Install win xp over a network
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: VGA clock setting?
Next: SATA II Harddisks ?
From: kony on 4 Jul 2005 10:04 On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:20:29 -0500, David Maynard <nospam(a)private.net> wrote: >kony wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard >> <nospam(a)private.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>>>so are any concerns that conflict >>>>with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers. >>> >>>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed when the >>>other party is concerned with their wallet too? >> >> >> Did you overlook those last two words I wrote? > >No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered. > >But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was 'free' while >simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money. No, you were the one arguing about it costing them money, so within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd have to actually add features rather than subtract them if they had a competitive market.
From: kony on 4 Jul 2005 10:05 On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:30:32 -0500, David Maynard <nospam(a)private.net> wrote: >kony wrote: > >> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:06:22 +1000, "Rod Speed" >> <rod_speed(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>Anyone with a clue realises that those didnt even install it by default. >> >> >> >> You bring up a very important point- we're all just >> hamster's running on the MS treadmill, we do not choose what >> to do with our PCs, only to use the defaults and click every >> time an "OK/Cancel" button pops up. >> >> At least, that seems to be your argument if you think that >> 'wasn't installed by default' matters at all. > >No. The point is it's de facto evidence that Netbeui hasn't been a >preferred or recommended protocol for ages. Really? So we should assume that 640 x 480 resolution was preferred too!
From: David Maynard on 4 Jul 2005 10:44 kony wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:20:29 -0500, David Maynard > <nospam(a)private.net> wrote: > > >>kony wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard >>><nospam(a)private.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>so are any concerns that conflict >>>>>with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers. >>>> >>>>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed when the >>>>other party is concerned with their wallet too? >>> >>> >>>Did you overlook those last two words I wrote? >> >>No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered. >> >>But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was 'free' while >>simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money. > > > No, Yes. You said "[trivial] are any concerns that conflict with MS's wallet," which is a clear 'accusation' that they were motivated by cost cutting even though you simultaneously claimed it costs nothing. > you were the one arguing about it costing them money, Yes, I was and am. Because it does. > so > within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd > have to actually add features rather than subtract them if > they had a competitive market. Or increase the price to cover the expense to 'support' a meaningless protocol or sacrifice some other feature in exchange. Not to mention that in a 'competitive market' there's no advantage in 'supporting' inferiority. You're letting emotion obscure reasoning.
From: David Maynard on 4 Jul 2005 10:52 kony wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:30:32 -0500, David Maynard > <nospam(a)private.net> wrote: > > >>kony wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:06:22 +1000, "Rod Speed" >>><rod_speed(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>Anyone with a clue realises that those didnt even install it by default. >>> >>> >>> >>>You bring up a very important point- we're all just >>>hamster's running on the MS treadmill, we do not choose what >>>to do with our PCs, only to use the defaults and click every >>>time an "OK/Cancel" button pops up. >>> >>>At least, that seems to be your argument if you think that >>>'wasn't installed by default' matters at all. >> >>No. The point is it's de facto evidence that Netbeui hasn't been a >>preferred or recommended protocol for ages. > > > Really? Yes, really. > > So we should assume that 640 x 480 resolution was preferred > too! As a default, yes, because everything would work with it and, if one didn't know any better, you could use it that way for the rest of your life. It 'works'. Everything doesn't work with Netbeui no matter how you 'configure' it. In fact, very little, in the way of network topologies, works with it.
From: John Doe on 4 Jul 2005 13:39
David Maynard <nospam(a)private.net> wrote: > kony wrote: >> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 03:20:29 -0500, David Maynard >> <nospam(a)private.net> wrote: >> >> >>>kony wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:34:59 -0500, David Maynard >>>><nospam(a)private.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>so are any concerns that conflict >>>>>>with MS's wallet. After all, we're only paying customers. >>>>> >>>>>Why is it that people who want things for 'free' get incensed when the >>>>>other party is concerned with their wallet too? >>>> >>>> >>>>Did you overlook those last two words I wrote? >>> >>>No. You didn't 'pay' for what isn't offered. >>> >>>But it is interesting that you kept claiming 'support' was 'free' while >>>simultaneously accusing them of dropping it to save money. >> >> >> No, > > Yes. You said "[trivial] are any concerns that conflict with MS's wallet," > which is a clear 'accusation' that they were motivated by cost cutting even > though you simultaneously claimed it costs nothing. > >> you were the one arguing about it costing them money, > > Yes, I was and am. Because it does. > >> so >> within that context it's still a poor excuse because they'd >> have to actually add features rather than subtract them if >> they had a competitive market. > > Or increase the price to cover the expense to 'support' a meaningless > protocol or sacrifice some other feature in exchange. > > Not to mention that in a 'competitive market' there's no advantage in > 'supporting' inferiority. Are you talking about Windows? As decided by our courts, Microsoft in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating system market. > You're letting emotion obscure reasoning. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. |