Re: [H] That's got to sting
At 07:39 PM 27/06/2008, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: I don't believe it is possible to offer real support to the masses unless you charge big $$$. Just charge for after sale support. T
Re: [H] That's got to sting
At 03:28 PM 28/06/2008, John Steinbruner wrote: Gotta love OSX. I brought this thing home, plugged it and the mouse/ KB in, fired it up, and 10 minutes later it was configured and downloading my Email for me. :) Um, that's doable in XP and Vista as well. How long can it take to configure a mail client? Just rebuilt a PC last weekend with XP SP2, including the 127 updates and downloads, it took 4 hours. 'Course, that was with installing SEP, MSOffice, WinRar, Acrobat Reader, and stuff like that too.. :) So you're comparing a bare metal install vs a prebuilt/preinstall and saying XP took longer? T
Re: [H] That's got to sting
At 05:01 PM 28/06/2008, John Steinbruner wrote: Sure it does, but mine came with a fairly recent copy of OSX, 10.5.2, so I have not needed many updates yet. :) So your comparison is completely unscientific. T
Re: [H] That's got to sting
I was going to say Crysis has to be painful with a low-end video card, but I guess the 3.06GHz came with a NV 8800. Yikes, for $2200 I could have built a PC with a intel QX dual 3870X2's never mind the ridiculus $200 vs. $40 for xtra 2GB of DDR2-6400 RAM! Sigh, Job's is spinning his wheels tying a great OS to mediocre hardware @ high prices. John Steinbruner wrote: LOL. I'm on an iMac 24 inch with the 3.06 gig Core 2 Duo.. I have XP loaded in Bootcamp, but have only used it for about 5 hours in the last 2 months to play some Crysis and FarCry.. :) I don't miss XP or Vista too very much... On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Ben Ruset wrote: In any case it doesn't matter much to me. The last day of XP sales I got a MacBook Pro. :) My days of Windows as a desktop OS are (hopefully) over.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Thane, OK, I completely misunderstood your point until this addition. My apologies completely. And, I suppose I never did understand the full background of Winterlight's original share. Again, my bad. As, this seems to maybe now focused on X64, it is possible that much of this kerfuffle is somewhat similar to all the hoopla back when personal computers and sw changed from x8 to x16 to x32? I just do not see x64 anytime in my future ATM. Sorry. Perhaps Intel is being a bit pissy about Vista support, but Intel does have a broader support horizon than MS does. Intel does have to try and maintain compatibility across many operating system. I do understand that MS does have to worry about its' code playing-nice on various hdw mfgs wares, but due to MS' stature as the 600# gorilla, it seems like most hdw mfgs remain acutely aware of the gorilla, and build accordingly. Intel notwithstanding! JMHO. Maybe what is beyond Vista is possible (as I hear that XP leaves the shelves on Monday 6/03). Until then, W2Ksp4 is fully solid for me. I have now had experience with 11 MS os's between hobby-time at home and working years at Xerox and the USArmy. Once MS support for W2K stops, I will just find another hobby; or, maybe trade in all my Windows toys in and buy a MAC. Best, Duncan culpaAt 09:37 06/27/2008 -0300, you wrote: Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. I'm not a Vista fan. I agree with Intel sticking XP. I was just pointing out why MS might be irritated with Intel. (There is also the fact that when the biggest CPU vendor ignores your latest OS, that's not a good sign.) Of course, MS is selling Vista with the slogan But you can downgrade to XP! so clearly they aren't enamoured of Vista either. As to how many people are affected by my choice, I'd say I help at least 20 people per month make a decision on a computer purchase (some of these are on purchases of 10-50 computers) so I affect at least 100 computer purchases a month directly, and problably 250 a month indirectly. So that's at least 1200 a year. So yes, my opinion is important, and I'm pushing my customers to stick with XP. (Sorry I wasn't clearer on this.) T At 08:08 PM 26/06/2008, DHSinclair wrote: Thane, I would really love do shove some love toward MS, but, sadly, I am out of love here. I am looking a major money upgrades just to go to XP. But, it is on the chopping block. I live very happily on W2Ksp4, thank you. I know, UCan tell me to get on with it. My question is WHY? I am still wondering about windown XP. If you believe big corporate IT depts just deal with this stuff as business as usual sorry. Thane, it just does not happen. I think I understand your operation. You are the single person that gets to make the decision. Fine. How many folk get affected by your choice? Please write me back when your enterprise has 400K bodies using 'windows.' And, you make your decision. Perhaps you have lots of cash in the bank to cover contingencies.' Yes, a bit of a shot, but not a big one, I hope. Personally, MS deserves no love except for foisting it on all of us. Yes, Windows is better than MS-DOS. But then, that is just me (and I can take all the bad for admitting this!) OK-hdw did not stay in track with MS. So what? OK-I forgot the question. Is my hdw decision dependent upon which OS I choose to use? I certainly hope not. Certainly reads this way, however.. :) Best, Duncan At 19:17 06/26/2008 -0300, you wrote: Well MS kept back 64 bit XP until Intel fixed their CPUs so that AMD wouldn't have a big jump on Intel in that department - I'd think MS would be expecting some love in return. T At 07:06 PM 26/06/2008, DHSinclair wrote: Winterlight, I does appear that business just does not support Vista. (yet). I can not say I blame them (based on the vitriol I have read on this list.) Even so. Why do you expect Intel and/or AMD to march in lock-step with whatever S. Balmer dictates? Intel/AMD does hardware. MS does software. We all know that there is plenty of SW that works fine on the current/future hardware? Is this divided loyalty? Is this about a bit of fan-boy? I just do not understand your vent. Best, Duncan At 08:55 06/26/2008 -0700, you wrote: Reports: Intel to skip Vista upgrade For any given release of Windows, there are companies that choose to skip it. But when the company is Intel, it's a big deal. Following a report Monday on the Inquirer, the New York Times reported Wednesday that Intel's IT department found no compelling case for upgrading. Ouch. And that's despite the fact that it's been nearly seven years since XP debuted. It's not a good thing, if your customers are electing to stick with 7-year-old technology. (In fairness, XP did get a fairly big update with Windows XP Service Pack 2, but even that is four years old at this point.) Microsoft, which once predicted businesses would adopt Vista at twice the rate they moved to XP, has scaled back its
Re: [H] That's got to sting
LOL. If you remember, though, I was never all that interested in keeping up with the absolute bleeding edge hardware choices. I was never a gamer, so my needs are probably more mainstream than a lot of other people on the list. I've worked on laptops exclusively since 2000 or so. By default my hardware choices are limited. maccrawj wrote: LOL, miss it or not, you being frakked on hardware choices! Pass the KY the Kool-Aid is wearing off.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
I think Win2k has been end-of-lifed for a while now. I know that during the last timezone change, MS released patches for XP and up and people were forced to write unofficial patches for 2k. You'd probably like OSX. It's simple on the UI side, but if you want to tinker, there's a whole BSD system a bash prompt away. It's incredibly refreshing. So nice to be able to NFS mount my Netapp from my own workstation... DHSinclair wrote: working years at Xerox and the USArmy. Once MS support for W2K stops, I will just find another hobby; or, maybe trade in all my Windows toys in and buy a MAC.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Ben, Thanks, and, mostly I follow your comments and JoeUser's to get an idea of things MAC. Now that Steine seems to be dabbling, I have another viewpoint. Not certain that W2K is totally EOL yet; I still get WinUpdates each month. Yes, I now longer have dreams of one last SP5 for Win2K. When these stop I will decide and jump. I no longer have the time and/or money to try and acquire enough legit XP copies to keep my stable opsnorml. I will not go warez either. Email and web-banking is very much fun, but I can still go totally black (offline) and have a very competent, fully electronic typewriter in an interim. Or, I will just segregate my one XP machine to full internet status and figure out how to filter it from my home LAN. Right now I am focused on a major upgrade to my home, so most things computer are again on hold :) BSD still seems way too much cmd-line to me. Perhaps there are now solid wrappers that make it easier for a guy sans programmer experience. I'll give it another look though. Mostly likely, I will go MAC. I am not concerned about hdw cost. I will buy as much as I can afford and then run it fully to failure. I do not tinker much anymore. I accept that I do not have bleeding edge anymore. I find it is not needed for my life/banking/commerce needs now. Still it is nice to know what is out there 'if only.' Best, Duncan At 12:34 06/28/2008 -0400, you wrote: I think Win2k has been end-of-lifed for a while now. I know that during the last timezone change, MS released patches for XP and up and people were forced to write unofficial patches for 2k. You'd probably like OSX. It's simple on the UI side, but if you want to tinker, there's a whole BSD system a bash prompt away. It's incredibly refreshing. So nice to be able to NFS mount my Netapp from my own workstation... DHSinclair wrote: working years at Xerox and the USArmy. Once MS support for W2K stops, I will just find another hobby; or, maybe trade in all my Windows toys in and buy a MAC.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Duncan: Mac OSX is built on top of BSD. It's the closest you can get to a really well polished desktop *NIX experience. Ubuntu follows a close second. The nice thing about Mac hardware is that it's largely compatible with newer versions of OSX. There are people who have 10+ year old PowerPC mac's that have had various hardware upgrades and are still fast, usable machines. It's hard to say that about standard x86 hardware. IMHO Apple gear is worth a look. DHSinclair wrote: Ben, Thanks, and, mostly I follow your comments and JoeUser's to get an idea of things MAC. Now that Steine seems to be dabbling, I have another viewpoint. Not certain that W2K is totally EOL yet; I still get WinUpdates each month. Yes, I now longer have dreams of one last SP5 for Win2K. When these stop I will decide and jump. I no longer have the time and/or money to try and acquire enough legit XP copies to keep my stable opsnorml. I will not go warez either. Email and web-banking is very much fun, but I can still go totally black (offline) and have a very competent, fully electronic typewriter in an interim. Or, I will just segregate my one XP machine to full internet status and figure out how to filter it from my home LAN. Right now I am focused on a major upgrade to my home, so most things computer are again on hold :) BSD still seems way too much cmd-line to me. Perhaps there are now solid wrappers that make it easier for a guy sans programmer experience. I'll give it another look though. Mostly likely, I will go MAC. I am not concerned about hdw cost. I will buy as much as I can afford and then run it fully to failure. I do not tinker much anymore. I accept that I do not have bleeding edge anymore. I find it is not needed for my life/banking/commerce needs now. Still it is nice to know what is out there 'if only.' Best, Duncan
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Gotta love OSX. I brought this thing home, plugged it and the mouse/ KB in, fired it up, and 10 minutes later it was configured and downloading my Email for me. :) Everything just works should be their motto... Just rebuilt a PC last weekend with XP SP2, including the 127 updates and downloads, it took 4 hours. 'Course, that was with installing SEP, MSOffice, WinRar, Acrobat Reader, and stuff like that too.. :) I am kinda amazed at how much I like OSX for everyday mainstream stuff.. ;) On Jun 28, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Ben Ruset wrote: Duncan: Mac OSX is built on top of BSD. It's the closest you can get to a really well polished desktop *NIX experience. Ubuntu follows a close second. The nice thing about Mac hardware is that it's largely compatible with newer versions of OSX. There are people who have 10+ year old PowerPC mac's that have had various hardware upgrades and are still fast, usable machines. It's hard to say that about standard x86 hardware. IMHO Apple gear is worth a look. DHSinclair wrote: Ben, Thanks, and, mostly I follow your comments and JoeUser's to get an idea of things MAC. Now that Steine seems to be dabbling, I have another viewpoint. Not certain that W2K is totally EOL yet; I still get WinUpdates each month. Yes, I now longer have dreams of one last SP5 for Win2K. When these stop I will decide and jump. I no longer have the time and/or money to try and acquire enough legit XP copies to keep my stable opsnorml. I will not go warez either. Email and web- banking is very much fun, but I can still go totally black (offline) and have a very competent, fully electronic typewriter in an interim. Or, I will just segregate my one XP machine to full internet status and figure out how to filter it from my home LAN. Right now I am focused on a major upgrade to my home, so most things computer are again on hold :) BSD still seems way too much cmd-line to me. Perhaps there are now solid wrappers that make it easier for a guy sans programmer experience. I'll give it another look though. Mostly likely, I will go MAC. I am not concerned about hdw cost. I will buy as much as I can afford and then run it fully to failure. I do not tinker much anymore. I accept that I do not have bleeding edge anymore. I find it is not needed for my life/banking/commerce needs now. Still it is nice to know what is out there 'if only.' Best, Duncan -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Ditto, been using it for 5 years now and love it. On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:28:02AM -0700, John Steinbruner wrote: Gotta love OSX. I brought this thing home, plugged it and the mouse/KB in, fired it up, and 10 minutes later it was configured and downloading my Email for me. :) Everything just works should be their motto... Just rebuilt a PC last weekend with XP SP2, including the 127 updates and downloads, it took 4 hours. 'Course, that was with installing SEP, MSOffice, WinRar, Acrobat Reader, and stuff like that too.. :) I am kinda amazed at how much I like OSX for everyday mainstream stuff.. ;) On Jun 28, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Ben Ruset wrote: Duncan: Mac OSX is built on top of BSD. It's the closest you can get to a really well polished desktop *NIX experience. Ubuntu follows a close second. The nice thing about Mac hardware is that it's largely compatible with newer versions of OSX. There are people who have 10+ year old PowerPC mac's that have had various hardware upgrades and are still fast, usable machines. It's hard to say that about standard x86 hardware. IMHO Apple gear is worth a look. DHSinclair wrote: Ben, Thanks, and, mostly I follow your comments and JoeUser's to get an idea of things MAC. Now that Steine seems to be dabbling, I have another viewpoint. Not certain that W2K is totally EOL yet; I still get WinUpdates each month. Yes, I now longer have dreams of one last SP5 for Win2K. When these stop I will decide and jump. I no longer have the time and/or money to try and acquire enough legit XP copies to keep my stable opsnorml. I will not go warez either. Email and web-banking is very much fun, but I can still go totally black (offline) and have a very competent, fully electronic typewriter in an interim. Or, I will just segregate my one XP machine to full internet status and figure out how to filter it from my home LAN. Right now I am focused on a major upgrade to my home, so most things computer are again on hold :) BSD still seems way too much cmd-line to me. Perhaps there are now solid wrappers that make it easier for a guy sans programmer experience. I'll give it another look though. Mostly likely, I will go MAC. I am not concerned about hdw cost. I will buy as much as I can afford and then run it fully to failure. I do not tinker much anymore. I accept that I do not have bleeding edge anymore. I find it is not needed for my life/banking/commerce needs now. Still it is nice to know what is out there 'if only.' Best, Duncan -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored. -- Bryan G. Seitz
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Well, to be fair, when I did my first Leopard update, it was a ~500MB update. But that also included iTunes, Quicktime, etc. updates. My only complaint with OSX is the built in keyboard on my MacBook. It's missing home, end, page up, page down, and insert. When connected to an external keyboard the home and end keys don't work like they do in Windows and Linux either. But there's ways around that. It's a minor nit pick for an otherwise flawless (to me, so far) system. John Steinbruner wrote: Gotta love OSX. I brought this thing home, plugged it and the mouse/KB in, fired it up, and 10 minutes later it was configured and downloading my Email for me. :) Everything just works should be their motto... Just rebuilt a PC last weekend with XP SP2, including the 127 updates and downloads, it took 4 hours. 'Course, that was with installing SEP, MSOffice, WinRar, Acrobat Reader, and stuff like that too.. :) I am kinda amazed at how much I like OSX for everyday mainstream stuff.. ;)
Re: [H] That's got to sting
You are right. :) But I am still amazed that when I first turned it on, and told it my email addie and password during setup, and it auto-configured itself and started downloading my email in such a short amount of time. Over wireless to boot, and Pacbell.net does not use the standard ports these days, they use SSL for mail now. I could not manually configure Thunderbird or Agent or whatever in that short a time even after all these years of working with PC'S and software. :) On Jun 28, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Ben Ruset wrote: Well, to be fair, when I did my first Leopard update, it was a ~500MB update. But that also included iTunes, Quicktime, etc. updates. My only complaint with OSX is the built in keyboard on my MacBook. It's missing home, end, page up, page down, and insert. When connected to an external keyboard the home and end keys don't work like they do in Windows and Linux either. But there's ways around that. It's a minor nit pick for an otherwise flawless (to me, so far) system.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Hello Bryan, Saturday, June 28, 2008, 12:33:28 PM, you wrote: Ditto, been using it for 5 years now and love it. On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 11:28:02AM -0700, John Steinbruner wrote: Gotta love OSX. I brought this thing home, plugged it and the mouse/KB in, fired it up, and 10 minutes later it was configured and downloading my Email for me. :) Everything just works should be their motto... Just rebuilt a PC last weekend with XP SP2, including the 127 updates and downloads, it took 4 hours. 'Course, that was with installing SEP, MSOffice, WinRar, Acrobat Reader, and stuff like that too.. :) I am kinda amazed at how much I like OSX for everyday mainstream stuff.. ;) I still have existing Win2K Pro and XP Pro installs in place and working fine. HOWEVER, I am glad I got into Apple and also into Linux (/salute Ubuntu) So when the shit hits the fan I can walk away from Microsoft for the most part and use Linux and Apple. Have 2 Ubuntu installs running fine (laptop desktop) and 1 iMac without issue. Thank God for Microsoft though, otherwise I'd be bored and broke. -- Regards, joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Ben, Fully understand this from previous threads. I was really focused at a pure BSD/*nix kind of choice. My bad. I still have much to remember; and learn. Yes, I have several old friends (not on our list) that still use a vast array of older MAC platforms, and, oddly, we still converse test-wise. Rich-text and graphic sharing is sketchy, but doable. Yes, I will now start looking (pricing). Best, Duncan At 13:56 06/28/2008 -0400, you wrote: Duncan: Mac OSX is built on top of BSD. It's the closest you can get to a really well polished desktop *NIX experience. Ubuntu follows a close second. The nice thing about Mac hardware is that it's largely compatible with newer versions of OSX. There are people who have 10+ year old PowerPC mac's that have had various hardware upgrades and are still fast, usable machines. It's hard to say that about standard x86 hardware. IMHO Apple gear is worth a look. DHSinclair wrote: Ben, Thanks, and, mostly I follow your comments and JoeUser's to get an idea of things MAC. Now that Steine seems to be dabbling, I have another viewpoint. Not certain that W2K is totally EOL yet; I still get WinUpdates each month. Yes, I now longer have dreams of one last SP5 for Win2K. When these stop I will decide and jump. I no longer have the time and/or money to try and acquire enough legit XP copies to keep my stable opsnorml. I will not go warez either. Email and web-banking is very much fun, but I can still go totally black (offline) and have a very competent, fully electronic typewriter in an interim. Or, I will just segregate my one XP machine to full internet status and figure out how to filter it from my home LAN. Right now I am focused on a major upgrade to my home, so most things computer are again on hold :) BSD still seems way too much cmd-line to me. Perhaps there are now solid wrappers that make it easier for a guy sans programmer experience. I'll give it another look though. Mostly likely, I will go MAC. I am not concerned about hdw cost. I will buy as much as I can afford and then run it fully to failure. I do not tinker much anymore. I accept that I do not have bleeding edge anymore. I find it is not needed for my life/banking/commerce needs now. Still it is nice to know what is out there 'if only.' Best, Duncan
Re: [H] That's got to sting
probably enough throw away stuff from this list to keep you at least a *bottom feeder* like me :-} fp At 10:40 AM 6/28/2008, DHSinclair Poked the stick with: Mostly likely, I will go MAC. I am not concerned about hdw cost. I will buy as much as I can afford and then run it fully to failure. I do not tinker much anymore. I accept that I do not have bleeding edge anymore. I find it is not needed for my life/banking/commerce needs now. Still it is nice to know what is out there 'if only.' Best, Duncan -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- A living example of Artificial Intelligence.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
OSX does not do updates ? fp At 11:28 AM 6/28/2008, John Steinbruner Poked the stick with: Gotta love OSX. I brought this thing home, plugged it and the mouse/ KB in, fired it up, and 10 minutes later it was configured and downloading my Email for me. :) Everything just works should be their motto... Just rebuilt a PC last weekend with XP SP2, including the 127 updates and downloads, it took 4 hours. 'Course, that was with installing SEP, MSOffice, WinRar, Acrobat Reader, and stuff like that too.. :) I am kinda amazed at how much I like OSX for everyday mainstream stuff.. ;) On Jun 28, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Ben Ruset wrote: Duncan: Mac OSX is built on top of BSD. It's the closest you can get to a really well polished desktop *NIX experience. Ubuntu follows a close second. The nice thing about Mac hardware is that it's largely compatible with newer versions of OSX. There are people who have 10+ year old PowerPC mac's that have had various hardware upgrades and are still fast, usable machines. It's hard to say that about standard x86 hardware. IMHO Apple gear is worth a look. DHSinclair wrote: Ben, Thanks, and, mostly I follow your comments and JoeUser's to get an idea of things MAC. Now that Steine seems to be dabbling, I have another viewpoint. Not certain that W2K is totally EOL yet; I still get WinUpdates each month. Yes, I now longer have dreams of one last SP5 for Win2K. When these stop I will decide and jump. I no longer have the time and/or money to try and acquire enough legit XP copies to keep my stable opsnorml. I will not go warez either. Email and web- banking is very much fun, but I can still go totally black (offline) and have a very competent, fully electronic typewriter in an interim. Or, I will just segregate my one XP machine to full internet status and figure out how to filter it from my home LAN. Right now I am focused on a major upgrade to my home, so most things computer are again on hold :) BSD still seems way too much cmd-line to me. Perhaps there are now solid wrappers that make it easier for a guy sans programmer experience. I'll give it another look though. Mostly likely, I will go MAC. I am not concerned about hdw cost. I will buy as much as I can afford and then run it fully to failure. I do not tinker much anymore. I accept that I do not have bleeding edge anymore. I find it is not needed for my life/banking/commerce needs now. Still it is nice to know what is out there 'if only.' Best, Duncan -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored. -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- A living example of Artificial Intelligence.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Sure it does, but mine came with a fairly recent copy of OSX, 10.5.2, so I have not needed many updates yet. :) On Jun 28, 2008, at 12:21 PM, FORC5 wrote: OSX does not do updates ? fp At 11:28 AM 6/28/2008, John Steinbruner Poked the stick with: Gotta love OSX. I brought this thing home, plugged it and the mouse/ KB in, fired it up, and 10 minutes later it was configured and downloading my Email for me. :) Everything just works should be their motto... Just rebuilt a PC last weekend with XP SP2, including the 127 updates and downloads, it took 4 hours. 'Course, that was with installing SEP, MSOffice, WinRar, Acrobat Reader, and stuff like that too.. :) I am kinda amazed at how much I like OSX for everyday mainstream stuff.. ;)
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Forc5, I seriously doubt that you own that bottom-feeder label. I suspect that there a few more members of this club. I do not mind. My antique stuff just works for what I need it to do. And I still enjoy Half-Life, Quake III, Unreal, Serious Sam, Tomb Raider and MS Flight Sim. I just put up with any glitches I run into now.not many, mind you. :) Best, Duncan At 12:20 06/28/2008 -0700, you wrote: probably enough throw away stuff from this list to keep you at least a *bottom feeder* like me :-} fp At 10:40 AM 6/28/2008, DHSinclair Poked the stick with: Mostly likely, I will go MAC. I am not concerned about hdw cost. I will buy as much as I can afford and then run it fully to failure. I do not tinker much anymore. I accept that I do not have bleeding edge anymore. I find it is not needed for my life/banking/commerce needs now. Still it is nice to know what is out there 'if only.' Best, Duncan -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- A living example of Artificial Intelligence.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Everything just works should be their motto... Until it doesn't and frakk all if you know why Until we move on drop legacy support Unless you want to choose your own hardware LOL, I see a real frakked future repeating the mistakes of the True Blue IBM PC days if we keep drinking Jobs' Kool-Aid! Now give me OSX for any PC I'll mix a bit of Vodka in that Kool-Aid right away... Slipstreamed SP3 something like autopatcher would have lowered that time significantly. Unbundled software would be an issue no matter the platform though there are ways create unattended software installs for 3rd party apps. John Steinbruner wrote: Gotta love OSX. I brought this thing home, plugged it and the mouse/KB in, fired it up, and 10 minutes later it was configured and downloading my Email for me. :) Everything just works should be their motto... Just rebuilt a PC last weekend with XP SP2, including the 127 updates and downloads, it took 4 hours. 'Course, that was with installing SEP, MSOffice, WinRar, Acrobat Reader, and stuff like that too.. :) I am kinda amazed at how much I like OSX for everyday mainstream stuff.. ;)
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Oh, I know, and all my copies of XP are slipstreamed, but this was a re-install on a Presario from the image on the D:\ hidden partition, so I had to start with XP SP2. :) No OS is perfect, but I guess my only real point is that I am surprised by how little I miss XP and Vista for normal day to day computing.. Games are another matter entirely.. :) On Jun 28, 2008, at 4:47 PM, maccrawj wrote: Everything just works should be their motto... Until it doesn't and frakk all if you know why Until we move on drop legacy support Unless you want to choose your own hardware LOL, I see a real frakked future repeating the mistakes of the True Blue IBM PC days if we keep drinking Jobs' Kool-Aid! Now give me OSX for any PC I'll mix a bit of Vodka in that Kool-Aid right away... Slipstreamed SP3 something like autopatcher would have lowered that time significantly. Unbundled software would be an issue no matter the platform though there are ways create unattended software installs for 3rd party apps.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Seems like Duncan is on a bit of a rant here. Why? Does it bother you that the MS OS has moved beyond Win2k? I hated that OS. Winterlight wrote: I just do not understand your vent. Best, Duncan What vent? I wrote nothing. I just forwarded a news story that was interesting.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. I'm not a Vista fan. I agree with Intel sticking XP. I was just pointing out why MS might be irritated with Intel. (There is also the fact that when the biggest CPU vendor ignores your latest OS, that's not a good sign.) Of course, MS is selling Vista with the slogan But you can downgrade to XP! so clearly they aren't enamoured of Vista either. As to how many people are affected by my choice, I'd say I help at least 20 people per month make a decision on a computer purchase (some of these are on purchases of 10-50 computers) so I affect at least 100 computer purchases a month directly, and problably 250 a month indirectly. So that's at least 1200 a year. So yes, my opinion is important, and I'm pushing my customers to stick with XP. (Sorry I wasn't clearer on this.) T At 08:08 PM 26/06/2008, DHSinclair wrote: Thane, I would really love do shove some love toward MS, but, sadly, I am out of love here. I am looking a major money upgrades just to go to XP. But, it is on the chopping block. I live very happily on W2Ksp4, thank you. I know, UCan tell me to get on with it. My question is WHY? I am still wondering about windown XP. If you believe big corporate IT depts just deal with this stuff as business as usual sorry. Thane, it just does not happen. I think I understand your operation. You are the single person that gets to make the decision. Fine. How many folk get affected by your choice? Please write me back when your enterprise has 400K bodies using 'windows.' And, you make your decision. Perhaps you have lots of cash in the bank to cover contingencies.' Yes, a bit of a shot, but not a big one, I hope. Personally, MS deserves no love except for foisting it on all of us. Yes, Windows is better than MS-DOS. But then, that is just me (and I can take all the bad for admitting this!) OK-hdw did not stay in track with MS. So what? OK-I forgot the question. Is my hdw decision dependent upon which OS I choose to use? I certainly hope not. Certainly reads this way, however.. :) Best, Duncan At 19:17 06/26/2008 -0300, you wrote: Well MS kept back 64 bit XP until Intel fixed their CPUs so that AMD wouldn't have a big jump on Intel in that department - I'd think MS would be expecting some love in return. T At 07:06 PM 26/06/2008, DHSinclair wrote: Winterlight, I does appear that business just does not support Vista. (yet). I can not say I blame them (based on the vitriol I have read on this list.) Even so. Why do you expect Intel and/or AMD to march in lock-step with whatever S. Balmer dictates? Intel/AMD does hardware. MS does software. We all know that there is plenty of SW that works fine on the current/future hardware? Is this divided loyalty? Is this about a bit of fan-boy? I just do not understand your vent. Best, Duncan At 08:55 06/26/2008 -0700, you wrote: Reports: Intel to skip Vista upgrade For any given release of Windows, there are companies that choose to skip it. But when the company is Intel, it's a big deal. Following a report Monday on the Inquirer, the New York Times reported Wednesday that Intel's IT department found no compelling case for upgrading. Ouch. And that's despite the fact that it's been nearly seven years since XP debuted. It's not a good thing, if your customers are electing to stick with 7-year-old technology. (In fairness, XP did get a fairly big update with Windows XP Service Pack 2, but even that is four years old at this point.) Microsoft, which once predicted businesses would adopt Vista at twice the rate they moved to XP, has scaled back its ambitions and these days talks a lot about how long the adoption curve is for businesses when it comes to new operating systems.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
At 07:33 AM 27/06/2008, Anthony Q. Martin wrote: Seems like Duncan is on a bit of a rant here. Why? Does it bother you that the MS OS has moved beyond Win2k? I hated that OS. Yes, he's very strong on W2K. And it was a sucky OS, and really is crap compared to XP. (I'd even consider Vista over it, to be honest.) T Winterlight wrote: I just do not understand your vent. Best, Duncan What vent? I wrote nothing. I just forwarded a news story that was interesting.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Well, the difference is that a copy of XP or OSX comes with support. Linux gets fairly expensive if you factor in vendor support. And, I'm not sure if you've ever had the pleasure of dealing with Red Hat support, but they're terrible. Microsoft support, on the other hand, has always been amazing to me. Brian Weeden wrote: Agreed. Although I think it's sad that we consider $100 to be a reasonable price point to pay every year or two for an OS upgrade. In contrast to Microsoft's normal pricing, that's true. But compared to Linux (whatever it's faults) it's still darn unreasonable.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
At 10:01 AM 27/06/2008, Ben Ruset wrote: Well, the difference is that a copy of XP or OSX comes with support. Linux gets fairly expensive if you factor in vendor support. And, I'm not sure if you've ever had the pleasure of dealing with Red Hat support, but they're terrible. Microsoft support, on the other hand, has always been amazing to me. Actually, any OEM copy of Windows has no support from MS. All support is through the vendor. (Now I've called MS before on support, and while they were completely useless, they didn't hassle me about being OEM, so maybe they don't enforce this.) You're point on Linux support is well taken, however. T
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Right. But support from the vendor is still better than no support at all. Community support is an iffy thing. I asked a simple question on the dd-wrt forums a few days ago and have not yet even had a response. I've had the same thing happen on the CentOS forums as well. Sometimes it's nice (or critical) to be able to pick up the phone and talk to a real human being about something. Thane Sherrington wrote: Actually, any OEM copy of Windows has no support from MS. All support is through the vendor. (Now I've called MS before on support, and while they were completely useless, they didn't hassle me about being OEM, so maybe they don't enforce this.) You're point on Linux support is well taken, however. T
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Oh, and the other thing I forgot to mention is that there's not much of a compelling reason to make every single jump in OS revision. For example, if you had a OSX Tiger machine, and did not care about Time Machine or the new dock, there's no super compelling reason to go to Leopard. Brian Weeden wrote: Agreed. Although I think it's sad that we consider $100 to be a reasonable price point to pay every year or two for an OS upgrade. In contrast to Microsoft's normal pricing, that's true. But compared to Linux (whatever it's faults) it's still darn unreasonable.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
That's why red hat still has stock listed on NASDAQ and others are either long gone or pink sheets. Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:58:09 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] That's got to sting Right. But support from the vendor is still better than no support at all. Community support is an iffy thing. I asked a simple question on the dd-wrt forums a few days ago and have not yet even had a response. I've had the same thing happen on the CentOS forums as well. Sometimes it's nice (or critical) to be able to pick up the phone and talk to a real human being about something. Thane Sherrington wrote: Actually, any OEM copy of Windows has no support from MS. All support is through the vendor. (Now I've called MS before on support, and while they were completely useless, they didn't hassle me about being OEM, so maybe they don't enforce this.) You're point on Linux support is well taken, however.T _ Earn cashback on your purchases with Live Search - the search that pays you back! http://search.live.com/cashback/?pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=earncashback
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Read the Vista lawsuit papers see why Vista was so labatomized by the request of the the likes of Dell Intel looking to be able to sell their existing hardware solutions. Then send you business to HP who seems to have happily bit-the-bullet upgraded their offerings to match original Vista requirements only to be screwed sans-KY by the bar-lowering. Now I guess you could also say Intel is doing it again to MS adding insult to injury after screwing Vista to begin with. 2K was not popular until a few service packs, XP same until SP2, will Vista get a bump later in the life-cycle or become the next ME? Inquiring minds want to know! From what I see biggest loss for me sticking with XP is lack of 64bit support thus more memory per app solid 64bit drivers, and maybe DX10 but all could have been added supported into XP with MS charging $50 for an XP version 2 similar to 95-98-9se. FWI incremental for less money would have made more sense than hobbled Vista. Thane Sherrington wrote: Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. I'm not a Vista fan. I agree with Intel sticking XP. I was just pointing out why MS might be irritated with Intel. (There is also the fact that when the biggest CPU vendor ignores your latest OS, that's not a good sign.) Of course, MS is selling Vista with the slogan But you can downgrade to XP! so clearly they aren't enamoured of Vista either. As to how many people are affected by my choice, I'd say I help at least 20 people per month make a decision on a computer purchase (some of these are on purchases of 10-50 computers) so I affect at least 100 computer purchases a month directly, and problably 250 a month indirectly. So that's at least 1200 a year. So yes, my opinion is important, and I'm pushing my customers to stick with XP. (Sorry I wasn't clearer on this.) T
Re: [H] That's got to sting
XP had much, much more traction at launch than Vista had. XP, pre SP1, was infinitely more usable than Vista is post SP1. My vote for Vista will be that it'll climb in the boat with Me. The UI changes (aero) are here to stay, but hopefully Win7 will be what XP is today. In any case it doesn't matter much to me. The last day of XP sales I got a MacBook Pro. :) My days of Windows as a desktop OS are (hopefully) over. maccrawj wrote: Read the Vista lawsuit papers see why Vista was so labatomized by the request of the the likes of Dell Intel looking to be able to sell their existing hardware solutions. Then send you business to HP who seems to have happily bit-the-bullet upgraded their offerings to match original Vista requirements only to be screwed sans-KY by the bar-lowering. Now I guess you could also say Intel is doing it again to MS adding insult to injury after screwing Vista to begin with. 2K was not popular until a few service packs, XP same until SP2, will Vista get a bump later in the life-cycle or become the next ME? Inquiring minds want to know! From what I see biggest loss for me sticking with XP is lack of 64bit support thus more memory per app solid 64bit drivers, and maybe DX10 but all could have been added supported into XP with MS charging $50 for an XP version 2 similar to 95-98-9se. FWI incremental for less money would have made more sense than hobbled Vista.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
I don't believe it is possible to offer real support to the masses unless you charge big $$$. Thane Sherrington wrote: At 10:01 AM 27/06/2008, Ben Ruset wrote: Well, the difference is that a copy of XP or OSX comes with support. Linux gets fairly expensive if you factor in vendor support. And, I'm not sure if you've ever had the pleasure of dealing with Red Hat support, but they're terrible. Microsoft support, on the other hand, has always been amazing to me. Actually, any OEM copy of Windows has no support from MS. All support is through the vendor. (Now I've called MS before on support, and while they were completely useless, they didn't hassle me about being OEM, so maybe they don't enforce this.) You're point on Linux support is well taken, however. T
Re: [H] That's got to sting
LOL. I'm on an iMac 24 inch with the 3.06 gig Core 2 Duo.. I have XP loaded in Bootcamp, but have only used it for about 5 hours in the last 2 months to play some Crysis and FarCry.. :) I don't miss XP or Vista too very much... On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Ben Ruset wrote: In any case it doesn't matter much to me. The last day of XP sales I got a MacBook Pro. :) My days of Windows as a desktop OS are (hopefully) over.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
More traction possibly but XP was still lamented until SP2 in favor of 2K. Vista usability I can not comment on for even though I have a legit Vista Business key granted by my brief college experience, we were never given access to the media I've not cared enough to look for alternative media sources. I'll join you on OSX when they decouple from the Apple hardware, not moving back to the pre-clone IBM PC days here. Still gaming here and don't find things on the Mac side improving much rather even the Windows side is seeing slacking support from game publishers crying boo-hoo about piracy. Along both lines it would be nice if the TPM chip made it's way to the gaming side of the PC replacing the serials, media online checks post-activation, preferably in the form of a USB dongle. Of course TPM has not protected OSX from being reverse-engineered to run on non-TPM/non-apple Intel hardware. ;) Any rate, my point was Vista delays feature removal had more to do with big hardware vendors whining about potentially stalled sales if they did things right. Ben Ruset wrote: XP had much, much more traction at launch than Vista had. XP, pre SP1, was infinitely more usable than Vista is post SP1. My vote for Vista will be that it'll climb in the boat with Me. The UI changes (aero) are here to stay, but hopefully Win7 will be what XP is today. In any case it doesn't matter much to me. The last day of XP sales I got a MacBook Pro. :) My days of Windows as a desktop OS are (hopefully) over. maccrawj wrote: Read the Vista lawsuit papers see why Vista was so labatomized by the request of the the likes of Dell Intel looking to be able to sell their existing hardware solutions. Then send you business to HP who seems to have happily bit-the-bullet upgraded their offerings to match original Vista requirements only to be screwed sans-KY by the bar-lowering. Now I guess you could also say Intel is doing it again to MS adding insult to injury after screwing Vista to begin with. 2K was not popular until a few service packs, XP same until SP2, will Vista get a bump later in the life-cycle or become the next ME? Inquiring minds want to know! From what I see biggest loss for me sticking with XP is lack of 64bit support thus more memory per app solid 64bit drivers, and maybe DX10 but all could have been added supported into XP with MS charging $50 for an XP version 2 similar to 95-98-9se. FWI incremental for less money would have made more sense than hobbled Vista.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
LOL, miss it or not, you being frakked on hardware choices! Pass the KY the Kool-Aid is wearing off. John Steinbruner wrote: LOL. I'm on an iMac 24 inch with the 3.06 gig Core 2 Duo.. I have XP loaded in Bootcamp, but have only used it for about 5 hours in the last 2 months to play some Crysis and FarCry.. :) I don't miss XP or Vista too very much... On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Ben Ruset wrote: In any case it doesn't matter much to me. The last day of XP sales I got a MacBook Pro. :) My days of Windows as a desktop OS are (hopefully) over.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
True, but I still have the Intel mobo'd, Core 2 Duo, 4 HD's, and 2 DVD/ CDRW's, Lian Li-cased monster with 2 gigs of RAM and fast nVidia card on the other desk... She dual-boots XP and Vista... ;) On Jun 27, 2008, at 4:20 PM, maccrawj wrote: LOL, miss it or not, you being frakked on hardware choices! Pass the KY the Kool-Aid is wearing off. John Steinbruner wrote: LOL. I'm on an iMac 24 inch with the 3.06 gig Core 2 Duo.. I have XP loaded in Bootcamp, but have only used it for about 5 hours in the last 2 months to play some Crysis and FarCry.. :) I don't miss XP or Vista too very much... On Jun 27, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Ben Ruset wrote: In any case it doesn't matter much to me. The last day of XP sales I got a MacBook Pro. :) My days of Windows as a desktop OS are (hopefully) over. -- JRS [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please remove **X** to reply... Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
The more I think about it, the more it seems like Vista is going to be the newest Windows Me. They'll probably make Win7 more compelling to upgrade to. What they should really do is what Apple does. Make smaller, more frequent OS updates with one or two major features that people would want. Then price it at a reasonable $100 price point. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be honest, what is in Vista that a company like Intel would actually NEED on desktop PCs? XP brought just about everything needed for a non-gaming desktop. What's the point in the upgrade costs (both software and hardware) if you do not see any benefit to your business? DX10, Aero and better 64bit support are the main benefits of Vista, if you aren't going to use them, its a costly upgrade for nothing but keeping up with the Jones' Lets just hope they allow their driver creators/testers to keep copies of Vista handy though ;)
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Agreed. Although I think it's sad that we consider $100 to be a reasonable price point to pay every year or two for an OS upgrade. In contrast to Microsoft's normal pricing, that's true. But compared to Linux (whatever it's faults) it's still darn unreasonable. Brian On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ben Ruset [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The more I think about it, the more it seems like Vista is going to be the newest Windows Me. They'll probably make Win7 more compelling to upgrade to. What they should really do is what Apple does. Make smaller, more frequent OS updates with one or two major features that people would want. Then price it at a reasonable $100 price point. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be honest, what is in Vista that a company like Intel would actually NEED on desktop PCs? XP brought just about everything needed for a non-gaming desktop. What's the point in the upgrade costs (both software and hardware) if you do not see any benefit to your business? DX10, Aero and better 64bit support are the main benefits of Vista, if you aren't going to use them, its a costly upgrade for nothing but keeping up with the Jones' Lets just hope they allow their driver creators/testers to keep copies of Vista handy though ;)
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Hello Brian, Thursday, June 26, 2008, 12:33:00 PM, you wrote: Agreed. Although I think it's sad that we consider $100 to be a reasonable price point to pay every year or two for an OS upgrade. In contrast to Microsoft's normal pricing, that's true. But compared to Linux (whatever it's faults) it's still darn unreasonable. Brian On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ben Ruset [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The more I think about it, the more it seems like Vista is going to be the newest Windows Me. They'll probably make Win7 more compelling to upgrade to. What they should really do is what Apple does. Make smaller, more frequent OS updates with one or two major features that people would want. Then price it at a reasonable $100 price point. I told ya so! ;) -- Regards, joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key...
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Winterlight, I does appear that business just does not support Vista. (yet). I can not say I blame them (based on the vitriol I have read on this list.) Even so. Why do you expect Intel and/or AMD to march in lock-step with whatever S. Balmer dictates? Intel/AMD does hardware. MS does software. We all know that there is plenty of SW that works fine on the current/future hardware? Is this divided loyalty? Is this about a bit of fan-boy? I just do not understand your vent. Best, Duncan At 08:55 06/26/2008 -0700, you wrote: Reports: Intel to skip Vista upgrade For any given release of Windows, there are companies that choose to skip it. But when the company is Intel, it's a big deal. Following a report Monday on the Inquirer, the New York Times reported Wednesday that Intel's IT department found no compelling case for upgrading. Ouch. And that's despite the fact that it's been nearly seven years since XP debuted. It's not a good thing, if your customers are electing to stick with 7-year-old technology. (In fairness, XP did get a fairly big update with Windows XP Service Pack 2, but even that is four years old at this point.) Microsoft, which once predicted businesses would adopt Vista at twice the rate they moved to XP, has scaled back its ambitions and these days talks a lot about how long the adoption curve is for businesses when it comes to new operating systems.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Well MS kept back 64 bit XP until Intel fixed their CPUs so that AMD wouldn't have a big jump on Intel in that department - I'd think MS would be expecting some love in return. T At 07:06 PM 26/06/2008, DHSinclair wrote: Winterlight, I does appear that business just does not support Vista. (yet). I can not say I blame them (based on the vitriol I have read on this list.) Even so. Why do you expect Intel and/or AMD to march in lock-step with whatever S. Balmer dictates? Intel/AMD does hardware. MS does software. We all know that there is plenty of SW that works fine on the current/future hardware? Is this divided loyalty? Is this about a bit of fan-boy? I just do not understand your vent. Best, Duncan At 08:55 06/26/2008 -0700, you wrote: Reports: Intel to skip Vista upgrade For any given release of Windows, there are companies that choose to skip it. But when the company is Intel, it's a big deal. Following a report Monday on the Inquirer, the New York Times reported Wednesday that Intel's IT department found no compelling case for upgrading. Ouch. And that's despite the fact that it's been nearly seven years since XP debuted. It's not a good thing, if your customers are electing to stick with 7-year-old technology. (In fairness, XP did get a fairly big update with Windows XP Service Pack 2, but even that is four years old at this point.) Microsoft, which once predicted businesses would adopt Vista at twice the rate they moved to XP, has scaled back its ambitions and these days talks a lot about how long the adoption curve is for businesses when it comes to new operating systems.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Thane, I would really love do shove some love toward MS, but, sadly, I am out of love here. I am looking a major money upgrades just to go to XP. But, it is on the chopping block. I live very happily on W2Ksp4, thank you. I know, UCan tell me to get on with it. My question is WHY? I am still wondering about windown XP. If you believe big corporate IT depts just deal with this stuff as business as usual sorry. Thane, it just does not happen. I think I understand your operation. You are the single person that gets to make the decision. Fine. How many folk get affected by your choice? Please write me back when your enterprise has 400K bodies using 'windows.' And, you make your decision. Perhaps you have lots of cash in the bank to cover contingencies.' Yes, a bit of a shot, but not a big one, I hope. Personally, MS deserves no love except for foisting it on all of us. Yes, Windows is better than MS-DOS. But then, that is just me (and I can take all the bad for admitting this!) OK-hdw did not stay in track with MS. So what? OK-I forgot the question. Is my hdw decision dependent upon which OS I choose to use? I certainly hope not. Certainly reads this way, however.. :) Best, Duncan At 19:17 06/26/2008 -0300, you wrote: Well MS kept back 64 bit XP until Intel fixed their CPUs so that AMD wouldn't have a big jump on Intel in that department - I'd think MS would be expecting some love in return. T At 07:06 PM 26/06/2008, DHSinclair wrote: Winterlight, I does appear that business just does not support Vista. (yet). I can not say I blame them (based on the vitriol I have read on this list.) Even so. Why do you expect Intel and/or AMD to march in lock-step with whatever S. Balmer dictates? Intel/AMD does hardware. MS does software. We all know that there is plenty of SW that works fine on the current/future hardware? Is this divided loyalty? Is this about a bit of fan-boy? I just do not understand your vent. Best, Duncan At 08:55 06/26/2008 -0700, you wrote: Reports: Intel to skip Vista upgrade For any given release of Windows, there are companies that choose to skip it. But when the company is Intel, it's a big deal. Following a report Monday on the Inquirer, the New York Times reported Wednesday that Intel's IT department found no compelling case for upgrading. Ouch. And that's despite the fact that it's been nearly seven years since XP debuted. It's not a good thing, if your customers are electing to stick with 7-year-old technology. (In fairness, XP did get a fairly big update with Windows XP Service Pack 2, but even that is four years old at this point.) Microsoft, which once predicted businesses would adopt Vista at twice the rate they moved to XP, has scaled back its ambitions and these days talks a lot about how long the adoption curve is for businesses when it comes to new operating systems.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
I just do not understand your vent. Best, Duncan What vent? I wrote nothing. I just forwarded a news story that was interesting.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
Sorry Winterlight, I thought I was speaking to Thane. OK. My bad. Best, Duncan At 16:53 06/26/2008 -0700, you wrote: I just do not understand your vent. Best, Duncan What vent? I wrote nothing. I just forwarded a news story that was interesting.
Re: [H] That's got to sting
was my question when windows 3.1 come out, I was happy in dos 8-) kicking and screaming :-[ fp At 04:08 PM 6/26/2008, DHSinclair Poked the stick with: I know, UCan tell me to get on with it. My question is WHY? -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- Dumb v2.0: Upgrade from stupid.
