Windows XP - It Just Does Not Want To Quit-Mac Usenet

Alan Baker

07-08-2003, 06:43 AM

In article <v6nOa.27$Pd2.925[at]newsfeed.avtel.net>,
"John" <nospam[at]nospam.com> wrote:

> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > Josiah Fizer wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:31:20 +0000, Peter Hayes
> >> <peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> John wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Peter Hayes wrote:
> >>>>> John wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Well I still have not been able to get Win XP to crash on my
> >>>>>> three machines. Been going strong since Oct 2001.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So you haven't put sp1 on it then?
> >>>>
> >>>> Two out of three have SP 1 on them. No problems.
> >>>
> >>> Doesn't that involve a reboot?
> >>
> >> Does rebooting equate to a crash?
> >
> > The OP says "Been going strong since Oct 2001". I assume he means the
> > machines have been up continuously since Oct 2001. Keeping XP up for
> > an hour or two at a time without crashing is hardly a cause for
> > celebration, let alone a usenet post.
>
>
> Yet our OS X machines are up 8 hrs a day and crash an average of once a
> week.
>
>

<coug>bullshit<cough>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

foo

07-08-2003, 06:49 AM

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:43:23 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
wrote:

>> Yet our OS X machines are up 8 hrs a day and crash an average of once a
>> week.
>>
>>
>
><coug>bullshit<cough>

Why is that bullshit? My Finder crashes from time to time, and for
most people that would justify a full reboot; what's so odd about his
once a week crash statement?

Alan Baker

07-08-2003, 08:08 AM

In article <gpmkgvg8b036311ti9glucopj1fvh6l3j5[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:43:23 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Yet our OS X machines are up 8 hrs a day and crash an average of once a
> >> week.
> >>
> >>
> >
> ><coug>bullshit<cough>
>
> Why is that bullshit? My Finder crashes from time to time, and for
> most people that would justify a full reboot; what's so odd about his
> once a week crash statement?

Well, using your favourite argument: my machine *never* crashes -- and I
mean not ever, hence, he can't be experiencing it. <g>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

foo

07-08-2003, 08:22 AM

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:08:32 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
wrote:

>In article <gpmkgvg8b036311ti9glucopj1fvh6l3j5[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:43:23 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Yet our OS X machines are up 8 hrs a day and crash an average of once a
>> >> week.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> ><coug>bullshit<cough>
>>
>> Why is that bullshit? My Finder crashes from time to time, and for
>> most people that would justify a full reboot; what's so odd about his
>> once a week crash statement?
>
>Well, using your favourite argument: my machine *never* crashes -- and I
>mean not ever, hence, he can't be experiencing it. <g>

C'mon Alan - what's your real reply to my question?

foo

07-08-2003, 06:25 PM

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:19:16 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
wrote:

>In article <88skgv8sb2d4p7vpstfl6nekesuk0i36gc[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:08:32 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <gpmkgvg8b036311ti9glucopj1fvh6l3j5[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:43:23 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Yet our OS X machines are up 8 hrs a day and crash an average of once a
>> >> >> week.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> ><coug>bullshit<cough>
>> >>
>> >> Why is that bullshit? My Finder crashes from time to time, and for
>> >> most people that would justify a full reboot; what's so odd about his
>> >> once a week crash statement?
>> >
>> >Well, using your favourite argument: my machine *never* crashes -- and I
>> >mean not ever, hence, he can't be experiencing it. <g>
>>
>> C'mon Alan - what's your real reply to my question?
>
>Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond* one
>machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
>
>Then of course there's the fact that your "for most people that would
>justify a full reboot" statement is utter nonsense. You wouldn't say
>that about XP, so why say it about Mac OS X?

Because, unlike what you claim, it's true in both - if the GUI crashes
(ie hangs so nothing can be done) the machine must be rebooted.

Alan Baker

07-08-2003, 06:50 PM

In article <tovlgvs8eh8m88qbk5eqn78auvlf92phrj[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:19:16 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <88skgv8sb2d4p7vpstfl6nekesuk0i36gc[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:08:32 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <gpmkgvg8b036311ti9glucopj1fvh6l3j5[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:43:23 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yet our OS X machines are up 8 hrs a day and crash an average of
> >> >> >> once a
> >> >> >> week.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><coug>bullshit<cough>
> >> >>
> >> >> Why is that bullshit? My Finder crashes from time to time, and for
> >> >> most people that would justify a full reboot; what's so odd about his
> >> >> once a week crash statement?
> >> >
> >> >Well, using your favourite argument: my machine *never* crashes -- and I
> >> >mean not ever, hence, he can't be experiencing it. <g>
> >>
> >> C'mon Alan - what's your real reply to my question?
> >
> >Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond* one
> >machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
> >
> >Then of course there's the fact that your "for most people that would
> >justify a full reboot" statement is utter nonsense. You wouldn't say
> >that about XP, so why say it about Mac OS X?
>
> Because, unlike what you claim, it's true in both - if the GUI crashes
> (ie hangs so nothing can be done) the machine must be rebooted.

a: That's not what you said. A Finder crash is *not* a GUI crash

b: While I have seen a Finder crash, I've yet to see a GUI crash.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker

07-08-2003, 07:19 PM

In article <pi1mgvgehapfebv91b5vv7ngsar5tqdrcn[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:50:52 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <tovlgvs8eh8m88qbk5eqn78auvlf92phrj[at]4ax.com>,
> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:19:16 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <88skgv8sb2d4p7vpstfl6nekesuk0i36gc[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:08:32 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <gpmkgvg8b036311ti9glucopj1fvh6l3j5[at]4ax.com>,
> >> >> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:43:23 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Yet our OS X machines are up 8 hrs a day and crash an average of
> >> >> >> >> once a
> >> >> >> >> week.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ><coug>bullshit<cough>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why is that bullshit? My Finder crashes from time to time, and for
> >> >> >> most people that would justify a full reboot; what's so odd about
> >> >> >> his
> >> >> >> once a week crash statement?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Well, using your favourite argument: my machine *never* crashes -- and
> >> >> >I
> >> >> >mean not ever, hence, he can't be experiencing it. <g>
> >> >>
> >> >> C'mon Alan - what's your real reply to my question?
> >> >
> >> >Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond* one
> >> >machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
> >> >
> >> >Then of course there's the fact that your "for most people that would
> >> >justify a full reboot" statement is utter nonsense. You wouldn't say
> >> >that about XP, so why say it about Mac OS X?
> >>
> >> Because, unlike what you claim, it's true in both - if the GUI crashes
> >> (ie hangs so nothing can be done) the machine must be rebooted.
> >
> >a: That's not what you said. A Finder crash is *not* a GUI crash
>
> Finder is the GUI / program launcher / file manager. Hence when
> Finder crashes, the GUI crashes in the eyes of most people. Now, you
> can say that sometimes Finder can re-load itself, but sometimes it
> can't - which means it's crashed. And when that happens, most
> non-SSH-using people (ie most people) are going to have to reboot.

No. A GUI crash isn't a Finder crash and a Finder crash isn't a GUI
crash.

>
> So, again, what's so shocking about rebooting from a crash once a week
> in OS X?

See below.

>
> >b: While I have seen a Finder crash, I've yet to see a GUI crash.
>
>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Steve Hanson

07-08-2003, 08:08 PM

zolo wrote in <bec9go$q7a$1[at]newsfeeds.rpi.edu>:

>John wrote:
>> Well I still have not been able to get Win XP to crash on my three machines.
>> Been going strong since Oct 2001. Is it going to go 2 years without
>> crashing? Time will tell. Mac OS X does not even come close in stability,
>> elegance, and most importantly compatibility with the real world.
>>
>>
>
>BFD. Who in this forum gives a rat's ass? You're still just as
>annoying and irrelevant as you were when you called yourself WinMan.

Don't pout.

Alan Baker

07-08-2003, 08:11 PM

In article <qj5mgvom4mi69mut4t2cij7b7rv47uq0ii[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-A6FDD1.10425907072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>
> >In article <pMgOa.22$Pd2.786[at]newsfeed.avtel.net>,
> > "John" <nospam[at]nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well I still have not been able to get Win XP to crash on my three
> >> machines.
> >> Been going strong since Oct 2001. Is it going to go 2 years without
> >> crashing? Time will tell. Mac OS X does not even come close in
> >> stability,
> >> elegance, and most importantly compatibility with the real world.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Candidly: I don't believe you.
>
> It goes against your whole cult training.

It has nothing to do with anything other than the character of the
original poster.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Steve Hanson

07-08-2003, 08:12 PM

Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-A6FDD1.10425907072003[at]news.telus.net>:

>In article <pMgOa.22$Pd2.786[at]newsfeed.avtel.net>,
> "John" <nospam[at]nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Well I still have not been able to get Win XP to crash on my three machines.
>> Been going strong since Oct 2001. Is it going to go 2 years without
>> crashing? Time will tell. Mac OS X does not even come close in stability,
>> elegance, and most importantly compatibility with the real world.
>>
>>
>
>Candidly: I don't believe you.

It goes against your whole cult training.

07-08-2003, 09:27 PM

In article <bt1eeb.fo1.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>,
Peter Hayes <peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Since you must have rebooted to install sp1 I guess you shut them down every
> night.

How does it follow that he shuts down every night?

Lets say my powerbook has NEVER crashed. I am running 10.2.6, so I have
updated to 10.2.4.then 10.2.5, then 10.2.6, plus all the times I have
had to restart from the system updater. If my computer has never
crashed how does my installing quicktime or a system update lessen that?

It seems like you are just being a troll for trolls sake.

John

07-08-2003, 09:56 PM

zolo wrote:
> John wrote:
>> Well I still have not been able to get Win XP to crash on my three
>> machines. Been going strong since Oct 2001. Is it going to go 2
>> years without crashing? Time will tell. Mac OS X does not even
>> come close in stability, elegance, and most importantly
>> compatibility with the real world.
>>
>>
>
> BFD. Who in this forum gives a rat's ass? You're still just as
> annoying and irrelevant as you were when you called yourself WinMan.
>
> -zolo

Yet the fact that Win XP is more reliable and stable than Mac OS X got you
so upset that you can just hurl a personal attack and not even stick to the
subject of the thread. You never change.

Steve Hanson

07-08-2003, 10:20 PM

Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-970DDE.10191608072003[at]news.telus.net>:

>Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond* one
>machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.

Pity the poor users who must cross Alan's path.

John

07-08-2003, 10:35 PM

Peter Hayes wrote:
> no wrote:
>
>> In article <bt1eeb.fo1.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>,
>> Peter Hayes <peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Since you must have rebooted to install sp1 I guess you shut them
>>> down every night.
>>
>> How does it follow that he shuts down every night?
>
> He hasn't provided any definition of "going strong" and since most
> machines are switched off at night, in the absence of evidence to the
> contrary it seems reasonable to assume his are as well.
>
> He's quite free to tell us how long they're powered up for at a time,
> but so far he's been silent on that matter.
>
>>> It seems like you are just being a troll for trolls sake.
>
> No. I'm just trying to discover if his machines have been on
> continuously, or all week and shut off at the weekend, or shut down
> every night. It has a material effect on the importance of his claim
> that they've been "going strong".

The machines are in general powered for 17 hrs per day on average. One of
them has occasionally been powered for up to a week at a time.

Peter Hayes

07-08-2003, 11:29 PM

no wrote:

> In article <bt1eeb.fo1.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>,
> Peter Hayes <peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Since you must have rebooted to install sp1 I guess you shut them down
>> every night.
>
> How does it follow that he shuts down every night?

He hasn't provided any definition of "going strong" and since most machines
are switched off at night, in the absence of evidence to the contrary it
seems reasonable to assume his are as well.

He's quite free to tell us how long they're powered up for at a time, but so
far he's been silent on that matter.

> > It seems like you are just being a troll for trolls sake.

No. I'm just trying to discover if his machines have been on continuously, or
all week and shut off at the weekend, or shut down every night. It has a
material effect on the importance of his claim that they've been "going
strong".

--

Peter

Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail

John

07-10-2003, 04:02 PM

foo wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:50:05 GMT, Steve Carroll <fretwizz[at]attbi.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <mdcogvcvktj55fege8ijv0f393gq6e7q23[at]4ax.com>,
>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:27:04 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <u1jngv8vfi587tbmg3f0t5d44iinmual96[at]4ax.com>,
>>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 05:30:03 GMT, Alan Baker
>>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <vlamgv0soqef82attj4ati8jmp0mfm859i[at]4ax.com>,
>>>>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:19:30 GMT, Alan Baker
>>>>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <pi1mgvgehapfebv91b5vv7ngsar5tqdrcn[at]4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:50:52 GMT, Alan Baker
>>>>>>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article <tovlgvs8eh8m88qbk5eqn78auvlf92phrj[at]4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:19:16 GMT, Alan Baker
>>>>>>>>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <88skgv8sb2d4p7vpstfl6nekesuk0i36gc[at]4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:08:32 GMT, Alan Baker
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <gpmkgvg8b036311ti9glucopj1fvh6l3j5[at]4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:43:23 GMT, Alan Baker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet our OS X machines are up 8 hrs a day and crash an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <coug>bullshit<cough>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is that bullshit? My Finder crashes from time to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most people that would justify a full reboot; what's so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> odd about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once a week crash statement?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, using your favourite argument: my machine *never*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crashes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean not ever, hence, he can't be experiencing it. <g>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> C'mon Alan - what's your real reply to my question?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes
>>>>>>>>>>>> *beyond*
>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then of course there's the fact that your "for most people
>>>>>>>>>>>> that would
>>>>>>>>>>>> justify a full reboot" statement is utter nonsense. You
>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't say
>>>>>>>>>>>> that about XP, so why say it about Mac OS X?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because, unlike what you claim, it's true in both - if the
>>>>>>>>>>> GUI crashes
>>>>>>>>>>> (ie hangs so nothing can be done) the machine must be
>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a: That's not what you said. A Finder crash is *not* a GUI
>>>>>>>>>> crash
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finder is the GUI / program launcher / file manager. Hence
>>>>>>>>> when Finder crashes, the GUI crashes in the eyes of most
>>>>>>>>> people. Now, you
>>>>>>>>> can say that sometimes Finder can re-load itself, but
>>>>>>>>> sometimes it can't - which means it's crashed. And when that
>>>>>>>>> happens, most non-SSH-using people (ie most people) are going
>>>>>>>>> to have to reboot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. A GUI crash isn't a Finder crash and a Finder crash isn't
>>>>>>>> a GUI crash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define it however you like. The scenario I described is
>>>>>>> typical of a reason to reboot the Mac.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bzzzzt. Wrong.
>>>>>> In the scenario you imagine you've described, perhaps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bzzt, wrong yourself, Alan - it's typical. Finder crashes quite a
>>>>> bit.
>>>>
>>>> And a Finder crash sees it automatically relaunch.
>>>
>>> Sometimes. Sometimes the word "Finder" just stays red and does
>>> nothing, and there's nothing else you can do but reboot.
>>
>> Why can't you just cancel its process? I'm pretty sure I've done this
>> before when I had a 'red' Finder once.
>
> Spinning beach ball, whether I kill it once or one hundred times. To
> a typical user, that's a reboot right there.

The old stallball rears its ugly self all to often on Mac.

Steve Hanson

07-10-2003, 05:48 PM

Peter Hayes wrote in <bkgfeb.ci5.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:

>no wrote:
>
>> In article <bt1eeb.fo1.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>,
>> Peter Hayes <peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Since you must have rebooted to install sp1 I guess you shut them down
>>> every night.
>>
>> How does it follow that he shuts down every night?
>
>He hasn't provided any definition of "going strong" and since most machines
>are switched off at night, in the absence of evidence to the contrary it
>seems reasonable to assume his are as well.
>
>He's quite free to tell us how long they're powered up for at a time, but so
>far he's been silent on that matter.
>
>> > It seems like you are just being a troll for trolls sake.
>
>No. I'm just trying to discover if his machines have been on continuously, or
>all week and shut off at the weekend, or shut down every night. It has a
>material effect on the importance of his claim that they've been "going
>strong".

Not really. Many if not most failures happen during the boot cycle,
while components are warming up or just initializing. At any rate,
turning the system on and off once a day is hardly coddling it. It's
what almost everyone does.

I never assumed "going strong" meant 100% uptime, and it's odd that
you did--other than that you have nothing else to bitch about. He's
clearly talking about the durability of the system through extensive
personal use and abuse. I've used XP and can also report that it is a
rock solid OS. If this makes you whine, so be it. Climbing up a tree
and pretending it's a shitty OS is the last refuge of the advocate.

Steve Hanson

07-10-2003, 05:49 PM

Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-F64EF6.23025108072003[at]news.telus.net>:

>In article <ZOGOa.41$Pd2.954[at]newsfeed.avtel.net>,
> "John" <nospam[at]nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Hayes wrote:
>> > no wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <bt1eeb.fo1.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>,
>> >> Peter Hayes <peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Since you must have rebooted to install sp1 I guess you shut them
>> >>> down every night.
>> >>
>> >> How does it follow that he shuts down every night?
>> >
>> > He hasn't provided any definition of "going strong" and since most
>> > machines are switched off at night, in the absence of evidence to the
>> > contrary it seems reasonable to assume his are as well.
>> >
>> > He's quite free to tell us how long they're powered up for at a time,
>> > but so far he's been silent on that matter.
>> >
>> >>> It seems like you are just being a troll for trolls sake.
>> >
>> > No. I'm just trying to discover if his machines have been on
>> > continuously, or all week and shut off at the weekend, or shut down
>> > every night. It has a material effect on the importance of his claim
>> > that they've been "going strong".
>>
>>
>> The machines are in general powered for 17 hrs per day on average. One of
>> them has occasionally been powered for up to a week at a time.
>>
>>
>
>Is that all? My PowerBook is routinely on *all* the time and it doesn't
>crash.
>
>Ever.

Wish I could say the same about my iBook.

Flip

07-10-2003, 06:32 PM

In article <ma4rgvkakhqhe8cchs6fqd3at4qda46h1g[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-5B41BC.22514409072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>
> >In article <31kpgvoe2lbi51mhblbf5s68cpiedplnuh[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-1364E3.22310008072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >>
> >> >In article <b3dmgvo00034j0dr2pp4td2g5sg3jnsk32[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-970DDE.10191608072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond* one
> >> >> >machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pity the poor users who must cross Alan's path.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah. Those terribly unlucky folks just keep me earning a comfortable
> >> >living working less than 1,000 hour per year. Poor them.
> >>
> >> How is your working less going in their favor? Oh, wait--I think I
> >> see your point. ;-)
> >
> >It might give you some idea of what *value* they place on my work, if
> >only you were bright enough to do the math.
>
> Oh, it gives me a very good idea what *value* they place on your work.
>
> If you want to tell us what your comfortable living is--since you, you
> know, bragged about it and all--that might help me do the math.
> Telling me you're a part time worker doesn't exactly make you look
> brilliant, though, Alan. ;-)

Actually, a lot of successful people work part time-particularly those
who are self-employed.

If I could work part time and generate the kind of income I want, I'd do
it in a heartbeat.

Peter Hayes

07-10-2003, 07:52 PM

Steve Hanson wrote:

> Peter Hayes wrote in <bkgfeb.ci5.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:
>
>>no wrote:
>>
>>> In article <bt1eeb.fo1.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>,
>>> Peter Hayes <peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since you must have rebooted to install sp1 I guess you shut them down
>>>> every night.
>>>
>>> How does it follow that he shuts down every night?
>>
>>He hasn't provided any definition of "going strong" and since most machines
>>are switched off at night, in the absence of evidence to the contrary it
>>seems reasonable to assume his are as well.
>>
>>He's quite free to tell us how long they're powered up for at a time, but so
>>far he's been silent on that matter.
>>
>>> > It seems like you are just being a troll for trolls sake.
>>
>>No. I'm just trying to discover if his machines have been on continuously,
>>or all week and shut off at the weekend, or shut down every night. It has a
>>material effect on the importance of his claim that they've been "going
>>strong".
>
> Not really. Many if not most failures happen during the boot cycle,
> while components are warming up or just initializing. At any rate,
> turning the system on and off once a day is hardly coddling it. It's
> what almost everyone does.

This thread is about the ability, or otherwise, of XP to keep "going strong",
and nothing to do with hardware reliability.

> I never assumed "going strong" meant 100% uptime, and it's odd that
> you did

I think most of us here interpreted "going strong" as 100% uptime, or
something approaching the holy grail of "five-nines". I certainly did, and I
see nothing odd in that.

> --other than that you have nothing else to bitch about. He's
> clearly talking about the durability of the system through extensive
> personal use and abuse. I've used XP and can also report that it is a
> rock solid OS.

To someone used to Microsoft's previous offerings it certainly appears to be
"rock solid", but I've seen it crash, lock solid even, purely by removing the
aerial from the TV card.

> If this makes you whine, so be it. Climbing up a tree
> and pretending it's a shitty OS is the last refuge of the advocate.

I believe Win2000 to be Microsoft's best OS, XP may be comparable, but its
licencing is too viral.

--

Peter

Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail

Alan Baker

07-10-2003, 10:10 PM

In article <xefPa.68$Pd2.1260[at]newsfeed.avtel.net>,
"John" <nospam[at]nospam.com> wrote:

> foo wrote:
> > On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:50:05 GMT, Steve Carroll <fretwizz[at]attbi.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In article <mdcogvcvktj55fege8ijv0f393gq6e7q23[at]4ax.com>,
> >> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 08:27:04 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <u1jngv8vfi587tbmg3f0t5d44iinmual96[at]4ax.com>,
> >>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 05:30:03 GMT, Alan Baker
> >>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In article <vlamgv0soqef82attj4ati8jmp0mfm859i[at]4ax.com>,
> >>>>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:19:30 GMT, Alan Baker
> >>>>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In article <pi1mgvgehapfebv91b5vv7ngsar5tqdrcn[at]4ax.com>,
> >>>>>>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:50:52 GMT, Alan Baker
> >>>>>>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In article <tovlgvs8eh8m88qbk5eqn78auvlf92phrj[at]4ax.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:19:16 GMT, Alan Baker
> >>>>>>>>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <88skgv8sb2d4p7vpstfl6nekesuk0i36gc[at]4ax.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 07:08:32 GMT, Alan Baker
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <gpmkgvg8b036311ti9glucopj1fvh6l3j5[at]4ax.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 05:43:23 GMT, Alan Baker
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet our OS X machines are up 8 hrs a day and crash an
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> average
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> week.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <coug>bullshit<cough>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is that bullshit? My Finder crashes from time to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most people that would justify a full reboot; what's so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> odd about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once a week crash statement?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, using your favourite argument: my machine *never*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crashes
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean not ever, hence, he can't be experiencing it. <g>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> C'mon Alan - what's your real reply to my question?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *beyond*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>>>>> machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then of course there's the fact that your "for most people
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that would
> >>>>>>>>>>>> justify a full reboot" statement is utter nonsense. You
> >>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't say
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that about XP, so why say it about Mac OS X?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Because, unlike what you claim, it's true in both - if the
> >>>>>>>>>>> GUI crashes
> >>>>>>>>>>> (ie hangs so nothing can be done) the machine must be
> >>>>>>>>>>> rebooted.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> a: That's not what you said. A Finder crash is *not* a GUI
> >>>>>>>>>> crash
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Finder is the GUI / program launcher / file manager. Hence
> >>>>>>>>> when Finder crashes, the GUI crashes in the eyes of most
> >>>>>>>>> people. Now, you
> >>>>>>>>> can say that sometimes Finder can re-load itself, but
> >>>>>>>>> sometimes it can't - which means it's crashed. And when that
> >>>>>>>>> happens, most non-SSH-using people (ie most people) are going
> >>>>>>>>> to have to reboot.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No. A GUI crash isn't a Finder crash and a Finder crash isn't
> >>>>>>>> a GUI crash.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Define it however you like. The scenario I described is
> >>>>>>> typical of a reason to reboot the Mac.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bzzzzt. Wrong.
> >>>>>> In the scenario you imagine you've described, perhaps.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bzzt, wrong yourself, Alan - it's typical. Finder crashes quite a
> >>>>> bit.
> >>>>
> >>>> And a Finder crash sees it automatically relaunch.
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes. Sometimes the word "Finder" just stays red and does
> >>> nothing, and there's nothing else you can do but reboot.
> >>
> >> Why can't you just cancel its process? I'm pretty sure I've done this
> >> before when I had a 'red' Finder once.
> >
> > Spinning beach ball, whether I kill it once or one hundred times. To
> > a typical user, that's a reboot right there.
>
>
> The old stallball rears its ugly self all to often on Mac.
>
>

Not on properly maintained machines, it doesn't.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

MuahMan

07-10-2003, 10:11 PM

Help Desk earns you a comfortable living? Egads you Canucks have low living
standards. Also why would Macs need technical support?

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-1364E3.22310008072003[at]news.telus.net...
> In article <b3dmgvo00034j0dr2pp4td2g5sg3jnsk32[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-970DDE.10191608072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >
> > >Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond* one
> > >machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
> >
> > Pity the poor users who must cross Alan's path.
>
> Yeah. Those terribly unlucky folks just keep me earning a comfortable
> living working less than 1,000 hour per year. Poor them.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
> if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker

07-10-2003, 10:12 PM

In article <ma4rgvkakhqhe8cchs6fqd3at4qda46h1g[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-5B41BC.22514409072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>
> >In article <31kpgvoe2lbi51mhblbf5s68cpiedplnuh[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-1364E3.22310008072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >>
> >> >In article <b3dmgvo00034j0dr2pp4td2g5sg3jnsk32[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-970DDE.10191608072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond* one
> >> >> >machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pity the poor users who must cross Alan's path.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah. Those terribly unlucky folks just keep me earning a comfortable
> >> >living working less than 1,000 hour per year. Poor them.
> >>
> >> How is your working less going in their favor? Oh, wait--I think I
> >> see your point. ;-)
> >
> >It might give you some idea of what *value* they place on my work, if
> >only you were bright enough to do the math.
>
> Oh, it gives me a very good idea what *value* they place on your work.
>
> If you want to tell us what your comfortable living is--since you, you
> know, bragged about it and all--that might help me do the math.
> Telling me you're a part time worker doesn't exactly make you look
> brilliant, though, Alan. ;-)

I work less than a half a full time number of hours to earn a very full
time wage. Should be $60K - $70K this year.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker

07-10-2003, 10:12 PM

In article <ma4rgvkakhqhe8cchs6fqd3at4qda46h1g[at]4ax.com>,
Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-5B41BC.22514409072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>
> >In article <31kpgvoe2lbi51mhblbf5s68cpiedplnuh[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-1364E3.22310008072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >>
> >> >In article <b3dmgvo00034j0dr2pp4td2g5sg3jnsk32[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-970DDE.10191608072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond* one
> >> >> >machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pity the poor users who must cross Alan's path.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah. Those terribly unlucky folks just keep me earning a comfortable
> >> >living working less than 1,000 hour per year. Poor them.
> >>
> >> How is your working less going in their favor? Oh, wait--I think I
> >> see your point. ;-)
> >
> >It might give you some idea of what *value* they place on my work, if
> >only you were bright enough to do the math.
>
> Oh, it gives me a very good idea what *value* they place on your work.
>
> If you want to tell us what your comfortable living is--since you, you
> know, bragged about it and all--that might help me do the math.
> Telling me you're a part time worker doesn't exactly make you look
> brilliant, though, Alan. ;-)

BTW, sorry it took me so long to respond. I was on the golf course all
morning. <g>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

MuahMan

07-10-2003, 10:13 PM

Apple Help Desk employees make around 15/hr Canuckian. That's about what
McDonalds wages in the U.S. ? Keep up the hard work Alan, you'll go far.

"Steve Hanson" <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote in message
news:ma4rgvkakhqhe8cchs6fqd3at4qda46h1g[at]4ax.com...
> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-5B41BC.22514409072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>
> >In article <31kpgvoe2lbi51mhblbf5s68cpiedplnuh[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-1364E3.22310008072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >>
> >> >In article <b3dmgvo00034j0dr2pp4td2g5sg3jnsk32[at]4ax.com>,
> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Alan Baker wrote in
<alangbaker-970DDE.10191608072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond*
one
> >> >> >machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
> >> >>
> >> >> Pity the poor users who must cross Alan's path.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah. Those terribly unlucky folks just keep me earning a comfortable
> >> >living working less than 1,000 hour per year. Poor them.
> >>
> >> How is your working less going in their favor? Oh, wait--I think I
> >> see your point. ;-)
> >
> >It might give you some idea of what *value* they place on my work, if
> >only you were bright enough to do the math.
>
> Oh, it gives me a very good idea what *value* they place on your work.
>
> If you want to tell us what your comfortable living is--since you, you
> know, bragged about it and all--that might help me do the math.
> Telling me you're a part time worker doesn't exactly make you look
> brilliant, though, Alan. ;-)

Alan Baker

07-10-2003, 10:56 PM

In article <bekkpv$670c4$1[at]ID-180643.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"MuahMan" <muahman[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

> Help Desk earns you a comfortable living? Egads you Canucks have low living
> standards. Also why would Macs need technical support?

*A* Mac might not. A network of Macs, Mac servers and printers on a
corporate network with Windows NT and linux boxes...

....support is required.

P.S. I don't work at a help desk.

>
> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker[at]telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-1364E3.22310008072003[at]news.telus.net...
> > In article <b3dmgvo00034j0dr2pp4td2g5sg3jnsk32[at]4ax.com>,
> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-970DDE.10191608072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> > >
> > > >Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond* one
> > > >machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
> > >
> > > Pity the poor users who must cross Alan's path.
> >
> > Yeah. Those terribly unlucky folks just keep me earning a comfortable
> > living working less than 1,000 hour per year. Poor them.
> >
> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> > to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
> > if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
>
>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker

07-10-2003, 10:56 PM

In article <bekktc$5m3d8$1[at]ID-180643.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"MuahMan" <muahman[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

> Apple Help Desk employees make around 15/hr Canuckian. That's about what
> McDonalds wages in the U.S. ? Keep up the hard work Alan, you'll go far.

Then I guess I can't accept the next opening. My rate is $75/hr.

>
>
> "Steve Hanson" <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote in message
> news:ma4rgvkakhqhe8cchs6fqd3at4qda46h1g[at]4ax.com...
> > Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-5B41BC.22514409072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> >
> > >In article <31kpgvoe2lbi51mhblbf5s68cpiedplnuh[at]4ax.com>,
> > > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-1364E3.22310008072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> > >>
> > >> >In article <b3dmgvo00034j0dr2pp4td2g5sg3jnsk32[at]4ax.com>,
> > >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Alan Baker wrote in
> <alangbaker-970DDE.10191608072003[at]news.telus.net>:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond*
> one
> > >> >> >machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Pity the poor users who must cross Alan's path.
> > >> >
> > >> >Yeah. Those terribly unlucky folks just keep me earning a comfortable
> > >> >living working less than 1,000 hour per year. Poor them.
> > >>
> > >> How is your working less going in their favor? Oh, wait--I think I
> > >> see your point. ;-)
> > >
> > >It might give you some idea of what *value* they place on my work, if
> > >only you were bright enough to do the math.
> >
> > Oh, it gives me a very good idea what *value* they place on your work.
> >
> > If you want to tell us what your comfortable living is--since you, you
> > know, bragged about it and all--that might help me do the math.
> > Telling me you're a part time worker doesn't exactly make you look
> > brilliant, though, Alan. ;-)
>
>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

foo

07-11-2003, 12:10 AM

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:10:45 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
wrote:

>> >>>> And a Finder crash sees it automatically relaunch.
>> >>>
>> >>> Sometimes. Sometimes the word "Finder" just stays red and does
>> >>> nothing, and there's nothing else you can do but reboot.
>> >>
>> >> Why can't you just cancel its process? I'm pretty sure I've done this
>> >> before when I had a 'red' Finder once.
>> >
>> > Spinning beach ball, whether I kill it once or one hundred times. To
>> > a typical user, that's a reboot right there.
>>
>>
>> The old stallball rears its ugly self all to often on Mac.
>>
>>
>
>Not on properly maintained machines, it doesn't.

I eagerly await a definition of "properly maintained" that suits your
worldview *and* fits the facts.

Steve Hanson

07-11-2003, 04:55 PM

Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-AE40A2.14120810072003[at]news.telus.net>:

>In article <ma4rgvkakhqhe8cchs6fqd3at4qda46h1g[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-5B41BC.22514409072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>>
>> >In article <31kpgvoe2lbi51mhblbf5s68cpiedplnuh[at]4ax.com>,
>> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-1364E3.22310008072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <b3dmgvo00034j0dr2pp4td2g5sg3jnsk32[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-970DDE.10191608072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond* one
>> >> >> >machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Pity the poor users who must cross Alan's path.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yeah. Those terribly unlucky folks just keep me earning a comfortable
>> >> >living working less than 1,000 hour per year. Poor them.
>> >>
>> >> How is your working less going in their favor? Oh, wait--I think I
>> >> see your point. ;-)
>> >
>> >It might give you some idea of what *value* they place on my work, if
>> >only you were bright enough to do the math.
>>
>> Oh, it gives me a very good idea what *value* they place on your work.
>>
>> If you want to tell us what your comfortable living is--since you, you
>> know, bragged about it and all--that might help me do the math.
>> Telling me you're a part time worker doesn't exactly make you look
>> brilliant, though, Alan. ;-)
>
>I work less than a half a full time number of hours to earn a very full
>time wage. Should be $60K - $70K this year.

I have to admit, I'm almost impressed. Where do you live? Assuming
you're not in some market like San Francisco, where that salary could
almost get you an efficiency apartment, that would be an above average
wage for someone who simply does Mac tech support. Or you're really
suckering someone. Is that truly all you do?

Steve Hanson

07-11-2003, 04:59 PM

Peter Hayes wrote in <hkckeb.4n2.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:

>To someone used to Microsoft's previous offerings it certainly appears to be
>"rock solid", but I've seen it crash, lock solid even, purely by removing the
>aerial from the TV card.

I've seen every OS crash, lock solid even. The fact that you think
you've proved a point makes you look even more like a frustrated
advocate.

>> If this makes you whine, so be it. Climbing up a tree
>> and pretending it's a shitty OS is the last refuge of the advocate.
>
>I believe Win2000 to be Microsoft's best OS, XP may be comparable, but its
>licencing is too viral.

In other words you probably haven't used it, or you could say for sure
how XP compares to 2000. Hint: it's significantly better. Go back
to griping about Micro$oft.

Steve Hanson

07-11-2003, 05:01 PM

Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-DCF8D5.14154910072003[at]news.telus.net>:

>In article <i76rgv000jutpku2o854nhs715r24ughb3[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-F64EF6.23025108072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>>
>> >In article <ZOGOa.41$Pd2.954[at]newsfeed.avtel.net>,
>> > "John" <nospam[at]nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Peter Hayes wrote:
>> >> > no wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <bt1eeb.fo1.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>,
>> >> >> Peter Hayes <peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Since you must have rebooted to install sp1 I guess you shut them
>> >> >>> down every night.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How does it follow that he shuts down every night?
>> >> >
>> >> > He hasn't provided any definition of "going strong" and since most
>> >> > machines are switched off at night, in the absence of evidence to the
>> >> > contrary it seems reasonable to assume his are as well.
>> >> >
>> >> > He's quite free to tell us how long they're powered up for at a time,
>> >> > but so far he's been silent on that matter.
>> >> >
>> >> >>> It seems like you are just being a troll for trolls sake.
>> >> >
>> >> > No. I'm just trying to discover if his machines have been on
>> >> > continuously, or all week and shut off at the weekend, or shut down
>> >> > every night. It has a material effect on the importance of his claim
>> >> > that they've been "going strong".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The machines are in general powered for 17 hrs per day on average. One of
>> >> them has occasionally been powered for up to a week at a time.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Is that all? My PowerBook is routinely on *all* the time and it doesn't
>> >crash.
>> >
>> >Ever.
>>
>> Wish I could say the same about my iBook.
>
>Perhaps if you knew what you were doing, you could.

Yeah, I guess Macs don't "just work". They require some esoteric
knowledge or secret decoder dongle to keep from bouncing off the
walls. Gosh I wish Apple would tell me the way I need to wiggle the
iBook to get it to access network shares properly without the Finder
bailing every other minute.

Elizabot

07-11-2003, 06:35 PM

Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <m3ntgv0t9v7ovldshrf7mrl1d2s0cevogq[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-AE40A2.14120810072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>>
>>
>>>In article <ma4rgvkakhqhe8cchs6fqd3at4qda46h1g[at]4ax.com>,
>>>Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-5B41BC.22514409072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <31kpgvoe2lbi51mhblbf5s68cpiedplnuh[at]4ax.com>,
>>>>>Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-1364E3.22310008072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <b3dmgvo00034j0dr2pp4td2g5sg3jnsk32[at]4ax.com>,
>>>>>>>Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Alan Baker wrote in
>>>>>>>><alangbaker-970DDE.10191608072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond*
>>>>>>>>>one
>>>>>>>>>machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pity the poor users who must cross Alan's path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah. Those terribly unlucky folks just keep me earning a comfortable
>>>>>>>living working less than 1,000 hour per year. Poor them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How is your working less going in their favor? Oh, wait--I think I
>>>>>>see your point. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>It might give you some idea of what *value* they place on my work, if
>>>>>only you were bright enough to do the math.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, it gives me a very good idea what *value* they place on your work.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to tell us what your comfortable living is--since you, you
>>>>know, bragged about it and all--that might help me do the math.
>>>>Telling me you're a part time worker doesn't exactly make you look
>>>>brilliant, though, Alan. ;-)
>>>
>>>I work less than a half a full time number of hours to earn a very full
>>>time wage. Should be $60K - $70K this year.
>>
>>I have to admit, I'm almost impressed. Where do you live? Assuming
>>you're not in some market like San Francisco, where that salary could
>>almost get you an efficiency apartment, that would be an above average
>>wage for someone who simply does Mac tech support. Or you're really
>>suckering someone. Is that truly all you do?
>
>
> That's all I do. I live in Vancouver and own my place; an admittedly
> very small condo. Life is pretty good. <g>
>

Poor Hanson. Has all the money in the world and it doesn't make him happy.

--
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... oh wait, he does.

Steve Hanson

07-11-2003, 07:01 PM

Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-3FEE00.10173211072003[at]news.telus.net>:

>In article <m3ntgv0t9v7ovldshrf7mrl1d2s0cevogq[at]4ax.com>,
> Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-AE40A2.14120810072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>>
>> >In article <ma4rgvkakhqhe8cchs6fqd3at4qda46h1g[at]4ax.com>,
>> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-5B41BC.22514409072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <31kpgvoe2lbi51mhblbf5s68cpiedplnuh[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Alan Baker wrote in <alangbaker-1364E3.22310008072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <b3dmgvo00034j0dr2pp4td2g5sg3jnsk32[at]4ax.com>,
>> >> >> > Steve Hanson <icustomercare[at]usps.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Alan Baker wrote in
>> >> >> >> <alangbaker-970DDE.10191608072003[at]news.telus.net>:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Well, you see: my experience with Mac OS X actually goes *beyond*
>> >> >> >> >one
>> >> >> >> >machine. I do Mac tech support for a living.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Pity the poor users who must cross Alan's path.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Yeah. Those terribly unlucky folks just keep me earning a comfortable
>> >> >> >living working less than 1,000 hour per year. Poor them.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How is your working less going in their favor? Oh, wait--I think I
>> >> >> see your point. ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> >It might give you some idea of what *value* they place on my work, if
>> >> >only you were bright enough to do the math.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, it gives me a very good idea what *value* they place on your work.
>> >>
>> >> If you want to tell us what your comfortable living is--since you, you
>> >> know, bragged about it and all--that might help me do the math.
>> >> Telling me you're a part time worker doesn't exactly make you look
>> >> brilliant, though, Alan. ;-)
>> >
>> >I work less than a half a full time number of hours to earn a very full
>> >time wage. Should be $60K - $70K this year.
>>
>> I have to admit, I'm almost impressed. Where do you live? Assuming
>> you're not in some market like San Francisco, where that salary could
>> almost get you an efficiency apartment, that would be an above average
>> wage for someone who simply does Mac tech support. Or you're really
>> suckering someone. Is that truly all you do?
>
>That's all I do. I live in Vancouver and own my place; an admittedly
>very small condo. Life is pretty good. <g>

Okay, I am impressed. At least you've translated years of Mac
indoctrination into effective self-promotion. ;-)

John

07-11-2003, 07:36 PM

Peter Hayes wrote:
>
> I guess you've never really used anything other than Windows or you'd
> soon discover just how pathetic it is. The only thing that stops
> Windows disappearing overnight is the vast software base for the
> platform.

What keeps Windows around is the competition from Mac OS X and Linux.

Peter Hayes

07-11-2003, 10:23 PM

John wrote:

> Peter Hayes wrote:
>>
>> I guess you've never really used anything other than Windows or you'd
>> soon discover just how pathetic it is. The only thing that stops
>> Windows disappearing overnight is the vast software base for the
>> platform.
>
>
> What keeps Windows around is the competition from Mac OS X and Linux.

I should have added the illegal lock-in contracts with OEMs. That's on its way
out with HP offering Linux boxes.

--

Peter

Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail

Steve Hanson

07-14-2003, 05:41 PM

Peter Hayes wrote in <5p1neb.5g2.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:

>Steve Hanson wrote:
>
>> Peter Hayes wrote in <hkckeb.4n2.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:
>>
>>>To someone used to Microsoft's previous offerings it certainly appears to be
>>>"rock solid", but I've seen it crash, lock solid even, purely by removing
>>>the aerial from the TV card.
>>
>> I've seen every OS crash, lock solid even. The fact that you think
>> you've proved a point makes you look even more like a frustrated
>> advocate.
>
>You said, in your previous post, in text you've now snipped, "I've used XP and
>can also report that it is a rock solid OS". So which is it? "Rock solid"? Or
>does it crash and burn "like every other OS"?

Even rocks are not unbreakable. The times I've seen it crash are from
hardware failures, specifically bad memory. Would you blame the OS
for that or say it wasn't stable?

>>>> If this makes you whine, so be it. Climbing up a tree
>>>> and pretending it's a shitty OS is the last refuge of the advocate.
>
>Advocating what?

Pig ignorance from the sounds of your posts.

>>>I believe Win2000 to be Microsoft's best OS, XP may be comparable, but its
>>>licencing is too viral.
>>
>> In other words you probably haven't used it, or you could say for sure
>> how XP compares to 2000.
>
>XP came with my laptop, courtesy of the Microsoft tax. It's still there and I
>use it once in a while, but all the silly patronising junk really gets on my
>wick, "Click here for valuable updates", "Click here for your new program",
>etc. Run CD Creator and it wants to phone home. Why? Watchdog gives up after
>five minutes, every time. Why?

"Click here for your new program"? Oh, I won't bother to ask for
specifics to your random drivel, I'm sure you can't remember anymore.
You've just proving my point, you know.

>I run Win2000 via VMWare on my laptop, to run an app that doesn't run under
>Wine. It seems solid, and doesn't have the smell of spyware that infests XP.

Yeah, loads of spyware. If you're too clueless to disable the extra
applets that the laptop vendor threw in, don't blame Microsoft.

>> Hint: it's significantly better.
>
>How do you define "better". More stable? More extras, like the basic CD burner
>than even Dell had to supplement with CD Creator? (I'm told it has a CD
>burner, I've never used it). Where are the really useful extras like virtual
>desktops? Promised for Longhorn, in a pathetic quad split form. Sheesh.

Better Terminal Services, numerous shell improvements, better legacy
software support, faster bootup, and better overall performance. I
tossed away CD Creator long ago (it's a POS), people who know what
they're doing use apps like Nero, which I'm assuming you've never
heard of.

Virtual desktops? Gee I got 'em right now with a powertoy. You can
wait if you want, though. Maybe someone will magically teach you how
to get them.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/downloads/powertoys.asp

>I guess you've never really used anything other than Windows or you'd soon
>discover just how pathetic it is. The only thing that stops Windows
>disappearing overnight is the vast software base for the platform.

Yeah, I find OS X sooooooooooo impressive. And I thought vast
software base didn't matter--are you saying the Mac is lacking in
software choice??? Quick, someone reprogram him, he's admitted a Mac
downside.

Peter Hayes

07-14-2003, 09:42 PM

Steve Hanson wrote:

> Peter Hayes wrote in <5p1neb.5g2.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:
>
>>Steve Hanson wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hayes wrote in <hkckeb.4n2.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:
>>>
>>>>To someone used to Microsoft's previous offerings it certainly appears to
>>>>be "rock solid", but I've seen it crash, lock solid even, purely by
>>>>removing the aerial from the TV card.
>>>
>>> I've seen every OS crash, lock solid even. The fact that you think
>>> you've proved a point makes you look even more like a frustrated
>>> advocate.
>>
>>You said, in your previous post, in text you've now snipped, "I've used XP
>>and can also report that it is a rock solid OS". So which is it? "Rock
>>solid"? Or does it crash and burn "like every other OS"?
>
> Even rocks are not unbreakable. The times I've seen it crash are from
> hardware failures, specifically bad memory. Would you blame the OS
> for that or say it wasn't stable?

Hardware faults don't count in this context. The best os on the planet won't
run if the hardware breaks.

>>>>> If this makes you whine, so be it. Climbing up a tree
>>>>> and pretending it's a shitty OS is the last refuge of the advocate.
>>
>>Advocating what?
>
> Pig ignorance from the sounds of your posts.

Had a bad day at the office?

>>>>I believe Win2000 to be Microsoft's best OS, XP may be comparable, but its
>>>>licencing is too viral.
>>>
>>> In other words you probably haven't used it, or you could say for sure
>>> how XP compares to 2000.
>>
>>XP came with my laptop, courtesy of the Microsoft tax. It's still there and
>>I use it once in a while, but all the silly patronising junk really gets on
>>my wick, "Click here for valuable updates", "Click here for your new
>>program", etc. Run CD Creator and it wants to phone home. Why? Watchdog
>>gives up after five minutes, every time. Why?
>
> "Click here for your new program"? Oh, I won't bother to ask for
> specifics to your random drivel, I'm sure you can't remember anymore.
> You've just proving my point, you know.
>
>>I run Win2000 via VMWare on my laptop, to run an app that doesn't run under
>>Wine. It seems solid, and doesn't have the smell of spyware that infests XP.
>
> Yeah, loads of spyware. If you're too clueless to disable the extra
> applets that the laptop vendor threw in, don't blame Microsoft.
>
>>> Hint: it's significantly better.
>>
>>How do you define "better". More stable? More extras, like the basic CD
>>burner than even Dell had to supplement with CD Creator? (I'm told it has a
>>CD burner, I've never used it). Where are the really useful extras like
>>virtual desktops? Promised for Longhorn, in a pathetic quad split form.
>>Sheesh.
>
> Better Terminal Services, numerous shell improvements,

It still doesn't seem to be able to remember a command line history. Or do I
have to buy Pro for that?

> better legacy software support,

So that'll be the likes of Partition Magic 5 that doesn't run on XP, so I'd
have to buy a new version if I didn't have a Linux alternative?

> faster bootup,

That's true. Of course, /real/ OSs don't need rebooting, they just stay up for
weeks on end. And don't need rebooting just to alter some configuration, or
after installing a new app, or adding a network service, or after you've
disinfected it when the latest virus has worked its magic, or...

> and better overall performance.

I believe that's true.

> I tossed away CD Creator long ago (it's a POS), people who know what
> they're doing use apps like Nero, which I'm assuming you've never
> heard of.

I've heard of it, never used it, don't need to. I just right click on a
file/folder in KDE 3.1 and accept the copy to CD option. Simple.

> Virtual desktops? Gee I got 'em right now with a powertoy. You can
> wait if you want, though. Maybe someone will magically teach you how
> to get them.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/downloads/powertoys.asp

I changed /pro/ to /home/ as I declined Dell's kind offer of XP Pro
for an extra £71 + VAT.

So Microsoft have finally "innovated" something twm came with in my first
Linux install, Slackware 1.x on my 486dx33 back in 1994. Wow.

It works well enough, shame about the pager - or lack thereof.

>>I guess you've never really used anything other than Windows or you'd soon
>>discover just how pathetic it is. The only thing that stops Windows
>>disappearing overnight is the vast software base for the platform.
>
> Yeah, I find OS X sooooooooooo impressive. And I thought vast
> software base didn't matter--are you saying the Mac is lacking in
> software choice???

Where did I say that?

--

Peter

Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail

Peter Hayes

07-16-2003, 01:37 AM

Steve Hanson wrote:

> Peter Hayes wrote in <qi4veb.ap1.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:
>
>>Steve Hanson wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hayes wrote in <5p1neb.5g2.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:
>>>
>>>>Steve Hanson wrote:

<...>

>>>>> Hint: it's significantly better.
>>>>
>>>>How do you define "better". More stable? More extras, like the basic CD
>>>>burner than even Dell had to supplement with CD Creator? (I'm told it has
>>>>a CD burner, I've never used it). Where are the really useful extras like
>>>>virtual desktops? Promised for Longhorn, in a pathetic quad split form.
>>>>Sheesh.
>>>
>>> Better Terminal Services, numerous shell improvements,
>>
>>It still doesn't seem to be able to remember a command line history. Or do I
>>have to buy Pro for that?
>
> It remembers commands just fine--as did previous versions of the NT
> codebase.

Kill the Command Prompt window and the history is lost.

>>> better legacy software support,
>>
>>So that'll be the likes of Partition Magic 5 that doesn't run on XP, so I'd
>>have to buy a new version if I didn't have a Linux alternative?
>
> Obviously it's next to impossible to maintain compatibility to disk
> utilities when upgrading the file system. Don't be a jackass.

PM5 won't run on XP even though the XP partition was created with PM5.

>>> faster bootup,
>>
>>That's true. Of course, /real/ OSs don't need rebooting, they just stay up
>>for weeks on end. And don't need rebooting just to alter some configuration,
>>or after installing a new app, or adding a network service, or after you've
>>disinfected it when the latest virus has worked its magic, or...
>
> If you're talking about Mac OS (this is csma), then let me know when
> or if OS X will become a real OS.

That'll be long before anything from Microsoft.

> If you're talking about Linux,
> sorry--a real OS has a well-designed GUI and not some shitty looking
> clone of mismatched UI elements seen elsewhere (plus circular
> references to help documents that follow no standard and often don't
> exist or exist in a state of tantalizing incompletion). I don't give
> a fuck if you never have to reboot it.

How many man-millennia have been wasted rebooting Windows systems because of
Microsoft's incompetent design philosophy?

>>> and better overall performance.
>>
>>I believe that's true.
>
> Who gives a fuck what you believe? It's obvious you've never used it
> long enough to evaluate the claim. If you accept that XP has better
> performance than why did you question what it's better at in the first
> place?!? Self-stultifying retard.

I asked why you thought it was "significantly better". So far all I've seen is
that the OS runs apps a little faster. I thought you might come up with some
other examples of how it is "significantly better", but I guess I was
expecting too much.

>>> Virtual desktops? Gee I got 'em right now with a powertoy. You can
>>> wait if you want, though. Maybe someone will magically teach you how
>>> to get them.
>>>
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/downloads/powertoys.asp
>>
>>I changed pro to home as I declined Dell's kind offer of XP Pro
>>for an extra £71 + VAT.
>>
>>So Microsoft have finally "innovated" something twm came with in my first
>>Linux install, Slackware 1.x on my 486dx33 back in 1994. Wow.
>>
>>It works well enough, shame about the pager - or lack thereof.

> Boy, you're a complete prat. You claimed XP had no way of using
> virtual desktops,

I asked "Where are the really useful extras like virtual desktops?" They
should be part of the OS, not in some unsupported extra package.

I didn't say anything about XP not being able to use Virtual Desktops, there
are a number of third party shareware offerings available, and have been for
some time. I looked at a few when I purchased this machine nearly a year ago.

> Virtual desktops have been available for Windows far before XP.

By Microsoft?

--

Peter

Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail

foo

07-16-2003, 03:54 AM

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:37:26 +0000, Peter Hayes
<peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> It remembers commands just fine--as did previous versions of the NT
>> codebase.
>
>Kill the Command Prompt window and the history is lost.

When you close the window the history is lost - sure. What would you
expect to happen?

Peter Hayes

07-16-2003, 09:24 AM

foo wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:37:26 +0000, Peter Hayes
> <peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> It remembers commands just fine--as did previous versions of the NT
>>> codebase.
>>
>>Kill the Command Prompt window and the history is lost.
>
> When you close the window the history is lost - sure. What would you
> expect to happen?

I would expect the history to be remembered, so that next time I don't have to
type the same possibly error prone command.

I open a Linux terminal, press the cursor-up key and select the command, what
could be easier? That's what I like to happen.

--

Peter

Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail

Sandman

07-16-2003, 08:18 PM

In article <ehf9hv4mvjanqm121s4drskl2743kve8k7[at]4ax.com>, foo <foo[at]bar.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:37:26 +0000, Peter Hayes
> <peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> It remembers commands just fine--as did previous versions of the NT
> >> codebase.
> >
> >Kill the Command Prompt window and the history is lost.
>
> When you close the window the history is lost - sure. What would you
> expect to happen?

I'm guessing the exact opposite.

--
Sandman[.net]

foo

07-17-2003, 02:59 AM

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 08:24:56 +0000 (UTC), Peter Hayes
<peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>foo wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:37:26 +0000, Peter Hayes
>> <peter[at]NOSPAM.seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> It remembers commands just fine--as did previous versions of the NT
>>>> codebase.
>>>
>>>Kill the Command Prompt window and the history is lost.
>>
>> When you close the window the history is lost - sure. What would you
>> expect to happen?
>
>I would expect the history to be remembered, so that next time I don't have to
>type the same possibly error prone command.
>
>I open a Linux terminal, press the cursor-up key and select the command, what
>could be easier? That's what I like to happen.

(Not having the Mac on to try this) - you can close a terminal, and
then reopen another totally different terminal, hit the up-arrow key,
and you'll see your last typed command from the other terminal?

Steve Hanson

07-17-2003, 07:09 PM

Peter Hayes wrote in <6o62fb.tl7.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:

>Steve Hanson wrote:
>
>> Peter Hayes wrote in <qi4veb.ap1.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:
>>
>>>Steve Hanson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter Hayes wrote in <5p1neb.5g2.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:
>>>>
>>>>>Steve Hanson wrote:
>
><...>
>
>>>>>> Hint: it's significantly better.
>>>>>
>>>>>How do you define "better". More stable? More extras, like the basic CD
>>>>>burner than even Dell had to supplement with CD Creator? (I'm told it has
>>>>>a CD burner, I've never used it). Where are the really useful extras like
>>>>>virtual desktops? Promised for Longhorn, in a pathetic quad split form.
>>>>>Sheesh.
>>>>
>>>> Better Terminal Services, numerous shell improvements,
>>>
>>>It still doesn't seem to be able to remember a command line history. Or do I
>>>have to buy Pro for that?
>>
>> It remembers commands just fine--as did previous versions of the NT
>> codebase.
>
>Kill the Command Prompt window and the history is lost.
>
>>>> better legacy software support,
>>>
>>>So that'll be the likes of Partition Magic 5 that doesn't run on XP, so I'd
>>>have to buy a new version if I didn't have a Linux alternative?
>>
>> Obviously it's next to impossible to maintain compatibility to disk
>> utilities when upgrading the file system. Don't be a jackass.
>
>PM5 won't run on XP even though the XP partition was created with PM5.

Sounds like a problem with Partition Magic, doesn't it?

>>>> faster bootup,
>>>
>>>That's true. Of course, /real/ OSs don't need rebooting, they just stay up
>>>for weeks on end. And don't need rebooting just to alter some configuration,
>>>or after installing a new app, or adding a network service, or after you've
>>>disinfected it when the latest virus has worked its magic, or...
>>
>> If you're talking about Mac OS (this is csma), then let me know when
>> or if OS X will become a real OS.
>
>That'll be long before anything from Microsoft.
>
>> If you're talking about Linux,
>> sorry--a real OS has a well-designed GUI and not some shitty looking
>> clone of mismatched UI elements seen elsewhere (plus circular
>> references to help documents that follow no standard and often don't
>> exist or exist in a state of tantalizing incompletion). I don't give
>> a fuck if you never have to reboot it.
>
>How many man-millennia have been wasted rebooting Windows systems because of
>Microsoft's incompetent design philosophy?

Probably zero. How many man-millennia have been wasted by
hyperventilating Linux losers claiming their systems save time when
the complete mess of poor documentation, poor UI, and distros stuffed
with garbage amateur hour software shows why Linux on the desktop is
still going nowhere fast? If you spent that time working on improving
the system it might actually have become popular outside extreme geek
spheres.

>>>> and better overall performance.
>>>
>>>I believe that's true.
>>
>> Who gives a fuck what you believe? It's obvious you've never used it
>> long enough to evaluate the claim. If you accept that XP has better
>> performance than why did you question what it's better at in the first
>> place?!? Self-stultifying retard.
>
>I asked why you thought it was "significantly better". So far all I've seen is
>that the OS runs apps a little faster. I thought you might come up with some
>other examples of how it is "significantly better", but I guess I was
>expecting too much.

Know how to read? I've provided plenty of examples, most of which
prompted idiotic desultory replies from you.

>>>> Virtual desktops? Gee I got 'em right now with a powertoy. You can
>>>> wait if you want, though. Maybe someone will magically teach you how
>>>> to get them.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/downloads/powertoys.asp
>>>
>>>I changed pro to home as I declined Dell's kind offer of XP Pro
>>>for an extra £71 + VAT.
>>>
>>>So Microsoft have finally "innovated" something twm came with in my first
>>>Linux install, Slackware 1.x on my 486dx33 back in 1994. Wow.
>>>
>>>It works well enough, shame about the pager - or lack thereof.
>
>> Boy, you're a complete prat. You claimed XP had no way of using
>> virtual desktops,
>
>I asked "Where are the really useful extras like virtual desktops?" They
>should be part of the OS, not in some unsupported extra package.

You mean like the shitload of extra packages that every Linux distro
comes with? The GUI isn't even a part of your OS, it's just an add
on.

You fucking idiot, a Linux adovcate is just about the last person on
the planet who should complain about "unsupported extra packages".
Have you absolutely no clue even about the system you use every day???

>I didn't say anything about XP not being able to use Virtual Desktops, there
>are a number of third party shareware offerings available, and have been for
>some time. I looked at a few when I purchased this machine nearly a year ago.
>
>> Virtual desktops have been available for Windows far before XP.
>
>By Microsoft?

What difference does it make by whom? Again, it's hilarious to hear a
Linux evangelist claim it has to be built into the OS or else it
doesn't count.

foo

07-18-2003, 12:24 AM

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:00:48 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
wrote:

>> >I open a Linux terminal, press the cursor-up key and select the command,
>> >what
>> >could be easier? That's what I like to happen.
>>
>> (Not having the Mac on to try this) - you can close a terminal, and
>> then reopen another totally different terminal, hit the up-arrow key,
>> and you'll see your last typed command from the other terminal?
>
>Yup!

I opened Terminal.app, a terminal shell opened, I hit 'ls'<enter>,
closed the entire thing with Alt-Q, re-opened terminal, and hit the up
arrow. Nothing.

Same thing if I just close that shell window and then immediately
reopen another shell and hit up-arrow - no ls appears.

????

Peter Hayes

07-18-2003, 01:12 AM

Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <cvbehv4pdhou53q3svmlb4vorc96gturqb[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:00:48 GMT, Alan Baker <alangbaker[at]telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >I open a Linux terminal, press the cursor-up key and select the
>> >> >command, what
>> >> >could be easier? That's what I like to happen.
>> >>
>> >> (Not having the Mac on to try this) - you can close a terminal, and
>> >> then reopen another totally different terminal, hit the up-arrow key,
>> >> and you'll see your last typed command from the other terminal?
>> >
>> >Yup!
>>
>> I opened Terminal.app, a terminal shell opened, I hit 'ls'<enter>,
>> closed the entire thing with Alt-Q, re-opened terminal, and hit the up
>> arrow. Nothing.
>>
>> Same thing if I just close that shell window and then immediately
>> reopen another shell and hit up-arrow - no ls appears.
>>
>> ????
>>
>>
>
> It might depend on which shell you're using. I switched from the default
> (tcsh?) to bash. Try that and see what happens...

It's certainly the Linux bash shell I use, gives the full command history of
that terminal, not just the last command issued. Very useful for that half
forgotten command.

--

Peter

Remove NOSPAM. to e-mail

Peter Hayes

07-18-2003, 01:24 AM

Steve Hanson wrote:

<diatribe snippage throughout>

> Peter Hayes wrote in <6o62fb.tl7.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:
>
>>Steve Hanson wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hayes wrote in <qi4veb.ap1.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:
>>>
>>>>Steve Hanson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Hayes wrote in <5p1neb.5g2.ln[at]vlad.seahaze>:

<...>

>>>>> better legacy software support,
>>>>
>>>>So that'll be the likes of Partition Magic 5 that doesn't run on XP, so
>>>>I'd have to buy a new version if I didn't have a Linux alternative?
>>>
>>> Obviously it's next to impossible to maintain compatibility to disk
>>> utilities when upgrading the file system. Don't be a jackass.
>>
>>PM5 won't run on XP even though the XP partition was created with PM5.
>
> Sounds like a problem with Partition Magic, doesn't it?

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

>>>>> faster bootup,
>>>>
>>>>That's true. Of course, /real/ OSs don't need rebooting, they just stay up
>>>>for weeks on end. And don't need rebooting just to alter some
>>>>configuration, or after installing a new app, or adding a network service,
>>>>or after you've disinfected it when the latest virus has worked its magic,
>>>>or...
>>>
>>> If you're talking about Mac OS (this is csma), then let me know when
>>> or if OS X will become a real OS.
>>
>>That'll be long before anything from Microsoft.
>>
>>> If you're talking about Linux,
>>> sorry--a real OS has a well-designed GUI and not some shitty looking
>>> clone of mismatched UI elements seen elsewhere (plus circular
>>> references to help documents that follow no standard and often don't
>>> exist or exist in a state of tantalizing incompletion). I don't give
>>> a fuck if you never have to reboot it.
>>
>>How many man-millennia have been wasted rebooting Windows systems because of
>>Microsoft's incompetent design philosophy?
>
> Probably zero.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

Every new app needs a reboot to complete the install, every new peripheral
needs a reboot for driver installation. Every new virus/worm infestation
needs a reboot (or worse) after disinfection, Gruel is only this week's
offering - there'll be another along next