Future power

I just read the article" Future Power..Windows XP shows the direction
Microsoft is going."which Steve refered to in his post of 11/15/2002,
entitled "Feeling increasingly uneasy about Microsoft? in GRC. news.

I have just gotten back on line recently, which is why I have not read
the post & article untill now, due to my computer hard drive & mother
board having to be replaced. Since I am in the process of reinstalling
everything, it occured to me that this might be a good time to get rid
of Windows XP & install something else, more secure. I noticed that
Steve had made the statement "I have settled upon Window 2000,
where I hope to remain until I no longer write software for windows."

Also, it has been suggested to me that I may be able to swap my XP
for the previous 2000. Does anyone know anything about this?
If it is not possible to swap, then how do I go about getting the 2000
installed in place of the XP?...Geo
0
George
12/11/2002 3:52:00 AM
grc.news.feedback 4181 articles. 0 followers. Follow

56 Replies
413 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 38

George N Baustert wrote:
> I just read the article" Future Power..Windows XP shows the direction
> Microsoft is going."which Steve refered to in his post of 11/15/2002,
> entitled "Feeling increasingly uneasy about Microsoft? in GRC. news.
> 
> I have just gotten back on line recently, which is why I have not read
> the post & article untill now, due to my computer hard drive & mother
> board having to be replaced. Since I am in the process of reinstalling
> everything, it occured to me that this might be a good time to get rid
> of Windows XP & install something else, more secure. I noticed that
> Steve had made the statement "I have settled upon Window 2000,
> where I hope to remain until I no longer write software for windows."
> 
> Also, it has been suggested to me that I may be able to swap my XP
> for the previous 2000. Does anyone know anything about this?
> If it is not possible to swap, then how do I go about getting the 2000
> installed in place of the XP?...Geo
> 
> 
Geo., I have varying degrees of experience with just about every MS 
operating system and knowing your situation I don't think you want to 
attempt that. My suggestion would be to study how you can tighten down 
the screws on your XP making it quite similar to Win2K. There are many 
good books, magazine articles and web sites were you can learn about 
corraling XP along with what you pick up in these newsgroups. Otherwise, 
get some one knowlegeable to remove your XP and install Win2K. If you 
have XP Home Edition, Win2k is going to cost more. It is the same price 
as XP Professional Edition(usually).

Book
0
Book
12/11/2002 4:21:00 AM
"George N Baustert" <gbaustert@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:at6cqc$2c5n$1@news.grc.com: 

> I just read the article" Future Power..Windows XP shows the
> direction Microsoft is going."which Steve refered to in his post
> of 11/15/2002, entitled "Feeling increasingly uneasy about
> Microsoft? in GRC. news. 

Ugh, not this article AGAIN...

Read the followups to Steve's post in grc.privacy.  The consensus, 
by all but the most fervent Microsoft-bashers, is that the article 
is nothing more than FUD written by someone who simply has a bone 
to pick with Microsoft.  The page is largely non-factual, and that 
which DOES have some truth to it has already been widely 
discussed--Windows Product Activation and the Media Player patch 
are two which spring to mind.  Not only that, but when the author 
of the article was e-mailed by a few of the posters here about the 
inaccuracies (or as I like to call it, blatant bullshit) and 
perhaps changing them, not only did he not change them...he didn't 
even reply to the e-mails pointing out some of the issues.  Perhaps 
this in itself wouldn't be so bad, except that the author actually 
encourages people who find mistakes 
to "please write the author".

But don't take my word for it...read the thread over in 
grc.privacy, read all the posts, and you'll see that the majority 
of the people feel the same as I do.  Of course, don't expect Steve 
to come out and say it...he'd rather post links to the FUD in an 
attempt to help people "see the forest through the trees" than 
actually state that maybe--just maybe--the article he used to 
educate the great, uneducated masses was wrong.

(And now cue the Gibson zealots with their cries of, "He never 
actually endorsed it, or said it was accurate!  He just posted a 
link to it saying that it would help 'see the forest through the 
trees'!  That's not saying it's true!  Honest, it's not!")
0
BlueJAMC
12/11/2002 4:40:00 AM
BlueJAMC <idontwantemail@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>The consensus, 
>by all but the most fervent Microsoft-bashers, is that the article 
>is nothing more than FUD written by someone who simply has a bone 
>to pick with Microsoft.

There you go agin, BJ.  Confusing your opinion with the consensus.

It's spelled c-o-n-s-e-s-u-s.  Try a dictionary.

Some of the article is hyperbole.  There's also plenty that's factual.

It is NOT "nothing more than FUD."  But the writer is also NOT unbiased
(as he foolishly claims) and the article is NOT wholly accurate.  His
errors of fact and of judgement tend to invalidate the whole.

Still, the facts is that given only the purest of unimpeachable facts,
experienced and intelligent people might quite often reach the same
overall conclusions the author did WRT Microsoft's propensities.

But don't worry, BJ.  I'm not counting you among that group.  Far be it
from me to consfuse my opinion with the consensus.

pchelp
0
pchelp
12/11/2002 5:30:00 AM
Sorry to upset anyone, BlueJAMC, but I could not get back to the
11/15/2002 grc.privacy reply posts, even though I selected "All
messages"in the set up section. That is why I posted here, although
it was Steve's reference to his using Windows 2000 that gave me
the idea to change. I don't know what caused my hard drive &
motherboard to fail, but it happened not long after I had downloaded
the MS SP-1 patch onto my computer, so I have not done so yet,
since I have begun reinstalling everything that I want back on my
system, not that I am sure what should be added back.

It was not just the article alone that has me thinking of making the
switch. I have the following notification from Windows Updates;

Critical Updates & Service Packs (27)
Windows XP (19)
Drivers Updates (3)
Windows XP Service Pack 1 (express) exclusive item
must be installed separately from other updates.

That's rediculous! There should be a Windows XP installation that
includes all of those updates, for a new system, which is what mine
more or less is. Moreover, I have had continuous problems with
my computer acting up, with messages of apologies from MS for
the inconveniences, & requests to send in a report of each of them,
as if they were going to do something about the problems, but the
problems persist. I don't need all of the features that XP offers, so
why put up with the grief. I want a system that is independent of
MS control, if that is at all possible, so how do I get it?...Geo
P.S. I still have not installed any of the updates & my system is
running just fine. I did download Xpedite to take care of the basic
prooblem.

"BlueJAMC" <idontwantemail@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns92E0E69F4CDF2dkgctc@204.1.226.226...
>
> Ugh, not this article AGAIN...
> But don't take my word for it...read the thread over in
> grc.privacy, read all the posts, and you'll see that the majority
> of the people feel the same as I do.  Of course, don't expect Steve
> to come out and say it...he'd rather post links to the FUD in an
> attempt to help people "see the forest through the trees" than
> actually state that maybe--just maybe--the article he used to
> educate the great, uneducated masses was wrong.
0
George
12/11/2002 5:33:00 AM
I wrote:

>It's spelled c-o-n-s-e-s-u-s.  Try a dictionary.

LOL!  I spelled it wrong!

SB:  c-o-n-s-e-n-s-u-s

pchelp
, shakin' 'is 'ead.
0
pchelp
12/11/2002 6:05:00 AM
BlueJAMC wrote:
> "George N Baustert" <gbaustert@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:at6cqc$2c5n$1@news.grc.com:
>
>> I just read the article" Future Power..Windows XP shows the
>> direction Microsoft is going."which Steve refered to in his post
>> of 11/15/2002, entitled "Feeling increasingly uneasy about
>> Microsoft? in GRC. news.
>
> Ugh, not this article AGAIN...
>
> Read the followups to Steve's post in grc.privacy.  The consensus,
> by all but the most fervent Microsoft-bashers, is that the article
> is nothing more than FUD written by someone who simply has a bone
> to pick with Microsoft.

That sounds a bit revisionist.

I assume you are grouping me with the fervent MS bashers, then?

I agree with you on some points, but I think the article was actually
pulling punches on some of the others.

*shrug* Either way, still no response from the author to my inquiries. This
does damage his credibility (to me, anyhow :P) and does significantly weaken
the points I was wishing to debate with him.

But like he said at the top, invalidating a point or two, when the points
are largely independent doesn't impact the other points.

Regards,
Sam
-- 
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
12/11/2002 6:11:00 AM
pchelp wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> It's spelled c-o-n-s-e-s-u-s.  Try a dictionary.
>
> LOL!  I spelled it wrong!
>
> SB:  c-o-n-s-e-n-s-u-s

My dictionary was equally confused...

*g*

Regards,
Sam
-- 
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
12/11/2002 6:13:00 AM
Thank you, Book, your advice is well stated. I will probably try to cut out
the undesireable features first & if I mess up the system, I can always do a
total recovery again. It was easy enough, once the teckie at Compaq got
me started on it. I'm just concerned that MS has built in hidden factors
that
will kick in after the fact, so that they retain the control over my
computer
that I am trying to eliminate, over & above the numerous security flaws.
I might even go back to Office Depot, where I bought the computer &
talk to their teckie about getting the 2000 installed, since they sold me
the unit with XP installed in the first place. I just might do that!...Geo

"Book" <boot@nitro.net> wrote in message news:at6eia$2dqc$1@news.grc.com...
> get some one knowlegeable to remove your XP and install Win2K. If you
> have XP Home Edition, Win2k is going to cost more. It is the same price
> as XP Professional Edition(usually).
0
George
12/11/2002 6:22:00 AM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in news:at6kp9$2isc$1
@news.grc.com:

> That sounds a bit revisionist.

Hardly...look over the thread yourself.  Perhaps my wording of 
"nothing more than FUD" was a bit strong.  I should have said that 
the majority of the site was FUD, and that the consensus was that the 
site couldn't be trusted as a valid reference.

*snip*
> But like he said at the top, invalidating a point or two, when
> the points are largely independent doesn't impact the other
> points. 

It impacts the validity of the whole page--which is what the site is 
supposed to be meant as.  The site is to be used--as a whole--to show 
the direction Microsoft is making.  When the majority of the article 
is conjecture, FUD, and conspiracy theory, then it invalidates the 
page as a whole.  That's not to say that some issues raised by the 
page aren't valid, or truthful;  it's just to say that relying on 
that page as a good source of information is like trusting a report 
of a car which is a quarter fact, a quarter FUD, a quarter flat-out 
wrong, and a quarter conspiracy theory.  If such information were to 
come out as a report, the report would be immediately dismissed by 
everyone--except those who don't know better.
0
BlueJAMC
12/11/2002 6:45:00 AM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in news:at6ksh$2iuq$1
@news.grc.com:

> pchelp wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>
>>> It's spelled c-o-n-s-e-s-u-s.  Try a dictionary.
>>
>> LOL!  I spelled it wrong!
>>
>> SB:  c-o-n-s-e-n-s-u-s
> 
> My dictionary was equally confused...

Oh, criticizing my spelling...as if I needed another reminder why I 
kill-filed pchelp.
0
BlueJAMC
12/11/2002 6:47:00 AM
I read the article, pchelp, with a general awareness that it was not totally
factual, since such works seldom are, but there was enough truth in it that
I recognized as such, for me to use it to motivate myself to do something
about my own situation, relative to the matter, since I was already leaning
that way, due to the things that had happened, in my own case. I had been
thinking of making a change, for some time now, & the article just gave me
a little more of a reason for finally doing something about it....Geo
P.S. What was the thing about spelling "consensus"?
Do you mean, Con...Ses Us ? Like,"assume" can make an ass of you & me?

"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
news:3df6cb8e.11979442@news.grc.com...
> BlueJAMC <idontwantemail@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> There you go agin, BJ.  Confusing your opinion with the consensus.
>
> It's spelled c-o-n-s-e-s-u-s.  Try a dictionary.
>
> Some of the article is hyperbole.  There's also plenty that's factual.
0
George
12/11/2002 6:48:00 AM
BlueJAMC <idontwantemail@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>Oh, criticizing my spelling...as if I needed another reminder why I 
>kill-filed pchelp.

Ah, misapprehension from lack of data.  Another reason why the kill-file
is so often a foot-bullet.

pchelp
0
pchelp
12/11/2002 7:35:00 AM
BlueJAMC wrote:
> "Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in news:at6ksh$2iuq$1
> @news.grc.com:
>
>> pchelp wrote:
>>> I wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's spelled c-o-n-s-e-s-u-s.  Try a dictionary.
>>>
>>> LOL!  I spelled it wrong!
>>>
>>> SB:  c-o-n-s-e-n-s-u-s
>>
>> My dictionary was equally confused...
>
> Oh, criticizing my spelling...as if I needed another reminder why I
> kill-filed pchelp.


You got that PCHelp was critcising YOUR spelling from that?

HOW???

Personally, I thought the chain of quotes was pretty plain....

Anyways, for some context, since you seem to assume things about what occurs
behind your filters (not the best thing to do :P), PCHelp was suggesting you
read the definition of the term, not telling you how to spell it.

Regards,
Sam
-- 
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
12/11/2002 8:39:00 AM
After Service Pack 1 is installed there will be
 Critical Updates & Service Packs (6)
 Windows XP (6)

Windows 2000 is on Service Pack 3 and has pages and pages of fixes.

> That's rediculous! There should be a Windows XP installation that
> includes all of those updates, for a new system, which is what mine
> more or less is.

Slipstreaming is the technique for updating the Windows 2000/XP install with
all the Service Pack fixes.

When SP1 was released, Microsoft started shipping disks with SP1 all built
in. But you can do it yourself, by slipstreaming.

Are you having trouble with your new computer,or the old one.

I have recommended and installed XP on over 60 customer computers. We do
service packs for them or tell them to do it. They tell me that they really
enjoy using Windows XP.

As for the Future Power article, I just went over it again and it contains
little that is factual or that properly represents any issue.


http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,48105,00.html

Mr. Slemko crafts a proof of concept exploit of Passport wallet and
Microsoft diables the service in Nov 2001.
With the help of  wired magazine, he demonstrates the exploit, which
requires a customer to open a malicious hotmail..

http://www.hevanet.com/peace/passport.htm

In true enquirer style the headline reads,
"Microsoft lied about the significance of the FTC's order in this email
message."

the email says "... we know of no instance where a Passport user's
information has ever been compromised".
Was wired.com acting as a customer or a journalist.? Did Slemko take
advantage of the journalist from Wired? Did Slemko compromise the customer's
information?

Wait a minute, what does this have to do with Slemko's exploit with wired.
The title says Microsoft lied about the importance of the FTC order. Not
about an exploit for a service it disabled 10 months earlier.


I read the governemt document.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/08/microsoft.htm

The Commission initiated its investigation of the Passport services
following a July 2001 complaint from a coalition of consumer groups led by
the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

*It [Microsoft] employs reasonable and appropriate measures under the
circumstances to maintain and protect the privacy and confidentiality of
consumers' personal information...

*Purchases made with Passport Wallet are generally safer or more secure than
purchases made at the same site without Passport...

*Passport did not collect any personally identifiable information other than
that described in its privacy policy when, in fact, Passport collected and
held, for a limited time, a personally identifiable sign-in history for each
user;

*The Kids Passport program provided parents control over what information
participating Web sites could collect from their children.

I read Microsoft's email.

MS states, "This agreement is really about two things: making sure our
statements about the service are clear and accurate, and ensuring we are
meeting a very high bar with regard to online security."

Here MS states "we understand the FTC's concerns and in hindsight wish we
had held ourselves to an even higher bar."

"Microsoft lied about the significance of the FTC's order in this email
message." My wits have left me, where is this lie?

The entire Future Power article demonstrates a complete failure to be
logical, factual or reasonable. I have gone over the document for the third
time. Every real issue brought forward has been remedied. But most of it is
sensational journalism full of factual and logical errors. In short it is
garbage through and through.

Paul S. Nofs

"George N Baustert" <gbaustert@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:at6imd$2h6u$1@news.grc.com...
>
0
Paul
12/11/2002 9:01:00 AM
George,

Some people get to a point where they are so disillusioned with a product
they really should give up and use something else. The author of this
article passed that point a while back, and no matter what MS do now he will
find fault with them. Some of the article was fact, some was loosely based
on exaggerated fact and some was simply 'The sky is falling".

However, I tend to agree with Steve that sticking to W2000 is good enough
for the moment. I didn't feel moved to change to XP just to have the
"Latest" because I expected teething troubles and bugs, always do with a
"New" system. I haven't yet seen anything XP can do better but have seen
that the home edition is inferior to what I have at present. Pro offers
little in the way of improvement.

What I will say though is you mentioned Compaq. IMHO Compaq factory installs
are a cobbled mixture of the proper OS and their own junk. Their own
updating method seems disastrous in my experience, it's neither one thing
nor the other. If you didn't get a proper Windows CD and instead got some
kind of stupid recovery disk you just might be better to get a proper CD and
start over.

Given the replacements you say you've just done could it be that your
problems had a large amount of hardware trouble mixed in there too?

Charlie

-- 
Trouble opening Outlook Express attachments?
http://www.tames.net/oe6.htm
http://www.insideoe.tomsterdam.com
No, I am not always right, I'm human. Wait for other opinions.

Charlie

"George N Baustert" <gbaustert@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:at6cqc$2c5n$1@news.grc.com...
> I just read the article" Future Power..Windows XP shows the direction
> Microsoft is going."which Steve refered to in his post of 11/15/2002,
> entitled "Feeling increasingly uneasy about Microsoft? in GRC. news.
>
> I have just gotten back on line recently, which is why I have not read
> the post & article untill now, due to my computer hard drive & mother
> board having to be replaced. Since I am in the process of reinstalling
> everything, it occured to me that this might be a good time to get rid
> of Windows XP & install something else, more secure. I noticed that
> Steve had made the statement "I have settled upon Window 2000,
> where I hope to remain until I no longer write software for windows."
>
> Also, it has been suggested to me that I may be able to swap my XP
> for the previous 2000. Does anyone know anything about this?
> If it is not possible to swap, then how do I go about getting the 2000
> installed in place of the XP?...Geo
>
>
0
Charlie
12/11/2002 11:31:00 AM
George,

You can safely use WinXP Pro. About SP1,if you don't have one of the new XP
CDs with it,you can ask MS to send one or download it and make a slimstreap
copy of XP. Follow this links

http://www.bink.nu/Bootcd/default.htm

http://www.windows-help.net/WindowsXP/winxp-sp1-bootcd.html

The first one is for Win2k but it will give you some idea and it has other
good links,some about XP too.

For the error message, disable the Error reporting tool if you want (there
is a thread,still going on in grc.security).

To make things easier for privacy, you can use the tool this site offers

http://www.xpantispy.de/

(The page is also available in english)

Good luck
MP
"George N Baustert" <gbaustert@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:at6imd$2h6u$1@news.grc.com...
> Windows XP Service Pack 1 (express) exclusive item
> must be installed separately from other updates.

> That's rediculous! There should be a Windows XP installation that
> includes all of those updates, for a new system, which is what mine
> more or less is. Moreover, I have had continuous problems with
> my computer acting up, with messages of apologies from MS for
> the inconveniences, & requests to send in a report of each of them,
> as if they were going to do something about the problems, but the
> problems persist. I don't need all of the features that XP offers, so
> why put up with the grief. I want a system that is independent of
> MS control, if that is at all possible, so how do I get it?...Geo
> P.S. I still have not installed any of the updates & my system is
> running just fine. I did download Xpedite to take care of the basic
> prooblem.
0
masterprometheus
12/11/2002 11:51:00 AM
In article <at6lip$2jmp$1@news.grc.com>, George N Baustert says...
>Thank you, Book, your advice is well stated. I will probably try to cut out
>the undesireable features first & if I mess up the system, I can always do a
>total recovery again. It was easy enough, once the teckie at Compaq got
>me started on it. I'm just concerned that MS has built in hidden factors
>that
>will kick in after the fact, so that they retain the control over my
>computer
>that I am trying to eliminate, over & above the numerous security flaws.
>I might even go back to Office Depot, where I bought the computer &
>talk to their teckie about getting the 2000 installed, since they sold me
>the unit with XP installed in the first place. I just might do that!...Geo

So you want to trade in an OS that needs 1 service pack and 8 or so 
updates for one that requires *3* massive service packs and dozens of 
updates. Smart move there, Geo. I'll just bet that tech will be GLAD to 
see *you* coming. <g>
-- 
Phil
0
Phil
12/11/2002 1:44:00 PM
>> about getting the 2000 installed, since they sold me
>>the unit with XP installed in the first place. I just might do that!...Geo

>So you want to trade in an OS that needs 1 service pack and 8 or so 
>updates

for now.

being the piece of garbage that it is, for sure it will triple outweigh that 
of 2000 in the same time-frame or less.

> for one that requires *3* massive service packs and dozens of 
>updates. Smart move there, Geo. I'll just bet that tech will be GLAD to 
>see *you* coming. <g>
>-- 
>Phil

Obviously Phil. It's been beaten to death since it came out. Why go with the 
toy XP who's surface hasn't even been scratched yet. It's so unpopular, 
tackling it is a part-time hobby for those who count. Years and years to come 
busting it, followed by more bloated patches. Silly name too. XP.
0
756373323932303532
12/11/2002 2:01:00 PM
Just a second, Phil, nobody has said anything about that, until you have.
Thats why I posted here. To get feedback. You make it sound like the
2000 was as bad or worse than XP. Wonder why Steve likes it?
However, XP has more fixes than you list (see my previous post).
(37), (19), (3) Of course, not all of them are fixes to problems.
Some are additional features, etc. that I don't have to add. But I
have to add the SP-1 before I can even review the rest & I am
concerned about doing that. Has anyone else had a problem after
loading SP-1?...Geo

"Phil Youngblood" <phil587@my_un_realbox.com> wrote in message
news:at7fff$6kn$2@news.grc.com...
> So you want to trade in an OS that needs 1 service pack and 8 or so
> updates for one that requires *3* massive service packs and dozens of
> updates. Smart move there, Geo. I'll just bet that tech will be GLAD to
> see *you* coming. <g>
0
George
12/11/2002 2:07:00 PM
Thank you, Charlie, I did have to use my recovery disks(3) to fix a
problem with adding my Compaq A4000 4-1n-1 to my system,
but that worked out O.K. The windows program is also O.K.
except that I am forced to load SP-1 before I can even review
all of the other updates. I guess I will just have to bite the bullet
again & load the damned thing.

I've had problems with add on hardware not being compadable
with XP, which is why I traded in my Lexmark X63 & got the
Compaq A4000, which works very well. I also had two loss of
registery happenings just prior to the hard drive going bad. I did
install the replacement drive, but it still did not work, so I ended
up taking the computer into COMPUSA where they replaced
the hard drive & the motherboard. When I got home, I found
out that the keyboard would not connect up with the computer.
I called Compaq & their teckie decided that we needed to do
the recovery bit again, so we did it, using the same recovery
disks that COMPUSA used, but this time I had no problem
with the keyboard working. Go figure!!...Geo


"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:at77ma$165$1@news.grc.com...
> However, I tend to agree with Steve that sticking to W2000 is good enough
> for the moment.

.. If you didn't get a proper Windows CD and instead got some
> kind of stupid recovery disk you just might be better to get a proper CD
and
> start over.
> Given the replacements you say you've just done could it be that your
> problems had a large amount of hardware trouble mixed in there too?
0
George
12/11/2002 2:47:00 PM
Thank you, Paul, for your input. You seem to be on top of this thing.
Your saying that the SP-1 will include some of the other updates that
are shown (37), (19). So I might as well just get it over with. I guess
I'll just do that. I can always change to 2000, in the future, if I want
to try that approach. Thanks again...Geo

"Paul S. Nofs" <Block_tech@researchmediainc.com> wrote in message
news:at6utd$2r73$1@news.grc.com...
> After Service Pack 1 is installed there will be
>  Critical Updates & Service Packs (6)
>  Windows XP (6)
>
> Windows 2000 is on Service Pack 3 and has pages and pages of fixes.
0
George
12/11/2002 3:06:00 PM
Thank you, masterprometheus, for your input. I have decided to just
go ahead & download the SP-1 first & then pick & choose the rest.
The worst that can happen (I hope) is that I will have to recover the
system one more time, if something goes wrong...Geo

"masterprometheus" <masterprometheus666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:at7900$2gg$1@news.grc.com...

> For the error message, disable the Error reporting tool if you want (there
> is a thread,still going on in grc.security).

I wonder if anyone knows the link to this thread that you refered to?..Geo
0
George
12/11/2002 3:24:00 PM
Hello George,

I was in the process of reinstalling my sandbox (WinXP Pro on a separate
partition).

SP1 is built into my current install disk.

I went to Windows Update, it listed 6 and 6. Most of these are security
fixes.

Windows XP is built on Windows 2000 which was built on Windows NT4.0. Win XP
brought along a lot of the fixes from previous versions. Someone wrote that
Windows 2000 was NT 5.0 and Windows XP was NT 5.1.

Versioning is a funny beast, but that seems pretty close to correct. At
least to me :)

Windows 2000 is stable and reliable, however for overall flexibility and
solid performance Windows XP is the clear winner. Device, driver and feature
support is better and more complete with Windows XP.

For my customers that have Windows 2000, I tell them to use it up.

My biggest complaint is that Microsoft insists on "turning on every light
and appliance in the house." So all the burners on the stove are on with
nothing to cook and in spite of the dangers. Ease of use can also mean ease
of abuse.

I recommend SP1 and all the critical patches.

Paul S. Nofs
Over 10 billion transistors per system.

"George N Baustert" <gbaustert@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:at7k9v$dju$2@news.grc.com...

> So I might as well just get it over with. I guess
0
Paul
12/11/2002 4:48:00 PM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in news:at6tes$2puh$1
@news.grc.com:

> You got that PCHelp was critcising YOUR spelling from that?
> 
> HOW???

How would I ever get that pchelp was criticising my spelling when he 
spells out the word--as indicated by his typing "c-o-n-s-e-s-u-s"--
and then tells me to "try a dictionary."

I simply can't figure out how I could ever get the idea that he was 
criticisng my spelling.  It's just beyond me...yep, it must have been 
completely irrational of me to make such an assumption.
0
BlueJAMC
12/11/2002 5:19:00 PM
George N Baustert wrote:
> Thank you, masterprometheus, for your input. I have decided to just
> go ahead & download the SP-1 first & then pick & choose the rest.
> The worst that can happen (I hope) is that I will have to recover the
> system one more time, if something goes wrong...Geo

Use the Update Catalog to download the service pack.  That way, you can
slipstream SP1 afterwards, and keep the file for future use.

-- 
Robert Bradley

I am not a mindreader, so I don't know everything.
0
Robert
12/11/2002 5:23:00 PM
The only problem with "Recovery disks" is that they do exactly that, recover
to the point where the machine left the factory, including format and
partition which is goodbye to everything including any backups unless on CD.
Which means start again, alright for tech support, you then leave them alone
for a few weeks which of course is what they are paid to do, but chances are
the same thing will arise again.

-- 

Charlie

"George N Baustert" <gbaustert@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:at7j6u$cdi$2@news.grc.com...
> Thank you, Charlie, I did have to use my recovery disks(3) to fix a
> problem with adding my Compaq A4000 4-1n-1 to my system,
> but that worked out O.K. The windows program is also O.K.
0
Charlie
12/11/2002 7:35:00 PM
BlueJAMC wrote:
> "Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in news:at6tes$2puh$1
> @news.grc.com:
>
>> You got that PCHelp was critcising YOUR spelling from that?
>>
>> HOW???
>
> How would I ever get that pchelp was criticising my spelling when he
> spells out the word--as indicated by his typing "c-o-n-s-e-s-u-s"--
> and then tells me to "try a dictionary."

If he was going after your spelling, he would have told you to try a
spellchecker :P Dictionaries also contain definitions.

> I simply can't figure out how I could ever get the idea that he was
> criticisng my spelling.  It's just beyond me...yep, it must have been
> completely irrational of me to make such an assumption.

Given that you seem to have killfiled him, you make assumptions about the
context, based on what shows up in replies. That you are unable to
acknowledge this is pretty sad.

But, I note you snipped where I summarized the context. Wouldn't do to be
mistaken now would it?

Regards,
Sam
-- 
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
12/11/2002 8:12:00 PM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:at8635$11ia$1@news.grc.com: 

> If he was going after your spelling, he would have told you to
> try a spellchecker :P Dictionaries also contain definitions.

Is that so?  Well, I'll have to look into that...I had no idea.

>> I simply can't figure out how I could ever get the idea that he
>> was criticisng my spelling.  It's just beyond me...yep, it must
>> have been completely irrational of me to make such an
>> assumption. 
> 
> Given that you seem to have killfiled him, you make assumptions
> about the context, based on what shows up in replies. That you
> are unable to acknowledge this is pretty sad.

I haven't been able to acknowledge that?  Funny...I thought that I 
was acknowledging that when I actually did that.  I thought it was 
pretty much common sense that I was making assumptions based on 
what shows up in replies.  If you need me to say it, though, for it 
to sink in, here goes:

I make assumptions about the context based on what I see in replies 
because I've killfiled pchelp.

Is that better?  Or would you still like to refer to it as "pretty 
sad"?

> But, I note you snipped where I summarized the context. Wouldn't
> do to be mistaken now would it?

I've been mistaken in the past and admitted it, and I was wrong in 
this case, and am admitting it.  I made a judgement call on what I 
saw, and was wrong.  My mistake.

More than I can say for some of the other posters here, who when 
wrong, backpedal away from their statement, or change their 
statement to mean something it didn't mean originally.  But of 
course, I'm the only one who's ever mistaken and don't admit it.  
Certainly folks like you, pchelp, Milly, and the GRC god himself 
Steve Gibson are never wrong...but certainly if you were, you'd 
admit it.

Right.
0
BlueJAMC
12/11/2002 8:42:00 PM
BlueJAMC <idontwantemail@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>I make assumptions about the context based on what I see in replies 
>because I've killfiled pchelp.
>
>Is that better?  Or would you still like to refer to it as "pretty 
>sad"?

Well, for the record, _I_ think it's pretty sad.  ;-)

pchelp
0
pchelp
12/11/2002 8:52:00 PM
In grc.news.feedback, BlueJAMC said...
> "Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:at8635$11ia$1@news.grc.com: 
> > [...]
> > But, I note you snipped where I summarized the context. Wouldn't
> > do to be mistaken now would it?
> 
> I've been mistaken in the past and admitted it, and I was wrong in 
> this case, and am admitting it.  I made a judgement call on what I 
> saw, and was wrong.  My mistake.
> 
> More than I can say for some of the other posters here, who when 
> wrong, backpedal away from their statement, or change their 
> statement to mean something it didn't mean originally.  

Other posters!? Oh my :)

> But of 
> course, I'm the only one who's ever mistaken and don't admit it.  
> Certainly folks like you, pchelp, Milly, and the GRC god himself 
> Steve Gibson are never wrong...but certainly if you were, you'd 
> admit it. [...]

Either you were mistaken, or lied, and have repeatedly chosen not to 
admit it. Of course, you make no claims about admitting to lies ...

======================================================
From: Milly <-@-.->
Newsgroups: grc.techtalk
Subject: Re: DOS dead?
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:10:24 -0000
Message-ID: <MPG.184553d0dfe8f66b98a409@grc.com>
Xref: grc.com grc.techtalk:60698

In grc.techtalk, Milly said...
> In grc.techtalk, BlueJAMC said...
> > >> [...]
> Lots of people questioned the content, without being labelled. If 
> anything, it's those who agreed with the content who were labelled - by 
> you, mostly, and in quasi-religious terms to boot. You don't see the 
> irony?
> 
> > Hell, all we have to do is look at a
> > post you made last week, suggesting that such a great person, who
> > has helped so many people with free utilities, couldn't possibly
> > be wrong.  
> 
> More lies. Post it, for everyone to see. 
> 
> (Do you not realise how bad, or worse rather, being repeatedly caught 
> out with these tactics makes you look?)

[...]

> > *snip*
> > > As so often, you misconstrue and misrepresent to suit your own
> > > agenda. 
> > 
> > ROFL...coming from you, that's just HILARIOUS!
> 
> We have a nice clear-cut opportunity to compare in this post. You're 
> gonna put up or shut up, right?

So, nothing put up.

A tacit but clear admission of lying, misconstruction and/or 
misrepresentation, no less.

-- 
Milly
======================================================

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
12/11/2002 9:15:00 PM
"Paul S. Nofs" <Block_tech@researchmediainc.com> wrote in message
news:at7q9i$jq2$1@news.grc.com...

> Someone wrote that Windows 2000 was NT 5.0
> and Windows XP was NT 5.1.

Yes, a "minor" version shift in reality.
5.0 major
5.1 minor
5.1.x is subversion or # in sequence
        of updated minor version (like in bets's).
Testers used to call Whistler....Win2000 SP28.
(as in Windows 200 Service Pack 28, 28th XP beta)

One big difference is in how NTFS intializes itself
and marks the HDD...more "clamps" so to speak
or it would be same NTFS critter as NTFS in Win2000.

The first dozen or so "post-alpha's" of Whistler (WinXP)
were actually Win2000 (almost entirely) but with some
added features and was quite a treat to run.

Heh, you missed NT 4.5, not as well liked as NT4.0.

..NET beta was 5.2 and now went to 5.3 (quite similar)
The LongHorn is likely to be in version 6.0 range
(if they get enough done in time for that high a designation).

'Seek and ye shall find'
NT Canuck
0
NT
12/11/2002 11:26:00 PM
BlueJAMC wrote:
> "Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:at8635$11ia$1@news.grc.com:
>
>> If he was going after your spelling, he would have told you to
>> try a spellchecker :P Dictionaries also contain definitions.
>
> Is that so?  Well, I'll have to look into that...I had no idea.
>
>>> I simply can't figure out how I could ever get the idea that he
>>> was criticisng my spelling.  It's just beyond me...yep, it must
>>> have been completely irrational of me to make such an
>>> assumption.
>>
>> Given that you seem to have killfiled him, you make assumptions
>> about the context, based on what shows up in replies. That you
>> are unable to acknowledge this is pretty sad.
>
> I haven't been able to acknowledge that?  Funny...I thought that I
> was acknowledging that when I actually did that.  I thought it was
> pretty much common sense that I was making assumptions based on
> what shows up in replies.

Nope, you didn't make it clear. It was so glaringly obvious from the context
(as you say) that I question why you bothered anyways.

> If you need me to say it, though, for it
> to sink in, here goes:
>
> I make assumptions about the context based on what I see in replies
> because I've killfiled pchelp.
>
> Is that better?  Or would you still like to refer to it as "pretty
> sad"?

You make assumptions (unwarranted, to boot), then act on them to "flame" at
other posters. Yep, pretty sad, whether or not you mention that it is based
on an assumption.

>> But, I note you snipped where I summarized the context. Wouldn't
>> do to be mistaken now would it?
>
> I've been mistaken in the past and admitted it, and I was wrong in
> this case, and am admitting it.  I made a judgement call on what I
> saw, and was wrong.  My mistake.

Fair enough. My issue with it is at and end.

Though you might want to think about just ignoring even quoted passages from
those you have killfiled (much safer!). Consider that some free advice ;)

> More than I can say for some of the other posters here, who when
> wrong, backpedal away from their statement, or change their
> statement to mean something it didn't mean originally.  But of
> course, I'm the only one who's ever mistaken and don't admit it.
> Certainly folks like you, pchelp, Milly, and the GRC god himself
> Steve Gibson are never wrong...but certainly if you were, you'd
> admit it.

Ah, me? Them? Righto. We all claim to be infallible, and flawless to boot.
Perfect as well. Sure. What an odd image you must have of us all.

Regards,
Sam
-- 
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
12/11/2002 11:34:00 PM
Geo,

Windows 2000 is an *excellent* OS for computer professionals or those that 
arm themselves with enough info and study the details so they can operate 
an OS designed for professionals. W2k in its first iteration was in *far* 
worse shape than XP when it was released.

XP is designed around the same NT kernal so the common bumbling user can 
have the OS power and stability used by the professional without shooting 
himself in the foot every time he tries to tweak something. It also adds 
multimedia capabilities many want that's not easily available in W2k.

In which category would you place Steve?

In which category would you place yourself?

Phil

In article <at7gqn$a53$1@news.grc.com>, George N Baustert says...
>Just a second, Phil, nobody has said anything about that, until you have.
>Thats why I posted here. To get feedback. You make it sound like the
>2000 was as bad or worse than XP. Wonder why Steve likes it?
>However, XP has more fixes than you list (see my previous post).
>(37), (19), (3) Of course, not all of them are fixes to problems.
>Some are additional features, etc. that I don't have to add. But I
>have to add the SP-1 before I can even review the rest & I am
>concerned about doing that. Has anyone else had a problem after
>loading SP-1?...Geo

>"Phil Youngblood" <phil587@my_un_realbox.com> wrote in message
>news:at7fff$6kn$2@news.grc.com...
>> So you want to trade in an OS that needs 1 service pack and 8 or so
>> updates for one that requires *3* massive service packs and dozens of
>> updates. Smart move there, Geo. I'll just bet that tech will be GLAD to
>> see *you* coming. <g>
0
Phil
12/11/2002 11:40:00 PM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:at8hs6$1f4u$1@news.grc.com: 

>> I haven't been able to acknowledge that?  Funny...I thought
>> that I was acknowledging that when I actually did that.  I
>> thought it was pretty much common sense that I was making
>> assumptions based on what shows up in replies. 
> 
> Nope, you didn't make it clear.

So let me get this straight.  The fact I have killfiled pchelp
doesn't make it obvious that any reply I make to him would have to
be based on what shows up in replies? 

> It was so glaringly obvious from the context (as you say) that I
> question why you bothered anyways.

I probably shouldn't have...but cest la vie.

> 
>> If you need me to say it, though, for it
>> to sink in, here goes:
>>
>> I make assumptions about the context based on what I see in
>> replies because I've killfiled pchelp.
>>
>> Is that better?  Or would you still like to refer to it as
>> "pretty sad"? 
> 
> You make assumptions (unwarranted, to boot),

Yes, I make the assumption that when someone spells out the word
and then tells me to check the dictionary, that they are
correcting my spelling.  Silly me, for making such an unwarranted
assumption. 

> then act on them to "flame" at other posters.

So let me get this straight...

"Oh, criticizing my spelling...as if I needed another reminder why
I kill-filed pchelp." 

Is a flame?  Getting a bit over-sensitive, aren't you?

*snip*
> Though you might want to think about just ignoring even quoted
> passages from those you have killfiled (much safer!). Consider
> that some free advice ;) 
> 
>> More than I can say for some of the other posters here, who
>> when wrong, backpedal away from their statement, or change
>> their statement to mean something it didn't mean originally. 
>> But of course, I'm the only one who's ever mistaken and don't
>> admit it. Certainly folks like you, pchelp, Milly, and the GRC
>> god himself Steve Gibson are never wrong...but certainly if you
>> were, you'd admit it. 
> 
> Ah, me? Them? Righto. We all claim to be infallible, and
> flawless to boot.  Perfect as well. Sure. What an odd image you
> must have of us all. 

Didn't say you claim it--not that I would expect you to.  Doesn't
change the fact that "you all" seem to have the attitude that you
are, though.
0
BlueJAMC
12/12/2002 12:26:00 AM
"Phil Youngblood" <phil587@my_un_realbox.com> wrote in message
news:at8idd$1dsn$1@news.grc.com...

> In which category would you place Steve?

Heh, don't forget the hundreds of hand crafted items Steve
"wrote" (programmer..remember) that tie directly to Win2k.

And since Steve basically (I think) just uses the networking area
of Win2k...the foundation is not different enough to justify
some 6 months or a year of Steve's life to twiddle and rewrite
his "custom coded" app's etc. to fit the WinXP platform.

Win2k can handle backbone (isp) bandwidth speeds easily
so a couple of T-1 or 2's aren't going to be a mitigating factor.

> In which category would you place yourself?

Heh, like a kid that went to the store for a kite...
and came home with a "Concorde" ?
Funny thing is that without instructions ..it still flies!  *g*

'Seek and ye shall find'
NT Canuck
0
NT
12/12/2002 12:31:00 AM
BlueJAMC <idontwantemail@127.0.0.1> scribbled:

Snipped
Is there a way I can stop this particular thread from clogging my newsreader
yet still read everything else that gets posted here?

Thanks
RTFM
0
RTFM
12/12/2002 12:32:00 AM
BlueJAMC <idontwantemail@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>So let me get this straight.  The fact I have killfiled pchelp
>doesn't make it obvious that any reply I make to him would have to
>be based on what shows up in replies? 

Hello?  Hello -- ?  [tap tap]  One, two.

pchelp
, just checkin' the mike.
0
pchelp
12/12/2002 12:39:00 AM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
news:3df7da14.5988476@news.grc.com...

> Hello?  Hello -- ?  [tap tap]  One, two.
>
> pchelp
> , just checkin' the mike.

Yes, yes...Hello!, Santa's help line here.

What seems to be the problem?

'Seek and ye shall find'  (a very merry Christmas)
NT Canuck
0
NT
12/12/2002 12:44:00 AM
"RTFM" <always@readthemanual.con> wrote in
news:at8lfj$1j19$1@news.grc.com: 

> Is there a way I can stop this particular thread from clogging
> my newsreader yet still read everything else that gets posted
> here? 

Seeing as you're using Outlook Express...



To ignore a conversation

In both e-mail and newsgroups, you can ignore, and even hide, 
conversations that don't interest you. A conversation is an 
original message and all its replies.

In your Inbox or newsgroup message list, select the conversation 
you want to ignore. 
On the Message menu, click Ignore Conversation. 
If your message list's Watch/Ignore column is turned on, an ignore 
icon  will appear next to all the messages of an ignored 
conversation.

 Notes

To hide ignored messages so they don't clutter up your message 
lists, click View, point to Current View, and then select Hide Read 
or Ignored Messages. 
Selecting Hide Read or Ignored Messages will hide messages you have 
read, messages you have ignored, and messages you have both read 
and ignored.

If you want to hide ignored messages, but want to keep your read 
messages visible, click Hide Read or Ignored Messages as instructed 
above, click View, point to Current View, and then select Define 
Views. In the Define Views dialog box, click New. In box 1 of the 
View Editor, select Where the message has been read. In box 2, 
click the words Show/Hide and select Show messages. In box 3, give 
this view a name, and then click OK. 

> Thanks
> RTFM

Ironic nick.
0
BlueJAMC
12/12/2002 12:50:00 AM
"NT Canuck" <ntcanuck@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>news:3df7da14.5988476@news.grc.com...

>> Hello?  Hello -- ?  [tap tap]  One, two.

>> pchelp
>> , just checkin' the mike.

>Yes, yes...Hello!, Santa's help line here.

>What seems to be the problem?

Hey!  Talk about serendipity.  I been meaning to call you guys.  You
know where _everybody_ lives, right?  I need BJ's address.  Gotta use
snail-mail, evidently.  ;-)

pchelp
0
pchelp
12/12/2002 1:23:00 AM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
news:3df7e35d.8365126@news.grc.com...

>  You know where _everybody_ lives, right?  I need BJ's address.

Well we do have a list...but it is confidential (you knew that).

> Gotta use snail-mail, evidently.  ;-)

Supporting your local post-office is a good deed.
I understand they accept hot-chocolate and smiles
(on certain occassions) if not too busy during Yuletide.

We can't help with the snail-mail but 2003 is a whole
New Year and full of opportunities!  ;-)

'Seek and ye shall find'
NT Canuck
0
NT
12/12/2002 1:46:00 AM
In article <at8lds$1ivp$1@news.grc.com>, NT Canuck says...
>Heh, like a kid that went to the store for a kite...
>and came home with a "Concorde" ?
>Funny thing is that without instructions ..it still flies!  *g*
>

ROFL!!

Perfecto, NT -- I think you nailed it.
-- 
Phil
0
Phil
12/12/2002 1:48:00 AM
"NT Canuck" <ntcanuck@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>news:3df7e35d.8365126@news.grc.com...

>>  You know where _everybody_ lives, right?  I need BJ's address.

>Well we do have a list...but it is confidential (you knew that).

A guy's gotta try...


>> Gotta use snail-mail, evidently.  ;-)

>Supporting your local post-office is a good deed.
>I understand they accept hot-chocolate and smiles
>(on certain occassions) if not too busy during Yuletide.

Y'know, that is a GOOD idea.  I mean that.


>We can't help with the snail-mail but 2003 is a whole
>New Year and full of opportunities!  ;-)

I look forward to taking UNDUE advantage!  :-)

May you joyfully do the same.  That goes for everybody.


pchelp
0
pchelp
12/12/2002 1:57:00 AM
In article <Xns92E1BFAAD1016dkgctc@204.1.226.226>, idontwantemail@
127.0.0.1 says...
<>
> > Thanks
> > RTFM
> 
> Ironic nick.
> 
ROTFLMAO !

-- 
Bloated Elvis
0
bloated
12/12/2002 3:14:00 AM
Not the same thing this time, Charlie, but worse! Yes I finally made the
move
& downloaded all of the Windows updates, including SP-1. At first it seemed
that everything went like clockwork. Then in the middle of it all, a brief
note
flashed on the screen saying something about an error, but it all just kept
on
running & in the end it pronounced itself finished! At first, everything
looked
& responded normally, so I shut down for the night & went to bed.
Today, when I went to log on to news.grc.com, I got the following message:
Outlook Express;
A TCP/IP error occured while trying to send data to the server.
Configuration:
Account news.grc.com (1)
Server; news.grc.com
Protocol: NNTP
Port 119
So I called up my cable provider at Earthlink & explained my problem to the
teckie, who then took me through a series of minor setup changes to my mail
provider settings including a shutdown of ZoneAlarmFree. Everything worked
just fine after that, except that when I shut down & restarted my computer,
the problem returned. So I call back Earthlink & fortunately get the same
guy,
who takes me thru another go around of minor changes, including another
shut down of ZAF, which had kicked back in on start up & we fix the problem
one more time. Now I suggested that we try shutting down & restarting, just
to be sure, & sure enough, we got the same problem back. In the end, I had
to uninstall ZAF in order to get my system back in operation. Somehow, the
downloading of the Windows updates created a condition that prevents me
from using ZAF. I knew it was a mistake to trust those B-------@ MS!!

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:at842n$v88$1@news.grc.com...

> The only problem with "Recovery disks" is that they do exactly that,
recover
> to the point where the machine left the factory, including format and
> partition which is goodbye to everything including any backups unless on
CD.
> Which means start again, alright for tech support, you then leave them
alone
> for a few weeks which of course is what they are paid to do, but chances
are
> the same thing will arise again.
0
George
12/12/2002 3:32:00 AM
"BlueJAMC" <idontwantemail@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns92E1BFAAD1016dkgctc@204.1.226.226...
> "RTFM" <always@readthemanual.con> wrote in
> news:at8lfj$1j19$1@news.grc.com:
>
> > Thanks
> > RTFM
>
> Ironic nick.
But shows mettle.
0
bargepole
12/12/2002 3:38:00 AM
BlueJAMC wrote:
> "Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:at8hs6$1f4u$1@news.grc.com:
>
>>> I haven't been able to acknowledge that?  Funny...I thought
>>> that I was acknowledging that when I actually did that.  I
>>> thought it was pretty much common sense that I was making
>>> assumptions based on what shows up in replies.
>>
>> Nope, you didn't make it clear.
>
> So let me get this straight.  The fact I have killfiled pchelp
> doesn't make it obvious that any reply I make to him would have to
> be based on what shows up in replies?

It was obvious.

You didn't make it clear.

The two are not in conflict.

>> then act on them to "flame" at other posters.
>
> So let me get this straight...
>
> "Oh, criticizing my spelling...as if I needed another reminder why
> I kill-filed pchelp."
>
> Is a flame?  Getting a bit over-sensitive, aren't you?

Maybe you need lessons to make your flames more effective :P

The intent was pretty plain.

> *snip*
>> Though you might want to think about just ignoring even quoted
>> passages from those you have killfiled (much safer!). Consider
>> that some free advice ;)
>>
>>> More than I can say for some of the other posters here, who
>>> when wrong, backpedal away from their statement, or change
>>> their statement to mean something it didn't mean originally.
>>> But of course, I'm the only one who's ever mistaken and don't
>>> admit it. Certainly folks like you, pchelp, Milly, and the GRC
>>> god himself Steve Gibson are never wrong...but certainly if you
>>> were, you'd admit it.
>>
>> Ah, me? Them? Righto. We all claim to be infallible, and
>> flawless to boot.  Perfect as well. Sure. What an odd image you
>> must have of us all.
>
> Didn't say you claim it--not that I would expect you to.  Doesn't
> change the fact that "you all" seem to have the attitude that you
> are, though.

That's oddly like asking someone when they stopped beating their wife. I
can't really credibly say I don't feel I'm infallible without sounding like
a bit of a moron. I think it's one of those obvious things that doesn't need
to be made clear :P

I see virtually everybody in these forums regulary admit to mistakes, or
withold argument when corrected. I never see any of those people you
mentioned insist that something is right because they said it is. Neither is
a sign of someone who feels they are infallible.

Why, PCHelp, in this very thread, mentioned how he himself spelled consensus
wrong. *g*

Just because it doesn't often happen on issues you disagree with said folks
on doesn't mean that much other than you disagree. Oftentimes we fallible
folk (you included I'm sure) get our dander up at some arguments and have a
hard time disengaging emotionally.

But, like I said -- what a funny image you must have of us. Not much I care
to do if you don't like me, or them.

Regards,
Sam
-- 
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
12/12/2002 5:16:00 AM
Hello George,

You have hardware and you have software. Both can be bad.

Only hardware goes bad.

Windows XP is a great hardware tester. Unlike Windows 98 which can limp
along on junk hardware, Windows XP demands perfection. How else can a user
expect to get high reliability?

I am willing to bet you, your favorite beverage that Windows 2000 will not
fair any better.

The only other possibility is incompatible application. But that isn't an
issue with ZAF free.

Paul S. Nofs

"George N Baustert" <gbaustert@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:at9010$1tgt$1@news.grc.com...
> Not the same thing this time, Charlie, but worse! Yes I finally made the
0
Paul
12/12/2002 2:12:00 PM
Another setting that may help is tools>option>read tab... always expand
grouped messages. There's usually no need for that, each thread will then
appear as one entry with a + next to it. I find it tidier that way but of
course it's personal preference. Any messages underneath that thread name
will cause it to be highlighted (I tend to use the "Hide read messages"
option too under views) but unless you click the + it's all you will see.

-- 

Charlie

"BlueJAMC" <idontwantemail@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:Xns92E1BFAAD1016dkgctc@204.1.226.226...
> Seeing as you're using Outlook Express...
>
>
0
Charlie
12/12/2002 6:44:00 PM
Sorry, but you lost me,Paul. But for now, I have decided to stay with XP for
a while longer, because things have resolved themselves, at least, in a way.
Since I had to get rid of ZAF, I replaced it with SygateFree, which I like,
so far & it does not mess up my access to news.grc.com, as ZAF was
doing. I did not have to do any configuring either. Moreover, it notifies me
of things that ZAF never did, like the notice:" Aplication NDIS User mode
I/O
driver has been blocked. File name is INDISUIO.SYS." Now I don't know
what that means, or what I should do about it, if anything, but I think that
it
is nice to know that Sygate is on the job, doing it's thing, about every few
minutes, in fact! Oh well, it's a minor irritation that I can live with, if
I have to.
Any ideas on what, maybe, I should do in responce?...Geo

"Paul S. Nofs" <Block_tech@researchmediainc.com> wrote in message
news:ata5fi$2vdd$1@news.grc.com..
..
> I am willing to bet you, your favorite beverage that Windows 2000 will not
> fair any better.
>
> The only other possibility is incompatible application. But that isn't an
> issue with ZAF free.
0
George
12/12/2002 7:02:00 PM
"George N Baustert" <gbaustert@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:atamfp$gee$1@news.grc.com...
> Sorry, but you lost me,Paul. But for now, I have decided to stay with XP
for
> a while longer, because things have resolved themselves, at least, in a
way.
> Since I had to get rid of ZAF, I replaced it with SygateFree, which I
like,
> so far & it does not mess up my access to news.grc.com, as ZAF was
> doing. I did not have to do any configuring either. Moreover, it notifies
me
> of things that ZAF never did, like the notice:" Aplication NDIS User mode
> I/O
> driver has been blocked. File name is INDISUIO.SYS." Now I don't know
> what that means, or what I should do about it, if anything, but I think
that
> it
> is nice to know that Sygate is on the job, doing it's thing, about every
few
> minutes, in fact! Oh well, it's a minor irritation that I can live with,
if
> I have to.
> Any ideas on what, maybe, I should do in responce?...Geo
>
> "Paul S. Nofs" <Block_tech@researchmediainc.com> wrote in message
> news:ata5fi$2vdd$1@news.grc.com..
> .
> > I am willing to bet you, your favorite beverage that Windows 2000 will
not
> > fair any better.
> >
> > The only other possibility is incompatible application. But that isn't
an
> > issue with ZAF free.
>
>
0
George
12/13/2002 3:36:00 AM
George N Baustert wrote:

> will kick in after the fact, so that they retain the control over my
> computer
> that I am trying to eliminate, over & above the numerous security flaws.

Isn't loosening MS's grip on your moshine part of the fun? <G>

Waldo
0
Waldo
12/18/2002 4:41:00 PM
Right on!!,Waldo, I only wish I knew how to do it! How about
some sage advice. For instance, I don't need any of the shared
capacity features, movie making, multible online connections or
down loading the noise that passes for music, in today's world.
I would really appreciate any help in that direction, for starters.
Later, I will probably have a few more that I do not need...Geo

"Waldo Hamilton" <waldo@mei.ws> wrote in message
news:atq8g4$17n3$2@news.grc.com...

> Isn't loosening MS's grip on your moshine part of the fun? <G>
0
George
12/18/2002 5:08:00 PM
George N Baustert wrote:
> Right on!!,Waldo, I only wish I knew how to do it! How about
> some sage advice. 

Sage advice is all over these NG's already. <G>

Waldo
0
Waldo
12/19/2002 7:48:00 PM
BlueJAMC wrote:

> It impacts the validity of the whole page--which is what the site is 
> supposed to be meant as.  

Maybe, maybe not. Time will bear that out.

The site is to be used--as a whole--to show
> the direction Microsoft is making. 

I seldom take anything at its whole. I research to verify or 
refute specific points, and judge each point on its merits or 
lack thereof.

When the majority of the article
> is conjecture, FUD, and conspiracy theory, then it invalidates the 
> page as a whole.

And that conjecture, FUD, and conspiracy theory can serve to keep 
people alert to keep MS under scrutiny. Often all three can turn 
out to be accurate. That's when the user needs the forewarnings.

The thing to keep in mind is what these companies can get away 
with if nobody's watching.

Waldo
0
Waldo
12/20/2002 5:27:00 PM
Waldo Hamilton wrote:
> 
> And that conjecture, FUD, and conspiracy theory can serve to keep people 
> alert to keep MS under scrutiny. Often all three can turn out to be 
> accurate. That's when the user needs the forewarnings.
> 
> The thing to keep in mind is what these companies can get away with if 
> nobody's watching.
> 
> Waldo

More important, and unfortunate, is what they (and MS in particular) can 
get away with when everyone *is* watching.
0
Corey
12/20/2002 5:51:00 PM
Reply: