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?)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:42:38 -0800, "Richard Johnson"
<richj@remove.this.tairedd.com> wrote:

>I don't think that Microsoft has written an Operating system with a in
>house designed and developed code to date.

Who developed NT?

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

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?)

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 (More info?)

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.




"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?)

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?)

Brian S. Craigie wrote:
> 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

Then post elsewhere.

--
I must admit, you brought Religion into my life.
I never believed in Hell until I met you.

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?)

Read the answer Before u know the Question !!!


Baronet Franklin Shakewill-Gacklelire wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>

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,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Brian S. Craigie wrote:

<snip stuff appearing incorrectly at the top of a post>

> On 30/12/2004 23:32, relic wrote:
>
>
>> Then post elsewhere.

??? A blank post? Nothing to say, not even Bye.

--
I must admit, you brought Religion into my life.
I never believed in Hell until I met you.

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?)

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.


> [ ... ] to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the
> answer?

Nah, if they're too lazy to trim the quoted material I just skip to
the next article. See, bottom posting is superior in every way :-)

--
pa at panix dot com