Leythos wrote:

> In article <fb6v3b$kvp$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

>> Leythos wrote:

>>> In article <fb6rl0$74j$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

>>>> Leythos wrote:

>>>>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>>>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>>>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>>>>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>>>>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>>>>

>>>> IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

>>>> because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

>>> The problem is that there are more people using MS Office or Works that

>>> you have to interact with, and the OO product does not properly convert

>>> documents if they contain anything other than very basic formatting. I

>>> know this for a fact as I use both Fedora Core with OO and Windows

>>> XP/2003 systems with Office xp, 2003, 2007.... It's bad enough that

>>> people are starting to send 2007 specific documents and that 2003 can't

>>> read them without a utility.....

>>>

>>> The "phone home" and "drm" doesn't mean much if you are not pirating

>>> things.... If they are your works they don't create a problem.

>>>

>> It does if you value your privacy and fair use rights!

>

> And if you think that, why do you use Ubuntu at all, it phones home too?

 

I do not use ubuntu.

>

>> Interesting, I have never had a problem though converting most

>> documents/spreadsheets/presentations I get in email on my linux machine,

>> or my windows machine for that matter (I use OO as my office suite on

>> both machines). The format version of these files is MS office 97 -

>> 2003. I have not tried with 2007 yet.

>>

>> The only thing I can find that OO sucks at is printing labels. But

>> everything else I've used it for it's been great!

>

> I run a business, most documents I get work fine, most, except ones that

> the user has some clue about Office and adds in formatting or other

> options, other than simple formatting... OO works well when you are

> working with other users that use OO or RTF format, but when working

> with native DOC/XLS formats, or even PPT, there are often conversion

> issues.

>

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

Stephan Rose wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:34:34 -0500, The poster formerly known as 'The

> Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' wrote:

>

>> Leythos wrote:

>>> In article <fb6rl0$74j$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

>>>> Leythos wrote:

>>>>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>>>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>>>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>>>>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>>>>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>>>>

>>>> IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

>>>> because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

>>> The problem is that there are more people using MS Office or Works that

>>> you have to interact with, and the OO product does not properly convert

>>> documents if they contain anything other than very basic formatting. I

>>> know this for a fact as I use both Fedora Core with OO and Windows

>>> XP/2003 systems with Office xp, 2003, 2007.... It's bad enough that

>>> people are starting to send 2007 specific documents and that 2003 can't

>>> read them without a utility.....

>>>

>>> The "phone home" and "drm" doesn't mean much if you are not pirating

>>> things.... If they are your works they don't create a problem.

>>>

>> It does if you value your privacy and fair use rights!

>>

>> Interesting, I have never had a problem though converting most

>> documents/spreadsheets/presentations I get in email on my linux machine,

>> or my windows machine for that matter (I use OO as my office suite on

>> both machines). The format version of these files is MS office 97 -

>> 2003. I have not tried with 2007 yet.

>>

>> The only thing I can find that OO sucks at is printing labels. But

>> everything else I've used it for it's been great!

>>

>

> It is for most people...

>

> Honestly, I've never encountered a word document that went beyond standard

> formatting (font, size, bold/italic), some tables, and the occasional

> embedded image.

>

> I think the above accounts for about 99.99% of all word documents I've

> seen which both MS Office and OO can handle with no problem.

>

> The remaining 0.01% that maybe only MS Office can handle I honestly really

> couldn't care less about.

>

> Same goes for spreadsheets.

>

> I find it funny that MS themselves are now introducing the very problem

> people complain about with MS Office VS OO: incompatibility.

>

> Now Office 2007 might be fully compatible with Office 2003 but not vice

> versa. But who needs Office 2007? What does it do that 2003 can't? Fancy

> new UI at the cost of document incompatibility with everyone else?

> Personally I would need a much larger incentive than that before I'd fork

> over a single penny for Office 2007.

>

 

Exactly! I have one license for office 2007 pro which I got from a

promo from MS, and I've tried it but abhor the ribbon. They gave it to

me for free and I still prefer and use OO! :)

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

Leythos wrote:

> In article <f-idnb718_SbmErbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com>,

> nospam@spammer.com says...

>> Now Office 2007 might be fully compatible with Office 2003 but not vice

>> versa. But who needs Office 2007? What does it do that 2003 can't? Fancy

>> new UI at the cost of document incompatibility with everyone else?

>> Personally I would need a much larger incentive than that before I'd fork

>> over a single penny for Office 2007.

>

> I can't really see a reason to go beyond office xp to be honest, but MS

> is making it very hard to order office 2003 at this point.

>

 

I do for outlook. Outlook 2002 still has the 2gb limit for pst files,

but 2003 does not have that limit anymore.

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:14:01 -0700, Frank wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> Only difference between ATI and nVidia is that ATI's drivers aren't as

>> good, and that is the case in both Linux and Windows.

>

> Sorry, but that's simply not true! Look at all the people who've had

> real problems with Nivida drivers for Vista.

> It's been a real debacle.

 

Vista's launch has been a real debacle across the board as far as I am

concerned, not just with nVidia. Though I will agree, I was annoyed that 6

months after Vista's release I had to resort to beta drivers to get my

8800 GTX working.

>

> ATI has always had a

>> reputation for poor drivers, one of the reasons I have always used nVidia

>> on any OS.

>>

> Couldn't disagree more with that statement.

 

You couldn't disagree more with just about anything I say. You'd disagree

if I told you that grass is green! =)

 

Well I used to be heavily into gaming and can quite recall the boatloads

of problems in the gaming world I knew people were having with ATI

drivers. Primarily crashes were problematic. It was generally considered

better to use nVidia over ATI, even if ATI had a performance edge, if one

wanted stability as the driver support was not all that great.

 

It's quite probable that his has improved in recent years and today the

statement may no longer be 100% accurate. I don't have the time I used to

have anymore for online gaming so I don't have any significant recent

experiences / references to judge how well ATI drivers are performing

these days compared to nVidia.

 

For me, ATI has left a bad taste and not much is going to change that.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:55:40 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> In article <fb6v3b$kvp$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

>> Leythos wrote:

>> > In article <fb6rl0$74j$1@aioe.org>, nono@none.not says...

>> >> Leythos wrote:

>> >>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>> >>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>> >>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>> >>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>> >>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>> >>>

>> >> IMO OO is better than all of those versions of MS office you list

>> >> because they all have buggy DRM that phones home!

>> >

>> > The problem is that there are more people using MS Office or Works that

>> > you have to interact with, and the OO product does not properly convert

>> > documents if they contain anything other than very basic formatting. I

>> > know this for a fact as I use both Fedora Core with OO and Windows

>> > XP/2003 systems with Office xp, 2003, 2007.... It's bad enough that

>> > people are starting to send 2007 specific documents and that 2003 can't

>> > read them without a utility.....

>> >

>> > The "phone home" and "drm" doesn't mean much if you are not pirating

>> > things.... If they are your works they don't create a problem.

>> >

>>

>> It does if you value your privacy and fair use rights!

>

> And if you think that, why do you use Ubuntu at all, it phones home too?

>

 

One can most easily turn off or entirely remove the automatic updates at

which point in time Ubuntu doesn't send a single packet of data anywhere.

 

Now try that, without resorting to cracked & pirated copies, with WGA in

Vista =)

 

I personally have no problem with software calling home to check for

updates.

 

My personal problem is with software phoning home in an attempt to deny me

to use it because I changed a piece of hardware. At this point in time,

the phoning home becomes disruptive and invades my privacy. It's none of

the manufacturers business what hardware I run, when I change it, to what

I changed it, or why I change it.

 

I personally would absolutely loathe to try to develop new PC hardware

using Vista. Everytime I make a change in my driver code or hardware I need

to call India and re-activate? No thanks! =)

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:14:01 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>Stephan Rose wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> Only difference between ATI and nVidia is that ATI's drivers aren't as

>> good, and that is the case in both Linux and Windows.

>

>Sorry, but that's simply not true! Look at all the people who've had

>real problems with Nivida drivers for Vista.

>It's been a real debacle.

>

> ATI has always had a

>> reputation for poor drivers, one of the reasons I have always used nVidia

>> on any OS.

>>

>Couldn't disagree more with that statement.

>Frank

 

 

Because you really don't know. It is true that ATI has a long

reputation of having some of the buggiest video drivers. They've

gotten somewhat better lately.

 

See, that's what happens when you try to fake it and really don't

know, you end up with egg on your face. Quick Frankie, time to change

your story.

 

ROTFLMAO!

Not all applications can be installed that way. Some need to be built by

unzipping tar files using a bunch of commands in the command line and

building the installers. Also- Applications are rarely configured without

tying in some shady command line MS to get them to do something that they

should have just included in the GUI.

 

And yes, I have used Ubuntu, quite a lot actually. I find it most amusing

that the default installation is that it erases Windows and installs itself

over.

 

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

news:NP6dndoU78qU5kvbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com...

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:58:11 -0700, PowerUser wrote:

>

>> Sadly it's indisputable only in your mixed up brain. Even a Linux

>> fanatic

>> would admit that Linux SUCKS when it comes to installing anything. If

>> you

>> find the XP installation (or any other Windows software installation)

>> difficult, you must be mentally impaired.

>

> Really? What sucks so bad about clicking the check mark next to the app I

> want to install and then clicking the install button?

>

> Truly a difficult task...

>

> --

> Stephan

> 2003 Yamaha R6

>

> ????????????????

> ??????????????

Leythos wrote:

> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>

> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>

 

 

Last week when Microsoft declared legal systems illegal you could have

replaced "Windows" with a housebrick. In the case of Vista a bloody

expensive housebrick. Until you develop the guts to criticise such

abuses of power you are nothing more than a shill. Certainly MS make

some very good products with lots of functions, however if the can

simply pull the plug with no warning what use is that?

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:15:54 -0700, PowerUser wrote:

> Not all applications can be installed that way. Some need to be built by

> unzipping tar files using a bunch of commands in the command line and

> building the installers. Also- Applications are rarely configured without

> tying in some shady command line MS to get them to do something that they

> should have just included in the GUI.

 

Really?

 

It is odd then that none of the applications I use need to be installed

from source (tar source archives & command line) nor need to be configured

via the command line. I guess I must be doing something wrong...I can do

everything I need from the GUI...

 

I actually do use the command line, but only because for some things it is

more efficient than a GUI could ever be and because I choose to. Not

because I have to.

 

It is rare to find an app that is not in the repositories that can't be

installed via synaptic. It'd have to be something pretty obscure matter of

fact to not be in the repositories.

>

> And yes, I have used Ubuntu, quite a lot actually. I find it most amusing

> that the default installation is that it erases Windows and installs itself

> over.

 

*shrug* That I honestly don't know as I always do manual partition set ups

anyway. I would trust no OS installer to automatically know how I want it

to be installed, that includes Windows.

 

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:28:27 -0500, Charlie Tame wrote:

> Leythos wrote:

>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>

>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>

>

>

> Last week when Microsoft declared legal systems illegal you could have

> replaced "Windows" with a housebrick. In the case of Vista a bloody

> expensive housebrick. Until you develop the guts to criticise such

> abuses of power you are nothing more than a shill. Certainly MS make

> some very good products with lots of functions, however if the can

> simply pull the plug with no warning what use is that?

 

I wonder how many people became "genuine" from that mess by clicking the

big fat "Buy Now" button even though they already had a valid license...

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

Stephan Rose wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:28:27 -0500, Charlie Tame wrote:

>

>> Leythos wrote:

>>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>>

>>

>> Last week when Microsoft declared legal systems illegal you could have

>> replaced "Windows" with a housebrick. In the case of Vista a bloody

>> expensive housebrick. Until you develop the guts to criticise such

>> abuses of power you are nothing more than a shill. Certainly MS make

>> some very good products with lots of functions, however if the can

>> simply pull the plug with no warning what use is that?

>

> I wonder how many people became "genuine" from that mess by clicking the

> big fat "Buy Now" button even though they already had a valid license...

>

 

 

Well I got told a driver was unsigned (Vista 64 - Acronis early driver)

but it let me install it anyway then said the system was compromised or

some such crap and refused to boot. I did manage to work around it and

uninstall the driver again on one system using the well hidden safe boot

F8 option but this didn't work on another system, no idea why not, and

no reactivate option was offered, only "You can buy a new copy of Vista

online" or some such - not that I could get online to do that of course,

and I thought to myself "F* this, time to install Debian" and face up to

learning a bit. Actually it turned out easier to learn Debian than the

half assed rearranged Vista layout where the "Control Panel" is not

really the control panel and UAC invades everything except installation

of spyware that MS supply, then the debacle last weekend - Christ.

 

So yes, MS did succeed in persuading me to install and learn a brand new

operating system, just not one of theirs. Life sucks doesn't it?

 

I like Vista, I like MS products when they work properly (So Explorer is

a bit questionable) but damned if ANYONE is going to hold me to ransom

by computer control, and MS are going to lose by this action if they

persist with it and it would be bad for the industry, bad for the public

and bad for MS not to complain about it and the perception it creates.

 

I certainly Don't "Hate" MS, or their products, or Bill Gates or any of

their legitimate efforts to earn money, far from it, I actually admire

Gates' foresight - but this has gone too far and become silly. And the

people defending it are on a self defeating path.

 

Of all the people I see posting here in this group there are only a few

who appear to have remained rational on the subject.

In article <#k$J5116HHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

says...

> Leythos wrote:

> > In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

> >> Show me a post of mine that is false

> >

> > Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

> > same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

> > for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

> >

>

>

> Last week when Microsoft declared legal systems illegal you could have

> replaced "Windows" with a housebrick. In the case of Vista a bloody

> expensive housebrick. Until you develop the guts to criticise such

> abuses of power you are nothing more than a shill. Certainly MS make

> some very good products with lots of functions, however if the can

> simply pull the plug with no warning what use is that?

 

Got almost 3000 Windows XP systems running across the USA on multiple

hardware platforms - not one system was caused any problem last week or

before or this week... Seems that MS didn't have any impact on us, so

they must not have declared many systems illegal.

 

You see "Power" as one thing, I see it as another. I have problems with

how MS does things, but I don't have ANY problem with licensing,

activation, piracy testing, etc... It's not caused me any problems since

they implemented it....

 

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

In article <eXKO5u16HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, a@b.com says...

> And yes, I have used Ubuntu, quite a lot actually. I find it most amusing

> that the default installation is that it erases Windows and installs itself

> over.

 

What's more amusing is that Alias keeps preaching Ubuntu as the solution

for the masses, but he keeps running XP for the same reason that other

people use Windows.

 

If he really believe in his preachings to the masses he would have got

rid of all MS products and lived his message instead of being such a

hypocrite.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos wrote:

> In article <#k$J5116HHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

> says...

>> Leythos wrote:

>>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>>

>>

>> Last week when Microsoft declared legal systems illegal you could have

>> replaced "Windows" with a housebrick. In the case of Vista a bloody

>> expensive housebrick. Until you develop the guts to criticise such

>> abuses of power you are nothing more than a shill. Certainly MS make

>> some very good products with lots of functions, however if the can

>> simply pull the plug with no warning what use is that?

>

> Got almost 3000 Windows XP systems running across the USA on multiple

> hardware platforms - not one system was caused any problem last week or

> before or this week... Seems that MS didn't have any impact on us, so

> they must not have declared many systems illegal.

 

 

Well let's try and look at this logically, I know you'll have trouble

with that but I'll try anyway. There were numerous complaints in this

group wihch itself is a tiny minority of windows users, a fact that you

are normally willing enough to point to when you think it suits your

case. However it is reasonable that MS do not check every system on the

same day. So if they do it roughly equal they have 365.25 days every

year. Now, if there are only a million Windows machines in the world

subject to MS Spyware then that's about 2740 systems per day. So you go

check how many Windows systems there are in the world, you should know

because it's boasted about enough, and then go figure what that number

multiplied by 2740 equals and you have the number of pissed off

customers per day it was calling them thieves. Then go figure that the

checks take place more than once a year, probably 4 times a year and

multiply that number by 4 again. Then double it again for Friday and

Saturday.

 

Guess you must be just lucky, eh?

 

By contrast your assertion that just because it had no impact on you it

had none on others is completely illogical but typical of a "Microsoft

can't get it wrong" fanboy. Yet at the same time we have a top MS exec

trying to cover his ass by apologizing, so we're not wrong here, it DID

happen no matter how you'd like to pretend it didn't, and the more you

persist with the "Sac do no wrong" theory the more MS will lose in the

future.

 

 

 

> You see "Power" as one thing, I see it as another. I have problems with

> how MS does things, but I don't have ANY problem with licensing,

> activation, piracy testing, etc... It's not caused me any problems since

> they implemented it....

 

 

Actually MS do have power, but maybe not as much as they think they do

and that is where they will err and suffer for it. Someone has to make

the point that they need to do better and stop alienating the very

people (like me) who have supported them for years.

In article <#FbsRH56HHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

says...

> Leythos wrote:

> > In article <#k$J5116HHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

> > says...

> >> Leythos wrote:

> >>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

> >>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

> >>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

> >>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

> >>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

> >>>

> >>

> >> Last week when Microsoft declared legal systems illegal you could have

> >> replaced "Windows" with a housebrick. In the case of Vista a bloody

> >> expensive housebrick. Until you develop the guts to criticise such

> >> abuses of power you are nothing more than a shill. Certainly MS make

> >> some very good products with lots of functions, however if the can

> >> simply pull the plug with no warning what use is that?

> >

> > Got almost 3000 Windows XP systems running across the USA on multiple

> > hardware platforms - not one system was caused any problem last week or

> > before or this week... Seems that MS didn't have any impact on us, so

> > they must not have declared many systems illegal.

>

>

> Well let's try and look at this logically, I know you'll have trouble

> with that but I'll try anyway. There were numerous complaints in this

> group wihch itself is a tiny minority of windows users, a fact that you

> are normally willing enough to point to when you think it suits your

> case. However it is reasonable that MS do not check every system on the

> same day. So if they do it roughly equal they have 365.25 days every

> year. Now, if there are only a million Windows machines in the world

> subject to MS Spyware then that's about 2740 systems per day. So you go

> check how many Windows systems there are in the world, you should know

> because it's boasted about enough, and then go figure what that number

> multiplied by 2740 equals and you have the number of pissed off

> customers per day it was calling them thieves. Then go figure that the

> checks take place more than once a year, probably 4 times a year and

> multiply that number by 4 again. Then double it again for Friday and

> Saturday.

>

> Guess you must be just lucky, eh?

>

> By contrast your assertion that just because it had no impact on you it

> had none on others is completely illogical but typical of a "Microsoft

> can't get it wrong" fanboy. Yet at the same time we have a top MS exec

> trying to cover his ass by apologizing, so we're not wrong here, it DID

> happen no matter how you'd like to pretend it didn't, and the more you

> persist with the "Sac do no wrong" theory the more MS will lose in the

> future.

 

Actually, if you read my post without your bias, without your hate, you

will se that I said that it must not have impacted many - I didn't say

it didn't impact everyone. It certainly didn't impact our clients, all

over the US and a couple small places outside the USA. As a matter of

fact, with all of the people and IT groups we know, none of them even

read about it until reading Usenet posts about it...

 

Keep your zealotry going, you seem to be good at it.

> > You see "Power" as one thing, I see it as another. I have problems with

> > how MS does things, but I don't have ANY problem with licensing,

> > activation, piracy testing, etc... It's not caused me any problems since

> > they implemented it....

>

>

> Actually MS do have power, but maybe not as much as they think they do

> and that is where they will err and suffer for it. Someone has to make

> the point that they need to do better and stop alienating the very

> people (like me) who have supported them for years.

 

MS only has the power you give them. If you want to start wearing a

foil/tin hat, that's your business.

 

You are alienated by your own choice - you are not forced to use

anything MS produces. I've used MS products, Open Source, AIX, HPUX,

CPU, DOS, etc... and never felt that I was being pressured or to feel

like a thief from any of the vendors - it's their right to make the

rules, it's your right to not use their products if you don't like their

rules.

 

--

 

Leythos

- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.

- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a

drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"

spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

"Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

news:VM6dnQMNIfLxzkrbRVnyigA@giganews.com...

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:15:54 -0700, PowerUser wrote:

>

>> Not all applications can be installed that way. Some need to be built by

>> unzipping tar files using a bunch of commands in the command line and

>> building the installers. Also- Applications are rarely configured

>> without

>> tying in some shady command line MS to get them to do something that they

>> should have just included in the GUI.

>

> Really?

>

> It is odd then that none of the applications I use need to be installed

> from source (tar source archives & command line) nor need to be configured

> via the command line. I guess I must be doing something wrong...I can do

> everything I need from the GUI...

 

Why is it when a minor fault happens with windows it has to effect everyone

and that anyone that says its didn't effect them is a liar..

 

but..

 

when something slightly bad happens to a Linux user it hasn't really

happened to anyone and all Linux users can do it without a problem and the

one that said he had the problem doesn't exist?

>

> I actually do use the command line, but only because for some things it is

> more efficient than a GUI could ever be and because I choose to. Not

> because I have to.

>

> It is rare to find an app that is not in the repositories that can't be

> installed via synaptic. It'd have to be something pretty obscure matter of

> fact to not be in the repositories.

>

>>

>> And yes, I have used Ubuntu, quite a lot actually. I find it most

>> amusing

>> that the default installation is that it erases Windows and installs

>> itself

>> over.

>

> *shrug* That I honestly don't know as I always do manual partition set ups

> anyway. I would trust no OS installer to automatically know how I want it

> to be installed, that includes Windows.

 

Just as well it makes sure the newbie has made his windows recovery disks

before wiping the recovery partition from the system... or not!

Why do Linux users think Linux is ready for the average user? It shows they

don't understand anything about computer users which is why windows is a

success even though its not cheap and Linux is not very successful even

though its free. Its the geeks again but they won't understand, they never

do.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:01:36 -0400, Leythos wrote:

> In article <#k$J5116HHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

> says...

>> Leythos wrote:

>> > In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>> >> Show me a post of mine that is false

>> >

>> > Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>> > same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>> > for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>> >

>>

>>

>> Last week when Microsoft declared legal systems illegal you could have

>> replaced "Windows" with a housebrick. In the case of Vista a bloody

>> expensive housebrick. Until you develop the guts to criticise such

>> abuses of power you are nothing more than a shill. Certainly MS make

>> some very good products with lots of functions, however if the can

>> simply pull the plug with no warning what use is that?

>

> Got almost 3000 Windows XP systems running across the USA on multiple

> hardware platforms - not one system was caused any problem last week or

> before or this week... Seems that MS didn't have any impact on us, so

> they must not have declared many systems illegal.

 

Wonderful and what relevance is that considering that this affected Vista

systems?

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

Leythos wrote:

> In article <eXKO5u16HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, a@b.com says...

>> And yes, I have used Ubuntu, quite a lot actually. I find it most amusing

>> that the default installation is that it erases Windows and installs itself

>> over.

>

> What's more amusing is that Alias keeps preaching Ubuntu as the solution

> for the masses, but he keeps running XP for the same reason that other

> people use Windows.

 

I only use Windows for gaming and that's only because the people who

make games don't make them for Ubuntu.

>

> If he really believe in his preachings to the masses he would have got

> rid of all MS products and lived his message instead of being such a

> hypocrite.

 

With the exception of gaming, I *am* living my message and I'm not being

hypocritical at all.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Stephan Rose" <nospam@spammer.com> wrote in message

> news:VM6dnQMNIfLxzkrbRVnyigA@giganews.com...

>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:15:54 -0700, PowerUser wrote:

>>

>>> Not all applications can be installed that way. Some need to be

>>> built by

>>> unzipping tar files using a bunch of commands in the command line and

>>> building the installers. Also- Applications are rarely configured

>>> without

>>> tying in some shady command line MS to get them to do something that

>>> they

>>> should have just included in the GUI.

>>

>> Really?

>>

>> It is odd then that none of the applications I use need to be installed

>> from source (tar source archives & command line) nor need to be

>> configured

>> via the command line. I guess I must be doing something wrong...I can do

>> everything I need from the GUI...

>

> Why is it when a minor fault happens with windows it has to effect

> everyone and that anyone that says its didn't effect them is a liar..

>

> but..

>

> when something slightly bad happens to a Linux user it hasn't really

> happened to anyone and all Linux users can do it without a problem and

> the one that said he had the problem doesn't exist?

>

>>

>> I actually do use the command line, but only because for some things

>> it is

>> more efficient than a GUI could ever be and because I choose to. Not

>> because I have to.

>>

>> It is rare to find an app that is not in the repositories that can't be

>> installed via synaptic. It'd have to be something pretty obscure

>> matter of

>> fact to not be in the repositories.

>>

>>>

>>> And yes, I have used Ubuntu, quite a lot actually. I find it most

>>> amusing

>>> that the default installation is that it erases Windows and installs

>>> itself

>>> over.

>>

>> *shrug* That I honestly don't know as I always do manual partition set

>> ups

>> anyway. I would trust no OS installer to automatically know how I want it

>> to be installed, that includes Windows.

>

> Just as well it makes sure the newbie has made his windows recovery

> disks before wiping the recovery partition from the system... or not!

> Why do Linux users think Linux is ready for the average user? It shows

> they don't understand anything about computer users which is why windows

> is a success even though its not cheap and Linux is not very successful

> even though its free. Its the geeks again but they won't understand,

> they never do.

 

If someone knows how to install Windows, they can install Ubuntu. Ubuntu

will give you a choice of wiping the whole disk or creating a partition

next to Windows for the Ubuntu installation. Personally, I use a floppy

to wipe and partition my disks and for a dual boot, I allocate two

partitions in NTFS for Windows ("C") and "D" and a third I leave

unallocated for Ubuntu. When the Ubuntu install starts it is child's

play to choose the unallocated, non NTFS, partition for the Ubuntu install.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Stephan Rose wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:01:36 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>

>> In article <#k$J5116HHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>> says...

>>> Leythos wrote:

>>>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>>>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>>>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>>>

>>>

>>> Last week when Microsoft declared legal systems illegal you could have

>>> replaced "Windows" with a housebrick. In the case of Vista a bloody

>>> expensive housebrick. Until you develop the guts to criticise such

>>> abuses of power you are nothing more than a shill. Certainly MS make

>>> some very good products with lots of functions, however if the can

>>> simply pull the plug with no warning what use is that?

>> Got almost 3000 Windows XP systems running across the USA on multiple

>> hardware platforms - not one system was caused any problem last week or

>> before or this week... Seems that MS didn't have any impact on us, so

>> they must not have declared many systems illegal.

>

> Wonderful and what relevance is that considering that this affected Vista

> systems?

>

 

The snafu affected both XP and Vista users who tried to either activate

or download a free program that requires WGA approval. To their credit,

MS said that one user is too much. I guess they have more class than

Leythos who thinks that 12,000, which is what MS says were affected, is

insignificant.

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:50:43 +0200, Alias wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:

>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:01:36 -0400, Leythos wrote:

>>

>>> In article <#k$J5116HHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, charlie@tames.net

>>> says...

>>>> Leythos wrote:

>>>>> In article <fb63be$jad$1@aioe.org>, iamalias@shoesgmail.com says...

>>>>>> Show me a post of mine that is false

>>>>> Any post suggesting that Ubuntu can replace Windows XP or Vista for the

>>>>> same functions/uses, or that suggests that Open Office is a replacement

>>>>> for MS Office (2000, XP, 2003, 2007).....

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Last week when Microsoft declared legal systems illegal you could have

>>>> replaced "Windows" with a housebrick. In the case of Vista a bloody

>>>> expensive housebrick. Until you develop the guts to criticise such

>>>> abuses of power you are nothing more than a shill. Certainly MS make

>>>> some very good products with lots of functions, however if the can

>>>> simply pull the plug with no warning what use is that?

>>> Got almost 3000 Windows XP systems running across the USA on multiple

>>> hardware platforms - not one system was caused any problem last week or

>>> before or this week... Seems that MS didn't have any impact on us, so

>>> they must not have declared many systems illegal.

>>

>> Wonderful and what relevance is that considering that this affected Vista

>> systems?

>>

>

> The snafu affected both XP and Vista users who tried to either activate

> or download a free program that requires WGA approval. To their credit,

> MS said that one user is too much. I guess they have more class than

> Leythos who thinks that 12,000, which is what MS says were affected, is

> insignificant.

>

 

Ahh I wasn't aware XP systems were affected as well. Only thing I read

about in regards to that mess has been Vista. Thanks for the info.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

news:fb8noc$rbd$1@aioe.org...

> Leythos wrote:

>> In article <eXKO5u16HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, a@b.com says...

>>> And yes, I have used Ubuntu, quite a lot actually. I find it most

>>> amusing that the default installation is that it erases Windows and

>>> installs itself over.

>>

>> What's more amusing is that Alias keeps preaching Ubuntu as the solution

>> for the masses, but he keeps running XP for the same reason that other

>> people use Windows.

>

> I only use Windows for gaming and that's only because the people who make

> games don't make them for Ubuntu.

>

>>

>> If he really believe in his preachings to the masses he would have got

>> rid of all MS products and lived his message instead of being such a

>> hypocrite.

>

> With the exception of gaming, I *am* living my message and I'm not being

> hypocritical at all.

 

I hadn't noticed that you were saying "use Ubuntu unless you want to run

games".

 

Not once have you asked a user you have advised to dump windows and use

Ubuntu if they had a need to run windows.

 

That doesn't stop you being a hypocrite, it just makes you a lying hypocrite

or someone that doesn't understand English.

"Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

news:fb8o05$spj$1@aioe.org...

> dennis@home wrote:

 

8<

>> Just as well it makes sure the newbie has made his windows recovery disks

>> before wiping the recovery partition from the system... or not!

>> Why do Linux users think Linux is ready for the average user? It shows

>> they don't understand anything about computer users which is why windows

>> is a success even though its not cheap and Linux is not very successful

>> even though its free. Its the geeks again but they won't understand, they

>> never do.

>

> If someone knows how to install Windows, they can install Ubuntu. Ubuntu

> will give you a choice of wiping the whole disk or creating a partition

> next to Windows for the Ubuntu installation. Personally, I use a floppy to

> wipe and partition my disks and for a dual boot, I allocate two partitions

> in NTFS for Windows ("C") and "D" and a third I leave unallocated for

> Ubuntu. When the Ubuntu install starts it is child's play to choose the

> unallocated, non NTFS, partition for the Ubuntu install.

 

People come to this group with assorted problems.. what makes you think they

can install windows?

Why do you advise them to carry out destructive actions without warning them

of the consequences?

When will you get a clue?

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fb8noc$rbd$1@aioe.org...

>> Leythos wrote:

>>> In article <eXKO5u16HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, a@b.com says...

>>>> And yes, I have used Ubuntu, quite a lot actually. I find it most

>>>> amusing that the default installation is that it erases Windows and

>>>> installs itself over.

>>>

>>> What's more amusing is that Alias keeps preaching Ubuntu as the

>>> solution for the masses, but he keeps running XP for the same reason

>>> that other people use Windows.

>>

>> I only use Windows for gaming and that's only because the people who

>> make games don't make them for Ubuntu.

>>

>>>

>>> If he really believe in his preachings to the masses he would have

>>> got rid of all MS products and lived his message instead of being

>>> such a hypocrite.

>>

>> With the exception of gaming, I *am* living my message and I'm not

>> being hypocritical at all.

>

> I hadn't noticed that you were saying "use Ubuntu unless you want to run

> games".

>

> Not once have you asked a user you have advised to dump windows and use

> Ubuntu if they had a need to run windows.

>

> That doesn't stop you being a hypocrite, it just makes you a lying

> hypocrite or someone that doesn't understand English.

 

My bad. I'll include the caveat from now on.

 

Happy?

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:fb8o05$spj$1@aioe.org...

>> dennis@home wrote:

>

> 8<

>

>>> Just as well it makes sure the newbie has made his windows recovery

>>> disks before wiping the recovery partition from the system... or not!

>>> Why do Linux users think Linux is ready for the average user? It

>>> shows they don't understand anything about computer users which is

>>> why windows is a success even though its not cheap and Linux is not

>>> very successful even though its free. Its the geeks again but they

>>> won't understand, they never do.

>>

>> If someone knows how to install Windows, they can install Ubuntu.

>> Ubuntu will give you a choice of wiping the whole disk or creating a

>> partition next to Windows for the Ubuntu installation. Personally, I

>> use a floppy to wipe and partition my disks and for a dual boot, I

>> allocate two partitions in NTFS for Windows ("C") and "D" and a third

>> I leave unallocated for Ubuntu. When the Ubuntu install starts it is

>> child's play to choose the unallocated, non NTFS, partition for the

>> Ubuntu install.

>

> People come to this group with assorted problems.. what makes you think

> they can install windows?

 

Some can, some can't. Those who can't know it.

> Why do you advise them to carry out destructive actions without warning

> them of the consequences?

> When will you get a clue?

 

If someone cannot install Windows, it's a sure bet they know they will

need help installing Ubuntu and they know it. When will YOU get a clue?

 

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes