On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 23:42:21 +0000, Larry wrote:

"Roger Long" wrote in
:

Does anyone have any solid info on whether Vista will crash if it
doesn't contact Micro$oft via the Internet occasionally?

I may have other reasons now for having a new laptop on board and you
can't get one without Vista. I also down't want to do surgery on the
battery of a new one.


Vista sucks and will for 3 more years as user/guiney pigs do all of
Billy's R&D for free, finding its flaws, security holes and testing its
STUPID copy protection schemes.

XP sales have skyrocketed since its introduction......

The day Vista came out, its first-day sales more than doubled XP's first
day sales. That was the "official" story and sounded great!

What they FAILED to mention was on Vista's first day, XP sales for that
day were 2.8 TIMES what Vista sales were....on that first day...(c;

Larry

When Win95 was released, I knew people in Sydney, Aus. who queued up
on the first day just to get a copy. They didn't even own a computer.
Never did run 95.

cheers
Peter

Peter Hendra wrote in
:

When Win95 was released, I knew people in Sydney, Aus. who queued up
on the first day just to get a copy. They didn't even own a computer.
Never did run 95.

cheers
Peter



While 95 was better than 3.1, which was simply a gui put over DOS 3.3
with a few toys, they weren't competing with the MAC, a computer I have
no use for because of its closed environment and expensive software.
Win98 wasn't much better than 95 until the SE version had been out a
year. It is very stable, but limited in memory access and hard drive
partition size by its 16-bit hardware limitations. I still have a 98
machine running, here, doing menial tasks like downloading music and
movies with a little 14" LCD monitor over in the corner. It runs
faultlessly, now that the bugs have matured, for MONTHS at a time with no
reboot on the 2KW UPS everything here plugs into. I simply reload its
que with more binaries off usenet and shut off its monitor until I see
its drive light no longer blinking madly away. Its WD hard drive and DVD
burner must have 50,000 hours on them!

Vista will be fine AFTER the hackers across the planet do all the work
making it safe to use and fixing its bugs. They do a better job because
they are not under the gun of Ballmer staring down at them from above
sending nastygrams about getting the product on the shelves before it's
ready for use....a typical corporate environment, just look at any GM
car.

Larry
--
I missed ME, 2000 and a few versions of NT....(c;

PS - Before the MAC addicts attack, my comment is about the corporations
failure to let these hackers make it better trying to raise profits the
proprietary way. Also, 95% of the software on any shareware site is
WINDOWS, still. LINUX is the best cheap OS. Too bad noone ever agreed
on ONE gui for it or finished version 1.0 of any software available for
it. The genius kids who write LINUX software do something neat. Then,
because of their short attention spans, abandon it about ver 0.953d and
move their short attention span onto the next neat project, never
finishing anything that's still buggy....to LINUX's dismay. If LINUX
ever got organised under one umbrella, Vista would have never been
written. Pity......

In article , Larry wrote:

While 95 was better than 3.1, which was simply a gui put over DOS 3.3
with a few toys, they weren't competing with the MAC, a computer I have
no use for because of its closed environment and expensive software.

Sorry, I can't let that just sit there. In what way is OS X a closed
environment? You get free development tools with the OS, more than can
be said for Windows. Also, it's based on Unix, which is far more stable
than anything MS has produced so far ... and they've had plenty of time
and $deity knows how much money to throw at the problem. As a multi-user
environment it's second to none, program install and removal is better
the MS, no registry to foul up, and no stray files around your system.


LINUX is the best cheap OS. Too bad noone ever agreed
on ONE gui for it or finished version 1.0 of any software available for
it.

Agreed on one GUI? Why restrict choice? Why not have multiple GUIs so
people can choose one they like rather than having to use something that
doesn't work how they want to? You might as well say we should all drive
the same cars or wear the same clothes.

I don't like your suggestion that none of the projects are finished or
usable because they're not even out of beta yet. The kernel is pretty
good. I'm posting using slrn, it's only on version 0.9.8.1, I've been
using it since 1997 and it's not crashed on me yet. In fact, I don't
recall any Linux programs crashing on me and I've been using it almost
exclusively at home since about 1999. I even trust both my business
servers to Linux, and I've had up times of over 400 days on both of
those, only going down for hardware or kernel upgrades. To say projects
are unfinished is misleading. There are over 18200 packages in the
Debian distribution, those packages are stable or they wouldn't be
there. But to say they're unfinished, as if it were a problem exclusive
to Linux, is unfair. Projects get superceded or become redundant, that
is why they get abandoned. If a project for which there is demand gets
abandoned by it's originator then, because of the GNU Public License,
others are able to pick it up and evolve it. You certainly don't get the
situation, which you do under the proprietary system, where the
software originators abandon it or go bust and leave their users high
and dry.

Whether software is *ever* finished is estremely debatable. If Windows
3.1 was finished, why was there the need for 95? If 95 was finished why
did we need 98? Is Adobe PageMaker finished? I doubt it, it's still been
abandoned though, and users can choose to stick with it (if it'll run
under Vista) or they've got to upgrade to InDesign.

Your remarks regarding open source software are throwaway, the software
is worth so much more than that remark.


If LINUX
ever got organised under one umbrella, Vista would have never been
written.

It has been tried. But people want different things from their software
and so they do it a different way, and they can do so freely, they
have both the tools and the source code, you only have to see how many
different Linux distributions are listed at distrowatch.com (199 so far).
Try doing that with Windows.

Sorry, got a bit OT there. It's something I'm quite passionate about and
it's easy to get carried away. Normal service will now be resumed.

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

Justin C wrote in
:

In what way is OS X a closed
environment? You get free development tools with the OS, more than can
be said for Windows. Also, it's based on Unix, which is far more stable
than anything MS has produced so far ... and they've had plenty of time
and $deity knows how much money to throw at the problem. As a multi-
user
environment it's second to none, program install and removal is better
the MS, no registry to foul up, and no stray files around your system.


You said OS X. I said MAC. Apple has a long history of trying to keep
the hackers from developing software for Apple Computers that the company
sold. They used to go after them with lawyers. Has that changed?

Windows sucks. It always has. But, alas, Windows is the OS most of the
software is written for, not MAC, for the above reason. I'm not sure of
its current statistic, but It's probably 98 to 1?? You don't have to beg
to find 24 widgee programs for XP. www.tucows.com, www.download.com, and
a hundred others. "Do they make this for the MAC?", is the next question
the left-out MAC owners ask. I've seen it for years and years.

They finally came out with Skype for MAC. It's still in beta. It needs:

System requirements
Mac computer with G4 800 Mhz processor or faster.
Mac OS X v10.3.9 Panther or later.
512 MB RAM.
40 MB free disk space on your hard drive.
Microphone.
Webcam: suggested webcams include Apple iSight, Philips SPC900NC, or
Logitech QuickCam Pro 4000. Drivers for the Philips and Logitech webcams
can be downloaded from http://webcam-osx.sourceforge.net/.
Internet connection (broadband is best, GPRS is not supported for voice
calls, and results may vary on a satellite connection).

Why does it need X v10.3.9 Panter or later? What was wrong with 10.3.8
and before?? Why are so FEW drivers written that will work with the
cameras? Why doesn't APPLE come with drivers for every camera at Circuit
City...by default?? Why do I have to go to sourceforge hackers for a
camera driver? Why do only CERTAIN cameras work? Why is this not
supported or that not supported, every time you see some program ported
to a MAC? I buy a camera/USB anything or something for a Windows
computer...plug it into XP...it works, 99% of the time. I don't have to
ask will THIS camera work on a Gateway? What version of XP do it need
10.3.9 Panther or will v9.2.1 work?

I use this skype information as just an example. There's
thousands....why? Why doesn't MAC come with MAC drivers for every camera
produced, every hard drive, every mouse? Why?

Apple bull****....that's why. It's always been that way.

You asked......(c;

I ran LINUX on 2 computers for a long time. There ARE very good Linux
softwares, even ones never quite ready-for-issue. LINUX, itself, is
quite stable, but, of course, it helps if you're familiar with root
commands even if you have a working gui. LINUX, for example, expects to
find things in certain places. It doesn't PLACE them where it wants. It
expects YOU to know where to place them so it can find them...just as an
example. This makes it unusable to most computer USERS, who know little
about the OS, its quirks, its structure. They are USERS. They are also
car USERS. They know nothing of the cars ABS brake system. They are not
mechanics...or electrical engineers...or combustion engineers. They are
USERS...same idea.

Of course, LINUX suffers from the same thing MAC does. The softwares you
want are WINDOWS programs, 99% of them. No LINUX porting? No LINUX
operation unless you use PINE or some other emulator that just gobbles
resources doing the conversion. You gotta give Billy credit. He trumped
them with his crappy OS and it STUCK.

Larry
--
BTW, I'm no Windows lover...at all! I use it because it runs the
softwares I want to use...just like everyone else.

Ok, back to boats....sorry for the intrusion.

On 2007-04-21 19:43:56 -0400, Justin C said:

In article , Larry wrote:

While 95 was better than 3.1, which was simply a gui put over DOS 3.3
with a few toys, they weren't competing with the MAC, a computer I have
no use for because of its closed environment and expensive software.

Sorry, I can't let that just sit there. In what way is OS X a closed
environment? You get free development tools with the OS, more than can
be said for Windows. Also, it's based on Unix, which is far more stable
than anything MS has produced so far ... and they've had plenty of time
and $deity knows how much money to throw at the problem. As a multi-user
environment it's second to none, program install and removal is better
the MS, no registry to foul up, and no stray files around your system.

Ahhh, don't bother trying to change a mind as tightly closed as Windoze.

I just upgraded to a new Intel iMac and refreshed all of my programs on
a whim, eliminating all Micros..t programs. For instance, I replaced
Office with NeoOffice (freeware). Because I'm both a programmer and
writer/editor, I have quite a few unusual programs and have to exchange
files transparently, but since the basic Mac programs are so good and
there's so much good shareware and freeware, I haven't gotten to $200
yet, even including a couple of "impulse" buys. That doesn't even pay
for Office. I'm afraid to see how much .NET and MSSQL costs. The Mac
equivalent is free, though it takes a while to download a 900+ MB
(zipped) file.

Microsoft is the closed, proprietary system now.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's new pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI pages: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Roger Long wrote:
Does anyone have any solid info on whether Vista will crash if it
doesn't contact Micro$oft via the Internet occasionally?

I may have other reasons now for having a new laptop on board and you
can't get one without Vista.

I can't answer your first question, (although it
would seem that Microsoft would have really shot
itself in the groin if that is true).

However, on the secondary statement, I can state
that earlier today I read a news article stating
that Dell was allowing users to choose either
Vista or XP with all new computers due to popular
demand.

Don W.

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...

I may have other reasons now for having a new laptop on board and you
can't get one without Vista. --
Roger Long

Dell is now offering laptops with XP installed :-)

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...

One would hope for greater efficiency than your lame attempt at spelling
efficiency . ..

Wilbur Hubbard