Dave, you're not exactly the sharpest chisel on the bench now, are you?
Indeed, I think I've had hammers that were sharper than you.
Looking back to my original post, I used the phrases "usually wreaked havoc"
and "you were usually okay." I never said, as you quote, that it "only
broke infessted (sic) systems." Never said it. Let me repeat that for you,
dumbass: I never said it.
It broke systems with spyware, and it caused problems with legitimate
software, too. I acknowledged that once, and I will acknowledge that again
for you here, since you obviously missed it before. As a matter of fact, I
will even quote myself: "As for the 'real' software it broke...yes there
were many applications 'broken' as a result."
My whole ****ing point was regarding the _magnitude_ of the problem, and
which type of user was effected more, the "infested" computer, or the user
with legit software which ceased to work correctly. Your opinion is the
latter, and my opinion is that, well, my opinion is that I don't give a
****.
The last word will now be yours, should you so choose.
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:17:55 -0400, Mark Cooper
wrote:
Dave,
If you're going to correct my spelling, make sure yours is spot on.
(Hint:
It isn't. Let's just start with "creaters." Oh, and "people" is already
plural...the apostrophe goes before the 's.')
Obviously you aren't aware of the rule that any speeling flame must
contain
at least one error.
And thanks for "fixing" my top-posting. (Another hint: If it ain't
broke,
don't fix it.)
Well, if you're not trying to communicate effectively, then sure,
answering
without coherent context is fine I suppose.
And you still don't get what I was trying to say in the first place. SP2
didn't "break" spyware...it broke the computers that were infested with
it.
And it broke computers (as defined by, their users couldn't use them as
they had before) which had no spyware on it, but had many many legitimate
programs on it. Which is my point. Which you're going out of your
way to pretend not to understand.
Much of that spyware was loaded on computers willingly by users.
"willingly" but not in an informed way. Yes, you're an idiot if you
(a) install it, and/or (b) leave it there. But if you think that anyone
said "I think I'll install some spyware", I would suggest that you're
mistaken.
They
downloaded and installed programs which they were completely unfamiliar
with
(Kazaa comes to mind) and had no idea they were then being spyed upon.
Yes, the OS was written in such a way that it was simple for people to
harm their own setup. What's your point?
So
your contention that the "real" problem was that SP2 broke legitimate
software is...well...it's pretty much your opinion.
Are you saying it didn't break "legitimate software"? MS disagrees with
you.
Oddly enough, I agree with MS on that one, which may be a first in
decades.
Those whose computers
wouldn't reboot because they installed some dumbass adware would argue
differently.
I am not aware of any adware which makes a computer unusable. If you think
about it, that would be rather stupid to write a piece of software to
display ads to a user, which prevents the user from seeing the ads, y'see.
As for the "real" software it broke (as opposed to virtual software, I
guess), yes there were many applications "broken" as a result. My claim,
which you didn't bother to attempt to disclaim (no doubt realizing the
futility), was that it wasn't in the hundreds, but rather in the dozens.
OK, so it was dozens rather than hundreds. Either way, it makes your
claim
that it was just infested computers that were harmed, wrong.
So
as to "...no matter how you count them," I'm using base-ten numeration.
Get
on board: 31 is not equal to "hundreds."
Whatever. You claimed it only broke infessted systems. That much is
true.
It broke windows-infested systems.
I am now tired of this conversation.
But more so of you.
Good. As long as you don't post bull**** like "it only broke spyware
infested systems", we won't have anything else to say to each other.
|