Re: MSCONFIG help request
jkneese
By way of explanation, the two programs I wanted to stop were both the kind
that run but have no user interface.
jkneese
Shenan Stanley
Don't change your subject line. Now you have 'broken' the conversation
thread for those using newsreaders.
For those wondering what jkneese is speaking of:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics/browse_frm/thread/f8a8c9fdefd128db/
That would be the original conversation.
What did you have to do?
Where did you have to remove the startup options from (registry, startup
folder, services, etc) and for what applications/versions?
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
N. Miller
> Don't change your subject line. Now you have 'broken' the conversation
> thread for those using newsreaders.
Changing the "Subject:" line will not break the thread in a competent news
client; but starting a new article, instead of replying to a thread will
break the thread.
This article has no "Reference:" header line, an 40tude Dialog will treat it
as a new article, instead of threading it. Even if the "Subject:" line is
exactly the same as in another thread.
Only the broken MSOE threads like "Subjects:" together; even when there is
no more relationship between the articles than there is between "butter",
and "butterfly".
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
Shenan Stanley
> Thanks for all the help. My problem has been resolved.
>
> By way of explanation, the two programs I wanted to stop were both
> the kind that run but have no user interface.
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Don't change your subject line. Now you have 'broken' the
> conversation thread for those using newsreaders.
>
> For those wondering what jkneese is speaking of:
> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics/browse_frm/thread/f8a8c9fdefd128db/
>
> That would be the original conversation.
>
> What did you have to do?
>
> Where did you have to remove the startup options from (registry,
> startup folder, services, etc) and for what applications/versions?
N. Miller wrote:
> Changing the "Subject:" line will not break the thread in a
> competent news client; but starting a new article, instead of
> replying to a thread will break the thread.
>
> This article has no "Reference:" header line, an 40tude Dialog will
> treat it as a new article, instead of threading it. Even if the
> "Subject:" line is exactly the same as in another thread.
>
> Only the broken MSOE threads like "Subjects:" together; even when
> there is no more relationship between the articles than there is
> between "butter", and "butterfly".
K. True enough (about OE). Thanks.
In any case - other than my link to the Google Groups archive - there is no
direct connection so that you know what the author is speaking of/etc
without searching. ;-)
N. Miller
> Shenan Stanley wrote:
>> Don't change your subject line. Now you have 'broken' the
>> conversation thread for those using newsreaders.
<snip>
> N. Miller wrote:
>> Changing the "Subject:" line will not break the thread in a
>> competent news client; but starting a new article, instead of
>> replying to a thread will break the thread.
>>
>> This article has no "Reference:" header line, an 40tude Dialog will
>> treat it as a new article, instead of threading it. Even if the
>> "Subject:" line is exactly the same as in another thread.
>>
>> Only the broken MSOE threads like "Subjects:" together; even when
>> there is no more relationship between the articles than there is
>> between "butter", and "butterfly".
> K. True enough (about OE). Thanks.
>
> In any case - other than my link to the Google Groups archive - there is no
> direct connection so that you know what the author is speaking of/etc
> without searching. ;-)
The brokeness of the thread is a direct result of the poster not using the
"Reply to Group" button in MSOE.
More MSOE brokeness? Your attribution lines and quotes don't properly embed
the previous poster's byline, or remarks. I did not edit what my reader
(which is a proper NNTP client) as a demonstration. If the thread runs deep
enough the combination of the depth ("References:" header line gets too long
for MSOE) and improper quotation and attribution confuse both the client
(MSOE) and the reader.
I have found that the following news clients are seriously deficient at
proper handling of news articles:
MS Outlook Express
Windows Mail
Windows Live Mail
These are somewhat deficient, as installed, but can be properly repaired by
judicious user configuration:
SeaMonkey
Mozilla Thunderbird
I am told that their "brokeness" is intended to make the Microsoft convert
more comfortable with those clients.
The following clients handle NNTP posting properly (or mostly so):
Fort� Agent
Opera
Xnews
Gravity (and Super Gravity)
40tude Dialog
I've learned about them through personal experience. Also, the Linux-based
clients, including a few ported to Windows; though I have not tried any.
Shenan Stanley
> Thanks for all the help. My problem has been resolved.
>
> By way of explanation, the two programs I wanted to stop were both
> the kind that run but have no user interface.
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Don't change your subject line. Now you have 'broken' the
> conversation thread for those using newsreaders.
>
> For those wondering what jkneese is speaking of:
> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics/browse_frm/thread/f8a8c9fdefd128db/
>
> That would be the original conversation.
>
> What did you have to do?
>
> Where did you have to remove the startup options from (registry,
> startup folder, services, etc) and for what applications/versions?
N. Miller wrote:
> Changing the "Subject:" line will not break the thread in a
> competent news client; but starting a new article, instead of
> replying to a thread will break the thread.
>
> This article has no "Reference:" header line, an 40tude Dialog will
> treat it as a new article, instead of threading it. Even if the
> "Subject:" line is exactly the same as in another thread.
>
> Only the broken MSOE threads like "Subjects:" together; even when
> there is no more relationship between the articles than there is
> between "butter", and "butterfly".
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> K. True enough (about OE). Thanks.
>
> In any case - other than my link to the Google Groups archive -
> there is no direct connection so that you know what the author is
> speaking of/etc without searching. ;-)
No - not more "MSOE brokeness", me editing the thread to bring it to its
completeness in one single post. In other words this single posting is
*all* of the conversation.
No matter how sophisticated the newsreader - there will be someone who does
something that will look good to one and crap to another. ;-)
This thread, archived as seen by Google Groups:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics/browse_frm/thread/d655940f96276759/
The originating thread as archived by Google Groups:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics/browse_frm/thread/f8a8c9fdefd128db/
This thread quoted on pcreview.co.uk forums:
http://www.pcreview.co.uk/forums/thread-3877866.php
This thread quoted on pcbanter forums:
http://www.pcbanter.net/showthread.php?t=1058477
More often than not, "properly" is often in the eye of the beholder - just
as is the seemingly eternal top/inline/bottom posting arguments that rear
their head on occasion. ;-)
Gerry
--
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shenan Stanley wrote:
Snipped
>
> No matter how sophisticated the newsreader - there will be someone
> who does something that will look good to one and crap to another. ;-)
>
snipped
jkneese
know all the rules and regulations of posting.
Please excuse this old geezer.
jkneese
Daave
Who are you talking to?
jkneese
Any / all of the above folks who were offended by my post.
N. Miller
> More often than not, "properly" is often in the eye of the beholder - just
> as is the seemingly eternal top/inline/bottom posting arguments that rear
> their head on occasion. ;-)
But when you dress up the attributions, and quotes, so that they look
pretty, then it becomes difficult to sort out who said what. What "looks
like crap" is easier to comprehend than what "looks pretty".
I prefer function (readability of crappy looking quotes and attributions)
over unreadable form.
N. Miller
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:54:43 -0400, Daave wrote:
>> jkneese wrote:
>>> SORRY! Didn't intend to start a war - only wanted to say thanks.
>>> Don't yet know all the rules and regulations of posting.
>>>
>>> Please excuse this old geezer.
>>Who are you talking to?
> Any / all of the above folks who were offended by my post.
I did not find your post "offensive", only puzzling. Because you failed to
"Reply to" the article you were commenting on. Which MSOE, despite its
brokeness, can do nicely with the "Reply to Group" button.
OTOH, there are some who prefer pretty posts, over readable posts, and tend
to deliberately muck things up. Pay those folks no mind.
Most posters in these groups prefer something called "Top Posting", which is
adding replies at the top of the quoted previous text. Actually, normally
works okay for help groups; until the thread starts to run more than three,
or four posts deep, and refreshing your memory of what transpired means
scanning down, to the quoted original post, reading to the end, then
scanning up to the reply, then reading to the end, then scanning up to the
reply ... ad nauseum.
So, if you were to that here, in this group, only a handful of old, geeky
Usenet diehard would complain (I usually don't).
However, I tend to buck the trend, and dress up my posts to organize them in
what, to me, is a more readable format. The MSFT netcops, in these groups,
can be just as huffy as the Usenet netcops. Just do what makes sense to you,
and I will figure it out. If I feel I need to reorganize things a bit,
before posting my reply, I will.
N. Miller
> Well put Shenan <G>
Eloquence isn't always right.
Shenan Stanley
> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:24:52 +0100, Gerry wrote:
>
>> Well put Shenan <G>
>
> Eloquence isn't always right.
Opinions, especially around aesthetics, seldom have a definitive right or
wrong. ;-)
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
Shenan Stanley
So taking this:
> OTOH, there are some who prefer pretty posts, over readable posts,
> and tend to deliberately muck things up. Pay those folks no mind.
and this:
> However, I tend to buck the trend, and dress up my posts to
> organize them in what, to me, is a more readable format. The MSFT
> netcops, in these groups, can be just as huffy as the Usenet
> netcops. Just do what makes sense to you, and I will figure it out.
> If I feel I need to reorganize things a bit, before posting my
> reply, I will.
Is either in reference to me (if it is - it is an incorrect assesment -
Microsoft can disappear tomorrow and you can post how you want and so can I
is what I have said in this conversation) or is a contradiction and/or irony
on your part at least.
Enjoy!