C
Conor
2000 is better than XP.
Have you ever tried networking with XP? Notice how long it takes to
list the contents of the My Netowrk PLaces folder and how long it takes
to list the contents of a share?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Have you ever tried networking with XP? Notice how long it takes to
list the contents of the My Netowrk PLaces folder and how long it takes
to list the contents of a share?
B
Black Adder
Yes, but I do it properlyConor said:2000 is better than XP. Absolute Rubbish!
Have you ever tried networking with XP?
Notice how long it takes to
Can't say that I have, it must be you. A proper network uses login scriptslist the contents of the My Netowrk PLaces folder and how long it takes
to list the contents of a share?
to map paths to a server. Not have piddly network shares scattered accross
2 dozen XP home PC's.
F
Fred is back
Conor said:2000 is better than XP.
Much better?
Have you ever tried networking with XP?
No. My doctor advised against it.
Notice how long it takes to list the contents of the My Netowrk PLaces
folder and how long it takes to list the contents of a share?
No. Never noticed how long it takes to list the contents of the your netowrk
places folder before.
C
Conor
In other words you hacked the registry and turned off some of thoseYes, but I do it properly
"features that make XP better than 98/2000"
C
Conor
Nob.Fred is back said:No. Never noticed how long it takes to list the contents of the your netowrk
places folder before.
K
kony
That is simply silly. 'Support', of any kind, costs time and effort and
when the return doesn't justify it then one doesn't do it.
Nope, "Support" was already there in Win9x and 2K. It
requires more time to remove it than leave it alone, so far
as functionality is concerned. If they want to drop active
technical support policies for implementing it, that is
another story and understandable.
It's antiquated by comparing it's capabilities to the alternatives.
Again, no.
Adding features that someone doesn't need, does not in
itself antiquate something that is better for the user's
needs. Again it seems to come back to the idea that what
you want, specifically, should suddenly make what someone
else wants, irrelevant.
Neither are buggy whips, to those who 'use them'. but there's little reason
to 'support' them in "horseless carriages."
So apparently you are choosing the buggy whip. It has more
versatility than a car, since it whips animals and
unfortunately slaves (at the time). You choose this instead
of the faster alternative.
When one does not need the TCP/IP features, it's simply
counter-productive and illogical to use it when those very
features make it slower.
They're free to use it. They'll just have to provide their own 'support',
or a third party who might be interested.
Yep, but that has nothing to do with "antiquated". What
will antiquate Netbeui is when an alternative exceeds it's
performance but also is non-routable. In other words,
TCP/IP can never possible be the thing that antiquates it,
because both exist for different reasons.
Ain't no 'little' thing.
Right- BUT if you don't need to route, perhaps even don't
WANT to route, then it is not only a feature that one
wouldn't miss, they choose to avoid it and reap the
performance gain from doing without.
Not to mention it's universally supported across virtually every platform
on the planet instead of a single O.S..
... which is completely irrelevant in fixed scenarios where
no routing is needed. Nobody is arguing to abandon TCP/IP
for uses where it is needed, only to use the right tool for
the job.
Remove it and you've got an antiquated, severely limited, protocol.
It is senseless to suggest use of a protocol with more
features when none of those features are needed and it's
slower because of them.
K
kony
Mate, your a dead-set idiot if you think 98 and 2000 are better than XP.
Windows XP has got more functionallity, better communications and runs
faster than those OS's.
Thanks for trolling by.
If you can't run Win2k, it's your problem. The rest of the
world does so fine- in FACT, 2K is still the dominant
business OS, not XP. If you personally can't secure it, and
since it's still dominant, you ought to stop trying to
pretend to know about security.
R
Rod Speed
Conor said:Black Adder wrote
2000 is better than XP.
Nope, in spades with the networking being discussed.
Have you ever tried networking with XP?
Yep, with all of those, actually.
Notice how long it takes to list the contents
of the My Netowrk PLaces folder
Mine is very fast.
and how long it takes to list the contents of a share?
Mine is very fast.
And you dont have to fart around with multiple accounts with XP, you do with 2K.
R
Rod Speed
Conor said:In other words you hacked the registry and turned off some of those
"features that make XP better than 98/2000"
Wrong again.
S
Some Guy
David said:Ain't no 'little' thing.
-------------
NetBEUI (NetBIOS Extended User Interface) is a new, extended
version of NetBIOS lets computers communicate within a local
area network. NetBEUI is the best performance choice for
communication within a single LAN. It does not support the
routing of messages to other networks. It is recommended to
install both NetBEUI and TCP/IP in each computer and set the
server up to use NetBEUI for communication within the LAN and
TCP/IP for communication beyond the LAN.
http://cob.bloomu.edu/afundaburk/personal/NBEA - Let's Go Wireless Presentation.ppt
-----------
Look people.
Microsoft has a single over-riding agenda - to make money (like most
corporations). However, their main product (desktop OS's) aren't like
most consumer goods (ie like a car). How do you know when an OS is
"worn out" ? Well, for Microsoft (which is really (in the real world)
the only game in town when it comes to OS's) they can call the shots
to some degree by forcing the obselence of older os's by forcing
certain new technologies into the market (the migration from Win-95 to
Win-98 was coaxed by such things as USB and FAT-32).
This is really just another way to say that a good deal of the claimed
differences between different versions of Windows is marketing
bullshit designed to instill a degree of psycological bias against the
older OS. It creates a notion that the older OS is "worn out" in an
almost physical way.
The other aspect of what Microsoft does is to gear Windows first and
formost towards their best paying customer - that being large
corporations (and the gov't). They want work-station security, they
want (need) routable protocals, they want remote administration
capability, they want permission-based user hirarchies. So Windows
(2K and XP) comes "out of the box" with all sorts of services and
ports configured as active by default. Which leads to the next point:
Microsoft values reducing the need for customer support far more than
workstation security. The default settings for 2K and XP are set to
be most appropriate for a large corporation (with IT staff and
fire-wall). For the small company or home user, XP is (and was) a
disaster in terms of viral and trojan infections.
What's this got to do with NetBEUI vs TCP/IP?
It's Microsoft's "keep it simple stupid" mentality. If TCP will work
everywhere on a network (large, small, across routers, etc) then it
becomes the default protocal and bye bye NetBEUI. It will mean fewer
support calls for MS from fortune 500 companies. It doesn't mean
NetBEUI is bad or inferior (it seems it may have a performance edge on
small networks vs TCP, and it certainly has a security edge over
TCP). It just means MS made a decision motivated by making their life
simpler. I'm sure a big part of it was to force some degree of
incompatibility between exiting networks (with NT4 servers) which
would force those systems into the garbage in favor of XP-pro.
It's funny how jaded we all pretty much are towards Microsoft the
corporate pirahna fish that they are, how they use strong-arm tactics
to kill competition, yet we let their mantra of OS obselescence sink
into our heads exactly according to their plan.
Remove it and you've got an antiquated, severely limited,
protocol.
As if TCP/IP isin't "antiquated".
C
Conor
Err, that's why Windows XP boxen are owned within 30 seconds of hookingAnd you dont have to fart around with multiple accounts with XP, you do with 2K.
up to the internet.
D
David Maynard
kony said:Nope,
Yes, "support" takes effort.
"Support" was already there in Win9x and 2K.
It didn't appear by magic and I'll bet you expected it to work because the
magic word "supported" was there.
It
requires more time to remove it than leave it alone, so far
as functionality is concerned.
Poppycock. You simply remove that protocol from the default list. And
that's a hell of a lot easier than testing the stupid thing as the O.S.
evolves.
And since you claim it doesn't 'work' it would obviously take time and
effort to *make* it 'work'.
If they want to drop active
technical support policies for implementing it, that is
another story and understandable.
They did that. Which also included testing the thing.
Again, no.
Again, yes.
Adding features that someone doesn't need,
Show me how the internet, or any network with any complexity at all, will
work with a non routable protocol.
does not in
itself antiquate something that is better for the user's
needs. Again it seems to come back to the idea that what
you want, specifically, should suddenly make what someone
else wants, irrelevant.
Nonsense. What it comes down to is supporting useful protocols and also
wasting time and effort supporting one that has limited usefulness and that
adds not one thing which the current protocols don't also offer.
So apparently you are choosing the buggy whip. It has more
versatility than a car, since it whips animals and
unfortunately slaves (at the time). You choose this instead
of the faster alternative.
I'm not choosing buggy whips, it's you who are promoting them.
When one does not need the TCP/IP features, it's simply
counter-productive and illogical to use it when those very
features make it slower.
No, it isn't.
Yep, but that has nothing to do with "antiquated".
I didn't say it did. This argument is about their freedom to use it.
What
will antiquate Netbeui is when an alternative exceeds it's
performance but also is non-routable. In other words,
TCP/IP can never possible be the thing that antiquates it,
because both exist for different reasons.
That like saying the horseless carriage will only antiquate the horse and
buggy when it does exactly the same thing, including drop shit on the road.
It's just nonsense.
And you trying to make a 'feature' of dropping shit on the road doesn't
make it so.
Right- BUT if you don't need to route, perhaps even don't
WANT to route, then it is not only a feature that one
wouldn't miss, they choose to avoid it and reap the
performance gain from doing without.
Just because some yahoo can't figure out how to configure TCP/IP, run a
firewall, use IPX if he wants to unbind ports, or any number of
alternatives, doesn't mean Microsoft has to 'support' a piece of junk like
Netbeui.
.. which is completely irrelevant in fixed scenarios where
no routing is needed.
No, it isn't 'irrelevant'. It takes time and effort to make things work, as
well as to 'support' them, and it's absurd to expend that effort on
protocols that add nothing.
Nobody is arguing to abandon TCP/IP
for uses where it is needed, only to use the right tool for
the job.
Netbeui isn't the 'right tool' for ANY job, just as buggy whips aren't the
'right tool' to control your car motor, regardless of how much you pine for
the horse and buggy days and the 'simplicity' of whipping them to make them go.
It is senseless to suggest use of a protocol with more
features when none of those features are needed and it's
slower because of them.
What's senseless is to expect anyone to continue 'supporting' a protocol
that has such limited use.
And it doesn't matter if, in your opinion, paper tape "does the job"
either. It isn't supported. Neither is data on audio cassette tapes. Oh,
and Netbeui.
K
kony
It didn't appear by magic and I'll bet you expected it to work because the
magic word "supported" was there.
We don't have to care whether it was magic, only that it WAS
there and only removed through additional effort.
Poppycock. You simply remove that protocol from the default list. And
that's a hell of a lot easier than testing the stupid thing as the O.S.
evolves.
yeah, removing it vs not. More work.
As I already mentioned, they don't have to officially test
anything. In fact, since it already worked, and since it
does still work, these random ideas about support are
irrelevant.
And since you claim it doesn't 'work' it would obviously take time and
effort to *make* it 'work'.
I made no such claim.
Rather, you were trying to imply there is some problem.
They did that. Which also included testing the thing.
And?
Who said any different?
Again, yes.
Show me how the internet, or any network with any complexity at all, will
work with a non routable protocol.
Again, I have never argued not to use TCP/IP for internet.
The key thing you keep overlooking is that not all things on
a lan need routing.
It is NOT a choice of "one or the other, every single person
must use only one protocol for everything".
Rather, multiple protocols exist for different reasons. The
bottom line is that using TCP/IP when one doesnt' need ANY
of the TCP/IP specific features, is the worst possible
choice. If you need the features, use it.
Nonsense. What it comes down to is supporting useful protocols and also
wasting time and effort supporting one that has limited usefulness and that
adds not one thing which the current protocols don't also offer.
I have one of those multi-functio knifes. It does a lot of
things too, but most things it does poorly compared to the
right tool for the job.
I'm not choosing buggy whips, it's you who are promoting them.
You choose based on things that are not applicable to all
situations, and the result being use of a protocol that is
overweight and slower.
No, it isn't.
You are entiteled to use whatever you want... apparently, so
long as it's only TCP/IP.
I didn't say it did. This argument is about their freedom to use it.
Who is they?
Microsoft?
I have not claimed even once that Microsoft should spend
another moment on it. However, spending a moment to remove
features is counter-productive. That's not all "this
argument is about" though, as you are also trying to argue
the use of TCP/IP when it's inferior for the tasks as well
as when it's needed.
That like saying the horseless carriage will only antiquate the horse and
buggy when it does exactly the same thing, including drop shit on the road.
You keep getting it backwards. If the horse and buggy were
faster than a car, and worked reliably with no maintenance,
more people would use it. Netbeui is faster, works
reliably, and no maintenance. It is simply better because
of it's simplicity.
Suppose you're going out to dinner tonight. You could take
your wallet, a gun, hammer, rope, candles, and a whole lot
of stuff you won't need. With these 100 lbs. of gear,
certainly you're ready for a whole lot more situations than
just dining- do you carry all that stuff with you or would
you prefer to be unencumbered and able to move around faster
and/or with less effort? When one doesn't need the
features of TCP/IP, the situation is similar.
It's just nonsense.
Yes, completely uncalled for to pick a bloated protocol when
it's not needed.
And you trying to make a 'feature' of dropping shit on the road doesn't
make it so.
Whatever you want to do, go right ahead.
Those who use other protocols than just TCP/IP, don't really
have any concerns about "shit on the road".
Just because some yahoo can't figure out how to configure TCP/IP, run a
firewall, use IPX if he wants to unbind ports, or any number of
alternatives, doesn't mean Microsoft has to 'support' a piece of junk like
Netbeui.
Sounds like a whole lot of work to end up with lower
performance.
If you need TCP/IP, use it.
No, it isn't 'irrelevant'. It takes time and effort to make things work, as
well as to 'support' them, and it's absurd to expend that effort on
protocols that add nothing.
This must mean your time & effort. I can see that 90% of it
would be the mental block you have against anything but
TCP/IP, so yes, it would take a lot of time- time I don't
care to spend.
Netbeui isn't the 'right tool' for ANY job, just as buggy whips aren't the
'right tool' to control your car motor, regardless of how much you pine for
the horse and buggy days and the 'simplicity' of whipping them to make them go.
In your opinion.
Use whatever. Pretend it's a good choice even if it has
only detriments in some applications. It seems that mostly,
you personally don't have a use, and therefore assume nobody
else does.
What's senseless is to expect anyone to continue 'supporting' a protocol
that has such limited use.
I can see that the world should only have in it what you
like.
And it doesn't matter if, in your opinion, paper tape "does the job"
either. It isn't supported. Neither is data on audio cassette tapes. Oh,
and Netbeui.
Then don't use it.
Let us know if someone tries to force you to use it.
K
kony
-------------
NetBEUI (NetBIOS Extended User Interface) is a new, extended
version of NetBIOS lets computers communicate within a local
area network. NetBEUI is the best performance choice for
communication within a single LAN. It does not support the
routing of messages to other networks. It is recommended to
install both NetBEUI and TCP/IP in each computer and set the
server up to use NetBEUI for communication within the LAN and
TCP/IP for communication beyond the LAN.
http://cob.bloomu.edu/afundaburk/personal/NBEA - Let's Go Wireless Presentation.ppt
-----------
Look people.
Microsoft has a single over-riding agenda - to make money (like most
corporations). However, their main product (desktop OS's) aren't like
most consumer goods (ie like a car). How do you know when an OS is
"worn out" ? Well, for Microsoft (which is really (in the real world)
the only game in town when it comes to OS's) they can call the shots
to some degree by forcing the obselence of older os's by forcing
certain new technologies into the market (the migration from Win-95 to
Win-98 was coaxed by such things as USB and FAT-32).
This is really just another way to say that a good deal of the claimed
differences between different versions of Windows is marketing
bullshit designed to instill a degree of psycological bias against the
older OS. It creates a notion that the older OS is "worn out" in an
almost physical way.
The other aspect of what Microsoft does is to gear Windows first and
formost towards their best paying customer - that being large
corporations (and the gov't). They want work-station security, they
want (need) routable protocals, they want remote administration
capability, they want permission-based user hirarchies. So Windows
(2K and XP) comes "out of the box" with all sorts of services and
ports configured as active by default. Which leads to the next point:
Microsoft values reducing the need for customer support far more than
workstation security. The default settings for 2K and XP are set to
be most appropriate for a large corporation (with IT staff and
fire-wall). For the small company or home user, XP is (and was) a
disaster in terms of viral and trojan infections.
What's this got to do with NetBEUI vs TCP/IP?
It's Microsoft's "keep it simple stupid" mentality. If TCP will work
everywhere on a network (large, small, across routers, etc) then it
becomes the default protocal and bye bye NetBEUI. It will mean fewer
support calls for MS from fortune 500 companies. It doesn't mean
NetBEUI is bad or inferior (it seems it may have a performance edge on
small networks vs TCP, and it certainly has a security edge over
TCP). It just means MS made a decision motivated by making their life
simpler. I'm sure a big part of it was to force some degree of
incompatibility between exiting networks (with NT4 servers) which
would force those systems into the garbage in favor of XP-pro.
It's funny how jaded we all pretty much are towards Microsoft the
corporate pirahna fish that they are, how they use strong-arm tactics
to kill competition, yet we let their mantra of OS obselescence sink
into our heads exactly according to their plan.
As if TCP/IP isin't "antiquated".
OH MY.
Nice post.
Mr. Maynard is going to be busy for the next week with this
one.
R
Rod Speed
Some Guy said:David Maynard wrote
-------------
NetBEUI (NetBIOS Extended User Interface) is a new,
extended version of NetBIOS lets computers communicate
within a local area network. NetBEUI is the best performance
choice for communication within a single LAN.
Mindless pig ignorant drivel.
It does not support the routing of messages to other networks.
So its well past its useby date now.
It is recommended to install both NetBEUI and TCP/IP in each
computer and set the server up to use NetBEUI for communication
within the LAN and TCP/IP for communication beyond the LAN.
Only by pig ignorant uniwankers that dont have a ****ing clue.
Look people.
Get ****ed, animal.
Microsoft has a single over-riding agenda -
to make money (like most corporations).
Nothing what so ever to do with dropping NETBEUI.
However, their main product (desktop OS's)
aren't like most consumer goods (ie like a car).
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist ****wits ?
How do you know when an OS is "worn out" ?
It doesnt do what you want to do as well as a better OS, ****wit.
Well, for Microsoft (which is really (in the real world) the only
game in town when it comes to OS's) they can call the shots
to some degree by forcing the obselence of older os's by forcing
certain new technologies into the market (the migration from
Win-95 to Win-98 was coaxed by such things as USB and FAT-32).
Utterly mindless pig ignorant conspiracy theory.
The reality is that extra stuff is added as it become
useful, FAT32 when the limitations of FAT16 become
a significant limitation as hard drives get bigger etc.
With USB support, it was completely redone with Win98 and
as a result of that works a lot better than it ever did with Win95.
This is really just another way to say that a good deal of the
claimed differences between different versions of Windows
is marketing bullshit designed to instill a degree of psycological
bias against the older OS. It creates a notion that the older
OS is "worn out" in an almost physical way.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a
****ing clue.
Have fun explaining how come even Linux keeps adding extra capability.
The other aspect of what Microsoft does is to gear Windows first
and formost towards their best paying customer - that being large
corporations (and the gov't). They want work-station security, they
want (need) routable protocals, they want remote administration
capability, they want permission-based user hirarchies. So Windows
(2K and XP) comes "out of the box" with all sorts of services and
ports configured as active by default.
Because more and more personal users need that stuff, most
obviously with multiple users per PC and multiple PCs per house etc.
Which leads to the next point:
Microsoft values reducing the need for customer
support far more than workstation security.
And thats what most personal desktop users want too, ****wit.
The default settings for 2K and XP are set to be most
appropriate for a large corporation (with IT staff and fire-wall).
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a
****ing clue.
For the small company or home user, XP is (and
was) a disaster in terms of viral and trojan infections.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a
****ing clue.
What's this got to do with NetBEUI vs TCP/IP?
Nothing.
It's Microsoft's "keep it simple stupid" mentality.
Wrong. NETBEUI is much simpler than TCP/IP, if they
actually did go for simplicity, they'd have kept it, stupid.
If TCP will work everywhere on a network (large, small, across routers, etc)
And hordes of personal systems have that stuff now, stupid.
then it becomes the default protocal and bye bye NetBEUI.
Its a protocol, not a 'protocal', you pig ignorant clown.
It will mean fewer support calls for MS from fortune 500 companies.
They dont do support that way, ****wit.
It doesn't mean NetBEUI is bad or inferior
It is anyway.
(it seems it may have a performance edge on small networks vs TCP,
Wrong.
and it certainly has a security edge over TCP).
Wrong.
It just means MS made a decision motivated by making their life simpler.
Wrong.
I'm sure a big part of it was to force some degree of incompatibility
between exiting networks (with NT4 servers) which would force
those systems into the garbage in favor of XP-pro.
Yet another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
It's funny how jaded we all pretty much are towards Microsoft the
corporate pirahna fish that they are, how they use strong-arm tactics
to kill competition, yet we let their mantra of OS obselescence sink
into our heads exactly according to their plan.
Yet another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
As if TCP/IP isin't "antiquated".
Pathetic, really.
R
Rod Speed
Conor said:Rod Speed wrote
Err, that's why Windows XP boxen are owned
within 30 seconds of hooking up to the internet.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys.
J
John Doe
Troll
Path: newssvr17.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm02.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,aus.computers,comp.hardware
Subject: Re: Install win xp over a network
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 08:58:50 +1000
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <3ir8vvFmuko4U1 individual.net>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Trace: individual.net jciotOZvCyJxmfU6CYRACg600kbyy2/SbV444BspxumC8bfoA=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware:280683 alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt:213693 alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:440212 aus.computers:179787 comp.hardware:42558
Mindless pig ignorant drivel.
So its well past its useby date now.
Only by pig ignorant uniwankers that dont have a ****ing clue.
Get ****ed, animal.
Nothing what so ever to do with dropping NETBEUI.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist ****wits ?
It doesnt do what you want to do as well as a better OS, ****wit.
Utterly mindless pig ignorant conspiracy theory.
The reality is that extra stuff is added as it become
useful, FAT32 when the limitations of FAT16 become
a significant limitation as hard drives get bigger etc.
With USB support, it was completely redone with Win98 and
as a result of that works a lot better than it ever did with Win95.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a
****ing clue.
Have fun explaining how come even Linux keeps adding extra capability.
Because more and more personal users need that stuff, most
obviously with multiple users per PC and multiple PCs per house etc.
And thats what most personal desktop users want too, ****wit.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a
****ing clue.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've never ever had a
****ing clue.
Wrong. NETBEUI is much simpler than TCP/IP, if they
actually did go for simplicity, they'd have kept it, stupid.
And hordes of personal systems have that stuff now, stupid.
Its a protocol, not a 'protocal', you pig ignorant clown.
They dont do support that way, ****wit.
It is anyway.
Yet another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
Yet another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
Pathetic, really.
D
DaveW
At least ONE of the computers has to have a CD-Rom drive to start the
installation on the network.
installation on the network.
S
Some Guy
John said:Troll
Looks like Bill Gates chose the wrong week to start taking
amphetamines.
D
David Maynard
kony said:We don't have to care whether it was magic, only that it WAS
there and only removed through additional effort.
If you'd try thinking for a few minutes instead of trying to 'invent'
nonsense you'd realize they didn't decide to waste effort 'removing it' for
no reason.
The simple fact is it costs money, more than to 'remove it', to trouble
shoot and 'support' the damn thing for no good reason.
yeah, removing it vs not. More work.
Wrong. It has to be tested and validated to be 'left in' and that's a hell
of a lot more work that removing the entry in the "add protocol" table.
As I already mentioned, they don't have to officially test
anything.
If you already mentioned it then you were just as wrong then as you are
now. Support *means* it 'works'. And that means it must be "officially tested."
In fact, since it already worked, and since it
does still work,
It was claimed it didn't work. If it works then there's no issue at all.
Use it.
these random ideas about support are
irrelevant.
No it isn't because "support" is a warranty and an offer to provide, tada,
'support' for problems you have when it doesn't.
I made no such claim.
Rather, you were trying to imply there is some problem.
I never said there was a problem. I said there's no reason to 'support' a
protocol that offers no significant value.
And?
Who said any different?
You did by implying it's 'free' to "support" it.
Again, I have never argued not to use TCP/IP for internet.
The key thing you keep overlooking is that not all things on
a lan need routing.
I'm not 'overlooking' anything. What you're 'overlooking' is it's less time
and effort to support one protocol than 2 and that a couple of disgruntled
yahoos who can't configure a network is not a "good reason" to 'support'
the obsolete one.
It is NOT a choice of "one or the other,
Didn't say it was. I said it was a choice of 1 or TWO (or 2 vs 3, or 4 vs
5, or any other ratio you chose). And that one is less effort than two and
unless the second provides some exceedingly good reason over the other it's
a waste of effort to continue 'support' for it.
every single person
must use only one protocol for everything".
Don't have to. Use IPX if you have a hankering for something 'different'.
Rather, multiple protocols exist for different reasons.
Correct. And there just ain't a good one for Netbeui.
The
bottom line is that using TCP/IP when one doesnt' need ANY
of the TCP/IP specific features, is the worst possible
choice.
No, it isn't.
If you need the features, use it.
I do.
I have one of those multi-functio knifes. It does a lot of
things too, but most things it does poorly compared to the
right tool for the job.
Netbeui isn't the right tool.
You choose based on things that are not applicable to all
situations, and the result being use of a protocol that is
overweight and slower.
And you argue useless things into 'features', then demand someone go to the
time and effort to provide the useless along with the useful.
You are entiteled to use whatever you want...
So are you.
apparently, so
long as it's only TCP/IP.
No one said you could 'only use TCP/IP'. You can use Netbeui all you like,
however you like. Microsoft just isn't going to provide "support" for it.
Who is they?
Anybody.
Microsoft?
I have not claimed even once that Microsoft should spend
another moment on it.
Yes, you have by arguing they should "support" it. You can whine all day
long that 'support' is 'free' but the plain fact of the matter is it isn't.
However, spending a moment to remove
features is counter-productive.
All they 'removed' was it's entry in the default list.
That's not all "this
argument is about" though, as you are also trying to argue
the use of TCP/IP when it's inferior for the tasks as well
as when it's needed.
I argued no such thing. What I said was Netbeui does not provide anything
worth the support it would take.
You keep getting it backwards.
Sorry, but no. The whole problem is your erroneous presumption that
"support" is somehow free.
If the horse and buggy were
faster than a car, and worked reliably with no maintenance,
more people would use it.
But it isn't.
Netbeui is faster, works
reliably, and no maintenance.
False premise. It is *not* "no maintenance." And if it were then why do you
give a tinker's dam whether it's 'supported' or not?
It is simply better because
of it's simplicity.
False premise.
A buggy's "simplicity" does not make it 'simply better'.
Suppose you're going out to dinner tonight. You could take
your wallet, a gun, hammer, rope, candles, and a whole lot
of stuff you won't need. With these 100 lbs. of gear,
certainly you're ready for a whole lot more situations than
just dining- do you carry all that stuff with you or would
you prefer to be unencumbered and able to move around faster
and/or with less effort? When one doesn't need the
features of TCP/IP, the situation is similar.
You're free to take a pocket knife to a gun fight if you like but I'm not
going to 'support' it.
Yes, completely uncalled for to pick a bloated protocol when
it's not needed.
It's even sillier to insist on muzzle loading flintlocks.
Your premise is simply false. Show me how 'bloated' TCP/IP severely impacts
a simple non routed network so that a user would have the slightest clue
which was being used from the 'uncalled for bloat'.
And then they add their wireless router for the notebooks and, gee Marge,
how come I can't see those machines?
Whatever you want to do, go right ahead.
Those who use other protocols than just TCP/IP, don't really
have any concerns about "shit on the road".
Netbeui is not the totality of "other protocols."
Sounds like a whole lot of work to end up with lower
performance.
If you need TCP/IP, use it.
And if you think you 'need' Netbeui then use it. Just don't expect
'support' from MS.
This must mean your time & effort.
No.
I can see that 90% of it
would be the mental block you have against anything but
TCP/IP, so yes, it would take a lot of time- time I don't
care to spend.
You're not even in the ball park.
In your opinion.
Use whatever. Pretend it's a good choice even if it has
only detriments in some applications. It seems that mostly,
you personally don't have a use, and therefore assume nobody
else does.
This has nothing to do with what 'I' use. It has to do with your strange
notion that 'support' for a protocol is 'free'.
I can see that the world should only have in it what you
like.
Has nothing to do with what "I like." It has to do with why Microsoft
should spend the time and effort to 'support' a protocol for no good reason.
Then don't use it.
Let us know if someone tries to force you to use it.
Let me know if someone tries to 'stop' you.