Most in this group are knowledgeable computer users. But an occasional
reminder to "Beware!" can't hurt.

Some months back I installed the Microsoft compatibility update that allows
Office 2000 programs to read and write XML files (.docs, .xlsx, etc). (It
works fine, by the way.)

The problem is that the new formats appeared with Office 2007. Windows Update
now thought my Office software was the 2007 version. I started receiving
prompts to install security updates for it.

Common sense told me it wouldn't be a good idea to modify Office 2000 programs
with Office 2007 updates. So when updates were needed, I cleared the
checkboxes for these. Unfortunately...

Yesterday, I accidentally clicked the wrong button, and they were installed.
It was particularly annoying that repeated clicks on the "Halt the Update!"
button had no effect.

The result was that Word 2000 (and the other Office components, I assume) were
buggered. The Preview display was screwed up, and I got error messages when I
tried to print.

Fortunately, reversing the updates' installation and restarting the computer
fixed the problem. I was out only 15 minutes' inconvenience.

Don't assume factory-recommended updates are appropriate. Look before you
leap, and all those other clichés.


"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right questions."
-- Edwin Land

On 07/11/2013 11:25, William Sommerwerck wrote:
Most in this group are knowledgeable computer users. But an occasional
reminder to "Beware!" can't hurt.

Some months back I installed the Microsoft compatibility update that
allows Office 2000 programs to read and write XML files (.docs, .xlsx,
etc). (It works fine, by the way.)

The problem is that the new formats appeared with Office 2007. Windows
Update now thought my Office software was the 2007 version. I started
receiving prompts to install security updates for it.

Common sense told me it wouldn't be a good idea to modify Office 2000
programs with Office 2007 updates. So when updates were needed, I
cleared the checkboxes for these. Unfortunately...

Yesterday, I accidentally clicked the wrong button, and they were
installed. It was particularly annoying that repeated clicks on the
"Halt the Update!" button had no effect.

The result was that Word 2000 (and the other Office components, I
assume) were buggered. The Preview display was screwed up, and I got
error messages when I tried to print.

Fortunately, reversing the updates' installation and restarting the
computer fixed the problem. I was out only 15 minutes' inconvenience.

Don't assume factory-recommended updates are appropriate. Look before
you leap, and all those other clichés.


"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right questions."
-- Edwin Land

The other cliche , pertinent to electronic repair, if it ain't broke ,
don't poke

On 11/07/2013 04:10 AM, N_Cook wrote:
On 07/11/2013 11:25, William Sommerwerck wrote:
Most in this group are knowledgeable computer users. But an occasional
reminder to "Beware!" can't hurt.


The other cliche , pertinent to electronic repair, if it ain't broke ,
don't poke

I never update, as a rule. This version of Mint is the 3 kernel but over
2 years old. It never updates automatically. knock on wood.

I update nothing, period.

Lemme tellya a little story that happened to me recently. I had something called zarumba.exe or something like that. It was trying to install someting nasty on my laptop (Vista) and it somehow bypassed UAC. Well maybe not really.

I had been getting hags to update Java for some time but kept telling it no.. Every reboot, and I almost never reboot. However this virus or whatever it was seems to exploit a security hole you may have heard of in a certain Java update.

With this baby there it was nagging me every minute for the Java update.

I run bareback. I do not really suf, and I am not going to get a virus here, or from tvrepairtips or repairwold or americanfreepress or the other fora I haunt. I do not game and I do not facebook. I do not open email attachments unless they are pictures, and even then I am careful. Sometimes I am leery of something so I will download it and if a JPG I'll open it in Paintshop Pro, or other things in Irfanview. Media files if I have ANY doubt I will open them in VLC. I use Office 97 Pro so I doubt any macro type virus can get through that.

When I get bit by something I have not had system restore fail to fix it. That's what happened last time.

I take that back, this is Vista, on an XP box a few years ago system restore would not remove "Secret Crush" or something like that, but I think that is a very sophisticated virus which I believe infects the BIOS. I have my reasons for beliving that, because both PCs that got it had those types opf problems. One in the RAM controller. It would run fine with ½ GB RAM or 1½ GB RAM but not 1 GB (which is what it came with) It was ransdomly rebooting and I pulled a stick out and it ran fine. Put in a different ½ GB stick and same ****. switched them out and found out none of the RAM was bad.

Both machines benefitted from a total reset, I mean the kind that gives you the checksum error. You just have to ****up the BIOS bad enough that it reverts to ROM or whatever, and then you're clear.

The stupid **** who put that virus on BOTH my PCs no longer has any access. He has his own to **** up now. After all that, nobody touches my PCs. Where I live now my "server" I guess you would call it is on the network and if anyone wants the media or files off it they can just connect to the network. There are three people here and seven PCs, nobody has to touch mine.

The only thing wrong with the system right now is I got one of those laser printers (recently fixed you may have heard) that I set up to share on the network and that stopped working a few days ago. It prints locally but not from other PCs. Not a big issue.

I am going to continue to run XP on the one box forever. Some say that is going to let me open to fifty million virii and **** but that is bull****. There aren't going to all the sudden be more virii for XP, in fact more likely the opposite. The new bugs will probably be incompatible with XP.

I would go so far to say that you would probably be safe running 98 again because the virii they write now are too advanced to even load in it. Of course I could be wrong, but my **** runs.

And it runs well. I go up to people's PCs, even newer ones, and I cannot believe how damn slow they are. What's more, you shoud see how fast the old software is on newer PCs.

I'm a spoiled brat now when it comes to PC speed. What's more I am a cheap spoiled brat. I am out of the loop they got most people in, which is ; update the software until the hardware won't work, then update the hardware and find the old software won't work. Then update the software until the new hardware won't work, and on and on and on.

I'd run Win 3.11 if I could get it to get online. Technically I think you can but it's really more trouble than it's worth.

On 07 Nov 2013, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

Some months back I installed the Microsoft compatibility update
that allows Office 2000 programs to read and write XML files
(.docs, .xlsx, etc). (It works fine, by the way.)

The problem is that the new formats appeared with Office 2007.
Windows Update now thought my Office software was the 2007
version. I started receiving prompts to install security updates
for it.

Common sense told me it wouldn't be a good idea to modify Office
2000 programs with Office 2007 updates. So when updates were
needed, I cleared the checkboxes for these. Unfortunately...

I think you've let a misconception creep in at this point. The "Office
2007" updates are being presented to you to update the compatibility
pack, not your original Office 2000 installation. If Office 2000 is
still eligible for updates, you would still receive those, too.

Yesterday, I accidentally clicked the wrong button, and they were
installed. It was particularly annoying that repeated clicks on
the "Halt the Update!" button had no effect.

I think this is where things went wrong. It sounds to me like you wound
up with half-installed updates.

This isn't to say that updates can't go wrong, but I've accepting
updates for the compatibility pack for years, and the Office 2003 setup
on all the computers I control still work just fine.

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 03:25:26 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

Most in this group are knowledgeable computer users. But an occasional
reminder to "Beware!" can't hurt.

Some months back I installed the Microsoft compatibility update that
allows Office 2000 programs to read and write XML files (.docs, .xlsx,
etc). (It works fine, by the way.)

The problem is that the new formats appeared with Office 2007. Windows
Update now thought my Office software was the 2007 version. I started
receiving prompts to install security updates for it.

Common sense told me it wouldn't be a good idea to modify Office 2000
programs with Office 2007 updates. So when updates were needed, I
cleared the checkboxes for these. Unfortunately...

Yesterday, I accidentally clicked the wrong button, and they were
installed. It was particularly annoying that repeated clicks on the
"Halt the Update!" button had no effect.

The result was that Word 2000 (and the other Office components, I
assume) were buggered. The Preview display was screwed up, and I got
error messages when I tried to print.

Fortunately, reversing the updates' installation and restarting the
computer fixed the problem. I was out only 15 minutes' inconvenience.

Don't assume factory-recommended updates are appropriate. Look before
you leap, and all those other clichés.


"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs? Canon
and Epson scanners?

Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what some
people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.

"Nil" wrote in message ...
On 07 Nov 2013, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

Some months back I installed the Microsoft compatibility update
that allows Office 2000 programs to read and write XML files
(.docs, .xlsx, etc). (It works fine, by the way.)

The problem is that the new formats appeared with Office 2007.
Windows Update now thought my Office software was the 2007
version. I started receiving prompts to install security updates
for it.

Common sense told me it wouldn't be a good idea to modify Office
2000 programs with Office 2007 updates. So when updates were
needed, I cleared the checkboxes for these. Unfortunately...

I think you've let a misconception creep in at this point. The "Office
2007" updates are being presented to you to update the compatibility
pack, not your original Office 2000 installation. If Office 2000 is
still eligible for updates, you would still receive those, too.

I'm not sure about that. There were 8 or 9 updates, not just one for the
compatibility pack.


Yesterday, I accidentally clicked the wrong button, and they were
installed. It was particularly annoying that repeated clicks on
the "Halt the Update!" button had no effect.

I think this is where things went wrong. It sounds to me like you wound
up with half-installed updates.

I don't think so, because it reached the point where "all updates installed"
was reported.


This isn't to say that updates can't go wrong, but I've accepting
updates for the compatibility pack for years, and the Office 2003
setup on all the computers I control still work just fine.

Should these show up again, I'll look at their names and confirm that they
were just for the compatibility pack.

sctvguy1 wrote:

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

I'm sure if OP had let things do themselves without interference he wouldn't
had had the slight 15 minute inconvenience that he he. Hardly a reason to
ditch an OS and all the applications he knows and loves ....

geoff

"Nil" wrote in message ...

I think you've let a misconception creep in at this point. The "Office
2007" updates are being presented to you to update the compatibility
pack, not your original Office 2000 installation. If Office 2000 is
still eligible for updates, you would still receive those, too.

I just checked.

There are 8 updates labeled "Security Update for Microsoft Office 2007
suites", varying in size from 763KB to 7.7MB. There is 692KB "Security Update
for Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007". Their purpose is described thusly:

"A security vulnerability exists in Microsoft Office 2007 suites that could
allow arbitrary code to run when a maliciously modified file is opened. This
update resolves that vulnerability.

There is a 1.6MB "Update for Microsoft Office 2007 suites". "This update
provides the latest fixes to Microsoft Office 2007 suites." Why would I apply
them to Office 2000?

Nowhere is anything said about the compatibility pack.

"geoff" wrote in message
...

I'm sure if OP had let things do themselves without interference he wouldn't
had had the slight 15 minute inconvenience that he he. Hardly a reason to
ditch an OS and all the applications he knows and loves ....

See the newer posting in which I claim that the installation appeared to have
completed.

On 07 Nov 2013, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

Should these show up again, I'll look at their names and confirm
that they were just for the compatibility pack.

They won't say that. They aren't well-named, but the updates are for
both the compatibility pack and Office 2007.

On 07 Nov 2013, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

There is a 1.6MB "Update for Microsoft Office 2007 suites". "This
update provides the latest fixes to Microsoft Office 2007 suites."
Why would I apply them to Office 2000?

You won't be. They will update the Compatibility pack components, not
Office 2000 itself.

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:01:57 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs?
Canon and Epson scanners?

Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.

I run Libre/Open Office which has the same functions as Word, and the
same basic interfaces. Also, imports Word documents and reads them.
Same for the other parts of the Microsoft Office suite.
As for Photoshop, there is GIMP, a clone for Linux that is FREE. It has
the same power as Photoshop.
As for laser/inkjet printers, no real problems. I have run HP and am
presently running Brother laser printers(HL-1440). I also run Canon LiDE
20 and 35 scanners, no problems.
Just pick a linux distro from someplace like distrowatch.com, burn it to
DVD or CD, and run it live, see if it works for you.

On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 22:28:54 +0000 (UTC) "sctvguy1"
wrote in article

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:01:57 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs?
Canon and Epson scanners?

Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.

I run Libre/Open Office which has the same functions as Word, and the
same basic interfaces. Also, imports Word documents and reads them.
Same for the other parts of the Microsoft Office suite.
As for Photoshop, there is GIMP, a clone for Linux that is FREE. It has
the same power as Photoshop.
As for laser/inkjet printers, no real problems. I have run HP and am
presently running Brother laser printers(HL-1440). I also run Canon LiDE
20 and 35 scanners, no problems.
Just pick a linux distro from someplace like distrowatch.com, burn it to
DVD or CD, and run it live, see if it works for you.

GIMP's ok - I've used it quite a bit, but I use Photoshop almost every
day and GIMP is by no means a clone.

I have Linux on one machine here and use it for tinkering. If some of the
major Windows apps ran on it I'd happily toss Windoze, but they don't.

Lots of Adobe customers have asked for Linux versions. There actually was
an early version of Photoshop for Unix, but the Adobe developers
concluded that X wasn't an adequate windowing platform and gave up rather
than develop their own. Now that the Adobe products are subscription-
based you'd have to get Adobe to port not only the applications but the
Creative Cloud manager to Linux. They seem not to be interested :-(

On 11/07/2013 12:01 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs?
Canon and Epson scanners?

Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.


Canon has very good Linux support. Do you really need Photoshop? GIMP
works fine for me and the price can't be beat. Linux productivity apps
are as good as they get. You just don't get DirectX, which ****es me off.

On 11/07/2013 12:17 PM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message
...

I'm sure if OP had let things do themselves without interference he
wouldn't
had had the slight 15 minute inconvenience that he he. Hardly a reason to
ditch an OS and all the applications he knows and loves ....

See the newer posting in which I claim that the installation appeared to
have completed.

Windows mocks the user incessantly. It is the Trabant of operating systems.

sctvguy1 wrote:

On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:01:57 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs?
Canon and Epson scanners?

Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.

I run Libre/Open Office which has the same functions as Word, and the
same basic interfaces. Also, imports Word documents and reads them.
Same for the other parts of the Microsoft Office suite.
As for Photoshop, there is GIMP, a clone for Linux that is FREE. It has
the same power as Photoshop.

That is disupted by several excellent photogs I know, though they say
it's close.

One has said this is fully equivalent:

http://www.pl32.com/

I've been using it buy needs, and skills, are paltry. It is much easier
for a non-geek to manage that is GIMP, which I used for several years
before finding Photoline.

As for laser/inkjet printers, no real problems. I have run HP and am
presently running Brother laser printers(HL-1440). I also run Canon LiDE
20 and 35 scanners, no problems.
Just pick a linux distro from someplace like distrowatch.com, burn it to
DVD or CD, and run it live, see if it works for you.


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, William Sommerwerck wrote:

"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs? Canon
and Epson scanners?

I've had a Canon scanner for years, have never had a problem.

The reality is, most people (like the type who crosspost off-topic threads
like this to their favorite newsgroups rather than find the right place to
post it) experience Windows and nothing else. Hence everything has to
compare to it.

The one time I used Word was on a Mac Plus 19 years ago, it had a driver
for a plain printer rather than an Imagewriter, so I could use my old dot
matrix printer, using my Radio Shack Model 100 laptop as a serial to
parallel converter. I also bought it cheap at a garage sale.

I haven't a clue what Ventura is, and only know of Photoshop because
people talk about it.

Yes, I'm the odd one, I've never run Windows. I've dabbled in it, someone
else's computer or getting a "new" computer before I erase Windows. It's
really odd, I can't find things, I have no idea how to do specific things.
Sure, the general motions are the same, but people fit Windows because
that's what they know.

Since I've never really used WIndows, I have no comparison. GIMP works
for me, it does what I need. If it's missing something, I have no idea
since I've not used the overloaded Photoshop. There was a whole period,
fifteen years ago, when people would send me Word files that I couldn't
rad, but that's simmered down, they've caught on that files should be in a
more universal standard. Just because "everyone runs Windows" doesnt'
mean I should be seen as riffraff.


Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what some
people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.

I never bought into it in th first place, barely used MSDOS for that
matter. I have absolutely no argument with WIndows, since I really know
little about it. I do have a big argument with people assuming the whole
world uses Windows, and if we don't, we are the problem.

Michael

"Michael Black" wrote in message
xample.org...
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...
I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs?
Canon and Epson scanners?

I've had a Canon scanner for years, have never had a problem.

The reality is, most people (like the type who crosspost off-topic threads
like this to their favorite newsgroups rather than find the right place to
post it) experience Windows and nothing else. Hence everything has to
compare to it.

The one time I used Word was on a Mac Plus 19 years ago, it had a driver
for a plain printer rather than an Imagewriter, so I could use my old dot
matrix printer, using my Radio Shack Model 100 laptop as a serial to
parallel converter. I also bought it cheap at a garage sale.

I haven't a clue what Ventura is, and only know of Photoshop because
people talk about it.

Yes, I'm the odd one, I've never run Windows. I've dabbled in it, someone
else's computer or getting a "new" computer before I erase Windows. It's
really odd, I can't find things, I have no idea how to do specific things.
Sure, the general motions are the same, but people fit Windows because
that's what they know.

Since I've never really used WIndows, I have no comparison. GIMP works
for me, it does what I need. If it's missing something, I have no idea
since I've not used the overloaded Photoshop. There was a whole period,
fifteen years ago, when people would send me Word files that I couldn't
read,

Even then there were Linux programs readily available to read Word docs and
Photoshop images. No idea about Ventura.


but that's simmered down, they've caught on that files should be in a more
universal standard. Just because "everyone runs Windows" doesnt' mean I
should be seen as riffraff.

Just because people don't need to care what you choose to do, doesn't mean
they have any opionion of you one way or the other.


Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.

I never bought into it in th first place, barely used MSDOS for that
matter. I have absolutely no argument with WIndows, since I really know
little about it. I do have a big argument with people assuming the whole
world uses Windows, and if we don't, we are the problem.

Nope, not the whole world, but 90% makes for a fair majority. Just as
English is the default language on the internet, many people can and do
choose to stick with what they know instead. And since English is not the
first language of 90% of computer users, a far better case can be made for
some people using another one! Doesn't mean you have to learn it though.
Thankfully or the whole world would do nothing but learn dozens of
languages. Same goes for companies who choose to support only the majority
operating systems, and users who prefer a mainstream "standard".

Trevor.

On 11/7/2013 8:39 PM, Mike McGinn wrote:

Can we get back to radios now? I have an old Tek 453 on the getting some
power supply work. Those are tight little units, but I like them. They
are funky. It is amazing how they crammed so much performance in a small
package in 1966. I'll be looking for a 454 when this is done.


Certainly. We'll just go for a couple weeks with essentially zero
messages posted other than the occasional, "Is anyone home?" :-)

Joe, N6DGY

If Windows (and to a lesser degree, the Mac OS) didn't exist, there would
likely be a plethora of operating systems, and people would be complaining
"Why can't we have a single standard?".

I do not grovel in front of Windows. I use it because it's what I started with
when I worked at Microsoft, and it has the widest range of available
applications. It also works well.

The basic problem with Windows is that it's designed to be a more or less
universal OS that meets just about anyone's needs. Unfortunately, Microsoft
has never put out the effort to minimize the amount of "fussing" a serious
user has to go through to get the most out of the system.

I strongly recommend the book "Windows 7 Annoyances". It has good chapters on
security and networking that are almost worth the price of the book.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
If Windows (and to a lesser degree, the Mac OS) didn't exist, there would
likely be a plethora of operating systems, and people would be complaining
"Why can't we have a single standard?".

And this was what it was like in the seventies and eighties. And, overall
it was a good thing because it encouraged people to make their applications
portable.

I think having a heterogeneous environment is a good thing for a lot of
different reasons, not just because it makes malware propagation more
difficult but also because it forces people to think about the compromises
being made in their implementations.

It also means that people developing more complex systems based around a
computer (like a DAW for instance) have more choices. Often those systems
have requirements which are very different than those of "general purpose"
computing appliances and it is good to have such choices available when they
are needed.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
If Windows (and to a lesser degree, the Mac OS) didn't exist, there would
likely be a plethora of operating systems, and people would be complaining
"Why can't we have a single standard?".

And this was what it was like in the seventies and eighties. And, overall
it was a good thing because it encouraged people to make their applications
portable.


Portability is pretty expensive. And given how dissimilar platforms
are, it is of mixed value, IMO.

Very basic functionality is quite different from platform to platform.


I think having a heterogeneous environment is a good thing for a lot of
different reasons, not just because it makes malware propagation more
difficult but also because it forces people to think about the compromises
being made in their implementations.


People don't generally like to think about implementations when they
don't have to.

It also means that people developing more complex systems based around a
computer (like a DAW for instance) have more choices.

I don't really think we'd have had DAW programs at all had it not been
for Mac and Windows as platforms. Maybe something lire RADAR, but it
wasn't priced to sell. Maybe something like the Amiga, although
it was pretty limited.

Often those systems
have requirements which are very different than those of "general purpose"
computing appliances and it is good to have such choices available when they
are needed.

Agreed; although it's not clear that the propagation of such systems
would have been ... satisfactory.

The last thing I read about the Linux standards group for audio/
multimedia , they were still designing the basic atoms of things.


--scott



--
Les Cargill

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

I think having a heterogeneous environment is a good thing for a lot of
different reasons, not just because it makes malware propagation more
difficult but also because it forces people to think about the compromises
being made in their implementations.

It also means that people developing more complex systems based around a
computer (like a DAW for instance) have more choices. Often those systems
have requirements which are very different than those of "general purpose"
computing appliances and it is good to have such choices available when they
are needed.

No argument -- in principle -- but isn't Windows+Mac+Linux sufficiently
heterogeneous?

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

I think having a heterogeneous environment is a good thing for a lot of
different reasons, not just because it makes malware propagation more
difficult but also because it forces people to think about the compromises
being made in their implementations.

It also means that people developing more complex systems based around a
computer (like a DAW for instance) have more choices. Often those systems
have requirements which are very different than those of "general purpose"
computing appliances and it is good to have such choices available when they
are needed.

No argument -- in principle -- but isn't Windows+Mac+Linux sufficiently
heterogeneous?

Maybe it is. They're all three running on the exact same computer architecture
most of the time, though. And certainly they are far more heterogeneous than
they were even a decade ago.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 11/07/2013 07:35 PM, Trevor wrote:


Nope, not the whole world, but 90% makes for a fair majority. Just as
English is the default language on the internet, many people can and do
choose to stick with what they know instead. And since English is not the
first language of 90% of computer users, a far better case can be made for
some people using another one! Doesn't mean you have to learn it though.
Thankfully or the whole world would do nothing but learn dozens of
languages. Same goes for companies who choose to support only the majority
operating systems, and users who prefer a mainstream "standard".

Trevor.


How do you justify paying $200 for a computer operating system that does
nothing but send you places that ask for money? The Windows world is
like North Las Vegas. It is crass, commercial and everyone has to get
their hands dirty. I have a netbook with XP that I need to talk to my
iPod. Next year I plan to buy a Windows7 refurb from a Windows reseller.
They go for between $50 and a $100 n eBay, less than half what a
builder pays for the OS alone. This is only so I can run the Apple crap
and maybe some LT spice. My main surfing machine and my ham radio
machines are 100% open source and commercial free..

On 11/08/2013 05:40 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Portability is pretty expensive. And given how dissimilar platforms
are, it is of mixed value, IMO.

Very basic functionality is quite different from platform to platform.


You can have a triple boot Notebook if you want. YouTube looks the same
on WIN and *X.



People don't generally like to think about implementations when they
don't have to.

Unless the implements are very shiny.


I don't really think we'd have had DAW programs at all had it not been
for Mac and Windows as platforms. Maybe something lire RADAR, but it
wasn't priced to sell. Maybe something like the Amiga, although
it was pretty limited.

There were DAWs before Windows and Mac



Agreed; although it's not clear that the propagation of such systems
would have been ... satisfactory.

The last thing I read about the Linux standards group for audio/
multimedia , they were still designing the basic atoms of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digita...rce_sof tware

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=linux+daw



--scott



--
Les Cargill

dave

On 11/08/2013 07:58 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

I think having a heterogeneous environment is a good thing for a lot of
different reasons, not just because it makes malware propagation more
difficult but also because it forces people to think about the
compromises
being made in their implementations.

It also means that people developing more complex systems based around a
computer (like a DAW for instance) have more choices. Often those
systems
have requirements which are very different than those of "general
purpose"
computing appliances and it is good to have such choices available
when they
are needed.

No argument -- in principle -- but isn't Windows+Mac+Linux sufficiently
heterogeneous?

Mac OSX and Linux are cousins (both derived from from AT&T Unix).
Windows is based on patching and quilting and something called "Quick
and Dirty Operating System".

The fastest computers on earth all run Linux.

On 11/08/2013 08:52 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

I think having a heterogeneous environment is a good thing for a lot of
different reasons, not just because it makes malware propagation more
difficult but also because it forces people to think about the compromises
being made in their implementations.

It also means that people developing more complex systems based around a
computer (like a DAW for instance) have more choices. Often those systems
have requirements which are very different than those of "general purpose"
computing appliances and it is good to have such choices available when they
are needed.

No argument -- in principle -- but isn't Windows+Mac+Linux sufficiently
heterogeneous?

Maybe it is. They're all three running on the exact same computer architecture
most of the time, though. And certainly they are far more heterogeneous than
they were even a decade ago.
--scott


BTW You can occasionally find a Nagra IV-S for under a hundred bucks
here nowadays.

dave wrote:
On 11/08/2013 05:40 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Portability is pretty expensive. And given how dissimilar platforms
are, it is of mixed value, IMO.

Very basic functionality is quite different from platform to platform.


You can have a triple boot Notebook if you want. YouTube looks the same
on WIN and *X.


I prefer VMs



People don't generally like to think about implementations when they
don't have to.

Unless the implements are very shiny.



I LIKE SHINY THING! SHINY THING GOOD!


I don't really think we'd have had DAW programs at all had it not been
for Mac and Windows as platforms. Maybe something lire RADAR, but it
wasn't priced to sell. Maybe something like the Amiga, although
it was pretty limited.

There were DAWs before Windows and Mac

Sorta. But now, we have the capability of a New England Digital system
for much less trouble.




Agreed; although it's not clear that the propagation of such systems
would have been ... satisfactory.

The last thing I read about the Linux standards group for audio/
multimedia , they were still designing the basic atoms of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digita...rce_sof tware


The good news is that REAPER runs in Wine...

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=linux+daw



--scott



--
Les Cargill

dave

--
Les Cargill

dave wrote:

BTW You can occasionally find a Nagra IV-S for under a hundred bucks
here nowadays.

I'll take all you can get at that price. Prices on those machines are
actually rising... they hit rock bottom a few years ago but they now seem
to be getting snapped up by collectors. I have been getting a lot of repair
work from guys buying the things who don't know what they are buying.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 11/7/13 14:01 , William Sommerwerck wrote:
"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs?
Canon and Epson scanners?

Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.



I had an uncle killed by blueberry pancakes.

On 07/11/2013 16:08, wrote:
I update nothing, period.

Lemme tellya a little story that happened to me recently.

snip

Uninstall Java or block it from running inside the browser. Unpatched
it's dangerous and you very probably don't need it for anything critical
anyway.

Any other security measures are not wholy needed, the original point of
the internet was to allow folks to freely share information without
hinderance. You should allow open access to all (guest account, public
user group etc...), and willingly accept presents left. Don't leave
things on your machine to take if these things are valuable to you, and
don't configure your machine in such a way that it would be an
uncontrollable nuisance to others.

Now the $64,000 question is - can you really do the above trustily with
Microsoft software, especially with outdated unpatched items? I think not.

In two words - buffer overrun. In one word. ****e.

--
Adrian C

D. Peter Maus wrote:

On 11/7/13 14:01 , William Sommerwerck wrote:
"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs?
Canon and Epson scanners?

Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.



I had an uncle killed by blueberry pancakes.

It was the antioxidants.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

Scott Dorsey wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:
If Windows (and to a lesser degree, the Mac OS) didn't exist, there
would likely be a plethora of operating systems, and people would be
complaining "Why can't we have a single standard?".

And this was what it was like in the seventies and eighties. And,
overall it was a good thing because it encouraged people to make
their applications portable.

I think having a heterogeneous environment is a good thing for a lot
of different reasons, not just because it makes malware propagation
more difficult but also because it forces people to think about the
compromises being made in their implementations.

It also means that people developing more complex systems based
around a computer (like a DAW for instance) have more choices. Often
those systems have requirements which are very different than those
of "general purpose" computing appliances and it is good to have such
choices available when they are needed.
--scott
\
It used to be necessary to optimise this and that, but now with the extra
cpu power available I don't dick with things, and simply install all
suggested updates. And guess what - zero problems for years now .


geoff

dave wrote:
On 11/07/2013 07:35 PM, Trevor wrote:


Nope, not the whole world, but 90% makes for a fair majority. Just as
English is the default language on the internet, many people can and do
choose to stick with what they know instead. And since English is not the
first language of 90% of computer users, a far better case can be made
for
some people using another one! Doesn't mean you have to learn it though.
Thankfully or the whole world would do nothing but learn dozens of
languages. Same goes for companies who choose to support only the
majority
operating systems, and users who prefer a mainstream "standard".

Trevor.


How do you justify paying $200 for a computer operating system that does
nothing but send you places that ask for money? The Windows world is
like North Las Vegas. It is crass, commercial and everyone has to get
their hands dirty.


I like commercial myself. Hourses for courses...


I have a netbook with XP that I need to talk to my
iPod. Next year I plan to buy a Windows7 refurb from a Windows reseller.
They go for between $50 and a $100 n eBay, less than half what a
builder pays for the OS alone. This is only so I can run the Apple crap
and maybe some LT spice. My main surfing machine and my ham radio
machines are 100% open source and commercial free..

Two things:

https://www.virtualbox.org/

and
http://www.itdirectdeals.com/product...lp7AodQ xAAcw

Fiddy-nine bux, baybee! Plus you can get the VM of Win7 perfectly
stable, copy it and always have a place to roll back to. If
the refurb is a better solution then awesome.

You don't even need to burn a DVD - just point Virtualbox at the .iso
and go.

--
Les Cargill

On Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:19:21 -0800 "dave" wrote
in article


Mac OSX and Linux are cousins (both derived from from AT&T Unix).
Windows is based on patching and quilting and something called "Quick
and Dirty Operating System".

The fastest computers on earth all run Linux.

Mac OSX was derived from Berkeley Unix. Linux was written from the ground
up.

"geoff" wrote in message
...

It used to be necessary to optimise this and that, but now
with the extra cpu power available I don't dick with things...

When I talk about optimization, I mean in terms of how you want to use the
computer, and the things necessary to create an appropriate (and safe) working
environment. These vary from user to user.


...and simply install all suggested updates. And guess what --
zero problems for years now.

Well, I had a problem -- and I don't believe it was caused by incomplete
installation of the updates I'd perceived as dangerous.

I could try installing them again, and see what happens, knowing I can almost
certainly reverse the installation. (The worst that could happen is having to
reinstall Office 2000.) But I'm not going to. It isn't worth the trouble.

hank alrich forklarede:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

On 11/7/13 14:01 , William Sommerwerck wrote:
"sctvguy1" wrote in message ...

I dropped Windows years ago. Run Linux. No problems.

Does Linux run Word? Ventura? Photoshop? Interface with my AIBO? LEGOs?
Canon and Epson scanners?

Over the years, I have had little trouble with Windows. Contrary to what
some people might think, it is not scarier than blueberry pancakes.



I had an uncle killed by blueberry pancakes.

It was the antioxidants.

Or the free radicals.
"Oh James, _do_ be careful"

Leif

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.