"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't
know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

I had a grumble at a manager at the local supermarket as to why they
never seem
to have 1/2 size baguettes any more. Apparently there's a shortage of
*bakers*
! So he says. I guess school taught them all to be environmentalists,
health
and safety workers, estate agents (realtors), rock stars and so on.

Graham


My local Co-op store sells half baguettes from the "French Cuisine" (or
some such - can't quite remember now ...) range. My wife also sells many
half baguettes every day in the cafe she owns. Readily available from both
one of her suppliers, and the cash and carry warehouse she uses. None of
those sources seem to have any trouble supplying, so presumably, aren't
short of bakers !

Arfa


PHucker is better at cooking up fantasies.

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:25:05 -0000, flipper wrote:

DOS simply loads TSRs, it doesn't 'manage' them.

Then what gives each program time on the CPU?

They hook interrupts, and after the interrupt handler in the TSR is finished
it passes control back to whatever had the interrupt before, which could be
another TSR that loaded first.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

ian field wrote:

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't
know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

I had a grumble at a manager at the local supermarket as to why they
never seem
to have 1/2 size baguettes any more. Apparently there's a shortage of
*bakers*
! So he says. I guess school taught them all to be environmentalists,
health
and safety workers, estate agents (realtors), rock stars and so on.

Graham


My local Co-op store sells half baguettes from the "French Cuisine" (or
some such - can't quite remember now ...) range. My wife also sells many
half baguettes every day in the cafe she owns. Readily available from both
one of her suppliers, and the cash and carry warehouse she uses. None of
those sources seem to have any trouble supplying, so presumably, aren't
short of bakers !

Arfa


PHucker is better at cooking up fantasies.



What else would you expect from someone who lives in a fantasy world?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Confuscious say: "Man who sit on tack get point!"

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.


I guess that a CLI is to complicated for you to use.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.


I guess that a CLI is to complicated for you to use.

I use it on occasion as required. But why use it when you don't have to?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Paper clips are the larval stage of coat hangers.

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.


I guess that a CLI is to complicated for you to use.

I use it on occasion as required. But why use it when you don't have to?


Why post to usenet when you don't have to?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.


I guess that a CLI is to complicated for you to use.

I use it on occasion as required. But why use it when you don't have to?

Because it's usually quicker & easier than a GUI. Firefox, for
example, annoys me greatly with its helper application dialog. It
requires you to browse for the helper program, starting in my $HOME
directory. By the time I've clicked and paged and generally screwed
around with the stupid GUI, I could have easily typed in, say
/bin/vim. Or even done a find ... in another window and copied and
pasted the path in.

Jerry

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:33:57 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.


I guess that a CLI is to complicated for you to use.

I use it on occasion as required. But why use it when you don't have to?


Why post to usenet when you don't have to?

What is the alternative?

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

There was an old professor who started every class with a vulgar joke. After one particularly nasty example, the women in the class decided to walk out the next time he started.
The professor got wind of this plot, so the next morning he walked in and said, "Good morning, class. Did you hear the one about the shortage of whores in India?"
With that, all the women stood up and headed for the door.
"Wait ladies!" cried the professor. "The boat doesn't leave until tomorrow!"

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:08:36 -0000, Jerry Peters wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.


I guess that a CLI is to complicated for you to use.

I use it on occasion as required. But why use it when you don't have to?

Because it's usually quicker & easier than a GUI. Firefox, for
example, annoys me greatly with its helper application dialog. It
requires you to browse for the helper program, starting in my $HOME
directory. By the time I've clicked and paged and generally screwed
around with the stupid GUI, I could have easily typed in, say
/bin/vim. Or even done a find ... in another window and copied and
pasted the path in.

Depends on how fast you are at typing, and how fast at clicking.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Scots are tightwads who are saving up to become Jewish.

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:33:57 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.


I guess that a CLI is to complicated for you to use.

I use it on occasion as required. But why use it when you don't have to?


Why post to usenet when you don't have to?

What is the alternative?


Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:53:20 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:33:57 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.


I guess that a CLI is to complicated for you to use.

I use it on occasion as required. But why use it when you don't have to?


Why post to usenet when you don't have to?

What is the alternative?


Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown to be wrong.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Which sexual position produces the ugliest children?
Ask your mum.

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:53:20 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:33:57 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.


I guess that a CLI is to complicated for you to use.

I use it on occasion as required. But why use it when you don't have to?


Why post to usenet when you don't have to?

What is the alternative?


Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown to be wrong.


In that case you would be drooling and smashing your computer,
wouldn't you? Once again, you've proved yourself to be an idiot.



--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:27:48 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:53:20 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:33:57 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.


I guess that a CLI is to complicated for you to use.

I use it on occasion as required. But why use it when you don't have to?


Why post to usenet when you don't have to?

What is the alternative?


Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown to be wrong.


In that case you would be drooling and smashing your computer,
wouldn't you?

Cut the "I know you are" bull****. You sound like a 6 year old, or Ian Field, whichever is closest to hand.

Once again, you've proved yourself to be an idiot.

No such thing has been proved.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

15 Easy Steps to Poo like a Man:
1. Select reading material (can be anything except a porn-mag; tried by every man once, but never repeated -* see step 4).
2. Tell everyone along the way, "Just going for a dump, okay?" Always tell girlfriend/wife, especially when she has visitors.
3. Pull pants and trousers around ankles, then sit down.
4 Adjust penis and testicles to hang comfortably without touching the toilet rim.
5. Open reading material and relax.
6. Whilst waiting, it is traditional to audibly fart.
7. Sigh loudly as the first one bullets out. It is quite normal to experience a cold jet of water rocket up your anus as a result of the first bomb. This is to be endured if you want to be a real man.
8. Remain sitting and reading until pins-and-needles set in to your legs and buttocks.
9. Rise and look at the poo. Make mental notes of any irregularities to report to friends and girlfriend/wife, e.g. colour, consistency, any visible traces of peanuts, etc. You must tell people about it.
10. Take long length of paper and wipe anus. You must* look at the paper before throwing it into the pan.
11. Repeat step 10 until there is no longer any evidence of faeces on the paper.
12. Flush. If there is any residue left on the pan, under no circumstances attempt to clean it off. In due course, it will come away by itself. Or, when your girlfriend/wife next uses the loo.
13. Leave the seat up. Leave the reading material on the floor (you can use it again later).
14. Wash your hands once.
15. Vacate the bathroom, leaving the door open. It is important to a man's self-esteem that other people smell his produce.

Peter Hucker wrote:

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:27:48 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:53:20 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:33:57 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:09:25 -0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.


I guess that a CLI is to complicated for you to use.

I use it on occasion as required. But why use it when you don't have to?


Why post to usenet when you don't have to?

What is the alternative?


Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown to be wrong.


In that case you would be drooling and smashing your computer,
wouldn't you?

Cut the "I know you are" bull****. You sound like a 6 year old, or Ian Field, whichever is closest to hand.

Once again, you've proved yourself to be an idiot.

No such thing has been proved.


Nothing can be proved to a mule, or an idiot.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:27:25 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.

You probably do. You just don't know it.

RL

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:53:20 -0000, Michael A. Terrell
wrote:

Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown
to be wrong.

Actually the sigs are stupid. I hadn't read them until he mentioned it, but
they are very, very stupid.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Peter Hucker" wrote
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown
to be wrong.

Actually the sigs are stupid. I hadn't read them until he mentioned it, but
they are very, very stupid.

Really, I rather like them.

Graham

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:53:15 -0000, Eeyore wrote:

Aside from the fact it runs slower than XP on the same hardware

You're not supposed to put newer software on old equipment. Memory is cheap, just add some.

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

Good choice. No reason to make it slower than it already is.

I do not find it slow. I had Windows XP 32 bit on a machine. I installed Windows Vista 64 bit on that machine and increased the memory from 1GB to 3GB. It's the same speed in use. And in fact starts twice as fast.

And of course, the biggie: transparent window borders. That one is so
useful I now print documents on special paper with cellophane around
the edges.

That is very useful. I don't have to peak under things to see stuff underneath.

What a joke.

Besides not being able to read anything through the 'transparent blur'
even if you could the odds that something 'useful' would, by
happenstance, be in just the right spot under the border makes it
useless.

I don't try to read through it, but I can see what's under it. It just looks more natural. Would you rather we all went back to the pre-GUI days?

and less bugs.

LOL

How can you tell with half your software gone because it's
'incompatible'?

I lost zero software. Including some dodgy stuff I though M$ would prevent operating like CloneDVD.

Glad to hear it but unless you imagine they made Vista for just you
then your fortunate luck doesn't mean anything.

I know many people with Vista, and nobody has complained about not being able to use anything except perhaps the odd third party freebie utility.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

The true mark of a civilized society is when its citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:21:54 -0000, legg wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:27:25 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:16:36 -0000, Eeyore wrote:



ian field wrote:

PHucker claims to be the tech support in a computer firm yet doesn't know
about something as simple and basic as a TSR!

You just can't get the staff these days !

We don't use out of date DOS crap.

You probably do. You just don't know it.

I use something and don't know about it? That is not possible.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

"So it was the first ****in' leave in six ****in' months. I dropped off my ****in' uniform at the ****in' Y, went to a ****in' bar, and picked up a ****in' broad. I took her to a ****in' hotel, laid her out on the ****in' bed, and had sexual intercourse."

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:23:12 -0000, Tom Del Rosso wrote:


"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:53:20 -0000, Michael A. Terrell
wrote:

Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown
to be wrong.

Actually the sigs are stupid. I hadn't read them until he mentioned it, but
they are very, very stupid.

They are there for the benefit of others, not me. And until the number of complaints outweighs the number of compliments, they stay. At the moment the ratio is about 1 complaint : 5 compliments.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

How do you play Iraqi bingo?
B-52...F-16...B-2

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Tom Del Rosso wrote:

"Peter Hucker" wrote
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown
to be wrong.

Actually the sigs are stupid. I hadn't read them until he mentioned it,
but
they are very, very stupid.

Really, I rather like them.

Graham


You do set yourself up for it don't you!

ian field wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Peter Hucker" wrote
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown
to be wrong.

Actually the sigs are stupid. I hadn't read them until he mentioned it,
but they are very, very stupid.

Really, I rather like them.


You do set yourself up for it don't you!

They certainly amuse me. What am I supposedly being 'set up' for ?

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


ian field wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Peter Hucker" wrote
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Keeping your ignorance, and stupid sig files to yourself.

You seem a little upset. People only get upset when they are shown
to be wrong.

Actually the sigs are stupid. I hadn't read them until he mentioned
it,
but they are very, very stupid.

Really, I rather like them.


You do set yourself up for it don't you!

They certainly amuse me. What am I supposedly being 'set up' for ?

Graham



I must admit, I found the 'ten steps to crapping like a man', particularly
amusing. I think I could identify with at least nine of them ... ! :-)

Arfa

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:53:15 -0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Aside from the fact it runs slower than XP on the same hardware

You're not supposed to put newer software on old equipment. Memory
is cheap, just add some.

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

The 'process' of being a desktop computer.

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old
equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main
factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to
run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to
cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Then don't use the word.

What was I 'supposed' to do? Substitute whatever suits my fancy for
what you said?


PHucker will probably accuse you of doing exactly that at some point!

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:50:17 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

snip

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

The 'process' of being a desktop computer.

That is not very specific. What do you find it takes longer dto do? I have not yet found anything that is slower. I have found several operations that are more efficient though. The filing system is much better at copying (you get more choices if files are to be overwritten for example, and renaming files doesn't highlight the extension).

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Then don't use the word.

What was I 'supposed' to do? Substitute whatever suits my fancy for
what you said?

Use context and stop pretending to be a robot.

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

Good choice. No reason to make it slower than it already is.

I do not find it slow. I had Windows XP 32 bit on a machine. I installed Windows Vista 64 bit on that machine

Try comparing apples to apples, like 64 bit to 64 bit or 32 bit to 32
bit.

It works in the favour of my argument, the 64 bit OS is more hefty, and I would expect it to be slower if anything.

and increased the memory from 1GB to 3GB.

That's three times the memory, not twice.

Who said "twice"?

It's the same speed in use.

Thank you for making my point, You used three times (vs twice) the
memory to get right back where you started.

Why do you keep saying "twice"? And I'm not where I started, it's the same speed, but better.

And in fact starts twice as fast.

I guess throwing up a splash screen works for you but I judge load
times by when things become fully operational.

From pressing the power switch to the network logon prompt is considerably faster. From the network logon prompt to everything being loaded and at full speed is about the same.

And of course, the biggie: transparent window borders. That one is so
useful I now print documents on special paper with cellophane around
the edges.

That is very useful. I don't have to peak under things to see stuff underneath.

What a joke.

Besides not being able to read anything through the 'transparent blur'
even if you could the odds that something 'useful' would, by
happenstance, be in just the right spot under the border makes it
useless.

I don't try to read through it, but I can see what's under it. It just looks more natural.

You mean 'looks pretty'.

Would you rather we all went back to the pre-GUI days?

That's a stupid question because there's nothing about a GUI that
'requires' transparent window borders.

A GUI is there so you're not staring at a boring text screen. The nicer it looks the better.

and less bugs.

LOL

How can you tell with half your software gone because it's
'incompatible'?

I lost zero software. Including some dodgy stuff I though M$ would prevent operating like CloneDVD.

Glad to hear it but unless you imagine they made Vista for just you
then your fortunate luck doesn't mean anything.

I know many people with Vista, and nobody has complained about not being able to use anything except perhaps the odd third party freebie utility.

Then you either don't know as 'many' people as you claim or they only
use the limited software set you do but compatibility problems with
Vista are legion and that's one reason, in addition to all the
hardware incompatibilities, why MS has their 'Vista Upgrade Advisor."

Things have gotten better as vendors struggle to patch and 'upgrade'
their products to work with Vista but that doesn't solve everyone's
problem, especially if they're on an older version where their only
choice might be to buy the latest release or do without.

List a few things that have compatibility problems then. For christ's sake I don't even have many problems with games, and they're usually the worst offender.

And you do people a disservice by claiming they can upgrade and
'everything' except "perhaps the odd third party freebie utility" is
going to work just fine afterwards.

Haven't had a complaint yet.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

;.
; `.
; :
:',:.`.
::;`:::
::' `::
:: ::
`: ::
'. .'
'.'
_`'_____
|'____| `'-.
|||||| ## ]
,||||||_____|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
|' .:.::;;$|
'-----------'

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:50:17 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:48:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 03:45:04 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:14:15 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:31:38 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:07:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 01:55:11 -0000, flipper wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:18:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

snip

That might have some validity if there was anything useful added.

But needing twice the memory to run the same thing as before isn't
any
'better' than needing twice the processor for the same performance.

It's not the same thing at all.

I was being generous but you're right. It's slower even with twice the
memory.

Slower at what process?

The 'process' of being a desktop computer.

That is not very specific. What do you find it takes longer dto do? I
have not yet found anything that is slower. I have found several
operations that are more efficient though. The filing system is much
better at copying (you get more choices if files are to be overwritten for
example, and renaming files doesn't highlight the extension).

So much for Microsoft's marketing strategy of selling upgrade
versions, eh?

I didn't write that clearly. It's fine to put a new OS on old
equipment, just upgrade it a little. Memory is cheap and is the main
factor preventing a newer OS from functioning well.

Under your theory, what is the point of buying faster hardware to
run
slower software so you end up where you started?

You don't end up where you started, you get more features

You mean 'features' like having to tell it twice over that, yes, you
really do want to run the program you already asked it to run?

I switched that off. Yes it was a silly idea, presumably intended to
cover up some security problems.

You have to guess/presume?

You weren't supposed to take that word literally.

Then don't use the word.

What was I 'supposed' to do? Substitute whatever suits my fancy for
what you said?

Use context and stop pretending to be a robot.

Or the
'productivity feature' of being able to make a video your background
instead of suffering with it in a window?

Never tried it.

Good choice. No reason to make it slower than it already is.

I do not find it slow. I had Windows XP 32 bit on a machine. I
installed Windows Vista 64 bit on that machine

Try comparing apples to apples, like 64 bit to 64 bit or 32 bit to 32
bit.

It works in the favour of my argument, the 64 bit OS is more hefty, and I
would expect it to be slower if anything.


Isn't a 64 bit OS to fully utilise a 64 bit architecture - which shifts more
bytes at a time to go faster?

ian field wrote:

Isn't a 64 bit OS to fully utilise a 64 bit architecture

I doubt it in Microsoft's case.

But there was 32 bit DOS and that FLEW.

Graham

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...

"flipper" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC,
is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM
was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it
had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was
trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only a
DOS shell.

Windows 95/98/ME wasn't very reliable either. Vendors ported their buggy
apps to Windows, and they crashed there even more then they did under DOS.
Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments where it was
exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software. Microsoft didn't really
make a stable and versatile OS until XP came out.

"Zootal" wrote in message
...

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...

"flipper" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC,
is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that
crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM
was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it
had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was
trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only
a
DOS shell.

Windows 95/98/ME wasn't very reliable either. Vendors ported their buggy
apps to Windows, and they crashed there even more then they did under DOS.
Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments where it
was exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software. Microsoft didn't
really make a stable and versatile OS until XP came out.


I'm not sure that is strictly true. All of those versions were fine, if they
were just left alone. You have to remember that in those early days of
'home' computing, people weren't as savvy as they are now, and their home
computer was used for little else than word processing and perhaps some
e-mail activity. That is the only expectation that most had, and it's what
MS addressed with those early versions. It allowed simple folk whose only
concept of a computer was something they had seen in the movies, to
interface with what was, after all, a complex item. It simply wasn't
designed to be 'tinkered' with by average users who wanted to start changing
hardware in their machines all the time, or adding software.

Even given those limitations, I still think that most 'proper' applications
that were actually written for those platforms, ran pretty well, and trouble
free for the most part. Over the years, I have run many third party
applications and my son has run every game known to man, largely without
incident, on every version of Windows that there has been (excluding Vista,
so far ... !! )

For sure, XP seems to be the most versatile version that there has been, but
then I think that migrated down from the pro end, and was adapted for the
home market, wasn't it ? There was a need for an OS that could tolerate the
foibles of the 'modern' user, and XP was it.

It must be a terribly difficult balancing act for them to continually
produce and maintain and OS that has the performance and facilities of a jet
airliner, yet 'drives' like a Ford Escort.

Arfa

Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments
where it was exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software.
Microsoft didn't really make a stable and versatile OS until XP
came out.

I've been running W2K for over seven years, and it has been extremely
stable. I can't remember the last cras. And the few crashes I did have were
Word lockups -- which I also haven't seen in several years.

The consensus is still that W2K is the most-stable version of Windows.

I can't comment as to versatility, but W2K was around for some time, and
drivers for almost everything are available.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments
where it was exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software.
Microsoft didn't really make a stable and versatile OS until XP
came out.

I've been running W2K for over seven years, and it has been extremely
stable. I can't remember the last cras. And the few crashes I did have
were
Word lockups -- which I also haven't seen in several years.

The consensus is still that W2K is the most-stable version of Windows.


Many people share your experiencences, myself included. And in every case
I've personally seen, those who run it with few or no crashes do so in a
limited and controlled environment. I had a few W2K workstations that I used
for 2 or 3 years that never crashed. It was in a controlled environment, the
hardware never changed, and only limited software was allowed on it.

Back in the SP1 or so era, I found W2K to be unusable on a few of my boxes
because of the lack of drivers for some of my hardware. Specifically, I had
ATI Rage Fury cards in my box, and ATI was unable to provide stable drivers
for these cards. I had to abanodon it and go back to Win98 on those boxes.
Other compability issues prevented me from using Win2K until later service
packs came out.

Take it outside of the rather small hardware and software box that Microsoft
designed it for, and you have crash city.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:30:04 -0000, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"ian field" wrote in message
...

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...


I think the capacitors have sharted ...

Is that a portmanteau word? Perhaps a mixture of "shorted" and
"farted"...

You obviously haven't smelled one after its vented.

Oh, yes I have. Not just vented, but exploded...

8 of them today in fact, in PC power supplies. Ever connected to another phase instead of neutral? And no it wasn't me. But he's gonna pay for it.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A pack-a-day smoker will lose approximately 2 teeth every 10 years.

"Peter Hucker" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:30:04 -0000, William Sommerwerck
wrote:

"ian field" wrote in message
...

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...


I think the capacitors have sharted ...

Is that a portmanteau word? Perhaps a mixture of "shorted" and
"farted"...

You obviously haven't smelled one after its vented.

Oh, yes I have. Not just vented, but exploded...

8 of them today in fact, in PC power supplies. Ever connected to another
phase instead of neutral? And no it wasn't me. But he's gonna pay for
it.


Yet another of PHucker's fantasies!

flipper wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:52:54 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:


"Zootal" wrote in message
...

"Tom Del Rosso" wrote in message
...

"flipper" wrote in message
news On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:02:25 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

Well..... I never recall DOS crashing !

There's a good reason for that. DOS doesn't 'do' much of anything.

Oh, I remember it crashing and freezing, but it was always because of the
app, not the OS. With Windows the component that crashes most, on my PC,
is
the Explorer shell.

When I used OS/2 it was also the shell (Presentation Manager) that
crashed
the most. Jerry Pournelle loved OS/2 but commented on how unstable PM
was.
It crashed a lot less than Windows of the time (either 95 or NT) but it
had
the unfortunate habit of overwriting the MBR with whatever file I was
trying
to save when it crashed.

Come to think of it, pre-95 Windows was very unreliable, but it was only
a
DOS shell.

Windows 95/98/ME wasn't very reliable either. Vendors ported their buggy
apps to Windows, and they crashed there even more then they did under DOS.
Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments where it
was exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software. Microsoft didn't
really make a stable and versatile OS until XP came out.


I'm not sure that is strictly true. All of those versions were fine, if they
were just left alone. You have to remember that in those early days of
'home' computing, people weren't as savvy as they are now, and their home
computer was used for little else than word processing and perhaps some
e-mail activity. That is the only expectation that most had, and it's what
MS addressed with those early versions. It allowed simple folk whose only
concept of a computer was something they had seen in the movies, to
interface with what was, after all, a complex item. It simply wasn't
designed to be 'tinkered' with by average users who wanted to start changing
hardware in their machines all the time, or adding software.

Even given those limitations, I still think that most 'proper' applications
that were actually written for those platforms, ran pretty well, and trouble
free for the most part. Over the years, I have run many third party
applications and my son has run every game known to man, largely without
incident, on every version of Windows that there has been (excluding Vista,
so far ... !! )

For sure, XP seems to be the most versatile version that there has been,

Mainly because things generally improve over time,

but
then I think that migrated down from the pro end, and was adapted for the
home market, wasn't it ? There was a need for an OS that could tolerate the
foibles of the 'modern' user, and XP was it.

As is usually the case, it's not that simple and Windows NT, the
'family' XP is a sibling of, predates Windows 95.

People act as if Microsoft always 'ran everything' but they started
off as a hole in the wall group writing software for other people,
like IBM (DOS. OS/2, etc) and Apple (Word, Office, etc) They also had
the foresight to retain rights to what they wrote.


Microsoft started under a different business name, building
electronic vehicle counters that were used to audit the traffic on a
road. Then they wrote one of the first BASIC interpeters for the early
kit computers under their new Microsoft name.



Their first big break was keeping rights to DOS on non IBM machines,
of which there weren't any... for about 15 minutes till the clones
came out. Oops (for IBM). Actually, IBM didn't really care all that
much about DOS, and OS/2 for that matter, as they considered it more
of a necessary evil to sell hardware than a money maker in it's own
right. It was the clones they hated.

But, back to the 'Windows' O.S., they were for different purposes. As
I mentioned, MS retained rights to Office on 'non apple' products and
I suppose Apple figured why not? since that's all it would run on.
'Windows' (for DOS) was originally developed so that Office could run
on x86 computers. Oops (for Apple).

But, back at the IBM barn, MS was working on OS/2 when Windows 3.0
turned out to be an actual 'hit' (meaning they finally had a version
that worked) so MS wanted to incorporate more of the Windows API into
what was then called "NT OS/2" but IBM had different ideas so they
split and MS's work went on to be Windows NT. (IBM would later change
directions and advertise that OS/2 can run Windows apps too but why
not get 'the real thing'?)

DOS based Windows was to simply 'run programs' (and multimedia) while
NT was to be a multi-user, fully pre-emptive multitasking system
portable across multiple platforms while being both OS/2 and POSIX
complaint... as well as, of course, Windows (API). The holy grail in
those days was "transportability" and that's where HAL, the "Hardware
Abstraction Layer," comes from. It sits between the hardware and
everything else so you need only rewrite the rather small HAL and the
rest is none the wiser, or so the theory went. DOS Windows has no such
need because it's only job is to run on x86 machines.

In some ways DOS Windows was functionally 'ahead' of NT in that it
(GUI) was first out of the chute and got the consumer oriented
'multimedia' stuff. NT first got the Windows 3.x GUI and then, after
Windows 95, that GUI migrated to NT but, for a while, people had a
kind of "Back to the Future" experience going from their nifty looking
Windows 95 home computer to the office 'super duper OS' NT system with
the 'old fashioned' Windows 3.x GUI.

NT was the 'business' OS, where multi-user and multitasking was
needed, and didn't get the full multimedia treatment till XP.

This, of course, isn't everything but it hit on a few of the major
points.

It must be a terribly difficult balancing act for them to continually
produce and maintain and OS that has the performance and facilities of a jet
airliner, yet 'drives' like a Ford Escort.

Arfa



--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

"Zootal" wrote in message
...

Back in the SP1 or so era, I found W2K to be unusable on a few of my boxes
because of the lack of drivers for some of my hardware. Specifically, I
had ATI Rage Fury cards in my box, and ATI was unable to provide stable
drivers for these cards. I had to abanodon it and go back to Win98 on
those boxes. Other compability issues prevented me from using Win2K until
later service packs came out.

But that pretty much applies to any OS, and it is not the fault of the OS.
Any OS is only as stable as the weakest driver. On this 64 bit Vista
machine, the only issue I have ever had in 1 year's use was with a buggy ATI
2600 driver. Yep, ATI again! I would get the "The atimmx (whatever it is
called) driver has stopped responding...restarting the driver" message at
random times. Sometimes it would recover, sometimes the machine would blue
screen.

This was purely a driver problem. Once I installed a different version of
the driver (9 months ago), no more problems. Vista is now as solid as 2000
or XP ever was. This machine gets pretty hard use - dual monitors,
multiple Virtual PC VMs (Server 2003, XP and Vista Business) running for
weeks at a time for my development job, plus the usual Internet/Itunes/Media
Player/MP3s/camera/pictures home use.

Most OS instability can be traced to either bad drivers or flaky hardware
(usually RAM, but can also be power supply or hard drive - I have seen all 3
cause random reboots). Particularly with the NT/2000/XP/Vista line. All
of these have been very stable for me, given solid hardware.

BTW, what does any of this have to do with Electrolytics? Topic Drift
Much? :-)

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:26:58 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Win2000 was an improvement, but was ill suited to environments
where it was exposed to a wide variety of hardware and software.
Microsoft didn't really make a stable and versatile OS until XP
came out.

I've been running W2K for over seven years, and it has been extremely
stable. I can't remember the last cras. And the few crashes I did have were
Word lockups -- which I also haven't seen in several years.

The consensus is still that W2K is the most-stable version of Windows.

I can't comment as to versatility, but W2K was around for some time, and
drivers for almost everything are available.



Windows 2000 was the final release of Windows NT. Windows NT was very
stable, depending on the platform it was run on. NT server was so stable
that all the banks got rid of OS/2 and adopted Windows, thanks to NT
server, and subsequently, W2k. OS/2 was run at nearly EVERY bank in the
entire world at that time.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:14:24 -0800, "Zootal"
wrote:

Specifically, I had
ATI Rage Fury cards in my box, and ATI was unable to provide stable drivers
for these cards. I had to abanodon it and go back to Win98 on those boxes.


It would have been much simpler to change the video card.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:34:17 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote:

A pack-a-day smoker will lose approximately 2 teeth every 10 years.


You're an idiot. Don't give that 'It's just a sig' horse**** either.

Your stats, as well as your stat source are as retarded as you are.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:34:17 -0000, "Peter Hucker" wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:30:04 -0000, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"ian field" wrote in message
...

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...


I think the capacitors have sharted ...

Is that a portmanteau word? Perhaps a mixture of "shorted" and
"farted"...

You obviously haven't smelled one after its vented.

Oh, yes I have. Not just vented, but exploded...

8 of them today in fact, in PC power supplies. Ever connected to another phase instead of neutral? And no it wasn't me. But he's gonna pay for it.


You're a goddamned idiot if you are in a setting where AC power lines
get toyed with.