Repair Install and bypassing Activation - Page 2

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:01:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Yep. Do they still require that you have a business license? Last time I
>did an Action Pack was when NT 4 was fairly new.

Another deal is to attend a MS TS2 event and get a NFR copy of MS
Office 2003 Professional or Virtual PC. You only have to be an MS
Partner at no cost. They also give out door prizes at the events and
a code to get a discount on the subscriptions. You do not have to show
a license to be a Partner, but you do need a business name (i.e.
YourName Consulting or perhaps your employer). They may also ask for
a business card at the event, but I've never been asked. They do
expect that the attendees be involved it the IT industry. I also have
an NFR copy of Windows Server 2003 Professional Enterprise Edition
with 25 clients for attending a seminar (not given by MS). It's still
in the shrink wrap. The normal price for it is about $3K. The point
is, you don't have to steal SW to get free, but legal copies of some
expensive packages.

---------------------------------------------------------------

bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
to send me a message.

Bill Burlingame

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

To those questions that arose from my statement and opinion of Microsoft
Windows software:

DOS was acquired, not written by MS. That is a fact. I did not say they
ripped it off, but the DOS was a rip off (read that reverse engineered) from
CP/M - 8080 or z80 then ported to 8088/86. This is simply history. As I
said, I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with a in
house designed and developed code to date. Not that I don't think they as a
company can, it is just they haven't.

None of your responses seem to refute the concept that a product should
perform as advertised. Yes, 98 was better than 95 in the stability area.
SE was even better. ME....one step back. All had the issues of being
poorly designed in the error handling area. With any of those you could
load the OS, on a certified machine and within 24 - 48 hours the system
would typically need to be rebooted. NO other installed software. That is
in my opinion is fraud. It was not my first experience with computer system
and fraud. Commodore committed it when they sold their first batch of
C128's. Those were advertised to take 512 K memory expansion pack. But due
to a manufacturing error, they would not. Commodore failed to provide a
free fix or exchange. Thus, to me they ripped off the public and should
have been criminally charged. (Before that happened the public moved on to
other machines and Commodore went on to greater failures.) I put Microsoft
into that catagory.

As to the reason I used Microsoft. Work. I have been looking for another
option and have found one. It is running on one of my 5 laptops now. As I
gain exepertise on it I will move it to three of my four laptops. (One is
my wife's and she uses hers to interface with work and at this poiint
doesn't want to learn the new OS. The other runs specific PFAFF software and
cannot run under the new systrem.) I have XP on a desktop machine and the
only reason for that was simply to know the OS. It will also be converted
in the future.

By the way, I am a MCSE. Got it the hard way, self study, buying WinNT Back
office playing with it at home. I also am certified with VMS from DEC's
schools. (all three levels). I simply believe the consumer should get what
they are sold. An OS that works, without fail and has security built into
its fundemental structure. Anything else is IMHO stealing, thus those that
put anything else out IMHO are crooks. Nothing said so far has dissuaded
from that opinion.

Also as I have some influence in my employeers selection of operating
systems, I am lobbying for a change to something else. Within a decade I
would like to see a transition away from any MS boxes. I am sure MS has no
particular issue with this change either. After all it is only one customer
out of billions.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

It seems to me that some people don't understand why others start a
business. They do it to make money!!! It's not to provide jobs, a
service and/or a product. It order to make money, it's most likely
that they will provide jobs, a service and/or a product. It's the
obligation of a corporation to it's shareholders to maximize profits.
To do that, they need to optimize both the selling price and cost of
doing business. When they fail to make profits, the corporation dies.
The scene is littered with corporations who have failed to do so.
Whatever happened to Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, Osborne Computers,
Commodore Computers, Studebaker, Nash, Hudson, Packard, Montgomery
Ward, Woolworth's, the big steel companies in the rust belt, etc.
They failed to make profits for the shareholders. It looks like
Microsoft is succeeding. They must be doing something right. They
started very small. IBM was king when Gates started MS. He was like
a gnat on the rear of an elephant to IBM. They need to keep looking
over their should to see if there is another Bill Gates on the
horizon. I use MS products because I like them and I choose to do
so. I remember when the joy of computing was to watch the lights
flicker on the front panel - there was no OS, only the predecessor to
today's BIOS. I guess some of you would like to see MS fail. If they
did, I would suggest that the cost of software would increase, not
decrease.


---------------------------------------------------------------

bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
to send me a message.

Bill Burlingame

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Yes, you are right. People who post at the bottom are a real pain.
Posting at the top is the majority preferred default worldwide.

Warmest Felicitations,

Brian

On 27/12/2004 15:55, barbibiz wrote:


> BTW.... I dont quite understand that posting on the bottom anymore, all the
> emails I get follow on from the original post, so it doesnt take as long to
> just open each one and see the reply on the top other than having to scroll
> right to the bottom it can be quite a long way..
> Felicity
>
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

You dumb cunt.

"Brian S. Craigie" <bcraigie@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:eafvXYs7EHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
> Yes, you are right. People who post at the bottom are a real pain.
> Posting at the top is the majority preferred default worldwide.
>
> Warmest Felicitations,
>
> Brian
>
> On 27/12/2004 15:55, barbibiz wrote:
>
>
>> BTW.... I dont quite understand that posting on the bottom anymore,
>> all the emails I get follow on from the original post, so it doesnt
>> take as long to just open each one and see the reply on the top
>> other than having to scroll right to the bottom it can be quite a
>> long way..
>> Felicity

HTH, you dumb cunt.




--
Lunch was nice;

Barbequed monkey vomit and stinkbug ligament garnish accentuated with stewed
discarded douchebags and hedgehog labia vinegar, arranged in a congealing
deep dish heaped with well-done nut, small morsels of mutton, octopus and
pork, rutabaga broth, a side of pastries and a container of syphilis tea.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hmmm...

A somewhat ambiguous answer. Relic, you're not asking me to leave this
NG are you? ;-) Very funny. :-)

Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic here.
Seeing the person's response immediately "in your face" must surely be
preferable to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the
answer? Perhaps bottom posters are using a different newsreader that
jumps to the bottom of the post? Or some special technique?

Warmest Regards,

Brian

On 30/12/2004 23:32, relic wrote:


> Then post elsewhere.
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Richard Johnson wrote:

> To those questions that arose from my statement and opinion of Microsoft
> Windows software:
>
> DOS was acquired, not written by MS. That is a fact. I did not say they
> ripped it off, but the DOS was a rip off (read that reverse engineered)
> from
> CP/M - 8080 or z80 then ported to 8088/86.

Considering that CP/M wasn't any fantastic programming achievement, and
given that monitor type programs had been in use for decades by that time,
I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what? Are you suggesting that
current Microsoft operating systems are in any significant way dependent on
any part of DOS?

> This is simply history. As I
> said, I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with a
> in
> house designed and developed code to date.

So where was NT designed and developed?

> Not that I don't think they as
> a company can, it is just they haven't.
>
> None of your responses seem to refute the concept that a product should
> perform as advertised.

So what advertised properties are not provided? Please be kind enough to
quote the advertisement and then demonstrate the lack of compliance.

> Yes, 98 was better than 95 in the stability area.
> SE was even better. ME....one step back. All had the issues of being
> poorly designed in the error handling area.

The 9x series was designed for a specific marketing purpose and I believe
that if you ask them you will find that Microsoft makes no secret of the
fact that it was heavily compromised for that reason. If it hadn't been
then we'd still be using Windows 3 applications.

> With any of those you could
> load the OS, on a certified machine and within 24 - 48 hours the system
> would typically need to be rebooted.

"Certified" by who? I've not had this experience as "typical". Yeah, I've
encountered hardware on which this happened, but it was far from the norm.

> NO other installed software. That
> is
> in my opinion is fraud.

If failing to run for more than 24 hours on some piece of hardware when
nobody has promised that it will run for even 24 seconds on that hardware
is in your opinion "fraud", then I would suggest that you are not yet ready
to take the bar exam.

> It was not my first experience with computer
> system and fraud. Commodore committed it when they sold their first batch
> of
> C128's. Those were advertised to take 512 K memory expansion pack. But
> due
> to a manufacturing error, they would not. Commodore failed to provide a
> free fix or exchange. Thus, to me they ripped off the public and should
> have been criminally charged.

So why didn't you sue them?

> (Before that happened the public moved on
> to
> other machines and Commodore went on to greater failures.) I put
> Microsoft into that catagory.
>
> As to the reason I used Microsoft. Work. I have been looking for another
> option and have found one. It is running on one of my 5 laptops now. As I
> gain exepertise on it I will move it to three of my four laptops. (One is
> my wife's and she uses hers to interface with work and at this poiint
> doesn't want to learn the new OS. The other runs specific PFAFF software
> and
> cannot run under the new systrem.) I have XP on a desktop machine and the
> only reason for that was simply to know the OS. It will also be converted
> in the future.
>
> By the way, I am a MCSE.

You should only admit that in the dark with the lights off and the shades
drawn. It's not something to be proud of.

> Got it the hard way, self study, buying WinNT
> Back
> office playing with it at home. I also am certified with VMS from DEC's
> schools. (all three levels). I simply believe the consumer should get
> what
> they are sold. An OS that works, without fail and has security built into
> its fundemental structure.

Well, now if you can provide an operating system that "works without fail"
then the world will beat a path to your door. IBM has been trying to come
up with one for decades and not succeeded. While VMS was pretty good, it
could not be said to "work, without fail". As for "security being built
into its fundamental structure", what kind of security specifically?
"Security" covers a lot of territory.

> Anything else is IMHO stealing, thus those
> that
> put anything else out IMHO are crooks. Nothing said so far has dissuaded
> from that opinion.

Except that by your criteria IBM, Novell, DEC, Apple, BSD, all the OS
providers out there are "crooks" and "stealing". Your expectations are
unrealistic. Take a couple of years of CS sometime--you write your first
operating system, generally something about as complex as MS-DOS, around
the later part of your sophomore year in most such curricula. After you've
done that if you still think that your expectations are realistic get back
to us.

> Also as I have some influence in my employeers selection of operating
> systems, I am lobbying for a change to something else.

Like what that is not in your opinion fraud perpetrated by crooks?

> Within a decade I
> would like to see a transition away from any MS boxes.

You mean you're trying to run your business on videogame consoles? If so, I
would agree that transitioning to computers would be a wise decision. If
you don't mean that you're running on Xboxes, then what kind of "MS boxes"
are you running?

> I am sure MS has
> no
> particular issue with this change either. After all it is only one
> customer out of billions.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thanks Pierre,

On 31/12/2004 01:23, Pierre Asselin wrote:

> In comp.sys.laptops Brian S. Craigie <bcraigie@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic
>>[ of bottom posting ] here. Seeing the person's response immediately
>>"in your face" must surely be preferable [ ... ]
>
>
> No, it's worse. No context. You're supposed to trim the original
> and respond *after* the original points are made.

I understand about the context, but can anyone point me to the document
that says top posting is not allowed?

Thanks Pierre! :-)

Brian

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

DOS could not run CP/M applications -- they used different CPUs.

I personally knew and worked with both Gary Kildall and Bill Gates and I
have extensive CP/M and SCP 86-DOS experience. (86-DOS was it's name
before MS bought it from Seattle Computer Products). I still use and
implement CP/M system to this day.

86-DOS, written by Tim Patterson of SCP, copied much of the user
interface and API (applications interface) from CP/M, but it was not
CP/M and it would not run CP/M programs (e.g. object code). But the
similar API did make conversion of CP/M programs easier than it would
have been if everyting had been new from scratch.

IBM didn't want to market CP/M-86 at all (note, by the way, CP/M-86,
which is NOT the same as CP/M (one being for the 8080 CPU and the other
being for the x86 CPU)), but they were contractually obligated to offer
it, so they priced it at $200 with the intent being that the price would
kill it, which it did. [Later, Digital Research offered CP/M-86
directly for $40, but it was too late.]

It's simply not true that Windows 9x (from 95 up) were just DOS apps.
They incorporated DOS code, and booted up from (through?) it, but
there's no way to say that they are nothing more than DOS apps. DOS
runs in "real mode" and couldn't run anything like Windows 95 as an "app".



William J. Burlingame wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:49:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
>>not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
>>history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what?
>
>
> DOS was made written to take advantage of the then large list of
> applications written for CP/M. DOS could run CP/M applications. As I
> said in another post, IBM also marketed a version of CP/M for the PC,
> but it was priced much higher than DOS. Windows ME and it's
> predecessors were nothing but large DOS applications. The systems
> booted in DOS and ran Windows as an application. MS developed NT as
> an OS not based on DOS. In order to run DOS SW in NT, they had to
> emulate DOS. BTW, I see nothing wrong with making a product that is
> compatible with another. Also, I wasn't complaining about Mr. Clark's
> post, just tried to answer a question.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
> to send me a message.
>
> Bill Burlingame

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Guess I was misinformed. It's been a long time, but I thought I
remembered re-assembling CP/M programs to run under DOS. I can't
remember if I had to make any changes in the source or not. I didn't
mean to imply that you could run the executable, but that developers
could easily port their SW to DOS with no or few changes in the
source.

Didn't Windows boot into DOS and run the Win command and couldn't an
app put the computer into protected mode and take over? As I recall,
before Windows was widespread, a company named Pharlap provided a way
for developers to write applications to run programs in protected
mode in just that manner.

I retired ten years ago and it's been a lot of years since I've
written any code and I do have the excuse of having "senior moments".
Today is the first time I've even thought about the subject for many
years and your comments are jogging my memory a little.


On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:01:42 GMT, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>DOS could not run CP/M applications -- they used different CPUs.
>
>I personally knew and worked with both Gary Kildall and Bill Gates and I
>have extensive CP/M and SCP 86-DOS experience. (86-DOS was it's name
>before MS bought it from Seattle Computer Products). I still use and
>implement CP/M system to this day.
>
>86-DOS, written by Tim Patterson of SCP, copied much of the user
>interface and API (applications interface) from CP/M, but it was not
>CP/M and it would not run CP/M programs (e.g. object code). But the
>similar API did make conversion of CP/M programs easier than it would
>have been if everyting had been new from scratch.
>
>IBM didn't want to market CP/M-86 at all (note, by the way, CP/M-86,
>which is NOT the same as CP/M (one being for the 8080 CPU and the other
>being for the x86 CPU)), but they were contractually obligated to offer
>it, so they priced it at $200 with the intent being that the price would
>kill it, which it did. [Later, Digital Research offered CP/M-86
>directly for $40, but it was too late.]
>
>It's simply not true that Windows 9x (from 95 up) were just DOS apps.
>They incorporated DOS code, and booted up from (through?) it, but
>there's no way to say that they are nothing more than DOS apps. DOS
>runs in "real mode" and couldn't run anything like Windows 95 as an "app".
>
>
>
>William J. Burlingame wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:49:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
>>>not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
>>>history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what?
>>
>>
>> DOS was made written to take advantage of the then large list of
>> applications written for CP/M. DOS could run CP/M applications. As I
>> said in another post, IBM also marketed a version of CP/M for the PC,
>> but it was priced much higher than DOS. Windows ME and it's
>> predecessors were nothing but large DOS applications. The systems
>> booted in DOS and ran Windows as an application. MS developed NT as
>> an OS not based on DOS. In order to run DOS SW in NT, they had to
>> emulate DOS. BTW, I see nothing wrong with making a product that is
>> compatible with another. Also, I wasn't complaining about Mr. Clark's
>> post, just tried to answer a question.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
>> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
>> to send me a message.
>>
>> Bill Burlingame

---------------------------------------------------------------

bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
to send me a message.

Bill Burlingame

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:cr28am12of@news1.newsguy.com...
> Richard Johnson wrote:
>
> > To those questions that arose from my statement and opinion of Microsoft
> > Windows software:
> >
> > DOS was acquired, not written by MS. That is a fact. I did not say
they
> > ripped it off, but the DOS was a rip off (read that reverse engineered)
> > from
> > CP/M - 8080 or z80 then ported to 8088/86.
>
> Considering that CP/M wasn't any fantastic programming achievement, and
> given that monitor type programs had been in use for decades by that time,
> I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
> not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
> history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what? Are you suggesting that
> current Microsoft operating systems are in any significant way dependent
on
> any part of DOS?
>
> > This is simply history. As I
> > said, I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with
a
> > in
> > house designed and developed code to date.
>
> So where was NT designed and developed?
I
BM OS/2 team in conjunction with MS
>
> > Not that I don't think they as
> > a company can, it is just they haven't.
> >
> > None of your responses seem to refute the concept that a product should
> > perform as advertised.
>
> So what advertised properties are not provided? Please be kind enough to
> quote the advertisement and then demonstrate the lack of compliance.
>
Simply the fact they said it was an Operating system. The consumer has a
right to expect that what they pay for is reliable. Aside from that,
pulling out the old advertisments is a bit of a push, but I would bet that
it said it was reliable.

> > Yes, 98 was better than 95 in the stability area.
> > SE was even better. ME....one step back. All had the issues of being
> > poorly designed in the error handling area.
>
> The 9x series was designed for a specific marketing purpose and I believe

> that if you ask them you will find that Microsoft makes no secret of the
> fact that it was heavily compromised for that reason. If it hadn't been
> then we'd still be using Windows 3 applications.
>
> > With any of those you could
> > load the OS, on a certified machine and within 24 - 48 hours the system
> > would typically need to be rebooted.
>
> "Certified" by who? I've not had this experience as "typical". Yeah,
I've
> encountered hardware on which this happened, but it was far from the norm.
Remember Microsoft's certification? I do.
>
> > NO other installed software. That
> > is
> > in my opinion is fraud.
>
> If failing to run for more than 24 hours on some piece of hardware when
> nobody has promised that it will run for even 24 seconds on that hardware
> is in your opinion "fraud", then I would suggest that you are not yet
ready
> to take the bar exam.
>
> > It was not my first experience with computer
> > system and fraud. Commodore committed it when they sold their first
batch
> > of
> > C128's. Those were advertised to take 512 K memory expansion pack. But
> > due
> > to a manufacturing error, they would not. Commodore failed to provide a
> > free fix or exchange. Thus, to me they ripped off the public and should
> > have been criminally charged.
>
> So why didn't you sue them?
>
> > (Before that happened the public moved on
> > to
> > other machines and Commodore went on to greater failures.) I put
> > Microsoft into that catagory.
> >
> > As to the reason I used Microsoft. Work. I have been looking for
another
> > option and have found one. It is running on one of my 5 laptops now. As
I
> > gain exepertise on it I will move it to three of my four laptops. (One
is
> > my wife's and she uses hers to interface with work and at this poiint
> > doesn't want to learn the new OS. The other runs specific PFAFF software
> > and
> > cannot run under the new systrem.) I have XP on a desktop machine and
the
> > only reason for that was simply to know the OS. It will also be
converted
> > in the future.
> >
> > By the way, I am a MCSE.
>
> You should only admit that in the dark with the lights off and the shades
> drawn. It's not something to be proud of.
>
> > Got it the hard way, self study, buying WinNT
> > Back
> > office playing with it at home. I also am certified with VMS from
DEC's
> > schools. (all three levels). I simply believe the consumer should get
> > what
> > they are sold. An OS that works, without fail and has security built
into
> > its fundemental structure.
>
> Well, now if you can provide an operating system that "works without fail"
> then the world will beat a path to your door. IBM has been trying to come
> up with one for decades and not succeeded. While VMS was pretty good, it
> could not be said to "work, without fail". As for "security being built
> into its fundamental structure", what kind of security specifically?
> "Security" covers a lot of territory.
>
> > Anything else is IMHO stealing, thus those
> > that
> > put anything else out IMHO are crooks. Nothing said so far has
dissuaded
> > from that opinion.
>
> Except that by your criteria IBM, Novell, DEC, Apple, BSD, all the OS
> providers out there are "crooks" and "stealing". Your expectations are
> unrealistic. Take a couple of years of CS sometime--you write your first
Oh, so anyone that expects things to work properly, and without fail when
they spend their hard earned dollars has to take a CS course and write their
own OS.

No, I believe that is what they paid for with they bought it. You might
believe it is unrealistic, but others do not. You therefore are the one the
MS wants to sell to, and have a fun time with it.

> operating system, generally something about as complex as MS-DOS, around
> the later part of your sophomore year in most such curricula. After
you've
> done that if you still think that your expectations are realistic get back
> to us.
>
> > Also as I have some influence in my employeers selection of operating
> > systems, I am lobbying for a change to something else.
>
> Like what that is not in your opinion fraud perpetrated by crooks?
>
Linux, it is free - no charge - Can't say anyone that puts it out is a
crook, because they do not charge for it. (This is only an example, I do not
advocate using it without having some considerable experience.) There are
distrubutions of other OS's based upon that core that are good as well, but
you pay for their installation systems and aggration of drivers etc.

> > Within a decade I
> > would like to see a transition away from any MS boxes.

MS box here is simply short hand for servers and desktops running Windows
2000 pro or XP pro. (As if someone of your obvious intelligence could not
figure that out.)

>
> You mean you're trying to run your business on videogame consoles? If so,
I
> would agree that transitioning to computers would be a wise decision. If
> you don't mean that you're running on Xboxes, then what kind of "MS boxes"
> are you running?
>
No Linux, Unix, etc. I have already started the process, and it progresses
successfully. Oracle is taking over for Exchange as well, but I had nothing
to do with that.

> > I am sure MS has
> > no
> > particular issue with this change either. After all it is only one
> > customer out of billions.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"William J. Burlingame" <wjburl@bs.net> wrote in message
news:ljt8t0t2i9ov8dt869tabe94bncv4bt08o@4ax.com...
> It seems to me that some people don't understand why others start a
> business. They do it to make money!!! It's not to provide jobs, a
> service and/or a product. It order to make money, it's most likely
> that they will provide jobs, a service and/or a product. It's the
> obligation of a corporation to it's shareholders to maximize profits.
> To do that, they need to optimize both the selling price and cost of
> doing business. When they fail to make profits, the corporation dies.
> The scene is littered with corporations who have failed to do so.
> Whatever happened to Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, Osborne Computers,
> Commodore Computers, Studebaker, Nash, Hudson, Packard, Montgomery
> Ward, Woolworth's, the big steel companies in the rust belt, etc.
> They failed to make profits for the shareholders. It looks like
> Microsoft is succeeding. They must be doing something right. They
> started very small. IBM was king when Gates started MS. He was like
> a gnat on the rear of an elephant to IBM. They need to keep looking
> over their should to see if there is another Bill Gates on the
> horizon. I use MS products because I like them and I choose to do
> so. I remember when the joy of computing was to watch the lights
> flicker on the front panel - there was no OS, only the predecessor to
> today's BIOS. I guess some of you would like to see MS fail. If they
> did, I would suggest that the cost of software would increase, not
> decrease.
>
Bill:

I am very Capitalist. I do not want to see them fail. A part and parcel of
Capitalism is when you sell someone a product, nothing should be hidden from
them. You never sell your customer products you know have defects unless
you let them know what those defects or limitations are. If you made
errors in the product you should refund the purchase price or at least a
depreciated purchase price, or let people it is "as is". (Up front and in
BIG LETTERS.) Business, in order to work, has to adhere to laws and ethics.
I do not believe that Microsoft adheres to the law, or ethical practice in
this case. Laws and ethics are the structure business, good business, is
built upon. I just don't see Microsoft doing that. In fact in all of this
I hope that they reform and get down to making good deals. (A good deal is
where the Customer is satisfied and the Business is satisfied after the
transaction. I don't see that normally with Microsoft's operating systems.)
Those businesses that fail to adhere to this good deal will go out of
business unless they have a monopoly on something. (Microsoft so far has
come very close to that, but not yet.)

Just as a comparison, look at another company. One in a business everyone
currently hates. A drug company. Remember Johnson & Johnson during the
Tylenol poisoning fiasco? The ethics of that company by recalling their
product and replacing the packaging with tamper resistant packaging is an
example of ethical business practices. (Heck, the issue was not even their
fault, and they did it.) That is a company with ethics and one that I will
buy product from and even give them more slack when other issues arise,
because I know their ethical practices would not let them put out a
defective product on purpose. There are many other examples.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

William J. Burlingame wrote:

> Guess I was misinformed. It's been a long time, but I thought I
> remembered re-assembling CP/M programs to run under DOS. I can't
> remember if I had to make any changes in the source or not. I didn't
> mean to imply that you could run the executable, but that developers
> could easily port their SW to DOS with no or few changes in the
> source.
>
> Didn't Windows boot into DOS and run the Win command and couldn't an
> app put the computer into protected mode and take over? As I recall,
> before Windows was widespread, a company named Pharlap provided a way
> for developers to write applications to run programs in protected
> mode in just that manner.

While this is true it does not mean that Windows 9x is a "DOS application".
Novell works in an exactly analogous manner, and nobody who knows his butt
from a hole in the ground has ever accused Netware of being a "DOS
application". It just uses DOS for a boot loader.

One can (or could at one time anyway) also configure a Linux box so that one
can boot DOS and then start Linux from a DOS prompt. Does that mean that
Linux is a "DOS application"?

> I retired ten years ago and it's been a lot of years since I've
> written any code and I do have the excuse of having "senior moments".
> Today is the first time I've even thought about the subject for many
> years and your comments are jogging my memory a little.
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:01:42 GMT, Barry Watzman
> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>DOS could not run CP/M applications -- they used different CPUs.
>>
>>I personally knew and worked with both Gary Kildall and Bill Gates and I
>>have extensive CP/M and SCP 86-DOS experience. (86-DOS was it's name
>>before MS bought it from Seattle Computer Products). I still use and
>>implement CP/M system to this day.
>>
>>86-DOS, written by Tim Patterson of SCP, copied much of the user
>>interface and API (applications interface) from CP/M, but it was not
>>CP/M and it would not run CP/M programs (e.g. object code). But the
>>similar API did make conversion of CP/M programs easier than it would
>>have been if everyting had been new from scratch.
>>
>>IBM didn't want to market CP/M-86 at all (note, by the way, CP/M-86,
>>which is NOT the same as CP/M (one being for the 8080 CPU and the other
>>being for the x86 CPU)), but they were contractually obligated to offer
>>it, so they priced it at $200 with the intent being that the price would
>>kill it, which it did. [Later, Digital Research offered CP/M-86
>>directly for $40, but it was too late.]
>>
>>It's simply not true that Windows 9x (from 95 up) were just DOS apps.
>>They incorporated DOS code, and booted up from (through?) it, but
>>there's no way to say that they are nothing more than DOS apps. DOS
>>runs in "real mode" and couldn't run anything like Windows 95 as an "app".
>>
>>
>>
>>William J. Burlingame wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:49:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
>>>>not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
>>>>history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what?
>>>
>>>
>>> DOS was made written to take advantage of the then large list of
>>> applications written for CP/M. DOS could run CP/M applications. As I
>>> said in another post, IBM also marketed a version of CP/M for the PC,
>>> but it was priced much higher than DOS. Windows ME and it's
>>> predecessors were nothing but large DOS applications. The systems
>>> booted in DOS and ran Windows as an application. MS developed NT as
>>> an OS not based on DOS. In order to run DOS SW in NT, they had to
>>> emulate DOS. BTW, I see nothing wrong with making a product that is
>>> compatible with another. Also, I wasn't complaining about Mr. Clark's
>>> post, just tried to answer a question.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
>>> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
>>> to send me a message.
>>>
>>> Bill Burlingame
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
> to send me a message.
>
> Bill Burlingame

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brian S. Craigie wrote:
> A somewhat ambiguous answer. Relic, you're not asking me to leave this
> NG are you? ;-) Very funny. :-)
>
> Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic here. Seeing
> the person's response immediately "in your face" must surely be
> preferable to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the
> answer? Perhaps bottom posters are using a different newsreader that
> jumps to the bottom of the post? Or some special technique?

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, its not like its majorly
complicated. I've done both, usually I just do my mailer/news reader
default. With thunderbird its bottom posting. Its pretty much what a
person feels comfortable with. For one, some people don't mind
scrolling down, for two, if you're too lazy to scroll down then the
message probably wasn't overly important to you anyway.

I can see the logic in what you are saying, but the flow of a
conversation can be preserved by posting throughout the message or at
its bottom.

I don't think you should leave the NG, but I think you should stop
buggin others about it, same with the bottom posting nazi's out there.
- --
David Wade Hagar AKA Cyclops

http://members.cox.net/dwhagar
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dwhagar
http://genius-of-lunacy.blogspot.com/

"It's sick, but it serves a purpose." - Bill Cosby
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: http://members.cox.net/dwhagar/personal-key.asc
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkHVKgMACgkQbPwf4VgkRDvaiQCgrJ0svu8wCZxcwGdx15LtLd6s
LMoAoJLeoITYAMNfkZQbImiOrivkF8Y4
=xRdr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I didn't say, or even imply, that I've accepted Microsoft's way of doing
business. I said that my experience with some Microsoft products, and in
particular NT and XP, has been very good.


"Richard Johnson" <richj@remove.this.tairedd.com> wrote in message
news:cr2k0o0u9a@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Michael Rainey" <rainey47@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:33jf4gF3v56quU1@individual.net...
> > I don't have the depth of knowledge of some of you fellows, but I have
> made
> > my living with computers for the past twenty four years.
> >
> > I use NT at work. I routinely have a dozen or so applications open at
> once,
> > including AutoCAD 14, Excel 97, Word 97, VB6, Fastlook, Notes, and some
> > other smaller titles. I work the hell out of it all day long. It's
fast
> (a
> > mere P3-733, 256 MB) and stable. I leave it on at night and have only
had
> > to reboot once in the past six months or so. Individual applications
> > (especially Excel) crash now and then, but NT keeps on truckin.
> >
> > I have a newer laptop at home, running XP Home. Everything good I just
> said
> > about NT applies to XP, except that Excel seems to be more stable and
the
> > fonts display better. I just put XP on my wife's Athlon 850 desktop,
> > replacing 98SE (which was starting to get too many blue screens). All
her
> > programs actually seem to run faster with XP than with 98SE.
> >
> > I install security updates as they become available (none for NT of
> course),
> > use up-to-date antivirus and spyware programs, and add a little common
> > sense. I haven't had my system trashed yet.
> >
> > I'm very happy with NT and XP.
> >
> >
>
> That is fine by me. You have accepted Microsoft's way of doing business
and
> if you are happy with it as a way, then it is a good deal to you. Enjoy!
>
> >
> > "William J. Burlingame" <wjburl@bs.net> wrote in message
> > news0s7t0tb4edbp1rv0p566umffb06f42otl@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:01:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> > > <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Yep. Do they still require that you have a business license? Last
> time
> > I
> > > >did an Action Pack was when NT 4 was fairly new.
> > >
> > > Another deal is to attend a MS TS2 event and get a NFR copy of MS
> > > Office 2003 Professional or Virtual PC. You only have to be an MS
> > > Partner at no cost. They also give out door prizes at the events and
> > > a code to get a discount on the subscriptions. You do not have to show
> > > a license to be a Partner, but you do need a business name (i.e.
> > > YourName Consulting or perhaps your employer). They may also ask for
> > > a business card at the event, but I've never been asked. They do
> > > expect that the attendees be involved it the IT industry. I also have
> > > an NFR copy of Windows Server 2003 Professional Enterprise Edition
> > > with 25 clients for attending a seminar (not given by MS). It's still
> > > in the shrink wrap. The normal price for it is about $3K. The point
> > > is, you don't have to steal SW to get free, but legal copies of some
> > > expensive packages.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
> > > amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
> > > to send me a message.
> > >
> > > Bill Burlingame
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Terry" <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com> wrote
:
: Yes and you top-posting while the context is bottom-posted would be more
: akin to a heart surgeon going in through your rectum.
:
: --
: Terry

A heart surgeon can fit up a rectum? How so?
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news4hBd.202535$Np3.8466946@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> A somewhat ambiguous answer. Relic, you're not asking me to leave this
>> NG are you? ;-) Very funny. :-)
>>
>> Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic here. Seeing
>> the person's response immediately "in your face" must surely be
>> preferable to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the
>> answer? Perhaps bottom posters are using a different newsreader that
>> jumps to the bottom of the post? Or some special technique?
>>
>> Warmest Regards,
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 30/12/2004 23:32, relic wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Then post elsewhere.
>
> Because, when you respond to a top-poster, the comment you are responding
> to is not directly above your post, but is way at the top of the thread
> tree, which (since many posters don't know how to ship) can be a mile
> long. This means that your remarks and the post you are remarking on
> appear unconnected. When you top-post, it is discourteous to the *next*
> person who posts. That's the main reason for not doing it.

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

If it's done right, with some snipping done to keep it lean, bottom posting
is what makes the most sense. Original question or comment at the top, and
the latest answer following. Unless of course you read the back page of the
book first, do you?

If so, I'm sure you can find a newsgroup that encourages top posting
somewhere.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alias wrote:
> A heart surgeon can fit up a rectum? How so?

Only if they are far smaller than average. And why on EARTH is this
being cross posted?
- --
David Wade Hagar AKA Cyclops

http://members.cox.net/dwhagar
http://www.livejournal.com/users/dwhagar
http://genius-of-lunacy.blogspot.com/

"It's sick, but it serves a purpose." - Bill Cosby
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: http://members.cox.net/dwhagar/personal-key.asc
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkHV5S8ACgkQbPwf4VgkRDva5ACglLVm6OFVp9kIo74DaEvYOlNJ
oyIAniYz+ZV0SiyXzfjL3hcEEQr5DCbt
=jfzD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 23:58:12 +0000, "Brian S. Craigie"

>Seeing the person's response immediately "in your face" must surely be
>preferable to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the
>answer?

It goes about the complexity of the answer, really.

If the reply isn't related to any particular part of the quoted post,
then for that reply, top or bottom is much the same. And I agree, I'd
rather see that reply "in my face" than have to scroll down.

Where things go sour, is when that reply is itself replied to. In
really busy newsgroups, one often loses posts and enters a thread
midway through - and in that situation, it's far easier to read from
the beginning to the end, rather than latest to oldest.

With complex replies, I prefer context quoting, as I'm doing here. It
allows one's comments to be linked to specific parts of the quoted
material, and with the sort of complex stuff we see here - details of
troubleshooting, etc. - that clarity can be essential.

>Perhaps bottom posters are using a different newsreader that
>jumps to the bottom of the post?

Some news editors situate the edit point at the top, others at the
bottom. Free Agent (what I use) starts at the top, but I move down.

What's really annoying is where posters don't trim quoted material at
all, possibly out of laziness. Posters who are *that* lazy are
unlikely to move the edit position at all; they just start typing
wherever it happens to be - and I think this is what has given
top-posters a really bad name; not so much that they top post, but
that they don't trim the quoted material (which can be large).



>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
A. Top posters ;-)
Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <eafvXYs7EHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, bcraigie@bigfoot.com
> says...
>
>>Yes, you are right. People who post at the bottom are a real pain.
>>Posting at the top is the majority preferred default worldwide.
>
>
> Usenet was around long before MS ever thought about the internet and
> Posting at the bottom permitted proper reading of any post. Posting in-
> line or at the bottom has ALWAYS been the norm and proper when using
> Usenet (you can check yourself, just search google for Usenet Eticate).

Your search - "Usenet Eticate" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.

To paraphrase:
I'm right and you're wrong. And here's proof...and that's wrong too...
Don't you just love the web...
mike

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Richard Johnson wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:cr28am12of@news1.newsguy.com...
>> Richard Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > To those questions that arose from my statement and opinion of
>> > Microsoft Windows software:
>> >
>> > DOS was acquired, not written by MS. That is a fact. I did not say
> they
>> > ripped it off, but the DOS was a rip off (read that reverse engineered)
>> > from
>> > CP/M - 8080 or z80 then ported to 8088/86.
>>
>> Considering that CP/M wasn't any fantastic programming achievement, and
>> given that monitor type programs had been in use for decades by that
>> time, I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from
>> CP/M" and not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is
>> simply
>> history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what? Are you suggesting that
>> current Microsoft operating systems are in any significant way dependent
> on
>> any part of DOS?
>>
>> > This is simply history. As I
>> > said, I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with
> a
>> > in
>> > house designed and developed code to date.
>>
>> So where was NT designed and developed?
> I
> BM OS/2 team in conjunction with MS
>>
>> > Not that I don't think they as
>> > a company can, it is just they haven't.
>> >
>> > None of your responses seem to refute the concept that a product should
>> > perform as advertised.
>>
>> So what advertised properties are not provided? Please be kind enough to
>> quote the advertisement and then demonstrate the lack of compliance.
>>
> Simply the fact they said it was an Operating system. The consumer has a
> right to expect that what they pay for is reliable. Aside from that,
> pulling out the old advertisments is a bit of a push, but I would bet that
> it said it was reliable.

When you know for sure get back to us. In any case, how do they define
"reliable"?

IBM called OS/360 an "operating system". It was so bad that they ended up
starting over from scratch. So I guess that it was a ripoff.

When someone figures out how to write an operating system that, by your
standards, is "reliable", then it will be reasonable to expect that an
operating system is "reliable" by your standards.

>> > Yes, 98 was better than 95 in the stability area.
>> > SE was even better. ME....one step back. All had the issues of being
>> > poorly designed in the error handling area.
>>
>> The 9x series was designed for a specific marketing purpose and I believe
>
>> that if you ask them you will find that Microsoft makes no secret of the
>> fact that it was heavily compromised for that reason. If it hadn't been
>> then we'd still be using Windows 3 applications.
>>
>> > With any of those you could
>> > load the OS, on a certified machine and within 24 - 48 hours the system
>> > would typically need to be rebooted.
>>
>> "Certified" by who? I've not had this experience as "typical". Yeah,
> I've
>> encountered hardware on which this happened, but it was far from the
>> norm.
> Remember Microsoft's certification? I do.

Yes, I remember Microsoft's certification of particular hardware. What of
it? Was there a guarantee of "reliable" operation with "reliable" defined
according to your view? And "certified" does not mean "without flaw".
It's amazing how often swapping out RAM fixes Windows.

>> > NO other installed software. That
>> > is
>> > in my opinion is fraud.
>>
>> If failing to run for more than 24 hours on some piece of hardware when
>> nobody has promised that it will run for even 24 seconds on that hardware
>> is in your opinion "fraud", then I would suggest that you are not yet
> ready
>> to take the bar exam.
>>
>> > It was not my first experience with computer
>> > system and fraud. Commodore committed it when they sold their first
> batch
>> > of
>> > C128's. Those were advertised to take 512 K memory expansion pack.
>> > But due
>> > to a manufacturing error, they would not. Commodore failed to provide
>> > a
>> > free fix or exchange. Thus, to me they ripped off the public and
>> > should have been criminally charged.
>>
>> So why didn't you sue them?
>>
>> > (Before that happened the public moved on
>> > to
>> > other machines and Commodore went on to greater failures.) I put
>> > Microsoft into that catagory.
>> >
>> > As to the reason I used Microsoft. Work. I have been looking for
> another
>> > option and have found one. It is running on one of my 5 laptops now.
>> > As
> I
>> > gain exepertise on it I will move it to three of my four laptops. (One
> is
>> > my wife's and she uses hers to interface with work and at this poiint
>> > doesn't want to learn the new OS. The other runs specific PFAFF
>> > software and
>> > cannot run under the new systrem.) I have XP on a desktop machine and
> the
>> > only reason for that was simply to know the OS. It will also be
> converted
>> > in the future.
>> >
>> > By the way, I am a MCSE.
>>
>> You should only admit that in the dark with the lights off and the shades
>> drawn. It's not something to be proud of.
>>
>> > Got it the hard way, self study, buying WinNT
>> > Back
>> > office playing with it at home. I also am certified with VMS from
> DEC's
>> > schools. (all three levels). I simply believe the consumer should get
>> > what
>> > they are sold. An OS that works, without fail and has security built
> into
>> > its fundemental structure.
>>
>> Well, now if you can provide an operating system that "works without
>> fail"
>> then the world will beat a path to your door. IBM has been trying to
>> come
>> up with one for decades and not succeeded. While VMS was pretty good, it
>> could not be said to "work, without fail". As for "security being built
>> into its fundamental structure", what kind of security specifically?
>> "Security" covers a lot of territory.
>>
>> > Anything else is IMHO stealing, thus those
>> > that
>> > put anything else out IMHO are crooks. Nothing said so far has
> dissuaded
>> > from that opinion.
>>
>> Except that by your criteria IBM, Novell, DEC, Apple, BSD, all the OS
>> providers out there are "crooks" and "stealing". Your expectations are
>> unrealistic. Take a couple of years of CS sometime--you write your first

> Oh, so anyone that expects things to work properly, and without fail when
> they spend their hard earned dollars has to take a CS course and write
> their own OS.

No, _you_ need to so that you understand why your standards are not
realistic.

> No, I believe that is what they paid for with they bought it. You might
> believe it is unrealistic, but others do not.

Who are these "others"?

> You therefore are the one
> the MS wants to sell to, and have a fun time with it.

No, I am "the one" who has actually written an operating system, albeit a
simple one, and thus have a much better perspective on the issues involved
than you do.

>> operating system, generally something about as complex as MS-DOS, around
>> the later part of your sophomore year in most such curricula. After
> you've
>> done that if you still think that your expectations are realistic get
>> back to us.
>>
>> > Also as I have some influence in my employeers selection of operating
>> > systems, I am lobbying for a change to something else.
>>
>> Like what that is not in your opinion fraud perpetrated by crooks?
>>
> Linux, it is free - no charge - Can't say anyone that puts it out is a
> crook, because they do not charge for it. (This is only an example, I do
> not
> advocate using it without having some considerable experience.) There are
> distrubutions of other OS's based upon that core that are good as well,
> but you pay for their installation systems and aggration of drivers etc.

I see, so it's not the bugs to which you object but the fact that they
charge for it? So if Microsoft gave away Windows then you would be happy
with them?

>> > Within a decade I
>> > would like to see a transition away from any MS boxes.
>
> MS box here is simply short hand for servers and desktops running Windows
> 2000 pro or XP pro. (As if someone of your obvious intelligence could not
> figure that out.)

Be precise in your writing and people will be less likely to misunderstand
you.

>> You mean you're trying to run your business on videogame consoles? If
>> so,
> I
>> would agree that transitioning to computers would be a wise decision. If
>> you don't mean that you're running on Xboxes, then what kind of "MS
>> boxes" are you running?
>>
> No Linux, Unix, etc. I have already started the process, and it
> progresses
> successfully. Oracle is taking over for Exchange as well, but I had
> nothing to do with that.

And what are you expecting out of this? If it is "reliability" then you
have a surprise coming.

>> > I am sure MS has
>> > no
>> > particular issue with this change either. After all it is only one
>> > customer out of billions.
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Richard Johnson wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:cr28am12of@news1.newsguy.com...
<snip>

>> > This is simply history. As I
>> > said, I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with
> a
>> > in
>> > house designed and developed code to date.
>>
>> So where was NT designed and developed?
> I
> BM OS/2 team in conjunction with MS

Where did you ever get _that_ idea? The guy who developed NT was hired from
DEC where he developed VMS. No DEC guy is _about_ to base his OS on
anything from IBM.


<snip>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:

> "J. Clarke" <jclarke@nospam.invalid> writes:
>> >> So where was NT designed and developed?
>> > I
>> > BM OS/2 team in conjunction with MS
>>
>> Where did you ever get _that_ idea? The guy who developed NT was hired
>> from
>> DEC where he developed VMS. No DEC guy is _about_ to base his OS on
>> anything from IBM.
>
> Are you talking about Rick Rashid? I thought he was hired from CMU.

No, David Cutler.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)