Microsoft software does it again <G>
Brian Dukes
This warning has been forwarded to me, it's all about poor performance
in a Microsoft product known as Wife v1.0; anyway read on for more
info :-
-----Original Message-----
From: mark.horne.@tbiplc.co.uk [SMTP:mark.horne.@tbiplc.co.uk]
Sent: 06 February 1997 16:09
To: Ma...@acemake.demon.co.uk
Subject: MS Wife 1.0
I just got the following mail from a mate of mine in Milford, who got
it from a mate of his in Cheltenham, who got it from god knows where.
I thought is was quite clever !!
Last year a friend of mine upgraded GirlFriend 1.0 to Wife 1.0 and
found that it's a memory hog leaving very little system resources for
other applications. He is only now noticing that Wife 1.0 also is
spawning Child-Processes which are further consuming valuable
resources.
No mention of this particular phenomena was included in the product
brochure or the documentation, though other users have informed him
that this is to be expected due to the nature of the application. Not
only that, Wife 1.0 installs itself such that it is always launched
at system initialisation where it can monitor all other system
activity. He's finding that some applications such as PokerNight 10.3,
BeerBash 2.5, and PubNight 7.0 are no longer able to run in the system
at all, crashing the system when selected (even though they always
worked fine before).
At installation, Wife 1.0 provides no option as to the installation of
undesired Plug-Ins such as MotherInLaw 55.8 and BrotherInLaw Beta
release. Also, system performance seems to diminish with each passing
day.
The features he'd like to see in the upcoming Wife 2.0 include:
A "Don't remind me again" button
Minimise button
An install shield feature that allows Wife 2.0 to be installed with
the option to uninstall at anytime without the loss of cache and
other system resources.
An option to run the network driver in promiscuous mode which would
allow the systems hardware probe feature to be much more useful.
I myself decided to avoid all of the headaches associated with Wife
1.0 by sticking with Girlfriend 2.0. Even here, however, I found many
problems. Apparently you cannot install Girlfriend 2.0 on top of
Girlfriend 1.0. You must uninstall Girlfriend 1.0 first. Other users
say this is a long standing bug which I should have been aware of.
Apparently the versions of Girlfriend have conflicts over shared use
of the I/O port. You think they would have fixed such a stupid bug by
now.
To make matters worse, The uninstall program for Girlfriend 1.0
doesn"t work very well leaving undesirable traces of the application
in the system.
Another thing that sucks -- all versions of Girlfriend continually
pop-up little annoying messages about the advantages of upgrading to
Wife1.0
BUG WARNING
Wife 1.0 has an undocumented bug. If you try to install Mistress 1.1
before uninstalling Wife 1.0, Wife 1.0 will delete MSMoney files
before doing the uninstall itself. Then Mistress 1.1 will refuse to
install, claiming insufficient resources.
BUG WORK-AROUND"S
To avoid the above bug, try installing Mistress 1.1 on a different
system and never run any file transfer applications such as LapLink
6.0.
Also, beware of similar shareware applications that have been known to
carry viruses that may affect Wife 1.0.
Another solution would be to run Mistress 1.0 via a UseNet provider
under an anonymous name. Here again, beware of the viruses which can
accidentally be downloaded from the UseNet.
--------------------
HTH, Brian!
Tri...@hotmail.com
Brian Dukes <bdu...@crox.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This warning has been forwarded to me, it's all about poor performance
>in a Microsoft product known as Wife v1.0; anyway read on for more
>info :-.........................................................................................................
>Another solution would be to run Mistress 1.0 via a UseNet provider
>under an anonymous name. Here again, beware of the viruses which can
>accidentally be downloaded from the UseNet.
Hi Brian!
I found your article very interesting and I just had to say that it's
the most interesting article I've read on this newsgroup so far :)
Marc Wilson
Tri...@hotmail.com wrote:
Brian, get yer coat... you've pulled!
--
Marc
"Remember- two wrongs don't make a right...but three lefts do"
Steve Bernard
Tri...@hotmail.com wrote in article <5do2tn$jb2$2...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>...
> Brian Dukes <bdu...@crox.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >This warning has been forwarded to me, it's all about poor performance
> >in a Microsoft product known as Wife v1.0; anyway read on for more
> >info
:-..............................................................................
..........................
>
> >Another solution would be to run Mistress 1.0 via a UseNet provider
> >under an anonymous name. Here again, beware of the viruses which can
> >accidentally be downloaded from the UseNet.
>
>
> Hi Brian!
>
> I found your article very interesting and I just had to say that it's
> the most interesting article I've read on this newsgroup so far :)
Hello. Brian.........you've pulled!!
A word of warning, this may have been written by a beta ver. of GirlFriend 3.0,
which is alleged to have a serious pc bug in its posting files.
--
Steve
"History, as we know it, is a lie."
--------------Dark Skies---------------
Christine
"Steve Bernard" <steveb...@tradingx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Hey guys
I only said I liked Brian's article and it's an innocent comment,
really..
.. ..and I'm one of those versions of GirlFriend who doesn't want to
be upgraded to Wife 1.0 :)
Don Whybrow
Christine <Tri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Steve Bernard" <steveb...@tradingx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Hello. Brian.........you've pulled!!
>>A word of warning, this may have been written by a beta ver. of GirlFriend 3.0,
>
>>which is alleged to have a serious pc bug in its posting files.
>
>
>I only said I liked Brian's article and it's an innocent comment,
>really..
>
>.. ..and I'm one of those versions of GirlFriend who doesn't want to
>be upgraded to Wife 1.0 :)
>
>
Must be an alpha version then, still has undocumented bugs (not that
there is any documentation in the fist place).
--
Don Whybrow - Correct email address: d...@whybrow.demon.co.uk
Don Guido Ravioli
In message <5dvpr9$g5u$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk> Christine wrote:
> Hey guys
>
> I only said I liked Brian's article and it's an innocent comment,
> really..
>
> ... ..and I'm one of those versions of GirlFriend who doesn't want to
> be upgraded to Wife 1.0 :)
My god!! You mean the Kais Girlfriend 3.0 plug-in?!?
--
Worlock, a Ninja Bonsai Gardener on the information super highway
... The characters are confused, the motivations obscure..USGOVT.
Steve Bernard
Christine <Tri...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> >> >This warning has been forwarded to me, it's all about poor performance
> >> >in a Microsoft product known as Wife v1.0; anyway read on for more
> I only said I liked Brian's article and it's an innocent ....
> .. ..and I'm one of those versions of GirlFriend who doesn't want to
> be upgraded to Wife 1.0 :)
Quick Brian get yer coat on, she's not carrying a ball and chain!!
Steve Bernard
Don Whybrow <D...@whybrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> >"Steve Bernard" <steveb...@tradingx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>Hello. Brian.........you've pulled!!
> >>A word of warning, this may have been written by a beta ver. of GirlFriend
3.0,
> >>which is alleged to have a serious pc bug in its posting files.
> >Hey guys
> >.. ..and I'm one of those versions of GirlFriend who doesn't want to
> >be upgraded to Wife 1.0 :)
>
> there is any documentation in the fist place).
I beg your pardon???
I wouldn't waste any time looking for paper there.
Steve Bernard
Brian Dukes <bdu...@crox.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> >A word of warning, this may have been written by a beta ver. of GirlFriend
3.0,
> >which is alleged to have a serious pc bug in its posting files.
> One of the symptoms of the hacked off version of Girlfriend 3.0 is that it
> emails you with what looks like innocuous messages but sending a BCC to
> Wife 1.0 at the same time, which basically makes Wife 1.0 go ape!
ROTFL - helplessly!!
Ta!!
Beth
In article <01bc1b24$ff9d4200$998c...@tradingx.demon.co.uk>, Steve
Bernard <steveb...@tradingx.demon.co.uk> writes
>> One of the symptoms of the hacked off version of Girlfriend 3.0 is that it
>> emails you with what looks like innocuous messages but sending a BCC to
>> Wife 1.0 at the same time, which basically makes Wife 1.0 go ape!
>
>
>ROTFL - helplessly!!
>Ta!!
Unfortunately, it happens.
I've just been consoling a net contact who found out yesterday that her
husband is having an affair.
The other woman must be a real bitch to send him a valentine's card....
Beth
--
be...@flyboat.demon.co.uk
http://www.flyboat.demon.co.uk/
***Minds are like parachutes; they only function when open***
Steve
Beth <fly...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<ZyfH7OAK...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <01bc1b24$ff9d4200$998c...@tradingx.demon.co.uk>, Steve
> Bernard <steveb...@tradingx.demon.co.uk> writes
> >> One of the symptoms of the hacked off version of Girlfriend 3.0 is that it
> >> emails you with what looks like innocuous messages but sending a BCC to
> >> Wife 1.0 at the same time, which basically makes Wife 1.0 go ape!
[...]
> Unfortunately, it happens.
> I've just been consoling a net contact who found out yesterday that her
> husband is having an affair.
> The other woman must be a real bitch to send him a valentine's card....
Beth, what can I say. Life imitating VR again.
I take it the valentine card wasn't emailed?
--
Steve
"History, as we know it, is a lie"
--------------Dark Skies--------------
Beth
In article <01bc1c0c$46af2540$998c...@tradingx.demon.co.uk>, Steve
<steveb...@tradingx.demon.co.uk> writes
>> I've just been consoling a net contact who found out yesterday that her
>> husband is having an affair.
>> The other woman must be a real bitch to send him a valentine's card....
>
>Beth, what can I say. Life imitating VR again.
>I take it the valentine card wasn't emailed?
nope
I, at least, only EMailed one to *my* married man.
Can't say it didn't hurt not to be able to send a real one
Steve
Beth <fly...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <steveb...@tradingx.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Beth <fly...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> >> I've just been consoling a net contact who found out yesterday that her
> >> husband is having an affair.
> >> The other woman must be a real bitch to send him a valentine's card....
> >Beth, what can I say. Life imitating VR again.
> >I take it the valentine card wasn't emailed?
>
> nope
>
> I, at least, only EMailed one to *my* married man.
> Can't say it didn't hurt not to be able to send a real one
I'm intrigued. Do you mean what I think you mean?
Have you no shame?
If not, there's hope yet :-). I'll warm my *wheels* up.
Stephen Milner
"Steve " <steveb...@tradingx.demon.co.uk> the great and wise
eloquently explained to all :
>Beth <fly...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>> I, at least, only EMailed one to *my* married man.
>> Can't say it didn't hurt not to be able to send a real one
>
>I'm intrigued. Do you mean what I think you mean?
>Have you no shame?
I asked Beth this question once..
Regards, Steve
(To Reply Use: Elr...@elrick.prestel.co.uk)
I love cats because I enjoy my home;
and little by little they become its visible soul
Beth
In article <01bc1c2b$22f53d00$998c...@tradingx.demon.co.uk>, Steve
<steveb...@tradingx.demon.co.uk> writes
>Beth <fly...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>>
>> I, at least, only EMailed one to *my* married man.
>> Can't say it didn't hurt not to be able to send a real one
>
>I'm intrigued. Do you mean what I think you mean?
er... I mean I was thoughtful enough not to send a real card to the man
I'm seeing who just happens to be married to somebody else.
>Have you no shame?
I think the answer to that is "yes" and "no" in the circumstances
>If not, there's hope yet :-). I'll warm my *wheels* up.
:-)
David Reid
In outpouring of consciousness known as <19970214....@worlock.demo
n.co.uk>, Don Guido Ravioli <br...@worlock.demon.co.uk> spake thusly:
>
>My god!! You mean the Kais Girlfriend 3.0 plug-in?!?
>
in.
--
David Reid Da...@davita.demon.co.uk http://www.davita.demon.co.uk
Remember that the '60s happened in the early '70s - Steve Jobs
Christine
dus...@elrick.prestel.co.uk (Stephen Milner) wrote:
>"Steve " <steveb...@tradingx.demon.co.uk> the great and wise
>eloquently explained to all :
>>Beth <fly...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
>>> I, at least, only EMailed one to *my* married man.
>>> Can't say it didn't hurt not to be able to send a real one
>>
>>I'm intrigued. Do you mean what I think you mean?
>>Have you no shame?
>I asked Beth this question once..
Steve,
When a girl falls in love she doesn't care if he's married or not. If
he's married, then she's content with being Girlfriend 1.0 but if he's
single then she's tries to be upgraded to Wife 1.0
I don't think there's anything wrong with dating a married
man.........and before you ask, "No, I have no shame"
:)
Christine
Brian Dukes <bdu...@crox.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Tri...@hotmail.com (Christine) wrote:
>>Hey guys
>>
>>I only said I liked Brian's article and it's an innocent comment,
>>really..
>>
>>.. ..and I'm one of those versions of GirlFriend who doesn't want to
>>be upgraded to Wife 1.0 :)
>Jokes apart, It was nice to see anyhow ... but I don't think you've
>sampled some of the better threads of discussion if you though that my
>regurgitated pasting was better than the other posts on here.
>Hang around any how, you may find some other stuff of interest.
>Bri. smiling! Thanks!
I meant it was one of the best on this newsgroup! Let's be honest,
there isn't much to read on uk.singles
Beth
In article <5efqpa$de3$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Christine
<Tri...@hotmail.com> writes
>Steve,
[...]
>
>I don't think there's anything wrong with dating a married
>man.........
Funnily enough, I do.
I only do this now because of some very exceptional circumstances
I can't claim to sleep too easy of a night though
>and before you ask, "No, I have no shame"
I have
now and again
but not about this
Keith Beaumont
In article <aOjH0RAy...@flyboat.demon.co.uk>, Beth
<fly...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <5efqpa$de3$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Christine
><Tri...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Steve,
>[...]
>>
>>I don't think there's anything wrong with dating a married
>>man.........
>
>Funnily enough, I do.
>I only do this now because of some very exceptional circumstances
>
>I can't claim to sleep too easy of a night though
>
>
>>and before you ask, "No, I have no shame"
>
>I have
>now and again
>but not about this
We have to live with what we do. Sometimes the resulting stress is more
than we imagined or can cope with.
Keith This ain't no technologically breakthrough.
Oh no this is the highway to Hell!!
http://www.ksbeaum.demon.co.uk/keithsframe.htm
Stuart A. Bronstein
Keith Beaumont <ke...@ksbeaum.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Beth <fly...@flyboat.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Christine <Tri...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>
>>>I don't think there's anything wrong with dating a married
>>>man.........
>>
>>Funnily enough, I do.
>>I only do this now because of some very exceptional circumstances
>>
>than we imagined or can cope with.
I once dated a woman who told me she was also seeing a married man. She
had been married before and was afraid of getting involved in another
miserable relationship. The married man was safe because she knew that
connection would never result in a situation that would be hard for her
to walk away from.
I told her that when she decided to choose exploring a real relationship
to give me a call. Of course, I have never heard back from her.
Stu
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/
_/ Happiness is not having what you want. _/
_/ It is wanting what you have. _/
_/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
Sue Purdam
On 23 Feb 1997 07:20:48 -0800, ad...@crl.com (Stuart A. Bronstein)
said:
>I once dated a woman who told me she was also seeing a married man. She
>had been married before and was afraid of getting involved in another
>miserable relationship. The married man was safe because she knew that
>connection would never result in a situation that would be hard for her
>to walk away from.
I know that feeling. The safety buffer is a helluva difficult thing
to give up
>
>I told her that when she decided to choose exploring a real relationship
>to give me a call. Of course, I have never heard back from her.
>
Give her a couple of years or so ...
--
Sue http://www.catatonic.demon.co.uk/sioux/
The all-new bouncy homepage URL - please drop in for a visit!
Serenity
Brian Dukes <bdu...@crox.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Tri...@hotmail.com (Christine) wrote:
>>I don't think there's anything wrong with dating a married
>>man.........and before you ask, "No, I have no shame"
>Hello Christine!!! <G>
Hi Brian :)
Menya Wolfe
In article <5epn8g$a...@crl11.crl.com>, ad...@crl.com (Stuart A. Bronstein) wrote:
> I once dated a woman who told me she was also seeing a married man. She
> had been married before and was afraid of getting involved in another
> miserable relationship. The married man was safe because she knew that
> connection would never result in a situation that would be hard for her
> to walk away from.
>
> to give me a call. Of course, I have never heard back from her.
Good for you. A woman like that isn't worth having. Polyamory is one
thing, lies and cowardice are another.
Menya
--
Menya Wolfe
wo...@bestiary.com
Marc Donovan
There seems to be a misunderstanding - I do not see a mention of the fact
that the wife of said married man was not aware of the situation, or that
anyone was lying about anything. It might even be interpreted that Stuart
is maintaining that a "real relationship" is strictly a two-person affair
(no puns intended this time), which doesn't sound like poly to me...
regards,
-marc
--
If this was meant to help I'd be charging you for it.