On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com>
put finger to keyboard and composed:
>I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
<sigh>
Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot unreliable,
Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for
W98.
In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses. As
Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really be
the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its getting
updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what to go to,
check outside of Microsoft...
"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com>
| put finger to keyboard and composed:
|
| >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
|
| <sigh>
|
| Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot unreliable,
| Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
|
| It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for
| W98.
|
| In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses. As
| Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really be
| the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
|
| - Franc Zabkar
| --
| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
If you're worried about still using 9X on the Internet and it finally does
become impossible to find 9X applications, put up a Linux server if front of
your 9X OS or network to access and filter the traffic, and supply the
missing support. There are some free servers out there...
"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its getting
| updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what to go to,
| check outside of Microsoft...
|
| --
| MEB
| http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| --
| _________
|
|
| "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
| news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
| | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com>
| | put finger to keyboard and composed:
| |
| | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
| |
| | <sigh>
| |
| | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot unreliable,
| | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
| |
| | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for
| | W98.
| |
| | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses. As
| | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really be
| | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
| |
| | - Franc Zabkar
| | --
| | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
|
|
Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy thinker you
really are.
WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was dead several
years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual quirks, bit of
a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its getting
> updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what to go to,
> check outside of Microsoft...
>
> --
> MEB
> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
>
> "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
> | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com>
> | put finger to keyboard and composed:
> |
> | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
> |
> | <sigh>
> |
> | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot unreliable,
> | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
> |
> | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for
> | W98.
> |
> | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses. As
> | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really be
> | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
> |
> | - Franc Zabkar
> | --
> | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
>
>
No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its new
itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and defunct OS
Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS, but it, at
least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it as it is.
"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy thinker
you
| really are.
|
| WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was dead
several
| years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual quirks, bit
of
| a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| http://grystmill.com
|
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its
getting
| > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what to go
to,
| > check outside of Microsoft...
| >
| > --
| > MEB
| > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > --
| > _________
| >
| >
| > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
| > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
| > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com>
| > | put finger to keyboard and composed:
| > |
| > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
| > |
| > | <sigh>
| > |
| > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot unreliable,
| > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
| > |
| > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for
| > | W98.
| > |
| > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses. As
| > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really be
| > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
| > |
| > | - Franc Zabkar
| > | --
| > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
| >
| >
|
|
"Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a dictionary and
perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner it's you,
because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic (except a
minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in dreamland.)
Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a stable
environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same thing
applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more stable than 9x
systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is quickly
maturing to that same state.
As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I really
think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real world, like I
do?
XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major OS for
PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's iterations will
stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe 2015. Or
even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce a
non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure isn't
anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will replace
them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.
And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative usage of
OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real stats to
show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats lie, they
don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my stats are
mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid caveats that
would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and hardly affect
the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their applications, the
web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the home and
SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're afraid of W3C
doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)
The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me is that
there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to consider. And
I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling where one
could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats on
Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.
Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in this group
(which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use different
aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even more or
less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder to be an
honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their competencies,
vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out in these
discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are totally
irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and consumer
behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation in the
world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc., don't
amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all those,
statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special place
reserved for them in Heaven.
"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its new
> itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and defunct OS
>
> Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS, but it,
> at
> least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it as it
> is.
>
> --
> MEB
> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy thinker
> you
> | really are.
> |
> | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was dead
> several
> | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual quirks,
> bit
> of
> | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | http://grystmill.com
> |
> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its
> getting
> | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what to go
> to,
> | > check outside of Microsoft...
> | >
> | > --
> | > MEB
> | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > --
> | > _________
> | >
> | >
> | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
> | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
> | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej
> <galt_57@hotmail.com>
> | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:
> | > |
> | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
> | > |
> | > | <sigh>
> | > |
> | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot unreliable,
> | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
> | > |
> | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for
> | > | W98.
> | > |
> | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses.
> As
> | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really be
> | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
> | > |
> | > | - Franc Zabkar
> | > | --
> | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...
duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in these
discussions with you.
And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap, that is a
real *who cares* situation.
If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a Serendipity,
Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty indications, maybe
you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you THINK you
know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source
activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity has/is going
on...
AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....
And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4 users, and
95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being used to
PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the point is
what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..
"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a dictionary and
| perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner it's
you,
| because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic (except a
| minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in dreamland.)
|
| Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a stable
| environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same thing
| applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more stable than
9x
| systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is quickly
| maturing to that same state.
|
| As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I really
| think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real world, like I
| do?
|
| XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major OS for
| PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's iterations
will
| stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe 2015. Or
| even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce a
| non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure isn't
| anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will replace
| them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.
|
| And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative usage of
| OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real stats to
| show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats lie,
they
| don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my stats are
| mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid caveats that
| would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and hardly affect
| the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their applications, the
| web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the home and
| SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're afraid of
W3C
| doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)
|
| The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me is that
| there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to consider.
And
| I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling where one
| could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats on
| Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.
|
| Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in this group
| (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use different
| aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even more or
| less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder to be
an
| honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their competencies,
| vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out in these
| discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are totally
| irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and consumer
| behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation in the
| world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc., don't
| amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all those,
| statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special place
| reserved for them in Heaven.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| http://grystmill.com
|
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its new
| > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and defunct
OS
| >
| > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS, but it,
| > at
| > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it as it
| > is.
| >
| > --
| > MEB
| > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > --
| > _________
| >
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy
thinker
| > you
| > | really are.
| > |
| > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was dead
| > several
| > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual quirks,
| > bit
| > of
| > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | http://grystmill.com
| > |
| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its
| > getting
| > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what to
go
| > to,
| > | > check outside of Microsoft...
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > MEB
| > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > --
| > | > _________
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
| > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej
| > <galt_57@hotmail.com>
| > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:
| > | > |
| > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
| > | > |
| > | > | <sigh>
| > | > |
| > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot
unreliable,
| > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
| > | > |
| > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for
| > | > | W98.
| > | > |
| > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses.
| > As
| > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really
be
| > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
| > | > |
| > | > | - Franc Zabkar
| > | > | --
| > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
"Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR
definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a hard time
with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm supposed to
accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly. "Stable", as
in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time you try to
add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full day.
Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying "obsolete." No
more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be permanently
available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them. Add that to
the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the 9x system
online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less stable as time
goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and even other
machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says "totally
obsolete and useless.
"Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs, programmers
and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and don't like
Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project in the
scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project (whatever
they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of Microsoft's overall
activities.
As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will *maybe*
meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means that it
might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS OS
development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need fixing,
especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and will thus
almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will avoid it as
long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015 before it even
starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless something truly
amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another NT
iteration.
Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the PC world
well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in the least
bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those others
you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to XP and,
eventually, Vista.
And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of the name
anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..
You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I thought -- you've
been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have nothing
better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they tend to
agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the way you
think. As if you can glean any real information about the real world from
stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping and
guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of
observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the large
institutions, are wrong more than they're right.
The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All you want to
do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called testing, of
course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for the
puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless, irrelevant and
repulsive for everyone else.
As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think more
rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course, the
alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll still be a
blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world that's
populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds, all of you
making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a major
insult, in case you didn't catch that.)
"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...
> duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in these
> discussions with you.
>
> And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap, that is
> a
> real *who cares* situation.
> If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a
> Serendipity,
> Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty indications, maybe
> you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you THINK you
> know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source
> activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity has/is
> going
> on...
>
> AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....
>
> And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4 users, and
> 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being used to
> PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the point is
> what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..
>
> --
> MEB
> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a dictionary
> and
> | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner it's
> you,
> | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic (except a
> | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in dreamland.)
> |
> | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a stable
> | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same thing
> | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more stable than
> 9x
> | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is quickly
> | maturing to that same state.
> |
> | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I
> really
> | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real world, like
> I
> | do?
> |
> | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major OS
> for
> | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's iterations
> will
> | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe 2015. Or
> | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce a
> | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure isn't
> | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will
> replace
> | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.
> |
> | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative usage of
> | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real stats
> to
> | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats lie,
> they
> | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my stats are
> | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid caveats
> that
> | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and hardly
> affect
> | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their applications,
> the
> | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the home
> and
> | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're afraid of
> W3C
> | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)
> |
> | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me is
> that
> | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to consider.
> And
> | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling where one
> | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats on
> | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.
> |
> | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in this
> group
> | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use different
> | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even more
> or
> | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder to be
> an
> | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their competencies,
> | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out in
> these
> | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are totally
> | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and consumer
> | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation in
> the
> | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc., don't
> | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all those,
> | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special place
> | reserved for them in Heaven.
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | http://grystmill.com
> |
> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its new
> | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and
> defunct
> OS
> | >
> | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS, but
> it,
> | > at
> | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it as
> it
> | > is.
> | >
> | > --
> | > MEB
> | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > --
> | > _________
> | >
> | >
> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy
> thinker
> | > you
> | > | really are.
> | > |
> | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was dead
> | > several
> | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual
> quirks,
> | > bit
> | > of
> | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
> | > |
> | > | --
> | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | http://grystmill.com
> | > |
> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its
> | > getting
> | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what
> to
> go
> | > to,
> | > | > check outside of Microsoft...
> | > | >
> | > | > --
> | > | > MEB
> | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > --
> | > | > _________
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
> | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
> | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej
> | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>
> | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:
> | > | > |
> | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | <sigh>
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot
> unreliable,
> | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
> | > | > |
> | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support
> for
> | > | > | W98.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP
> addresses.
> | > As
> | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that
> really
> be
> | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | - Franc Zabkar
> | > | > | --
> | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and stableness
are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to protect
you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you constantly
and consistently expose in your own writings...
STABLE -
Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find YOU
spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP.... and find
you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of upgrading...
you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are
manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on Microsoft's
behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you appear ... how
much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you have to
endure...
The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your
insistences...
MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because EVERYONE knows
Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it will have to
do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy code...
IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an OS that
supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY processor and is
FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be required
to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND be
subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it to
work..... when you could have something else... something that doesn't
require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and if you
want can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know what your
doing...
MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk stock....
"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR
| definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a hard time
| with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm supposed
to
| accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly. "Stable",
as
| in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time you try
to
| add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full day.
|
| Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying "obsolete." No
| more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be
permanently
| available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them. Add that
to
| the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the 9x system
| online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less stable as
time
| goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and even other
| machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says "totally
| obsolete and useless.
|
| "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs, programmers
| and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and don't like
| Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project in the
| scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project (whatever
| they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of Microsoft's
overall
| activities.
|
| As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will *maybe*
| meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means that it
| might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS OS
| development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need fixing,
| especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and will
thus
| almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will avoid it
as
| long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015 before it
even
| starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless something truly
| amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another NT
| iteration.
|
| Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the PC world
| well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in the least
| bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those others
| you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to XP and,
| eventually, Vista.
|
| And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of the name
| anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..
|
| You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I thought --
you've
| been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have nothing
| better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they tend to
| agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the way you
| think. As if you can glean any real information about the real world from
| stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping and
| guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of
| observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the large
| institutions, are wrong more than they're right.
|
| The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All you want
to
| do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called testing, of
| course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for the
| puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless, irrelevant
and
| repulsive for everyone else.
|
| As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think more
| rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course, the
| alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll still be
a
| blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world that's
| populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds, all of
you
| making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a major
| insult, in case you didn't catch that.)
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| http://grystmill.com
|
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...
| > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in these
| > discussions with you.
| >
| > And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap, that
is
| > a
| > real *who cares* situation.
| > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a
| > Serendipity,
| > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty indications,
maybe
| > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you THINK you
| > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source
| > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity has/is
| > going
| > on...
| >
| > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....
| >
| > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4 users,
and
| > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being used to
| > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the point
is
| > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..
| >
| > --
| > MEB
| > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > --
| > _________
| >
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a dictionary
| > and
| > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner it's
| > you,
| > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic (except a
| > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in dreamland.)
| > |
| > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a stable
| > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same thing
| > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more stable
than
| > 9x
| > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is
quickly
| > | maturing to that same state.
| > |
| > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I
| > really
| > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real world,
like
| > I
| > | do?
| > |
| > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major OS
| > for
| > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's
iterations
| > will
| > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe 2015.
Or
| > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce a
| > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure isn't
| > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will
| > replace
| > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.
| > |
| > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative usage
of
| > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real stats
| > to
| > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats
lie,
| > they
| > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my stats
are
| > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid caveats
| > that
| > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and hardly
| > affect
| > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their applications,
| > the
| > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the home
| > and
| > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're afraid
of
| > W3C
| > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)
| > |
| > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me is
| > that
| > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to
consider.
| > And
| > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling where
one
| > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats on
| > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.
| > |
| > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in this
| > group
| > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use
different
| > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even more
| > or
| > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder to
be
| > an
| > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their competencies,
| > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out in
| > these
| > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are totally
| > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and
consumer
| > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation in
| > the
| > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc.,
don't
| > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all
those,
| > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special place
| > | reserved for them in Heaven.
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | http://grystmill.com
| > |
| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its new
| > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and
| > defunct
| > OS
| > | >
| > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS, but
| > it,
| > | > at
| > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it as
| > it
| > | > is.
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > MEB
| > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > --
| > | > _________
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy
| > thinker
| > | > you
| > | > | really are.
| > | > |
| > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was
dead
| > | > several
| > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual
| > quirks,
| > | > bit
| > | > of
| > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
| > | > |
| > | > | --
| > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | http://grystmill.com
| > | > |
| > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if
its
| > | > getting
| > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what
| > to
| > go
| > | > to,
| > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > MEB
| > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > _________
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
| > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej
| > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>
| > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | <sigh>
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot
| > unreliable,
| > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support
| > for
| > | > | > | W98.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP
| > addresses.
| > | > As
| > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that
| > really
| > be
| > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar
| > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u3whfby0IHA.1572@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and stableness
> are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to protect
> you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you
> constantly
> and consistently expose in your own writings...
> STABLE -
Idiot-proofing is/was the whole idea, numbnuts. Always will be for 95% + of
the market. Fortunately, most of that idiot-proofing can be disabled and
more sane settings applied. And, of course, you continue to expose your own
extraordinary pomosity by presuming to know how I have my system configured.
Of course, your never having actually USED the product, you really don't
know what you're talking about, do you?
> Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find YOU
> spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP.... and find
> you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of upgrading...
> you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are
> manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on Microsoft's
> behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you appear ...
> how
> much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you have to
> endure...
If we're going to peruse histories, where were you prior to two years ago.
Hiding behind some alias, or perhaps going through your own dementia after
failing so miserably to make 98 what it should havbe been?
It's polite (and sensible, if you're really interested in an honest debate)
to provide links to such things after you've gone to all the trouble to look
it up.
In any case, you make my point for me. OSes come, OSes go, and all for good
reason. Seems to me I've been right all along.
> The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your
> insistences...
You keep trying to insult me by calling me insane, referring to personal
issues, etc. When have I ever denied it? I've ALWAYS been crazy and more
than a little lunatic. I'm still saner than you are by a full league.
> MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because EVERYONE knows
> Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it will have
> to
> do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy code...
Don't know much about the stock market either, do ya? FYI, MSFT is trading a
little over a dollar below its price a year ago. In fact its chart looks
just as I'd expect it to over the last year. Rose on the general good
feelings of last year from $29.50 in mid-June to $37 at the end of October,
and then, like the rest of the market, there was a major drop over the
Christmas season and into the new year, bottoming at $27.20 in late
February, and fluctuating a bit back and forth to settle at $28.23 on Monday
last.
In fact, since the beginning of 2002, when the tech stock crash had bottomed
out, and MSFT stood at $31.85, it's been fairly steady within a dollaar or
two until that spike last year.
Dozens of dollars, eh? MSFT's entire history peaked at $58.38 in December
1999. Unless you want to include the tech crash of 2000 in your
calculations, MSFT hasn't LOST more than a dozen dollars over ANY period of
time.
You really are just a lying fraud, aren't you? Or are you just an idiot who
can't think for yourself and have to spend all your time reading the lies of
other, more well known frauds?
> IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an OS that
> supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY processor and
> is
> FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be
> required
> to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND be
> subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it to
> work..... when you could have something else... something that doesn't
> require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and if you
> want can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know what your
> doing...
I pay attention to facts, not theories. Fact is that 80% of the PC market
WANTS idiot-proofing, real PnP and out-of the-box functionality. That same
80% can barely figure out how to use the incredibly user-friendly Windows
much less whatever your geeky, custom-built OS flavor of the day is.
Besides, it's proven that you're a lying fraud, so I have no faith in
anything you spout out these days.
> MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk stock....
Again, care to revise?
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com
>
> --
> MEB
> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR
> | definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a hard
> time
> | with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm
> supposed
> to
> | accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly. "Stable",
> as
> | in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time you try
> to
> | add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full day.
> |
> | Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying "obsolete." No
> | more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be
> permanently
> | available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them. Add that
> to
> | the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the 9x
> system
> | online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less stable as
> time
> | goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and even
> other
> | machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says "totally
> | obsolete and useless.
> |
> | "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs,
> programmers
> | and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and don't
> like
> | Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project in the
> | scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project
> (whatever
> | they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of Microsoft's
> overall
> | activities.
> |
> | As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will
> *maybe*
> | meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means that it
> | might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS OS
> | development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need
> fixing,
> | especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and will
> thus
> | almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will avoid it
> as
> | long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015 before it
> even
> | starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless something
> truly
> | amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another NT
> | iteration.
> |
> | Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the PC
> world
> | well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in the
> least
> | bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those
> others
> | you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to XP
> and,
> | eventually, Vista.
> |
> | And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of the name
> | anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..
> |
> | You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I thought --
> you've
> | been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have nothing
> | better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they tend to
> | agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the way you
> | think. As if you can glean any real information about the real world
> from
> | stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping and
> | guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of
> | observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the large
> | institutions, are wrong more than they're right.
> |
> | The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All you want
> to
> | do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called testing, of
> | course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for the
> | puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless, irrelevant
> and
> | repulsive for everyone else.
> |
> | As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think more
> | rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course, the
> | alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll still
> be
> a
> | blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world that's
> | populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds, all of
> you
> | making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a major
> | insult, in case you didn't catch that.)
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | http://grystmill.com
> |
> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...
> | > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in these
> | > discussions with you.
> | >
> | > And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap, that
> is
> | > a
> | > real *who cares* situation.
> | > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a
> | > Serendipity,
> | > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty indications,
> maybe
> | > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you THINK
> you
> | > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source
> | > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity has/is
> | > going
> | > on...
> | >
> | > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....
> | >
> | > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4 users,
> and
> | > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being used
> to
> | > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the point
> is
> | > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..
> | >
> | > --
> | > MEB
> | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > --
> | > _________
> | >
> | >
> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> | > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a
> dictionary
> | > and
> | > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner
> it's
> | > you,
> | > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic (except
> a
> | > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in
> dreamland.)
> | > |
> | > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a stable
> | > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same
> thing
> | > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more stable
> than
> | > 9x
> | > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is
> quickly
> | > | maturing to that same state.
> | > |
> | > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I
> | > really
> | > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real world,
> like
> | > I
> | > | do?
> | > |
> | > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major
> OS
> | > for
> | > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's
> iterations
> | > will
> | > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe
> 2015.
> Or
> | > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce a
> | > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure isn't
> | > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will
> | > replace
> | > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.
> | > |
> | > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative
> usage
> of
> | > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real
> stats
> | > to
> | > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats
> lie,
> | > they
> | > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my stats
> are
> | > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid caveats
> | > that
> | > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and hardly
> | > affect
> | > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their
> applications,
> | > the
> | > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the
> home
> | > and
> | > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're
> afraid
> of
> | > W3C
> | > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)
> | > |
> | > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me is
> | > that
> | > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to
> consider.
> | > And
> | > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling where
> one
> | > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats
> on
> | > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.
> | > |
> | > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in this
> | > group
> | > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use
> different
> | > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even
> more
> | > or
> | > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder
> to
> be
> | > an
> | > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their
> competencies,
> | > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out in
> | > these
> | > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are totally
> | > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and
> consumer
> | > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation
> in
> | > the
> | > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc.,
> don't
> | > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all
> those,
> | > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special place
> | > | reserved for them in Heaven.
> | > |
> | > | --
> | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | http://grystmill.com
> | > |
> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its
> new
> | > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and
> | > defunct
> | > OS
> | > | >
> | > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS,
> but
> | > it,
> | > | > at
> | > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it
> as
> | > it
> | > | > is.
> | > | >
> | > | > --
> | > | > MEB
> | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > --
> | > | > _________
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy
> | > thinker
> | > | > you
> | > | > | really are.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was
> dead
> | > | > several
> | > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual
> | > quirks,
> | > | > bit
> | > | > of
> | > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | --
> | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | http://grystmill.com
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if
> its
> | > | > getting
> | > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on
> what
> | > to
> | > go
> | > | > to,
> | > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > MEB
> | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > _________
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
> | > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
> | > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej
> | > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>
> | > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | <sigh>
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot
> | > unreliable,
> | > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping
> support
> | > for
> | > | > | > | W98.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP
> | > addresses.
> | > | > As
> | > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that
> | > really
> | > be
> | > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar
> | > | > | > | --
> | > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by
> email.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
What product,,,, you referring to XP,, ah yeah, who do you think carefully
orchestrated almost two months of XP verses 9X related postings in this
group,, not you assuredly.
Why would I be polite to you, here you are again spouting the same stupid
ideas you fostered here, other 9X forums, and in XP forums.
Once again you highjacked a thread to attempt to push your moronic ideas
upon more Windows users... just had to do so AGAIN, didn't you... are you
getting PAID by Microsoft now, or is it that you have nothing else of value
to do in your life now????
How many more times are you going to tell 9X and XP users they are stupid,
that they CAN'T understand anything else because they apparently haven't got
a brain according to your estimation,, I haven't, I called YOU stupid,,
you're SUPPOSED to be a knowledgeable person regarding Windows yet you
apparently don't understand it very well and you certainly have no respect
for its users. At least that's what you've recently indicated and posted...
Oh yeah, lets ignore the prior boom, the collapse, and the failure of
Microsoft's stock to increase due to inflation, use, new products, or
anything else that indicates growth, consumer confidence, and actual value..
The recent spike was due to the proposed Yahoo purchase,,, since Microsoft
can't even get its search engine functioning properly..
Now, this is a 9X forum, think you can manage to keep it relevant to 9X
without resorting to your new love, XP? Does your wife know you're having
this love affair? <G>
"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:uWITHe30IHA.5564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:u3whfby0IHA.1572@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| >
| > If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and
stableness
| > are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to
protect
| > you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you
| > constantly
| > and consistently expose in your own writings...
| > STABLE -
|
| Idiot-proofing is/was the whole idea, numbnuts. Always will be for 95% +
of
| the market. Fortunately, most of that idiot-proofing can be disabled and
| more sane settings applied. And, of course, you continue to expose your
own
| extraordinary pomosity by presuming to know how I have my system
configured.
|
| Of course, your never having actually USED the product, you really don't
| know what you're talking about, do you?
|
| > Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find YOU
| > spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP.... and
find
| > you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of
upgrading...
| > you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are
| > manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on Microsoft's
| > behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you appear ...
| > how
| > much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you have to
| > endure...
|
| If we're going to peruse histories, where were you prior to two years ago.
| Hiding behind some alias, or perhaps going through your own dementia after
| failing so miserably to make 98 what it should havbe been?
|
| It's polite (and sensible, if you're really interested in an honest
debate)
| to provide links to such things after you've gone to all the trouble to
look
| it up.
|
| In any case, you make my point for me. OSes come, OSes go, and all for
good
| reason. Seems to me I've been right all along.
|
| > The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your
| > insistences...
|
| You keep trying to insult me by calling me insane, referring to personal
| issues, etc. When have I ever denied it? I've ALWAYS been crazy and more
| than a little lunatic. I'm still saner than you are by a full league.
|
| > MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because EVERYONE
knows
| > Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it will
have
| > to
| > do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy
code...
|
| Don't know much about the stock market either, do ya? FYI, MSFT is trading
a
| little over a dollar below its price a year ago. In fact its chart looks
| just as I'd expect it to over the last year. Rose on the general good
| feelings of last year from $29.50 in mid-June to $37 at the end of
October,
| and then, like the rest of the market, there was a major drop over the
| Christmas season and into the new year, bottoming at $27.20 in late
| February, and fluctuating a bit back and forth to settle at $28.23 on
Monday
| last.
|
| In fact, since the beginning of 2002, when the tech stock crash had
bottomed
| out, and MSFT stood at $31.85, it's been fairly steady within a dollaar or
| two until that spike last year.
|
| Dozens of dollars, eh? MSFT's entire history peaked at $58.38 in December
| 1999. Unless you want to include the tech crash of 2000 in your
| calculations, MSFT hasn't LOST more than a dozen dollars over ANY period
of
| time.
|
| You really are just a lying fraud, aren't you? Or are you just an idiot
who
| can't think for yourself and have to spend all your time reading the lies
of
| other, more well known frauds?
|
| > IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an OS
that
| > supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY processor
and
| > is
| > FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be
| > required
| > to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND be
| > subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it to
| > work..... when you could have something else... something that doesn't
| > require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and if you
| > want can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know what
your
| > doing...
|
| I pay attention to facts, not theories. Fact is that 80% of the PC market
| WANTS idiot-proofing, real PnP and out-of the-box functionality. That same
| 80% can barely figure out how to use the incredibly user-friendly Windows
| much less whatever your geeky, custom-built OS flavor of the day is.
| Besides, it's proven that you're a lying fraud, so I have no faith in
| anything you spout out these days.
|
| > MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk
stock....
|
| Again, care to revise?
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| http://grystmill.com
|
| >
|
| > --
| > MEB
| > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > --
| > _________
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > | "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR
| > | definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a hard
| > time
| > | with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm
| > supposed
| > to
| > | accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly.
"Stable",
| > as
| > | in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time you
try
| > to
| > | add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full day.
| > |
| > | Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying "obsolete."
No
| > | more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be
| > permanently
| > | available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them. Add
that
| > to
| > | the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the 9x
| > system
| > | online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less stable
as
| > time
| > | goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and even
| > other
| > | machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says "totally
| > | obsolete and useless.
| > |
| > | "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs,
| > programmers
| > | and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and don't
| > like
| > | Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project in
the
| > | scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project
| > (whatever
| > | they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of Microsoft's
| > overall
| > | activities.
| > |
| > | As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will
| > *maybe*
| > | meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means that
it
| > | might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS OS
| > | development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need
| > fixing,
| > | especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and will
| > thus
| > | almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will avoid
it
| > as
| > | long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015 before it
| > even
| > | starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless something
| > truly
| > | amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another NT
| > | iteration.
| > |
| > | Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the PC
| > world
| > | well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in the
| > least
| > | bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those
| > others
| > | you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to XP
| > and,
| > | eventually, Vista.
| > |
| > | And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of the
name
| > | anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..
| > |
| > | You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I thought --
| > you've
| > | been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have nothing
| > | better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they tend
to
| > | agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the way
you
| > | think. As if you can glean any real information about the real world
| > from
| > | stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping and
| > | guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of
| > | observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the large
| > | institutions, are wrong more than they're right.
| > |
| > | The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All you
want
| > to
| > | do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called testing, of
| > | course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for the
| > | puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless,
irrelevant
| > and
| > | repulsive for everyone else.
| > |
| > | As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think more
| > | rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course, the
| > | alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll still
| > be
| > a
| > | blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world that's
| > | populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds, all
of
| > you
| > | making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a
major
| > | insult, in case you didn't catch that.)
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | http://grystmill.com
| > |
| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > | > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...
| > | > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in these
| > | > discussions with you.
| > | >
| > | > And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap,
that
| > is
| > | > a
| > | > real *who cares* situation.
| > | > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a
| > | > Serendipity,
| > | > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty indications,
| > maybe
| > | > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you THINK
| > you
| > | > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source
| > | > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity
has/is
| > | > going
| > | > on...
| > | >
| > | > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....
| > | >
| > | > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4
users,
| > and
| > | > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being used
| > to
| > | > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the
point
| > is
| > | > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > MEB
| > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > --
| > | > _________
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > | > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a
| > dictionary
| > | > and
| > | > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner
| > it's
| > | > you,
| > | > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic
(except
| > a
| > | > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in
| > dreamland.)
| > | > |
| > | > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a
stable
| > | > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same
| > thing
| > | > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more
stable
| > than
| > | > 9x
| > | > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is
| > quickly
| > | > | maturing to that same state.
| > | > |
| > | > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I
| > | > really
| > | > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real
world,
| > like
| > | > I
| > | > | do?
| > | > |
| > | > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major
| > OS
| > | > for
| > | > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's
| > iterations
| > | > will
| > | > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe
| > 2015.
| > Or
| > | > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce
a
| > | > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure
isn't
| > | > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will
| > | > replace
| > | > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.
| > | > |
| > | > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative
| > usage
| > of
| > | > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real
| > stats
| > | > to
| > | > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats
| > lie,
| > | > they
| > | > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my
stats
| > are
| > | > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid
caveats
| > | > that
| > | > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and
hardly
| > | > affect
| > | > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their
| > applications,
| > | > the
| > | > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the
| > home
| > | > and
| > | > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're
| > afraid
| > of
| > | > W3C
| > | > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)
| > | > |
| > | > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me
is
| > | > that
| > | > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to
| > consider.
| > | > And
| > | > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling
where
| > one
| > | > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats
| > on
| > | > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.
| > | > |
| > | > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in
this
| > | > group
| > | > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use
| > different
| > | > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even
| > more
| > | > or
| > | > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder
| > to
| > be
| > | > an
| > | > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their
| > competencies,
| > | > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out
in
| > | > these
| > | > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are
totally
| > | > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and
| > consumer
| > | > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation
| > in
| > | > the
| > | > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc.,
| > don't
| > | > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all
| > those,
| > | > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special
place
| > | > | reserved for them in Heaven.
| > | > |
| > | > | --
| > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | http://grystmill.com
| > | > |
| > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its
| > new
| > | > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and
| > | > defunct
| > | > OS
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS,
| > but
| > | > it,
| > | > | > at
| > | > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept
it
| > as
| > | > it
| > | > | > is.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > MEB
| > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > _________
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a
sloppy
| > | > thinker
| > | > | > you
| > | > | > | really are.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98
was
| > dead
| > | > | > several
| > | > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual
| > | > quirks,
| > | > | > bit
| > | > | > of
| > | > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | > | http://grystmill.com
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter
if
| > its
| > | > | > getting
| > | > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on
| > what
| > | > to
| > | > go
| > | > | > to,
| > | > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > MEB
| > | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > _________
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
| > | > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej
| > | > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>
| > | > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | <sigh>
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot
| > | > unreliable,
| > | > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping
| > support
| > | > for
| > | > | > | > | W98.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP
| > | > addresses.
| > | > | > As
| > | > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that
| > | > really
| > | > be
| > | > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar
| > | > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by
| > email.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
<meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eh1CQR60IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> What product,,,, you referring to XP,, ah yeah, who do you think carefully
> orchestrated almost two months of XP verses 9X related postings in this
> group,, not you assuredly.
No, of course not. You'll notice that I've refused to get pulled into any
actual comparisons of the various OSes we've discussed. That's your game,
not mine. I simply want to help average people with their Windows 98
problems, and it's obsolesence is a major one of those problems. You just
want to repeatedly go over and over your pet theories and want me to be your
foil. Well GFY. Everybody knows you're a pompous jackass, and this is just
one more piece to the puzzle. Frankly, more than a lying fraud, you're a
plain and simple A** H*LE.
So, are you a lying POS or have you really, actually, honestly used
2K/XP/Vista?
> Why would I be polite to you, here you are again spouting the same stupid
> ideas you fostered here, other 9X forums, and in XP forums.
Because you're an lying fraud?
> Once again you highjacked a thread to attempt to push your moronic ideas
> upon more Windows users... just had to do so AGAIN, didn't you... are you
> getting PAID by Microsoft now, or is it that you have nothing else of
> value
> to do in your life now????
I didn't hijack the thread. There wasn't any freaking thread. It was a post
about a vulnerability in a product that doesn't even work in Win9x. But try
to follow this simple bit of logic (I know it's almost impossible for you --
logic -- but try anyway.) Firefox has a serious vulnerability, right after
it's released. End of story EXCEPT for the opportunity to discuss comparatve
vulnerabilities in OSes and applications and the larger picture of the
question, "Is any computer safe to use?"
> How many more times are you going to tell 9X and XP users they are stupid,
> that they CAN'T understand anything else because they apparently haven't
> got
> a brain according to your estimation,,
You changed my wording, but yes, most of the PC using masses WANT their
machine idiot-proofed, if that's what you're talking about. They're not
stupid so much as lazy. It's the American Way. They want to plug it in and
have it work. They DON'T want to manually update their system every week or
month or EVER. They don't wnt to have to spend two or three days pr month
reading and researching all the patches, etc. They want it done for them.
When it comes to a comparison of ANY other OS to XP, XP wins that battle
hands down.
Like it or not, Windows 98 is very close to truly, totally dead. It is
foolish, even downright stupid, for any "average" user to continue to use
it, and I have no qualms saying so. Having spent tens of thousands of hours,
posting tens upon tens of thousands of helpful posts in THIS group for the
last 9.5 years, I think my integrity is well established. And through it all
(as you so kindly pointed out yesterday) I have never shied away from
telling it like I think it is. I'm certainly not going to stop now.
>I haven't, I called YOU stupid,,
> you're SUPPOSED to be a knowledgeable person regarding Windows yet you
> apparently don't understand it very well and you certainly have no respect
> for its users. At least that's what you've recently indicated and
> posted...
You haven't called me stupid because you know I'm not. I'm also not a lying
fraud, but you most certainly are. I also have more respect for Windows
users than you have. I'm concerned about their safety and their ability to
get what they want out of their machines. According to you, we're ALL stupid
for using Windows XP/Vista. Care to apologize? I thought not.
> Oh yeah, lets ignore the prior boom, the collapse, and the failure of
> Microsoft's stock to increase due to inflation, use, new products, or
> anything else that indicates growth, consumer confidence, and actual
> value..
> The recent spike was due to the proposed Yahoo purchase,,, since Microsoft
> can't even get its search engine functioning properly..
What recent spike? You mean the *bubble* back in late '07? The news of a
possible merger didn't come out until early February -- AFTER the bubble of
late '07 had already collapsed. The whole merger thing didn't cause more
than a few dollars variance, you ignorant fraud. If you're talking about the
merger talk back in Feb 2007, that died almost as soon as it was "reported"
in the blogs (and nowhere else, like any reputable source of information.)
Again, you're a lying fraud. And that's been the way since the beginning of
your "orchestrated debate". Nothing but pure BS coming out of your keyboard.
>Now, this is a 9X forum, think you can manage to keep it relevant to 9X
>without resorting to your new love, XP?
I have no love for XP you moron. That's another thing that you don't get.
Or, rather, maybe you do get it, you just like to lie. If that wasn't such a
lie of a question, I might answer it.
>Does your wife know you're having this love affair? <G>
Do you even have a wife? With all that circle-jerking you engage in, I
figure not.
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:uWITHe30IHA.5564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:u3whfby0IHA.1572@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | >
> | > If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and
> stableness
> | > are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to
> protect
> | > you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you
> | > constantly
> | > and consistently expose in your own writings...
> | > STABLE -
> |
> | Idiot-proofing is/was the whole idea, numbnuts. Always will be for 95% +
> of
> | the market. Fortunately, most of that idiot-proofing can be disabled and
> | more sane settings applied. And, of course, you continue to expose your
> own
> | extraordinary pomosity by presuming to know how I have my system
> configured.
> |
> | Of course, your never having actually USED the product, you really don't
> | know what you're talking about, do you?
> |
> | > Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find YOU
> | > spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP.... and
> find
> | > you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of
> upgrading...
> | > you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are
> | > manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on
> Microsoft's
> | > behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you appear
> ...
> | > how
> | > much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you have
> to
> | > endure...
> |
> | If we're going to peruse histories, where were you prior to two years
> ago.
> | Hiding behind some alias, or perhaps going through your own dementia
> after
> | failing so miserably to make 98 what it should havbe been?
> |
> | It's polite (and sensible, if you're really interested in an honest
> debate)
> | to provide links to such things after you've gone to all the trouble to
> look
> | it up.
> |
> | In any case, you make my point for me. OSes come, OSes go, and all for
> good
> | reason. Seems to me I've been right all along.
> |
> | > The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your
> | > insistences...
> |
> | You keep trying to insult me by calling me insane, referring to personal
> | issues, etc. When have I ever denied it? I've ALWAYS been crazy and more
> | than a little lunatic. I'm still saner than you are by a full league.
> |
> | > MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because EVERYONE
> knows
> | > Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it will
> have
> | > to
> | > do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy
> code...
> |
> | Don't know much about the stock market either, do ya? FYI, MSFT is
> trading
> a
> | little over a dollar below its price a year ago. In fact its chart looks
> | just as I'd expect it to over the last year. Rose on the general good
> | feelings of last year from $29.50 in mid-June to $37 at the end of
> October,
> | and then, like the rest of the market, there was a major drop over the
> | Christmas season and into the new year, bottoming at $27.20 in late
> | February, and fluctuating a bit back and forth to settle at $28.23 on
> Monday
> | last.
> |
> | In fact, since the beginning of 2002, when the tech stock crash had
> bottomed
> | out, and MSFT stood at $31.85, it's been fairly steady within a dollaar
> or
> | two until that spike last year.
> |
> | Dozens of dollars, eh? MSFT's entire history peaked at $58.38 in
> December
> | 1999. Unless you want to include the tech crash of 2000 in your
> | calculations, MSFT hasn't LOST more than a dozen dollars over ANY period
> of
> | time.
> |
> | You really are just a lying fraud, aren't you? Or are you just an idiot
> who
> | can't think for yourself and have to spend all your time reading the
> lies
> of
> | other, more well known frauds?
> |
> | > IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an OS
> that
> | > supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY processor
> and
> | > is
> | > FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be
> | > required
> | > to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND be
> | > subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it to
> | > work..... when you could have something else... something that doesn't
> | > require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and if
> you
> | > want can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know what
> your
> | > doing...
> |
> | I pay attention to facts, not theories. Fact is that 80% of the PC
> market
> | WANTS idiot-proofing, real PnP and out-of the-box functionality. That
> same
> | 80% can barely figure out how to use the incredibly user-friendly
> Windows
> | much less whatever your geeky, custom-built OS flavor of the day is.
> | Besides, it's proven that you're a lying fraud, so I have no faith in
> | anything you spout out these days.
> |
> | > MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk
> stock....
> |
> | Again, care to revise?
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | http://grystmill.com
> |
> | >
> |
> | > --
> | > MEB
> | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > --
> | > _________
> | >
> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > | "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR
> | > | definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a hard
> | > time
> | > | with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm
> | > supposed
> | > to
> | > | accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly.
> "Stable",
> | > as
> | > | in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time you
> try
> | > to
> | > | add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full day.
> | > |
> | > | Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying
> "obsolete."
> No
> | > | more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be
> | > permanently
> | > | available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them. Add
> that
> | > to
> | > | the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the 9x
> | > system
> | > | online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less stable
> as
> | > time
> | > | goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and even
> | > other
> | > | machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says
> "totally
> | > | obsolete and useless.
> | > |
> | > | "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs,
> | > programmers
> | > | and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and
> don't
> | > like
> | > | Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project in
> the
> | > | scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project
> | > (whatever
> | > | they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of Microsoft's
> | > overall
> | > | activities.
> | > |
> | > | As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will
> | > *maybe*
> | > | meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means
> that
> it
> | > | might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS OS
> | > | development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need
> | > fixing,
> | > | especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and
> will
> | > thus
> | > | almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will
> avoid
> it
> | > as
> | > | long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015 before
> it
> | > even
> | > | starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless something
> | > truly
> | > | amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another NT
> | > | iteration.
> | > |
> | > | Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the PC
> | > world
> | > | well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in the
> | > least
> | > | bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those
> | > others
> | > | you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to
> XP
> | > and,
> | > | eventually, Vista.
> | > |
> | > | And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of the
> name
> | > | anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..
> | > |
> | > | You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I thought --
> | > you've
> | > | been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have
> nothing
> | > | better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they
> tend
> to
> | > | agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the way
> you
> | > | think. As if you can glean any real information about the real world
> | > from
> | > | stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping
> and
> | > | guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of
> | > | observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the large
> | > | institutions, are wrong more than they're right.
> | > |
> | > | The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All you
> want
> | > to
> | > | do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called testing,
> of
> | > | course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for
> the
> | > | puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless,
> irrelevant
> | > and
> | > | repulsive for everyone else.
> | > |
> | > | As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think more
> | > | rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course, the
> | > | alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll
> still
> | > be
> | > a
> | > | blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world
> that's
> | > | populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds, all
> of
> | > you
> | > | making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a
> major
> | > | insult, in case you didn't catch that.)
> | > |
> | > | --
> | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | http://grystmill.com
> | > |
> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > | > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...
> | > | > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in
> these
> | > | > discussions with you.
> | > | >
> | > | > And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap,
> that
> | > is
> | > | > a
> | > | > real *who cares* situation.
> | > | > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a
> | > | > Serendipity,
> | > | > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty
> indications,
> | > maybe
> | > | > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you
> THINK
> | > you
> | > | > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source
> | > | > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity
> has/is
> | > | > going
> | > | > on...
> | > | >
> | > | > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....
> | > | >
> | > | > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4
> users,
> | > and
> | > | > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being
> used
> | > to
> | > | > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the
> point
> | > is
> | > | > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..
> | > | >
> | > | > --
> | > | > MEB
> | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > --
> | > | > _________
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a
> | > dictionary
> | > | > and
> | > | > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a
> whiner
> | > it's
> | > | > you,
> | > | > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic
> (except
> | > a
> | > | > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in
> | > dreamland.)
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a
> stable
> | > | > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same
> | > thing
> | > | > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more
> stable
> | > than
> | > | > 9x
> | > | > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is
> | > quickly
> | > | > | maturing to that same state.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm....
> I
> | > | > really
> | > | > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real
> world,
> | > like
> | > | > I
> | > | > | do?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE
> major
> | > OS
> | > | > for
> | > | > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's
> | > iterations
> | > | > will
> | > | > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe
> | > 2015.
> | > Or
> | > | > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually
> produce
> a
> | > | > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure
> isn't
> | > | > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that
> will
> | > | > replace
> | > | > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative
> | > usage
> | > of
> | > | > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real
> | > stats
> | > | > to
> | > | > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that
> stats
> | > lie,
> | > | > they
> | > | > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my
> stats
> | > are
> | > | > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid
> caveats
> | > | > that
> | > | > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and
> hardly
> | > | > affect
> | > | > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their
> | > applications,
> | > | > the
> | > | > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in
> the
> | > home
> | > | > and
> | > | > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're
> | > afraid
> | > of
> | > | > W3C
> | > | > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)
> | > | > |
> | > | > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued
> me
> is
> | > | > that
> | > | > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to
> | > consider.
> | > | > And
> | > | > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling
> where
> | > one
> | > | > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage
> stats
> | > on
> | > | > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in
> this
> | > | > group
> | > | > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use
> | > different
> | > | > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or
> even
> | > more
> | > | > or
> | > | > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little
> harder
> | > to
> | > be
> | > | > an
> | > | > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their
> | > competencies,
> | > | > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out
> in
> | > | > these
> | > | > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are
> totally
> | > | > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and
> | > consumer
> | > | > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the
> speculation
> | > in
> | > | > the
> | > | > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups,
> etc.,
> | > don't
> | > | > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all
> | > those,
> | > | > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special
> place
> | > | > | reserved for them in Heaven.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | --
> | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | http://grystmill.com
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or
> its
> | > new
> | > | > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated*
> and
> | > | > defunct
> | > | > OS
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was
> DOS,
> | > but
> | > | > it,
> | > | > | > at
> | > | > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept
> it
> | > as
> | > | > it
> | > | > | > is.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > MEB
> | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > _________
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a
> sloppy
> | > | > thinker
> | > | > | > you
> | > | > | > | really are.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98
> was
> | > dead
> | > | > | > several
> | > | > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine.
> Usual
> | > | > quirks,
> | > | > | > bit
> | > | > | > of
> | > | > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | --
> | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | > | http://grystmill.com
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter
> if
> | > its
> | > | > | > getting
> | > | > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining
> on
> | > what
> | > | > to
> | > | > go
> | > | > | > to,
> | > | > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > | > MEB
> | > | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > | > _________
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in
> message
> | > | > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
> | > | > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej
> | > | > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>
> | > | > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | <sigh>
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot
> | > | > unreliable,
> | > | > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping
> | > support
> | > | > for
> | > | > | > | > | W98.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP
> | > | > addresses.
> | > | > | > As
> | > | > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will
> that
> | > | > really
> | > | > be
> | > | > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar
> | > | > | > | > | --
> | > | > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by
> | > email.
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
Boy, let me make this perfectly clear, when you post as you have been, you
ARE stupid.
The merger/buy out offer was on EVERY NEWS and Business/stock/whatever
broadcast... EVERY ONE of them...
Oh, and let's not forget Microsoft's OWN web pages and press
notifications...
You want users to move to that XP OS you have already stated was
essentially a piece of junk, poorly programmed, open to attack, and full of
vulnerabilities FOR their security,, ah yeah, good idea... and only you and
a select few can safely use it because you know what your doing,, right,,,
As for your prior and present help, good, you still can perform at least
part of that function, and are one of the few who do so via email for which
I applaud that activity... but that still doesn't excuse your attitude or
your obnoxious nature... this group and others have tolerated EVERY one of
your prior health and mental related issues, and showed concern for you
during those times.. but that can be worn out, particularly when you become
as you are...
Leave it alone Gary... let's try to keep this as a help group, do your
other crap somewhere else..
"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:eP8GN%2380IHA.5728@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:eh1CQR60IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > What product,,,, you referring to XP,, ah yeah, who do you think
carefully
| > orchestrated almost two months of XP verses 9X related postings in this
| > group,, not you assuredly.
|
| No, of course not. You'll notice that I've refused to get pulled into any
| actual comparisons of the various OSes we've discussed. That's your game,
| not mine. I simply want to help average people with their Windows 98
| problems, and it's obsolesence is a major one of those problems. You just
| want to repeatedly go over and over your pet theories and want me to be
your
| foil. Well GFY. Everybody knows you're a pompous jackass, and this is just
| one more piece to the puzzle. Frankly, more than a lying fraud, you're a
| plain and simple A** H*LE.
|
| So, are you a lying POS or have you really, actually, honestly used
| 2K/XP/Vista?
|
| > Why would I be polite to you, here you are again spouting the same
stupid
| > ideas you fostered here, other 9X forums, and in XP forums.
|
| Because you're an lying fraud?
|
| > Once again you highjacked a thread to attempt to push your moronic ideas
| > upon more Windows users... just had to do so AGAIN, didn't you... are
you
| > getting PAID by Microsoft now, or is it that you have nothing else of
| > value
| > to do in your life now????
|
| I didn't hijack the thread. There wasn't any freaking thread. It was a
post
| about a vulnerability in a product that doesn't even work in Win9x. But
try
| to follow this simple bit of logic (I know it's almost impossible for
you --
| logic -- but try anyway.) Firefox has a serious vulnerability, right after
| it's released. End of story EXCEPT for the opportunity to discuss
comparatve
| vulnerabilities in OSes and applications and the larger picture of the
| question, "Is any computer safe to use?"
|
| > How many more times are you going to tell 9X and XP users they are
stupid,
| > that they CAN'T understand anything else because they apparently haven't
| > got
| > a brain according to your estimation,,
|
| You changed my wording, but yes, most of the PC using masses WANT their
| machine idiot-proofed, if that's what you're talking about. They're not
| stupid so much as lazy. It's the American Way. They want to plug it in and
| have it work. They DON'T want to manually update their system every week
or
| month or EVER. They don't wnt to have to spend two or three days pr month
| reading and researching all the patches, etc. They want it done for them.
| When it comes to a comparison of ANY other OS to XP, XP wins that battle
| hands down.
|
| Like it or not, Windows 98 is very close to truly, totally dead. It is
| foolish, even downright stupid, for any "average" user to continue to use
| it, and I have no qualms saying so. Having spent tens of thousands of
hours,
| posting tens upon tens of thousands of helpful posts in THIS group for the
| last 9.5 years, I think my integrity is well established. And through it
all
| (as you so kindly pointed out yesterday) I have never shied away from
| telling it like I think it is. I'm certainly not going to stop now.
|
| >I haven't, I called YOU stupid,,
| > you're SUPPOSED to be a knowledgeable person regarding Windows yet you
| > apparently don't understand it very well and you certainly have no
respect
| > for its users. At least that's what you've recently indicated and
| > posted...
|
| You haven't called me stupid because you know I'm not. I'm also not a
lying
| fraud, but you most certainly are. I also have more respect for Windows
| users than you have. I'm concerned about their safety and their ability to
| get what they want out of their machines. According to you, we're ALL
stupid
| for using Windows XP/Vista. Care to apologize? I thought not.
|
| > Oh yeah, lets ignore the prior boom, the collapse, and the failure of
| > Microsoft's stock to increase due to inflation, use, new products, or
| > anything else that indicates growth, consumer confidence, and actual
| > value..
| > The recent spike was due to the proposed Yahoo purchase,,, since
Microsoft
| > can't even get its search engine functioning properly..
|
| What recent spike? You mean the *bubble* back in late '07? The news of a
| possible merger didn't come out until early February -- AFTER the bubble
of
| late '07 had already collapsed. The whole merger thing didn't cause more
| than a few dollars variance, you ignorant fraud. If you're talking about
the
| merger talk back in Feb 2007, that died almost as soon as it was
"reported"
| in the blogs (and nowhere else, like any reputable source of information.)
|
| Again, you're a lying fraud. And that's been the way since the beginning
of
| your "orchestrated debate". Nothing but pure BS coming out of your
keyboard.
|
| >Now, this is a 9X forum, think you can manage to keep it relevant to 9X
| >without resorting to your new love, XP?
|
| I have no love for XP you moron. That's another thing that you don't get.
| Or, rather, maybe you do get it, you just like to lie. If that wasn't such
a
| lie of a question, I might answer it.
|
| >Does your wife know you're having this love affair? <G>
|
| Do you even have a wife? With all that circle-jerking you engage in, I
| figure not.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| http://grystmill.com
|
|
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > news:uWITHe30IHA.5564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | news:u3whfby0IHA.1572@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > | >
| > | > If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and
| > stableness
| > | > are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to
| > protect
| > | > you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you
| > | > constantly
| > | > and consistently expose in your own writings...
| > | > STABLE -
| > |
| > | Idiot-proofing is/was the whole idea, numbnuts. Always will be for 95%
+
| > of
| > | the market. Fortunately, most of that idiot-proofing can be disabled
and
| > | more sane settings applied. And, of course, you continue to expose
your
| > own
| > | extraordinary pomosity by presuming to know how I have my system
| > configured.
| > |
| > | Of course, your never having actually USED the product, you really
don't
| > | know what you're talking about, do you?
| > |
| > | > Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find YOU
| > | > spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP.... and
| > find
| > | > you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of
| > upgrading...
| > | > you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are
| > | > manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on
| > Microsoft's
| > | > behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you appear
| > ...
| > | > how
| > | > much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you have
| > to
| > | > endure...
| > |
| > | If we're going to peruse histories, where were you prior to two years
| > ago.
| > | Hiding behind some alias, or perhaps going through your own dementia
| > after
| > | failing so miserably to make 98 what it should havbe been?
| > |
| > | It's polite (and sensible, if you're really interested in an honest
| > debate)
| > | to provide links to such things after you've gone to all the trouble
to
| > look
| > | it up.
| > |
| > | In any case, you make my point for me. OSes come, OSes go, and all for
| > good
| > | reason. Seems to me I've been right all along.
| > |
| > | > The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your
| > | > insistences...
| > |
| > | You keep trying to insult me by calling me insane, referring to
personal
| > | issues, etc. When have I ever denied it? I've ALWAYS been crazy and
more
| > | than a little lunatic. I'm still saner than you are by a full league.
| > |
| > | > MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because EVERYONE
| > knows
| > | > Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it will
| > have
| > | > to
| > | > do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy
| > code...
| > |
| > | Don't know much about the stock market either, do ya? FYI, MSFT is
| > trading
| > a
| > | little over a dollar below its price a year ago. In fact its chart
looks
| > | just as I'd expect it to over the last year. Rose on the general good
| > | feelings of last year from $29.50 in mid-June to $37 at the end of
| > October,
| > | and then, like the rest of the market, there was a major drop over the
| > | Christmas season and into the new year, bottoming at $27.20 in late
| > | February, and fluctuating a bit back and forth to settle at $28.23 on
| > Monday
| > | last.
| > |
| > | In fact, since the beginning of 2002, when the tech stock crash had
| > bottomed
| > | out, and MSFT stood at $31.85, it's been fairly steady within a
dollaar
| > or
| > | two until that spike last year.
| > |
| > | Dozens of dollars, eh? MSFT's entire history peaked at $58.38 in
| > December
| > | 1999. Unless you want to include the tech crash of 2000 in your
| > | calculations, MSFT hasn't LOST more than a dozen dollars over ANY
period
| > of
| > | time.
| > |
| > | You really are just a lying fraud, aren't you? Or are you just an
idiot
| > who
| > | can't think for yourself and have to spend all your time reading the
| > lies
| > of
| > | other, more well known frauds?
| > |
| > | > IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an
OS
| > that
| > | > supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY
processor
| > and
| > | > is
| > | > FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be
| > | > required
| > | > to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND be
| > | > subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it to
| > | > work..... when you could have something else... something that
doesn't
| > | > require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and if
| > you
| > | > want can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know what
| > your
| > | > doing...
| > |
| > | I pay attention to facts, not theories. Fact is that 80% of the PC
| > market
| > | WANTS idiot-proofing, real PnP and out-of the-box functionality. That
| > same
| > | 80% can barely figure out how to use the incredibly user-friendly
| > Windows
| > | much less whatever your geeky, custom-built OS flavor of the day is.
| > | Besides, it's proven that you're a lying fraud, so I have no faith in
| > | anything you spout out these days.
| > |
| > | > MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk
| > stock....
| > |
| > | Again, care to revise?
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | http://grystmill.com
| > |
| > | >
| > |
| > | > --
| > | > MEB
| > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > --
| > | > _________
| > | >
| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > | > | "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR
| > | > | definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a
hard
| > | > time
| > | > | with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm
| > | > supposed
| > | > to
| > | > | accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly.
| > "Stable",
| > | > as
| > | > | in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time
you
| > try
| > | > to
| > | > | add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full
day.
| > | > |
| > | > | Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying
| > "obsolete."
| > No
| > | > | more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be
| > | > permanently
| > | > | available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them.
Add
| > that
| > | > to
| > | > | the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the
9x
| > | > system
| > | > | online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less
stable
| > as
| > | > time
| > | > | goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and
even
| > | > other
| > | > | machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says
| > "totally
| > | > | obsolete and useless.
| > | > |
| > | > | "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs,
| > | > programmers
| > | > | and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and
| > don't
| > | > like
| > | > | Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project
in
| > the
| > | > | scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project
| > | > (whatever
| > | > | they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of
Microsoft's
| > | > overall
| > | > | activities.
| > | > |
| > | > | As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will
| > | > *maybe*
| > | > | meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means
| > that
| > it
| > | > | might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS
OS
| > | > | development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need
| > | > fixing,
| > | > | especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and
| > will
| > | > thus
| > | > | almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will
| > avoid
| > it
| > | > as
| > | > | long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015
before
| > it
| > | > even
| > | > | starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless
something
| > | > truly
| > | > | amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another
NT
| > | > | iteration.
| > | > |
| > | > | Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the
PC
| > | > world
| > | > | well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in
the
| > | > least
| > | > | bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those
| > | > others
| > | > | you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to
| > XP
| > | > and,
| > | > | eventually, Vista.
| > | > |
| > | > | And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of
the
| > name
| > | > | anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..
| > | > |
| > | > | You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I
thought --
| > | > you've
| > | > | been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have
| > nothing
| > | > | better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they
| > tend
| > to
| > | > | agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the
way
| > you
| > | > | think. As if you can glean any real information about the real
world
| > | > from
| > | > | stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping
| > and
| > | > | guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of
| > | > | observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the
large
| > | > | institutions, are wrong more than they're right.
| > | > |
| > | > | The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All
you
| > want
| > | > to
| > | > | do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called
testing,
| > of
| > | > | course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for
| > the
| > | > | puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless,
| > irrelevant
| > | > and
| > | > | repulsive for everyone else.
| > | > |
| > | > | As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think
more
| > | > | rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course,
the
| > | > | alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll
| > still
| > | > be
| > | > a
| > | > | blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world
| > that's
| > | > | populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds,
all
| > of
| > | > you
| > | > | making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a
| > major
| > | > | insult, in case you didn't catch that.)
| > | > |
| > | > | --
| > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | http://grystmill.com
| > | > |
| > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...
| > | > | > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in
| > these
| > | > | > discussions with you.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And get off your crap about market share and statistics
bullcrap,
| > that
| > | > is
| > | > | > a
| > | > | > real *who cares* situation.
| > | > | > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a
| > | > | > Serendipity,
| > | > | > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty
| > indications,
| > | > maybe
| > | > | > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you
| > THINK
| > | > you
| > | > | > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open
source
| > | > | > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity
| > has/is
| > | > | > going
| > | > | > on...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4
| > users,
| > | > and
| > | > | > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being
| > used
| > | > to
| > | > | > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the
| > point
| > | > is
| > | > | > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..
| > | > | >
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > MEB
| > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > _________
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a
| > | > dictionary
| > | > | > and
| > | > | > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a
| > whiner
| > | > it's
| > | > | > you,
| > | > | > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic
| > (except
| > | > a
| > | > | > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in
| > | > dreamland.)
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a
| > stable
| > | > | > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is."
(Same
| > | > thing
| > | > | > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more
| > stable
| > | > than
| > | > | > 9x
| > | > | > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista
is
| > | > quickly
| > | > | > | maturing to that same state.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP,
ummm....
| > I
| > | > | > really
| > | > | > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real
| > world,
| > | > like
| > | > | > I
| > | > | > | do?
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE
| > major
| > | > OS
| > | > | > for
| > | > | > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's
| > | > iterations
| > | > | > will
| > | > | > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012,
maybe
| > | > 2015.
| > | > Or
| > | > | > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually
| > produce
| > a
| > | > | > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure
| > isn't
| > | > | > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that
| > will
| > | > | > replace
| > | > | > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the
comparative
| > | > usage
| > | > of
| > | > | > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some
real
| > | > stats
| > | > | > to
| > | > | > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that
| > stats
| > | > lie,
| > | > | > they
| > | > | > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my
| > stats
| > | > are
| > | > | > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid
| > caveats
| > | > | > that
| > | > | > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and
| > hardly
| > | > | > affect
| > | > | > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their
| > | > applications,
| > | > | > the
| > | > | > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in
| > the
| > | > home
| > | > | > and
| > | > | > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're
| > | > afraid
| > | > of
| > | > | > W3C
| > | > | > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued
| > me
| > is
| > | > | > that
| > | > | > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to
| > | > consider.
| > | > | > And
| > | > | > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling
| > where
| > | > one
| > | > | > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage
| > stats
| > | > on
| > | > | > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in
| > this
| > | > | > group
| > | > | > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use
| > | > different
| > | > | > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or
| > even
| > | > more
| > | > | > or
| > | > | > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little
| > harder
| > | > to
| > | > be
| > | > | > an
| > | > | > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their
| > | > competencies,
| > | > | > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing
out
| > in
| > | > | > these
| > | > | > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are
| > totally
| > | > | > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and
| > | > consumer
| > | > | > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the
| > speculation
| > | > in
| > | > | > the
| > | > | > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups,
| > etc.,
| > | > don't
| > | > | > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to
all
| > | > those,
| > | > | > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special
| > place
| > | > | > | reserved for them in Heaven.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | > | http://grystmill.com
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or
| > its
| > | > new
| > | > | > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated*
| > and
| > | > | > defunct
| > | > | > OS
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was
| > DOS,
| > | > but
| > | > | > it,
| > | > | > | > at
| > | > | > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to
accept
| > it
| > | > as
| > | > | > it
| > | > | > | > is.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > MEB
| > | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > _________
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a
| > sloppy
| > | > | > thinker
| > | > | > | > you
| > | > | > | > | really are.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows
98
| > was
| > | > dead
| > | > | > | > several
| > | > | > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine.
| > Usual
| > | > | > quirks,
| > | > | > | > bit
| > | > | > | > of
| > | > | > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | > | > | http://grystmill.com
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't
matter
| > if
| > | > its
| > | > | > | > getting
| > | > | > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining
| > on
| > | > what
| > | > | > to
| > | > | > go
| > | > | > | > to,
| > | > | > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > | > MEB
| > | > | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > | > _________
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in
| > message
| > | > | > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
| > | > | > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej
| > | > | > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>
| > | > | > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | <sigh>
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August,
Spybot
| > | > | > unreliable,
| > | > | > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping
| > | > support
| > | > | > for
| > | > | > | > | > | W98.
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4
IP
| > | > | > addresses.
| > | > | > | > As
| > | > | > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will
| > that
| > | > | > really
| > | > | > be
| > | > | > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar
| > | > | > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by
| > | > email.
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
Oh boy, you caught me in a mistake. What about your "dozens of dollars" you
fake?
I'm through with discussing anything with such a lying fraud.
<PLONK>
"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23frmPM90IHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Boy, let me make this perfectly clear, when you post as you have been, you
> ARE stupid.
>
> The merger/buy out offer was on EVERY NEWS and Business/stock/whatever
> broadcast... EVERY ONE of them...
> Oh, and let's not forget Microsoft's OWN web pages and press
> notifications...
>
> You want users to move to that XP OS you have already stated was
> essentially a piece of junk, poorly programmed, open to attack, and full
> of
> vulnerabilities FOR their security,, ah yeah, good idea... and only you
> and
> a select few can safely use it because you know what your doing,, right,,,
>
> As for your prior and present help, good, you still can perform at least
> part of that function, and are one of the few who do so via email for
> which
> I applaud that activity... but that still doesn't excuse your attitude or
> your obnoxious nature... this group and others have tolerated EVERY one of
> your prior health and mental related issues, and showed concern for you
> during those times.. but that can be worn out, particularly when you
> become
> as you are...
>
> Leave it alone Gary... let's try to keep this as a help group, do your
> other crap somewhere else..
>
> --
> MEB
> http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:eP8GN%2380IHA.5728@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:eh1CQR60IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > What product,,,, you referring to XP,, ah yeah, who do you think
> carefully
> | > orchestrated almost two months of XP verses 9X related postings in
> this
> | > group,, not you assuredly.
> |
> | No, of course not. You'll notice that I've refused to get pulled into
> any
> | actual comparisons of the various OSes we've discussed. That's your
> game,
> | not mine. I simply want to help average people with their Windows 98
> | problems, and it's obsolesence is a major one of those problems. You
> just
> | want to repeatedly go over and over your pet theories and want me to be
> your
> | foil. Well GFY. Everybody knows you're a pompous jackass, and this is
> just
> | one more piece to the puzzle. Frankly, more than a lying fraud, you're a
> | plain and simple A** H*LE.
> |
> | So, are you a lying POS or have you really, actually, honestly used
> | 2K/XP/Vista?
> |
> | > Why would I be polite to you, here you are again spouting the same
> stupid
> | > ideas you fostered here, other 9X forums, and in XP forums.
> |
> | Because you're an lying fraud?
> |
> | > Once again you highjacked a thread to attempt to push your moronic
> ideas
> | > upon more Windows users... just had to do so AGAIN, didn't you... are
> you
> | > getting PAID by Microsoft now, or is it that you have nothing else of
> | > value
> | > to do in your life now????
> |
> | I didn't hijack the thread. There wasn't any freaking thread. It was a
> post
> | about a vulnerability in a product that doesn't even work in Win9x. But
> try
> | to follow this simple bit of logic (I know it's almost impossible for
> you --
> | logic -- but try anyway.) Firefox has a serious vulnerability, right
> after
> | it's released. End of story EXCEPT for the opportunity to discuss
> comparatve
> | vulnerabilities in OSes and applications and the larger picture of the
> | question, "Is any computer safe to use?"
> |
> | > How many more times are you going to tell 9X and XP users they are
> stupid,
> | > that they CAN'T understand anything else because they apparently
> haven't
> | > got
> | > a brain according to your estimation,,
> |
> | You changed my wording, but yes, most of the PC using masses WANT their
> | machine idiot-proofed, if that's what you're talking about. They're not
> | stupid so much as lazy. It's the American Way. They want to plug it in
> and
> | have it work. They DON'T want to manually update their system every week
> or
> | month or EVER. They don't wnt to have to spend two or three days pr
> month
> | reading and researching all the patches, etc. They want it done for
> them.
> | When it comes to a comparison of ANY other OS to XP, XP wins that battle
> | hands down.
> |
> | Like it or not, Windows 98 is very close to truly, totally dead. It is
> | foolish, even downright stupid, for any "average" user to continue to
> use
> | it, and I have no qualms saying so. Having spent tens of thousands of
> hours,
> | posting tens upon tens of thousands of helpful posts in THIS group for
> the
> | last 9.5 years, I think my integrity is well established. And through it
> all
> | (as you so kindly pointed out yesterday) I have never shied away from
> | telling it like I think it is. I'm certainly not going to stop now.
> |
> | >I haven't, I called YOU stupid,,
> | > you're SUPPOSED to be a knowledgeable person regarding Windows yet you
> | > apparently don't understand it very well and you certainly have no
> respect
> | > for its users. At least that's what you've recently indicated and
> | > posted...
> |
> | You haven't called me stupid because you know I'm not. I'm also not a
> lying
> | fraud, but you most certainly are. I also have more respect for Windows
> | users than you have. I'm concerned about their safety and their ability
> to
> | get what they want out of their machines. According to you, we're ALL
> stupid
> | for using Windows XP/Vista. Care to apologize? I thought not.
> |
> | > Oh yeah, lets ignore the prior boom, the collapse, and the failure of
> | > Microsoft's stock to increase due to inflation, use, new products, or
> | > anything else that indicates growth, consumer confidence, and actual
> | > value..
> | > The recent spike was due to the proposed Yahoo purchase,,, since
> Microsoft
> | > can't even get its search engine functioning properly..
> |
> | What recent spike? You mean the *bubble* back in late '07? The news of a
> | possible merger didn't come out until early February -- AFTER the bubble
> of
> | late '07 had already collapsed. The whole merger thing didn't cause more
> | than a few dollars variance, you ignorant fraud. If you're talking about
> the
> | merger talk back in Feb 2007, that died almost as soon as it was
> "reported"
> | in the blogs (and nowhere else, like any reputable source of
> information.)
> |
> | Again, you're a lying fraud. And that's been the way since the beginning
> of
> | your "orchestrated debate". Nothing but pure BS coming out of your
> keyboard.
> |
> | >Now, this is a 9X forum, think you can manage to keep it relevant to 9X
> | >without resorting to your new love, XP?
> |
> | I have no love for XP you moron. That's another thing that you don't
> get.
> | Or, rather, maybe you do get it, you just like to lie. If that wasn't
> such
> a
> | lie of a question, I might answer it.
> |
> | >Does your wife know you're having this love affair? <G>
> |
> | Do you even have a wife? With all that circle-jerking you engage in, I
> | figure not.
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | http://grystmill.com
> |
> |
> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > news:uWITHe30IHA.5564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:u3whfby0IHA.1572@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > | >
> | > | > If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and
> | > stableness
> | > | > are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to
> | > protect
> | > | > you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you
> | > | > constantly
> | > | > and consistently expose in your own writings...
> | > | > STABLE -
> | > |
> | > | Idiot-proofing is/was the whole idea, numbnuts. Always will be for
> 95%
> +
> | > of
> | > | the market. Fortunately, most of that idiot-proofing can be disabled
> and
> | > | more sane settings applied. And, of course, you continue to expose
> your
> | > own
> | > | extraordinary pomosity by presuming to know how I have my system
> | > configured.
> | > |
> | > | Of course, your never having actually USED the product, you really
> don't
> | > | know what you're talking about, do you?
> | > |
> | > | > Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find
> YOU
> | > | > spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP....
> and
> | > find
> | > | > you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of
> | > upgrading...
> | > | > you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are
> | > | > manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on
> | > Microsoft's
> | > | > behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you
> appear
> | > ...
> | > | > how
> | > | > much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you
> have
> | > to
> | > | > endure...
> | > |
> | > | If we're going to peruse histories, where were you prior to two
> years
> | > ago.
> | > | Hiding behind some alias, or perhaps going through your own dementia
> | > after
> | > | failing so miserably to make 98 what it should havbe been?
> | > |
> | > | It's polite (and sensible, if you're really interested in an honest
> | > debate)
> | > | to provide links to such things after you've gone to all the trouble
> to
> | > look
> | > | it up.
> | > |
> | > | In any case, you make my point for me. OSes come, OSes go, and all
> for
> | > good
> | > | reason. Seems to me I've been right all along.
> | > |
> | > | > The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your
> | > | > insistences...
> | > |
> | > | You keep trying to insult me by calling me insane, referring to
> personal
> | > | issues, etc. When have I ever denied it? I've ALWAYS been crazy and
> more
> | > | than a little lunatic. I'm still saner than you are by a full
> league.
> | > |
> | > | > MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because
> EVERYONE
> | > knows
> | > | > Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it
> will
> | > have
> | > | > to
> | > | > do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy
> | > code...
> | > |
> | > | Don't know much about the stock market either, do ya? FYI, MSFT is
> | > trading
> | > a
> | > | little over a dollar below its price a year ago. In fact its chart
> looks
> | > | just as I'd expect it to over the last year. Rose on the general
> good
> | > | feelings of last year from $29.50 in mid-June to $37 at the end of
> | > October,
> | > | and then, like the rest of the market, there was a major drop over
> the
> | > | Christmas season and into the new year, bottoming at $27.20 in late
> | > | February, and fluctuating a bit back and forth to settle at $28.23
> on
> | > Monday
> | > | last.
> | > |
> | > | In fact, since the beginning of 2002, when the tech stock crash had
> | > bottomed
> | > | out, and MSFT stood at $31.85, it's been fairly steady within a
> dollaar
> | > or
> | > | two until that spike last year.
> | > |
> | > | Dozens of dollars, eh? MSFT's entire history peaked at $58.38 in
> | > December
> | > | 1999. Unless you want to include the tech crash of 2000 in your
> | > | calculations, MSFT hasn't LOST more than a dozen dollars over ANY
> period
> | > of
> | > | time.
> | > |
> | > | You really are just a lying fraud, aren't you? Or are you just an
> idiot
> | > who
> | > | can't think for yourself and have to spend all your time reading the
> | > lies
> | > of
> | > | other, more well known frauds?
> | > |
> | > | > IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an
> OS
> | > that
> | > | > supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY
> processor
> | > and
> | > | > is
> | > | > FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be
> | > | > required
> | > | > to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND
> be
> | > | > subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it
> to
> | > | > work..... when you could have something else... something that
> doesn't
> | > | > require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and
> if
> | > you
> | > | > want can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know
> what
> | > your
> | > | > doing...
> | > |
> | > | I pay attention to facts, not theories. Fact is that 80% of the PC
> | > market
> | > | WANTS idiot-proofing, real PnP and out-of the-box functionality.
> That
> | > same
> | > | 80% can barely figure out how to use the incredibly user-friendly
> | > Windows
> | > | much less whatever your geeky, custom-built OS flavor of the day is.
> | > | Besides, it's proven that you're a lying fraud, so I have no faith
> in
> | > | anything you spout out these days.
> | > |
> | > | > MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk
> | > stock....
> | > |
> | > | Again, care to revise?
> | > |
> | > | --
> | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | http://grystmill.com
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | > --
> | > | > MEB
> | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > --
> | > | > _________
> | > | >
> | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what
> YOUR
> | > | > | definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a
> hard
> | > | > time
> | > | > | with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm
> | > | > supposed
> | > | > to
> | > | > | accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly.
> | > "Stable",
> | > | > as
> | > | > | in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time
> you
> | > try
> | > | > to
> | > | > | add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full
> day.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying
> | > "obsolete."
> | > No
> | > | > | more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be
> | > | > permanently
> | > | > | available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them.
> Add
> | > that
> | > | > to
> | > | > | the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the
> 9x
> | > | > system
> | > | > | online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less
> stable
> | > as
> | > | > time
> | > | > | goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and
> even
> | > | > other
> | > | > | machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says
> | > "totally
> | > | > | obsolete and useless.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs,
> | > | > programmers
> | > | > | and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and
> | > don't
> | > | > like
> | > | > | Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny
> project
> in
> | > the
> | > | > | scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project
> | > | > (whatever
> | > | > | they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of
> Microsoft's
> | > | > overall
> | > | > | activities.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it
> will
> | > | > *maybe*
> | > | > | meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means
> | > that
> | > it
> | > | > | might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS
> OS
> | > | > | development history. Then it will have lots of problems that
> need
> | > | > fixing,
> | > | > | especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems
> and
> | > will
> | > | > thus
> | > | > | almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will
> | > avoid
> | > it
> | > | > as
> | > | > | long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015
> before
> | > it
> | > | > even
> | > | > | starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless
> something
> | > | > truly
> | > | > | amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another
> NT
> | > | > | iteration.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the
> PC
> | > | > world
> | > | > | well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in
> the
> | > | > least
> | > | > | bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all
> those
> | > | > others
> | > | > | you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative
> to
> | > XP
> | > | > and,
> | > | > | eventually, Vista.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of
> the
> | > name
> | > | > | anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near
> future..
> | > | > |
> | > | > | You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I
> thought --
> | > | > you've
> | > | > | been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have
> | > nothing
> | > | > | better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they
> | > tend
> | > to
> | > | > | agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the
> way
> | > you
> | > | > | think. As if you can glean any real information about the real
> world
> | > | > from
> | > | > | stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people
> gossiping
> | > and
> | > | > | guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years
> of
> | > | > | observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the
> large
> | > | > | institutions, are wrong more than they're right.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All
> you
> | > want
> | > | > to
> | > | > | do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called
> testing,
> | > of
> | > | > | course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining
> for
> | > the
> | > | > | puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless,
> | > irrelevant
> | > | > and
> | > | > | repulsive for everyone else.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think
> more
> | > | > | rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course,
> the
> | > | > | alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll
> | > still
> | > | > be
> | > | > a
> | > | > | blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world
> | > that's
> | > | > | populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds,
> all
> | > of
> | > | > you
> | > | > | making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's
> a
> | > major
> | > | > | insult, in case you didn't catch that.)
> | > | > |
> | > | > | --
> | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | http://grystmill.com
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more
> updates...
> | > | > | > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in
> | > these
> | > | > | > discussions with you.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > And get off your crap about market share and statistics
> bullcrap,
> | > that
> | > | > is
> | > | > | > a
> | > | > | > real *who cares* situation.
> | > | > | > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a
> | > | > | > Serendipity,
> | > | > | > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty
> | > indications,
> | > | > maybe
> | > | > | > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you
> | > THINK
> | > | > you
> | > | > | > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open
> source
> | > | > | > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity
> | > has/is
> | > | > | > going
> | > | > | > on...
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there
> NT4
> | > users,
> | > | > and
> | > | > | > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still
> being
> | > used
> | > | > to
> | > | > | > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so
> the
> | > point
> | > | > is
> | > | > | > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > MEB
> | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > _________
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > | > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a
> | > | > dictionary
> | > | > | > and
> | > | > | > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a
> | > whiner
> | > | > it's
> | > | > | > you,
> | > | > | > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic
> | > (except
> | > | > a
> | > | > | > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in
> | > | > dreamland.)
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a
> | > stable
> | > | > | > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is."
> (Same
> | > | > thing
> | > | > | > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more
> | > stable
> | > | > than
> | > | > | > 9x
> | > | > | > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And
> Vista
> is
> | > | > quickly
> | > | > | > | maturing to that same state.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP,
> ummm....
> | > I
> | > | > | > really
> | > | > | > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real
> | > world,
> | > | > like
> | > | > | > I
> | > | > | > | do?
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE
> | > major
> | > | > OS
> | > | > | > for
> | > | > | > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's
> | > | > iterations
> | > | > | > will
> | > | > | > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012,
> maybe
> | > | > 2015.
> | > | > Or
> | > | > | > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually
> | > produce
> | > a
> | > | > | > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There
> sure
> | > isn't
> | > | > | > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that
> | > will
> | > | > | > replace
> | > | > | > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the
> comparative
> | > | > usage
> | > | > of
> | > | > | > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some
> real
> | > | > stats
> | > | > | > to
> | > | > | > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that
> | > stats
> | > | > lie,
> | > | > | > they
> | > | > | > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that
> my
> | > stats
> | > | > are
> | > | > | > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid
> | > caveats
> | > | > | > that
> | > | > | > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and
> | > hardly
> | > | > | > affect
> | > | > | > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their
> | > | > applications,
> | > | > | > the
> | > | > | > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage
> in
> | > the
> | > | > home
> | > | > | > and
> | > | > | > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because
> you're
> | > | > afraid
> | > | > of
> | > | > | > W3C
> | > | > | > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that
> intrigued
> | > me
> | > is
> | > | > | > that
> | > | > | > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers
> to
> | > | > consider.
> | > | > | > And
> | > | > | > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any
> inkling
> | > where
> | > | > one
> | > | > | > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage
> | > stats
> | > | > on
> | > | > | > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic
> in
> | > this
> | > | > | > group
> | > | > | > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you
> use
> | > | > different
> | > | > | > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or
> | > even
> | > | > more
> | > | > | > or
> | > | > | > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little
> | > harder
> | > | > to
> | > | > be
> | > | > | > an
> | > | > | > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their
> | > | > competencies,
> | > | > | > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing
> out
> | > in
> | > | > | > these
> | > | > | > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are
> | > totally
> | > | > | > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior,
> and
> | > | > consumer
> | > | > | > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the
> | > speculation
> | > | > in
> | > | > | > the
> | > | > | > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups,
> | > etc.,
> | > | > don't
> | > | > | > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to
> all
> | > | > those,
> | > | > | > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a
> special
> | > place
> | > | > | > | reserved for them in Heaven.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | --
> | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | > | http://grystmill.com
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT
> [or
> | > its
> | > | > new
> | > | > | > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly
> outdated*
> | > and
> | > | > | > defunct
> | > | > | > OS
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so
> was
> | > DOS,
> | > | > but
> | > | > | > it,
> | > | > | > | > at
> | > | > | > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to
> accept
> | > it
> | > | > as
> | > | > | > it
> | > | > | > | > is.
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > | > MEB
> | > | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > | > _________
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what
> a
> | > sloppy
> | > | > | > thinker
> | > | > | > | > you
> | > | > | > | > | really are.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows
> 98
> | > was
> | > | > dead
> | > | > | > | > several
> | > | > | > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine.
> | > Usual
> | > | > | > quirks,
> | > | > | > | > bit
> | > | > | > | > of
> | > | > | > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | --
> | > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | > | > | http://grystmill.com
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't
> matter
> | > if
> | > | > its
> | > | > | > | > getting
> | > | > | > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your
> pining
> | > on
> | > | > what
> | > | > | > to
> | > | > | > go
> | > | > | > | > to,
> | > | > | > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > | > | > MEB
> | > | > | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > | > | > _________
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in
> | > message
> | > | > | > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
> | > | > | > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej
> | > | > | > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>
> | > | > | > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | <sigh>
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August,
> Spybot
> | > | > | > unreliable,
> | > | > | > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly
> dropping
> | > | > support
> | > | > | > for
> | > | > | > | > | > | W98.
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4
> IP
> | > | > | > addresses.
> | > | > | > | > As
> | > | > | > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6,
> will
> | > that
> | > | > | > really
> | > | > | > be
> | > | > | > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar
> | > | > | > | > | > | --
> | > | > | > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying
> by
> | > | > email.
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
Dang, this turned into a sewer of a thread really quickly. The funny thing
is I care for both Gary S. Terhune and MEB. Don't feel bad, MEB because Gary
plonked me as well. However, Gary S. Terhune, mvp really knows his stuff and
he has been here since I first starting posting on this newsgroup under Art's
Computer which was due to fear and insecurity on my part and you know what,
it does not matter to me anymore because I think time is but a fraction of
reality but that is as deep as I care to go on this topic.
I respect Gary's views as well as yours MEB. I am trying to be the
peacemaker for this newsgroup when my thyroid collapsed last year due to
radiation I had for cancer as a child. I had surgery a 3rd time on my neck
and had the right side of my thyroid removed. That surgery took place in
January 2007. I have no spleen so I get sick much more easily. The right
side of my thyroid literally had holes in it according to Mike, my surgeon
and you can all take that for what it is worth to anyone.
Please do not feal bad for me and just remember me as dazed and confused Dan
posting who is always repetitive due to a learning disability and now trying
to live day by day and be thankful that I just woke up to my reality in the
morning and I was not dead. That is the long and short of it and Just My 2
or 3 Cents for the little difference it makes in the fragile and precious
life that some of us call reality. I just like living in the Matrix for what
it is worth to anyone who cares or not because the Truth is There is More to
Life Than the Here and Now. BTW, for anyone who cares or gives a sh_t I have
been officially cancer free due to successful chemotherapy since July 3, 1992.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.