trader_4
Sat, 15
Apr 2017 15:48:10 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:45:03 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Thu,
13 Apr 2017 14:45:43 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Yet that was the whole context of the thread and my post was
made in that context. Thanks for proving my point that you
can't understand context.

I understand context just fine,

Obviously not. Because the context was a person upgrading a
system's hardware and software for the future. The post I replied
to, that poster further set the context by posting:

It did nothing of the sort. You wrote that you knew of no browser
updates for XP. Your comment, was wrong.

Now you claim there was no attack.

There wasn't.

Another lie, of course.

I'm starting to wonder if you know what that specific word means.


My comment, in context, was accurate.

Your comment, taken exactly as you wrote it, was not accurate.

Your reply, on it's face was stupid, because it's already 2017.

Last time I checked, it was still April. Not September.

Mozilla has stated that support for Firefox on XP is ending

Indeed, they have. They haven't officially decided the date just yet
though. And, support=updates last time I checked.


In the context of the thread, someone looking for the future

Nice spin, but, er, no cigar. The future doesn't include Windows XP
or Windows 7. And, if you're running new hardware as well as some
6th generations, it doesn't include Windows 8/8.1 either. It's going
to be Windows 10 (bleh) or Linux, or, a flavor of unix. Those will
be everyones 'options' very soon if they wanna run new hardware. So,
the entire facade of upgrading a machine for the 'future' is a
****ing joke if you're 'upgrading' to 64bit XP or Windows 7.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0..._on_new_chips/

The OP clearly didn't know this, and, based on your weak as ****
all defense, you didn't either. And, it's NOT even new news, here.

for a browser that is compatible with today's websites, supported, my comment and advice was accurate.

No, your comment wasn't accurate...


What you chimed in with would leave the OP believing that Firefox
is fine, is supported, when in fact Mozilla has told it's users
that they are ending support, to move, that all that left are 5
months of security updates. Good grief.

Please again, cite MID where I stated or even implied that with my
initial reply to you. I asked you to do this once already. You do
know what an MID is right?

You have a serious issue when
someone points out an erroneous comment you wrote, though.
It *wasn't* personal. You seem to be taking it personally though.

You have a serious issue when your first reply to someone is a
snide, condescending remark for no reason.

Regardless of how you chose to take my reply to you, it was still an
accurate reply. And the reason I responded in the first place is
because you wrote an erroneous statement. You didn't specify you
knew of no other browsers for the 'future'. You specifically stated
that you didn't know about any browsers still being updated for use
with XP, and, your statement is wrong.

I never suggested the OP should remain with XP or 'upgrade' to
Windows 7. I've consistently recommended NOT doing either.

Your reply taken IN context was in error, on your part. Firefox
is updated for windows XP/vista users for the time being.

Another lie. Mozilla has said there is no more updating, no more
bug fixes, nothing other than SECURITY UPDATES and only that for
5 months. What a swell environment to recommend for the OP to
use on a system being upgraded for the future.

Do you know what the word contradiction means? As, you're doing it,
again.


52 series
added new features, not just security updates.

Why can't you understand that was in THE PAST and Mozilla has said
that is now OVER?

52 series isn't in the past. Did you not read the release notes?
Updates are updates, no matter how you try to redefine what the word
means.

k And, presently, as
confirmed by two others who've already posted, it is still being
provided to XP/Vista users. Making your entire defense of your
erroneous comment null and void. Even with your efforts to move
the goalposts and redefine what updates means.

You're lying again. Or Mozilla is lying:

Excuse me? I provided MIDs of two! other posters who are still
running Windows XP that are now using 52.0.2. For some reason (a
screwup on Mozilla's end no doubt and it wouldn't be the first time)
one is using ESR now, and, the other one hasn't been switched over,
yet.

"Can I still browse safely with Firefox?

In March 2017, if you are using Firefox with Windows XP or Windows
Vista, you will automatically be updated to the Extended Support
Release version of Firefox. You will continue to receive important
Firefox security updates but no other features or updates. You do
not need to do anything else.

That is effective as of the 03-07 Firefox 52 / ESR release."

But heh, feel free to mislead the OP updating his systems and
tell him that Firefox is supported on XP for the future.

I responded to your erroneous statement concerning firefox updates
on XP. I've stated from day one! that the OP should NOT pursue XP
64bit or Windows 7. So, where exactly did I mislead the OP?

Provide an MID, if you don't mind.

Now, put that in the *context* of the OP, ie someone upgrading
a system for the future and my statement that IDK of any
browser still supported for XP is accurate. Mozilla has said
they are eoling it, that there will be only security updates
from now on and that is only committed to for 5 months.

I did. Your statement is still wrong. They were mulling over
upgrading to XP 64bit. For the time being, Firefox is still being
updated for it.

Really now.....

Message-ID:

AFAIK, 52.0.2 is the latest FF browser version...

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/

And, once again, You're wrong. Firefox 52 includes new
'features'; it's not security updates only. And, uhh, XP can
*still* use it.


Do you not understand that release is IN THE PAST? It's OVER!
With your first post on this, you apparently didn't even know it
was already 2017. Good grief.

52.0.2 hasn't been out very long. You assumed I didn't know what
year it was because I neglected to include a specific month with my
original comment? That's a bit desperate, Trader.

You shouldn't continue calling me an idiot when it's clear as
hell to myself and others, evidently, that you're the one who's
ignorant on this subject. Besides, I was taught a long time ago
for debate class, that if you have to resort to personal attacks,
your side already lost.


This coming from the jerk who's first post to me was an attack.

Jerk is an improvement, but, still falls along the lines of 'if you
have to resort to personal attacks, you've already lost'; Did you
not take debate class in school, or, did you manage to fail it?

Now, that question was a very 'snide' one. Intentionally. Just so
you can see the difference between being 'cheeky' (aka; wiseass, but
in a playful manner) with you, and actually being a Jerk towards
you.

Concerning your ignorance of the subject of IT in general, it's not
a personal opinion, it's a fact; based on what you wrote about
defragging/imaging software and 'OS files' never being moved. Last
time I checked, DLL files as shipped with Windows along with device
drivers are infact, 'OS' files, and they are moved around from the
very first defrag you do. You went on to try and talk down to me
concerning how sector level access actually works and what happens
to so called 'deleted' files, too. That was a mistake to do, on your
part. Granted, you know nothing about me; we've had very little
interaction here, but.. there's a saying about don't judge a book by
it's cover. And it certainly applies in this case.

My first post to you on this subject was this:

MID:

You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will still
support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche' browser.

Granted, I should have included the words 'towards the end of 2017'
or specified the month that Mozilla is mulling over, as, they
haven't set it in stone yet, but I digress. I thought! wrongly it
was implied. In other words, Trader, I'm well aware of the present
year. I have to sign forms (with a pen rofl) on a near daily basis
with the current date, thanks.

In response to what you wrote:

MID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Notice, I'm not paraphrasing your post, or altering it in any possible way

My initial response to you wasn't even all that rude on the face of
it. I just called into question your expertise. After further
discussion with you on the subject of IT related things, I wasn't
wrong, either.


Wow, I'm sure your parents were impressed. The rest of us, we
don't care.

No further interest in discussing the low level details of file
systems, then? Are you sure you don't want to tell me how
defraggers and imaging programs actually work anymore? How about
sector level access? File/data deletion aspects? No? :-)

As perfectly clear in the thread, I never told you or anyone how
defraggers work. You're lying, *again*.

Oh, it's perfectly clear in the thread, yes. Right here infact:

MID:
If that's the case, then doing a disk defragmentation should also
give a similar boost. I've never seen that happen. I think there
is a lot more there that gets added, corrupted over time that
degrades the OS performance.

Written by you, in response to what I wrote he

MID: XnsA7533DEAB9FACHT1@EF5v6vvo88Gb99jhRCMLUhBs9ll7m D.42huA6plCP3M1.sr5O0fzFj25Fz4tqWE

The performance boost you're seeing is the file layout.
[snip rest of my own post] and, uhh, it is.

Based on what you wrote, it's clear that you thought
defraggers and imaging software had some things in common; they
worked in a similar fashion. They do not. Corruption typically plays
a very small role in Windows file access delays. Typically. It's
much more to do with (as I've gone into great detail previously to
explain) where the bits and pieces to the files you/the os needs
are, and how far apart these pieces may be.

You should stop with the liar routine, though. it's not true and
it's getting rather stale. I haven't lied to you or anyone else
concerning anything in this excessively long thread.

Btw, another advantage to using a real usenet client is that you can
keep copies of posts and locate MIDs of said posts, should you
want/need to do so. It also keeps copies of posts written and
maintains proper threading order; which also gives me various ways
in which to view the thread contents. Allows for searching bodies of
messages, anytime I like too, no live internet connection required
because my client is storing the messages locally once I open the
thread or subscribe to the newsgroup; it's my choice.

Which is also a more efficient use of my WAN side bandwidth.
I don't have to reload a page via google to review a prior post.
It's already here. And, didn't require downloading hundreds of
kilobytes of additional data completely unrelated to the post. The
items your browser requires to render this post for you, via google.

But, you took my question to you about using
google groups personally and didn't give me the chance to explain
why I'd asked. Also, using a real usenet client, depending on client
and rendering options, keeps you a bit safer while reading posts. My
client won't, for example, render inline HTML that could be present
in a post. IE: You can't slip me a mickey with plaintext. My client
doesn't try to interpret anything.. Unless! I want it to.

OTH, I *could* slip you one, since I know you're using a browser to
read these posts. And, you already told me which browser it is too.
I could even rig the mickey to hit you, based on your header data,
and leave everybody else alone that might also read with html
enabled. probably a good thing I don't waste my time doing things
like that anymore with the exception of proof of concept code with
my friends and my own things. Still need to keep the skills
relevant, to remain useful as one of the 'good guys' you know.

Oh, one more thing on that subject, if you think google would stop
me dead in my tracks and/or stop it from going live on your machine
when you opened the next post from me, think again. Re-read what I
wrote above. I don't do the theoritical game so much as I do viable
proof of concept code. Code, my man, not theories.

I'm not trying to convince you to switch by letting you know all of
this, either. I'm sure you have a reason for using google groups
that makes sense to you, which is why I asked why you preferred to
access usenet in that manner. I tend to avoid other 'web portals' as
well; which happens to be what google is in this context.

This from the jerk who was just whining about me getting personal.
Go figure.

I'm not whining about anything, actually. I simply commented on your
need to make things personal. You still haven't answered any of my
questions concerning your actual abilities, or rather, lack of,
either. Sorry, couldn't help but notice that. You seem to be for the
most part, an end user, based on what you've written and refuse to
respond to, so far. I accept that I could be wrong about that, but,
I don't presently believe that's the case here.

I mean no offense with the end user remark, either. Without end
users, There'd be no real need for people like me. You're our bread
and butter.

I wouldn't know what the rest of you think about my posts,
actually. You tried to speak for everyone else once already, and,
well, that didn't work out so well.

I never spoke for anyone else, yet another lie.

Yes, you did.

MID:
Wow, I'm sure your parents were impressed. The rest of us, we don't care.

MID:
Who should we believe?

MID:
Please cite for us the evidence that Win 10 sends audio recordings
of us unless we choose to use Cortana.

MID:
I think everyone here would agree with that.

You just flat out, lied your ****ing ass off when you stated that
you didn't speak for anyone else...Another disadvantage you have
viewing usenet via google groups vs a real client. It's harder for
you to review your own posts, than it is for me to do the same.

You might want to rethink your strategy. I don't have reading
comprehension issues (I'd make for a terrible hacker if I did; as
in, ex convict from prison, terrible) and I haven't been lying in
this thread.

Sam E is running XP with FF52.0.2 (likely
ESR if using XP/Vista) In other words, it's still getting
updates;security, non security. New features were added to FF52
series. check the release notes, don't take my word for it.


https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Firef...t-ending-for-W
indows-XP-does-this-mean-Firefox/td-p/1374444

Can I still browse safely with Firefox?

Security updates tend to be about safety...*shrug*

Who should people believe about support? You or Mozilla?

Answered already. Hundreds? of lines ago, now.

Yet you claim that an old browser, running on an old OS for which
there are no security updates, is a "supported" way to engage
with the internet.

Firefox 52.0.2 isn't old. AFAIK, it's the most recent version for
public use, outside of daily builds, etc. An old OS doesn't
automagically make you a hackers (like me) bitch, either.

If you'd like to discuss various aspects of hacking as it relates to
computing and electronics (oh, especially electronics), perhaps you
should create a new thread? I'd be happy to offer you some advice
and knowledge, free of charge. Which is a very kind thing of me to
offer you, considering I usually bill $50 per hour for my time. And,
I get it too. My rate is very reasonable considering the
competitions.

Much more so when you consider the services I can provide, in shop,
vs the ones that depend on 3rd party software they didn't write, or
have the knowledge required to even try writing...They just wind up
outsourcing it to me (with their markup passed along to their
client), anyway. The last line is in reference to shops local to me
that are in the PC repair/support business like myself.

Although I'm technically their competition, they still use my
services for the special jobs they run across. I'm very good at what
I do, and I have a proven track record for it, too. That and I don't
try to take their customers by reaching out to them when I have
their machine at my shop when the client thinks it's still where
they took it. At the end of the day, imo, it doesn't matter
which company or person does the actual service work, as long as
it's done, and done right. A happy client is a repeat client for all
of us.

I wouldn't put your system or it's contents at actual risk,
either. Suffice to say, if hacking was as easy to do as various
scaremongering news reports make it out to be, well, I'd be a
trillionaire... If I disregarded moral and ethical code and just
didn't care about the harm I caused. Damn road blocks are keeping me
from those trillions. Damn them. Damn them all to hell. [g]

Do you have a best buy store in your area? I ask you this because,
the repair discs their techies (geek squad) have included a copy of
MY BugHunter program along with several other freeware/commercial
utilities of it's kind. It may still include my program, I haven't
seen a newish copy of the disc in awhile. I didn't ask for the one
that I acquired.

Which is how I know what was (might still be) on it. That's
entirely my fault, I did state in the licensing agreement you could
use it all you wanted for commercial purposes too without paying me
a cent. Hirens Boot cd also included my BugHunter app. I'd hope they
don't anymore, considering I haven't updated it in YEARS and, as
with other utilities of it's kind, it's only as useful as it's last
definitions (database) update.

Followed of course by this:

[snip]

Covered already...

Any reason you can't trim what you won't respond to? I know you can
do that with the interface you've chosen to use to interact with on
usenet.

Note that the calendar has advanced. It's not only 2017, which
you didn't know with your first post, it's now April.

ROFL. I didn't know it was 2017? That's ****ing hillarious, seriously.
Granted, I should have included the words 'towards the end of 2017'
or specified the month that Mozilla is mulling over, as, they
haven't set it in stone yet, but I digress.

That was a big mistake on my part, I can see that now. I'll be sure
to write things at the appropriate reading level for you in the
future. Say that of a small child in 1st grade or so. So that there
can be no possible confusion.

Your very first remark to me:

"You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will
still support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche'
browser. "

Yep, in response to your comment:

MID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

It's obvious who the condescending asshole really is.

I don't recall claiming I couldn't be an asshole...I'd be a liar for
sure, If I did. I wasn't being condescending when I wrote the
initial reply to you, either. You didn't know FF was still being
updated on XP systems. If you did, you wouldn't have written what
you did. And, I didn't take your reply out of context, either. You
don't seem to be one who likes to admit when he's wrong..

That's what you've been doing. And, I wouldn't even
try speaking for what others may/may not think about me, you, or
this discussion. You have though. including your childish
personal attacks, idiot, etc. You are an adult, right?


ROFL. This after all the attacks you just made above.

Oh c'mon now, you're being very childish at this point. It's
not necessary for you to do so. Seriously though, asking if you're
actually an Adult is attacking you? If so, you need thicker skin.
This is usenet. What did you use to access usenet prior to Google?
Were you even reading/posting on usenet before then?

Wake up. It's April, those updates were in the PAST.

I'm wide awake, thanks. Second pot of coffee will do that for you.
FF 52.0.2 was released on March 28th of this year, so, uhh, while it
was released in the 'past' it wasn't released that far in the past.
We're not even talking a month out, yet.

Wow, no more bug fixes, no more compatibility fixes, just security
updates and those are only committed to for 5 more months. What
part of "find a different supported browser" don't you understand?

Umm, I understand the discussion just fine. I also understand that
you posted inaccurate information and I replied to your post
containing it. What part of that is giving you such a hard time?

Btw...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0..._on_new_chips/
13 Apr 2017 at 23:37, Shaun Nichols

Microsoft has cut software updates and tweaks for computers powered
by Intel and AMD's latest-generation processors running old versions
of Windows.

The Redmond giant is no longer serving software fixes to PCs and
other systems that run Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 on Intel's fresh new
Kaby Lake or AMD's hot-off-the-fab Ryzen chips. Those machines will
now be required to update to Windows 10 in order to obtain future
improvements. Critical security patches will still be offered for
now, though.

Microsoft argues this is all because it can't be bothered supporting
the latest silicon, such as Intel's 7th-gen Core series, on anything
other than Windows 10.

Src: https://blogs.windows.com/business/2...y-for-windows/

Embarrassingly, Redmond's update code has locked out some
sixth-generation AMD Carrizo chips and reportedly some recent-ish
Intel CPUs, even though those components are still eligible for bug
fixes and tweaks for Windows 7 and 8. Microsoft is working on
resolving this, apparently.

The whole policy was enforced from this week onwards, coinciding
with Microsoft releasing its badly organized April patch bundle.

Src: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0..._tuesday_mess/

Ouch. Good read, but, ouch.

So, umm, just how does the MS koolaid taste? What flavor is it
supposed to be? And, does it reasonably taste like it?

You know, other than binary posts, this has probably got to be one
of the longest, if not, the longest post I've ever written on
usenet! And, I don't even benefit from it. You and anyone else
reading may, though. It's educational. I wouldn't have it any other
way. ROFL.

If you've got something new to bring to the table, please do,
Otherwise, I consider this subject closed.

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.