Discussion:
XNews and Vista
(too old to reply)
Lil' Abner
2007-04-30 20:41:35 UTC
Permalink
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
It takes me at least 5 times as long to download a binary file in Vista
than it does in XP. It'll download a part and pause, download the next part
and pause, etc.
I can get anywhere from 10-15Mb down at the speed test sites in either
Vista or XP. Also, in Vista I don't notice any slowdown in any of my other
internet applications.
I just downloaded this version (5.04.25) since I was having the same
problem with the ?.00 version I have been running for several years. ?.00
isn't exactly right, but I'll follow up with that exact version number
after I post this.
Is anyone else noticing this behavior in XNews?
--
--- A dyslexic man walks into a bra ---
SINNER
2007-04-30 20:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
Upgrade to the latest build and report back. Version is very old.
--
David
MartinS
2007-04-30 21:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by SINNER
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
Upgrade to the latest build and report back. Version is very old.
Same as yours, apparently.
--
Martin S.
Mike Dee
2007-05-01 00:30:37 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by MartinS
Post by SINNER
Upgrade to the latest build and report back. Version is very old.
Same as yours, apparently.
:) You're not wrong :)
--
dee
SINNER
2007-05-01 13:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by MartinS
Post by SINNER
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
Upgrade to the latest build and report back. Version is very old.
Same as yours, apparently.
Yeah, but I am not running Vista and dont have the problem.
--
David
Ch.Esperado
2007-05-01 14:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by SINNER
Yeah, but I am not running Vista and dont have the problem.
So, Vista do not runs you !
--
Christophe. Nouveau site: http://www.esperado.dyndns.tv
"L'humour est la politesse du désespoir".
L'absence d'humour ouvre un immense espoir:
celui d'en acquérir un jour.
SINNER
2007-05-01 18:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ch.Esperado
Post by SINNER
Yeah, but I am not running Vista and dont have the problem.
So, Vista do not runs you !
?
--
David
Ch.Esperado
2007-05-03 17:13:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ch.Esperado
So, Vista do not runs you !
?
With vista'sd rm, that's the first time an OS décide what material you are
allowed to use in some circumstances (digital outputs etc...)
You are no more the owner of your machine.
But your machine still needs-you to run...for a while.
--
Christophe. Nouveau site: http://www.esperado.dyndns.tv
A force de mettre tous les indésirables en Kill File, c'est drôle, il
n'y a plus personne à lire... © [GabeGatsby, in FRAL]
Lil' Abner
2007-04-30 20:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
It takes me at least 5 times as long to download a binary file in
Vista than it does in XP. It'll download a part and pause, download
the next part and pause, etc.
I can get anywhere from 10-15Mb down at the speed test sites in either
Vista or XP. Also, in Vista I don't notice any slowdown in any of my
other internet applications.
I just downloaded this version (5.04.25) since I was having the same
problem with the ?.00 version I have been running for several years.
?.00 isn't exactly right, but I'll follow up with that exact version
number after I post this.
Is anyone else noticing this behavior in XNews?
OK... it was version /??.01.30 (Loading Image...)
I just downloaded version 2006.08.24 and will try it but I don't expect to
see any difference.
--
--- A dyslexic man walks into a bra ---
sittingduck
2007-04-30 21:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
It takes me at least 5 times as long to download a binary file in Vista
than it does in XP. It'll download a part and pause, download the next
part and pause, etc.
I can get anywhere from 10-15Mb down at the speed test sites in either
Vista or XP. Also, in Vista I don't notice any slowdown in any of my
other internet applications.
I just downloaded this version (5.04.25) since I was having the same
problem with the ?.00 version I have been running for several years.
?.00 isn't exactly right, but I'll follow up with that exact version
number after I post this.
Is anyone else noticing this behavior in XNews?
Dump Vista

Use a better binary client
Ed Propes
2007-04-30 20:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
It takes me at least 5 times as long to download a binary file in Vista
than it does in XP. It'll download a part and pause, download the next part
and pause, etc.
I can get anywhere from 10-15Mb down at the speed test sites in either
Vista or XP. Also, in Vista I don't notice any slowdown in any of my other
internet applications.
I just downloaded this version (5.04.25) since I was having the same
problem with the ?.00 version I have been running for several years. ?.00
isn't exactly right, but I'll follow up with that exact version number
after I post this.
Is anyone else noticing this behavior in XNews?
I'm using version 2006.08.24 of xnews and Vista Ultimate and haven't
had that experience, but I'm not d/ling either. There was a proplem wiht
menus with the public betas and xnews menus but those seem to be taken
care of.
XS11E
2007-04-30 23:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
Current version is 2006.08.24

http://xnews.newsguy.com

Vista Ultimate 64 bit.

No problem, downloads the same in Vista or XP.

Might want to look at your Vista setup and see if something's different
than your XP setup?
XS11E
2007-04-30 23:27:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
Current version is 2006.08.24
http://xnews.newsguy.com
Vista Ultimate 64 bit.
No problem, downloads the same in Vista or XP.
Might want to look at your Vista setup and see if something's
different than your XP setup?
Sorry, should have said your Vista *connection* setup. I'm using
different drivers for my NIC, Vista supplied what I'm using now, in XP
I used the manufacturer's drivers. Doesn't seem to be any difference
but who knows?
Lil' Abner
2007-05-01 02:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by XS11E
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
Current version is 2006.08.24
http://xnews.newsguy.com
Vista Ultimate 64 bit.
No problem, downloads the same in Vista or XP.
Might want to look at your Vista setup and see if something's
different than your XP setup?
Sorry, should have said your Vista *connection* setup. I'm using
different drivers for my NIC, Vista supplied what I'm using now, in XP
I used the manufacturer's drivers. Doesn't seem to be any difference
but who knows?
I'm more inclined to think it's something to do with the Vista setup than
anything to do with the newsreader. I ran an "optimizer" on it that
changed the MTU's a bit, but that didn't seem to affect it either. Like I
said before, I'm getting about the same up and down speeds on the speed
test sites that I get in XP.
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in XP. It's
the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too much delay between each
part.
--
--- A dyslexic man walks into a bra ---
sittingduck
2007-05-01 04:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in XP. It's
the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too much delay between each
part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-01 04:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by sittingduck
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in XP. It's
the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too much delay between each
part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
There's a thought. I'd read about VistaHorrors(TM) in general, but
hadn't applied it to this thread.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
XS11E
2007-05-01 05:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by sittingduck
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in
XP. It's the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too much
delay between each part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
There's a thought. I'd read about VistaHorrors(TM) in general,
but hadn't applied it to this thread.
Ain't got no horrors, works fine.
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-01 06:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by sittingduck
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in
XP. It's the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too much
delay between each part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
There's a thought. I'd read about VistaHorrors(TM) in general,
but hadn't applied it to this thread.
Ain't got no horrors, works fine.
It's got horrors. Read that link for some. Perhaps not everyone will
be aware of them.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Daniel James
2007-05-01 09:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by sittingduck
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in
XP. It's the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too much
delay between each part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
There's a thought. I'd read about VistaHorrors(TM) in general,
but hadn't applied it to this thread.
Ain't got no horrors, works fine.
It's got horrors. Read that link for some. Perhaps not everyone will
be aware of them.
Vista does indeed have horrors -- and not just the way it looks onscreen!

See http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0702.html#8 as well as the link to
Peter Gutmann's site cited above.

Cheers,
Daniel.
XS11E
2007-05-01 18:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by sittingduck
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in
XP. It's the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too
much delay between each part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
There's a thought. I'd read about VistaHorrors(TM) in general,
but hadn't applied it to this thread.
Ain't got no horrors, works fine.
It's got horrors. Read that link for some. Perhaps not everyone
will be aware of them.
Read the link, large amoung of fud.
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-01 19:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by sittingduck
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in
XP. It's the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too
much delay between each part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
There's a thought. I'd read about VistaHorrors(TM) in general,
but hadn't applied it to this thread.
Ain't got no horrors, works fine.
It's got horrors. Read that link for some. Perhaps not everyone
will be aware of them.
Read the link, large amoung of fud.
I did, long ago, or I wouldn't recommend it. Obviously I don't see its
FUDdiness. We'll have to agree to disagree, as one Windows guy and one
various-OS's guy.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
William Poaster
2007-05-02 09:48:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by sittingduck
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in
XP. It's the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too much
delay between each part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
There's a thought. I'd read about VistaHorrors(TM) in general,
but hadn't applied it to this thread.
Ain't got no horrors, works fine.
It's got horrors. Read that link for some. Perhaps not everyone will
be aware of them.
More Vista horrors:
Woman to sue M$ for false labelling:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38778

Federal agencies steering clear of Vista:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17739772/

At least one person who won't change to Vista, & *why*:
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=212977&start=0&tag=nl.e138

Slow trainwreck:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/26/vista_copying_bug/

Etc....etc....

But what gets me is, that Vista *still* needs to be defragged....in the 21st
century!
http://www.thegline.com/windows/2006/11/about-vista-defrags-sudden-los.html
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 10:23:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by sittingduck
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in
XP. It's the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too much
delay between each part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
There's a thought. I'd read about VistaHorrors(TM) in general,
but hadn't applied it to this thread.
Ain't got no horrors, works fine.
It's got horrors. Read that link for some. Perhaps not everyone will
be aware of them.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38778
Gates lied? Hooda thunket?!
Post by William Poaster
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17739772/
I wonder how Yurp's going to react to Vista.
Post by William Poaster
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=212977&start=0&tag=nl.e138
<q article>

"...Windows was deactivated due to a hardware change. You must activate
Windows within 3 days or Windows will stop working. Click to start
activation..."

I just found out that if Vista does not like a change you make to your
computer, including merely installing software :0 , and requires
reactivation, that it sometimes will deactivate within only 3 days,
not 30 days.

I greatly dislike but might have accepted 30 days. If this nonsense ever
happened, I would surely not lose access to my computer. But, with only
3 days, it is very possible I might. What about 3-day weekends? What
about being in a place without Internet access? Without telephone?

</q>

See my later comment on the camel's nose. :)
Post by William Poaster
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/26/vista_copying_bug/
<q article>

Windows Vista suffers from a bug that causes many machines to stall
while deleting, copying and moving files, a flaw that has provoked
consternation in online forums.

</q>

Well, it's not like deleting, copying and moving files are basic things
that an OS should be able to handle. People should just be, you know,
word processing playing solitaire and sending email! ;)

<q ibid>

"I've seen this bug in action, and trust me, it's as if you're copying
over a 64k link using only 256mb of RAM," one Reg reader complained.
"To add to the problem, you can't cancel or anything."

According to a thread on Microsoft's TechNet site, Microsoft has issued
a hotfix for the problem, but it has failed to quell the outrage. For one
thing, individual users must get Microsoft's approval before the fix can be
downloaded, according to our tipster. And for another, hotfixes are more of
a pain to install than patches.

</q>

Approval, for heaven's sake. First it was XP with needing approval to
upgrade Your Own Flippin' Hardware. (That's the main thing that drove
me to Linux.) That was the nose of the camel coming in under the side
of the tent. It had tons of apologists, and now the camel's got his
whole head inside.
Post by William Poaster
Etc....etc....
But what gets me is, that Vista *still* needs to be defragged....in the 21st
century!
http://www.thegline.com/windows/2006/11/about-vista-defrags-sudden-los.html
Heh. I hadn't thought about that. :)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Gene E. Bloch
2007-05-03 17:54:59 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Blinky the Shark
<q article>
"...Windows was deactivated due to a hardware change. You must
activate Windows within 3 days or Windows will stop working. Click
to start activation..."
I just found out that if Vista does not like a change you make to
your computer, including merely installing software :0 , and
requires reactivation, that it sometimes will deactivate within
only 3 days, not 30 days.
I greatly dislike but might have accepted 30 days. If this
nonsense ever happened, I would surely not lose access to my
computer. But, with only 3 days, it is very possible I might. What
about 3-day weekends? What about being in a place without Internet
access? Without telephone?
</q>
See my later comment on the camel's nose. :)
Well, XP is no picnic either. I am writing this in a Parallels VM on
my latest extravagance, an iMac (my PC was dying - again!). I cloned
the PC to the VM, and Windows told me I had three days to activate.
No, it turned out to be only about 36 hours. Not nice - I hadn't
totally got it working, even, and most of those hours were on a
weekend when I wasn't able to spend time at it (this was more an
annoyance than a problem).

Later I tried to clone the VM to a Boot Camp partition. This time,
the activator prevented me from booting before I even had the Apple
drivers installed. I couldn't activate, because the activator had
died :-(

To keep it short, I eventually got that to work, but never could get
the Boot Camp partition to work right anyway, so I decided to bag
it, rather than make a career out of trying :-) ... as in
discretion is the better part of valor. (I was too lazy to start
over with a clean install, which actually would have worked OK.)

I also tried VMware, I got into the dreaded situation where if I
booted from Boot Camp, I had to activate, and if I then booted from
the VM, I had to activate, and if I then booted from Boot Camp, I
had to activate, ad infinitum. This was because I couldn't boot
completely until I had activated Boot Camp. This had to happen
before setting up the VMware virtual machine, thereby preventing
VMware from sort-circuiting that loop.

All activations required use of the phone, and in all cases, a live
tech became necessary because the phone-menu system kept getting
confused - or maybe it was me (also, one tech even hung up on me!).

I have gotten good at activation.

BTW, I cloned the iMac to an external drive for backup purposes.
Just for fun, I booted from it. It worked fine, and the OS didn't
complain at all :-)

To be fair, Windows XP doesn't complain if I boot to it from a
backed-up Parallels VM.

<more snipping>
--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) ... letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Nobody
2007-05-02 01:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by sittingduck
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in
XP. It's the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too much
delay between each part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
There's a thought. I'd read about VistaHorrors(TM) in general,
but hadn't applied it to this thread.
Have you read this?
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

I want Vista no where near me for at least a little longer.
XS11E
2007-05-02 02:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nobody
Have you read this?
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Yes, it's fud.
Post by Nobody
I want Vista no where near me for at least a little longer.
OK, you probably couldn't make it work, anyway.
sittingduck
2007-05-02 02:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Nobody
Have you read this?
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Yes, it's fud.
Post by Nobody
I want Vista no where near me for at least a little longer.
OK, you probably couldn't make it work, anyway.
It's ok X, we still love you.
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 03:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Nobody
Have you read this?
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Yes, it's fud.
Post by Nobody
I want Vista no where near me for at least a little longer.
OK, you probably couldn't make it work, anyway.
Do you *really* think that people who resist Vista are the *bottom* end
of the MS user base? I'd say just the opposite. I'd say the bottom end
are the ones who don't think to question their OS -- or much else. The
ones who happily run whatever MS/Google/AOL and malware developers
issue, without a thought. I'd say it's the upper, clueful end that put
some thought into their computing.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
XS11E
2007-05-02 03:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Do you *really* think that people who resist Vista are the
*bottom* end of the MS user base?
Yes.
Post by Blinky the Shark
I'd say just the opposite.
You'd be mistaken.

The top end of all users are probably the beta testers like myself
who've been running Vista since the first Longhorn Alpha version (it
sucked).

The next top group are the MSDN subscribers, tech net subscribers, etc.
who have been running Vista since RC1 and so on down the line.

Most of the earlier adopters are pretty savvy folks, the people coming
on board now are the ones who have to ask, "Do I have a 64 bit PC?" and
other questions labelling them as very much newbies but willing to
invest time in learning.

The bottem end of the user base are still happy with Windows ME or
Microsoft Bob.
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 03:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Do you *really* think that people who resist Vista are the *bottom*
end of the MS user base?
Yes.
Post by Blinky the Shark
I'd say just the opposite.
You'd be mistaken.
The top end of all users are probably the beta testers like myself
who've been running Vista since the first Longhorn Alpha version (it
sucked).
The next top group are the MSDN subscribers, tech net subscribers,
etc. who have been running Vista since RC1 and so on down the line.
Most of the earlier adopters are pretty savvy folks, the people coming
on board now are the ones who have to ask, "Do I have a 64 bit PC?"
and other questions labelling them as very much newbies but willing to
invest time in learning.
The bottem end of the user base are still happy with Windows ME or
Microsoft Bob.
When I categorized the upper end as I saw it, I wasn't thinking about
the relatively few that are as firmly attached to the MS tit as those
you describe; my thoughts addressed the teeming masses, and the high and
low ends of that termendously huge group.

Interestingly, I think, and rather ironically, I see a hint in your
pecking order of the old complaint against Linux -- that Vista's only
good for the real geeks (a category I obviously respect, but that's
extraneous to my point).
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
XS11E
2007-05-02 04:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
When I categorized the upper end as I saw it, I wasn't thinking
about the relatively few that are as firmly attached to the MS tit
as those you describe; my thoughts addressed the teeming masses,
and the high and low ends of that termendously huge group.
That "termendously" huge group is the group that, for the most part,
are running Vista w/o problems. Sales so far have been very good,
better than anticipated (see MSFT's latest financial statement) and a
very large percent are doing very well.

Then there are those....... Years back, an English lady used to post
some very helpful tips in the MS Office groups using the nym of Miss
Perspicacia Tick, she once posted this wonderful advice to a user,
"Please turn off your computer, pack it in the original boxes and
return it to your dealer, tell them you're too stupid to own a
computer." Sometimes that needs to be said.

Those will always be with us but they're sometimes pretty vocal because
most hesitate to talk to them as Miss Tick did. (Damn, I *MISS* her!)
Post by Blinky the Shark
Interestingly, I think, and rather ironically, I see a hint in
your pecking order of the old complaint against Linux -- that
Vista's only good for the real geeks (a category I obviously
respect, but that's extraneous to my point).
Then you misread. Vista is fine for people who will stop and RTFM
before jumping in. There are hardware and software problems such as I
had with Windows 2000, older stuff just isn't supported and
hardware/software vendors are not willing to write new drivers for very
old hardware/software. Being a real geek helps with any new OR old OS
but it's not needed. I had no problems installing Vista 64 and getting
all my hardware running (had to change mouse) and I can say the same
for Mandriva 2007 64. Both set up every bit of hardware (I had to
struggle with my printer in both OSs) but I think anyone could have
done it, well, anyone with fingers, maybe not with fins....
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 05:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
When I categorized the upper end as I saw it, I wasn't thinking about
the relatively few that are as firmly attached to the MS tit as those
you describe; my thoughts addressed the teeming masses, and the high
and low ends of that termendously huge group.
That "termendously" huge group is the group that, for the most part,
are running Vista w/o problems. Sales so far have been very good,
better than anticipated (see MSFT's latest financial statement) and a
very large percent are doing very well.
Yes, I just read yesterday I, think it was, that sales were higher than
expected. Given what I read about Vista that surprised me. Even now, I
guess I had more faith in the marketplace. I can't believe I just said
that; I really do know better.
Post by XS11E
Then there are those....... Years back, an English lady used to post
some very helpful tips in the MS Office groups using the nym of Miss
Perspicacia Tick, she once posted this wonderful advice to a user,
Hey, I remember her. Not from MS Office groups, but elsewhere. Is she
absent now? Your tense indicates that she might not be there any more.
Post by XS11E
"Please turn off your computer, pack it in the original boxes and
return it to your dealer, tell them you're too stupid to own a
computer." Sometimes that needs to be said.
Just this afternoon, I mentioned to someone in email that that advice is
not unheard of in the tech-oriented groups. Small world. :)

Here's the Usenet post that I'd sent my friend, that generated my
comment on unplugging. This is good. :)

------------>%-----------

A friend was here on Saturday night - well, hubby had a bunch of friends over.
One of them was this woman who noticed my computer and said "My computer is
broken - the desktop doesn't work." Hubby, of course, spoke up and said "Kim
can probably look at it - she's pretty good about fixing them." I wasn't
around when he told her this, so I wasn't able to elbow him and say "never
say that - NEVER". So, Sunday this woman's husband comes in with a box of
computer stuff and says "Thanks for taking a look at this!" I, of course,
have no clue what I am looking at. All I have is a note that says "Kim - the
desktop is broken. And the tower is slower. Can you see what's wrong with
it?" So, I unplug my tower, plug hers in, hook up my monitor. Yeah, it's a
little slow. Install Spybot on it, and AVG, run those, remove a few virus's
and some spyware. Seems fine. Defrag just for good measure.

So, I call the lady, tell her "seems to be fine." She says "Did you fix the
desktop?" I said "Well, it wasn't broken - I took a few virus's off, but
it's ok." She says "Well, I couldn't even do that, because the desktop was
broken. I unplugged it a few times, but it wouldn't do anything. How does
the desktop get a virus? I knew the tower had one, because my virus checker
said it did, but I couldn't get them off without the desktop."

Finally it's dawning on me that this woman might be stupid, and I said.
"Look, what exactly was broken - describe to me without using the word
'desktop' what your problem was. Do you mean the desktop on the screen? Do
you have things missing?" She says "No, no - My desktop - the thing with the
letters on it - it was broken, it wouldn't do anything." So I yelled, very
calmly - GO BUY ANOTHER ONE." A few more minutes of conversing makes me
realize that this woman thought that the keyboard was an integral part of
the computer - and that you couldn't just buy a new one, you had to buy a
whole new system. When she came to pick up her box of crap she said "Can you
buy a new pointer [mouse] too? Because I bought this computer when my old
pointer kept making the arrow jump all over the screen."

----------->%-----------
Post by XS11E
Those will always be with us but they're sometimes pretty vocal
because most hesitate to talk to them as Miss Tick did. (Damn, I
*MISS* her!)
You can find that kind of frank reality in 23hoursupport.helpdesk. :)
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Interestingly, I think, and rather ironically, I see a hint in your
pecking order of the old complaint against Linux -- that Vista's only
good for the real geeks (a category I obviously respect, but that's
extraneous to my point).
Then you misread. Vista is fine for people who will stop and RTFM
I guess I did. I thought you to be saying that it was just the upper
crust (the beta testers and developers) that it was good for, and the
underclasses were still using older versions. Obviously that's not
true, or all those sales of Vista wouldn't be happening. :)
Post by XS11E
before jumping in. There are hardware and software problems such as I
had with Windows 2000, older stuff just isn't supported and
hardware/software vendors are not willing to write new drivers for
very old hardware/software. Being a real geek helps with any new OR
old OS but it's not needed. I had no problems installing Vista 64 and
getting all my hardware running (had to change mouse) and I can say
the same for Mandriva 2007 64. Both set up every bit of hardware (I
had to struggle with my printer in both OSs) but I think anyone could
have done it, well, anyone with fingers, maybe not with fins....
I see Dell has returned to offering XP (which is not to day it's
dropping Vista <g>).
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Mike Dee
2007-05-02 05:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
I see Dell has returned to offering XP (which is not to day it's
dropping Vista <g>).
And Linux.

Shamelessly lifted from another NG (but not so shameless as to not
attribute the MID) :-)

MID: <news:f18bq2$q92$***@lust.ihug.co.nz>

<hoisted>
As posted on the local LUG list
http://enterprise.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/05/01/1333205&from=rss Dell
and Canonical are finally making it official. Dell is scheduled to
announce today that it has reached a partnership with Canonical to sell
Dell desktops and laptops with Ubuntu preinstalled, to be sold through the
Dell Web site. The move follows a deluge of requests for preinstalled
Linux desktops on Dell's IdeaStorm site in February.

Jane Silber, director of operations for Canonical, says Canonical will be
working to certify certain models of Dell computers to ensure that they
work with Ubuntu. The two companies are not announcing what models will
ship with Ubuntu at this time, but Nick Selby, senior analyst with The 451
Group, says that there will be one notebook and three desktop systems.

</hoisted>
--
dee
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 05:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dee
Post by Blinky the Shark
I see Dell has returned to offering XP (which is not to day it's
dropping Vista <g>).
And Linux.
Ayup. Ubuntu. That seems to be all the rage lately.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
sittingduck
2007-05-02 06:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Ayup. Ubuntu. That seems to be all the rage lately.
I've installed it on a few computers and it is pretty easy. Updates itself,
and finds drivers for everything it's needed to. If Mastercam ever comes out
for Linux, I might use it myself.
XS11E
2007-05-02 06:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by sittingduck
Post by Blinky the Shark
Ayup. Ubuntu. That seems to be all the rage lately.
I've installed it on a few computers and it is pretty easy.
Updates itself, and finds drivers for everything it's needed to.
If Mastercam ever comes out for Linux, I might use it myself.
Won't install my printer last time I tried, Mandriva will. FWIW.
XS11E
2007-05-02 06:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Ayup. Ubuntu. That seems to be all the rage lately.
You realize Ubuntu is an African word meaning, "Slackware is too tough
for me"?

Sorry, don't know where I stole that?
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 06:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Ayup. Ubuntu. That seems to be all the rage lately.
You realize Ubuntu is an African word meaning, "Slackware is too tough
for me"?
Sorry, don't know where I stole that?
I've seen it in someone's sig. :)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
William Poaster
2007-05-03 10:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Ayup. Ubuntu. That seems to be all the rage lately.
You realize Ubuntu is an African word meaning, "Slackware is too tough
for me"?
Sorry, don't know where I stole that?
I've seen it in someone's sig. :)
I use it as it's a "local" distribution (Canonical is based in the Isle of Man),
so I'm supporting a local industry. :-)
sittingduck
2007-05-02 15:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
You realize Ubuntu is an African word meaning, "Slackware is too tough
for me"?
Sorry, don't know where I stole that?
The village idiot... I think he followed me over here from alt.games.quake3
XS11E
2007-05-02 06:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Then there are those....... Years back, an English lady used to
post some very helpful tips in the MS Office groups using the nym
of Miss Perspicacia Tick, she once posted this wonderful advice
to a user,
Hey, I remember her. Not from MS Office groups, but elsewhere.
Is she absent now? Your tense indicates that she might not be
there any more.
She's gone. What I know is this and it's second hand from a mutual
friend, she had several very serious health problems and didn't have
adequate health care. According to the mutual friend, she's not been
heard of for 2 - 3 years. I hope she's OK, I really liked her, once
she leapt on me with both feet and I answered and she apologised. From
then on, we got along great!
Post by Blinky the Shark
I see Dell has returned to offering XP (which is not to day it's
dropping Vista <g>).
There's a reason for that and it may nothing to do with Vista or XP or
Ubuntu, it's money. A couple of years ago Dell outsourced their tech
support to India, Their reputation apparently was also outsourced along
with customer confidence and they're hurting! They'd sell a system
with CPM or TRSDOS or OS/2 Warp if someone wanted it.

Dell is recovering, they moved tech support back to Texas, hosted
opinion polls amoung customers, etc.
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 06:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Then there are those....... Years back, an English lady used to
post some very helpful tips in the MS Office groups using the nym
of Miss Perspicacia Tick, she once posted this wonderful advice
to a user,
Hey, I remember her. Not from MS Office groups, but elsewhere.
Is she absent now? Your tense indicates that she might not be
there any more.
Incidentally, I just saw her mentioned in another group no more than a
half hour ago. Life is weird.
Post by XS11E
She's gone. What I know is this and it's second hand from a mutual
friend, she had several very serious health problems and didn't have
adequate health care. According to the mutual friend, she's not been
heard of for 2 - 3 years. I hope she's OK, I really liked her, once
she leapt on me with both feet and I answered and she apologised. From
then on, we got along great!
AOL (I hope she's okay, too.)
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
I see Dell has returned to offering XP (which is not to day it's
dropping Vista <g>).
There's a reason for that and it may nothing to do with Vista or XP or
Ubuntu, it's money. A couple of years ago Dell outsourced their tech
support to India, Their reputation apparently was also outsourced along
with customer confidence and they're hurting! They'd sell a system
with CPM or TRSDOS or OS/2 Warp if someone wanted it.
I can understand CPM or TRSDOS. But OS/2? :)
Post by XS11E
Dell is recovering, they moved tech support back to Texas, hosted
Good.
Post by XS11E
opinion polls amoung customers, etc.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
William Poaster
2007-05-02 09:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
When I categorized the upper end as I saw it, I wasn't thinking about
the relatively few that are as firmly attached to the MS tit as those
you describe; my thoughts addressed the teeming masses, and the high
and low ends of that termendously huge group.
That "termendously" huge group is the group that, for the most part,
are running Vista w/o problems. Sales so far have been very good,
better than anticipated (see MSFT's latest financial statement) and a
very large percent are doing very well.
Yes, I just read yesterday I, think it was, that sales were higher than
expected. Given what I read about Vista that surprised me. Even now, I
guess I had more faith in the marketplace. I can't believe I just said
that; I really do know better.
Possibly figures massaged by M$?
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39258

Of course, once Vista's been wiped off, they may not even be installing XP on
their new machine.....

<snip>
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Those will always be with us but they're sometimes pretty vocal
because most hesitate to talk to them as Miss Tick did. (Damn, I
*MISS* her!)
You can find that kind of frank reality in 23hoursupport.helpdesk. :)
<Snort!>
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Interestingly, I think, and rather ironically, I see a hint in your
pecking order of the old complaint against Linux -- that Vista's only
good for the real geeks (a category I obviously respect, but that's
extraneous to my point).
Then you misread. Vista is fine for people who will stop and RTFM
I guess I did. I thought you to be saying that it was just the upper
crust (the beta testers and developers) that it was good for, and the
underclasses were still using older versions. Obviously that's not
true, or all those sales of Vista wouldn't be happening. :)
Hehhehheh..don't you find it ironic that one of the things wintrolls complain
about is that to get things working in GNU/Linux you *have* to RTFM. They say
Windoze users don't need to do that! Pure FUD of course. (Actually, I wonder
just how many Windoze users read the M$ EULA)
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
before jumping in. There are hardware and software problems such as I
had with Windows 2000, older stuff just isn't supported and
hardware/software vendors are not willing to write new drivers for
very old hardware/software. Being a real geek helps with any new OR
old OS but it's not needed. I had no problems installing Vista 64 and
getting all my hardware running (had to change mouse) and I can say
the same for Mandriva 2007 64. Both set up every bit of hardware (I
had to struggle with my printer in both OSs) but I think anyone could
have done it, well, anyone with fingers, maybe not with fins....
I see Dell has returned to offering XP (which is not to day it's
dropping Vista <g>).
Dell are also selling machines with Ubuntu installed.
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=9211

Also HOWTO's on various installations:
http://www.linux-on-laptops.com/dell.html
--
M$ Vista, or as it's now known ME-II
Install Vista in TWO minutes!

Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 10:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Poaster
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
When I categorized the upper end as I saw it, I wasn't thinking
about the relatively few that are as firmly attached to the MS tit
as those you describe; my thoughts addressed the teeming masses,
and the high and low ends of that termendously huge group.
That "termendously" huge group is the group that, for the most part,
are running Vista w/o problems. Sales so far have been very good,
better than anticipated (see MSFT's latest financial statement) and
a very large percent are doing very well.
Yes, I just read yesterday I, think it was, that sales were higher
than expected. Given what I read about Vista that surprised me.
Even now, I guess I had more faith in the marketplace. I can't
believe I just said that; I really do know better.
Possibly figures massaged by M$?
I suppose it pays to estimate low. That way you got lots of ink with
for the release itself, and then a round of breathless "Wow, we're
beating out own [bogus] expectations!" press releases.
Post by William Poaster
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39258
<q that article>

We had MS reps in about a month ago touting how wonderful Vista is. We
have about 10k client computers, about 40% Macs mind you. Still that
leaves us with about 6000 systems that run some flavor of Windows. The
vast majority of that is Windows XP Pro 32bit w/ SP2. We manage all of
our Windows clients with Server 2003.

We just rolled out about 500 new IBM/Lenovo business class machines for
a small project. All of those machines officially come with Vista
Business.

However since we have no plans to roll out Vista on the desktop anytime
soon since it is "cludgeware," we are allowed to "downgrade" our license
to XP and still be in MS compliance.

</q>
Post by William Poaster
Of course, once Vista's been wiped off, they may not even be
installing XP on their new machine.....
True. They probably will, though.
Post by William Poaster
<snip>
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Those will always be with us but they're sometimes pretty vocal
because most hesitate to talk to them as Miss Tick did. (Damn, I
*MISS* her!)
You can find that kind of frank reality in 23hoursupport.helpdesk. :)
<Snort!>
Well, 'tis twue. :)

Glad you deplonked me. This based on the claim that you did.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
sittingduck
2007-05-02 15:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Glad you deplonked me. This based on the claim that you did.
*GASP* you mean someone said they plonked you and DIDN'T? How shocking....
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 16:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by sittingduck
Post by Blinky the Shark
Glad you deplonked me. This based on the claim that you did.
*GASP* you mean someone said they plonked you and DIDN'T? How shocking....
I don't know.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
William Poaster
2007-05-03 10:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by William Poaster
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
When I categorized the upper end as I saw it, I wasn't thinking
about the relatively few that are as firmly attached to the MS tit
as those you describe; my thoughts addressed the teeming masses,
and the high and low ends of that termendously huge group.
That "termendously" huge group is the group that, for the most part,
are running Vista w/o problems. Sales so far have been very good,
better than anticipated (see MSFT's latest financial statement) and
a very large percent are doing very well.
Yes, I just read yesterday I, think it was, that sales were higher
than expected. Given what I read about Vista that surprised me.
Even now, I guess I had more faith in the marketplace. I can't
believe I just said that; I really do know better.
Possibly figures massaged by M$?
I suppose it pays to estimate low. That way you got lots of ink with
for the release itself, and then a round of breathless "Wow, we're
beating out own [bogus] expectations!" press releases.
Post by William Poaster
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39258
<q that article>
We had MS reps in about a month ago touting how wonderful Vista is. We
have about 10k client computers, about 40% Macs mind you. Still that
leaves us with about 6000 systems that run some flavor of Windows. The
vast majority of that is Windows XP Pro 32bit w/ SP2. We manage all of
our Windows clients with Server 2003.
We just rolled out about 500 new IBM/Lenovo business class machines for
a small project. All of those machines officially come with Vista
Business.
However since we have no plans to roll out Vista on the desktop anytime
soon since it is "cludgeware," we are allowed to "downgrade" our license
to XP and still be in MS compliance.
</q>
Post by William Poaster
Of course, once Vista's been wiped off, they may not even be
installing XP on their new machine.....
True. They probably will, though.
Post by William Poaster
<snip>
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Those will always be with us but they're sometimes pretty vocal
because most hesitate to talk to them as Miss Tick did. (Damn, I
*MISS* her!)
You can find that kind of frank reality in 23hoursupport.helpdesk. :)
<Snort!>
Well, 'tis twue. :)
Glad you deplonked me. This based on the claim that you did.
:-)
--
Harold Stevens
2007-05-02 10:42:20 UTC
Permalink
In <***@giganews.com> William Poaster:

[Snip...]
Post by William Poaster
Possibly figures massaged by M$?
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39258
What? M$ spinning OEM "business development quantity discount preinstalls"
and "retail shipment" as *choice*? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. :)

BTW, it ain't just Vista; Xbox channel stuffing's getting waxed by Wii:

http://www.informationarbitrage.com/2007/04/microsoft_phili.html

If Mikey Dell retrieves his family jewels from the Redmond OEM vault, and
can sell Dell/Ubuntu preinstalls *with Open Office* at about the cost for
Vista Home (Burglary) Entry, Monkey Boy's gonna have (YaAnother) snit.
--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.
Ben Shimmin
2007-05-02 12:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Then there are those....... Years back, an English lady used to post
some very helpful tips in the MS Office groups using the nym of Miss
Perspicacia Tick, she once posted this wonderful advice to a user,
"Please turn off your computer, pack it in the original boxes and
return it to your dealer, tell them you're too stupid to own a
computer." Sometimes that needs to be said.
Those will always be with us but they're sometimes pretty vocal because
most hesitate to talk to them as Miss Tick did. (Damn, I *MISS* her!)
Curious. She's now a Mac user and posts all manner of obnoxious articles
in the Mac newsgroups, usually about spelling and grammar (about which she
seems to know almost nothing) or vitriolic abuse in response to newbies.
She's pretty much earned the condemnation of all the regulars, and most
sensible people kill-filed her not long after her unceremonious arrival.

b.
--
<***@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`The machinations of ambiguity are among the very roots of poetry.'
-- William Empson, _Seven Types Of Ambiguity_
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 12:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Shimmin
Post by XS11E
Then there are those....... Years back, an English lady used to post
some very helpful tips in the MS Office groups using the nym of Miss
Perspicacia Tick, she once posted this wonderful advice to a user,
"Please turn off your computer, pack it in the original boxes and
return it to your dealer, tell them you're too stupid to own a
computer." Sometimes that needs to be said.
Those will always be with us but they're sometimes pretty vocal because
most hesitate to talk to them as Miss Tick did. (Damn, I *MISS* her!)
Curious. She's now a Mac user and posts all manner of obnoxious articles
in the Mac newsgroups, usually about spelling and grammar (about which she
seems to know almost nothing) or vitriolic abuse in response to newbies.
She's pretty much earned the condemnation of all the regulars, and most
sensible people kill-filed her not long after her unceremonious arrival.
Hmmmmmm. I just bit on someone extolling her virtues, and gave her some
kind of virtual best-wishes. I'd preserved some faint memories of her
being obnoxious, but thought I must have her confused with someone else.
On reading your description, I'm convinced that that *is* who I
remembered. Yeah, that's her. :)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Ben Shimmin
2007-05-02 13:20:36 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by Ben Shimmin
Curious. She's now a Mac user and posts all manner of obnoxious articles
in the Mac newsgroups, usually about spelling and grammar (about which she
seems to know almost nothing) or vitriolic abuse in response to newbies.
She's pretty much earned the condemnation of all the regulars, and most
sensible people kill-filed her not long after her unceremonious arrival.
Hmmmmmm. I just bit on someone extolling her virtues, and gave her some
kind of virtual best-wishes. I'd preserved some faint memories of her
being obnoxious, but thought I must have her confused with someone else.
On reading your description, I'm convinced that that *is* who I
remembered. Yeah, that's her. :)
She posts under a variety of identities, which may have contributed to the
confusion.

In all fairness, I believe (though I could be mistaken) that she has some
sort of mental disorder, which may explain her behaviour to an extent.

What is perhaps more unfortunate than the general vileness of her own posts
is that some of her fans decided to follow her along to uk.comp.sys.mac. By
`fans' I mean `people whom she'd insulted in the past'. To say that they
(including her) contribute little of value to the newsgroup would be a
polite way of putting it.

b.
--
<***@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`We first met through a shared view.
She loved me, and I did too.'
-- Mike Skinner
john sumner
2007-05-02 13:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Shimmin
She posts under a variety of identities, which may have contributed to the
confusion.
In all fairness, I believe (though I could be mistaken) that she has some
sort of mental disorder, which may explain her behaviour to an extent.
What is perhaps more unfortunate than the general vileness of her own posts
is that some of her fans decided to follow her along to uk.comp.sys.mac. By
`fans' I mean `people whom she'd insulted in the past'. To say that they
(including her) contribute little of value to the newsgroup would be a
polite way of putting it.
b.
Well do you have this person in your kill file?
Ben Shimmin
2007-05-02 13:42:41 UTC
Permalink
john sumner <***@cs.com>:

[of an unpleasant creature in another newsgroup]
Post by john sumner
Well do you have this person in your kill file?
I certainly do. Thank you for your concern!

b.
--
<***@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`The machinations of ambiguity are among the very roots of poetry.'
-- William Empson, _Seven Types Of Ambiguity_
john sumner
2007-05-02 13:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Shimmin
[of an unpleasant creature in another newsgroup]
Post by john sumner
Well do you have this person in your kill file?
I certainly do. Thank you for your concern!
b.
Your welcome it is just that life is to short to deal with crossposting
trolls who just want to get a rise out of people
XS11E
2007-05-02 15:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Shimmin
In all fairness, I believe (though I could be mistaken) that she
has some sort of mental disorder, which may explain her behaviour
to an extent.
Correct, her behavior is a testament to the public health system.
XS11E
2007-05-02 15:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Shimmin
Post by XS11E
Then there are those....... Years back, an English lady used to
post some very helpful tips in the MS Office groups using the nym
of Miss Perspicacia Tick, she once posted this wonderful advice
to a user, "Please turn off your computer, pack it in the
original boxes and return it to your dealer, tell them you're too
stupid to own a computer." Sometimes that needs to be said.
Those will always be with us but they're sometimes pretty vocal
because most hesitate to talk to them as Miss Tick did. (Damn, I
*MISS* her!)
Curious. She's now a Mac user and posts all manner of obnoxious
articles in the Mac newsgroups, usually about spelling and grammar
(about which she seems to know almost nothing) or vitriolic abuse
in response to newbies.
That's her or it sure sounds like her! I'm glad she's OK.

BTW, I've never found any of her spelling and/or grammar comments to be
incorrect although I do understand she cannot speak proper English as
she's a Brit. (let the flames begin!)

I can't imagine anyone killfiling her, her vitriol is marvelous and
always enjoyable to read as the advice I quoted above. I used to
search FOR her posts, she was always entertaining!
Ben Shimmin
2007-05-02 16:01:22 UTC
Permalink
XS11E <***@SPAMyahoo.com>:

[...]
Post by XS11E
BTW, I've never found any of her spelling and/or grammar comments to be
incorrect although I do understand she cannot speak proper English as
she's a Brit. (let the flames begin!)
I won't rise to the latter part of that, but here's an example of her
being incorrect about spelling:

<URL:http://groups.google.com/group/uk.comp.sys.mac/msg/5fcca3091c31140e>

Note that she did not have the courage or dignity to follow up to my
correction with a simple `Oh, sorry, you're right, my mistake'.
Post by XS11E
I can't imagine anyone killfiling her, her vitriol is marvelous and
always enjoyable to read as the advice I quoted above. I used to
search FOR her posts, she was always entertaining!
Oh dear. Each to their own, I guess.

b.
--
<***@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`We first met through a shared view.
She loved me, and I did too.'
-- Mike Skinner
XS11E
2007-05-02 18:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Shimmin
I won't rise to the latter part of that, but here's an example of
<URL:http://groups.google.com/group/uk.comp.sys.mac/msg/5fcca3091
c31140e>
Note that she did not have the courage or dignity to follow up to
my correction with a simple `Oh, sorry, you're right, my mistake'.
Hmmmm. According to several other dictionaries til, till and 'til are
all correct as contractions for "until" so it seems the argument is
over which dictionary one uses.

It would appear you were both correct.
Ben Shimmin
2007-05-02 19:10:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Ben Shimmin
I won't rise to the latter part of that, but here's an example of
<URL:http://groups.google.com/group/uk.comp.sys.mac/msg/5fcca3091
c31140e>
Note that she did not have the courage or dignity to follow up to
my correction with a simple `Oh, sorry, you're right, my mistake'.
Hmmmm. According to several other dictionaries til, till and 'til are
all correct as contractions for "until" so it seems the argument is
over which dictionary one uses.
It would appear you were both correct.
I am only interested in reputable dictionaries. I would consider the
Oxford English Dictionary to be the best example of these. I just checked
in the online edition, and it lists two definitions for `til', neither of
which are relevant. Otherwise, it mentions `'til' (note the apostrophe),
which `may well be abandoned' since it `sounds the same as /till/ and looks
slightly odd on paper'.

The American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster, which are both
easily accessible online, have similar entries. If you search on
Dictionary.com for `til', you will find

American Heritage Dictionary
til 2
prep. Until.

conj. Until. See Usage Note at till 2.

If you look at that usage note, you will see that it concurs with the OED
and doesn't mention `til' at all without an apostrophe.

Michael Quinion's _World Wide Words_ is a good online resource, and its
entry on this subject concludes:

But to use the spelling /til/ without the preceding apostrophe is still
regarded as wrong.

Most of these resources also mention that `till' is not a shortening of
`until' (which is the reason why `til' with one `l' and no apostrophe is
particularly wrong). See, for example, the AUE FAQ, which stresses this:

<URL:http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtillun.html>

I could carry on citing sources til (sic) I go blue in the face, but I
suspect it wouldn't actually constitute on-topic material for this group!

In conclusion: no, `til' is incorrect in standard English. So it goes.

b.
--
<***@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`I have a good mind not to take Aloysius to Venice. I don't want
him to meet a lot of horrid Italian bears and pick up bad habits.'
-- Evelyn Waugh, _Brideshead Revisited_
XS11E
2007-05-02 19:26:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Shimmin
Post by XS11E
It would appear you were both correct.
I am only interested in reputable dictionaries.
Me too.
Post by Ben Shimmin
I could carry on citing sources til (sic) I go blue in the face,
but I suspect it wouldn't actually constitute on-topic material
for this group!
Correct.
Post by Ben Shimmin
In conclusion: no, `til' is incorrect in standard English. So it goes.
Sorry, you're wrong. "til" is common usage and is considered correct.
I'll spare you the many cites, you can find them yourself.
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 19:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Ben Shimmin
Post by XS11E
It would appear you were both correct.
I am only interested in reputable dictionaries.
Me too.
Post by Ben Shimmin
I could carry on citing sources til (sic) I go blue in the face,
but I suspect it wouldn't actually constitute on-topic material
for this group!
Correct.
Post by Ben Shimmin
In conclusion: no, `til' is incorrect in standard English. So it goes.
Sorry, you're wrong. "til" is common usage and is considered correct.
I'll spare you the many cites, you can find them yourself.
I hope you're more correct about Vista than you are about this.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
XS11E
2007-05-02 20:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Sorry, you're wrong. "til" is common usage and is considered
correct. I'll spare you the many cites, you can find them
yourself.
I hope you're more correct about Vista than you are about this.
I'm correct about both, I don't see how Ben can argue with me AND
Encyclopedia Britannica which shows "til" as a variant of "'til".

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?hdwd=til&book=Dictionary&jump=%27til&list=til%3D1134838%3B%27til%3D1134849

PS, the watch was fugly, too, but that's just my opinion, I can't
give cites on that.
Ben Shimmin
2007-05-02 20:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Sorry, you're wrong. "til" is common usage and is considered
correct. I'll spare you the many cites, you can find them
yourself.
I hope you're more correct about Vista than you are about this.
I'm correct about both, I don't see how Ben can argue with me AND
Encyclopedia Britannica which shows "til" as a variant of "'til".
http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?hdwd=til&book=Dictionary&jump=
%27til&list=til%3D1134838%3B%27til%3D1134849
The Encylopedia [sic] Britannica is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary.
It's quoting Meriam-Webster Online, which is a dictionary (just about).
You're right that it lists `til' as a variant. That's unfortunate,
really, since it's both etymologically wrong and completely non-standard.
If you wrote `til', most people who could spell would think you'd meant
to write `till' (which is broadly regarded as correct, eg. in all those
cites I provided); if you wrote `'til' (with an apostrophe), most people
would think it was weird, and those who'd read a good dictionary would
be able to explain that it really ought to be wrong (though many decent
dictionaries do describe it as a non-standard variant), since `till' is
a perfectly valid word in its own right, and is not, contrary to popular
belief, a shortening of `until'. Here's another good reference:

<URL:http://www.bartleby.com/68/67/6067.html>

Spare me any more cites, please. The correct usage is pretty clear.

And I really don't want to get into a debate about Vista. :)

b.
--
<***@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`I hope you die soon. If I had my way, it would be today.'
-- Donald L. McDaniel in uk.comp.sys.mac (regarding signature separators)
XS11E
2007-05-03 00:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Shimmin
You're right that it lists `til' as a variant. That's
unfortunate, really, since it's both etymologically wrong and
completely non-standard.
I suspect it might be the more commonly used contraction. I'm sure the
makers of the watch in the original discussion had the same arguement.
Post by Ben Shimmin
Spare me any more cites, please
No, one more. Citing someone calling himself Ben Shimmin:

"Note that she did not have the courage or dignity to follow up to my
correction with a simple `Oh, sorry, you're right, my mistake'."

OK, your turn.
Ben Shimmin
2007-05-03 00:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Ben Shimmin
You're right that it lists `til' as a variant. That's
unfortunate, really, since it's both etymologically wrong and
completely non-standard.
I suspect it might be the more commonly used contraction. I'm sure the
makers of the watch in the original discussion had the same arguement.
Post by Ben Shimmin
Spare me any more cites, please
"Note that she did not have the courage or dignity to follow up to my
correction with a simple `Oh, sorry, you're right, my mistake'."
OK, your turn.
Why should I admit I've made a mistaken or that you're right, when I
haven't and you're not? `til' is only a `commonly used contraction'
amongst the illiterate and your suspicions have no bearing on the matter;
furthermore, you can't even spell `argument'! ;)

Finis.

b.
--
<***@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
Non est hoc loco adrogantia, sed indicium.
XS11E
2007-05-03 01:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Shimmin
Why should I admit I've made a mistaken or that you're right, when
I haven't and you're not?
OK, I figured you were too small to admit you're wrong even when proven
so.

That tells me something about you that I suspected from your comments
about Sarah, sorry, but apparently I've proven right in that matter
also. :-(
Ben Shimmin
2007-05-03 01:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Ben Shimmin
Why should I admit I've made a mistaken or that you're right, when
I haven't and you're not?
OK, I figured you were too small to admit you're wrong even when proven
so.
I'll bet you have a funny definition of the verb `prove' up your sleeve
somewhere, too. I don't know about you, but I've had a whale of a time --
it's ages since I've played the `my citations are better than your
citations' game on usenet!

b.
--
<***@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come e`, bisogna che tutto cambi.'
-- Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, _Il Gattopardo_
XS11E
2007-05-03 04:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Shimmin
Post by XS11E
Post by Ben Shimmin
Why should I admit I've made a mistaken or that you're right,
when I haven't and you're not?
OK, I figured you were too small to admit you're wrong even when
proven so.
I'll bet you have a funny definition of the verb `prove' up your
sleeve somewhere, too.
Same definition as yours.
Post by Ben Shimmin
I don't know about you, but I've had a whale of a time -- it's
ages since I've played the `my citations are better than your
citations' game on usenet!
Not me, I don't enjoy childish people such as yourself.
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 23:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Sorry, you're wrong. "til" is common usage and is considered
correct. I'll spare you the many cites, you can find them
yourself.
I hope you're more correct about Vista than you are about this.
I'm correct about both, I don't see how Ben can argue with me AND
Encyclopedia Britannica which shows "til" as a variant of "'til".
Well, if you look closely, that's a Merriam-Webster dictionary being
referenced at Encyclopedia Britannica. But I'm still shocked that M-W
show it. But I can't deny that they do.
Post by XS11E
http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?hdwd=til&book=Dictionary&jump=%27til&list=til%3D1134838%3B%27til%3D1134849
PS, the watch was fugly, too, but that's just my opinion, I can't
give cites on that.
The watch?
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
XS11E
2007-05-03 00:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Well, if you look closely, that's a Merriam-Webster dictionary
being referenced at Encyclopedia Britannica. But I'm still
shocked that M-W show it. But I can't deny that they do.
Yes, I used to subscribe to Encyclopedia Britannica (the version
that you can load onto your PC is very reasonably priced in my opinion)
and they use Merriam-Webster when a dictionary is required. I usually use them for any reference I need and of course they show it, I did my research before telling Ben both were correct because I really didn't know, I always write "until".

I don't recall if I've ever used the contraction, or, if I have, what
I've used?
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
PS, the watch was fugly, too, but that's just my opinion, I can't
give cites on that.
The watch?
If you followed Ben's link, there was a discussion about a watch that
showed time something like "ten til two" and that's what started the
discussion about the contraction of "until".

Here: http://tinyurl.com/5dthr

Full URL: http://www.fossil.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=18229&itemType=PRODUCT&iMainCat=961&iSubCat=981&iProductID=18229

Your opinion? Fugly? Kewl?

Can we possibly get even more off topic?
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-03 00:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Blinky the Shark
Well, if you look closely, that's a Merriam-Webster dictionary
being referenced at Encyclopedia Britannica. But I'm still
shocked that M-W show it. But I can't deny that they do.
Yes, I used to subscribe to Encyclopedia Britannica (the version
that you can load onto your PC is very reasonably priced in my opinion)
and they use Merriam-Webster when a dictionary is required. I usually use them for any reference I need and of course they show it, I did my research before telling Ben both were correct because I really didn't know, I always write "until".
I don't recall if I've ever used the contraction, or, if I have, what
I've used?
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
PS, the watch was fugly, too, but that's just my opinion, I can't
give cites on that.
The watch?
If you followed Ben's link, there was a discussion about a watch that
showed time something like "ten til two" and that's what started the
discussion about the contraction of "until".
Here: http://tinyurl.com/5dthr
Full URL: http://www.fossil.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=18229&itemType=PRODUCT&iMainCat=961&iSubCat=981&iProductID=18229
Your opinion? Fugly? Kewl?
Stupid.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Ben Shimmin
2007-05-02 20:21:22 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by XS11E
Post by Ben Shimmin
In conclusion: no, `til' is incorrect in standard English. So it goes.
Sorry, you're wrong. "til" is common usage and is considered correct.
I'll spare you the many cites, you can find them yourself.
I hope you're more correct about Vista than you are about this.
XS11E seems to have some fairly poor taste: thinking `til' is correct
English, enjoying watching the mentally ill venting spleen on usenet,
and being a fan of Vista. I don't know if there's any hope for him.

b.
--
<***@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`The rapidity that the motion that the wing that the hummingbird
has has has is remarkable.' -- Steven Pinker, _The Language Instinct_
XS11E
2007-05-02 20:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Shimmin
XS11E seems to have some fairly poor taste: thinking `til' is
correct English
You can argue that one with Miriam Webster, see the cite in my post to
Blinky.
Post by Ben Shimmin
enjoying watching the mentally ill venting spleen on usenet
Sarah, health problems aside, is a very intelligent young lady, her
posts are often helpful and were almost always entertaining. She did
know her stuff fairly well.
Post by Ben Shimmin
and being a fan of Vista.
This from a MAC user!
Ben Shimmin
2007-05-02 20:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Ben Shimmin
XS11E seems to have some fairly poor taste: thinking `til' is
correct English
You can argue that one with Miriam Webster, see the cite in my post to
Blinky.
I did, and I'm bored now. I may not follow up again, but please do not
take that as a sign of defeat; rather, take it as indication that I may
possibly have better things to do with my life.
Post by XS11E
Post by Ben Shimmin
enjoying watching the mentally ill venting spleen on usenet
Sarah, health problems aside, is a very intelligent young lady, her
posts are often helpful and were almost always entertaining. She did
know her stuff fairly well.
Fine, but she doesn't know her Mac stuff very well, and her usual
contributions are either offensive, wrong, about spelling or grammar,
or a combination of the above.
Post by XS11E
Post by Ben Shimmin
and being a fan of Vista.
This from a MAC user!
I assume your computer has some form of Media Access Control address too!

b.
--
<***@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
Enjoy responsibly.
Daniel James
2007-05-03 11:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Sorry, you're wrong. "til" is common usage and is considered correct.
What ... you're saying it's correct because it's common? Like farting, and
spitting in the street?

Cheers,
Daniel.
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-03 14:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel James
Post by XS11E
Sorry, you're wrong. "til" is common usage and is considered correct.
What ... you're saying it's correct because it's common? Like farting, and
spitting in the street?
That's how "irregardless" (actually meaning "regarding" because of the
double negations "ir" and "less") sneaked into the language. <sigh> New
words are fine by me; new words based on errors aren't as okay.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
XS11E
2007-05-03 17:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel James
Post by XS11E
Sorry, you're wrong. "til" is common usage and is considered
correct.
What ... you're saying it's correct because it's common? Like
farting, and spitting in the street?
Yes, I'm saying it's correct because it's common usage, Mirriam-Webster
agrees with me.

Didn't you know that common usage determines language?
Ben Shimmin
2007-05-03 18:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Daniel James
Post by XS11E
Sorry, you're wrong. "til" is common usage and is considered correct.
What ... you're saying it's correct because it's common? Like
farting, and spitting in the street?
Yes, I'm saying it's correct because it's common usage, Mirriam-Webster
agrees with me.
Didn't you know that common usage determines language?
I gs u mst b rite.Thx m8!

c u l8r

b.
»Q«
2007-05-03 18:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Daniel James
Post by XS11E
Sorry, you're wrong. "til" is common usage and is considered correct.
What ... you're saying it's correct because it's common? Like
farting, and spitting in the street?
Yes, I'm saying it's correct because it's common usage,
Mirriam-Webster agrees with me.
Count me with those who disagree with both you and M-W.
Post by XS11E
Didn't you know that common usage determines language?
But common usage does not determine /correctness/, else "loose" and
"lose" are synonymous, as well as "you're" and "your".
--
»Q«
Gene E. Bloch
2007-05-03 18:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Ben Shimmin <***@llamaselector.com> wrote in news:slrn.2007-05-02.18-46-***@candide.bas.me.uk:

<SNIP>
Post by Ben Shimmin
I could carry on citing sources til (sic) I go blue in the face,
but I suspect it wouldn't actually constitute on-topic material
for this group!
So, you're a Pict, I presume?

I'm not sure you woad be willing to forgive me for the above, but I
hope you do.

Definitely OT on my part.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) ... letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")
Ted S.
2007-05-02 19:52:46 UTC
Permalink
I used to search FOR her posts
Isn't that what a score file is for? :-)
--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
Hmmm.... Eternal happiness for one dollar? [Pauses] On second thought,
I'd be happier *with* the dollar. --Montgomery Burns
<http://www.snpp.com/episodes/4F01.html>
XS11E
2007-05-02 20:24:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted S.
I used to search FOR her posts
Isn't that what a score file is for? :-)
Yes, but not needed. I read all posts in the groups she frequented.
Habit, I guess? I no longer need to do so but I still do, almost every
day.
sittingduck
2007-05-02 16:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
That "termendously" huge group is the group that, for the most part,
are running Vista w/o problems.
This guy's "install" only takes 2 minutes! <G>

http://youtu.be/FVbf9tOGwno
Eggs Zachtly
2007-05-03 00:50:22 UTC
Permalink
XS11E said:

[...]
Post by XS11E
Sales so far have been very good,
better than anticipated (see MSFT's latest financial statement) and a
very large percent are doing very well.
I'd consider any "sales" stats on Vista to be "termendously" misleading,
considering that it's being forced down the proverbial throats of new
computer buyers. I'd venture a guess that most new machines are purchased
through the "big name" companies, and /most/ ship with Vista pre-installed.
The end user has little choice. There are more new computers purchased each
day, than ever before, therefore the sales of Vista must /surely/ be high.
Duh.

I consider myself a "geek/power-user/whatever the label of the month is",
but I've never been a bandwagon jumper when it comes to M$ Operating
Systems. I went from 3.11 to 95 right before 98 came out (only because it
was given to me), and absolutely hated it. I used it for about a month,
then upgraded to 98. Hated that too, until 2000 came out, and I've stuck
with that for my M$ box, ever since. I didn't/won't do XP, and I doubt I'll
never use Vista. Big Brother Bill can kiss my ass. =)

I've seen little that Vista offers, that I *need*. Seems to me it's (yet
again, ala XP) all about bells and whistles, which are the first things I
disable when setting up a new machine. I don't use my computer to look at
all the fancy, pretty crap that it can do with its windows.

Guess according to you, I'm a bottom end user, but I rarely have issues
with my machine that can't be fixed within a few minutes. I'll take that
over 3-day activation warnings any day of the week.

[...]

My $.02,
--
Eggs

Show me a man with both feet firmly on the ground, and I'll show you a man
who can't get his pants off.
XS11E
2007-05-03 00:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eggs Zachtly
I consider myself a "geek/power-user/whatever the label of the
month is", but I've never been a bandwagon jumper when it comes to
M$ Operating Systems. I went from 3.11 to 95 right before 98 came
out (only because it was given to me), and absolutely hated it. I
used it for about a month, then upgraded to 98. Hated that too,
until 2000 came out, and I've stuck with that for my M$ box, ever
since. I didn't/won't do XP, and I doubt I'll never use Vista. Big
Brother Bill can kiss my ass. =)
I waited for the next service pack for NT4.0, if it had come out and
included USB support as was rumored, I'd be running NT4.0 now.

I prefer Windows 2000 over all MSFT OSs but my XP is exactly the same,
all the added stuff is gone.
Post by Eggs Zachtly
I've seen little that Vista offers, that I *need*. Seems to me
it's (yet again, ala XP) all about bells and whistles, which are
the first things I disable when setting up a new machine.
Ditto. What it offers is a 64 bit OS which I want. All the stuff you
dislike can be disabled as I'm gradually doing with my version before
replacing XP with it. What it does offer is current support, and that
I can't get with Windows 2000 or earlier.
Post by Eggs Zachtly
Guess according to you, I'm a bottom end user, but I rarely have
issues with my machine that can't be fixed within a few minutes.
I'll take that over 3-day activation warnings any day of the week.
Don't know anything about "activation warnings"? Why would anyone see
something like that unless they tried to bypass the activation with one
of the non-working patches the Warez groups are so eager to offer?

Activation is no problem, neither is DRM since I don't play CDs on my
computer or download music, it's not a toy, it's a tool for tracking
finances, paying bills, keeping in touch with family and friends and
irritating sharks.
Eggs Zachtly
2007-05-03 02:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Eggs Zachtly
I consider myself a "geek/power-user/whatever the label of the
month is", but I've never been a bandwagon jumper when it comes to
M$ Operating Systems. I went from 3.11 to 95 right before 98 came
out (only because it was given to me), and absolutely hated it. I
used it for about a month, then upgraded to 98. Hated that too,
until 2000 came out, and I've stuck with that for my M$ box, ever
since. I didn't/won't do XP, and I doubt I'll never use Vista. Big
Brother Bill can kiss my ass. =)
I waited for the next service pack for NT4.0, if it had come out and
included USB support as was rumored, I'd be running NT4.0 now.
I prefer Windows 2000 over all MSFT OSs but my XP is exactly the same,
all the added stuff is gone.
Yup. I know I can get XP and disable everything to get back to pretty much
what I have now. So, I'd just be pissing away a hundred dollars or so. No
thanks. I don't need Movie Maker *that* bad. ;)
Post by XS11E
Post by Eggs Zachtly
I've seen little that Vista offers, that I *need*. Seems to me
it's (yet again, ala XP) all about bells and whistles, which are
the first things I disable when setting up a new machine.
Ditto. What it offers is a 64 bit OS which I want. All the stuff you
dislike can be disabled as I'm gradually doing with my version before
replacing XP with it. What it does offer is current support, and that
I can't get with Windows 2000 or earlier.
I've found no need, as of yet, for 64 bit. Not that would warrant giving
Bill my hard earned cash (something he would know little about).
Post by XS11E
Post by Eggs Zachtly
Guess according to you, I'm a bottom end user, but I rarely have
issues with my machine that can't be fixed within a few minutes.
I'll take that over 3-day activation warnings any day of the week.
Don't know anything about "activation warnings"? Why would anyone see
something like that unless they tried to bypass the activation with one
of the non-working patches the Warez groups are so eager to offer?
I agree with the "why" question, but not for the reason you state. The fact
*is* that people get the warning doing things as simple as installing
hardware/software/games. That's pure, unadulterated bullshit. They (M$)
have finally gone off the deep end with the licensing. So, yup the question
is "why", and M$ has yet to give an answer.
Post by XS11E
Activation is no problem, neither is DRM since I don't play CDs on my
computer or download music, it's not a toy, it's a tool for tracking
finances, paying bills, keeping in touch with family and friends and
irritating sharks.
=)
--
Eggs

If you're too open-minded, your brains will fall out.
Jernej Simončič
2007-05-03 10:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Ditto. What it offers is a 64 bit OS which I want. All the stuff you
dislike can be disabled as I'm gradually doing with my version before
replacing XP with it. What it does offer is current support, and that
I can't get with Windows 2000 or earlier.
You can get 64bit XP, and you'll probably have less driver problems than
with Vista (I'm running XP64 here).
Post by XS11E
Don't know anything about "activation warnings"? Why would anyone see
something like that unless they tried to bypass the activation with one
of the non-working patches the Warez groups are so eager to offer?
The "Your hardware has changed significantly since you installed Windows,
you have 3 days to activate" error I got 2 days ago when I changed some
seemingly innocent setting in the BIOS?
--
begin .sig
< Jernej Simončič ><>◊<>< jernej simoncic at isg si >
end
Daniel James
2007-05-03 11:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Don't know anything about "activation warnings"? Why would anyone see
something like that unless they tried to bypass the activation with one
of the non-working patches the Warez groups are so eager to offer?
They might upgrade the hardware enough for Vista to require them to
reactivate.

Activation in Vista is not the smooth ride it should be -- when I activated
my copy Vista kept telling me that I was running an illegal copy even
though the activation process was telling me that it had succeeded.

In the end I had to reboot (twice) and re-run the activation ... it worked
(eventually). All of this does not leave me with a nice rosy feeling that
my PC will continue to run without activation "issues" indefinitely.
Fortunately it's only a test machine ... but I do need to be able to test
things under Vista.
Post by XS11E
Activation is no problem, neither is DRM since I don't play CDs on my
computer or download music, it's not a toy, it's a tool for tracking
finances, paying bills, keeping in touch with family and friends and
irritating sharks.
DRM is not only about CDs and downloaded music. DRM can be about *any* data
file whose content is controlled by its originator (presumably the holder
of the copyright of the data). I could send you a price list valid for 30
days and use DRM to render the file unusable on day 31 (when I issued the
new price list with much inflated prices) ... do you /want/ people to be
able to screw you around like that?

DRM is evil. Just say no.

Cheers,
Daniel.
Mike Dee
2007-05-02 05:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
The bottem end of the user base are still happy with Windows ME or
Microsoft Bob.
One of the criticisms of Vista that I've read of late, is that it *is* the
new ME.
--
dee
Chris Game
2007-05-02 15:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Dee
Post by XS11E
The bottem end of the user base are still happy with Windows ME
or Microsoft Bob.
One of the criticisms of Vista that I've read of late, is that it
*is* the new ME.
In what sense?

The main issues seem to be with the weird product stratification and
the extortionate pricing.
--
Chris Game

Usenet is like Tetris for people who still remember how to read.
-- Button from the Computer Museum, Boston, MA
sittingduck
2007-05-02 16:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Game
Post by Mike Dee
One of the criticisms of Vista that I've read of late, is that it
*is* the new ME.
In what sense?
In the sense that they've taken a workable OS and dumped a shitload of
worthless crap onto it, rendering it much less user-friendly.
Daniel James
2007-05-03 11:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by sittingduck
In the sense that they've taken a workable OS and dumped a shitload of
worthless crap onto it, rendering it much less user-friendly.
Yes, I think that's a fair and concise statement of fact.

There are some worthwhile and useful security improvements in the kernel of
Vista -- and those OUGHT to be the big selling point -- but many users will
never use them because they will be put off Vista by the price, the
eye-candy, and the DRM.

Cheers,
Daniel.
sittingduck
2007-05-02 04:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Do you *really* think that people who resist Vista are the *bottom* end
of the MS user base? I'd say just the opposite. I'd say the bottom end
are the ones who don't think to question their OS -- or much else. The
ones who happily run whatever MS/Google/AOL and malware developers
issue, without a thought. I'd say it's the upper, clueful end that put
some thought into their computing.
Exactly... pretty much the only people I know that use it and don't complain
are the AOLer type.
XS11E
2007-05-02 04:31:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by sittingduck
Post by Blinky the Shark
Do you *really* think that people who resist Vista are the
*bottom* end of the MS user base? I'd say just the opposite.
I'd say the bottom end are the ones who don't think to question
their OS -- or much else. The ones who happily run whatever
MS/Google/AOL and malware developers issue, without a thought.
I'd say it's the upper, clueful end that put some thought into
their computing.
Exactly... pretty much the only people I know that use it and
don't complain are the AOLer type.
I'd say you're dealing with a very small sampling, that just isn't my
experience.
Blinky the Shark
2007-05-02 03:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nobody
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by sittingduck
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in
XP. It's the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too much
delay between each part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
There's a thought. I'd read about VistaHorrors(TM) in general,
but hadn't applied it to this thread.
Have you read this?
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Looks like the same link as above, to me. So sure.
Post by Nobody
I want Vista no where near me for at least a little longer.
I hear even being in the same room can give you a contact low.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Nobody
2007-05-03 00:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by Nobody
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by sittingduck
Post by Lil' Abner
I notice the headers load just as fast in Vista as they do in
XP. It's the binary downloads that are taking the hit. Too much
delay between each part.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Possibly Vista is scanning for DRM content?
There's a thought. I'd read about VistaHorrors(TM) in general,
but hadn't applied it to this thread.
Have you read this?
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
Looks like the same link as above, to me. So sure.
LOL, I missed that completely. I am not sure OOOOPS will cover that.
Post by Blinky the Shark
Post by Nobody
I want Vista no where near me for at least a little longer.
I hear even being in the same room can give you a contact low.
sittingduck
2007-05-03 01:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nobody
LOL, I missed that completely. I am not sure OOOOPS will cover that.
Hehe, it's pretty bad when it's right in your own post with the quoted text.
:)

No OOOOPS for you!
Lil' Abner
2007-05-01 02:13:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by XS11E
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
Current version is 2006.08.24
I just downloaded that one and tried it too... same difference.
Post by XS11E
http://xnews.newsguy.com
Vista Ultimate 64 bit.
No problem, downloads the same in Vista or XP.
Might want to look at your Vista setup and see if something's different
than your XP setup?
--
--- A dyslexic man walks into a bra ---
RimmeR
2007-05-01 07:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
It takes me at least 5 times as long to download a binary file in
Vista than it does in XP. It'll download a part and pause, download
the next part and pause, etc.
I can get anywhere from 10-15Mb down at the speed test sites in
either Vista or XP. Also, in Vista I don't notice any slowdown in any
of my other internet applications.
I just downloaded this version (5.04.25) since I was having the same
problem with the ?.00 version I have been running for several years.
?.00 isn't exactly right, but I'll follow up with that exact version
number after I post this.
Is anyone else noticing this behavior in XNews?
I notice you have avast antivirus. Try switching off the NNTP inbound
scanning (if it's on that is).I DO NOT mean switch your antivirus off
completely.

--
Lil' Abner
2007-05-01 23:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by RimmeR
Post by Lil' Abner
XNews 5.04.25 isn't behaving well at all for me in Vista.
It takes me at least 5 times as long to download a binary file in
Vista than it does in XP. It'll download a part and pause, download
the next part and pause, etc.
I can get anywhere from 10-15Mb down at the speed test sites in
either Vista or XP. Also, in Vista I don't notice any slowdown in any
of my other internet applications.
I just downloaded this version (5.04.25) since I was having the same
problem with the ?.00 version I have been running for several years.
?.00 isn't exactly right, but I'll follow up with that exact version
number after I post this.
Is anyone else noticing this behavior in XNews?
I notice you have avast antivirus. Try switching off the NNTP inbound
scanning (if it's on that is).I DO NOT mean switch your antivirus off
completely.
I don't seem to have that option. But I did turn it off completely for a
bit and it didn't make any difference.
--
--- A dyslexic man walks into a bra ---
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...