Install win xp over a network
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: VGA clock setting?
Next: SATA II Harddisks ?
From: CBFalconer on 4 Jul 2005 14:01 David Maynard wrote: > kony wrote: > .... snip ... > >> Howvever, you again presuppose I suggest MS should be >> accountable for something. I do not. I dont' expect to >> call them up and be told how to Netbeui anything. > > If you also don't care if it works 'right', whatever that might > mean (a non trivial thing to define as well), then you're not > talking about "support" and the issue is moot. > .... snip ... >> >> Only in one narrow definition of "support", which is why I >> mentioned that previously, the context of a "support" >> definition. Clearly I do not put much weight in what >> WIndows officially supports in your mind, since in my mind, >> it doesn't even officiall or non-officially "support" things >> they claim it "suports", like security. COULD it be set up >> to be more secure? Yes, but likewise, Netbeui could be set >> up to work. Support HAS to be taken in context. > > Now I see what the problem is: your vision of 'support'. And I'm > telling you that even if you *think* nothing has 'changed' it has > to be retested. And if you provide 'support' you have to at least > provide bug tracking and some level of assistance, even if it's > to tell someone it doesn't work that way when they screw it up. > > And that doesn't even count that the odds you'll find nothing to > 'fix', or a workaround to explain, after an O.S. change is next > to zero. And the more sure you are "nothing can go wrong" the > closer to zero it is. > > I can't tell you how many times a programmer's answer to a problem > has been "but I didn't change anything THERE" only to be followed > a few hours later but "oh wait, that interacts with..." > > Remember, our original poster is all pissed because HE CAN'T MAKE > IT WORK and is incensed MS no longer 'supports' it because he > wants them to MAKE IT WORK. So what do you think *he* means by > 'support'? uSoft (and most others) have never offered support that includes 'make it work'. At most they will offer some lame excuse for it not working, and possibly a work around. Then there are also the instances of simple customer ignorance, which is not appreciably curtailed by the total absence of instruction and reference manuals. For the type of support you want you have to go to the open source world, and a few conscientious vendors. The latter are few and far between. As an example, I have found that FinePrint is a compromise (though they won't admit it). Several times I have informed them of a failing, awkwardness, etc. in their package, and they have effectively said "that's the way things are". However I have often found that within a couple of months their next release (available free) incorporates the fix. Sometimes it has waited for the next major release and has cost me $10.00 to upgrade. Real support, where someone knowledgeable listens, and goes off to investigate, only exists in the opensource and the odd small vendor. I have had that sort of thing in the dim past from various compiler (and other) vendors. Zortech used to be a shining example, until bought and destroyed by Symantec. The problem with such support is that you have to separate the "I bought a Yugo and it doesn't perform like a Benz" types and ignore them. > .... snip ... > >> "Support" does not mean "warranty" in general. > > Yes, it does, although not to the extent you're trying to imply. > > "We support X." > > Does it work? No. Are you going to make it work? No. Is there > a workaround? No. All support means is "We admit it is our product. Pay us". -- "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
From: Rod Speed on 4 Jul 2005 16:40 "John Doe" <jdoe(a)usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns968980B7A1EBCwisdomfolly(a)207.115.63.158... > 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. Like hell it does when even someone as stupid as you should have noticed Linux.
From: Rod Speed on 4 Jul 2005 16:45 kony <spam(a)spam.com> wrote in message news:airhc1t8uraiadcjn5kq3k96up68q1qtkc(a)4ax.com... > Rod Speed <rod_speed(a)yahoo.com> wrote >>> Interesting that they somehow fail to mention that Windows 98 >>> and Windows 2000 also included NetBeui as a supported protocal. >> 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. Best get your seems machinery seen to. Thats the evidence that MS gave up on it LONG ago and just kept it for the dinosaurs stupid enough to use it.
From: Rod Speed on 4 Jul 2005 16:47 "kony" <spam(a)spam.com> wrote in message news:dmgic15jtpj1jqe74g1ggfl34bnslct609(a)4ax.com... > 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! Thats done that way for completely different reasons and XP for example encourages you to change it to something better when the drivers have been installed and can support something better.
From: Colin C on 4 Jul 2005 19:47
"kony" <spam(a)spam.com> wrote in message news:dmgic15jtpj1jqe74g1ggfl34bnslct609(a)4ax.com... > So we should assume that 640 x 480 resolution was preferred > too! On a 19" screen it's great - I don't need my glasses |