so be it. I've been there, done that and worn
> out the T-Shirt and am now happily living in a civilized country.

I support Bush, I don't have metal detectors in any schools in our city,
have kids getting a good education, and believe in the current
governments mission to remove oppressive goverments that we (as well as
other countries governments) put in place. I would not want to live in
a country that lets terrorists dictate national policy or where
terrorists are free and encouraged to attack them.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Alias]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf131bacfdbe0bd989761@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <uyFEj8VWFHA.3280@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> Um, I have quoted one page of Kurt's web site a couple of times. Good
>> advice, advice that works for people who don't think they should have to
>> pay
>> for something twice. Another site I have cited was from Microsoft,
>> activation FAQs.
>
> And not everyone is going to agree with that interpretation of the fair
> use act, and that's their right to disagree with him.
>
>> Like I said to Leythos, this is getting off topic. If you're happy living
>> in
>> the totalitarian JesusLand with a total idiot in the White House, so be
>> it.
>> If you're happy sending your children to school where metal detectors are
>> at
>> the door and cops in the hall, so be it. I've been there, done that and
>> worn
>> out the T-Shirt and am now happily living in a civilized country.
>
> I support Bush, I don't have metal detectors in any schools in our city,

What city would that be? Some small town in Kansas?

> have kids getting a good education,

LOL! Spanish students want to take their last year at high school in the
States because it's so much easier than here.

and believe in the current
> governments mission to remove oppressive goverments that we (as well as
> other countries governments) put in place.

It figures you would support bullying.

> I would not want to live in
> a country that lets terrorists dictate national policy or where
> terrorists are free and encouraged to attack them.

So when are you getting rid of Bush the Terrorist who has used WMDs on
innocent civilians?

Like I said, it's off topic but try and tell that to the prisoners in the
States and overseas that the USA has locked up without counsel, bail, trial
or charges.

Alias

[Leythos]

In article <#kLwEgWWFHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
> Like I said, it's off topic but try and tell that to the prisoners in the
> States and overseas that the USA has locked up without counsel, bail, trial
> or charges.

If you want to talk politics without getting personal, I'm more than
willing to take it to email - you are correct, this is off-topic for
this forum.

As I said, I'm always willing to chat vial email if you want too. (just
remember to remove the 999 from the email address listed below).

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <OpZPIxVWFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>
>> <snipped up>
>>
>>
>>> If they get the death-penalty, hang them on the court-house lawn, it
>>> would put the fear of the law into criminals or wanna-be criminals.
>>
>> Then why is it that countries without the death penalty have lower
>> murder rates?
>
> Only some do, others have higher murder rates - it's all subjective
> and based on what is/isn't reported.
>
> A proper statement would be that "Some countries without the death
> penalty have lower murder rates than the US".
>
> Seems that until Turkey decided it wanted to join the EU, it was still
> executing people up to 1984.
>
> Turkey has not executed anyone since 1984, although courts regularly
> impose death sentences -- 50 people now are on death row.
>
> Interesting information on Spain and prison rates:
>
> A more revealing measure of a country=3Fs imprisonment rate is
> therefore the number of prisoners for every 1,000 crimes committed.
> On this measure, Britain sends relatively few people to prison. In
> Britain only around 12 people are in prison for every 1,000 recorded
> crimes. The lowest in Europe is Sweden, with 4.7 per 1,000. Spain
> imprisons 48 people for every 1,000 crimes and Ireland 33 people for
> every 1,000 crimes.

I love how you quote other people's words without acknowledging it!

Just another demonstration of the depths you are willing to sink to!

"A more revealing measure of a country's imprisonment rate is therefore
the number of prisoners for every 1,000 crimes committed. On this
measure, Britain sends relatively few people to prison. In Britain only
around 12 people are in prison for every 1,000 recorded crimes. The
lowest in Europe is Sweden, with 4.7 per 1,000. Spain imprisons 48
people for every 1,000 crimes and Ireland 33 people for every 1,000
crimes." -
http://www.reform.co.uk/website/crime/abetterway/imprisonmentandthecrimerate.aspx



Notice how there is no mention of how many people are imprisoned per
1,000 crimes in the US!


>
> What's interesting to me is that it doesn't make any difference what
> the crime rate is outside the US as long as they don't ship their
> criminals here. If other countries systems worked, with the same
> socioeconomic standings as the US, it would be relevant and might be
> something to look at. At this time, until we can get rid of all the
> "politically correct" types and the ones that want to provide
> "Excuses" for others, we're stuck with what we've got.

LOL! You want to get rid of anyone that doesn't believe what you do!

You were born too late, Nazithos!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[kurttrail]

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Personal web pages are your idea of authoritative information?
>>
>
> Why not? Aren't you frequently citing the personal (and biased and
> deliberately misleading) web site of your hero, Kurttrail? If it's
> good enough for you...

LOL! "Biased and deliberately misleading" from a guy that repeatedly
says a law limiting the rights of the copyright owners is actually a
limitation on the owner of a copy!

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?as_q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.law.cornell.edu%2Fuscode%2F17%2F117.html&num=10&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=Bruce+Chambers&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=15&as_maxm=5&as_maxy=2005&safe=off

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks, I needed that bit of unintentional humor
by you!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[Curious George]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:12:08 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

<snip>

>Therein lies a common theme I hear from people who claim
>WinXp is so great... They're ignoring that it wasn't just
>the OS that's newer most often, but the drivers and apps
>too. I've recycled/reused Intel TX/BX boards that came out
>of the Gateway systems with quite good results, Win98 or
>Win2k, but newer drivers and apps.

No. It's also what XP allows to happen or not happen. Like Windows
installer service, protected memory, etc.

<snip>

>True but that's not a Win98 flaw per se, just the software
>of the era. Having had tons of repaired and redeployed
>Win98 boxes come through here, I can state that Win98 is
>really not bad given newer drivers (sometimes meaning newer
>hardware for components whose drivers never became stable
>enough) and apps.

Win98 allows the software of the era to take a crap over the shared
libraries, etc & also RAM. An OS shouldn't allow that. That's why 9x
deploys much smother if you first upgrade windows installer service
and take a few extra steps with 3rd part SW.

>I don't use SFC and don't feel anyone needs it.

You would if it was useful. It should be useful because 9x allows all
kinds of crap to happen it shouldn't

>Painfully slow though?
>For everyday uses like surfing, email, etc, a Win98 box can
>be faster than a more modern alternative. Take one of those
>BX boards in a Gateway, throw a slocket plus P3 1GHz into it
>and a semi-modern HDD and it's snappier than a brand new
>high-end Dell. Two reasons for that, one is the crap the
>OEMs load onto a box, but the other the horrific job MS has
>done at producing bloatware.

Once installed it's snappy. Installing app after app with restart
after restart is painfully slow. Factor in the all too common
painfully slow BIOS post and ouch...

<snip>

>>Yes BX was excellent but not everything with 98 was a BX with solid
>>peripherals.
>
>True, but I still point back to add-on cards' drivers and
>apps. If I randomly picked a WIn98 era board off a pile of
>boards here (and was lucky enough that it posted before I
>became apathetic about it), I'm pretty confident it would be
>up and running WIn98 fine within 45 minutes, including the
>time to hunt down drivers... but then I never use anything
>but newer drivers when setting up an OS- yet another thing I
>hate about WinXP, that it starts assigning hardware IDs and
>default drivers when the last thing anyone should want is
>the old defeatured drivers MS graces us with.

Sure you got 98 up in about 45 minutes- not a complete desktop.

<snip>

>You may've had something set up wrong, Win98 does do HLT
>cooling. In fact I can't remember the last box win98 didn't
>do HLT cooling properly on except a hacked-together Tualatin
>Celery on a generic pin-adapter sloket in a BX board. Same
>board did HLT fine with a Coppermine in it.

no you're wrong. No win9x does this. Only the NT family & *nix on
x86. You need a 3rd party app like rain, etc for that. I always felt
they made the systems a little less stable though.

<snip>

>I don't find it very time-consuming or expensive.
>If anything setting up old gear is extremely quick for me
>because I archived all the drivers, docs, etc (not every
>driver/etc ever made but with dozens of Gigs of them,
>sometimes it seems like it).

Well that's relative. It's also related to whether we're talking
about early 98 gear or late.

>Main thing I do is ignore the OEM support crap and just use
>the chipset drivers per the respective part.

the only way to go.

>Works fine for
>me... and Win98 is so easy to plug-n-play migrate that I can
>clone an installation all set up, plug-n-play it for the
>different parts, all finished in less than an hour, even
>less if the box already had a NIC in it.

<snip>

>>>>Why shouldn't M$ make a buck off their intellectual property?
>>>
>>>Which buck, the first or the four-hundred billionth?
>>
>>and how many computers is their stuff on exactly?
>
>Too many?
>Enough that they don't have a justification for the OS
>price, and the resultant monopoly keeps that price
>artificially higher than it would otherwise be.

That's what happens when a company becomes heavily entrenched &
"trusted." Think how overpriced Adaptec is - and IBM & Cisco, etc.

>>>>You
>>>>can't have it both ways - software that is perfectly reliable & secure
>>>>which is infinitely developed & supported (no one does this anyway)
>>>>while also being cheap.
>>>
>>>What's reliable?
>>
>>>WinXP sure isn't.
>>
>>Sure it is - with good computing practices - like a lot of things
>
>Same could be said about Win98, or take your pick of OS.

right. but 98 require a _lot_ more discipline

>I predict XP will be looked back upon as the WinME of the NT
>family,

I think that's an overstatement

>a resource hog that added little of use over Win2K
>save for more app compatibility, an issue that has already
>changed drastically as anything semi-modern runs on either
>OS.

I'll give you that.


>>>Unlike Win98 which, once configured will continue to run, XP
>>>will update itself,
>>
>>unless you tell it not to
>
>True, and I do prefer manually doing it, but once you strip
>away several of these features, you've stripped away a lot
>of the reasons why less experienced users prefer it.

*cough* Luna *cough*

>>>or if you don't keep same boot drive
>>>configuration you stand a real chance of having to do a
>>>repair install at least. Overall it's better but not as
>>>good as it should be, IMO would be, had there been
>>>competition.
>>
>>win98 is far more temperamental to change.
>
>.
>You're 100% wrong there, I can plug and play from any one
>Win98 box to any other platform capable of running it at
>all. 100% success at it. WinXP isn't even remotely close,
>and never will be.

I'm really talking about SW change not HW. Although I don't
understand where you're problems with XP & HW are coming from. Sounds
a lot like limited HW exposure on 98 with unusually good luck and now
getting caught up on some crappy newer gear that is not fully
supported by XP. 9x after all had the "Plug 'n Pray" reputation. XP
- not so much.

>>Either are fine if
>>installed on decent equipment with only a few apps on it and left
>>static. But that's not how most use these things or what the other
>>poster seems to want from his Win98 word processor & web browser.
>
>You may still be thinking of old apps when you think of
>Win98. It doesn't have any problems with gigs of apps so
>long as you don't install really old buggy apps.

Yes it does on older machines when the registry gets really huge.

>I don't
>mean multitasking them though, clearly Win98's resource
>limits make it quite poor relative to 2K or XP in this
>regard.
>
>
>>
>>>How do you figure it's cheap?
>>
>>time=money
>
>I still disagree that it take more time, if anything I think
>it's quicker.

Try an automated deployment of 98, all apps & updates with a windows
server without buying any extra SW. That's right you can't. Hmm..
which would be faster & easier?

<snip>

>>>you would?
>>
>>Even if I didn't want to obligations to investors would demand it & I
>>would be replaced by someone who was more of a shark.
>
>Overgeneralizing about "businesses" doesn't do anything to
>further an arguement about Microsoft.

It's not an over generalization. It's how things work. You won't last
2 seconds running a major company if you're not tough as nails.
There's no place for altruism in big business unless its for your
shareholders.

>>>I'd focus on quality product at least by the time I was rich
>>>enough to be set for several lifetimes, if not before then.
>>>That's where MS deviated from common practices, in their
>>>efforst to eliminate competition rather than win marketshare
>>>through a better product. The better product was an aside,
>>>a push to sell further versions of windows.
>>
>>You've really seen nothing since windows 98, have you?
>
>I didn't have the problems setting up or running the past
>OS. I can't help it if you did, but that only makes the
>newer ones even MORE desirable for you.

No 9x's limitations means 2k+ has more to prove to me.

>I also fail to see where you come up with that comment, as
>it doesn't even appear that you have much experience with
>any MS OS... you don't even realize how much harder it is to
>PNP XP to a new box.

Because it's a stupid way to deploy a box if there are too many HW
differences. Even still, you talk about quality boards, but if it
isn't working for you I'd point the finger at your HW choices.

>>Take a look at
>>their current platforms, esp servers, and how they are handling
>>security & patching. It's light-years from their horrible behaviour
>>in the 90's and before.
>
>That's funny. Millions of businesses run older versions of
>WIndows Server with no problems.

except huge security holes they neglect to patch- even thought the fix
is out there.

> The worst possible thing
>they could do is move to a NEWER version of WIndows server.
>Frankly though, I'm still amazed that so many are deluded
>into thinking a server should run windows at all unless it
>MUST, literally.

It's really kind nice for a managed PC environment - if you buy into
that computing model.

>>M$ is a market leader. As such they serve to standardize existing
>>technologies.
>
>No, quite wrong.
>Standards typically exist ahead of MS adoption and often MS
>tries to go proprietary. Open your web browser and hit a
>few sites reandomly for a reminder of this. Heh, do it with
>Sun Java though since that is one area where MS finally
>lost.

Sun had pipe dreams of throngs of anit-MS programmers giving them
slave labor to make a java desktop running chips with onboard java
support hoping to overthrow MS and it's stranglehold on the desktop
and its emerging thread to the WWW. M$ simply beat Sun at their own
game.

They steal technology from others & make the code proprietary but
because of their market share and lack of competition they also make
it widely accepted. I didn't really enjoy the days of "This site best
viewed with X browser." & having to switch back & forth for certain
content

Common platform may not meet your definition of "standardization" but
it does translate to "ease of use" and developers eager to invest and
become entrenched in it. Widespread support & development are really
important to endusers even if the underlying technology/design isn't
the best possible.

>>users benefit even if we don't like the idea of
>>monopolies.
>
>Nope, completely wrong.
>Users benefit from a common platform

right

>but to have that
>platform maintained in the matter MS does it, is worse than
>had something like Unix, had the board development support
>focused on it rather than Windows.

hypothetical don't really count

>What Windows did is
>remove user's chance for a secure OS without all kinds of
>extra crap to get there.
>
>
>>Sorry but it's how things have been playing out. Too
>>much competition means consumers are left with their thumbs in their
>>mouth, scared & confused by conflicting, incompatible choices, and
>>developers fighting with each other and reluctant to invest too much
>>in a particular technology. Computing needs leadership, even if M$
>>isn't everybody's first choice for that role.
>
>Not leadership, only a common platform.
>Things like "plug n play" were inevitable technologies.

who brought this to the mainstream first?

>Firewire, USB, a Windowed GUI, all things that would've come
>into being with or without MS.

Firewire is Apple's invention. The squandered it. Windowed GUI is
ATT's. Apple stole it from them and MS stole it from apple. of
course X wasn't stolen from anyone ;)

>MS is a leader not because
>we needed them to be, merely because they were the only OS
>that dominated and they supported the technlogy they had
>nothing to do with developing.

Right. They steal the technology that has the most promise and make
it mainstream. If they didn't, users would have to contend with a far
more complex computing environment and development efforts would be
diluted. M$ aren't the good guys - but they're not bad for mainstream
commodity computing.

>>>>Go and fly off the handle again if you wish. I'm done here. All I'm
>>>>saying is take a deep breath, go for a walk, and then take another
>>>>look at this and why, exactly you're so angry and think M$ is acting
>>>>so unusually. Everyone drops support after 3 years or so. Everybody
>>>>tries to squeeze out whatever they can from a product.
>>>
>>>How many products do you find to be reasonable to parallel
>>>to Windows for comparision? I'm not aruging that they
>>>should support old versions of windows indefinitely though,
>>>but I AM suggesting their software should've been recalled
>>>altogether when it was initially unstable enough that "blue
>>>screen of death" was a household phrase. Their support
>>>should've extended at least until the product met typical
>>>product fitness standards applicable to other industries...
>>>not new features, just fixing what was shipped.
>>
>>those older versions were so bad I don't know they're worth fixing.
>
>I mean WinXP too.
>I completely disagree with the "how bad" part about Win98.
>Given new drivers and apps it's not at all unlikely that
>WinXP will throw up an error or two before Win98 will.

if you say so

>WInXP itself won't crash, and for many people that's VERY
>important. For others it isn't so important, as the app
>they were running is what crashed and (sorta the whole point
>of having the computer on in the first place).

?? That's questionable. I don't see why it would ever be OK for a
bad app to take an OS offline. Esp. a miltitasking OS.

>>I'm happy to see them gone. How about another idea: If you bought
>>Win 3x or 9x and maybe NT you should be entitled to a free upgrade to
>>2k or XP where M$ actually made somewhat of an attempt to make a half
>>decent product.
>
>We aren't on the same page here.
>Security flaws are the primary problem, and things like
>drive corruption for lack of initial 48 bit LBA support-
>glaring bugs due to the MS philosophy about how to handle
>(and place value upon) user data.

You're confusing the attributes of XP & 9x with the price one pays for
early adoption. You're talking about timing for specific gear rather
than the current state of XP vs 9x.

>WinXP should'e been recalled too IMO.

Initially yes (like every other M$ product except 2003 which while not
perfect was pretty ready for prime time as of RC2). But it's pretty
fixed now & 3rd parties have been fully onboard for some time now.

>>That make more sense to me then breaking the average
>>Joe's balls with activation & money grubbing. A little payback is in
>>order for those of us who tried to endure their shitty SW of the last
>>decade or more.
>
>Free upgrades seem a good idea, but I can see an arguement
>for not giving the user the new features and support that
>the OS they paid for didn't provide. Granted sometimes it
>would've been possible to add support with drivers or
>relatively simple patches, but I wouldn't fault MS for not
>giving free WinXP to 98 users IF MS chose to patch the WIn98
>flaws instead. Unfortuneately just giving users WinXP
>doesn't resolve the issues.

We got screwed with 9x. I'd rather move on than beat a dead hoarse.

<snip>

>I can't help but think you're doing something horribly wrong
>if it takes more time. Then again, I still place blame on
>drivers and apps... try setting up Win98 using mainstream
>well-developed hardware/drivers and it's not at all
>difficult to do... as I've proven time and time again doing
>so.

OK. Picture a shiny new computer with a blank drive. Now connect the
ethernet cable and startup so it connects to a RIS server and installs
a slipstreamed XP SP2 with all the drivers it needs. When it reboots
it takes on it's policies including installing needed software. All
include with the 1 M$ server OS license.

Try doing that with a '98 client

Now try setting up both completely manually with a 98 machine that
takes 30 seconds to post and you have to reboot it constantly vs XP
which reboots a lot less, boots faster, and the newer board posts
virtually instantly. Which is faster? Is that significant? I think
so.

If systems are too different you can't simply copy over either OS and
trust PNP. It wasn't designed for that. However newer boards are
more likely to support Intel common image platform. So with 2
different newer XP PC's you have a greater chance of luck dumping one
install on another box and counting on PNP to sort things out.

[Kevin Brunt (Fat B@stard)!!]

I recently bought a tiny bare box without any OS and installed a DELL XP professional SP0 and activated online and it worked. The activation policy isn't applied consistently in every country. If you are very good at fighting your coener then you can get away commiting a murder!!

I distribute lots of software packages to students and nobody has queried how many licenses I have used.

So activation is just to amuse uncle Bill and his dedicated programers!!

Have fun on uncle Bill's expense.

Kev


Michael C wrote:
>
> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu, memory,
> video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the same was the
> HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having trouble with the
> internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it activated I asked him
> what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't activate. He said that
> XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I
> asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and
> not answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain on
> the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC" means. In the
> end I asked if it was more of a policy than a technical limitation and he
> said "thank you for calling microsoft to activate your software" and hung
> up!
>
> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> and will activate ok. Is that true?

[Kevin Brunt (Fat B@stard)!!]

"what constitutes the same PC?"

My definition is that it has to be in the same case i.e. all the bits and pcs whether new or not!!! No court has yet defined what a PC is never mind the "same PC".

Kev

Michael C wrote:
>
> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu, memory,
> video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the same was the
> HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having trouble with the
> internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it activated I asked him
> what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't activate. He said that
> XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I
> asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and
> not answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain on
> the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC" means. In the
> end I asked if it was more of a policy than a technical limitation and he
> said "thank you for calling microsoft to activate your software" and hung
> up!
>
> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> and will activate ok. Is that true?

[Kevin Brunt (Fat B@stard)!!]

This idiot still doesn't know that you can buy generic OEM versions of XP from shops (search on http://www.novatech.co.uk)! There is no need to buy any hardware to qualify for this package. Bleach can make you blonde but it can also damage your brain and Carey hasn't realised this yet!! Silly cow.

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote:
>
> Q. "I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> and will activate ok. Is that true?"
>
> A. Not if its an OEM version....only a "Retail Version".
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
> Microsoft Newsgroups
>
> Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Michael C" wrote:
>
> | Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu, memory,
> | video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the same was the
> | HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having trouble with the
> | internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it activated I asked him
> | what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't activate. He said that
> | XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I
> | asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and
> | not answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain on
> | the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC" means. In the
> | end I asked if it was more of a policy than a technical limitation and he
> | said "thank you for calling microsoft to activate your software" and hung
> | up!
> |
> | I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> | and will activate ok. Is that true?
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
> Tested on: 5/10/2005 6:36:44 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com

[T. Waters]

Kevin Brunt (Fat B@stard)!! wrote:
> I recently bought a tiny bare box without any OS and installed a DELL
> XP professional SP0 and activated online and it worked. The
> activation policy isn't applied consistently in every country.

**It worked because Dell are a "kinder, gentler" OEM than others, not
because you are in the UK. Dell CD's have historically been generic OEM
CD's**

> If you are very good at fighting your coener then you can get away
> commiting a murder!!
>
> I distribute lots of software packages to students and nobody has
> queried how many licenses I have used.
>
> So activation is just to amuse uncle Bill and his dedicated
> programers!!
>
> Have fun on uncle Bill's expense.
>
> Kev
>
>
> Michael C wrote:
>>
>> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu,
>> memory, video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was
>> the same was the HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was
>> having trouble with the internet so I phoned MS to activate XP
>> again. After it activated I asked him what the limit is to hardware
>> change before XP won't activate. He said that XP oem has to always
>> remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I asked "what
>> constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and not
>> answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain
>> on the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC"
>> means. In the end I asked if it was more of a policy than a
>> technical limitation and he said "thank you for calling microsoft to
>> activate your software" and hung up!
>>
>> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new
>> machine and will activate ok. Is that true?

[Michael C]

"george" <anonymous@discussion.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23ARFdz8VFHA.2928@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Michael,
>
> Aren't YOU glad you asked a question!
> So far 260+ 'opinions' and counting.....
> But I get the feeling the jury is still out.....
> Don't you just looooove newsnet.....

I know, I was pretty suprised at the number of replies, I haven't been able
to read them all but I did get the answer I wanted.

Michael

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

You seem to know a whole lot about very little!

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Kevin Brunt (Fat B@stard)!!" wrote:

in message news:736B444C.C924C4DF@ccs.bbk.ac.uk...
| This idiot still doesn't know that you can buy generic OEM versions of XP from shops (search on http://www.novatech.co.uk)! There
is no need to buy any hardware to qualify for this package. Bleach can make you blonde but it can also damage your brain and Carey
hasn't realised this yet!! Silly cow.
|
| "Carey Frisch [MVP]" wrote:
| >
| > Q. "I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
| > and will activate ok. Is that true?"
| >
| > A. Not if its an OEM version....only a "Retail Version".
| >
| > --
| > Carey Frisch
| > Microsoft MVP
| > Windows XP - Shell/User
| > Microsoft Newsgroups
| >
| > Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
| > http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
| >
| > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| >
| > "Michael C" wrote:
| >
| > | Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu, memory,
| > | video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the same was the
| > | HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having trouble with the
| > | internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it activated I asked him
| > | what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't activate. He said that
| > | XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I
| > | asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and
| > | not answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain on
| > | the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC" means. In the
| > | end I asked if it was more of a policy than a technical limitation and he
| > | said "thank you for calling microsoft to activate your software" and hung
| > | up!
| > |
| > | I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
| > | and will activate ok. Is that true?
| >
| > ---
| > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
| > Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
| > Tested on: 5/10/2005 6:36:44 PM
| > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
| > http://www.avast.com
|



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 05/12/2005
Tested on: 5/15/2005 5:07:00 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[kony]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 20:01:52 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:12:08 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Therein lies a common theme I hear from people who claim
>>WinXp is so great... They're ignoring that it wasn't just
>>the OS that's newer most often, but the drivers and apps
>>too. I've recycled/reused Intel TX/BX boards that came out
>>of the Gateway systems with quite good results, Win98 or
>>Win2k, but newer drivers and apps.
>
>No. It's also what XP allows to happen or not happen. Like Windows
>installer service, protected memory, etc.

I can see this is another topic that would end up wasted
time on both our parts so I'll just keep this short and then
move on.

The truth is that no matter what you theoretically find
problematic, pre-XP boxes have been running for years and
MANY people have chosen not to upgrade to XP, and others
wouldn't have been running it had their PCs been faster,
it's just they bought a newer box that came with XP.

I do feel XP is better than 98, but not so much so that
someone should take the irrational views you have about the
viability of older systems for tasks they're capable of.


>
><snip>
>
>>True but that's not a Win98 flaw per se, just the software
>>of the era. Having had tons of repaired and redeployed
>>Win98 boxes come through here, I can state that Win98 is
>>really not bad given newer drivers (sometimes meaning newer
>>hardware for components whose drivers never became stable
>>enough) and apps.
>
>Win98 allows the software of the era to take a crap over the shared
>libraries, etc & also RAM. An OS shouldn't allow that. That's why 9x
>deploys much smother if you first upgrade windows installer service
>and take a few extra steps with 3rd part SW.


Another nice theory but in practice the boxes run, even
businesses are still using WIn98 with no desire to upgrade.


>
>>I don't use SFC and don't feel anyone needs it.
>
>You would if it was useful. It should be useful because 9x allows all
>kinds of crap to happen it shouldn't

A nice theory, but in practice your desire to limit what
happens is a bit laughable because if anything, XP limits
even more what you have control over as a user. That's good
and bad, but not an arguement to abandon an OS that doesn't
suit your theory. Again plenty of WIn98 boxes didn't have
problems in this area, when good apps were installed. You
can't claim XP does better if only newer apps are contrasted
with the older ones on 98.

>
>>Painfully slow though?
>>For everyday uses like surfing, email, etc, a Win98 box can
>>be faster than a more modern alternative. Take one of those
>>BX boards in a Gateway, throw a slocket plus P3 1GHz into it
>>and a semi-modern HDD and it's snappier than a brand new
>>high-end Dell. Two reasons for that, one is the crap the
>>OEMs load onto a box, but the other the horrific job MS has
>>done at producing bloatware.
>
>Once installed it's snappy. Installing app after app with restart
>after restart is painfully slow. Factor in the all too common
>painfully slow BIOS post and ouch...

It's really not a big deal, unless you're trying to set up a
dozen boxes. More like nit-picking than anything as the
time it'd take is little and it's to be expected that an
older box is not meant as a do "everything" system for a
power user, so there may be a core philosophy issue if
someone is installing enough apps (that need reboots) that
this is a real problem.



>
><snip>
>
>>>Yes BX was excellent but not everything with 98 was a BX with solid
>>>peripherals.
>>
>>True, but I still point back to add-on cards' drivers and
>>apps. If I randomly picked a WIn98 era board off a pile of
>>boards here (and was lucky enough that it posted before I
>>became apathetic about it), I'm pretty confident it would be
>>up and running WIn98 fine within 45 minutes, including the
>>time to hunt down drivers... but then I never use anything
>>but newer drivers when setting up an OS- yet another thing I
>>hate about WinXP, that it starts assigning hardware IDs and
>>default drivers when the last thing anyone should want is
>>the old defeatured drivers MS graces us with.
>
>Sure you got 98 up in about 45 minutes- not a complete desktop.

"Complete desktop"?
I hate to break this to you but plenty of people managed to
install and use 98 without these problems you infer.
Installing 98 and being competely finished may easily be
faster than XP if you're comparing newer hardare on both OS.

If all you're doing is trolling to take a roundabout way of
saying a new computer is better than an old one, then save
the effort, that's a given. The issue though is whether the
difference is worth the time, money, if the user NEEDS the
differences, and whether it's responsible to just add to
landfills because of emotional biases that aren't back up
with evidence.

The evidence is surrounding you, that in less than an hour
an old box can be up and doing the basic tasks most people
do, and these tasks are the all that some people do with
their systems. If you are too anal about things to just get
a box running then that's not a hardware or software
problem, that's an installer or user problem.



>>You may've had something set up wrong, Win98 does do HLT
>>cooling. In fact I can't remember the last box win98 didn't
>>do HLT cooling properly on except a hacked-together Tualatin
>>Celery on a generic pin-adapter sloket in a BX board. Same
>>board did HLT fine with a Coppermine in it.
>
>no you're wrong. No win9x does this. Only the NT family & *nix on
>x86. You need a 3rd party app like rain, etc for that. I always felt
>they made the systems a little less stable though.

No, they do this, ay board without major bios bugs, and of
course a bios new enough to support APCI. Anone can set up
WIn98 and check hardware parameters to verify a system isn't
(overheating for example) can easily see the ACPI HLT effect
in a significant CPU temperture drop once Win98 has loaded.

Perhaps you were just guessing because when 98 first came
out, many boards didn't yet have ACPI bios, or rather, the
boards shipped with early bios verisons. Taking the Gateway
OEM mentioned previously, in '97 they shipped boards that
didn't have ACPI support but later bios updates added it.



>>Too many?
>>Enough that they don't have a justification for the OS
>>price, and the resultant monopoly keeps that price
>>artificially higher than it would otherwise be.
>
>That's what happens when a company becomes heavily entrenched &
>"trusted." Think how overpriced Adaptec is - and IBM & Cisco, etc.

.... or when they have a monopoly and dictate pricing rather
than consumers having reasonable choices without being
computer gurus themselves.

>
>>>>>You
>>>>>can't have it both ways - software that is perfectly reliable & secure
>>>>>which is infinitely developed & supported (no one does this anyway)
>>>>>while also being cheap.
>>>>
>>>>What's reliable?
>>>
>>>>WinXP sure isn't.
>>>
>>>Sure it is - with good computing practices - like a lot of things
>>
>>Same could be said about Win98, or take your pick of OS.
>
>right. but 98 require a _lot_ more discipline

It's old enough that there is a vast knowledge base, and I
dont' mean at Microsoft but on usenet. It's really not a
big enough problem that it interferes with most people's
usage. Most people don't give it a second thought, and when
people first enquired about upgrading to WinXP, many didn't
even "know" whether they needed it, had to be "persuaded"
that it was better because Win98 was still suiting their
needs.

WIn98 is NOT for everyone, for all uses. I never meant to
suggest it was, rather than being for specific functions or
light duty use. I don't find the "time" to do it to be
significantly difference though and as with any other
computer decision the cost vs. benefit of XP must be
determined.


>
>>I predict XP will be looked back upon as the WinME of the NT
>>family,
>
>I think that's an overstatement

Maybe, maybe not. With ME we compare to later OS, and so it
will be once MS has replaced XP a time or two. XP is in a
similar boat as ME, that it's preceeding OS (2K) was
essentially the same thing without extra "user help" bolted
on.



>>You're 100% wrong there, I can plug and play from any one
>>Win98 box to any other platform capable of running it at
>>all. 100% success at it. WinXP isn't even remotely close,
>>and never will be.
>
>I'm really talking about SW change not HW. Although I don't
>understand where you're problems with XP & HW are coming from. Sounds
>a lot like limited HW exposure on 98 with unusually good luck and now
>getting caught up on some crappy newer gear that is not fully
>supported by XP. 9x after all had the "Plug 'n Pray" reputation. XP
>- not so much.

Right now I can randomly pick an old box that came with 98SE
(I mean I actually have an old box I could do this to) and
it'd be plug-n-played to run newer parts. Maybe you just
haven't tried it often enough. Maybe you just used poor
drivers. It's not 98 that's the problem.

I concede that it's not automatic like with XP, but that's
where the knowledge base comes in... it's actually better to
know how to do it right than let XP do it and leave remnants
of old hardware behind in registry. So either way, the
right way to do it requires similar steps that work on
either OS, except that with XP you may not even get the box
to boot up enough to get to the registry.



>>You may still be thinking of old apps when you think of
>>Win98. It doesn't have any problems with gigs of apps so
>>long as you don't install really old buggy apps.
>
>Yes it does on older machines when the registry gets really huge.

The mechanisms for registry growth on XP and 98 are similar,
XP's registry can be huge enough that there's even a setting
to limit it,and it starts out (vague recollection, might be
off by a couple MB) half the size of XP's. XP will have a
larger registry with same apps installed. If you're the
type of user that constantly installs _AND_ uninstalls apps,
you might rethink which apps you really need, a box as fully
funcitonal as Win98 can be will never have as large a
registry as same (use) age WinXP box.



>>I still disagree that it take more time, if anything I think
>>it's quicker.
>
>Try an automated deployment of 98, all apps & updates with a windows
>server without buying any extra SW. That's right you can't. Hmm..
>which would be faster & easier?

98 wasn't meant for this. Apples and oranges.
I never suggested newly deploying 98 across a business
today.



>>>Even if I didn't want to obligations to investors would demand it & I
>>>would be replaced by someone who was more of a shark.
>>
>>Overgeneralizing about "businesses" doesn't do anything to
>>further an arguement about Microsoft.
>
>It's not an over generalization. It's how things work. You won't last
>2 seconds running a major company if you're not tough as nails.
>There's no place for altruism in big business unless its for your
>shareholders.

Again, overgeneralization.
MS has no competition on mainstream desktops.
That is an extremely significant distinction compared to
other businesses in general.



>>I also fail to see where you come up with that comment, as
>>it doesn't even appear that you have much experience with
>>any MS OS... you don't even realize how much harder it is to
>>PNP XP to a new box.
>
>Because it's a stupid way to deploy a box if there are too many HW
>differences. Even still, you talk about quality boards, but if it
>isn't working for you I'd point the finger at your HW choices.

Actually, NO, with Win98 it's not a stupid way because with
Win98 it actually works with COMPLETELY different
hardware... good hardware, bad hardware, ANY hardware that
can run 98 at all. It's not automatic, you have to
uninstall some drivers and enumerated registry keys. All
common knowledge to those who've done it a few times, and
easily found by anyone who has heard of Google.

XP on the other hand, may not even boot up, requiring more
forethought to add driver support for the newer board or a
repair install. That's no big deal either but it makes XP
worse than 98 in this regard.



>>That's funny. Millions of businesses run older versions of
>>WIndows Server with no problems.
>
>except huge security holes they neglect to patch- even thought the fix
>is out there.

.... and so it is with any OS.
I'd consider it extremely negligent to let Windows server
update itself. The absolute last thing a company should
want is a gamble on whether a patch, any patch even ONCE
causes downtime while they weren't "hands-on" monitoring the
process to immediately rectify it, after hours.

<snip>


>>Security flaws are the primary problem, and things like
>>drive corruption for lack of initial 48 bit LBA support-
>>glaring bugs due to the MS philosophy about how to handle
>>(and place value upon) user data.
>
>You're confusing the attributes of XP & 9x with the price one pays for
>early adoption. You're talking about timing for specific gear rather
>than the current state of XP vs 9x.

Nope, I'm considering MS's core philosophy to emphasize
features over security, before those features are secure.


>OK. Picture a shiny new computer with a blank drive. Now connect the
>ethernet cable and startup so it connects to a RIS server and installs
>a slipstreamed XP SP2 with all the drivers it needs. When it reboots
>it takes on it's policies including installing needed software. All
>include with the 1 M$ server OS license.
>
>Try doing that with a '98 client

Different scenario, WIn98 was never meant for business use.
However, if we're talking about business use then the issues
previously mentioned about PNP or software aren't so
significant either, as it's going to be a static box.

The question is not which is more fit for a new deployment,
rather which to consider for a specific, unique task within
the limits of what each does. 98 does not have all the
featues but that doesn't mean it's not suitable when it has
the needed features for scenario.


>
>Now try setting up both completely manually with a 98 machine that
>takes 30 seconds to post

The operating system has nothing to do with how long it
posts, and the machine was configured incorrectly if it took
30 seconds. It's VERY rare for a Win98 box to take over
10-12 seconds. I'd call that nitpicking, if someone can't
figure out they'll be using the system a few seconds more
ahead of time that's a user problem.



> and you have to reboot it constantly vs XP
>which reboots a lot less, boots faster, and the newer board posts
>virtually instantly. Which is faster? Is that significant? I think
>so.

Yes XP has these benefits but I question the emphasis you
place on them and their extent. I know people who leave
their Win98 boxes up for days at a time, and XP users who
shut down multiple times a day. Grand ideals must be
realized in practice before it makes 98 unsuitable for a
particular use. One can't just make blanket statements and
assume they apply.

XP does not boot all that much faster after fully configured
and apps installed. It may easily seem that way when a user
compared their well-worn 98 box to a new XP box, but so it
would when comparing a newly installed 98 box to a worn-in
XP box. Overall XP may boot a few seconds faster, but again
I question the real need, significance of that as I've never
heard any legitimate complaints about win98 boot times
unless the user had misconfigured something... and that it's
possible to misconfigure is a mixed bag, it's useful to have
more control over the OS.


>
>If systems are too different you can't simply copy over either OS and
>trust PNP.

On WIn98, yes you can.
Time and time and time again I have.


>It wasn't designed for that.

98 was, XP wasn't.

>However newer boards are
>more likely to support Intel common image platform. So with 2
>different newer XP PC's you have a greater chance of luck dumping one
>install on another box and counting on PNP to sort things out.

It is getting better, but with 98 isn't not a matter of luck
at all. It is a matter of doing it properly, the
aforementioned removal of drivers and enumerated registry
info. That takes up to a few minutes, usually under 1
minute. It's simply a matter of knowing how to do it. Some
would argue that if a user can't do it themselves and would
need rely entirely on the OS, then they shouldn't be going
it alone rather than letting a 3rd party handle support and
config of the system. Each user has to decide that for
themselves.

Win98 though is FAR better to PNP to a newer box.
It's good enough that I could (actually DID) just make a
drive image and PNP Win98 for every new board that came in
so it could quickly and easily be tested for DOA/defect/etc.
This was not only back in the Win98 era but I regularly did
it dozens of times about a year ago (new hardware at that
time).

[Michael C]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:5tef8117pqgabtga6jiic96r15j2jorqjg@4ax.com...
> I can see this is another topic that would end up wasted
> time on both our parts so I'll just keep this short and then
> move on.

I haven't read all of your posts so excuse me if this has been discussed,
but have you considered the cost of running a win98 box. I find they tend to
be much more unreliable and any savings in cost are offset by labour costs.
It might be ok for a home user but for a corporation these costs need to be
taken into account. I will work on a win98 box but I warn customers that it
can be a black hole and it's easy for the bill to exceed the value of the
machine and possibly approach the cost of an upgrade. It's not all win98s
fault, quite often the older hardware is getting to that age where
everything is starting to fail and is quite often less reliable.

Michael

[kony]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:15:01 +1000, "Michael C"
<me@nospam.com> wrote:

>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:5tef8117pqgabtga6jiic96r15j2jorqjg@4ax.com...
>> I can see this is another topic that would end up wasted
>> time on both our parts so I'll just keep this short and then
>> move on.
>
>I haven't read all of your posts so excuse me if this has been discussed,
>but have you considered the cost of running a win98 box. I find they tend to
>be much more unreliable and any savings in cost are offset by labour costs.

It may only be coincidence in many cases. There were some
very good systems produced during the WIn98 era too, that
could be expected to keep running fine for years longer. On
the other hand a new system could be good, or bad. Labour
costs? I find it just the opposite, that there's nothing
cheaper or quicker to fix than old boxes. You can just grab
any old fan when that's a failure, or if a board won't post
after a few minutes you can just pull it and toss it out,
swapping in another board with no concerns about warranty
fullfillment or ordering another board, because a dozen old
boards can be stacked and ready as spares... though decent
older hardware tends to keep running for longer than it's
useful.



>It might be ok for a home user but for a corporation these costs need to be
>taken into account.

Whybring up corporate uses?
I would take it as a given that this is not a strategy for
corporate use, since Win98 itself isn't meant for that use.
In a corporate setting I suggest buying median-good quality
hardware and replacing it on regular intervals, NOT waiting
till it fails at all. Even so, the failure is one of
hardware, software just happens to get upgraded with the
purchase of the new box, I'm not suggesting tossing out XP
to install Win98 on a new system. Rather, the reuse of
viable systems when prudent, rather than throwing them away.
That may simply mean donating them to someone, it all
depends on the situation.


>I will work on a win98 box but I warn customers that it
>can be a black hole and it's easy for the bill to exceed the value of the
>machine

yes/no/maybe,
the issue might be how much more it costs to replace the box
and what benefit they get. Some parts (CPU fan, power
supply) that fail are cheap and easy to replace, shouldn't
cost the customer more than $50 to have fixed. Others like
the board aren't worth the trouble. Still the issue is cost
to buy a newer box, and time to set that up. If the newer
box cost $600 and they can pay $50 to get another 12 months
out of their present box, and didn't actually need a newer
box, they may have made a good choice. We in this group
probably have far more demanding needs and criteria than the
average users, who generally give me the impression they
just want their system working again for lowest cost
possible.

>and possibly approach the cost of an upgrade. It's not all win98s
>fault, quite often the older hardware is getting to that age where
>everything is starting to fail and is quite often less reliable.

Fair enough, often I won't pass judgement on a box till it's
been opened up, so I can see the board, the dust level,
fans, power, etc. There are some old boxes that may keep
running long after a box bought in the last couple years has
failed, because the older boxes had lower power/heat
density, so the main issue can be whether the mechanical
parts like fans are replaced periodically, dust cleaned out,
etc.

Then again I try to give people a cost-break if they want to
keep using their current system, partially because I can get
things right again pretty cheaply because I buy in volume
and don't want to see landfills made out of gear that still
works minus a $20 power supply or a $2 fan.

[kony]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 17:06:59 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"
<cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>You seem to know a whole lot about very little!

You appear to be very productive yourself.

[Michael C]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ta5g819lge1tf79s340sbdkbdh5dt280hr@4ax.com...
> It may only be coincidence in many cases. There were some
> very good systems produced during the WIn98 era too, that
> could be expected to keep running fine for years longer. On
> the other hand a new system could be good, or bad. Labour
> costs? I find it just the opposite, that there's nothing
> cheaper or quicker to fix than old boxes. You can just grab
> any old fan when that's a failure, or if a board won't post
> after a few minutes you can just pull it and toss it out,
> swapping in another board with no concerns about warranty
> fullfillment or ordering another board, because a dozen old
> boards can be stacked and ready as spares... though decent
> older hardware tends to keep running for longer than it's
> useful.

That's assuming you have the parts which I don't always. I just find that
newer systems are that much more reliable these days. It depends what you
mean by older hardware, if you're talking Pentium 1 I would say it's not
worth touching at all, p2 and p3s with win98 might be more worthwhile.

> Whybring up corporate uses?

In order for something to be truly economic it has to be justified in a
corporate environment.

> yes/no/maybe,

Problem is that maybe. You don't know till your several hours down the road
and a good way towards an upgrade.

> Then again I try to give people a cost-break if they want to
> keep using their current system, partially because I can get
> things right again pretty cheaply because I buy in volume
> and don't want to see landfills made out of gear that still
> works minus a $20 power supply or a $2 fan.

There's plenty of places that will take the box for charity.

Michael

[Curious George]

This is just one more example of just how you and I have totally
different expectations re reliability & efficiency & how we scrutinize
things at very different levels. But if you're going to play pretend
about what I've said or the items in question I'm not going to bother
continuing to dignify directly each "point".

I only have a few things I'd like to share for the record. First, to
a large extent efficiency is efficiency & is beneficial. In a large
organization there may be many computers where time wasted is
multiplied many fold. But in say a family or a very small business
where there are many less computers - there's also no dedicated staff
working 9-5 or longer to support these like in the enterprise - often
only the lone geek everyone relies on to make things work - in his
free time - while everyone involved still has deadlines of some kind -
& everyone is botching things because they don't what the hell they're
doing.

Secondly, patches for 9x were very frequently extremely buggy and
temperamental. 2K and higher (now at least) do not really have this
problem. Because the various 9x builds & patches were so screwy,
fixing things would require a major overhaul of the patches, patching
system (which MS did subsequently) as well as the flawed & limited
underlying architecture based on layers of crappy SW hiding
essentially dos of all things underneath. That's basically why M$
would be really stupid to take this on.

M$ has really been cleaning up their act with patches & patch
management. There's SUS, for example, which does not have to be
automatic (it isn't be default silly - I wasn't referring to Windows
"Automatic Updates") but is free and makes deploying patches - esp
hand-picked & tested patches a whole lot easier (on both the admins &
the network). It's just one of many signs of how MS is a lot more
serious about updates then they used to be. But it won't work on your
old NT Server.

Finally 98 isn't 98. 98SE is a resource hog with a few minor benefits
over 98. Both were a big improvement over 95 & 95 SR2- kinda of what
95 should have been from the beginning. But that doesn't mean what
they should have released 10 years ago isn't by now, at the very
least, _very_ long in the tooth. Sure you can still get by with it -
but at this point it's worthwhile in _very_ few circumstances. IMO
You're really overstating & overselling the real situation. "Can"
implement or deploy or fix or reinstall something doesn't mean that
you "should" or "will benefit from" that effort as opposed to other
available options.

Hey, continue to patch up the locals dodgy old crap if that's how you
like to make a living or spending your free time. I doubt your
clients are reading here anyway that my posts are going to take
business away from you.

[kony]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:46:42 +1000, "Michael C"
<me@nospam.com> wrote:

>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:ta5g819lge1tf79s340sbdkbdh5dt280hr@4ax.com...
>> It may only be coincidence in many cases. There were some
>> very good systems produced during the WIn98 era too, that
>> could be expected to keep running fine for years longer. On
>> the other hand a new system could be good, or bad. Labour
>> costs? I find it just the opposite, that there's nothing
>> cheaper or quicker to fix than old boxes. You can just grab
>> any old fan when that's a failure, or if a board won't post
>> after a few minutes you can just pull it and toss it out,
>> swapping in another board with no concerns about warranty
>> fullfillment or ordering another board, because a dozen old
>> boards can be stacked and ready as spares... though decent
>> older hardware tends to keep running for longer than it's
>> useful.
>
>That's assuming you have the parts which I don't always. I just find that
>newer systems are that much more reliable these days. It depends what you
>mean by older hardware, if you're talking Pentium 1 I would say it's not
>worth touching at all, p2 and p3s with win98 might be more worthwhile.

Agreed, a cutoff point can be relative to the user's needs
also but i find at least 400MHz to be about the minimum...
minimum to be able to use a winmodem and run GUI without a
lot of hesitation, do surfing and office, etc. Even then,
if I thought a box only had a few months life left I
wouldn't want to have anyone spend money on it. There are a
lot of fairly decent Intel BX boards in OEM boxes though,
they are pretty robust and could be expected to last for a
very long time ignoring random failures from external
forces. Not that all BX boards are good, rather than the
Intel BX boards of that era happened to be exceptional for
the period and also that many OEM boxes happened to use
them. Same for many Intel LX boards. Super-7 based systems
were on average more questionable quality, I usually saw
Super-7 platforms build to lowest costs in many ways.


>
>> Whybring up corporate uses?
>
>In order for something to be truly economic it has to be justified in a
>corporate environment.

Oh?
Even when the scenario isn't one of corporate use?
I don't find corporate environments as concerned about gear
costs as support costs, which can be an arguement for AND
against newer gear, as both have potentials for support in
different ways. While the new gear may not be dying from
old age, the infant mortality rate is still an issue but
even moreso the (as-yet unpatched) bugs in firmwares or
bios, OS, etc, have to be dealt with.

Even so, as downtime is often a very important issue I do
feel routine replacment intervals are warranted rather than
reuse of old gear... but then most decent IT managers
already know this and it's not anyone else's decision to
make.


>
>> yes/no/maybe,
>
>Problem is that maybe. You don't know till your several hours down the road
>and a good way towards an upgrade.

Several hours?
I've never spent that long troubleshooting a customer's
system. Sometimes I pick up boxes that are known to have
hardware faults, ie - don't work, and will spend a lot of
time as a curiosity/hobby, but that's a different matter,
not any attempt at cost or time vs benefit. Even so, doing
such may give me a different perspective on the value of
older parts, as I actually check brands, sizes, and
running-temps on capacitors before determining if a
motherboard is engineered well enough to privide a long
life. Plus the considerations of the power supply, if I
encounter a "new", unknown brand I'll open it up, it
provides more insight so the next time I run across same
thing I've a better idea of it's quality, capacity.

All this is getting off topic a bit, main point being there
are a lot of factors I'd consider, including making sure the
owner is aware of the issues but still making their own
decision without any coaching.


>
>> Then again I try to give people a cost-break if they want to
>> keep using their current system, partially because I can get
>> things right again pretty cheaply because I buy in volume
>> and don't want to see landfills made out of gear that still
>> works minus a $20 power supply or a $2 fan.
>
>There's plenty of places that will take the box for charity.


Maybe, though a lot of people would like to go as cheaply as
possible, they want to keep reusing their keyboard, mouse,
monitor. Charities often want entire system, and these days
more and more often the documentation for the software
(licensing and original disc) even though by any legal
standard the windows certificate sticker on the casing is
the license to run that OS.

[kony]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 05:35:13 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:

>This is just one more example of just how you and I have totally
>different expectations re reliability & efficiency & how we scrutinize
>things at very different levels. But if you're going to play pretend
>about what I've said or the items in question I'm not going to bother
>continuing to dignify directly each "point".

Ok, I'm content to let the whole issue drop without even
reading the rest of this post, but since you took the time
to write it, what the heck, this'll be my last post on the
subject as it's all a rehash from similar arguments of years
past.


>
>I only have a few things I'd like to share for the record. First, to
>a large extent efficiency is efficiency & is beneficial. In a large
>organization there may be many computers where time wasted is
>multiplied many fold. But in say a family or a very small business
>where there are many less computers - there's also no dedicated staff
>working 9-5 or longer to support these like in the enterprise - often
>only the lone geek everyone relies on to make things work - in his
>free time - while everyone involved still has deadlines of some kind -
>& everyone is botching things because they don't what the hell they're
>doing.

Which takes longer though, rolling out a new OS or leaving
the working infrastructure, working?
I tend to feel if the issue is support of MANY systems, then
it should be by department, ALL of the boxes run one OS or
the other and get switched when the timing is right (which
isnt' for US to decide).

I don't find the issue of support so significant though, I
know TONS of people who are relatively cluess about
computers and still run Win98 on their primary (and usually
only) system without problems. They bring their box to me
when the motherboard dies or the fan gets loud, etc, and to
keep their system running as-is, takes very little time or
expense.

I don't see any valid arguement for the support issue for
very small businesses or end-users, rather their needs are
more towards the feature-sets that XP add over 98. When
they need those features they upgrade, and not until then
unless they happened to need more performance in general and
thus bought a new PC (which of course had the latest OS on
it at the time).


>
>Secondly, patches for 9x were very frequently extremely buggy and
>temperamental.

I don't necessarily agree with that at all, except for one
patch in particular, was related to systray.exe or related.


>2K and higher (now at least) do not really have this
>problem. Because the various 9x builds & patches were so screwy,
>fixing things would require a major overhaul of the patches, patching
>system (which MS did subsequently) as well as the flawed & limited
>underlying architecture based on layers of crappy SW hiding
>essentially dos of all things underneath. That's basically why M$
>would be really stupid to take this on.

I for one always advocate late adoption of patches, if at
all, in addition to restorable backups regardless of which
OS. The same time-tested strategies for maintaining a
system make Win98 easy to use and maintain. I'm at a loss
to what you found so hard about it as randomly picking any
stable hardware and drivers, the OS itself ran fine within
it's limits.


>
>M$ has really been cleaning up their act with patches & patch
>management. There's SUS, for example, which does not have to be
>automatic (it isn't be default silly - I wasn't referring to Windows
>"Automatic Updates") but is free and makes deploying patches - esp
>hand-picked & tested patches a whole lot easier (on both the admins &
>the network). It's just one of many signs of how MS is a lot more
>serious about updates then they used to be. But it won't work on your
>old NT Server.

As I recall, they recently ended the deadline for XP SP2
auto-update. Granted no admin should be letting gear
auto-update at all but this sign is contrary to your notion
of improvement in that area, rather that they're
disregarding the businesses needs and limiting their ability
to control when and if patches are deployed in a "all or
nothing" fashion.

It's a bit of an aside though, I cannot recall the last time
any user reported updating their OS (nor a business jumping
at this) because of patches... rather the newer OS is itself
a liability UNTIL all those patches are released. IE - not
deploying an immature OS. Believe it or not businesses
still run Win95.



>
>Finally 98 isn't 98.

For once I wholeheartedly agree.

>98SE is a resource hog with a few minor benefits
>over 98.

You must be mixing up 98SE with ME.
If you really feel this way, do list these "resource hogs".
Most highly experienced technicians find 98SE to be the best
9x of the bunch, or ME after it's stipped down to be only a
slightly newer version of 98SE.


>Both were a big improvement over 95 & 95 SR2- kinda of what
>95 should have been from the beginning. But that doesn't mean what
>they should have released 10 years ago isn't by now, at the very
>least, _very_ long in the tooth. Sure you can still get by with it -
>but at this point it's worthwhile in _very_ few circumstances. IMO
>You're really overstating & overselling the real situation. "Can"
>implement or deploy or fix or reinstall something doesn't mean that
>you "should" or "will benefit from" that effort as opposed to other
>available options.
>
>Hey, continue to patch up the locals dodgy old crap if that's how you
>like to make a living or spending your free time. I doubt your
>clients are reading here anyway that my posts are going to take
>business away from you.

Funny that only you find things dodgy, there isn't anyone
out there that hasn't heard of XP and if they had a desire
to switch, nobody's twisting their arm on this, I don't try
to talk anyone into or out of it.

It would seem you never really learned how to configure or
run 98 properly and just have some bias against it. Perhaps
you abandoned it before it became mature. As I wrote above,
it's a good idea to run a mature OS, this includes XP too.

Therefore, for _your_ systems you should avoid it, it
clearly isn't the right OS for you. Ironically it isn't the
right OS for me either, though not for the same reasons, it
simply doens't have the memory, hard drive capacity,
resources nor other features I need. The issues of plug and
play or patches were never a problem that couldn't be
overcome, especially because a Win98 box ran FAT32 so a
simple boot floppy (or USB thumbdrive for the more modern
tech-heads out there) could be used to move files, extract
and replace from CABS or whatever.

I dont' expect you to believe me but all these issues you
seem so sure of, aren't manifested enough to be any more
trouble than the issues of upgrading for many people and
businesses. It is their choice, not mine, and they've made
it... and continue to be satisfied with that choice.

[Curious George]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:47:04 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

> it's all a rehash from similar arguments of years
>past.

I don't really want to continue this either but I find it very
interesting you admit these observations to be neither new nor
particularly uncommon.

>Which takes longer though, rolling out a new OS or leaving
>the working infrastructure, working?

That's the wrong question. The right question is what meet's needs
better and most positively affects expenses & profits/benefits. Needs
& environment change and it's often hard to keep things totally static
year after year - or for that to be the best thing to force. Even
NoStop wants to keep updating & upgrading his browser, which in MS's
case is basically the OS Shell.

Holding onto these machines and SW of the era, as NoStop was screaming
about, is mostly doable but no bargain esp for that reason. It's hard
for many, esp ppl with enough interest to rant in usenet about
computers, to just stick to a fresh install of 98 with 3 or 4 programs
and leave it at that. Even for a secondary machine. At the very
least these older machines & SW tend to get bogged down much easier
with changes and additions & new versions of even basic kinds of SW.
But even outside of potential performance degradation some of us are
looking for more than "Hey, it boots up" as a measure of reliability,
ease of use, or worthwhile investment. I understand & appreciate how
this is, or at least seems, highly subjective.

>I tend to feel if the issue is support of MANY systems, then
>it should be by department, ALL of the boxes run one OS or
>the other and get switched when the timing is right (which
>isnt' for US to decide).

That depends bc it's sometimes not logistically possible.

>I don't find the issue of support so significant though, I
>know TONS of people who are relatively cluess about
>computers and still run Win98 on their primary (and usually
>only) system without problems. They bring their box to me
>when the motherboard dies or the fan gets loud, etc, and to
>keep their system running as-is, takes very little time or
>expense.

Right. These are the know-nothing newbs who don't want to be bothered
with or get involved too deeply with their systems. They don't
understand very well what's on their machine or how to scratch the
surface of what they have, or even appreciate what's a problem or
what's not working quite right. Not anyone passionate about computers
engaged in a heated discussion about what M$ should be and should do-
which is the context of our present interactions.

But also if your goal was to really keep these machines totally clean
& optimized & fully current, rather than just "up and out", you'd
think differently.

>I don't see any valid arguement for the support issue for
>very small businesses or end-users, rather their needs are
>more towards the feature-sets that XP add over 98. When
>they need those features they upgrade, and not until then
>unless they happened to need more performance in general and
>thus bought a new PC (which of course had the latest OS on
>it at the time).

Depends on whether '98 was the appropriate fit to begin with.
Computing, esp personal computing, then involved a heck of a lot of
stop-gap or inappropriate purchases with no or sufficient headroom-
which is partly, at least, why upgrades were so much more frequent.

>I for one always advocate late adoption of patches, if at
>all, in addition to restorable backups regardless of which
>OS. The same time-tested strategies for maintaining a
>system make Win98 easy to use and maintain. I'm at a loss
>to what you found so hard about it as randomly picking any
>stable hardware and drivers, the OS itself ran fine within
>it's limits.

Yes we know you always follow "best practice" - despite admitting to
overclocking elsewhere & denying your PNP trick leaves a messy
footprint.

>>M$ has really been cleaning up their act with patches & patch
>>management.
<snip>

>As I recall, they recently ended the deadline for XP SP2
>auto-update. Granted no admin should be letting gear
>auto-update at all but this sign is contrary to your notion
>of improvement in that area, rather that they're
>disregarding the businesses needs and limiting their ability
>to control when and if patches are deployed in a "all or
>nothing" fashion.

Not following. SP-2 is a rather large update. Mindlessly updating is
at the very least a performance issue for corporate networks as well
as home users with meager internet connections, or limited time
connected to the internet. Being aware that their update will have a
negative impact on many of their users' computing experience is quite
responsible. Actually M$ provides a lot of very accessible
information to help you with SP-2 & the options to precede slowly &
carefully or quickly & effortlessly.

>It's a bit of an aside though, I cannot recall the last time
>any user reported updating their OS (nor a business jumping
>at this) because of patches... rather the newer OS is itself
>a liability UNTIL all those patches are released. IE - not
>deploying an immature OS.

but ppl do indeed grumble when a patch creates new problems that
require another patch, or when patching is generally messy & time
consuming like it is with 90's era OS's - more so than today.

> Believe it or not businesses
>still run Win95.

Generally either not for anything serious or with quite a bit of
grumbling and/or waste. "Believe it or not" the NT line always was a
much better fit for networks & businesses esp as something to be
counted on. Something's very wrong if you think 95 is as capable as
NT5 & above and only lacks some HW support, & "bells 'n whistles."

>>Finally 98 isn't 98.
>
>For once I wholeheartedly agree.
>
>>98SE is a resource hog with a few minor benefits
>>over 98.
>
>You must be mixing up 98SE with ME.
>If you really feel this way, do list these "resource hogs".
>Most highly experienced technicians find 98SE to be the best
>9x of the bunch, or ME after it's stipped down to be only a
>slightly newer version of 98SE.

try running 98 vs 98SE on a P1 or slower P2 to exaggerate the problem.
Newer machines disguise the difference, as they do with XP & the
different releases of IE, etc. I don't mean "resource hog" as in
"absolute machine crippler" - only the footprint relative to the
benefits.

<snip>

>Funny that only you find things dodgy,

Funny you refer to others making similar arguments & also talk about
how you have amassed knowledge of what is good & what to avoid- but
all of a sudden its just me & everything is great - one doesn't have
to be selective.

A lot of common tech products, esp "consumer-level" gear is indeed
pretty dodgy, even before it has many years of wear & tear.
"Basically works" /= reliable or most efficient tool.

> there isn't anyone
>out there that hasn't heard of XP and if they had a desire
>to switch, nobody's twisting their arm on this, I don't try
>to talk anyone into or out of it.

I don't talk ppl into XP either. But if they're upset & unhappy with
9x or the fact that it's obsolete, I'm not going to pretend it's their
fault & I'm not going to bash M$ for giving up the ghost when it is
completely appropriate.

[kony]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:02:40 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 May 2005 08:47:04 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> it's all a rehash from similar arguments of years
>>past.
>
>I don't really want to continue this either but I find it very
>interesting you admit these observations to be neither new nor
>particularly uncommon.
>
>>Which takes longer though, rolling out a new OS or leaving
>>the working infrastructure, working?
>
>That's the wrong question. The right question is what meet's needs
>better and most positively affects expenses & profits/benefits. Needs
>& environment change and it's often hard to keep things totally static
>year after year - or for that to be the best thing to force. Even
>NoStop wants to keep updating & upgrading his browser, which in MS's
>case is basically the OS Shell.

Again I disagree, it's not your job to second-guess them.
Maybe you deal with people that plead to be led on this
issues, but with win98 working fine for many, i find them
not looking for advice just to have the same thing they
already had, continue to work. A theoretical difference
that isn't realized in practice isn't useful to the
customer.


>>I don't find the issue of support so significant though, I
>>know TONS of people who are relatively cluess about
>>computers and still run Win98 on their primary (and usually
>>only) system without problems. They bring their box to me
>>when the motherboard dies or the fan gets loud, etc, and to
>>keep their system running as-is, takes very little time or
>>expense.
>
>Right. These are the know-nothing newbs who don't want to be bothered
>with or get involved too deeply with their systems. They don't
>understand very well what's on their machine or how to scratch the
>surface of what they have, or even appreciate what's a problem or
>what's not working quite right. Not anyone passionate about computers
>engaged in a heated discussion about what M$ should be and should do-
>which is the context of our present interactions.


They don't NEED to understand, that's the whole point.
Theories about why something is better only pan out if there
is that need. I don't advise against upgrades, but it seems
incredibly wasteful to push them as you feel is important.

>
>But also if your goal was to really keep these machines totally clean
>& optimized & fully current, rather than just "up and out", you'd
>think differently.

"Fully current" applies to the needs of the system and user.
It's a waste of time (and perhaps dishonest) to prompt users
to upgrade on their dime when they don't need to.

>
>>I don't see any valid arguement for the support issue for
>>very small businesses or end-users, rather their needs are
>>more towards the feature-sets that XP add over 98. When
>>they need those features they upgrade, and not until then
>>unless they happened to need more performance in general and
>>thus bought a new PC (which of course had the latest OS on
>>it at the time).
>
>Depends on whether '98 was the appropriate fit to begin with.
>Computing, esp personal computing, then involved a heck of a lot of
>stop-gap or inappropriate purchases with no or sufficient headroom-
>which is partly, at least, why upgrades were so much more frequent.

In a business environment it may not have been appropriate
but once employed there is no good justification to change
something that works properly, and most certainly does NOT
need extra work as you imply.

You're basically suggesting change for the novelty of it,
there was no benefit and only higher cost. The world does
not stop and wait for grand ideas about superior OS, they
just need to get the work done and if their present OS
didn't allow that they'd already have upgraded, and/or will
when that time comes. There is no usefulness in trying to
rush that.



>
>>I for one always advocate late adoption of patches, if at
>>all, in addition to restorable backups regardless of which
>>OS. The same time-tested strategies for maintaining a
>>system make Win98 easy to use and maintain. I'm at a loss
>>to what you found so hard about it as randomly picking any
>>stable hardware and drivers, the OS itself ran fine within
>>it's limits.
>
>Yes we know you always follow "best practice" - despite admitting to
>overclocking elsewhere & denying your PNP trick leaves a messy
>footprint.

Nope, it's a fact that it doesn't leave a messy footprint.

You don't know what you're doing, simply don't have
competence in Win98 at all and therefore are particularly
unsuited to comment on it's viability. OF COURSE you find
the OS you know better to be THAT much better. I've not
argued that it doesn't have useful benefits in some
scenarios, but those aren't why you argue abandonment, it's
more because you don't know what you're doing with Win98,
or presumably any other OS older than XP.


Let me clue you in- the average business box isn't running
XP yet. They are not itching to upgrade and know XP is out
there. The last thing they need is you second-guessing
them, because you'd just create chaos and expense to the end
of it being an upgrade for the sake of upgrading, not to
address any specific need. What you "think" someone
/should/ need, isn't manifest into an actual need.



>
>>>M$ has really been cleaning up their act with patches & patch
>>>management.
><snip>
>
>>As I recall, they recently ended the deadline for XP SP2
>>auto-update. Granted no admin should be letting gear
>>auto-update at all but this sign is contrary to your notion
>>of improvement in that area, rather that they're
>>disregarding the businesses needs and limiting their ability
>>to control when and if patches are deployed in a "all or
>>nothing" fashion.
>
>Not following. SP-2 is a rather large update. Mindlessly updating is
>at the very least a performance issue for corporate networks as well
>as home users with meager internet connections, or limited time
>connected to the internet. Being aware that their update will have a
>negative impact on many of their users' computing experience is quite
>responsible. Actually M$ provides a lot of very accessible
>information to help you with SP-2 & the options to precede slowly &
>carefully or quickly & effortlessly.

So you're not even keeping up with MS' update policies even
when you cite them "patches & patch management" as reason to
switch? Tsk, tsk.

>
>>It's a bit of an aside though, I cannot recall the last time
>>any user reported updating their OS (nor a business jumping
>>at this) because of patches... rather the newer OS is itself
>>a liability UNTIL all those patches are released. IE - not
>>deploying an immature OS.
>
>but ppl do indeed grumble when a patch creates new problems that
>require another patch, or when patching is generally messy & time
>consuming like it is with 90's era OS's - more so than today.

That's an arguement to keep the already deployed, working
infrastructure static. It's an arguement against upgrading
the OS just for the sake of it just so the entire patch
cycle can begin again, or were you going to try and
slipstream ALL patches ahead of time? That's an idea but
you still have the policies about subsequent patches and all
that retesting, towards the end that it was all a great
waste of time and expense unless they NEED the change.

That's the central issue, whether they need it. They won't
need you to tell them that any more than having a specific
need only addressed by the updated OS. In that case it
clearly is time to update, when those issues become a larger
problem than the disruption from the update... which is
always going to happen because there are human/users
involved in it too.



>
>> Believe it or not businesses
>>still run Win95.
>
>Generally either not for anything serious or with quite a bit of
>grumbling and/or waste. "Believe it or not" the NT line always was a
>much better fit for networks & businesses esp as something to be
>counted on. Something's very wrong if you think 95 is as capable as
>NT5 & above and only lacks some HW support, & "bells 'n whistles."

Never argued that NT wasn't a better choice for many
scenarios, but it's beside the point that no matter how much
you personally dislike it, they just continue on being
productive without any concern about what you or I feel
would be ideal for them. Their practices suit them and your
ideas about what is easier for _you_ to admin don't
necessarily apply. Again I would not tell them to keep
using Win95 if asked, rather asking them what their needs
are and going from there rather than the "pushing" you would
do.


>
>>>Finally 98 isn't 98.
>>
>>For once I wholeheartedly agree.
>>
>>>98SE is a resource hog with a few minor benefits
>>>over 98.
>>
>>You must be mixing up 98SE with ME.
>>If you really feel this way, do list these "resource hogs".
>>Most highly experienced technicians find 98SE to be the best
>>9x of the bunch, or ME after it's stipped down to be only a
>>slightly newer version of 98SE.
>
>try running 98 vs 98SE on a P1 or slower P2 to exaggerate the problem.
>Newer machines disguise the difference, as they do with XP & the
>different releases of IE, etc. I don't mean "resource hog" as in
>"absolute machine crippler" - only the footprint relative to the
>benefits.

I'm still waiting for any account of what you feel these
resource hogs are. Name something in 98SE that's creating
this additional resource load that can't be unused or
disabled.

There was a far more significant increase in resource usage
in the switch to ME or 2K, XP. Therefore if one has that P1
or slower P2, XP would be a very slow way to go. In general
a p1 or lesser p2 is not so useful today though, but Win98SE
runs fine on them relative to 98 or 2k.


>> there isn't anyone
>>out there that hasn't heard of XP and if they had a desire
>>to switch, nobody's twisting their arm on this, I don't try
>>to talk anyone into or out of it.
>
>I don't talk ppl into XP either. But if they're upset & unhappy with
>9x or the fact that it's obsolete, I'm not going to pretend it's their
>fault & I'm not going to bash M$ for giving up the ghost when it is
>completely appropriate.

I would tend to disbelive that. I feel you would jump at
the chance to push XP on someone without caring if they need
it. You'd do so because you never even bothered to learn
how to admin 98, which is fine/your choice, but it makes not
for a valid assessment of the situation.

I tend to feel the user knows when they have a need not met,
and at most someone should inform them if a
newer/different/other OS addresses that. Likewise with
upgrading boxes that aren't old enough to be a liability to
the particular use, role they play. I do advocate routinely
upgrading gear that requires constant uptime, AND the newer
OS that typically comes with the newer box... but only when
there is a realized need, not for the grand ideals you have
about the obvious- that newer computers have evolved over
older ones.

Enough discussion, we'll not see common ground here so I'm
done with the thread.

[Curious George]

On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:28:53 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

> A theoretical difference
>that isn't realized in practice isn't useful to the
>customer.

If that were the case then fine. But the NT line stays up much better
& longer than 9x. It's a very big difference. It just isn't
debatable and laughable try to do so. The uptime of 9x as well as the
insecurity of NT & 9x provided a lot of fuel for the Linux movement in
the 90's, & I think to some extent scared MS straight. 98 was a step
towards cleaning up their act, but a first one which ultimately
stumbled on ME. Let's not forget that context as well as the context
of this thread which is fighting EOL and wishing an EOL product to be
what it can't - infinitely supported & worthwhile to do so.

The point isn't everyone _has_ to upgrade because _noone_ can make 98
work _at_all_ - only why bitch about loosing it bc it's EOL and you
want fully supported stuff - as it wasn't all that great to begin
with.

Indeed "good enough" is relative but anyone can benefit from "better"
esp when generally more is expected of things now than 5 or 7 years
ago when this was fresh - which is an eternity in computing.

I think we can both agree we both feel the other is exaggerating their
position


<snip>

>They don't NEED to understand, that's the whole point.
>Theories about why something is better only pan out if there
>is that need. I don't advise against upgrades, but it seems
>incredibly wasteful to push them as you feel is important.

No. It's like a person continuing to drive a car even though it
stutters & stalls or makes an abnormal noise. The engine turning over
and being able to drive it doesn't ensure the best or safest ride -
even if the driver is clueless to the problem and potential danger.

>>But also if your goal was to really keep these machines totally clean
>>& optimized & fully current, rather than just "up and out", you'd
>>think differently.
>
>"Fully current" applies to the needs of the system and user.
>It's a waste of time (and perhaps dishonest) to prompt users
>to upgrade on their dime when they don't need to.

Not when the context of this discussion is _current_security_exploits
& maintaining full support & compatibility with all new content (at
the least)

>>>I don't see any valid arguement for the support issue for
>>>very small businesses or end-users, rather their needs are
>>>more towards the feature-sets that XP add over 98. When
>>>they need those features they upgrade, and not until then
>>>unless they happened to need more performance in general and
>>>thus bought a new PC (which of course had the latest OS on
>>>it at the time).
>>
>>Depends on whether '98 was the appropriate fit to begin with.
>>Computing, esp personal computing, then involved a heck of a lot of
>>stop-gap or inappropriate purchases with no or sufficient headroom-
>>which is partly, at least, why upgrades were so much more frequent.
>
>In a business environment it may not have been appropriate
>but once employed there is no good justification to change
>something that works properly, and most certainly does NOT
>need extra work as you imply.

You're pretending you don't know what "not a good fit" means.

tsk tsk

>You're basically suggesting change for the novelty of it,
>there was no benefit and only higher cost. The world does
>not stop and wait for grand ideas about superior OS, they
>just need to get the work done and if their present OS
>didn't allow that they'd already have upgraded, and/or will
>when that time comes. There is no usefulness in trying to
>rush that.

Rushed? XP is the third major MS OS release since the second release
of 98. XP-SP2 has been around long enough for MS to consider it
mandatory.

Put the bong down. Seriously.

>>>I for one always advocate late adoption of patches, if at all

How many years after the fact, exactly do you want to sit on security
holes because you can't handle the fix? Is an exploited static system
really cheaper than a modest amount of maintenance?

>>> in addition to restorable backups regardless of which
>>>OS. The same time-tested strategies for maintaining a
>>>system make Win98 easy to use and maintain. I'm at a loss
>>>to what you found so hard about it as randomly picking any
>>>stable hardware and drivers, the OS itself ran fine within
>>>it's limits.

The limits are the problem

>>Yes we know you always follow "best practice" - despite admitting to
>>overclocking elsewhere & denying your PNP trick leaves a messy
>>footprint.
>
>Nope, it's a fact that it doesn't leave a messy footprint.

you're not looking closely then.

>You don't know what you're doing, simply don't have
>competence in Win98 at all and therefore are particularly
>unsuited to comment on it's viability. OF COURSE you find
>the OS you know better to be THAT much better. I've not
>argued that it doesn't have useful benefits in some
>scenarios, but those aren't why you argue abandonment, it's
>more because you don't know what you're doing with Win98,
>or presumably any other OS older than XP.
>
>
>Let me clue you in- the average business box isn't running
>XP yet.

define "average business." In what sector, or what size, in what
country?

don't bother responding to what you want to pretend I've said or what
you want to believe this discussion came from. If you insist on
making things nonspecific enough I guess you think you can get away
with anything.

>They are not itching to upgrade and know XP is out
>there. The last thing they need is you second-guessing
>them, because you'd just create chaos and expense to the end
>of it being an upgrade for the sake of upgrading, not to
>address any specific need. What you "think" someone
>/should/ need, isn't manifest into an actual need.
>
>
>
>>
>>>>M$ has really been cleaning up their act with patches & patch
>>>>management.
>><snip>
>>
>>>As I recall, they recently ended the deadline for XP SP2
>>>auto-update. Granted no admin should be letting gear
>>>auto-update at all but this sign is contrary to your notion
>>>of improvement in that area, rather that they're
>>>disregarding the businesses needs and limiting their ability
>>>to control when and if patches are deployed in a "all or
>>>nothing" fashion.
>>
>>Not following. SP-2 is a rather large update. Mindlessly updating is
>>at the very least a performance issue for corporate networks as well
>>as home users with meager internet connections, or limited time
>>connected to the internet. Being aware that their update will have a
>>negative impact on many of their users' computing experience is quite
>>responsible. Actually M$ provides a lot of very accessible
>>information to help you with SP-2 & the options to precede slowly &
>>carefully or quickly & effortlessly.
>
>So you're not even keeping up with MS' update policies even
>when you cite them

You mean the "blocker" mechanism? What are you talking about?
Expiring the "blocker" mechanism means if you touch nothing & have
automatic updates enabled it is rolled out gradually over around a
week. If you want to control it better (as you should) you can in
lots of different ways.

What business needs exactly? You or some other schlub sitting down
and manually updating each computer for a fee? Some businesses/
consumers not getting a major service pack they're entitled to? Sorry
but MS pretty much got all the other scenarios covered.

tsk tsk. Still posturing & playing pretend.

> "patches & patch management" as reason to
>switch? Tsk, tsk.

I never said its a reason to switch - only that it's an example of
improvements on an aspect of customer service that was very shoddy
previously.

It is a reason to switch in the context of NoStop's very strong desire
to remain fully updated (even though he doesn't want the new license
or HW).

Still playing pretend. Were you even here during our subthread?

>>>It's a bit of an aside though, I cannot recall the last time
>>>any user reported updating their OS (nor a business jumping
>>>at this) because of patches... rather the newer OS is itself
>>>a liability UNTIL all those patches are released. IE - not
>>>deploying an immature OS.
>>
>>but ppl do indeed grumble when a patch creates new problems that
>>require another patch, or when patching is generally messy & time
>>consuming like it is with 90's era OS's - more so than today.
>
>That's an arguement to keep the already deployed, working
>infrastructure static.

not as new security threats emerge, you want to manage compliance
issues in a smarter & cheaper way, need to use more demanding & newer
software, etc.

You can't keep everything static forever. After a certain point you
start loosing money & productivity trying to save it by being
stubborn.

> It's an arguement against upgrading
>the OS just for the sake of it just so the entire patch
>cycle can begin again, or were you going to try and
>slipstream ALL patches ahead of time? That's an idea but
>you still have the policies about subsequent patches and all
>that retesting, towards the end that it was all a great
>waste of time and expense unless they NEED the change.
>
>That's the central issue, whether they need it. They won't
>need you to tell them that any more than having a specific
>need only addressed by the updated OS. In that case it
>clearly is time to update, when those issues become a larger
>problem than the disruption from the update... which is
>always going to happen because there are human/users
>involved in it too.

You can't always keep everything static if you want businesses to grow
& be safeguarded. Just because old systems can be resurrected or kept
static doesn't mean it is ultimately cheapest. Of course that's an
internal business decision not an disassociated hypothetical
generalization. You can claim anything if you muddy the waters
enough.

>>> Believe it or not businesses
>>>still run Win95.
>>
>>Generally either not for anything serious or with quite a bit of
>>grumbling and/or waste. "Believe it or not" the NT line always was a
>>much better fit for networks & businesses esp as something to be
>>counted on. Something's very wrong if you think 95 is as capable as
>>NT5 & above and only lacks some HW support, & "bells 'n whistles."
>
>Never argued that NT wasn't a better choice for many
>scenarios, but it's beside the point that no matter how much
>you personally dislike it, they just continue on being
>productive

productive relative to?

And when their 95 machines have been on for a few weeks and even Word
is painfully slow or there's a crash or reboots which are slow they're
being productive or "as productive"? What about the admin who didn't
want to base the clients on a really clean install so everything looks
slower than it needs to be? What about the other admin that want's to
spend a lot of time cleaning, refreshing & optimizing or repairing to
keep the old network on it's last legs?

So they should resist efficiently addressing new compliance issues or
better software or more productivity that they can quantify - that 95
can't really cut it with because deploying something new is too big
for you to handle or are afraid to invest a dime? Is that really
cheaper?

>without any concern about what you or I feel
>would be ideal for them. Their practices suit them and your
>ideas about what is easier for _you_ to admin don't
>necessarily apply.

Why would someone be asking for help or advice or repairs if there is
no problem? Didn't this all start over 98 being EOL & that raising
potential problems which caused frustration?

And yes easier to admin affects TCO. But most of the time that
doesn't put much of a preference on XP over say 2k for example.

> Again I would not tell them to keep
>using Win95 if asked, rather asking them what their needs
>are and going from there rather than the "pushing" you would
>do.

well that sounds nice. But why would they even be asking you if it
wasn't meeting their needs or they at least they had some concerns
about it. If it's not meeting their needs well - are you going to
tell them in the year 2005 they should upgrade to 98 because it's good
enough for a lot of ppl, and has been around for a long time so it's
more mature than 2000 or XP - & you can prove it because they finished
their patching job?

I guess if you talk & talk & talk you hope readers will loose sight of
the discussion as you have - and in their daze think what you're
saying & inferring sounds reasonable.

>>>>Finally 98 isn't 98.
>>>
>>>For once I wholeheartedly agree.
>>>
>>>>98SE is a resource hog with a few minor benefits
>>>>over 98.
>>>
>>>You must be mixing up 98SE with ME.
>>>If you really feel this way, do list these "resource hogs".
>>>Most highly experienced technicians find 98SE to be the best
>>>9x of the bunch, or ME after it's stipped down to be only a
>>>slightly newer version of 98SE.
>>
>>try running 98 vs 98SE on a P1 or slower P2 to exaggerate the problem.
>>Newer machines disguise the difference, as they do with XP & the
>>different releases of IE, etc. I don't mean "resource hog" as in
>>"absolute machine crippler" - only the footprint relative to the
>>benefits.
>
>I'm still waiting for any account of what you feel these
>resource hogs are. Name something in 98SE that's creating
>this additional resource load that can't be unused or
>disabled.

a neutered 98SE is not so different than updated 98. You're grasping
at straws, refusing to address what I actually said.

>There was a far more significant increase in resource usage
>in the switch to ME or 2K, XP. Therefore if one has that P1
>or slower P2, XP would be a very slow way to go. In general
>a p1 or lesser p2 is not so useful today though, but Win98SE
>runs fine on them relative to 98 or 2k.

reread what I was saying and then realize that most 98SE machine works
very well with either 2k or XP save perhaps often a simple & cheap ram
upgrade.

The point isn't they HAVE to upgrade only why bitch about loosing it
bc it's EOL and you want only fully supported stuff as it wasn't all
that great to begin with. Basically working /= great.

Playing pretend doesn't make for a convincing argument.

>>> there isn't anyone
>>>out there that hasn't heard of XP and if they had a desire
>>>to switch, nobody's twisting their arm on this, I don't try
>>>to talk anyone into or out of it.
>>
>>I don't talk ppl into XP either. But if they're upset & unhappy with
>>9x or the fact that it's obsolete, I'm not going to pretend it's their
>>fault & I'm not going to bash M$ for giving up the ghost when it is
>>completely appropriate.
>
>I would tend to disbelive that. I feel you would jump at
>the chance to push XP on someone without caring if they need
>it. You'd do so because you never even bothered to learn
>how to admin 98, which is fine/your choice, but it makes not
>for a valid assessment of the situation.

If everything is meeting their needs they're not going to redeploy &
reconfigure old HW. I don't care how convincing or influential you
think I am.

If someone want's a new PC from me I wouldn't really have a choice in
the matter. They're gonna want it bundled with XP or 2k3. Esp now
they are SP2 and SP1 respectively. If their 98 machines are meeting
their needs, their not going to be shopping for anything new. Period.

Also they're going to hire someone who will manage their existing
infrastructure. Noone upgrades & redeploys just because there is a
new admin that is "more comfortable" with a newer OS. Your inferences
are pure fantasy & totally illogical.

>I tend to feel the user knows when they have a need not met,
>and at most someone should inform them if a
>newer/different/other OS addresses that. Likewise with
>upgrading boxes that aren't old enough to be a liability to
>the particular use, role they play. I do advocate routinely
>upgrading gear that requires constant uptime, AND the newer
>OS that typically comes with the newer box... but only when
>there is a realized need, not for the grand ideals you have
>about the obvious- that newer computers have evolved over
>older ones.
>
>Enough discussion, we'll not see common ground here so I'm
>done with the thread.

That's fine. I don't have any more patience for you reinventing the
discussion as you go & grasping at straws. Its a lot easier to not
dignify you when you loose your cool and your argument.

[kony]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 04:15:23 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:


>>Enough discussion, we'll not see common ground here so I'm
>>done with the thread.
>
>That's fine. I don't have any more patience for you reinventing the
>discussion as you go & grasping at straws. Its a lot easier to not
>dignify you when you loose your cool and your argument.

You should put that last line in your sig, I'm sure it'll
impress everyone.

[Curious George]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 05:02:30 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2005 04:15:23 GMT, Curious George
><cg@email.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Enough discussion, we'll not see common ground here so I'm
>>>done with the thread.
>>
>>That's fine. I don't have any more patience for you reinventing the
>>discussion as you go & grasping at straws. Its a lot easier to not
>>dignify you when you loose your cool and your argument.
>
>You should put that last line in your sig, I'm sure it'll
>impress everyone.

Oh come on. Even you can do better than that. I would have expected
more from the master of win98, prematurely failing mobo's, and repair
of old PC's that's "good enough" for a newb.

[Curious George]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:12:08 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:


>>but I AM suggesting their software should've been recalled
>>altogether when it was initially unstable enough that "blue
>>screen of death" was a household phrase. Their support
....
>glaring bugs due to the MS philosophy about how to handle
....
>Free upgrades seem a good idea, but I can see an arguement
>for not giving the user the new features and support that
>the OS they paid for didn't provide.
....
>Different scenario, WIn98 was never meant for business use.


You really need to make up your mind on this issue. Unless playing
both sides is just your present troll strategy.

Next time try to pick a consistent position, eh?

[kony]

On Tue, 17 May 2005 05:42:14 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 May 2005 05:02:30 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 May 2005 04:15:23 GMT, Curious George
>><cg@email.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Enough discussion, we'll not see common ground here so I'm
>>>>done with the thread.
>>>
>>>That's fine. I don't have any more patience for you reinventing the
>>>discussion as you go & grasping at straws. Its a lot easier to not
>>>dignify you when you loose your cool and your argument.
>>
>>You should put that last line in your sig, I'm sure it'll
>>impress everyone.
>
>Oh come on. Even you can do better than that. I would have expected
>more from the master of win98, prematurely failing mobo's, and repair
>of old PC's that's "good enough" for a newb.

<sigh>

What I know about past hardware and OS is from actually
dealing with them. Same thing applies to newer OS and gear
5 years ago, 3, 1, & today. If you want to shun the past
and feel modernized that's fine. If you want the last word
that's fine too. Somewhere along the way I hope you'll at
least make more of an effort to learn XP than you did to
learn 98. Your lack of knowledge about 98 isn't a result
of your feelings about XP being superior, it's a sign that
at THAT time, that era, you didn't learn it very well, or
your mind is shot enough that you've forgotten it already.

Either way, you want to take a "hands off" approach to it
but simultaneously claim "hands-on" knowledge about it.
Sorry but it doens't work that way, you actually have to
deal with these things you seem to dislike to be competent
because the fact of the matter is that people and businesses
DO still use OS older than XP and will not change on your
say-so.

Competence isn't about just throwing out gear and buying a
new Dell with a pre-loaded OS or taking a few minutes to set
up deployments. Anybody's grandmother can call in and order
a Dell, and any young tech out there that spends a few hours
can learn the rest. That's only the beginning, the ability
to solve those difficult problems that aren't patched or
found with a 5 minute Google search requires the same depth
of knowledge about XP that you avoided in '98... and by your
cited reasons for XP, are things you're still not willing to
learn today.

Even if we gave you the benefit of the doubt and suggested
you're competent at XP, that'd mean you would have a whole 4
years of experience. Woohoo, 4 years! Come back in a few
more then maybe you can adequately contrast today's gear and
OS (since you claim to know about that) with what's modern
at that future point in time.

That is, if you change your attitude, roll up your sleeves
and actually learn a thing or two. But, as you wrote in
another post, you have other things you'd rather being
doing, don't want to spend the time!

Don't want to spend the time? Well now, that's a great
attitude! Kudos to you, so long as you're happy I have no
problem with that attitude, except it means you're always a
potential liability and playing catch-up when it comes to
technical issues and guessing your way out of arguments when
you find somone not fragile enough to care about insults. I
pity those around you if you always act like that.

So, if you dont' want to spend the time, at least drop the
attitude until you feel like spending the time. Heck, keep
the attitude but don't expect any sympathy nor anyone to
take you seriously. Maybe you think you're a computer god
in your own little world, but elsewhere if someone needs a
job done or a problem fixed, they don't particularly care
what you think, only if you can do the job or not. AFAIK
Windows XP isn't an exclusive club, anyone can plop down
their cash and get a copy yet they choose not to. Like it
or not, if you can't deal with those user's problems they
really don't want to hear the obvious, that they can buy XP
and/or newer gear. They want someone with as much ability
as you have ego.

It takes more than the passive attitude you have. The "it's
problematic' attitude just isn't as good as a "it's
workable" attitude. Scraping it all and starting over isn't
the reason a company wants technically minded people around,
they can order from Dell just as well as grandma can.

So what if you can set policies and roll out an OS?
That's about (what, 4 hours of learning?). If you don't
catch up a bit you're no more useful than a young green MS
MVP. That's not meant to insult an MVP, but rather that
they too learn more as the years go by. Except of course,
those that choose not to. It's your choice.

[BNR]

>>>but I AM suggesting their software should've been recalled
>>>altogether when it was initially unstable enough that "blue
>>>screen of death" was a household phrase.

"Blue Screen of Death(BSOD)" Underpowered redundant code(dlls).

While WinXP error reporting feature makes an attempt to catalog conflicts.
The process isn't really userfriendly. It isn't a large improvement from
emailing the Win98/ME system log as an attachment to someone offering help.
And it alone is no reason to upgrade an operational functioning product.

As a matter of fact, it transforms the end user into the tester,
unwillingly, and removes a hardworking help desk job. It may narrow log
files into a longer, more readable format for comparison purposes. But,
that is unbusinesslike, as it really doesn't solve the problem it just makes
an attempt to organize it. Organization w/o a solution is just obsession.
In this example its greed.

"Blue Screen of Death" came about as a result of technical writers
misinterpreting their language. They knew multitasking had hard parameters,
but left it up to the customer to find them. Fix it? Nah, better to just
brush it aside with a fashionable reinstallment than do compliance stress
testing of their own.

Since there is no watchdog agency looking out for consumers in this area, no
recalls were ever rewarded, to my knowledge. MS gets DoD subsidies, lots,
why would the US Government do anything to harm them on a consumer's behalf?
Technology stole through complexity, once again.

Just one monopoly was/is too many. It's a real sham, that its still going
on in this day and age.

>>WIn98 was never meant for business use.

This writer believes OS code distinguishes use. Allow me to reinform the
writer, that resources distinguish usage. What determines resources? The
drivers of hardware, the dlls. Win98 was feature rich enough to conduct
business. Hell, it had a calculator, what more do you need? A nic card? A
lan? It had those too. Win98 was plenty powerful enough to conduct
business over and through.

Win98 was not the last OS to suffer BSODs. Its predecessor didn't fix
BSODs, and nor did WinME's predecessor.

[BNR]

> Scraping it all and starting over isn't
> the reason a company wants technically minded people around,
> they can order from Dell just as well as grandma can.

Can your grandma order from Dell? Isn't she afraid she'll catch a virus
from her keyboard if she goes online. You know their is alot of fear in
PCs. The online community is no place for Grandmas born before the
semiconductor.

What must Grandma's think when they speak to a technician who babbles on
about spies. I doubt the average nursing home resident would be able to
read an EULA and make any sense of it.

[Leythos]

In article <XToke.6410$uR4.4498@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
bradrhine1969@earthlink.net says...
> Win98 was not the last OS to suffer BSODs. Its predecessor didn't fix
> BSODs, and nor did WinME's predecessor.

And other OS's have the same problem. While it may not be a BSOD, a
Linux box and Apple can lock/crash with the same impact.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[BNR]

To consent is to agree. I urge you to reread what your agreeing to.

"THIS SOFTWARE DOES NOT TRANSMIT ANY PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE
INFORMATION(PII) FROM YOUR COMPUTER TO MICROSOFT COMPUTER SYSTEMS WITHOUT
YOUR CONSENT."

Why's this line needed Lethyos? Why's MS need to know this? We consent at
bottom so its a mute point to tell us it won't unless we agree. At the cost
of us losing our identy, MS insures its copyrighted code from piracy. If
you ask me that price is too steep. But I have no alternative than to
agree. There is no other OS that runs my apps.

"The OS Components are licensed, not sold."

It is a license without an expiration date. I think its the only license
like this I ever got. It starts but never stops, with re/activation, along
the way. The permission to traffic in Personal Info is never revoked by any
policing body at death or in life.

Once your Personal Info is compromised, its in the "wild". Who rolls out
the red carpet for dissemination? MS EULA.

We have MS to thank for junk-mail, courtesy of MS's EULA. Who stands to
profit? The US Postal Service and the Garbage Collector, but of course.
The End User pays both those bills.

[kony]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:21:47 GMT, "BNR"
<bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> Scraping it all and starting over isn't
>> the reason a company wants technically minded people around,
>> they can order from Dell just as well as grandma can.
>
>Can your grandma order from Dell?

Anyone who can use a phone and credit card can. They are
quite happy to help someone buy from them.



>Isn't she afraid she'll catch a virus
>from her keyboard if she goes online.

I suppose you're just trolling?


>You know their is alot of fear in
>PCs. The online community is no place for Grandmas born before the
>semiconductor.

Ah, the folly of youth.
I'm sure someday, some youngster will come along and
describe someone your age (at that point in the future) as
being too old for (whatever) too, and it'll depend a lot on
whether you spent your years productively or only
degenerating in knowledge after you finish you formal
schooling. Like any other muscle, the mind is best when
regularly exercised.


>
>What must Grandma's think when they speak to a technician who babbles on
>about spies. I doubt the average nursing home resident would be able to
>read an EULA and make any sense of it.

The average person old enough to be a grandparent is not in
a nursing home, yet, if ever.

[David Candy]

Me mum, who did not want me to talk like that, is a grandmother. She was the
computer fixer at her work (after the guys gave up - someone had to make the
company work). She very well knows what spywear is and what viruses are (and
porn dialers). Isn't it funny that I never discussed porn with my mother
till she went online, now it's everyday conversation.

Dad on the other hand wouldn't have a clue, but he can connect his $5000
digital camera to his printer and print (that's using an operating system -
all cameras have one). He was going to learn but his daughter died and he
lost interest. My neighbour Neil, 62 (now dead) couldn't use a computer but
COULD use a Palm Pilot and Win CE and any mobile phone OS.

I'm 45 and can use a computer. My work career started the same year the 4004
chip was born. The 4004 was version 1 of what you are using now and was the
first 1 chip calculator. I know 8086 assembler which means I know how 8086
to 80486 work (and later chips emulate these ones). I've used a variety of
OSs. Dos\Windows\NT is just the latest. I've used Vax, CP\VMS, Unix, and a
million propertiey ones.


"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:vft591tdb9rram7cjqu9mv740fhi7v7uv1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:21:47 GMT, "BNR"
> <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> Scraping it all and starting over isn't
> >> the reason a company wants technically minded people around,
> >> they can order from Dell just as well as grandma can.
> >
> >Can your grandma order from Dell?
>
> Anyone who can use a phone and credit card can. They are
> quite happy to help someone buy from them.
>
>
>
> >Isn't she afraid she'll catch a virus
> >from her keyboard if she goes online.
>
> I suppose you're just trolling?
>
>
> >You know their is alot of fear in
> >PCs. The online community is no place for Grandmas born before the
> >semiconductor.
>
> Ah, the folly of youth.
> I'm sure someday, some youngster will come along and
> describe someone your age (at that point in the future) as
> being too old for (whatever) too, and it'll depend a lot on
> whether you spent your years productively or only
> degenerating in knowledge after you finish you formal
> schooling. Like any other muscle, the mind is best when
> regularly exercised.
>
>
> >
> >What must Grandma's think when they speak to a technician who babbles on
> >about spies. I doubt the average nursing home resident would be able to
> >read an EULA and make any sense of it.
>
> The average person old enough to be a grandparent is not in
> a nursing home, yet, if ever.

[Alias]

I'm 59 -- grandfather age -- and have been using computers since 84. I can
read EULAs. It's just that I don't agree with them!

My father will turn 80 this year and he's been using computers for almost as
long as I have.

Kony is proof positive that Youth is wasted on the young.

Heh.

Alias

"David Candy" <.> wrote
> Me mum, who did not want me to talk like that, is a grandmother. She was
> the
> computer fixer at her work (after the guys gave up - someone had to make
> the
> company work). She very well knows what spywear is and what viruses are
> (and
> porn dialers). Isn't it funny that I never discussed porn with my mother
> till she went online, now it's everyday conversation.
>
> Dad on the other hand wouldn't have a clue, but he can connect his $5000
> digital camera to his printer and print (that's using an operating
> system -
> all cameras have one). He was going to learn but his daughter died and he
> lost interest. My neighbour Neil, 62 (now dead) couldn't use a computer
> but
> COULD use a Palm Pilot and Win CE and any mobile phone OS.
>
> I'm 45 and can use a computer. My work career started the same year the
> 4004
> chip was born. The 4004 was version 1 of what you are using now and was
> the
> first 1 chip calculator. I know 8086 assembler which means I know how 8086
> to 80486 work (and later chips emulate these ones). I've used a variety of
> OSs. Dos\Windows\NT is just the latest. I've used Vax, CP\VMS, Unix, and a
> million propertiey ones.
>
>
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:vft591tdb9rram7cjqu9mv740fhi7v7uv1@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:21:47 GMT, "BNR"
>> <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Scraping it all and starting over isn't
>> >> the reason a company wants technically minded people around,
>> >> they can order from Dell just as well as grandma can.
>> >
>> >Can your grandma order from Dell?
>>
>> Anyone who can use a phone and credit card can. They are
>> quite happy to help someone buy from them.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Isn't she afraid she'll catch a virus
>> >from her keyboard if she goes online.
>>
>> I suppose you're just trolling?
>>
>>
>> >You know their is alot of fear in
>> >PCs. The online community is no place for Grandmas born before the
>> >semiconductor.
>>
>> Ah, the folly of youth.
>> I'm sure someday, some youngster will come along and
>> describe someone your age (at that point in the future) as
>> being too old for (whatever) too, and it'll depend a lot on
>> whether you spent your years productively or only
>> degenerating in knowledge after you finish you formal
>> schooling. Like any other muscle, the mind is best when
>> regularly exercised.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >What must Grandma's think when they speak to a technician who babbles on
>> >about spies. I doubt the average nursing home resident would be able to
>> >read an EULA and make any sense of it.
>>
>> The average person old enough to be a grandparent is not in
>> a nursing home, yet, if ever.
>
>

[Ed Medlin]

"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:vft591tdb9rram7cjqu9mv740fhi7v7uv1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:21:47 GMT, "BNR"
> <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> Scraping it all and starting over isn't
>>> the reason a company wants technically minded people around,
>>> they can order from Dell just as well as grandma can.
>>
>>Can your grandma order from Dell?
>
> Anyone who can use a phone and credit card can. They are
> quite happy to help someone buy from them.
>
>
>
>>Isn't she afraid she'll catch a virus
>>from her keyboard if she goes online.
>
> I suppose you're just trolling?
>
>
>>You know their is alot of fear in
>>PCs. The online community is no place for Grandmas born before the
>>semiconductor.
>
> Ah, the folly of youth.
> I'm sure someday, some youngster will come along and
> describe someone your age (at that point in the future) as
> being too old for (whatever) too, and it'll depend a lot on
> whether you spent your years productively or only
> degenerating in knowledge after you finish you formal
> schooling. Like any other muscle, the mind is best when
> regularly exercised.
>
>
>>
>>What must Grandma's think when they speak to a technician who babbles on
>>about spies. I doubt the average nursing home resident would be able to
>>read an EULA and make any sense of it.
>
> The average person old enough to be a grandparent is not in
> a nursing home, yet, if ever.

I wonder if he knows that a lot of the very knowledgeable folks that post
here are of grandparent age? I am not sure Kony, but I do believe that even
you were born before the semiconductor as was I. I began with RCA Data
Services 35yrs ago....:-). Got into real estate but had too much time on my
hands and started a small PC business. I am now retired but still work with
a few older customers and stay as busy as I want to be. My father is very
knowledgeable and even my Great Aunt at 86 is not afraid to dig into her
system. I talked her through replacing a HDD and setting up her OS not a
long time ago and she did fine. I do believe he underestimates a lot of
older folks when it comes down to computing. My Great Aunt is a hoot. She
told me many years ago that her goal in life is to try and learn something
new every day and if she could do that her life would be full.... Not a bad
way to think.


Ed

[kony]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:27:35 GMT, "Ed Medlin"
<ed@edmedlin.com> wrote:


>I wonder if he knows that a lot of the very knowledgeable folks that post
>here are of grandparent age? I am not sure Kony, but I do believe that even
>you were born before the semiconductor as was I. I began with RCA Data
>Services 35yrs ago....:-). Got into real estate but had too much time on my
>hands and started a small PC business. I am now retired but still work with
>a few older customers and stay as busy as I want to be. My father is very
>knowledgeable and even my Great Aunt at 86 is not afraid to dig into her
>system. I talked her through replacing a HDD and setting up her OS not a
>long time ago and she did fine. I do believe he underestimates a lot of
>older folks when it comes down to computing. My Great Aunt is a hoot. She
>told me many years ago that her goal in life is to try and learn something
>new every day and if she could do that her life would be full.... Not a bad
>way to think.

It's just another senseless stereotype...

All elders are senile.
All Arabs are terrorists.
All women are ____ [better not even go there, eh? ;-) ].

I suppose it just comes from limited exposure, plus you
don't notice people who act normally nearly as much as the
nuts/impaired/etc.

[Leythos]

In article <hoa6919bqd0hck5c2gg0t63vqrk1s27frt@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> It's just another senseless stereotype...
>
> All elders are senile.
> All Arabs are terrorists.
> All women are ____ [better not even go there, eh? ;-) ].

I read something by a Russian about Arabs/Terrorists:

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is
equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists
are Muslims." Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of the influential
Al Arabiya television station, after the Beslan, Russia, attack.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[BNR]

>>> Scraping it all and starting over isn't
>>> the reason a company wants technically minded people around,
>>> they can order from Dell just as well as grandma can.
>>
>>Can your grandma order from Dell?
>
> Anyone who can use a phone and credit card can.

That's dumbing it down. But you didn't answer the question.

> It's just another senseless stereotype...
> All elders are senile.
> I suppose it just comes from limited exposure...

Any one person only has two Grandmas, so how is it that you have more
exposure than me?

[David Candy]

I had 3. One was a step grandmother.
"BNR" <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5NNke.9927$w21.547@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>> Scraping it all and starting over isn't
> >>> the reason a company wants technically minded people around,
> >>> they can order from Dell just as well as grandma can.
> >>
> >>Can your grandma order from Dell?
> >
> > Anyone who can use a phone and credit card can.
>
> That's dumbing it down. But you didn't answer the question.
>
> > It's just another senseless stereotype...
> > All elders are senile.
> > I suppose it just comes from limited exposure...
>
> Any one person only has two Grandmas, so how is it that you have more
> exposure than me?
>
>

[BNR]

>>> The information is _N_O_T_ on the outside of the box.
>>You are wrong, it's on the box...
> That isn't the license.

Was there a box with your OEM?

There wasn't a box with mine. Mine didn't come with one, it just came with
this flimsy paper disk sleeve and flare sticker with the reactivation codes.

What does it matter if it is at time of purchase or time of first use when
you reread the EULA?

I think Kony wants box to say on box to some degree,

Requirements: Removes a portion of the American Bill of Rights, Voids Free
Commerce, Prohibits Individual Privacy, Intel compatible processor, 60M of
free space, and Internet connection.

[kurttrail]

David Candy wrote:
> I had 3. One was a step grandmother.

I hope you remembered to wipe your feet before you stepped on her,
David.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[BNR]

But Kony's term, "exposure," would imply, trillions of gamma rays from a
radioactive source. Not 2 or 3 old ladies.

[kony]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:20:49 GMT, "BNR"
<bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>>> Scraping it all and starting over isn't
>>>> the reason a company wants technically minded people around,
>>>> they can order from Dell just as well as grandma can.
>>>
>>>Can your grandma order from Dell?
>>
>> Anyone who can use a phone and credit card can.
>
>That's dumbing it down. But you didn't answer the question.

The answer is yes, she could've.


>
>> It's just another senseless stereotype...
>> All elders are senile.
>> I suppose it just comes from limited exposure...
>
>Any one person only has two Grandmas, so how is it that you have more
>exposure than me?
>

Maybe your head is stuck somewhere? Maybe you should visit
grandma more often.

Exposure to grandmother-age or "elders" as I wrote, would
seem obvious enough to most people. Does it really have to
be your own grandmother to be relevant? Seems like you have
no argument and thus have taken to nit-picking.

As a test-run, put on your best grandma-voice and call Dell,
telling them you are clueless and need a PC. I'll bet they
can pick something out for you.

[kony]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:48:56 GMT, "BNR"
<bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote:

>But Kony's term, "exposure," would imply, trillions of gamma rays from a
>radioactive source. Not 2 or 3 old ladies.
>

No, "exposure" was used in the context of the post which was
about stereotyping groups of people. Do you always try to
pick one word out of a post and apply it to a DIFFERENT
post?

[kony]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:45:52 GMT, "BNR"
<bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>>> The information is _N_O_T_ on the outside of the box.
>>>You are wrong, it's on the box...
>> That isn't the license.
>
>Was there a box with your OEM?
>
>There wasn't a box with mine. Mine didn't come with one, it just came with
>this flimsy paper disk sleeve and flare sticker with the reactivation codes.
>
>What does it matter if it is at time of purchase or time of first use when
>you reread the EULA?

Quite simply, you already PAID, and cannot then at the time
of reviewing the license, decline it without penalty as it
is a system w/license bundle. If it were a box from a
retail store, they typically have an "exchange-only after
opened" policy, which is solution as it's for same-item.
Terms of a contract must be disclosed, ie- available at the
time and point of entering into it so that it can be known
for certain which of several differing Windows EULAs applies
to that _specific_ license. If they waited till you
accepted the EULA to bill you for Windows that would be
another matter.

>
>I think Kony wants box to say on box to some degree,

Yes, it's being sold as any other product while all other
products clearly state what you get. With a license, you
dont' know what that license actually is until you can read
it. Reading about "one" windows license elsewhere is not a
guarantee at all that an alternate packaged (or OEM) product
has the same terms.

>
>Requirements: Removes a portion of the American Bill of Rights, Voids Free
>Commerce, Prohibits Individual Privacy, Intel compatible processor, 60M of
>free space, and Internet connection.
>

Actually just the actual terms of the EULA for (and on) that
specific product, no more and no less.

[Leythos]

In article <73g791tm9iqa83cha73455fgsfvlvugmfe@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> Quite simply, you already PAID, and cannot then at the time
> of reviewing the license, decline it without penalty as it
> is a system w/license bundle. If it were a box from a
> retail store, they typically have an "exchange-only after
> opened" policy, which is solution as it's for same-item.
> Terms of a contract must be disclosed, ie- available at the
> time and point of entering into it so that it can be known
> for certain which of several differing Windows EULAs applies
> to that _specific_ license. If they waited till you
> accepted the EULA to bill you for Windows that would be
> another matter.

And quite simply, being an uninformed buyer (actually ignorant) does not
excuse the buyer of their responsibility for it. They didn't have to
purchase a Windows bundles PC, but they agreed to it.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[kony]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:39:55 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <73g791tm9iqa83cha73455fgsfvlvugmfe@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>says...
>> Quite simply, you already PAID, and cannot then at the time
>> of reviewing the license, decline it without penalty as it
>> is a system w/license bundle. If it were a box from a
>> retail store, they typically have an "exchange-only after
>> opened" policy, which is solution as it's for same-item.
>> Terms of a contract must be disclosed, ie- available at the
>> time and point of entering into it so that it can be known
>> for certain which of several differing Windows EULAs applies
>> to that _specific_ license. If they waited till you
>> accepted the EULA to bill you for Windows that would be
>> another matter.
>
>And quite simply, being an uninformed buyer (actually ignorant) does not
>excuse the buyer of their responsibility for it.

The buyer is being responsible in looking on the package for
the EULA.

You still don't get it. The buyer is only ignorant because
of MS' neglecting to disclose terms. MS has hidden the
terms and should be forthcoming. You try to shift blame
when I already stated an obvious solution- a packaging that
discloses the terms.

The buyer IS excused. If they weren't, then WHY does MS
still have that part where you read the EULA and click
"agree"? That in itself is evidence that the buyer is
excused because they were NOT agreeing to the EULA at the
point, time of purchase.


>They didn't have to
>purchase a Windows bundles PC, but they agreed to it.

No, you have no precedent, no reason to believe this is
true. You are essentially "pulling it out of your arse"
when you claim they have "agreed to it".

Make it a scientific study- go to stores and find people
buying windows. Don't try to taint the results by crafted
dialog, simply ask the purchaser what directly relates to
your statement and nothing more: "Did you already agree to
the EULA?".

To think that someone has agreed to [unknown terms they
can't review at time of fulfilling their end of the
agreement nor can be verified with certainty to apply to
that specific license] is ludicrous. You can claim it as
much as you want and it's still not true.

[Leythos]

In article <08o791hg55na4d3sgsci0mrur22qqv5l3m@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> You still don't get it. The buyer is only ignorant because
> of MS' neglecting to disclose terms. MS has hidden the
> terms and should be forthcoming. You try to shift blame
> when I already stated an obvious solution- a packaging that
> discloses the terms.

MS Didn't hide anything, you can get all the information even before you
purchase the OS/System.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[kurttrail]

kony wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:39:55 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <73g791tm9iqa83cha73455fgsfvlvugmfe@4ax.com>,
>> spam@spam.com says...
>>> Quite simply, you already PAID, and cannot then at the time
>>> of reviewing the license, decline it without penalty as it
>>> is a system w/license bundle. If it were a box from a
>>> retail store, they typically have an "exchange-only after
>>> opened" policy, which is solution as it's for same-item.
>>> Terms of a contract must be disclosed, ie- available at the
>>> time and point of entering into it so that it can be known
>>> for certain which of several differing Windows EULAs applies
>>> to that _specific_ license. If they waited till you
>>> accepted the EULA to bill you for Windows that would be
>>> another matter.
>>
>> And quite simply, being an uninformed buyer (actually ignorant) does
>> not excuse the buyer of their responsibility for it.
>
> The buyer is being responsible in looking on the package for
> the EULA.
>
> You still don't get it. The buyer is only ignorant because
> of MS' neglecting to disclose terms. MS has hidden the
> terms and should be forthcoming. You try to shift blame
> when I already stated an obvious solution- a packaging that
> discloses the terms.
>
> The buyer IS excused. If they weren't, then WHY does MS
> still have that part where you read the EULA and click
> "agree"? That in itself is evidence that the buyer is
> excused because they were NOT agreeing to the EULA at the
> point, time of purchase.
>
>
>> They didn't have to
>> purchase a Windows bundles PC, but they agreed to it.
>
> No, you have no precedent, no reason to believe this is
> true. You are essentially "pulling it out of your arse"
> when you claim they have "agreed to it".
>
> Make it a scientific study- go to stores and find people
> buying windows. Don't try to taint the results by crafted
> dialog, simply ask the purchaser what directly relates to
> your statement and nothing more: "Did you already agree to
> the EULA?".
>
> To think that someone has agreed to [unknown terms they
> can't review at time of fulfilling their end of the
> agreement nor can be verified with certainty to apply to
> that specific license] is ludicrous. You can claim it as
> much as you want and it's still not true.

You are NEVER gonna convince Lameboy that the EULA is anything but God's
Laws. A burning bush gave the EULA to Billses on stone tablets.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[Leythos]

In article <eBVTwHNYFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> You are NEVER gonna convince Lameboy that the EULA is anything but God's
> Laws. A burning bush gave the EULA to Billses on stone tablets.

I was not addressing it's validity, and my reply had nothing to do with
it.

He said people could not read the EULA before purchasing the product or
opening the box, which is not true - it's on-line and you can request a
copy if you call MS.

There is a difference between being in INFORMED customer and an Ignorant
one, the choice is up to the customer as the information IS available
without purchase.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[David Candy]

Why would one go to a company that one has no relationship with. The OEM
issues the license not Microsoft. The EULA is between the user and the OEM
(not so on retail and upgrade - it's MS on those versions, but they a minute
portion of MS sales).

Also the sale takes place before the EULA screen shows.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cfdaf2eff616931989810@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <eBVTwHNYFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> > You are NEVER gonna convince Lameboy that the EULA is anything but God's
> > Laws. A burning bush gave the EULA to Billses on stone tablets.
>
> I was not addressing it's validity, and my reply had nothing to do with
> it.
>
> He said people could not read the EULA before purchasing the product or
> opening the box, which is not true - it's on-line and you can request a
> copy if you call MS.
>
> There is a difference between being in INFORMED customer and an Ignorant
> one, the choice is up to the customer as the information IS available
> without purchase.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <eBVTwHNYFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> You are NEVER gonna convince Lameboy that the EULA is anything but
>> God's Laws. A burning bush gave the EULA to Billses on stone
>> tablets.
>
> I was not addressing it's validity, and my reply had nothing to do
> with it.
>
> He said people could not read the EULA before purchasing the product
> or opening the box, which is not true - it's on-line and you can
> request a copy if you call MS.
>
> There is a difference between being in INFORMED customer and an
> Ignorant one, the choice is up to the customer as the information IS
> available without purchase.

Bitch, whine, moan.

All you can see is the EULA from MS's point of view, not the consumers
point of view. You are blinded by the holy light coming throught the
Windows!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[Alias]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cfdaaa8705f269c98980f@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <08o791hg55na4d3sgsci0mrur22qqv5l3m@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>> You still don't get it. The buyer is only ignorant because
>> of MS' neglecting to disclose terms. MS has hidden the
>> terms and should be forthcoming. You try to shift blame
>> when I already stated an obvious solution- a packaging that
>> discloses the terms.
>
> MS Didn't hide anything, you can get all the information even before you
> purchase the OS/System.

Very true but most people, if asked what an EULA is will say, "What's that?"
and MS knows it, you know it and it's a scam just like the activation and
validation and whatever new hoop MS decides they want their paying customers
to jump through. Preying on the innocent who are ignorant of the EULA is a
bad thing and you supporting it makes you what?

Alias

[Leythos]

In article <Oczr8WNYFHA.2996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, "David Candy" <.>
says...
> Why would one go to a company that one has no relationship with. The OEM
> issues the license not Microsoft. The EULA is between the user and the OEM
> (not so on retail and upgrade - it's MS on those versions, but they a minute
> portion of MS sales).
>
> Also the sale takes place before the EULA screen shows.

The licensing of the software, the requirement for it, is, when a
packaged machine is purchased from a place like CompUSA, Gateway, etc...
included in the manual that ships with the boxes. There is also wording
on the CD in many cases.

Again, you/they can choose to be ignorant or not.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Leythos]

In article <uGAe06QYFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cfdaaa8705f269c98980f@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <08o791hg55na4d3sgsci0mrur22qqv5l3m@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> > says...
> >> You still don't get it. The buyer is only ignorant because
> >> of MS' neglecting to disclose terms. MS has hidden the
> >> terms and should be forthcoming. You try to shift blame
> >> when I already stated an obvious solution- a packaging that
> >> discloses the terms.
> >
> > MS Didn't hide anything, you can get all the information even before you
> > purchase the OS/System.
>
> Very true but most people, if asked what an EULA is will say, "What's that?"
> and MS knows it, you know it and it's a scam just like the activation and
> validation and whatever new hoop MS decides they want their paying customers
> to jump through. Preying on the innocent who are ignorant of the EULA is a
> bad thing and you supporting it makes you what?

Why don't you rant about all the other vendors that do the EXACT SAME
THING?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Alias]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cfe23ca700c32d5989813@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <uGAe06QYFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1cfdaaa8705f269c98980f@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> > In article <08o791hg55na4d3sgsci0mrur22qqv5l3m@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>> > says...
>> >> You still don't get it. The buyer is only ignorant because
>> >> of MS' neglecting to disclose terms. MS has hidden the
>> >> terms and should be forthcoming. You try to shift blame
>> >> when I already stated an obvious solution- a packaging that
>> >> discloses the terms.
>> >
>> > MS Didn't hide anything, you can get all the information even before
>> > you
>> > purchase the OS/System.
>>
>> Very true but most people, if asked what an EULA is will say, "What's
>> that?"
>> and MS knows it, you know it and it's a scam just like the activation and
>> validation and whatever new hoop MS decides they want their paying
>> customers
>> to jump through. Preying on the innocent who are ignorant of the EULA is
>> a
>> bad thing and you supporting it makes you what?
>
> Why don't you rant about all the other vendors that do the EXACT SAME
> THING?

Rant? I speaketh the truth and what I said applies to other vendors who do
the same thing. That said, most vendors don't have an activation followed by
a validation. To my knowledge, MS is the only one that does that.

Alias

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <Oczr8WNYFHA.2996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, "David Candy" <.>
> says...
>> Why would one go to a company that one has no relationship with. The
>> OEM issues the license not Microsoft. The EULA is between the user
>> and the OEM (not so on retail and upgrade - it's MS on those
>> versions, but they a minute portion of MS sales).
>>
>> Also the sale takes place before the EULA screen shows.
>
> The licensing of the software, the requirement for it, is, when a
> packaged machine is purchased from a place like CompUSA, Gateway,
> etc... included in the manual that ships with the boxes. There is
> also wording on the CD in many cases.
>
> Again, you/they can choose to be ignorant or not.
>
> --

Just like you ignoring the subject of this thread is about OEM software.
And ignoring that most people get their OEM software pre-installed.

So you are at least as ridiculous as you think people that are unaware
of the EULA are, before, during, and after to the sale of OEM XP.

You choose to ignore reality, while they choose to ignore post-sale
claims of a third party not even involved in the actual sale. Actually,
you are definitely much more ridiculous.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:

> Why don't you rant about all the other vendors that do the EXACT SAME
> THING?

Ignoring your miscaracterization of Alias's post, It would be off-topic
to "rant" about another company in this thread or this group. Only MS
makes Windows, and this is a group about WindowsXP in general. Why
would anyone come here to "rant" about Adobe, or one of the other
colluding members of the BSA trust?

They all do the same slimely unethical practices because they are part
of the conspiracy to strip consumers of software of their "fair use"
rights. They are all in cahoots with each other to do through FUD what
they are too afraid to LEGALLY PROVE, that we, as private non-commercial
individuals, don't have the RIGHT to "fairly use" the very expensive
copies of software that was legally sold to us for the use in our homes!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[David Candy]

It doesn't matter. Law of contract says otherwise.
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cfe23a2427726c5989812@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <Oczr8WNYFHA.2996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, "David Candy" <.>
> says...
> > Why would one go to a company that one has no relationship with. The OEM
> > issues the license not Microsoft. The EULA is between the user and the
OEM
> > (not so on retail and upgrade - it's MS on those versions, but they a
minute
> > portion of MS sales).
> >
> > Also the sale takes place before the EULA screen shows.
>
> The licensing of the software, the requirement for it, is, when a
> packaged machine is purchased from a place like CompUSA, Gateway, etc...
> included in the manual that ships with the boxes. There is also wording
> on the CD in many cases.
>
> Again, you/they can choose to be ignorant or not.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

[Bob I]

BNR wrote:

>>>>Scraping it all and starting over isn't
>>>>the reason a company wants technically minded people around,
>>>>they can order from Dell just as well as grandma can.
>>>
>>>Can your grandma order from Dell?
>>
>>Anyone who can use a phone and credit card can.
>
>
> That's dumbing it down. But you didn't answer the question.
>
>
>>It's just another senseless stereotype...
>>All elders are senile.
>>I suppose it just comes from limited exposure...
>
>
> Any one person only has two Grandmas, so how is it that you have more
> exposure than me?
>
How many would you have, if you were adopted?

[kony]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 10:55:58 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <uGAe06QYFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1cfdaaa8705f269c98980f@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> > In article <08o791hg55na4d3sgsci0mrur22qqv5l3m@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>> > says...
>> >> You still don't get it. The buyer is only ignorant because
>> >> of MS' neglecting to disclose terms. MS has hidden the
>> >> terms and should be forthcoming. You try to shift blame
>> >> when I already stated an obvious solution- a packaging that
>> >> discloses the terms.
>> >
>> > MS Didn't hide anything, you can get all the information even before you
>> > purchase the OS/System.
>>
>> Very true but most people, if asked what an EULA is will say, "What's that?"
>> and MS knows it, you know it and it's a scam just like the activation and
>> validation and whatever new hoop MS decides they want their paying customers
>> to jump through. Preying on the innocent who are ignorant of the EULA is a
>> bad thing and you supporting it makes you what?
>
>Why don't you rant about all the other vendors that do the EXACT SAME
>THING?

1) Because their products weren't the topic of these
posts.... who says people don't rant about them?

2) There are so many variations of Windows licensing

3) The monopoly- customers are not choosing a product, only
to accept or reject the ONLY commerically developed solution
with full hardware and software support. Many governments
are now considering that this point alone makes the EULA
questionable.

[kony]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 02:38:31 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <eBVTwHNYFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
>dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> You are NEVER gonna convince Lameboy that the EULA is anything but God's
>> Laws. A burning bush gave the EULA to Billses on stone tablets.
>
>I was not addressing it's validity, and my reply had nothing to do with
>it.
>
>He said people could not read the EULA before purchasing the product or
>opening the box, which is not true - it's on-line and you can request a
>copy if you call MS.


.... and you don't see a problem with that.
There is a problem with that, but you ignore it. The online
EULA is fine if it's required prior to online purchase, but
is no substitute for a EULA at the time and place of
purchase since what is actually being purchased is only a
license.


>
>There is a difference between being in INFORMED customer and an Ignorant
>one, the choice is up to the customer as the information IS available
>without purchase.

Yes, an informed customer is one who is able to read the
terms attached to the specific product, not going elsewhere
to guess if they apply to a specific product.

[kony]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 10:55:18 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <Oczr8WNYFHA.2996@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, "David Candy" <.>
>says...
>> Why would one go to a company that one has no relationship with. The OEM
>> issues the license not Microsoft. The EULA is between the user and the OEM
>> (not so on retail and upgrade - it's MS on those versions, but they a minute
>> portion of MS sales).
>>
>> Also the sale takes place before the EULA screen shows.
>
>The licensing of the software, the requirement for it, is, when a
>packaged machine is purchased from a place like CompUSA, Gateway, etc...
>included in the manual that ships with the boxes. There is also wording
>on the CD in many cases.
>
>Again, you/they can choose to be ignorant or not.
>

You are choosing to be ignorant and it's a bit ridiculous
that you keep trying to imply the customer is. On the
contrary, they choose to KNOW what the license is for that
specific product- not some license that has no guarantee of
applying to a product found elsewhere. Your oversimplified
concept of "ignorance" can't be applied to actual purchase
scenarios, but would have to apply to ALL of them to be a
workable solution. There can be no "grey areas" in whether
one knows the terms of a the specific product but there are.

[kony]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 02:19:11 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <08o791hg55na4d3sgsci0mrur22qqv5l3m@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>says...
>> You still don't get it. The buyer is only ignorant because
>> of MS' neglecting to disclose terms. MS has hidden the
>> terms and should be forthcoming. You try to shift blame
>> when I already stated an obvious solution- a packaging that
>> discloses the terms.
>
>MS Didn't hide anything, you can get all the information even before you
>purchase the OS/System.
>
>--

No, you can't.
Be specific, show us this information that is _GUARANTEED_
in writing sufficient to hold up in court, that it applies
to some randomly-selected (as would occur when one comes
across a product) WIndows. The terms are not consistent
across all distributions of WIndows and therefore can not be
"gotten" and assumed to apply to a product which can't be
verified before purchase to have same (terms).

[Leythos]

In article <s5a9915asduuuqmsuv10krfgu1n1fdf196@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 02:19:11 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <08o791hg55na4d3sgsci0mrur22qqv5l3m@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> >says...
> >> You still don't get it. The buyer is only ignorant because
> >> of MS' neglecting to disclose terms. MS has hidden the
> >> terms and should be forthcoming. You try to shift blame
> >> when I already stated an obvious solution- a packaging that
> >> discloses the terms.
> >
> >MS Didn't hide anything, you can get all the information even before you
> >purchase the OS/System.
> >
> >--
>
> No, you can't.
> Be specific, show us this information that is _GUARANTEED_
> in writing sufficient to hold up in court, that it applies
> to some randomly-selected (as would occur when one comes
> across a product) WIndows. The terms are not consistent
> across all distributions of WIndows and therefore can not be
> "gotten" and assumed to apply to a product which can't be
> verified before purchase to have same (terms).

When did I mention anything about court - your statement was that people
purchased a computer/system with Windows without any means to read the
EULA before the purchase and that it made the return of Windows
impossible or highly unlikely for those that do not agree to the EULA.

Your statement is 100% false, the information IS available to those that
don't want to purchase blindly.

I don't give a sh!t about legal or not, only that your inflammatory
statement was false - the EULA is available BEFORE purchase to any
customer that chooses to be informed.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[kony]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 16:53:32 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:


>> No, you can't.
>> Be specific, show us this information that is _GUARANTEED_
>> in writing sufficient to hold up in court, that it applies
>> to some randomly-selected (as would occur when one comes
>> across a product) WIndows. The terms are not consistent
>> across all distributions of WIndows and therefore can not be
>> "gotten" and assumed to apply to a product which can't be
>> verified before purchase to have same (terms).
>
>When did I mention anything about court

If it doesn't hold up on court then your idea about EULA or
terms is pretty irrelevant, isn't it? What ARE customers
agreeing to then? NOTHING if it doesn't stand up to legal
definitions.


>- your statement was that people
>purchased a computer/system with Windows without any means to read the
>EULA before the purchase and that it made the return of Windows
>impossible or highly unlikely for those that do not agree to the EULA.

Not impossible, BUT any additional effort or expense is not
same thing as being able to reject it without any additional
burden, as is the case with any other agreement where terms
are disclosed at THAT time, not elsewhere, "maybe".

>
>Your statement is 100% false, the information IS available to those that
>don't want to purchase blindly.

Oh? Show me. Show us all where we can be GUARANTEED we'd
reading something that applies to any SPECIFIC
possible-to-purchase product.


>
>I don't give a sh!t about legal or not, only that your inflammatory
>statement was false - the EULA is available BEFORE purchase to any
>customer that chooses to be informed.

No, it's not always and often not available. Even if you
can read "something" you are not guaranteed what you read
applies. When you purchase a license there must be some
fixation of terms at the time and point of entering into
that agreement, not beforehand via a 3rd party nor after the
sale.

[Leythos]

In article <f1g991lv6eqlcpslq5mg37p7d45hn89v2l@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> No, it's not always and often not available. Even if you
> can read "something" you are not guaranteed what you read
> applies.

You're hopeless.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <s5a9915asduuuqmsuv10krfgu1n1fdf196@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>> On Wed, 25 May 2005 02:19:11 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <08o791hg55na4d3sgsci0mrur22qqv5l3m@4ax.com>,
>>> spam@spam.com says...
>>>> You still don't get it. The buyer is only ignorant because
>>>> of MS' neglecting to disclose terms. MS has hidden the
>>>> terms and should be forthcoming. You try to shift blame
>>>> when I already stated an obvious solution- a packaging that
>>>> discloses the terms.
>>>
>>> MS Didn't hide anything, you can get all the information even
>>> before you purchase the OS/System.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> No, you can't.
>> Be specific, show us this information that is _GUARANTEED_
>> in writing sufficient to hold up in court, that it applies
>> to some randomly-selected (as would occur when one comes
>> across a product) WIndows. The terms are not consistent
>> across all distributions of WIndows and therefore can not be
>> "gotten" and assumed to apply to a product which can't be
>> verified before purchase to have same (terms).
>
> When did I mention anything about court - your statement was that
> people purchased a computer/system with Windows without any means to
> read the EULA before the purchase and that it made the return of
> Windows impossible or highly unlikely for those that do not agree to
> the EULA.
>
> Your statement is 100% false, the information IS available to those
> that don't want to purchase blindly.
>
> I don't give a sh!t about legal or not, only that your inflammatory
> statement was false - the EULA is available BEFORE purchase to any
> customer that chooses to be informed.

Yeah, like the Earth had available that it was going to be destroyed to
make way for a hyperspatial bypass in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the
Galaxy!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[kurttrail]

Leythos wrote:
> In article <f1g991lv6eqlcpslq5mg37p7d45hn89v2l@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>> No, it's not always and often not available. Even if you
>> can read "something" you are not guaranteed what you read
>> applies.
>
> You're hopeless.

Said the Queen of the delusional!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

[kony]

On Wed, 25 May 2005 18:35:27 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <f1g991lv6eqlcpslq5mg37p7d45hn89v2l@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>says...
>> No, it's not always and often not available. Even if you
>> can read "something" you are not guaranteed what you read
>> applies.
>
>You're hopeless.


That's ironic.