Rex Ballard wrote: > I thought this was a particularly good demonstration of Vista's > reliability > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFx62_Iadjg&feature=related > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqalHbrttV0&feature=related > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiXtIw4fMEU&feature=related > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8akgG2BpTQ&feature=related > > Windows for life support > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNqPTOb31S8&feature=related > > Enjoy! 4 bogus videos is all you have? See www.newegg.com for hundreds of Good and Excellent Vista reviews.

"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message news:Mdn8j.37803$L%6.23723@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > See www.newegg.com for hundreds of Good and Excellent Vista reviews. > Only hundreds? is that the best you can do?

Gordon wrote: > "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message > news:Mdn8j.37803$L%6.23723@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> >> See www.newegg.com for hundreds of Good and Excellent Vista reviews. > Only hundreds? is that the best you can do? What are you trying to say, advocate-wannabe who's wrong nearly every time he opens his mouth? You sure can't find as many good to excellent Linux reviews in one place. Why do you suppose that is? And why has a "bloated, buggy, costly" OS from an "evil, criminal, incompetent" organization far surpassed desktop Linux so quickly (6 months after its introduction) and so completely (at least 2x-5x the usage share already)? (Gordo slink starts now!)

bobbie wrote: Learn how to snip, boobie. > > Yeah, sure is hard to beat reviews like this: > http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16832116213 44% Excellent 27% Good Xandros Desktop Home Edition http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16832106024 30% Excellent 26% Good

* DFS fired off this tart reply: > 4 bogus videos is all you have? > > See www.newegg.com for hundreds of Good and Excellent Vista reviews. What is easier to astroturf? A single site or the whole web? Get real. -- Tux rox!

* bobbie fired off this tart reply: > Yeah, sure is hard to beat reviews like this: > http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16832116213 "Pros: Aero is pretty and it comes with Texas Hold em" Finally! The update to Solitaire and Minesweeper we've all been waiting for! "Cons: Crashes A LOT, Drivers STILL don't work, Programs STILL don't work. I don't understand why radio shows and pod casts are calling this more 'stable' than XP, they must be getting something under the table." I like this one (having 4 Gb makes me smug): "Other Thoughts: In-The-Sandbox: Memory in a 32-bit system is mathematically limited to 2^32 (4.29 Gb). However, in Vista there is indeed a way to work around the limitation, read: . Note that you must have a 64-bit CPU. If you prefer to run large RAM natively, then purchase Vista 64-bit." I wonder if Adobe has gotten 64-bit Flash to work yet? http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=6b3af6c9 Flash Player is not supported for playback in a 64-bit browser. However, you can run Flash Player in a 32-bit browser running on a 64-bit operating system. Nope. -- Tux rox!

* DFS fired off this tart reply: > You sure can't find as many good to excellent Linux reviews in one place. > Why do you suppose that is? 1. Market share. Silly! 2. Lack of astroturfers and Microsoft shills. > And why has a "bloated, buggy, costly" OS from an "evil, criminal, > incompetent" organization far surpassed desktop Linux so quickly (6 months > after its introduction) and so completely (at least 2x-5x the usage share > already)? > > (Gordo slink starts now!) The answer is so obvious, /you/ should be slinking, ashamed of some combination disengenuousness, ignorance, and a paucity of reasoning powers. Not to mention a severe deficit in the irony-detection department. Don't you even /read/ the news on the web, let alone here? If you did, you wouldn't be parading your hermit-like world view around here. -- Tux rox!

"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message news:Rmw8j.29763$rc2.25650@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > And why has a "bloated, buggy, costly" OS from an "evil, criminal, > incompetent" organization far surpassed desktop Linux so quickly (6 months > after its introduction) and so completely (at least 2x-5x the usage share > already)? <sigh> - this hoary old rubbish again - 80 million licences SHIPPED from MS does NOT equate to 80 million installations out of the factory gate at the OEMs - in fact if MS runs anything like Ford Motor Company it's discovered ZERO stocks, but I wouldn't expect a dummy like you to know what ZERO stocks mean.....

* chrisv fired off this tart reply: > Linonut wrote: > >>Finally! The update to Solitaire and Minesweeper we've all been waiting >>for! > > Maybe they've updated Notepad to handle mulitple files at once? "How many boxes will it sell?" "None." "Then fuhgeddaboudid!!!" > Not! Too difficult for mighty M$, it seems... Use WordPad. It even handles UNIX-style newlines (Notepad doesn't). -- Tux rox!

* bugbuster fired off this tart reply: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:13:42 -0500, Linonut wrote: > >> I wonder if Adobe has gotten 64-bit Flash to work yet? >> >> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=6b3af6c9 >> >> Flash Player is not supported for playback in a 64-bit browser. >> >> However, you can run Flash Player in a 32-bit browser running on a >> 64-bit operating system. >> >> Nope. > > Not a problem with Linux. I'm running Mandriva 2007.1 64-bit with 64-bit > firefox. Flash works fine using nspluginwrapper. > > Bug Buggin' with Ruud! <grin> I have that installed. Obviously I need to configure it properly. How do I wrap Adobe Flash in it? Just a hint or link should be enough for me. (I suppose I could googoo for it, too, but what the heck.) -- Tux rox!

Linonut wrote: > * DFS fired off this tart reply: > >> 4 bogus videos is all you have? >> >> See www.newegg.com for hundreds of Good and Excellent Vista reviews. > > What is easier to astroturf? A single site or the whole web? Another idiotic claim that MS posts fake reviews. You cola morons are just... too moronic for words sometimes. > Get real. It's cola idiots that are out of touch with reality.

Linonut wrote: > * DFS fired off this tart reply: > >> You sure can't find as many good to excellent Linux reviews in one >> place. Why do you suppose that is? > > 1. Market share. Silly! > 2. Lack of astroturfers and Microsoft shills. Provide some proof any of those reviews was posted by an "astroturfer" or MS shill. You can't, of course, but that doesn't stop you from claiming it, ala Ballard and 7. Bad company! >> And why has a "bloated, buggy, costly" OS from an "evil, criminal, >> incompetent" organization far surpassed desktop Linux so quickly (6 >> months after its introduction) and so completely (at least 2x-5x the >> usage share already)? >> >> (Gordo slink starts now!) > > The answer is so obvious, It is obvious (Linux/OSS sucks bad - OEMs won't sell it, and the public won't use it), but I like to hear the truly idiotic whines and spins put on it by cola "advocates". > /you/ should be slinking, ashamed of some > combination disengenuousness, ignorance, and a paucity of reasoning > powers. Not to mention a severe deficit in the irony-detection > department. Look who's talking. > Don't you even /read/ the news on the web, let alone here? If you > did, you wouldn't be parading your hermit-like world view around here. huh?

On 2007-12-14, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Tip: Don't email an attached .txt file with UNIX-style newlines to > someone using Outhouse. It will "helpfully" convert all the newlines > to DOS style. Idiots. What content-type is the attachement? If it is text/plain, isn't that the correct behaviour? I seem to recall that the way it is supposed to work is that the sender converts to the internet standard (lines terminated by CR LF), and the receiver converts to the local line terminator (CR LF on Windows, LF on Unix-like systems, CR on pre-OS X Macs, for example). If you want to send a text file and have it show up as LF terminated on all systems, you have to send it using an encoding that handles binary data.

Gordon wrote: > "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message > news:Rmw8j.29763$rc2.25650@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >> >> And why has a "bloated, buggy, costly" OS from an "evil, criminal, >> incompetent" organization far surpassed desktop Linux so quickly (6 >> months after its introduction) and so completely (at least 2x-5x the >> usage share already)? > > <sigh> - this hoary old rubbish again - 80 million licences SHIPPED > from MS does NOT equate to 80 million installations out of the > factory gate at the OEMs Who said it did?

* Tim Smith fired off this tart reply: > On 2007-12-14, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Tip: Don't email an attached .txt file with UNIX-style newlines to >> someone using Outhouse. It will "helpfully" convert all the newlines >> to DOS style. Idiots. > > What content-type is the attachement? If it is text/plain, isn't that > the correct behaviour? > > I seem to recall that the way it is supposed to work is that the sender > converts to the internet standard (lines terminated by CR LF), and the > receiver converts to the local line terminator (CR LF on Windows, LF on > Unix-like systems, CR on pre-OS X Macs, for example). > > If you want to send a text file and have it show up as LF terminated on > all systems, you have to send it using an encoding that handles binary > data. Yeah, like *.piz! (Get it? Get it? Our stupid email system would block ZIP files as executable, but PIZ was okay. At one time, it also untarred files looking for viruses. Shank you very much, Microsoft!) It is difficult for me to believe that an attachment is supposed to be modified, no matter what its MIME type. But I'll let you track that one down <grin>. It could be that Outhouse's mistake is in "helpfully" tagging it as "text/plain"? -- Tux rox!

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:04:07 -0500, Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote: > Yeah, like *.piz! (Get it? Get it? Our stupid email system would > block ZIP files as executable, but PIZ was okay. At one time, it also > untarred files looking for viruses. Shank you very much, Microsoft!) Yeah, I get it. The mail system where I work still operates that way. Since Outlook is the standard, if you mail an executable the recipient won't be able to open it, even inter-office. The only explanation I can fathom for why we put up with that crap is that managers don't mail ZIP files or executables. -- -| Bob Hauck -| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert -| http://www.haucks.org/

* Bob Hauck fired off this tart reply: > On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:04:07 -0500, Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote: > >> Yeah, like *.piz! (Get it? Get it? Our stupid email system would >> block ZIP files as executable, but PIZ was okay. At one time, it also >> untarred files looking for viruses. Shank you very much, Microsoft!) > > Yeah, I get it. The mail system where I work still operates that way. > Since Outlook is the standard, if you mail an executable the recipient > won't be able to open it, even inter-office. > > The only explanation I can fathom for why we put up with that crap is > that managers don't mail ZIP files or executables. Yeah, they attach DOC or XLS or PPT files :-< -- Tux rox!

* DFS fired off this tart reply: > Probably. It's free of cost, and it's good enough for some users/uses (and > very good for others). But a far more troublesome issue for MS is how to > get users off XP and onto Vista. I'll agree on that one, for the desktop. Maybe it will make them feel a little more fallible, and hence more supportive of the consumer. -- Tux rox!

Rex Ballard wrote: > I thought this was a particularly good demonstration of Vista's > reliability > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFx62_Iadjg&feature=related > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqalHbrttV0&feature=related > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiXtIw4fMEU&feature=related > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8akgG2BpTQ&feature=related > > Windows for life support > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNqPTOb31S8&feature=related > > Enjoy! 4 bogus videos is all you have? See www.newegg.com for hundreds of Good and Excellent Vista reviews.

"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message news:Mdn8j.37803$L%6.23723@bignews3.bellsouth.net... > > See www.newegg.com for hundreds of Good and Excellent Vista reviews. > Only hundreds? is that the best you can do?

Gordon wrote: > "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message > news:Mdn8j.37803$L%6.23723@bignews3.bellsouth.net... >> >> See www.newegg.com for hundreds of Good and Excellent Vista reviews. > Only hundreds? is that the best you can do? What are you trying to say, advocate-wannabe who's wrong nearly every time he opens his mouth? You sure can't find as many good to excellent Linux reviews in one place. Why do you suppose that is? And why has a "bloated, buggy, costly" OS from an "evil, criminal, incompetent" organization far surpassed desktop Linux so quickly (6 months after its introduction) and so completely (at least 2x-5x the usage share already)? (Gordo slink starts now!)

bobbie wrote: Learn how to snip, boobie. > > Yeah, sure is hard to beat reviews like this: > http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16832116213 44% Excellent 27% Good Xandros Desktop Home Edition http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16832106024 30% Excellent 26% Good

* DFS fired off this tart reply: > 4 bogus videos is all you have? > > See www.newegg.com for hundreds of Good and Excellent Vista reviews. What is easier to astroturf? A single site or the whole web? Get real. -- Tux rox!

* bobbie fired off this tart reply: > Yeah, sure is hard to beat reviews like this: > http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16832116213 "Pros: Aero is pretty and it comes with Texas Hold em" Finally! The update to Solitaire and Minesweeper we've all been waiting for! "Cons: Crashes A LOT, Drivers STILL don't work, Programs STILL don't work. I don't understand why radio shows and pod casts are calling this more 'stable' than XP, they must be getting something under the table." I like this one (having 4 Gb makes me smug): "Other Thoughts: In-The-Sandbox: Memory in a 32-bit system is mathematically limited to 2^32 (4.29 Gb). However, in Vista there is indeed a way to work around the limitation, read: . Note that you must have a 64-bit CPU. If you prefer to run large RAM natively, then purchase Vista 64-bit." I wonder if Adobe has gotten 64-bit Flash to work yet? http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=6b3af6c9 Flash Player is not supported for playback in a 64-bit browser. However, you can run Flash Player in a 32-bit browser running on a 64-bit operating system. Nope. -- Tux rox!

* DFS fired off this tart reply: > You sure can't find as many good to excellent Linux reviews in one place. > Why do you suppose that is? 1. Market share. Silly! 2. Lack of astroturfers and Microsoft shills. > And why has a "bloated, buggy, costly" OS from an "evil, criminal, > incompetent" organization far surpassed desktop Linux so quickly (6 months > after its introduction) and so completely (at least 2x-5x the usage share > already)? > > (Gordo slink starts now!) The answer is so obvious, /you/ should be slinking, ashamed of some combination disengenuousness, ignorance, and a paucity of reasoning powers. Not to mention a severe deficit in the irony-detection department. Don't you even /read/ the news on the web, let alone here? If you did, you wouldn't be parading your hermit-like world view around here. -- Tux rox!

"DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message news:Rmw8j.29763$rc2.25650@bignews1.bellsouth.net... > > And why has a "bloated, buggy, costly" OS from an "evil, criminal, > incompetent" organization far surpassed desktop Linux so quickly (6 months > after its introduction) and so completely (at least 2x-5x the usage share > already)? <sigh> - this hoary old rubbish again - 80 million licences SHIPPED from MS does NOT equate to 80 million installations out of the factory gate at the OEMs - in fact if MS runs anything like Ford Motor Company it's discovered ZERO stocks, but I wouldn't expect a dummy like you to know what ZERO stocks mean.....

* chrisv fired off this tart reply: > Linonut wrote: > >>Finally! The update to Solitaire and Minesweeper we've all been waiting >>for! > > Maybe they've updated Notepad to handle mulitple files at once? "How many boxes will it sell?" "None." "Then fuhgeddaboudid!!!" > Not! Too difficult for mighty M$, it seems... Use WordPad. It even handles UNIX-style newlines (Notepad doesn't). -- Tux rox!

* bugbuster fired off this tart reply: > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:13:42 -0500, Linonut wrote: > >> I wonder if Adobe has gotten 64-bit Flash to work yet? >> >> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=6b3af6c9 >> >> Flash Player is not supported for playback in a 64-bit browser. >> >> However, you can run Flash Player in a 32-bit browser running on a >> 64-bit operating system. >> >> Nope. > > Not a problem with Linux. I'm running Mandriva 2007.1 64-bit with 64-bit > firefox. Flash works fine using nspluginwrapper. > > Bug Buggin' with Ruud! <grin> I have that installed. Obviously I need to configure it properly. How do I wrap Adobe Flash in it? Just a hint or link should be enough for me. (I suppose I could googoo for it, too, but what the heck.) -- Tux rox!

Linonut wrote: > * DFS fired off this tart reply: > >> 4 bogus videos is all you have? >> >> See www.newegg.com for hundreds of Good and Excellent Vista reviews. > > What is easier to astroturf? A single site or the whole web? Another idiotic claim that MS posts fake reviews. You cola morons are just... too moronic for words sometimes. > Get real. It's cola idiots that are out of touch with reality.

Linonut wrote: > * DFS fired off this tart reply: > >> You sure can't find as many good to excellent Linux reviews in one >> place. Why do you suppose that is? > > 1. Market share. Silly! > 2. Lack of astroturfers and Microsoft shills. Provide some proof any of those reviews was posted by an "astroturfer" or MS shill. You can't, of course, but that doesn't stop you from claiming it, ala Ballard and 7. Bad company! >> And why has a "bloated, buggy, costly" OS from an "evil, criminal, >> incompetent" organization far surpassed desktop Linux so quickly (6 >> months after its introduction) and so completely (at least 2x-5x the >> usage share already)? >> >> (Gordo slink starts now!) > > The answer is so obvious, It is obvious (Linux/OSS sucks bad - OEMs won't sell it, and the public won't use it), but I like to hear the truly idiotic whines and spins put on it by cola "advocates". > /you/ should be slinking, ashamed of some > combination disengenuousness, ignorance, and a paucity of reasoning > powers. Not to mention a severe deficit in the irony-detection > department. Look who's talking. > Don't you even /read/ the news on the web, let alone here? If you > did, you wouldn't be parading your hermit-like world view around here. huh?

On 2007-12-14, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Tip: Don't email an attached .txt file with UNIX-style newlines to > someone using Outhouse. It will "helpfully" convert all the newlines > to DOS style. Idiots. What content-type is the attachement? If it is text/plain, isn't that the correct behaviour? I seem to recall that the way it is supposed to work is that the sender converts to the internet standard (lines terminated by CR LF), and the receiver converts to the local line terminator (CR LF on Windows, LF on Unix-like systems, CR on pre-OS X Macs, for example). If you want to send a text file and have it show up as LF terminated on all systems, you have to send it using an encoding that handles binary data.

Gordon wrote: > "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote in message > news:Rmw8j.29763$rc2.25650@bignews1.bellsouth.net... >> >> And why has a "bloated, buggy, costly" OS from an "evil, criminal, >> incompetent" organization far surpassed desktop Linux so quickly (6 >> months after its introduction) and so completely (at least 2x-5x the >> usage share already)? > > <sigh> - this hoary old rubbish again - 80 million licences SHIPPED > from MS does NOT equate to 80 million installations out of the > factory gate at the OEMs Who said it did?

* Tim Smith fired off this tart reply: > On 2007-12-14, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Tip: Don't email an attached .txt file with UNIX-style newlines to >> someone using Outhouse. It will "helpfully" convert all the newlines >> to DOS style. Idiots. > > What content-type is the attachement? If it is text/plain, isn't that > the correct behaviour? > > I seem to recall that the way it is supposed to work is that the sender > converts to the internet standard (lines terminated by CR LF), and the > receiver converts to the local line terminator (CR LF on Windows, LF on > Unix-like systems, CR on pre-OS X Macs, for example). > > If you want to send a text file and have it show up as LF terminated on > all systems, you have to send it using an encoding that handles binary > data. Yeah, like *.piz! (Get it? Get it? Our stupid email system would block ZIP files as executable, but PIZ was okay. At one time, it also untarred files looking for viruses. Shank you very much, Microsoft!) It is difficult for me to believe that an attachment is supposed to be modified, no matter what its MIME type. But I'll let you track that one down <grin>. It could be that Outhouse's mistake is in "helpfully" tagging it as "text/plain"? -- Tux rox!

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:04:07 -0500, Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote: > Yeah, like *.piz! (Get it? Get it? Our stupid email system would > block ZIP files as executable, but PIZ was okay. At one time, it also > untarred files looking for viruses. Shank you very much, Microsoft!) Yeah, I get it. The mail system where I work still operates that way. Since Outlook is the standard, if you mail an executable the recipient won't be able to open it, even inter-office. The only explanation I can fathom for why we put up with that crap is that managers don't mail ZIP files or executables. -- -| Bob Hauck -| "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert -| http://www.haucks.org/

* Bob Hauck fired off this tart reply: > On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:04:07 -0500, Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote: > >> Yeah, like *.piz! (Get it? Get it? Our stupid email system would >> block ZIP files as executable, but PIZ was okay. At one time, it also >> untarred files looking for viruses. Shank you very much, Microsoft!) > > Yeah, I get it. The mail system where I work still operates that way. > Since Outlook is the standard, if you mail an executable the recipient > won't be able to open it, even inter-office. > > The only explanation I can fathom for why we put up with that crap is > that managers don't mail ZIP files or executables. Yeah, they attach DOC or XLS or PPT files :-< -- Tux rox!

* DFS fired off this tart reply: > Probably. It's free of cost, and it's good enough for some users/uses (and > very good for others). But a far more troublesome issue for MS is how to > get users off XP and onto Vista. I'll agree on that one, for the desktop. Maybe it will make them feel a little more fallible, and hence more supportive of the consumer. -- Tux rox!