Repair Install and bypassing Activation

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

William J. Burlingame wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:49:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
>>not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
>>history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what?
>
> DOS was made written to take advantage of the then large list of
> applications written for CP/M. DOS could run CP/M applications.

For certain values of "run". There may have been some CP/M application or
other that would run on MS-DOS, but nothing anybody I know ever tried did.
It was possible with some effort and in some cases to do a binary port but
MS-DOS would not execute CP/M-80 binaries. And there _were_ no CP/M-86
binaries in existence outside of Digital Research at the time that Seattle
DOS was developed.

DOS was _made_ to provide Seattle Computer with an interim operating system
that allowed their 8086 and 8088 based S-100 machines to have some utility
while their customers waited for Digital Research to release CP/M-86, which
was horribly late.

Microsoft then bought that product and resold it to IBM.

> As I
> said in another post, IBM also marketed a version of CP/M for the PC,
> but it was priced much higher than DOS.

Well, of course it was. Digital Research set the price. And if MS-DOS ran
CP/M code then IBM wouldn't have bothered with the DR product at all.

> Windows ME and it's
> predecessors were nothing but large DOS applications.

For certain values of "nothing but". They used a FAT file system and booted
from DOS and could access the hardware through the DOS calls but their
normal operating mode used native drivers that bypassed DOS completely.

> The systems
> booted in DOS and ran Windows as an application. MS developed NT as
> an OS not based on DOS. In order to run DOS SW in NT, they had to
> emulate DOS.

So? It is possible to run System/360 code under Windows--does that mean
that it is based on OS/360?

> BTW, I see nothing wrong with making a product that is
> compatible with another. Also, I wasn't complaining about Mr. Clark's
> post, just tried to answer a question.

Uh, if you're going to have "Mr. Clarke" as your first attribution then you
are replying directly to that post and should not be referring to me in the
third person.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
> to send me a message.
>
> Bill Burlingame

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Relic]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Brian S. Craigie wrote:
> Yes, you are right. People who post at the bottom are a real pain.
> Posting at the top is the majority preferred default worldwide.
>
> Warmest Felicitations,
>
> Brian
>
> On 27/12/2004 15:55, barbibiz wrote:
>
>
>> BTW.... I dont quite understand that posting on the bottom anymore,
>> all the emails I get follow on from the original post, so it doesnt
>> take as long to just open each one and see the reply on the top
>> other than having to scroll right to the bottom it can be quite a
>> long way.. Felicity

Then post elsewhere.

--
I must admit, you brought Religion into my life.
I never believed in Hell until I met you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

You dumb wise and beautiful woman.

"Brian S. Craigie" <bcraigie@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:eafvXYs7EHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
> Yes, you are right. People who post at the bottom are a real pain.
> Posting at the top is the majority preferred default worldwide.
>
> Warmest Felicitations,
>
> Brian
>
> On 27/12/2004 15:55, barbibiz wrote:
>
>
>> BTW.... I dont quite understand that posting on the bottom anymore,
>> all the emails I get follow on from the original post, so it doesnt
>> take as long to just open each one and see the reply on the top
>> other than having to scroll right to the bottom it can be quite a
>> long way..
>> Felicity

HTH, you dumb wise and beautiful woman.




--
Lunch was nice;

Barbequed monkey vomit and stinkbug ligament garnish accentuated with stewed
discarded douchebags and hedgehog labia vinegar, arranged in a congealing
deep dish heaped with well-done nut, small morsels of mutton, octopus and
pork, rutabaga broth, a side of pastries and a container of syphilis tea.

 

[santa]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Read the answer Before u know the Question !!!


Baronet Franklin Shakewill-Gacklelire wrote:
> You dumb wise and beautiful woman.
>
> "Brian S. Craigie" <bcraigie@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:eafvXYs7EHA.208@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
>
>>Yes, you are right. People who post at the bottom are a real pain.
>>Posting at the top is the majority preferred default worldwide.
>>
>>Warmest Felicitations,
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>On 27/12/2004 15:55, barbibiz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>BTW.... I dont quite understand that posting on the bottom anymore,
>>>all the emails I get follow on from the original post, so it doesnt
>>>take as long to just open each one and see the reply on the top
>>>other than having to scroll right to the bottom it can be quite a
>>>long way..
>>>Felicity
>
>
> HTH, you dumb wise and beautiful woman.
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hmmm...

A somewhat ambiguous answer. Relic, you're not asking me to leave this
NG are you? ;-) Very funny.

Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic here.
Seeing the person's response immediately "in your face" must surely be
preferable to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the
answer? Perhaps bottom posters are using a different newsreader that
jumps to the bottom of the post? Or some special technique?

Warmest Regards,

Brian

On 30/12/2004 23:32, relic wrote:


> Then post elsewhere.
>

 

[Relic]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Brian S. Craigie wrote:

<snip stuff appearing incorrectly at the top of a post>

> On 30/12/2004 23:32, relic wrote:
>
>
>> Then post elsewhere.

??? A blank post? Nothing to say, not even Bye.

--
I must admit, you brought Religion into my life.
I never believed in Hell until I met you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In comp.sys.laptops Brian S. Craigie <bcraigie@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic
> [ of bottom posting ] here. Seeing the person's response immediately
> "in your face" must surely be preferable [ ... ]

No, it's worse. No context. You're supposed to trim the original
and respond *after* the original points are made.


> [ ... ] to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the
> answer?

Nah, if they're too lazy to trim the quoted material I just skip to
the next article. See, bottom posting is superior in every way

--
pa at panix dot com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thanks Pierre,

On 31/12/2004 01:23, Pierre Asselin wrote:

> In comp.sys.laptops Brian S. Craigie <bcraigie@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic
>>[ of bottom posting ] here. Seeing the person's response immediately
>>"in your face" must surely be preferable [ ... ]
>
>
> No, it's worse. No context. You're supposed to trim the original
> and respond *after* the original points are made.

I understand about the context, but can anyone point me to the document
that says top posting is not allowed?

Thanks Pierre!

Brian

 

[terry]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On 12/30/2004 5:36 PM On a whim, Brian S. Craigie pounded out on the
keyboard

> Thanks Pierre,
>
> On 31/12/2004 01:23, Pierre Asselin wrote:
>
>
>>In comp.sys.laptops Brian S. Craigie <bcraigie@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic
>>>[ of bottom posting ] here. Seeing the person's response immediately
>>>"in your face" must surely be preferable [ ... ]
>>
>>
>>No, it's worse. No context. You're supposed to trim the original
>>and respond *after* the original points are made.
>
>
> I understand about the context, but can anyone point me to the document
> that says top posting is not allowed?
>
> Thanks Pierre!
>
> Brian

I think the point is that you do what is being done in a particular
group. If everyone top posts, then top post. It just makes a mess when
one person top posts and the next bottom posts. After a few threads you
can't tell who said what. So it's just to keep continuity.

I don't even think trimming should be done a lot of times. That's
leaving it up to each individual as to what they feel is important. Most
posts don't go on for extreme amounts of time, so leaving everything
really doesn't hurt. But a thread of over 15 or so responses might be
cause for some discreet trimming. JMO...

--
Terry

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

It should be obvious that some are just yanking the chains of those
who are so uptight about such an unimportant thing as how a response
in posed. The NG police would probably be upset if a surgeon saved
their life with open heart surgery, but failed to have the sutures
spaced uniformly. Get a life! The purpose of the NG is to exchange
technical information, form should be way down the list of importance.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:09:02 -0800, Terry <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com>
wrote:

>On 12/30/2004 5:36 PM On a whim, Brian S. Craigie pounded out on the
>keyboard
>
>> Thanks Pierre,
>>
>> On 31/12/2004 01:23, Pierre Asselin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In comp.sys.laptops Brian S. Craigie <bcraigie@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic
>>>>[ of bottom posting ] here. Seeing the person's response immediately
>>>>"in your face" must surely be preferable [ ... ]
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's worse. No context. You're supposed to trim the original
>>>and respond *after* the original points are made.
>>
>>
>> I understand about the context, but can anyone point me to the document
>> that says top posting is not allowed?
>>
>> Thanks Pierre!
>>
>> Brian
>
>I think the point is that you do what is being done in a particular
>group. If everyone top posts, then top post. It just makes a mess when
>one person top posts and the next bottom posts. After a few threads you
>can't tell who said what. So it's just to keep continuity.
>
>I don't even think trimming should be done a lot of times. That's
>leaving it up to each individual as to what they feel is important. Most
>posts don't go on for extreme amounts of time, so leaving everything
>really doesn't hurt. But a thread of over 15 or so responses might be
>cause for some discreet trimming. JMO...

---------------------------------------------------------------

bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
to send me a message.

Bill Burlingame

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Brian S. Craigie wrote:
> A somewhat ambiguous answer. Relic, you're not asking me to leave this
> NG are you? ;-) Very funny.
>
> Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic here. Seeing
> the person's response immediately "in your face" must surely be
> preferable to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the
> answer? Perhaps bottom posters are using a different newsreader that
> jumps to the bottom of the post? Or some special technique?

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, its not like its majorly
complicated. I've done both, usually I just do my mailer/news reader
default. With thunderbird its bottom posting. Its pretty much what a
person feels comfortable with. For one, some people don't mind
scrolling down, for two, if you're too lazy to scroll down then the
message probably wasn't overly important to you anyway.

I can see the logic in what you are saying, but the flow of a
conversation can be preserved by posting throughout the message or at
its bottom.

I don't think you should leave the NG, but I think you should stop
buggin others about it, same with the bottom posting nazi's out there.
- --
David Wade Hagar AKA Cyclops

http/members.cox.net/dwhagar
http/www.livejournal.com/users/dwhagar
http/genius-of-lunacy.blogspot.com/

"It's sick, but it serves a purpose." - Bill Cosby
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: http/members.cox.net/dwhagar/personal-key.asc
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http/enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkHVKgMACgkQbPwf4VgkRDvaiQCgrJ0svu8wCZxcwGdx15LtLd6s
LMoAoJLeoITYAMNfkZQbImiOrivkF8Y4
=xRdr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

DOS could not run CP/M applications -- they used different CPUs.

I personally knew and worked with both Gary Kildall and Bill Gates and I
have extensive CP/M and SCP 86-DOS experience. (86-DOS was it's name
before MS bought it from Seattle Computer Products). I still use and
implement CP/M system to this day.

86-DOS, written by Tim Patterson of SCP, copied much of the user
interface and API (applications interface) from CP/M, but it was not
CP/M and it would not run CP/M programs (e.g. object code). But the
similar API did make conversion of CP/M programs easier than it would
have been if everyting had been new from scratch.

IBM didn't want to market CP/M-86 at all (note, by the way, CP/M-86,
which is NOT the same as CP/M (one being for the 8080 CPU and the other
being for the x86 CPU)), but they were contractually obligated to offer
it, so they priced it at $200 with the intent being that the price would
kill it, which it did. [Later, Digital Research offered CP/M-86
directly for $40, but it was too late.]

It's simply not true that Windows 9x (from 95 up) were just DOS apps.
They incorporated DOS code, and booted up from (through?) it, but
there's no way to say that they are nothing more than DOS apps. DOS
runs in "real mode" and couldn't run anything like Windows 95 as an "app".



William J. Burlingame wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:49:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
>>not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
>>history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what?
>
>
> DOS was made written to take advantage of the then large list of
> applications written for CP/M. DOS could run CP/M applications. As I
> said in another post, IBM also marketed a version of CP/M for the PC,
> but it was priced much higher than DOS. Windows ME and it's
> predecessors were nothing but large DOS applications. The systems
> booted in DOS and ran Windows as an application. MS developed NT as
> an OS not based on DOS. In order to run DOS SW in NT, they had to
> emulate DOS. BTW, I see nothing wrong with making a product that is
> compatible with another. Also, I wasn't complaining about Mr. Clark's
> post, just tried to answer a question.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
> to send me a message.
>
> Bill Burlingame

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Guess I was misinformed. It's been a long time, but I thought I
remembered re-assembling CP/M programs to run under DOS. I can't
remember if I had to make any changes in the source or not. I didn't
mean to imply that you could run the executable, but that developers
could easily port their SW to DOS with no or few changes in the
source.

Didn't Windows boot into DOS and run the Win command and couldn't an
app put the computer into protected mode and take over? As I recall,
before Windows was widespread, a company named Pharlap provided a way
for developers to write applications to run programs in protected
mode in just that manner.

I retired ten years ago and it's been a lot of years since I've
written any code and I do have the excuse of having "senior moments".
Today is the first time I've even thought about the subject for many
years and your comments are jogging my memory a little.


On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:01:42 GMT, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:

>DOS could not run CP/M applications -- they used different CPUs.
>
>I personally knew and worked with both Gary Kildall and Bill Gates and I
>have extensive CP/M and SCP 86-DOS experience. (86-DOS was it's name
>before MS bought it from Seattle Computer Products). I still use and
>implement CP/M system to this day.
>
>86-DOS, written by Tim Patterson of SCP, copied much of the user
>interface and API (applications interface) from CP/M, but it was not
>CP/M and it would not run CP/M programs (e.g. object code). But the
>similar API did make conversion of CP/M programs easier than it would
>have been if everyting had been new from scratch.
>
>IBM didn't want to market CP/M-86 at all (note, by the way, CP/M-86,
>which is NOT the same as CP/M (one being for the 8080 CPU and the other
>being for the x86 CPU)), but they were contractually obligated to offer
>it, so they priced it at $200 with the intent being that the price would
>kill it, which it did. [Later, Digital Research offered CP/M-86
>directly for $40, but it was too late.]
>
>It's simply not true that Windows 9x (from 95 up) were just DOS apps.
>They incorporated DOS code, and booted up from (through?) it, but
>there's no way to say that they are nothing more than DOS apps. DOS
>runs in "real mode" and couldn't run anything like Windows 95 as an "app".
>
>
>
>William J. Burlingame wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:49:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
>>>not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
>>>history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what?
>>
>>
>> DOS was made written to take advantage of the then large list of
>> applications written for CP/M. DOS could run CP/M applications. As I
>> said in another post, IBM also marketed a version of CP/M for the PC,
>> but it was priced much higher than DOS. Windows ME and it's
>> predecessors were nothing but large DOS applications. The systems
>> booted in DOS and ran Windows as an application. MS developed NT as
>> an OS not based on DOS. In order to run DOS SW in NT, they had to
>> emulate DOS. BTW, I see nothing wrong with making a product that is
>> compatible with another. Also, I wasn't complaining about Mr. Clark's
>> post, just tried to answer a question.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
>> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
>> to send me a message.
>>
>> Bill Burlingame

---------------------------------------------------------------

bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
to send me a message.

Bill Burlingame

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

William J. Burlingame wrote:

> Guess I was misinformed. It's been a long time, but I thought I
> remembered re-assembling CP/M programs to run under DOS. I can't
> remember if I had to make any changes in the source or not. I didn't
> mean to imply that you could run the executable, but that developers
> could easily port their SW to DOS with no or few changes in the
> source.
>
> Didn't Windows boot into DOS and run the Win command and couldn't an
> app put the computer into protected mode and take over? As I recall,
> before Windows was widespread, a company named Pharlap provided a way
> for developers to write applications to run programs in protected
> mode in just that manner.

While this is true it does not mean that Windows 9x is a "DOS application".
Novell works in an exactly analogous manner, and nobody who knows his butt
from a hole in the ground has ever accused Netware of being a "DOS
application". It just uses DOS for a boot loader.

One can (or could at one time anyway) also configure a Linux box so that one
can boot DOS and then start Linux from a DOS prompt. Does that mean that
Linux is a "DOS application"?

> I retired ten years ago and it's been a lot of years since I've
> written any code and I do have the excuse of having "senior moments".
> Today is the first time I've even thought about the subject for many
> years and your comments are jogging my memory a little.
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 03:01:42 GMT, Barry Watzman
> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>DOS could not run CP/M applications -- they used different CPUs.
>>
>>I personally knew and worked with both Gary Kildall and Bill Gates and I
>>have extensive CP/M and SCP 86-DOS experience. (86-DOS was it's name
>>before MS bought it from Seattle Computer Products). I still use and
>>implement CP/M system to this day.
>>
>>86-DOS, written by Tim Patterson of SCP, copied much of the user
>>interface and API (applications interface) from CP/M, but it was not
>>CP/M and it would not run CP/M programs (e.g. object code). But the
>>similar API did make conversion of CP/M programs easier than it would
>>have been if everyting had been new from scratch.
>>
>>IBM didn't want to market CP/M-86 at all (note, by the way, CP/M-86,
>>which is NOT the same as CP/M (one being for the 8080 CPU and the other
>>being for the x86 CPU)), but they were contractually obligated to offer
>>it, so they priced it at $200 with the intent being that the price would
>>kill it, which it did. [Later, Digital Research offered CP/M-86
>>directly for $40, but it was too late.]
>>
>>It's simply not true that Windows 9x (from 95 up) were just DOS apps.
>>They incorporated DOS code, and booted up from (through?) it, but
>>there's no way to say that they are nothing more than DOS apps. DOS
>>runs in "real mode" and couldn't run anything like Windows 95 as an "app".
>>
>>
>>
>>William J. Burlingame wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:49:17 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>> <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think that the argument that it was "reverse engineered from CP/M" and
>>>>not from something else needs a bit more support than "this is simply
>>>>history. Yes, it was bought in, but so what?
>>>
>>>
>>> DOS was made written to take advantage of the then large list of
>>> applications written for CP/M. DOS could run CP/M applications. As I
>>> said in another post, IBM also marketed a version of CP/M for the PC,
>>> but it was priced much higher than DOS. Windows ME and it's
>>> predecessors were nothing but large DOS applications. The systems
>>> booted in DOS and ran Windows as an application. MS developed NT as
>>> an OS not based on DOS. In order to run DOS SW in NT, they had to
>>> emulate DOS. BTW, I see nothing wrong with making a product that is
>>> compatible with another. Also, I wasn't complaining about Mr. Clark's
>>> post, just tried to answer a question.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
>>> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
>>> to send me a message.
>>>
>>> Bill Burlingame
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
> to send me a message.
>
> Bill Burlingame

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I didn't say, or even imply, that I've accepted Microsoft's way of doing
business. I said that my experience with some Microsoft products, and in
particular NT and XP, has been very good.


"Richard Johnson" <richj@remove.this.tairedd.com> wrote in message
news:cr2k0o0u9a@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Michael Rainey" <rainey47@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:33jf4gF3v56quU1@individual.net...
> > I don't have the depth of knowledge of some of you fellows, but I have
> made
> > my living with computers for the past twenty four years.
> >
> > I use NT at work. I routinely have a dozen or so applications open at
> once,
> > including AutoCAD 14, Excel 97, Word 97, VB6, Fastlook, Notes, and some
> > other smaller titles. I work the hell out of it all day long. It's
fast
> (a
> > mere P3-733, 256 MB) and stable. I leave it on at night and have only
had
> > to reboot once in the past six months or so. Individual applications
> > (especially Excel) crash now and then, but NT keeps on truckin.
> >
> > I have a newer laptop at home, running XP Home. Everything good I just
> said
> > about NT applies to XP, except that Excel seems to be more stable and
the
> > fonts display better. I just put XP on my wife's Athlon 850 desktop,
> > replacing 98SE (which was starting to get too many blue screens). All
her
> > programs actually seem to run faster with XP than with 98SE.
> >
> > I install security updates as they become available (none for NT of
> course),
> > use up-to-date antivirus and spyware programs, and add a little common
> > sense. I haven't had my system trashed yet.
> >
> > I'm very happy with NT and XP.
> >
> >
>
> That is fine by me. You have accepted Microsoft's way of doing business
and
> if you are happy with it as a way, then it is a good deal to you. Enjoy!
>
> >
> > "William J. Burlingame" <wjburl@bs.net> wrote in message
> > news0s7t0tb4edbp1rv0p566umffb06f42otl@4ax.com...
> > > On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:01:21 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> > > <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Yep. Do they still require that you have a business license? Last
> time
> > I
> > > >did an Action Pack was when NT 4 was fairly new.
> > >
> > > Another deal is to attend a MS TS2 event and get a NFR copy of MS
> > > Office 2003 Professional or Virtual PC. You only have to be an MS
> > > Partner at no cost. They also give out door prizes at the events and
> > > a code to get a discount on the subscriptions. You do not have to show
> > > a license to be a Partner, but you do need a business name (i.e.
> > > YourName Consulting or perhaps your employer). They may also ask for
> > > a business card at the event, but I've never been asked. They do
> > > expect that the attendees be involved it the IT industry. I also have
> > > an NFR copy of Windows Server 2003 Professional Enterprise Edition
> > > with 25 clients for attending a seminar (not given by MS). It's still
> > > in the shrink wrap. The normal price for it is about $3K. The point
> > > is, you don't have to steal SW to get free, but legal copies of some
> > > expensive packages.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
> > > amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
> > > to send me a message.
> > >
> > > Bill Burlingame
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

Richard Johnson wrote:

snip
>
> I am very Capitalist. I do not want to see them fail. A part and parcel of
> Capitalism is when you sell someone a product, nothing should be hidden from
> them. You never sell your customer products you know have defects unless
> you let them know what those defects or limitations are. If you made
> errors in the product you should refund the purchase price or at least a
> depreciated purchase price, or let people it is "as is". (Up front and in
> BIG LETTERS.) Business, in order to work, has to adhere to laws and ethics.
> I do not believe that Microsoft adheres to the law, or ethical practice in
> this case. Laws and ethics are the structure business, good business, is
> built upon. I just don't see Microsoft doing that. In fact in all of this
> I hope that they reform and get down to making good deals. (A good deal is
> where the Customer is satisfied and the Business is satisfied after the
> transaction. I don't see that normally with Microsoft's operating systems.)
> Those businesses that fail to adhere to this good deal will go out of
> business unless they have a monopoly on something. (Microsoft so far has
> come very close to that, but not yet.)
>
> Just as a comparison, look at another company. One in a business everyone
> currently hates. A drug company. Remember Johnson & Johnson during the
> Tylenol poisoning fiasco? The ethics of that company by recalling their
> product and replacing the packaging with tamper resistant packaging is an
> example of ethical business practices. (Heck, the issue was not even their
> fault, and they did it.) That is a company with ethics and one that I will
> buy product from and even give them more slack when other issues arise,
> because I know their ethical practices would not let them put out a
> defective product on purpose. There are many other examples.
>
Richard,

I love the point you are making. Products are seldom perfect, software
is seldom totally bug free, people are not perfect either. But, there
are different ways to make money. Bill Gates has displayed exceptional
vision and skills, no doubt about that. But it comes to the way he got
where he is, the word "predator" comes to mind. I believe in capitalism,
I do not believe in ruthlessness. MS could be a great company if it had
ethics as you say, not only money.

John Doue

 

[terry]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On 12/30/2004 7:52 PM On a whim, William J. Burlingame pounded out on
the keyboard

> It should be obvious that some are just yanking the chains of those
> who are so uptight about such an unimportant thing as how a response
> in posed. The NG police would probably be upset if a surgeon saved
> their life with open heart surgery, but failed to have the sutures
> spaced uniformly. Get a life! The purpose of the NG is to exchange
> technical information, form should be way down the list of importance.
>
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:09:02 -0800, Terry <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On 12/30/2004 5:36 PM On a whim, Brian S. Craigie pounded out on the
>>keyboard
>>
>>
>>>Thanks Pierre,
>>>
>>>On 31/12/2004 01:23, Pierre Asselin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In comp.sys.laptops Brian S. Craigie <bcraigie@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic
>>>>>[ of bottom posting ] here. Seeing the person's response immediately
>>>>>"in your face" must surely be preferable [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, it's worse. No context. You're supposed to trim the original
>>>>and respond *after* the original points are made.
>>>
>>>
>>>I understand about the context, but can anyone point me to the document
>>> that says top posting is not allowed?
>>>
>>>Thanks Pierre!
>>>
>>>Brian
>>
>>I think the point is that you do what is being done in a particular
>>group. If everyone top posts, then top post. It just makes a mess when
>>one person top posts and the next bottom posts. After a few threads you
>>can't tell who said what. So it's just to keep continuity.
>>
>>I don't even think trimming should be done a lot of times. That's
>>leaving it up to each individual as to what they feel is important. Most
>>posts don't go on for extreme amounts of time, so leaving everything
>>really doesn't hurt. But a thread of over 15 or so responses might be
>>cause for some discreet trimming. JMO...
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> bs has been included as part of my e-mail address to reduce the
> amount of spam mail. Change the 'bs'in my address to 'bellsouth'
> to send me a message.
>
> Bill Burlingame

Yes and you top-posting while the context is bottom-posted would be more
akin to a heart surgeon going in through your rectum.

--
Terry

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

On 31/12/2004 10:29, Cyclops wrote:


> I don't think you should leave the NG, but I think you should stop
> buggin others about it, same with the bottom posting nazi's out there.
> - --
> David Wade Hagar AKA Cyclops

Sorry. :-( Will do.

Have a nice New Year everyone!

Brian

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

> Hmmm...
>
> A somewhat ambiguous answer. Relic, you're not asking me to leave this NG are you? ;-) Very funny.
>
> Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic here. Seeing the person's response immediately "in your face" must surely be preferable to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the answer? Perhaps bottom posters are using a different newsreader that jumps to the bottom of the post? Or some special technique?
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Brian
>
> On 30/12/2004 23:32, relic wrote:
>
>
>> Then post elsewhere.

Because, when you respond to a top-poster, the comment you are
responding to is not directly above your post, but is way at the
top of the thread tree, which (since many posters don't know how
to ship) can be a mile long. This means that your remarks and the
post you are remarking on appear unconnected. When you top-post,
it is discourteous to the *next* person who posts. That's the main
reason for not doing it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops,alt.os.windows-xp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Al Smith" <invalid@address.com> wrote in message
news4hBd.202535$Np3.8466946@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> A somewhat ambiguous answer. Relic, you're not asking me to leave this
>> NG are you? ;-) Very funny.
>>
>> Seriously though, I'd actually like to understand the logic here. Seeing
>> the person's response immediately "in your face" must surely be
>> preferable to scrolling down to the bottom of a long post to find the
>> answer? Perhaps bottom posters are using a different newsreader that
>> jumps to the bottom of the post? Or some special technique?
>>
>> Warmest Regards,
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 30/12/2004 23:32, relic wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Then post elsewhere.
>
> Because, when you respond to a top-poster, the comment you are responding
> to is not directly above your post, but is way at the top of the thread
> tree, which (since many posters don't know how to ship) can be a mile
> long. This means that your remarks and the post you are remarking on
> appear unconnected. When you top-post, it is discourteous to the *next*
> person who posts. That's the main reason for not doing it.

http/www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/brox.html

If it's done right, with some snipping done to keep it lean, bottom posting
is what makes the most sense. Original question or comment at the top, and
the latest answer following. Unless of course you read the back page of the
book first, do you?

If so, I'm sure you can find a newsgroup that encourages top posting
somewhere.