Install win xp over a network

[Rod Speed]

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.

 

[Rod Speed]

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.

 

[Colin C]

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

 

[David Maynard]

when the

'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.



Yes, I was and am. Because it does.



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?

I'm talking about Kony's assertion of what would happen in a "competitive
market."

As decided by our courts, Microsoft
in fact has monopoly power over the personal computer operating
system market.

Which is irrelevant to Kony's posit about how companies behave in a
"competitive market."

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

Typical knee jerk illogic.

 

[kony]

Which is irrelevant to Kony's posit about how companies behave in a
"competitive market."

No, it's not.

 

[Black Adder]

not at all. Just used conventional networking practices.
I agree that some features are not necessary, and are only there for people
who don't know what they're doing.

Like the home networking wizard! What a shamozzle!

 

[Fred]

not at all.

Classic evasion of the point.

Just used conventional networking practices.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

I agree that some features are not necessary, and are only there for
people who don't know what they're doing.

Who in their right mind would agree with that?

Like the home networking wizard!

Classic reading comprehension problem.

What a shamozzle!

Do I look like I give a **** what a shamozzle?

 

[David Maynard]

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

Your posit was "they'd have to actually add features rather than subtract
them if they had a competitive market." (which is not correct but that's
already been dealt with)

So how does whether Microsoft is a monopoly, or not, affect your claim of
how they would behave in a competitive market?


Answer: it doesn't.

 

[kony]

Yes, it is.

Your posit was "they'd have to actually add features rather than subtract
them if they had a competitive market." (which is not correct but that's
already been dealt with)

"Dealt with" merely meaning you disagree, which is fine as
again we are not expected to meet middle ground here as in
other discusssions.

So how does whether Microsoft is a monopoly, or not, affect your claim of
how they would behave in a competitive market?

It is relevant to my position that they would need add
features rather than deciding for us what we do or don't
have available. By not having to compete, they don't have
to be feature-competitive. It worked, it is even known how
to make it work again. They certainly do NOT have any kind
of financial restrains keeping them from testing it. Your
arguments about cost are simply invalid. In FACT they could
now give away windows free and still afford to support it.
The arguement cannot be made about it being "good business"
because it is most certainly NOT good business to maintain a
monopoly and be in courts of multiple first-world nations
because of it.

 

[David Maynard]

"Dealt with" merely meaning you disagree, which is fine as
again we are not expected to meet middle ground here as in
other discusssions.

I did not just 'disagree'. I gave you what the other alternatives are and
those kinds of decisions are made every day in development meetings. You're
faced with not only a 'feature' cost/benefit analysis but a target price,
hence cost, as well so that you are almost always faced with deciding which
features give the best return and the others, which might still have a
'positive' effect, must be left out lest the price/cost escalate beyond the
target market.

So while Netbeui might have a limited benefit (and I'm not saying there is
one) to a limited few under limited circumstances it doesn't rate enough to
be there. And if you had sat in on their development meetings you'd
probably find a few hundred other 'features' that didn't make it either.

Netbeui is a no brainer. What does it do that the ones you MUST support
don't? Nothing. Kill it.

It is relevant to my position that they would need add
features rather than deciding for us what we do or don't
have available.

I know what 'point' you were trying to imply by the statement but that has
nothing to do with the characteristics of a competitive market and that is
what I was dealing with: your assertion of what a company 'would do' in a
competitive market. And for that discussion it not only doesn't matter
whether Microsoft is a 'monopoly', or not, it doesn't even matter whether
it's Microsoft or someone selling sandals.

By not having to compete, they don't have
to be feature-competitive.

Actually, being a 'monopoly' would make it easier for them to include
useless things like Netbeui whereas in a competitive market price pressures
would preclude such waste.

It worked, it is even known how
to make it work again.

They didn't 'break' it, at least not intentionally. They just don't
'support' it nor test to see if something broke it. Nor do they intend to
'fix' it if something did.

And the reason is IT COSTS MONEY.

They certainly do NOT have any kind
of financial restrains keeping them from testing it.

I was not aware they had changed their charter to 'non profit'.

Your
arguments about cost are simply invalid.

My arguments are not only valid but anyone with any experience at all in
software development/support is well aware of what 'support' means and the
costs involved.

If you want to argue that they should toss money down the toilet so someone
can have Netbeui then *say* so instead of hiding it behind a false claim
that support is 'free'.

In FACT they could
now give away windows free and still afford to support it.

That's not what being a "business" means and the stock holders likely have
a different opinion than yours about loosing money on the deal.

The arguement cannot be made about it being "good business"
because it is most certainly NOT good business to maintain a
monopoly and be in courts of multiple first-world nations
because of it.

"It" is a completely different topic than what "support" means.

 

[Duane Arnold]

I did not just 'disagree'.

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

I gave you what the other alternatives are and those kinds of decisions
are made every day in development meetings.

Why do you ask what the other alternatives are?

You're faced with not only a 'feature' cost/benefit analysis but a
target price, hence cost, as well so that you are almost always faced with
deciding which features give the best return and the others, which might
still have a 'positive' effect, must be left out lest the price/cost
escalate beyond the target market.

How do you know I am almost always faced with deciding which features give
the best return and the others?

So while Netbeui might have a limited benefit (and I'm not saying there
is one) to a limited few under limited circumstances it doesn't rate
enough to be there.

You most certainly are saying there is one.

And if you had sat in on their development meetings you'd probably find
a few hundred other 'features' that didn't make it either.

Hmmm really? Only a little?

Netbeui is a no brainer.

Classic pontification.

What does it do that the ones you MUST support don't?

Why should I support do not, Maynard?

Nothing.

Nothing at all?

Kill it.

Have you ever killed anyone?

I know what 'point' you were trying to imply by the statement but that
has nothing to do with the characteristics of a competitive market and
that is what I was dealing with: your assertion of what a company 'would
do' in a competitive market.

Everything I know fits into a 116kB database supported by 600k of AI code.

And for that discussion it not only doesn't matter whether Microsoft is
a 'monopoly', or not, it doesn't even matter whether it's Microsoft or
someone selling sandals.

Classic hearsay.

Actually, being a 'monopoly' would make it easier for them to include
useless things like Netbeui whereas in a competitive market price
pressures would preclude such waste.

Are you worried about money?

They didn't 'break' it, at least not intentionally.
Untrue.

They just don't 'support' it nor test to see if something broke it.

Classic lack of specificity by someone who is humourless.

Nor do they intend to 'fix' it if something did.

Tell me about your intentions.

And the reason is IT COSTS MONEY.

If you need a reason, blame your parents.

I was not aware they had changed their charter to 'non profit'.
Untrue.

My arguments are not only valid but anyone with any experience at all in
software development/support is well aware of what 'support' means and the
costs involved.

Why do you ask what 'support' means?

If you want to argue that they should toss money down the toilet so
someone can have Netbeui then *say* so instead of hiding it behind a false
claim that support is 'free'.

What do you want from life?

That's not what being a "business" means and the stock holders likely
have a different opinion than yours about loosing money on the deal.

You seem frustrated.

"It" is a completely different topic than what "support" means.

Are you trying to please an imaginary crowd?

 

[Duane Arnold]

I did not just 'disagree'.

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!

I gave you what the other alternatives are and those kinds of decisions
are made every day in development meetings.

Why do you ask what the other alternatives are?

You're faced with not only a 'feature' cost/benefit analysis but a
target price, hence cost, as well so that you are almost always faced with
deciding which features give the best return and the others, which might
still have a 'positive' effect, must be left out lest the price/cost
escalate beyond the target market.

How do you know I am almost always faced with deciding which features give
the best return and the others?

So while Netbeui might have a limited benefit (and I'm not saying there
is one) to a limited few under limited circumstances it doesn't rate
enough to be there.

You most certainly are saying there is one.

And if you had sat in on their development meetings you'd probably find
a few hundred other 'features' that didn't make it either.

Hmmm really? Only a little?

Netbeui is a no brainer.

Classic pontification.

What does it do that the ones you MUST support don't?

Why should I support do not, Maynard?

Nothing.

Nothing at all?

Kill it.

Have you ever killed anyone?

I know what 'point' you were trying to imply by the statement but that
has nothing to do with the characteristics of a competitive market and
that is what I was dealing with: your assertion of what a company 'would
do' in a competitive market.

Everything I know fits into a 116kB database supported by 600k of AI code.

And for that discussion it not only doesn't matter whether Microsoft is
a 'monopoly', or not, it doesn't even matter whether it's Microsoft or
someone selling sandals.

Classic hearsay.

Actually, being a 'monopoly' would make it easier for them to include
useless things like Netbeui whereas in a competitive market price
pressures would preclude such waste.

Are you worried about money?

They didn't 'break' it, at least not intentionally.
Untrue.

They just don't 'support' it nor test to see if something broke it.

Classic lack of specificity by someone who is humourless.

Nor do they intend to 'fix' it if something did.

Tell me about your intentions.

And the reason is IT COSTS MONEY.

If you need a reason, blame your parents.

I was not aware they had changed their charter to 'non profit'.
Untrue.

My arguments are not only valid but anyone with any experience at all in
software development/support is well aware of what 'support' means and the
costs involved.

Why do you ask what 'support' means?

If you want to argue that they should toss money down the toilet so
someone can have Netbeui then *say* so instead of hiding it behind a false
claim that support is 'free'.

What do you want from life?

That's not what being a "business" means and the stock holders likely
have a different opinion than yours about loosing money on the deal.

You seem frustrated.

"It" is a completely different topic than what "support" means.

Are you trying to please an imaginary crowd?

 

[Michael Thomas]

Could you guys just "agree to disagree" and let this thread die?

Have a nice day,

MT

 

[kony]

Could you guys just "agree to disagree" and let this thread die?

Have a nice day,

MT

LOL, yeah I was getting to that in my last post, me & DM do
this a lot.

 

[David Maynard]

LOL, yeah I was getting to that in my last post, me & DM do
this a lot.

Hehe. Ok, Ok.

But it was fun brain exercise

 

[Curious George]

You just listed one. It's non-routable.

don't forget all the mindless network chatter.

 

[kony]

don't forget all the mindless network chatter.

It has a smaller footprint on a network than TCPIP so it's a
bit irrelevant.

 

[Curious George]

It has a smaller footprint on a network than TCPIP so it's a
bit irrelevant.

Try SMS with netbui, for example.

 

[David Maynard]

It has a smaller footprint on a network than TCPIP so it's a
bit irrelevant.

That is only true under limited circumstances and if you've got internet
access you've got TCP/IP so regardless of how small the netbuei footprint
is it's still an additional footprint, not a 'reduction'.

 

[kony]

That is only true under limited circumstances

Transferring data with it instead of TCPIP would be one of
those, fairly popular circumstances.

... and if you've got internet
access you've got TCP/IP so regardless of how small the netbuei footprint
is it's still an additional footprint, not a 'reduction'.

No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
data with it. Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem, the
focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
Of course there are far larger gains seen from things like
moving from 10Mb to 100Mb, but there's not a lot of point in
itemizing every possible network performance limiter when
the topic was already isolating one parameter.