CONTEST: Who has the best insult for this idiot... (was Re: Gates Of Hell
Stoney Edwards
While rolling around in a tub filled with raw liver, some idiotic flunkie
that has very poorly masked his true identity with <kicki...@home.com>
muttered in the pathetic hopes that someone would respond to help to fill
his empty life:
[much idiocy snipped]
: Thank God Bill came and saved the world of computers from the fools.
Normally, I would do one of two things here:
1.) Trace this luser's post to it's point of origination, and then post
his/her E-mail address in *.advocacy, and let the mailbombing begin.
2.) Not respond at all.
However, in this case, I thought an insult contest would be fun. I have
better things to do, than to chase down morons, and have mail wars with
them. However, I am willing to take time out for a good gag. :)
I would like to propose that we all (Linux, Windows, and Mac users alike)
come together to host the 1st annual
"Kicki...@home.com Insult Fair"
sponsored by absolutely anyone who has lots of cash to give away.
So, the object of the game, is to try to come up with the absolute best
insult for this completely stupid stupid fscking lamer luser who masks
himself as kicki...@home.com. Yes, a string of vulgarities, that roll
off of the tongue when spoken, and shatter the spirit when heard, are the
goal of this contest. So, I shall go first. BTW, do keep in mind that
this is just a prank, so to those about to e-mail me with complaints about
content... just chill. Think of it as a chance to hone your flaming
abilities. Here I goes!!!... :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dearest Retard, whose benign trolls pollute our precious newsgroup...
You are a luser... you are a maggot ball... you are the yellow puss that
oozes from the gangreneous wound of a dead rat's testicles... you are the
lone bacteria cell, who lapeth up off of the feces of the intestinal
linings of diseased babboons... you are the dried urine beneath the
urinal in the dive bar in Mexico... you are the scum that lineth the anal
opening of the mighty elephant... you are the weed which feedeth off of
the festering, dripping mucus of the dead rhino, covered by tse tse flies,
moss, and fungus... you are the particle of dessicated poo poo in the
alley dog's gum line... you are the squishy ball of unflushed semen in the
womb of a 75 year old hooker... you are the gooey oil, in the zit of an
unbathed computer science student <g>... you are the muck, at the bottom
of a port-a-john.
Why don't you take your worthless, brainless, dickless, helpless,
hopeless, spineless, absolutely ridiculous autistic sevant rantings, and
stick to what you do best, which is having sex with large bowls of Jello
brand gelatin. <THWACK!>
--
QUOTE: Okay... who's next?...
Stephen S. Edwards II -- p h l a x i o r @ p r i m e n e t . c o m
------------------------------------------------------------------
[JA207030-TRON-RAM-FLYNN] <- leave this line in your e-mail reply
macdude
Please, I really dont want to
read such gross things.
So at the very least please
post that this will be extremely gross
I think I am going to throw up
.
.
.
..
.......
Sean
Stoney Edwards wrote in message <642qeg$4...@nntp02.primenet.com>...
:While rolling around in a tub filled with raw liver, some idiotic flunkie
:that has very poorly masked his true identity with <kicki...@home.com>
:muttered in the pathetic hopes that someone would respond to help to fill
:his empty life:
:
...
:
:However, in this case, I thought an insult contest would be fun. I have
:better things to do, than to chase down morons, and have mail wars with
:them. However, I am willing to take time out for a good gag. :)
:
:I would like to propose that we all (Linux, Windows, and Mac users alike)
:come together to host the 1st annual
:
: "Kicki...@home.com Insult Fair"
:
:sponsored by absolutely anyone who has lots of cash to give away.
:
< insults snipped >
My contribution:
kickingback@home is the only person I know who lost a flame war to Barbara
Pfrommer.
Ok, Ok... I don't think anyone in the groups to which this has been posted
will get it. Trust me... this is a wound he carries that still has not
healed.
Sean
John Black
While I respect your reasons for disliking Microsoft, you are making
the anti Microsoft camp look bad. When I see this, the image I get of
anti-Microsofters is that they are a juvenile bunch who can't attack
the opposing argument, so they attack the person instead with
schoolyard insults questioning the sexual preference, and personal
worth of anyone who dares defend Microsoft. You are lowering yourself
way below his level.
John Black
I mean, so you're implying that Micro$oft, as you anti-Microsoft
wackos call it, is the only company that wants to make a profit? So
Sun, Silicon Graphics, Apple, Corel, Netscape, etc. don't care about
making a profit, they just want to better everyone's lives, while evil
Microsoft only cares about money? Hello, GET A CLUE, you losers! Or
are you just jealous of Bill Gates?
Craig Koller
In article <34660fee...@news.mindspring.com>, nospam@nospam (John
Black) wrote:
Not *every* company out there trying to make a profit is a ruthless,
monopolistic, cut-throat band of thugs whose lust for power and wealth
knows no bounds ... Roosevelt and Hitler were both leaders of nations. Do
you put them in the same category?
Of course, this isn't meant to reflect upon MicroSoft or anything like
that. I'm just saying there *is* a difference. Some companies do *earn* the
"$."
Eric Bennett
In article <34664e86...@news.mindspring.com>, nospam@nospam (John
Black) wrote:
> You don't
> see us "Winblows" users referring to the "Muckintosh". We just roll
> our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
> community, and get back to work.
And I suppose "Crapintosh" and "Macintoy" are really mature, right?
BTW, what do you think of "Slick Willy?" :-)
--
Eric Bennett ( er...@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb )
Cornell University
Paul Rickard
If Microsoft gave me $10 million or so every year for ads, I'd probably
be quite willing to declare Windows the product of the century and BillG
king of all civilization. Giving Orifice '97 it's Editors Choice award
is the least they can do for keeping their whole company alive for a
decade.
And as for you using and liking the products, well, that just goes into
my "stupid is as stupid does" file.
--
-Paul Rickard, President of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign.
"Without data, you're just another opinion."
www.abctec.com/~msbc
Joe Ragosta
> I mean, you call Windows users, "Win Blows" and "Win doze". You
Only a very tiny percentage of Mac users do this and real Mac advocates
apologize for them.
But these names are quite common among Windows users, as well. Given the
market share differences, there may be more Windows users who use these
terms than Mac users.
> result to schoolyard insults to defend your failing platform, thus
> making Mac users look bad in the process. Just get a life. You don't
> see us "Winblows" users referring to the "Muckintosh". We just roll
No. It's usually "Hackintosh" or "Macintrash" or just the simple "Macs suck".
> our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
> community, and get back to work. I guess because Apple targeted the
> Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
> autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
Or who are too smart to want to waste their time on config.sys files.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Page
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Steven Schulze
Koen Deforche wrote in message <346657...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be>...
>John Black wrote:
>>
>> All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that
>> Microsoft shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone.
>> Well, if they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products,
>> from Windows, to Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and
>> recgonition from every major PC publication. Why, just look at the
>> awards and accolades given to IE4. Microsoft Office was PC Magazine's
>> Editor's Choice. I use Microsoft products, and I am impressed with
>> their power, ease of use, and versatility. So all you anti-Microsoft
>> dorks must have some kind of inferiority complex.
>
>You are right, as usual. It really beats me too that all these guys
>are saying that linux is better than the rest. It is incredible that
>people are making huge efforts, for free, to have their linux
>running (i am talking here about the guys that make and maintain
>linux, write apps for it). It's even nuts that internet runs on
>unix machines, while you are impressed with the power of Ms Word.
>Also it is very odd that from time to time a writer for the magazine
>Byte is very confused and writes that linux is good.
>And man, you cant enter a decent bookstore without passing to a
>whole shell of books on Linux, GNU utilities and the lot. Like
>some sensible man would buy that.
>
>But, you are right.
>
>However, I am certain that when I would take my 12" black/white
>TV to a tribe in south africa, which, by accident, has never seen
>a tv before,
You really need to brush up on reality before you make statements like that.
In some respects, South Africa is technically ahead, like in some areas of
the medical field. (The first ever successfull heart transplant in the world
was performed in a hospital in South Africa by Dr Chris Barnard).
You need to go a little bit more north...
they would put it on a totem and worship it, and
>if you would come along the same tribe, laughing at them with
>their black/white tv and say that where you are from they have
>bioscopes with 3D projection, superrealistic, they would argue
>that is not possible because they haven't put your bioscope with 3D
>projection on a totem, and do not worship it.
>
>cu, koen.
Steven Schulze
Joe Ragosta wrote in message ...
>In article <34664e86...@news.mindspring.com>, nospam@nospam (John
>Black) wrote:
>
>> I mean, you call Windows users, "Win Blows" and "Win doze". You
>
>Only a very tiny percentage of Mac users do this and real Mac advocates
>apologize for them.
>
>But these names are quite common among Windows users, as well. Given the
>market share differences, there may be more Windows users who use these
>terms than Mac users.
>
>> result to schoolyard insults to defend your failing platform, thus
>> making Mac users look bad in the process. Just get a life. You don't
>> see us "Winblows" users referring to the "Muckintosh". We just roll
>
>No. It's usually "Hackintosh" or "Macintrash" or just the simple "Macs
suck".
I prefer "Mac'nCrash", "crApple", and Mac-lusers.
>> our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
>> community, and get back to work. I guess because Apple targeted the
>> Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
>> autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
>
>Or who are too smart to want to waste their time on config.sys files.
So they get to endlessly turn on- and off their inits, finding why this one
doesn't work with that one, or why after you installed something new does
this one crash the trash, etc.
Actually, my config.sys and autoexec.bat files are both empty. These are
not required in W95 anymore. Must say I probably won't remeber how to edit
it anymore, after all this time with W95...
Steven Schulze
Concord, CA
Kevin and Brian Stone
John Black (nospam@nospam) wrote:
: All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that
: Microsoft shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone.
: Well, if they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products,
: from Windows, to Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and
: recgonition from every major PC publication.
Hype?
: Why, just look at the
: awards and accolades given to IE4. Microsoft Office was PC Magazine's
: Editor's Choice. I use Microsoft products, and I am impressed with
: their power, ease of use, and versatility. So all you anti-Microsoft
: dorks must have some kind of inferiority complex.
Actualy in your rant, you've managed to completely blind your self to the
underlying reason why MOST people despise Microsoft... namely unfiar or
otherwise unethical business practices. Now every large company from time
to time has to deal with their public image due to something they've done,
but Microsoft seems consistent in its anti-competetive practices and
almost always finds a loop hole to avoid prosecution frustrating users
even more.
The following is just a sampling of what Microsft has done to get an
unfair edge in the marketplace:
- Taking dubious advantage of an agreement between them selves and Apple
Computer, Inc. to use certain portions of the MacOS interface in their
creation of MS Windows spurring a lawsuit which they won allowing them
to (more or less) freely add MacOS-like features not covered under the
original agreement... the argument continues to rage more than a decade
later.
- The attempted anti-competetive hostile take over of Intuit (Microsoft's
only competition against their Microsoft Money software).
- Pushing Synet (a small 20 person software company) out of business by
purposfuly extending an expensive lawsuit for use of the name "Internet
Explorer"... and it's not the first time this has happend.
- Forcing PC manufacturers to install the Internet Explorer browser if
they want a license to preinstall Windows95 on their machines,
supposably in violation of a previous court order... people normaly go
to jail for acts like these.
Most of these examples are not old... in fact you may be able to look in
your local paper to learn more about them. And I hope I've made it clear
that people do have their reasons for hating Microsoft and its software,
and their reasons are not unfounded.
BTW, nice cross post for such a poor troll. I snipped it to the vaugely
valid newsgroups.
-Kevin Stone
Stone Entertainment
www.StoneEntertainment.com
Steven Schulze
Craig Koller wrote in message <645phq$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>In article <34660fee...@news.mindspring.com>, nospam@nospam (John
>Black) wrote:
>
>> I mean, so you're implying that Micro$oft, as you anti-Microsoft
>> wackos call it, is the only company that wants to make a profit? So
>> Sun, Silicon Graphics, Apple, Corel, Netscape, etc. don't care about
>> making a profit, they just want to better everyone's lives, while evil
>> Microsoft only cares about money? Hello, GET A CLUE, you losers! Or
>> are you just jealous of Bill Gates?
>
>Not *every* company out there trying to make a profit is a ruthless,
>monopolistic, cut-throat band of thugs whose lust for power and wealth
>knows no bounds ... Roosevelt and Hitler were both leaders of nations. Do
>you put them in the same category?
Yes, but we all know that if Apple was actually successful (like MS), they
definately would give their money away to charity, slow down their R&D to
give other companies a chance to catch up again, not invest into technology
to speed up the internet for everyone, not do anything to spread their
software to everyone (to give the competition a chance, not advertise
anything so that the competition can have a chance, and, boy, they
definately won't want to make their investers any more money, now would
they?
Dream on, Macboy...
>Of course, this isn't meant to reflect upon MicroSoft or anything like
>that. I'm just saying there *is* a difference. Some companies do *earn* the
>"$."
Yes, MS must have stolen it.
Please wake up. MS is SUCCESSFUL, and Apple is NOT. THAT is why MS has
money, and Apple doesn't. People buy MS products because they want to (some
Mac-user inserts pathetic excuse here that all people buying MS products are
forced to do it), and people DO NOT buy Apple products because they don't
offer as much as a Wintel machine. Stop being in denial.
Steven Schulze
Concord, CA
Morbius
In article <6469l8$gs2$2...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, Miguel Cruz
<migue...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
> >I guess because Apple targeted the Mac towards morons who don't know how to
> >edit config.sys and autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
>
> This from the same person who just covered the inside of my screen with
> spittle yelling about how difficult linux is to use? What is your point
> exactly?
>
> miguel
Whatever the point (if any) what is this crap doing in c.s.m.a and with
this Subject line?
<c.s.m.a trimmed from the headers>
--
Morbius (morbius at sure dot net)
"Wintel, the greatest monument to the world's natural affinity for mediocrity." -- Me
James Cornthwaite
Microsloth products good eh? I recall that every machine that i have
ever
run a MS OS on has been problematic (ie, crashed) on a consistent basis.
You'll think everything is fixed, and everything runs smoothly for a
while,
and all of a sudden, things start to crash again. It isn't just me, it
is
everyone i know - it is a reality that MS products are unreliable.
Everyone
at work was laughing the other day when our secretary got the following
message in win95:
"Error loading explorer.exe. You must reinstall windows."
This is no joke. A reboot left no trace of the problem (except that the
hard
disk still had windows on it). It has been observed by many that MS
apps
either hog memory, or don't release memory when they exit.
Funny how i never have problems with my linux box. Very funny indeed :)
I don't just 'say' MS products suck. I know from experience that they
do.
Regards,
James
Craig Koller
In article <eDNrGhY78GA.326@upnetnews03>, "Steven Schulze"
<Captain_SOS@*NOSPAM*msn.com> wrote:
...Yeah, fine. Whatever ... and Captain Kirk could kick Captain Picard's
butt ... yeah, yeah, yeah.
Let Bill be your champion because he's *successful.* And don't make a straw
man of my saying *all* people buying MS products are ... because I never
said that. Hell, *I* buy MS products. Got a Wintel computer sitting right
next to me. I work with both computers all day. How 'bout *you,* sporto?
Know from whence you speak?
I don't buy products from the most *successful* company. I buy the best
products. And, no, you're quite wrong, Apple established a standard of
philanthropy from the get-go, to almost shocking proportions, initially.
But, by and large, Apple is a good neighbor and doesn't try to annihilate
or screw either its developers or competitors.
And, for the record, MS STOLE CP/M by purchasing a plagarized knock-off
called QDOS and licensing it back to IBM. That's their ignominious entrance
into the world of operating systems. If the legal system wasn't so clueless
as to what an OS was 15 years ago, MS would have gotten busted big time.
Something to be real proud of, huh.
Hey, but fuck it ... they're SUCCESSFUL.
John Black
I mean, you call Windows users, "Win Blows" and "Win doze". You
making Mac users look bad in the process. Just get a life. You don't
see us "Winblows" users referring to the "Muckintosh". We just roll
George
On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 19:34:07 GMT, John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>I mean, so you're implying that Micro$oft, as you anti-Microsoft
>wackos call it, is the only company that wants to make a profit? So
>Sun, Silicon Graphics, Apple, Corel, Netscape, etc. don't care about
>making a profit, they just want to better everyone's lives, while evil
>Microsoft only cares about money? Hello, GET A CLUE, you losers! Or
>are you just jealous of Bill Gates?
nope ... we are just pointing to a monopoly ...
George
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Lebl <ji...@5z.com> http://www.5z.com/jirka/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING:
Reading this message can affect the dimensionality of your
mind, change the curvature of your spine, cause the growth of hair on
your palms, and make a difference in the outcome of your favorite war.
George
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:00:00 GMT, John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that
>Microsoft shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone.
>Well, if they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products,
>from Windows, to Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and
>awards and accolades given to IE4. Microsoft Office was PC Magazine's
>Editor's Choice. I use Microsoft products, and I am impressed with
>their power, ease of use, and versatility. So all you anti-Microsoft
>dorks must have some kind of inferiority complex.
well simple ... M$ kind of owns Ziff ... Ziff ownes PC Mag ... plus M$ is
the biggest advertizer in PC Mag ...
it's the same reason why Linux Jurnal will never give an award to M$ (well
besides the reason that M$ products can't stand up to linux or unix products
in general)
nobody shits in their own nest ... (well except birds, but that's beside the
point)
get a clues ... monopolies never did and never will produce quality products
Jerry Sams
Demonspawn Armageddon wrote in message <3468102B...@pipeline.com>...
>
>
>John Black, in a state of mental inferiority, wrote:
>
>> I mean, you call Windows users, "Win Blows" and "Win doze". You
>> result to schoolyard insults to defend your failing platform, thus
>> making Mac users look bad in the process. Just get a life. You don't
>> see us "Winblows" users referring to the "Muckintosh".
Yeah! You mushed up "Macintush" people.
We Windows users are above name-calling.
Jerry
100% Windows Pure
George
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 03:25:04 GMT, John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>See, the common response by an Anti-Microsofter. Can't attack the
>argument, can't give any reason why Microsoft products and the company
>are as bad as they say they are, so they attack the person instead.
>What a bunch of losers. I'm not saying Microsoft products are
>perfect, but they aren't as bad as you idiots say they are.
nope, they are worse ...
well ... I'm not an anti microsofter ... I'm anti monopoly ... once M$ gets
split up and isn't a monopoly any more .. I'd be mroe then happy to go
out and buy some of their stuff if I thought I'd like it ..
problem is ... I have to administer some NTs ... and that's enough to
make you hate them ... of course if you have never administered linux
boxes ... you might think NTs are simple ... yeah right ... plus you
actually have to go around and restart the boxes .. reinstall ... reboot
... why ... I install a linux box ... it runs ...
so I'm not someone who doesn't know M$ ... I'm someone who has had to
work with them (fortunately not much any more)
so once they get their shit together ... I might buy stuff from them ...
in the meantime I'm not stupid enough to buy something just because it got
pretty adverisements ....
George
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:03:37 GMT, John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>I mean, you call Windows users, "Win Blows" and "Win doze". You
>result to schoolyard insults to defend your failing platform, thus
>making Mac users look bad in the process. Just get a life. You don't
>our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
>community, and get back to work. I guess because Apple targeted the
>Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
>autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
hmm ... well I guess by the same argument ... M$ targeted windoze toward
morons who can't edit their rc files ... hmm ... your argumentation powers
are seriously impaired .... get your head checked ... maybe they'll find a
brain in there somewhere ...
George
>>> our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
>>> community, and get back to work. I guess because Apple targeted the
>>> Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
>>> autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
>>
>
>So they get to endlessly turn on- and off their inits, finding why this one
>doesn't work with that one, or why after you installed something new does
>this one crash the trash, etc.
>
>Actually, my config.sys and autoexec.bat files are both empty. These are
>not required in W95 anymore. Must say I probably won't remeber how to edit
>it anymore, after all this time with W95...
so by the original argumentation .. which you seem to agree with ....
you are a moron ...
hmmm ...
Jeffrey C. Dege
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:00:00 GMT, John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that
>Microsoft shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone.
>Well, if they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products,
>from Windows, to Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and
>recgonition from every major PC publication. Why, just look at the
>awards and accolades given to IE4. Microsoft Office was PC Magazine's
>Editor's Choice. I use Microsoft products, and I am impressed with
>their power, ease of use, and versatility. So all you anti-Microsoft
>dorks must have some kind of inferiority complex.
I saw an ad for Microsoft Project a couple of weeks ago, where some
actor was talking about how great it was, then ended with something like:
"if I didn't have it, I'd have to use..., I don't know, I've never used
anything else."
This is the core of the problem. Most users of Microsoft Project never
_have_ used anything else, or had any formal training in project management,
or have any idea as to just what Microsoft Project _should_ be doing
for them that it doesn't or does wrong.
I'll admit I'm a cantankerous sort. I've been using LaTeX now for more
than ten years now, on dozens of different platforms, and I'm quite
familiar with it. It just might be that if Microsoft developed a new
document preparation system that did everything that LaTeX only better
I _still_ wouldn't use it, just because of general obstinacy. But I'd
like to think that I would be open enough to the new system to give it
a chance. But it isn't likely to be an issue, because looking at
the progress of Word, it's going to take Microsoft at least another
twenty years before it will be able to match LaTeX in the abilities
that are important to me.
--
IF 2 + 2 .EQ. 5 THEN 5 = 4
Miguel Cruz
John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>I guess because Apple targeted the Mac towards morons who don't know how to
>edit config.sys and autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
This from the same person who just covered the inside of my screen with
Dave Pearson
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:00:00 GMT, John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
> All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that Microsoft
> shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone. Well, if
> they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products, from Windows, to
> Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and recgonition from every
> major PC publication.
Advertising revenue?
--
Take a look in Hagbard's World: | w3ng - The WWW Norton Guide reader.
http://www.acemake.com/hagbard/ | ng2html - The NG to HTML converter.
http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
Free software, including........| dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Zinzan
>I use Microsoft products, and I am impressed with
>their power, ease of use, and versatility.
My objections to MS products (and I do use them, just don't have the $
to run Macs yet) are that they are SO hard to use. There's so much
redundancy and feature creep it becomes unwieldy. You can browse the
Internet in the same interface as your local files... why? There's a
perfectly good Internet Explorer window for that purpose. There are 67
different ways to open a Word file... why? Just one, a really
effective one, would be fine. There are seventeen different ways to
update the styles in normal.dot... why? When there are so many options
to do something, I get so swamped that none of them comes out truly
effective. They may be versatile and powerful, but MS needs to ditch
their engineer-based interface designers and hire some actualy
designers.
~scott
Steven Schulze
George wrote in message ...
>>>> our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
>>>> community, and get back to work. I guess because Apple targeted the
>>>> Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
>>>> autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
>>>
>>>Or who are too smart to want to waste their time on config.sys files.
>>
>>So they get to endlessly turn on- and off their inits, finding why this
one
>>doesn't work with that one, or why after you installed something new does
>>this one crash the trash, etc.
>>
>>Actually, my config.sys and autoexec.bat files are both empty. These are
>>not required in W95 anymore. Must say I probably won't remeber how to
edit
>>it anymore, after all this time with W95...
>
>so by the original argumentation .. which you seem to agree with ....
>
>you are a moron ...
No, not really. I never agreed to that. I said YOU ARE A MORAN BECAUSE YOU
ARE CLUELESS AS TO WHAT GOES ON IN W95. You still think we are all using
W3.1.
"Forgetting" how to edit a config.sys file and a autoexec.bat file is a sign
that we don't do these things anymore. Unlike on the Mac where you still
need to battle with init conflicts.
Steven Schulze
Concord, CA
Steven Schulze
Craig Koller wrote in message <6466l2$8...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>In article <eDNrGhY78GA.326@upnetnews03>, "Steven Schulze"
><Captain_SOS@*NOSPAM*msn.com> wrote:
>
>> Craig Koller wrote in message <645phq$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>> >In article <34660fee...@news.mindspring.com>, nospam@nospam (John
>> >Black) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I mean, so you're implying that Micro$oft, as you anti-Microsoft
>> >> wackos call it, is the only company that wants to make a profit? So
>> >> Sun, Silicon Graphics, Apple, Corel, Netscape, etc. don't care about
>> >> making a profit, they just want to better everyone's lives, while evil
>> >> Microsoft only cares about money? Hello, GET A CLUE, you losers! Or
>> >> are you just jealous of Bill Gates?
>> >
But 90% of Wintel purchases are forced, right? Or, let's see... If the Mac
has 3% marketshare, and it's a better deal than a Wintel, that means that,
what, AT LEAST 97% of all PC purchases are done with a gun the head. Only
makes sense, right? Yea, that's it - 97%...
>I don't buy products from the most *successful* company. I buy the best
>products. And, no, you're quite wrong, Apple established a standard of
>philanthropy from the get-go, to almost shocking proportions, initially.
>But, by and large, Apple is a good neighbor and doesn't try to annihilate
>or screw either its developers or competitors.
Of course, what does escape you is that MS GOT TO BE SUCCESSFUL by selling
the best products, or didn't they?
And Apple does not annihilate or screw it's developers or competitors?
Let's see here... Apple licences the MacOS. Apple start losing money to
it's competitors. Apple kills all clones. No, your'e right - Apple doesn't
screw it's competitors.
And MS treats it's developers way better than Apple does. Apple has viewed
Mac developers as cash sources in the past.
Of course, the difference is that all this is on a teeny-weeny scale
compared to MS, so therefore MS must be bad and Apple must be good.
>And, for the record, MS STOLE CP/M by purchasing a plagarized knock-off
>called QDOS and licensing it back to IBM. That's their ignominious entrance
>into the world of operating systems. If the legal system wasn't so clueless
>as to what an OS was 15 years ago, MS would have gotten busted big time.
>Something to be real proud of, huh.
>
>Hey, but fuck it ... they're SUCCESSFUL.
Yes. Sue them - their'e successful. Can't have that...
Steven Schulze
Concord, CA
Steven Schulze
Christopher Mahmood wrote in message <646m4j$t84$2...@pravda.ucr.edu>...
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Steven Schulze <Captain_SOS@*NOSPAM*msn.com>
wrote:
>
>> Actually, my config.sys and autoexec.bat files are both empty. These are
>> not required in W95 anymore. Must say I probably won't remeber how to
edit
>> it anymore, after all this time with W95...
>
>they never where *required* in dos, you moron! But think about it...where
do you
>think your path and prompt and all of the vars are being set? Or are you
one of those
>windoze types that think there's no dos in windoze anymore.
>-ckm
Nope. Empty. Just checked it. Nothing but three REMed out lines. I'm
aware of the W95/DOS relationship, thanks. That's why W95 is so compatable
with ancient software. Best of both worlds.
Steven Schulze
Concord, CA
Ben Hekster
In article <eDNrGhY78GA.326@upnetnews03>, "Steven Schulze"
<Captain_SOS@*NOSPAM*msn.com> wrote:
> Craig Koller wrote in message <645phq$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> >monopolistic, cut-throat band of thugs whose lust for power and wealth
> >knows no bounds ... Roosevelt and Hitler were both leaders of nations. Do
> >you put them in the same category?
>
> Yes, but we all know that if Apple was actually successful (like MS), they
> definately would give their money away to charity, slow down their R&D to
> give other companies a chance to catch up again, not invest into technology
> to speed up the internet for everyone, not do anything to spread their
> software to everyone (to give the competition a chance, not advertise
> anything so that the competition can have a chance, and, boy, they
> definately won't want to make their investers any more money, now would
> they?
In fact, giving the competition an even break is exactly what Apple did.
They spun off their application development department into an independent
company that competed on equal terms with everybody else-- the company
known as 'Claris'. Whereas M$ concentrated their 'research' into
developing secret APIs that made it nearly impossible for anybody else to
compete.
Oh, and Apple was distributing their system software for free over the
Internet almost a decade before any researcher at Micro$oft even knew what
a DNS entry was. What was that URL again where I can download Windoze
95..? Right, absolutely staggering research those guys are doing over
there.
> >Of course, this isn't meant to reflect upon MicroSoft or anything like
> >that. I'm just saying there *is* a difference. Some companies do *earn* the
> >"$."
>
> Yes, MS must have stolen it.
M$ has not done one iota of useful research, unless, of course, you
consider the research efforts of their Corporate Scavenging department to
find new promising companies to snuff out and assimilate.
> People buy MS products because they want to (some
> Mac-user inserts pathetic excuse here that all people buying MS products are
> forced to do it), [...]
People buy M$ products because they don't know any better, and the people
who should know better have their heads stuck so far up M$'s arse that all
they see is whatever latest 'innovation' the behemoth chooses to excrete.
That is, until it decides it needs an extra billion, craps you out and
swallows you whole.
Have fun up there while it lasts.
Ben
John Millington
John Black (nospam@nospam) wrote:
: All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that
: Microsoft shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone.
: Well, if they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products,
: from Windows, to Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and
: recgonition from every major PC publication.
An excellent question. Suppose you were in charge of running a publication
that you had put years of effort into. It's your baby. It's part of your
ego. And on top of that, it 's making you good money. It's profitable.
You *care* about whether it lives or dies.
And Microsoft is a major advertiser. You depend on their revenue.
What if Microsoft's flagship product were disappointing? Would you be willing
to say so, knowing that Microsoft could completely devastate your business
by withholding advertising revenue? It would depend on your integrity and
your willingness to do the right thing, even though it could hurt you.
When individual people make such decisions, it becomes a function of their
personality and integrity. Not so for a large business with many stockholders
and a board of directors. It _must_ act purely in self-interest without
regard for right and wrong. It cannot afford integrity. So it lies.
Take a look at what PC Magazine did in 1995. They gave Windows 95 their
award for "technical merit". Note: they didn't just recommend Windows 95 for
practical reasons, or say that you can't go wrong buying Microsoft. They
didn't give it some kind of "Marketing Achievement" award or "Success in
Getting 3rd Party Support" award. They awarded it TECHNICAL MERIT. And that
is utterly and completely ridiculous. It is objectively false. Windows 95
is a technical disgrace. Compare it to the other OSes available at the
time (on technical grounds only!), and Windows 95 wouldn't even make the
first cut.
PC Magazine deliberately tried to mislead its readers. Now take a look at
any issue of PC Magazine and see _who_ has how many pages of advertising
therein. Are you still willing to pay attention to the awards given by
the professional media?
Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
John Millington
Phil Ptkwt Kristin
In article <34664dd9...@news.mindspring.com>,
John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that
>Microsoft shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone.
>Well, if they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products,
>from Windows, to Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and
>awards and accolades given to IE4. Microsoft Office was PC Magazine's
>Editor's Choice.
Who do you think buys a big chunk of advertising in the publications you
refer to? You know what they say about money talking.
Micro$oft may make technically inferior products, but there is one area
where they can't be called inferior - Marketing. M$ is able to convince
companies to leave perfectly good (and superior) UNIX systems and replace
them with inferior WinNT while at the same time making them think that
they now have something that is 'better' than what they had.
> I use Microsoft products, and I am impressed with
>their power, ease of use, and versatility.
But the question is have you ever used anything but M$ apps/OS's? If all
you've ever eaten are peanut-butter&jelly sandwiches and someone comes
along and tells you that you should try steak and lobster perhaps you
would reply that "I've always eaten peanut butter & jelly sandwiches and I
am impressed with their taste, why should I try steak & lobster?".
> So all you anti-Microsoft
>dorks must have some kind of inferiority complex.
No, I think that actually we lack the lemming complex (herd mentality) and
that we are free and independent thinkers that are not afraid to ask if
there is anything else out there that is better.
pt
Oregon: The state where it is legal to kill yourself, but illegal
to pump your own gas.
George
>>>So they get to endlessly turn on- and off their inits, finding why this
>one
>>>doesn't work with that one, or why after you installed something new does
>>>this one crash the trash, etc.
>>>
>>>not required in W95 anymore. Must say I probably won't remeber how to
>edit
>>>it anymore, after all this time with W95...
>>
>>
>>you are a moron ...
>
>
>No, not really. I never agreed to that. I said YOU ARE A MORAN BECAUSE YOU
>ARE CLUELESS AS TO WHAT GOES ON IN W95. You still think we are all using
>W3.1.
well ... that means you are a moron acording to the original argument...
I never said anything about win95 ... and fortunately I don't have to give
a crap what's going on with it ... the only OS from M$ that can be called an
OS is NT ... which is another bloated goat ...
>"Forgetting" how to edit a config.sys file and a autoexec.bat file is a sign
>that we don't do these things anymore. Unlike on the Mac where you still
>need to battle with init conflicts.
well I don't use a mac ... and unless it will run PPCLinux ... I never will
I guess .. (although since rapsody should be BSD based it will be kind of kewl
as well ...but I don't like the part about the mach microkernel)
George
>>> Actually, my config.sys and autoexec.bat files are both empty. These are
>>> not required in W95 anymore. Must say I probably won't remeber how to
>edit
>>> it anymore, after all this time with W95...
>>
>do you
>>think your path and prompt and all of the vars are being set? Or are you
>one of those
>>windoze types that think there's no dos in windoze anymore.
>>-ckm
>
>Nope. Empty. Just checked it. Nothing but three REMed out lines. I'm
>aware of the W95/DOS relationship, thanks. That's why W95 is so compatable
>with ancient software. Best of both worlds.
hmm .. well .. nope ... cuz I know quite a lot of things I can do in dosemu
which just won't work in win95 .. since win95 is dos .. you just can't fake
stuff for it ... like fake i/o ports ... rerouting files ...
and win95 dosbox won't run elks ...
Paul Rickard
I dont blindly say all Microsoft products are bad. Some, like older
versions of FrontPage, are nearly usable. The company itself is my main
problem. Doesn't it bother you in the least that once Microsoft buys
that 7% share of MediaOne (which owns 25% of Timewarner) the company
will directy or indirectly have control of this country's 3 largest
cable companies? That's at least 75% of the US cable television network.
And don't give me that "they aren't controlling shares" BS, because most
business insiders will tell you that doesn't make a lot of difference.
When somebody owns 1/4 of your company, you listen to them even if
they're not controlling shares.
--
-Paul Rickard, President of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign.
"Without data, you're just another opinion."
www.abctec.com/~msbc
George Graves
John Black wrote:
> I mean, you call Windows users, "Win Blows" and "Win doze". You
> result to schoolyard insults to defend your failing platform, thus
> making Mac users look bad in the process. Just get a life. You don't
>
> see us "Winblows" users referring to the "Muckintosh".
You don't? What planet do you live on? I've seen Macs called that
and a lot of other things as well.
> We just roll
> our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
> community, and get back to work.
You better. Studies show that you won't get as muchwork done on your PC
today as your Mac counterpart
will.
> I guess because Apple targeted the
> Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
> autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
Who in their right mind would WANT to spend all day
editing config.sys and autoexec.bat files? No wonder
my above posted productivity statements are so true!
George Graves
Chuck Bermingham
John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote in article
<34660fee...@news.mindspring.com>...
> I mean, so you're implying that Micro$oft, as you anti-Microsoft [snip]
I myself can understand why people do it.
In the old days, I used to like to program on Intel hardware for a hobby.
This used to be easy to do, because the *free* Basic interpreter that came
with Bill's OS's was reasonably on a par with the OS. Even when MS-DOS
version 5 came out, with its "qbasic" program, there was still at least
*some* potential there.
I can still do this at very low cost with Linux and any number of
languages.
Can't no more with Microsoft stuff (unless, of course, I want to pay for
the OS, then the development tools, then all the Windows documentation that
never seems to come free with anything...
So you see, my friend, the answer is $simple. $some of u$ prefer to do
things for fun, not money.
At least, that's how I view it.
Stoney Edwards
John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
[moronic ranting snipped]
: their power, ease of use, and versatility. So all you anti-Microsoft
: dorks must have some kind of inferiority complex.
Nice troll... fsck off.
--
QUOTE: <PHlaxiOR has no words of wisdom for today>
Stephen S. Edwards II -- p h l a x i o r @ p r i m e n e t . c o m
------------------------------------------------------------------
[JA207030-TRON-RAM-FLYNN] <- leave this line in your e-mail reply
Donovan Rebbechi
> On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:03:37 GMT, nospam@nospam (John Black) wrote:
>
> > Just get a life. You don't
> >our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
> >Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
> >autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
>
I'm not even a Mac user, actually, I don't even like Macs. But I don't
see why Mac users deserve this kind of abuse.
Yes, some-one needs to grow up.
Hint: I'm not talking about the Mac users.
-- Donovan
Daniel Ingling
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------5C842C5E6204
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Zinzan wrote:
>
> >I use Microsoft products, and I am impressed with
> >their power, ease of use, and versatility.
>
> My objections to MS products (and I do use them, just don't have the $
> to run Macs yet) are that they are SO hard to use. There's so much
> redundancy and feature creep it becomes unwieldy. You can browse the
> Internet in the same interface as your local files... why? There's a
> perfectly good Internet Explorer window for that purpose. There are 67
> different ways to open a Word file... why? Just one, a really
> effective one, would be fine. There are seventeen different ways to
> update the styles in normal.dot... why? When there are so many options
> to do something, I get so swamped that none of them comes out truly
> effective. They may be versatile and powerful, but MS needs to ditch
> their engineer-based interface designers and hire some actualy
> designers.
>
> ~scott
--
Daniel Ingling - Owner
Cutting Edge Graphics
208 New Freedom Road
Southampton, NJ 08088-2802
--------------5C842C5E6204
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="Microsoft.jpg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Microsoft.jpg"
<encoded_portion_removed>
sVdirsVdirsVf//Z
--------------5C842C5E6204--
Matthew Gaunt
Brian S. wrote:
> > Nigel
> That must be why I reboot my Win NT Workstation at least twice daily
Our NT servers haven't been booted for months. I can't remember the
last time I powered off my workstation. And it gets HAMMERED...
Matthew Gaunt
UDMS wrote:
>
> > If all you had NT 4.0 doing was file/print serving it would be stable as a
> > rock, too.
>
> bullshit. i have to work on nt workstation at work and it crashes when i
> am not even doing anything.
Well, that "nothing" that you are doing, you must be doing it extremely
badly.
Our company hammers NT - our machines don't get chance to do "nothing".
And, not only is it rock solid, it's also possible for anyone to
configure it - unlike the abominable and unnecessary humility of trying
to prize obscure secrets out of a smug, resident Unix guru.
Keith M. Lucas
In article <joe.ragosta-09...@elk75.dol.net>,
Joe Ragosta <joe.r...@dol.net> wrote:
>In article <34664e86...@news.mindspring.com>, nospam@nospam (John
>Black) wrote:
>
>> I mean, you call Windows users, "Win Blows" and "Win doze". You
>
>apologize for them.
Whereas those who develop on Macs swear at them ALL the time and are
happy referring to the naff little boxes with their poxy apology of an
operating system as "beige toasters".
Of course, I have in my time described NT in terms I'm not going to
repeat, taken a half hour to hate 95 so hard I could spit and punched
Linux PCs and let's see, CPM is a bag of wank, GEM never did work
properly, the Amiga user interface is shite. The battery in my NC100
keeps resetting the thing, my CPC screen flickers too much, Solaris is
far, far, far too slow. The last mobile phone I had had bugs in the OS
and would crash from time to time...
Actually, the reason I hate Windows so hard is the sheer number of
users that whine at me about it. People I meet at classes, people I'm
related to, people on the bus who happen to overhear me talking and
work out I'm a software engineer. And then next thing they'll ask is
always along the lines of "Do you know why my PC won't run Word
anymore ?", "Why does it crash all the time ?", "Why does it keep
losing all my writing ?"
Never, never does anyone have anything but complaints. Whine, whine,
whine they go. Hate that. Really do.
So rather than be proud of being a software engineer, I have to go out
of my way not to tell people what I do for a living. All because
Windows is crap and people want to complain at someone about it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sillywizATexcessionDOTdemonDOTcoDOTuk"It's not a personality..it's a bulldozer"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Great boiling hell, Jones, what happened ?" "Er.. I think my pants exploded."
---------------------------------------------------------- Captain Star -------
Jerry Sams
George wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:00:00 GMT, John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>>All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that
>>Microsoft shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone.
>>Well, if they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products,
>>from Windows, to Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and
>>recgonition from every major PC publication. Why, just look at the
>>awards and accolades given to IE4. Microsoft Office was PC Magazine's
>>Editor's Choice. I use Microsoft products, and I am impressed with
>>their power, ease of use, and versatility. So all you anti-Microsoft
>>dorks must have some kind of inferiority complex.
>
>well simple ... M$ kind of owns Ziff ... Ziff ownes PC Mag ... plus M$ is
>the biggest advertizer in PC Mag ...
>
>it's the same reason why Linux Jurnal will never give an award to M$ (well
>besides the reason that M$ products can't stand up to linux or unix
products
>in general)
>
>nobody shits in their own nest ... (well except birds, but that's beside
the
>point)
Actually, that right on point.
>>jumps up and down like a jay and sings (to the tune of Cotton Eye Joe):
Where did it come, where did it go
everybody is goin' for the Java bird dough!
It's late and . . .
Jerry
John Black
See, the common response by an Anti-Microsofter. Can't attack the
argument, can't give any reason why Microsoft products and the company
are as bad as they say they are, so they attack the person instead.
What a bunch of losers. I'm not saying Microsoft products are
perfect, but they aren't as bad as you idiots say they are.
> And as for you using and liking the products, well, that just goes into
>my "stupid is as stupid does" file.
John Black
Koen Deforche
You are right, as usual. It really beats me too that all these guys
are saying that linux is better than the rest. It is incredible that
people are making huge efforts, for free, to have their linux
running (i am talking here about the guys that make and maintain
linux, write apps for it). It's even nuts that internet runs on
unix machines, while you are impressed with the power of Ms Word.
Also it is very odd that from time to time a writer for the magazine
Byte is very confused and writes that linux is good.
And man, you cant enter a decent bookstore without passing to a
whole shell of books on Linux, GNU utilities and the lot. Like
some sensible man would buy that.
But, you are right.
However, I am certain that when I would take my 12" black/white
TV to a tribe in south africa, which, by accident, has never seen
a tv before, they would put it on a totem and worship it, and
if you would come along the same tribe, laughing at them with
their black/white tv and say that where you are from they have
bioscopes with 3D projection, superrealistic, they would argue
that is not possible because they haven't put your bioscope with 3D
projection on a totem, and do not worship it.
cu, koen.
Christopher Mahmood
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Steven Schulze <Captain_SOS@*NOSPAM*msn.com> wrote:
Loren Petrich
In article <6469l8$gs2$2...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Miguel Cruz <migue...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>>I guess because Apple targeted the Mac towards morons who don't know how to
>>edit config.sys and autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
>This from the same person who just covered the inside of my screen with
>spittle yelling about how difficult linux is to use? What is your point
>exactly?
Mr. Black might claim that Windoze goes between the extremes of
too much GUI (the MacOS) and too little GUI (Linux).
However, M$ has been moving its user interfaces more and more in a
Mac-like direction, so all the Mac-hating M$ groupies might want to pause
to think about why their heroes are trying to imitate the MacOS.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Nigel Tzeng
In article <slrn66dgho...@julia.5z.com>,
George <ji...@julia.5z.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:00:00 GMT, John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
[snip]
>get a clues ... monopolies never did and never will produce quality products
Really. And telephone service was of such low quality until AT&T was
broken up. And power companies have high failure rates...
I will grant you cable companies are an example of poor monopolies :).
As a matter of fact MS has better quality than most other software
manufacturers in the industry (95% vs 85% defect removal rates).
Their software development techniques are some of the best in the
industry and they have one of the highest tester to developer ratios
in the business.
Yes, they have bugs in their code but the programs are huge...NT is
the same size as MVS or Unix. And if you think unix is bug free you
haven't installed and used any of the common unices.
There were problems with HPUX 10.0 (and for that matter 10.20) and
Solaris 2.0-2.2 (Solaris 2.3 was really the first stable release of
Solaris).
Linux isn't bug free either but hey...it's free. Then again so is
Windows.
>George
Nigel
Nigel Tzeng
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Mr. Black might claim that Windoze goes between the extremes of
>too much GUI (the MacOS) and too little GUI (Linux).
>
> However, M$ has been moving its user interfaces more and more in a
>Mac-like direction, so all the Mac-hating M$ groupies might want to pause
>to think about why their heroes are trying to imitate the MacOS.
Because they are bright? The Mac GUI is pretty damn good...of course
it seems like a lot of the names that made the Mac GUI great are
somewhere else now. As an example Tog is at Sun now...has been for a
while.
To be accurate MS isn't trying to imitate the MacOS but the Mac GUI.
I doubt anyone is trying to imitate the core MacOS...
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
Nigel
Jack Walker
On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 19:34:07 GMT, nospam@nospam (John Black) wrote:
I think the real reason is to commorate NT's VMS heretage. ;^)
>I mean, so you're implying that Micro$oft, as you anti-Microsoft
>wackos call it, is the only company that wants to make a profit? So
>Sun, Silicon Graphics, Apple, Corel, Netscape, etc. don't care about
>making a profit, they just want to better everyone's lives, while evil
>Microsoft only cares about money? Hello, GET A CLUE, you losers! Or
>are you just jealous of Bill Gates?
Reply to jawalker(AT)beckman(dot)com
Rauli Ruohonen
[Hmm. This is off-topic here (comp.os.linux.development.apps). Oh well..]
First reply to your subject line:
Re: Why do people use the dollar sign in Microsoft's name?
Dunno. Why do people write like this...................... Lotsa
dots...................................................... cool............
Maybe they haven't used the keyboard enough to find s instead of $, and
also push "." too long and can't find the backspace key.
On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 19:34:07 GMT, John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote:
And why do people use forged e-mail addresses? Can't you build a decent
procmail spam filter?
>I mean, so you're implying that Micro$oft, as you anti-Microsoft
>wackos call it, is the only company that wants to make a profit?
Wackos? Whee.
>So Sun, Silicon Graphics, Apple, Corel, Netscape, etc. don't care about
>making a profit, they just want to better everyone's lives, while evil
>Microsoft only cares about money?
I don't recall that anyone has said this. There are reasons to dislike
Microsoft, and people like to have a little fun with names. Some people like
to writ3 l1k3 th15, r3al 371+3 d00dz! If it's readable, it doesn't matter.
>Hello, GET A CLUE, you losers!
Now you're being unnecessarily rude, really funny as you don't seem to grasp
the real reason behind writing Microsoft as Micro$oft.
>Or are you just jealous of Bill Gates?
I wonder why so many people always try to explain it this way :/
Maybe some people are incapable to understand the feeling of pure disgust?
--
To seek out knowledge of C, to explore strange Unix commands,
and to boldly code where no one has man page 4.
Frank C. Earl
On Sat, 08 Nov 1997 23:48:42 GMT, nospam@nospam (John Black) wrote:
>While I respect your reasons for disliking Microsoft, you are making
>the anti Microsoft camp look bad. When I see this, the image I get of
>anti-Microsofters is that they are a juvenile bunch who can't attack
>the opposing argument, so they attack the person instead with
>schoolyard insults questioning the sexual preference, and personal
>worth of anyone who dares defend Microsoft. You are lowering yourself
>way below his level.
And what you missed in all of this was that the original poster (not
the person you responded to) posted a (f)lametroll. A (f)lametroll is
not an opposing view per se. It's inflamatory content has little in
the way of FACTUAL content or decent opinions- it's crafted for one
thing and one thing only- to pull flame posts out of the reading
audience in question. To this end, that is what is happening here-
me, I prefer to killfile twits that post (f)lametrolls... But some
like responding to them with flamage.
--
Frank C. Earl
Earl Consulting Services
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to USC 47, there is a $500 per incident charge for each and
every piece of Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE) sent to this or any
of my other addresses. Sending UCE's to any of my addresses implys
general acceptance of these terms. (My Return addresses are _deliberately_
broken to interfere with mailing list generators- remove "-no-spam-" every
place in the address to reply.)
Bob Taylor
In article <34664e86...@news.mindspring.com>,
nospam@nospam (John Black) writes:
> I mean, you call Windows users, "Win Blows" and "Win doze". You
> see us "Winblows" users referring to the "Muckintosh". We just roll
> our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
> Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
> autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 03:25:04 GMT you wrote:
> See, the common response by an Anti-Microsofter. Can't attack the
> argument, can't give any reason why Microsoft products and the company
> are as bad as they say they are, so they attack the person instead.
> What a bunch of losers. I'm not saying Microsoft products are
> perfect, but they aren't as bad as you idiots say they are.
Hmm. Look who's calling the kettle black!
Bob
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Taylor Email: brta...@qtpi.lakewood.ca.us |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| A witty statement goes here! (when I get to it!) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
George
>Of course, what does escape you is that MS GOT TO BE SUCCESSFUL by selling
>the best products, or didn't they?
hmmm ... what??? ... I'm kind of missing a proof ...
for an os to be considered good .. it has to be stable .... now show me
a wintelbox that stayed up 700 routing packets ... hmmm ...
hmmm ... second ... one bad thing aboout your argument is the universal
statement ... you should take a logic class ...
btw ... M$ killed off a competitor with a dos gui-shell 1 year before
windoze 1.0 ...
dos was on machines just because IBM sighned a deal ... then M$ could sell
dos for one reason only ... it already was on all kinds of machines ... not
because it's better ...
same with win95 ... the resellers get cheap deals when they pre-install
so wwhy shouldn't they .. then since most machines run windblows then ...
it's not because it's the better operationg system ... but because Bill
is good at marketing ...
and he really is ... I think Bill is the ideal bussinessman ... but that
has nothing to do with the fact that win95 is pure and simple crap ...
I have yet to see a monopoly which will produce a quality product and
continue improving on it ...
Quantum Leaper
George Graves wrote in message <34671203...@slip.net>...
>John Black wrote:
>
>> I mean, you call Windows users, "Win Blows" and "Win doze". You
>> result to schoolyard insults to defend your failing platform, thus
>> making Mac users look bad in the process. Just get a life. You don't
>>
>> see us "Winblows" users referring to the "Muckintosh".
>
>You don't? What planet do you live on? I've seen Macs called that
>and a lot of other things as well.
>
Most of the time, I see Mac users doing the name calling and Windows
(95/NT) users not calling Mac users names. There are exceptions to the
rule.
I guess it come down to which group of users are Adults and which act like
school children, I will let you make up your mind. If you want I will give
examples.... (Alittle hint, the school children, use a computer from a
company, which take it name from what good school children give to their
teacher or what keeps the doctor away)
>> We just roll
>> our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
>> community, and get back to work.
>
>You better. Studies show that you won't get as muchwork done on your PC
>today as your Mac counterpart
>will.
>
>
>> I guess because Apple targeted the
>> Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
>> autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
>
>Who in their right mind would WANT to spend all day
>editing config.sys and autoexec.bat files? No wonder
>my above posted productivity statements are so true!
>
Amazing, last time I edited my Autoexec.bat was to remove a PATHed
directory, which took 10 seconds at most. I know of users who have NEVER
needed to edit either file and they computers works just great. In fact
those files are NOT even need if you run ONLY win32 programs.
Demonspawn Armageddon
John Black, in a state of mental inferiority, wrote:
> I mean, you call Windows users, "Win Blows" and "Win doze". You
> result to schoolyard insults to defend your failing platform, thus
> making Mac users look bad in the process. Just get a life. You don't
> see us "Winblows" users referring to the "Muckintosh". We just roll
> our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
> community, and get back to work. I guess because Apple targeted the
> Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
> autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
If you think all that is out there is Winblows or Mac O/S (Which I do
find superior in it's core, but not in supported software. I just hate
the hardware on which it runs.) then you are sadly mistaken. There's
somthing out there called UNIX. You might want to look into it or my
perfered version of it called Linux. But I guess Microsoft tarteted the
idiots out there that don't know how to edit a .profile or a cron.daily
file ;)
-- DSA
Klaus Schilling
nospam@nospam (John Black) writes:
>
> I mean, so you're implying that Micro$oft, as you anti-Microsoft
> wackos call it, is the only company that wants to make a profit? So
> Sun, Silicon Graphics, Apple, Corel, Netscape, etc. don't care about
> making a profit, they just want to better everyone's lives, while evil
> Microsoft only cares about money? Hello, GET A CLUE, you losers! Or
> are you just jealous of Bill Gates?
I also write Net$crap, $un, $GI etc. in addition to Micro$loth.
It's capitali$m that sux altogether.
Klaus Schilling
Jeremy Nelson
Nigel Tzeng <ni...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>Linux isn't bug free either but hey...it's free. Then again so is
>Windows.
What is it youre smoking, and where can i get some?
(Unless youre talking about not being bug free, as opposed to being free.)
-jfn
M D Malthouse
} I guess because Apple targeted the
} Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
} autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
Or maybe Apple targeted the Macintosh at people who had better things to do
with thier lives than edit config.sys and autoexec.bat files.
Or post Mac vs Windows flame bait to comp.os.linux.advocacy and
comp.os.linux.development.apps for that matter.
Matthew
--
Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto.
mailto:matthew....@guardian.co.uk [work]
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/6630/
The opinions expressed are not those of the Guardian Media Group
Pedro B. Morales
>Everyone
>at work was laughing the other day when our secretary got the following
>message in win95:
>
> "Error loading explorer.exe. You must reinstall windows."
I got this error when I got tired of IE4 windows desktop update and decided
to remove it. I removed it, but then I decided to remove the entire IE4 web
suite. So I removed everything, and rebooted. Nice error, shut down my
system, leave me dead on the floor. Only way out was: format C:\ reinstall
everything. NOT a pretty sight!
Sincerely,
Pedro
Campea...@worldnet.att.net
Pedro B. Morales
Jeremy Nelson wrote in message <6488d5$6k9$1...@news.inc.net>...
>Nigel Tzeng <ni...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>>Linux isn't bug free either but hey...it's free. Then again so is
>>Windows.
>
>What is it youre smoking, and where can i get some?
HAHAHAHA!!!
Jason V. Robertson~
In article <3467A4...@ix.netcom.com>,
Brian S. <sutt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Nigel Tzeng wrote:
>....
>> As a matter of fact MS has better quality than most other software
>> manufacturers in the industry (95% vs 85% defect removal rates).
>> Their software development techniques are some of the best in the
>> industry and they have one of the highest tester to developer ratios
>> in the business.
>>
>> Yes, they have bugs in their code but the programs are huge...NT is
>> the same size as MVS or Unix. And if you think unix is bug free you
>> haven't installed and used any of the common unices.
>>
>> There were problems with HPUX 10.0 (and for that matter 10.20) and
>> Solaris 2.0-2.2 (Solaris 2.3 was really the first stable release of
>> Solaris).
>>
>> Windows.
>>
>>
>> Nigel
>That must be why I reboot my Win NT Workstation at least twice daily and
>why MS Access bombs when I accidently close the supporting word document
>when accessing a link, and yada, yada, yada... and why I have 14 Alpha
>servers on Dec OS which are used for software development that were last
>rebooted 6-8 weeks ago, and Solaris boxes that only dump once every few
>months, and a linux box which has been running faithfully for almost a
>year straight with no interruption as a file/print server.
>
>Where did you get this 95% defect removal rate, maybe MS doesn't
>consider a defect in the same light that I do... Makes you wonder.
>B.
A rational man expects differences in the stability of a server OS and a
desktop OS.
If all you had NT 4.0 doing was file/print serving it would be stable as a
rock, too.
--
|Jason V. Robertson <jvro...@sedona.intel.com> |
|Not speaking for Intel. |
Miguel Cruz
Zinzan <sb...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>There are 67 different ways to open a Word file... why? Just one, a really
>effective one, would be fine.
Reminds me... we spent 15 minutes the other day trying to figure out how to
open a .html file as text in Word and see the html source. It kept insisting
on trying to render it.
Is this possible? Was about to go back to telnet when we discovered
WordPad will do the trick. But I'd like to hear how to do it in Word.
miguel
Joshua T. McKee
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:03:37 GMT, nospam@nospam (John Black) wrote:
>I mean, you call Windows users, "Win Blows" and "Win doze". You
>result to schoolyard insults to defend your failing platform, thus
>making Mac users look bad in the process. Just get a life. You don't
>see us "Winblows" users referring to the "Muckintosh". We just roll
>our eyes at all this juvenile name-calling on the part of the Mac
>community, and get back to work. I guess because Apple targeted the
>Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
>autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
And one can say you are guilty as well...just look at the title.
Josh
Bob Faulkner
Here Here!!!
I've used MicroVirus products for years and have become accustomed to
having to reboot at least 1 time per session, usually more, due to crashes
and the system flaking out.. To date I have NEVER locked up linux... When
I want to give my reset button a break I boot into linux...
This machine will boot directly to MS-DOS 6.2 / Windows 3.11 / MS-DOS 7.0 /
Windows 95 / Windows NT 4.0 WS / and Linux.... 5 of those lock up/flake
out REGULARLY... Guess which one doesn't...
C ya...
Bob
----
Visit my web site!!!!
http://www.randomc.com/~rdf
Jason V. Robertson~
In article <6492sj$nkf$6...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Miguel Cruz <migue...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Jason V. Robertson~ <jvro...@chnews.intel.com> wrote:
>>A rational man expects differences in the stability of a server OS and a
>>desktop OS.
>
>posited that one? Oh, wait, it was Hume.
Sorry, sarcasm is over my head.
>You are manufacturing a fictional concept of rationality in order to satisfy
>the requirements of your argument.
Sorry, big words are over my head.
>Why should a rational person expect a desktop OS to be buggy? Help me out
>with the theory here. What characteristic of a desktop OS inherently causes
>unreliability? Is it the GUI? Nope, there are plenty of rock-solid GUI
>environments. Is it the placement on the desk? Nope, I don't think so, my
>computer has been both on and beneath my desk with no effect on reliability.
>The only possible connection I see is that OSes from companies that
>emphasize marketing over good product design, whether they're on the desktop
>or in the server closet, tend to be less stable. But that wasn't your point,
>was it?
A rational person would expect a machine that handles more chores to be more
likely to crash than another machine that does less _given the same OS_.
With different OS's you'd have to put them under similar stress to have any
basis for comparison. You claim to have done so below...
As for emphasizing marketing over technology I have one simple word. Duh.
Microsoft is a business, not a university. Depending on the target market for
a given product the technology can be less important than the ease of use and
marketing image. With NT, they're targeting the middle end so they need to come
up with good software. They have, and they are continuing to improve it. If
some people choose to put their heads in the sand then so be it.
>>If all you had NT 4.0 doing was file/print serving it would be stable as a
>>rock, too.
>
>(A) I doubt it. (B) I do word processing and spreadsheet and web surfing and
>graphic design on my AMD K5-75 Linux box while everyone else in my house
>uses it as an internet gateway and HTTP proxy for their computers and guess
>what? It hasn't crashed since I turned it on in September.
Hey, man, just because you're incable of running a stable NT machine doesn't
mean everyone else is. You just have to pick the right software and administer
it properly.
If you put a Linux machine in front of a cluess twit I'm sure he could have it
crashing twice a week, too.
All that said, I'd still take Linux anyway. So go ahead and convince me to
keep my opinion as it is.
David F. Skoll
In article <6497gd$h77$1...@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>, Christopher Smith
(drsm...@usa.net) wrote:
> Heaps of stable GUIs ? Care to name a few GUIs you consider stable ? (For
> me to consider it stable it'd have to crash/reset/whatever about once ever
> 3-6 months, thats what I'd call (relatively) stable).
My Linux machine at work runs X and has been up for months (since I upgraded
the kernel).
--
David F. Skoll
UDMS
> If all you had NT 4.0 doing was file/print serving it would be stable as a
> rock, too.
bullshit. i have to work on nt workstation at work and it crashes when i
am not even doing anything.
Kevin Lang
Joe Ragosta <joe.r...@dol.net> wrote in article
<joe.ragosta-11...@wil116.dol.net>...
> In article <01bcee49$59042b40$0a53...@kevin.jsc.nasa.gov>, "Kevin Lang"
> <kjl...@spamless.gcs-server.jsc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> > As usual, the truth is somewhere far between the radical extremes....
> >
> >
> > So, your assertion is that MS has nothing better to do but to check the
> > editorial content of every publication they advertise in to make sure that
> > those pubs accurately portray the Gospel according to Redmond. If that
were
> > the case, NONE of the major trade publications would get a single dollar of
ad
> > revenue from the Gates Company.
>
> Undoubtedly extreme.
>
> Microsoft apparently _does_ have people who spend their time reading
> magazines for inaccuracies. You'll see a lot of letters to the editor from
> a MS VP when something is printed that MS doesn't like (less now than it
> used to be, btw).
I think they'd be irresponsible if they didn't read what people were writing
about them. I also think that it's good when MS, or any other subject of
editorial content of the magazine, writes back to tell their side of the story.
The consumer, upon reading both sides of the story is then better equipped to
make an informed decision.
> I don't think MS can force their views down a magazine's throat. It's much
> more subtle. MS throws a lot of money around. They have created a "walks
> on water" mentality. That's very powerful and most journalists just go
> with the flow. There's a tendency to prefer being on the inside. Like the
> press fest in Redmond. You're an editor and get invited to the home of
> arguably the most powerful private citizen on Earth to be wined and dined.
> Are you going to turn it down? And, having gone there, are you going to be
> vicious in going after your 'friend'?
I don't think that the press should be vicious in it's approach to editorial
content. We already have the Star and National Enquirer for pit-bull
journalism. I would hope that MS, like any other computer h/w or s/w company,
only wants their coverage to be fair and balanced critiques. They all think
they're producing great products for the consumers they're targeting. The
magazines are supposed to tell the companies and the consumers how well they
feel the products deliver on their promises. I really don't think that Gates'
"insider" parties are to win him editorial favors in the trade pubs, but rather
to win popularity votes with other media types. I understand that the
"insiders" sign NDAs to attend, so they are limited as to what gets outside,
hence the only reporters allowed to tell all their audience wants to read are
the popular media that wants to know what he drinks, eats, wears, and who he
endorses for office. I'm sure he does get some personal consideration from the
trade journalists, but that is generally not an important consideration in my
view.
Kevin
David
So you're saying that software giants like Microsoft AND Apple pay off major
Magazines so they can just give them a Editor's Choice award? I find that
every hard to believe. Maybe its just because Microsoft makes great
software apps for novices. I've noticed a lot of you people who post on
here are far from being a Novice. So maybe that is why you don't like MS
Products. But then again you use a Mac (The #1 Novice Computer).
--
-David
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
John Millington wrote in message <647gan$b1g$1...@news.rt66.com>...
>John Black (nospam@nospam) wrote:
>: All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that
>: Microsoft shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone.
>: Well, if they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products,
>: from Windows, to Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and
>: recgonition from every major PC publication.
>
>An excellent question. Suppose you were in charge of running a publication
>that you had put years of effort into. It's your baby. It's part of your
>ego. And on top of that, it 's making you good money. It's profitable.
>You *care* about whether it lives or dies.
>
>And Microsoft is a major advertiser. You depend on their revenue.
>
>What if Microsoft's flagship product were disappointing? Would you be
willing
>to say so, knowing that Microsoft could completely devastate your business
>by withholding advertising revenue? It would depend on your integrity and
>your willingness to do the right thing, even though it could hurt you.
>
>When individual people make such decisions, it becomes a function of their
>personality and integrity. Not so for a large business with many
stockholders
>and a board of directors. It _must_ act purely in self-interest without
>regard for right and wrong. It cannot afford integrity. So it lies.
>
>Take a look at what PC Magazine did in 1995. They gave Windows 95 their
>award for "technical merit". Note: they didn't just recommend Windows 95
for
>practical reasons, or say that you can't go wrong buying Microsoft. They
>didn't give it some kind of "Marketing Achievement" award or "Success in
>Getting 3rd Party Support" award. They awarded it TECHNICAL MERIT. And
that
>is utterly and completely ridiculous. It is objectively false. Windows 95
>is a technical disgrace. Compare it to the other OSes available at the
>time (on technical grounds only!), and Windows 95 wouldn't even make the
>first cut.
>
>PC Magazine deliberately tried to mislead its readers. Now take a look at
>any issue of PC Magazine and see _who_ has how many pages of advertising
>therein. Are you still willing to pay attention to the awards given by
>the professional media?
>
> Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
> John Millington
D. Richard Hipp
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> X itself has never been restarted in months ? Or just the whole machine ?
> I am talking about *just* the GUI here, and I find it extrememly difficult
> to believe you have kept X up for months :). I have the same thing on NT -
> the OS will stay up for weeks (I've had it up for a couple of months at a
> time, but I reboot regularly to 95 to play games) but the GUI (ie explorer)
> pikes out reasonably often - a simple logoff/logon fixes that.
I ran the same X11 session (XFree86 under Linux 2.0.30) from mid-July
until
last week when I had to power down to install some new hardware. No
problems. Also note that I use X11 very aggressively, so the server
definately got a workout.
A couple of times some experimental application (under active
development)
would do a server grab and not release it. I had to go to another
machine, telnet in and kill off the offending application, but the
X server just kept right on going...
--
D. Richard Hipp -- d...@acm.org -- http://users.vnet.net/drh
Paul Rickard
David wrote:
>
> So you're saying that software giants like Microsoft AND Apple pay off major
> Magazines so they can just give them a Editor's Choice award? I find that
> every hard to believe. Maybe its just because Microsoft makes great
> software apps for novices. I've noticed a lot of you people who post on
> here are far from being a Novice. So maybe that is why you don't like MS
> Products. But then again you use a Mac (The #1 Novice Computer).
They don't give them money just so they'll get the award. Microsoft
(not Apple, they dont advertise for reasons known only to Steve Jobs and
God) buys several billion dollars worth of magazine ads per year. In
return, to keep the beast happy, most magazines bestow them with all
these meaningless 'editors pick' and 'product of the year' awards that
Microsoft can use in more magazine ads. And just for the record, we
don't all use Macs.
--
-Paul Rickard, President of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign.
"Without data, you're just another opinion."
www.abctec.com/~msbc
Craig Koller
In article <64afmb$1...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, "David"
<davi...@NOSPAM.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> LOL I prefer Crapintosh. ;)
>
Hey, I'll abide by Crapintosh *and* Crapsody, as long as I can call it:
Win ... D'oh!s
David
hehehe I like that Homer Simpson add-on. ;)
--
-David
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Craig Koller wrote in message ...
Oleg Dulin
> community, and get back to work. I guess because Apple targeted the
> Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
> autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
And I guess Microsoft targetted Windows towards all those [however you
call them] who are incapable of using vi to edit dot files. That is why
the Windows community is the way it is.
BTW: At least on my college's campus, those who use Windows 95 use it for
processing their words and parsing HTML code. Those who use NT use it not
only for processing their words and parsing HTML, but also because their
neighbor told them NT is better than Windows 95. Those who use a Mac here
use it because they are used to it and don't see a need to switch to
Windows. Those who use OS/2 are true rebels and use it because it is not
Microsoft. Those who use Linux have professional technical reasons for
that.
--
============================================================
Oleg Dulin, http://www.clarkson.edu/~dulino/
---=== Ad Astra Per Aspera ===---
Clarkson University LUG http://acmpc.sos.clarkson.edu/~linux
============================================================
David
Funny I've never had to edit the config.sys and autoexec.bat files once.
--
-David
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
M D Malthouse wrote in message ...
>In article <34664e86...@news.mindspring.com>, nospam@nospam (John
>Black) wrote:
>
>} I guess because Apple targeted the
>} Mac towards morons who don't know how to edit config.sys and
>} autoexec.bat files that the Mac community is like this.
>
Steven Schulze
George wrote in message ...
>>Of course, what does escape you is that MS GOT TO BE SUCCESSFUL by selling
>>the best products, or didn't they?
>
>hmmm ... what??? ... I'm kind of missing a proof ...
It's subjective. It's just one of those things you CAN'T have hard numbers
for. The only way to get any kind of indication, other than one's own
subjective view, is to look at what's more popular.
>for an os to be considered good .. it has to be stable .... now show me
>a wintelbox that stayed up 700 routing packets ... hmmm ...
Show me a Mac'nCrash that does that. NT is WAY more stable than the Mac can
ever dream of being. W95 is probably a little bit more stable than the Mac.
Subjective, but most posts I saw seem to confirm this.
>hmmm ... second ... one bad thing aboout your argument is the universal
>statement ... you should take a logic class ...
Not sure which universal statement you refer to...
>btw ... M$ killed off a competitor with a dos gui-shell 1 year before
>windoze 1.0 ...
>
>dos was on machines just because IBM sighned a deal ... then M$ could sell
>dos for one reason only ... it already was on all kinds of machines ... not
>because it's better ...
>
>same with win95 ... the resellers get cheap deals when they pre-install
>so wwhy shouldn't they .. then since most machines run windblows then ...
>it's not because it's the better operationg system ... but because Bill
>is good at marketing ...
Well, sorry to inform you of this - the company behind the OS is also part
of the OS experience. If the company blows like Apple does, it brings the
whole Mac experience down. We can debate all we want whether W95 or OS8 is
the best, but at least I feel secure in knowing that MS will be around and
in business for quite some time still (...some Mac user inserts message here
about DOJ shutting down MS and freeing Apple...)
>and he really is ... I think Bill is the ideal bussinessman ... but that
>has nothing to do with the fact that win95 is pure and simple crap ...
That's your opinion. Don't use it if you think it's crap. You won't break
MS if you skip W95, believe me. Obviously most people don't have your view,
so that might say something about your view... (Everybody else must be
wrong, just not you, right?)
>I have yet to see a monopoly which will produce a quality product and
>continue improving on it ...
I won't qualify your above statement by saying MS is a monopoly, but since
that's clearly what you refer to, how about NT3.51, NT4.0, NT5.0, W3.1, W95,
W98. Seems to me they are improving. Do you think they are going to stop
at NT5 and W98? If nothing else, they want to give people a reason to keep
upgrading to a better version.
You might not think W95 is good, but again, that's your opinion. I don't
think MacOS is good, and that's my opinion. If MS is in your view a
monopoly because most people are "forced" to use their products, that's
fine. My view is that they are successful because they offer more. Give me
another OS that I believe is better with richer software options, and I will
probably switch. Untill then, don't blame MS.
Steven Schulze
Concord, CA
Rassilon
On 10 Nov 1997 17:29:59 GMT, slo...@rt66.com (John Millington) wrote:
>John Black (nospam@nospam) wrote:
>: All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that
>: Microsoft shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone.
>: Well, if they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products,
>: from Windows, to Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and
>: recgonition from every major PC publication.
>
>An excellent question. Suppose you were in charge of running a publication
>that you had put years of effort into. It's your baby. It's part of your
>ego. And on top of that, it 's making you good money. It's profitable.
>You *care* about whether it lives or dies.
>
>And Microsoft is a major advertiser. You depend on their revenue.
>
>What if Microsoft's flagship product were disappointing? Would you be willing
>to say so, knowing that Microsoft could completely devastate your business
>by withholding advertising revenue? It would depend on your integrity and
>your willingness to do the right thing, even though it could hurt you.
>
>When individual people make such decisions, it becomes a function of their
>personality and integrity. Not so for a large business with many stockholders
>and a board of directors. It _must_ act purely in self-interest without
>regard for right and wrong. It cannot afford integrity. So it lies.
>
>Take a look at what PC Magazine did in 1995. They gave Windows 95 their
>award for "technical merit". Note: they didn't just recommend Windows 95 for
<some stuff snipped>
Along the lines being discussed here... I refer you to Rolling Stone's
Nov. 27, 1997 issue. Makes me mad because I kind of like the
magazine. Page 61 has a "Home Tech Report Card" which claims to be
"100% hype free consumer guide". Sure. Look at some excerpts...
p. 62 "Browser wars - the differences between Navigator and Explorer
are inconsequential" <guess this implies its ok to use that IE 4.0
that comes preinstalled, yeah, sure, why not, no need to think...>
p. 72 "Java applications...none exist yet and probably won't for three
years or so." <excuse me...??>
p. 72 "What you need to know about Java is that you don't need to know
anything" <blurb...implying the average reader is too stupid to
understand what Java is all about>
p. 72 about the Mac : "The rebels are gone; the dream of changing the
world has faded..." <really now? I'm sure those Apple, Amiga, Linux,
etc. users would beg to differ.>
p.74 blurb "Last year I forsook my old allegiances and bought a Dell
Wintel". <gee, thats nice.>
p. 65 and 67 - full page ads for IE 4 in the midst of the article's
pages.
2 more MS ads are in the pages following the article.
There are some good comments about AOL vs. MSN in AOL's favor, but
anything that could be construed as anti-MS is made to be much more
subtle.
I guess you can now make up your own mind about the power of the MS
marketing and/or FUD Machine. Granted, the author didn't pretend to
be all that technically knowledgeable, but anyone reading the article
comes away with some error-ridden knowledge, especially about the Mac
and Java.
--Rassilon
Kevin Lang
As usual, the truth is somewhere far between the radical extremes....
John Millington <slo...@rt66.com> wrote in article
<647gan$b1g$1...@news.rt66.com>...
> John Black (nospam@nospam) wrote:
> : All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that
> : Microsoft shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone.
> : Well, if they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products,
> : from Windows, to Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and
> : recgonition from every major PC publication.
>
> An excellent question. Suppose you were in charge of running a publication
> that you had put years of effort into. It's your baby. It's part of your
> ego. And on top of that, it 's making you good money. It's profitable.
> You *care* about whether it lives or dies.
>
> And Microsoft is a major advertiser. You depend on their revenue.
>
> What if Microsoft's flagship product were disappointing? Would you be
willing
> to say so, knowing that Microsoft could completely devastate your business
> by withholding advertising revenue? It would depend on your integrity and
> your willingness to do the right thing, even though it could hurt you.
So, your assertion is that MS has nothing better to do but to check the
editorial content of every publication they advertise in to make sure that
those pubs accurately portray the Gospel according to Redmond. If that were
the case, NONE of the major trade publications would get a single dollar of ad
revenue from the Gates Company.
> When individual people make such decisions, it becomes a function of their
> personality and integrity. Not so for a large business with many
stockholders
> and a board of directors. It _must_ act purely in self-interest without
> regard for right and wrong. It cannot afford integrity. So it lies.
Yeah, right. You know what happens to companies that turn into perpetual
liars? The SEC steps in and the exchanges de-list them. Businesses sometimes
have to make compromises, but a complete disavowal of morals and integrity is
way out of place, and if the market doesn't get them first, the authorities
will.
> Take a look at what PC Magazine did in 1995. They gave Windows 95 their
> award for "technical merit". Note: they didn't just recommend Windows 95 for
> practical reasons, or say that you can't go wrong buying Microsoft. They
> didn't give it some kind of "Marketing Achievement" award or "Success in
> Getting 3rd Party Support" award. They awarded it TECHNICAL MERIT. And that
> is utterly and completely ridiculous. It is objectively false. Windows 95
> is a technical disgrace. Compare it to the other OSes available at the
> time (on technical grounds only!), and Windows 95 wouldn't even make the
> first cut.
If I recall, PC Mags awards are given to products relevant to their readers
that were released in the editorial year. As I recall, there were no other
major OSes released in 95, so despite the fact that PC Mags editorial staff
actually never gave Win95 a clear Editor's Choice in comparison with the
competing OSes, it got the Technical Merit award for it's standing among that
year's releases. As I recall, PC Magazine actually gave OS/2 higher overall
ratings than Win95.
> PC Magazine deliberately tried to mislead its readers. Now take a look at
> any issue of PC Magazine and see _who_ has how many pages of advertising
> therein. Are you still willing to pay attention to the awards given by
> the professional media?
I read the articles. PC Magazine, PC World, Windows, PC Week, Info World, etc.
publish plenty of what Redmond would consider unfavorable. Yet, MS keeps
increasing ad space. Maybe you should argue that doses of negative content are
good for the publication, because MS uses the ads to contradict and balance the
negative articles. If MS were actually in the business of buying editorial
content, PC Magazine would not have John Dvorak, among others, writing for
their magazine. PC Magazine gives MS ad saturation due to its large
circulation. PC Mag could print the worst stuff in the world, but MS would
stick with them, because no one else can put their ads in so many hands.
I know that you MS haters don't think that Windows users can see the
shallowness of your comments. Maybe, as a group, we deserve some of that by
the baseless comments made against other platforms. But, when you decide that
you want to be a pot, maybe it would be wise to not call the kettle black. I
think that there is definitely room in these threads for congenial discourse
and polite arguments. If you can point me to some good evidence that MS pulled
ads from magazines because of accurate, negative, information regarding MS
products, please feel free to put the meat on the strawman. Otherwise, your
argument just blows away in the face of the slightest breeze.
Kevin
Ishpeck
The reason M$ gets away with it is because the all Mighty Gates
can afford to make people like it. He decieves the unsuspecting person,
like you, through acts of satanic witchcraft and evil spells, then when you
are completley brainwashed, he has you go onto news groups that you
normaly wouldn't even consider entering and you flame the MS flamers.
You anti-anti-microsoft people are almost as bad as the people
who find delight in meaningless excessive insults.
I am here to debate MS, fight MS and destroy MS. But I am
not here to console you people who's feelings get hurt when your
mentor gets cut down--And for good reasons, I might add.
Microsoft has done many illeagal things, and I am one to say
that justice must be served!
John Black <nospam@nospam> wrote in article
<34664dd9...@news.mindspring.com>...
> All you anti-Microsoft whiners and losers keep complaining that
> Microsoft shoves "sub-standard" products down the throats of everyone.
> Well, if they're so substandard, how come many Microsoft products,
> from Windows, to Office, to Internet Explorer 4 collects awards and
> recgonition from every major PC publication. Why, just look at the
> awards and accolades given to IE4. Microsoft Office was PC Magazine's
> Editor's Choice. I use Microsoft products, and I am impressed with
> their power, ease of use, and versatility. So all you anti-Microsoft
> dorks must have some kind of inferiority complex.
>
Christopher Smith
>Why should a rational person expect a desktop OS to be buggy? Help me out
>with the theory here. What characteristic of a desktop OS inherently causes
>unreliability? Is it the GUI? Nope, there are plenty of rock-solid GUI
>environments. Is it the placement on the desk? Nope, I don't think so, my
>computer has been both on and beneath my desk with no effect on
reliability.
>The only possible connection I see is that OSes from companies that
>emphasize marketing over good product design, whether they're on the
desktop
>or in the server closet, tend to be less stable. But that wasn't your
point,
>was it?
Heaps of stable GUIs ? Care to name a few GUIs you consider stable ? (For
me to consider it stable it'd have to crash/reset/whatever about once ever
3-6 months, thats what I'd call (relatively) stable). The placement of a
computer actually can have an effect on its running, believe it or not. I
have seen a situation more than once where a computer would ethier run
rock-solid or crash every 5 minutes depending on where in the room it was
(stray RF etc).
>
>>If all you had NT 4.0 doing was file/print serving it would be stable as a
>>rock, too.
>
>(A) I doubt it. (B) I do word processing and spreadsheet and web surfing
and
>graphic design on my AMD K5-75 Linux box while everyone else in my house
>uses it as an internet gateway and HTTP proxy for their computers and guess
>what? It hasn't crashed since I turned it on in September.
Well I have a NT machine here that gets used as a Quake server, a proxy and
a file/print server - hasnt crashed since I started it in about February, so
I have every reason to believe him. YMMV.
Miguel Cruz
Jason V. Robertson~ <jvro...@chnews.intel.com> wrote:
>A rational man expects differences in the stability of a server OS and a
>desktop OS.
Ah, yes, the time-honored test of rationality. Wasn't it Descartes who first
posited that one? Oh, wait, it was Hume.
You are manufacturing a fictional concept of rationality in order to satisfy
the requirements of your argument.
Why should a rational person expect a desktop OS to be buggy? Help me out
with the theory here. What characteristic of a desktop OS inherently causes
unreliability? Is it the GUI? Nope, there are plenty of rock-solid GUI
environments. Is it the placement on the desk? Nope, I don't think so, my
computer has been both on and beneath my desk with no effect on reliability.
The only possible connection I see is that OSes from companies that
emphasize marketing over good product design, whether they're on the desktop
or in the server closet, tend to be less stable. But that wasn't your point,
was it?
>If all you had NT 4.0 doing was file/print serving it would be stable as a
>rock, too.
(A) I doubt it. (B) I do word processing and spreadsheet and web surfing and
graphic design on my AMD K5-75 Linux box while everyone else in my house
uses it as an internet gateway and HTTP proxy for their computers and guess
what? It hasn't crashed since I turned it on in September.
miguel
Brian S.
Joe Ragosta
In article <01bcee49$59042b40$0a53...@kevin.jsc.nasa.gov>, "Kevin Lang"
<kjl...@spamless.gcs-server.jsc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> As usual, the truth is somewhere far between the radical extremes....
>
>
> So, your assertion is that MS has nothing better to do but to check the
> editorial content of every publication they advertise in to make sure that
> those pubs accurately portray the Gospel according to Redmond. If that were
> the case, NONE of the major trade publications would get a single dollar of ad
> revenue from the Gates Company.
Undoubtedly extreme.
Microsoft apparently _does_ have people who spend their time reading
magazines for inaccuracies. You'll see a lot of letters to the editor from
a MS VP when something is printed that MS doesn't like (less now than it
used to be, btw).
I don't think MS can force their views down a magazine's throat. It's much
more subtle. MS throws a lot of money around. They have created a "walks
on water" mentality. That's very powerful and most journalists just go
with the flow. There's a tendency to prefer being on the inside. Like the
press fest in Redmond. You're an editor and get invited to the home of
arguably the most powerful private citizen on Earth to be wined and dined.
Are you going to turn it down? And, having gone there, are you going to be
vicious in going after your 'friend'?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
See the Complete Macintosh Advocacy Page
http://www.dol.net/~Ragosta/complmac.htm
Coach
In article <ewEFCPf78GA.321@upnetnews03>, "Steven Schulze"
<Captain_SOS@*NOSPAM*msn.com> wrote:
> And MS treats it's developers way better than Apple does. Apple has viewed
> Mac developers as cash sources in the past.
MS treats its developers as a great big unpaid R&D department. If they like
what they see they'll either buy out the developer in question or simply
FUD it out of existence.
/Coach
macdude
> Technically it's not a pay off. But hey, when someone supplies you with
> MILLIONS of dollars worth of advertising revenue, you can't help but be
> influenced by that. You don't "bite" the hand that feeds you.
What if "you" are Marv Albert?
David
C/Net (http://www.cnet.com/) is not a magazine but its a great web site for
computer news, reviews, tips, and info. They rated Windows 95 one of the
worsted software products of 1996 but yet they gave Internet Explorer 4.0 a
"Buy it" award for excellence. And If you've been around C/net as much as I
have you will notice a lot (tons) of ads from Microsoft. I would think
that Magazines like PC World and PC Magazine would be fair and rate software
as it should be rated. PC World last year gave the Mac OS a higher rating
then Windows 95's help feature so I guess they just wanted to make Apple
happy, huh? I'm also very surprised that no one here has mentioned Mac
World. Hey, if PC Magazines do it then Mac Magazines do it too. This makes
me believe that *some* of you won't give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt.
I don't like and buy every MS product. But I am happy with the few MS
products I have now. Like Windows 95, Encarta, Office 97, and Internet
Explorer 4.0. Which, btw, all got awards (I don't know about Windows 95
hmmm....).
--
-David
Remove NOSPAM to reply.
Paul Rickard wrote in message <3468FD...@abctec.com>...
>David wrote:
>>
>> So you're saying that software giants like Microsoft AND Apple pay off
major
Brian S.
Matthew Gaunt wrote:
>
> Brian S. wrote:
>
> > > Nigel
> > That must be why I reboot my Win NT Workstation at least twice daily
>
> last time I powered off my workstation. And it gets HAMMERED...
Hammered, Hmm, I would not consider that what I do with my NT box could
be considered hammering, at least not what I am used to doing to a
computer. After loading up a copy of word, access, usually visio,
MS-Mail, PC-Xware and the 3270 terminal, my Box is a **PIG**. Granted,
I don't use everything at once, but must refer back to each of the
applications often. Never fails that Access or word bombs and takes the
rest of the system with it. "I thought NT was supposed to be a little
more fault tolerant" I use MS products every day, and still think word,
bugs and all is a better WP than the available alternatives. But NT
being a stable environment is pretty much a joke. If you restrict it
well enough and protect it, it is probably ok, but if I have to trust my
life to a critical application, I sure hope it is un*x based.
Steven Schulze
Here's one - Rhapshoddy. ;o)
Steven Schulze
Concord, CA
Nathan Hand
Miguel Cruz <migue...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Reminds me... we spent 15 minutes the other day trying to figure out how to
> open a .html file as text in Word and see the html source. It kept insisting
> on trying to render it.
>
> Is this possible? Was about to go back to telnet when we discovered
> WordPad will do the trick. But I'd like to hear how to do it in Word.
Rename the file to "something.txt" and open it.
--
The sticker on the side of the box said "Supported Platforms: Windows 95,
Windows NT 4.0, or better", so clearly Linux was a supported platform.
Christopher Smith
UDMS wrote in message <34686A...@intersw.com>...
>> If all you had NT 4.0 doing was file/print serving it would be stable as
a
>> rock, too.
>
>bullshit. i have to work on nt workstation at work and it crashes when i
>am not even doing anything.
Then you have a hardware or driver problem. *No* OS just "crashes when i am
not even doing anything", or at least no OS i've ever seen.
Christopher Smith
>> Heaps of stable GUIs ? Care to name a few GUIs you consider stable ?
(For
>> me to consider it stable it'd have to crash/reset/whatever about once
ever
>> 3-6 months, thats what I'd call (relatively) stable).
>
upgraded
>the kernel).
Christopher Smith
>I ran the same X11 session (XFree86 under Linux 2.0.30) from mid-July
>until
>last week when I had to power down to install some new hardware. No
>problems. Also note that I use X11 very aggressively, so the server
>definately got a workout.
>
>A couple of times some experimental application (under active
>development)
>would do a server grab and not release it. I had to go to another
>machine, telnet in and kill off the offending application, but the
>X server just kept right on going...
All i can say to that is . . . . . WOW :)
George
>> I mean, so you're implying that Micro$oft, as you anti-Microsoft
>> wackos call it, is the only company that wants to make a profit? So
>> Sun, Silicon Graphics, Apple, Corel, Netscape, etc. don't care about
>> making a profit, they just want to better everyone's lives, while evil
>> Microsoft only cares about money? Hello, GET A CLUE, you losers! Or
>> are you just jealous of Bill Gates?
>
>I also write Net$crap, $un, $GI etc. in addition to Micro$loth.
>It's capitali$m that sux altogether.
nope capitalism is a VERY good thing ... I lived in a communist country ...
I never want to live in one again ...
but capitalism only works if there aren't monopolies .... which is one
reason socialism failed ...
microsoft is a monopoly and it's killing the competition ... so they
want ... "one" company "one" product ... soudns more like communism to
me
anyway ... capitalism can very VERY well ... coexist with GPLed software
and it does ... you can make money on free software ... you charge the
companies ... but normal users also get the goods ... and technology
advances ... a good thing alltogether ... (which is not teh state we're
in right now ... hardware progresses so fast, but software is still far
behind .... at least on the commercial side .... buit they're caching up
rhapsody promises to be good technically .... as well as BeOS is ... notice
that none of them are monopolies ....)
George
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Lebl <ji...@5z.com> http://www.5z.com/jirka/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING:
Reading this message can affect the dimensionality of your
mind, change the curvature of your spine, cause the growth of hair on
your palms, and make a difference in the outcome of your favorite war.
George
>>Everyone
>>at work was laughing the other day when our secretary got the following
>>message in win95:
>>
>> "Error loading explorer.exe. You must reinstall windows."
>
>
>I got this error when I got tired of IE4 windows desktop update and decided
>to remove it. I removed it, but then I decided to remove the entire IE4 web
>suite. So I removed everything, and rebooted. Nice error, shut down my
>system, leave me dead on the floor. Only way out was: format C:\ reinstall
>everything. NOT a pretty sight!
hmm is that why I use linux ... or was it something else ... :)
(must have been something else ... I've never really seen IE4.0) ...
If I remove a package on redhat it tells me if it will break anything ...
if it doesn't shout ... everything else will keep working ...