D
Detlev Dreyer
TK said:Sorry for my ignorance: but what is an OP please.
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/O/thread-OP.html
TK said:Sorry for my ignorance: but what is an OP please.
Daniel said:Ken
sorry it took so long to get back to you,
I've been installing etc.
I ended up getting the OEM because in December, hopefully
I will be getting an upgrade to Vista.
MS's flawed error prone anti-piracy technologies like WPA and WGA workLeythos said:Except that lame statements like the above seek to disrupt, cause you to
look immature, and don't help your position any.
Many people, while using a MAC or Linux system will not be any better
off. Most people don't care about the licensing, as it doesn't matter
99% of the time, what they care about is ease of use, working with the
latest/current hardware, application base, and being able to get
support.
MS's flawed error prone anti-piracy technologies like WPA and WGA work
against ease of use!
So that's a sampling of 1500 out of how many hundreds of millions? VeryNever had a problem with almost 1500 activations of XP and never had a
problem with hundreds of activations of Office.
NoStop said:So that's a sampling of 1500 out of how many hundreds of millions? Very
scientific conclusion indeed to lead one to insist that there is no problem
with MickeyMouse's WPA/WGA.
NoStop said:Well a PC that has "burned" certainly sounds like something more than a
failed hard drive. Anyways, the mystery is solved later ...
The OP also posted later: "BTW the MB and Graphics card also went west so
it
is cheaper to by new than repair."
Get it yet? <sigh> Probably not.
"My PC has crashed and burned". That is a vague and generalized
statement.
Says nothing specific. "with the hard drive shorted out and not
recoverable" qualifies what the first part of the statement declared. I
didn't see a big problem in interpreting what was said (as opposed what
the OP might've been said or how many different ways it could be
interpreted).
Sorry, there is no way in making Usenet posts to make them conditional on
LATER posts.
You asked me to qualify my statement which was made at a specific time.
Obviously any statement is based on the information that has been provided
up and until that time. I don't use an Ouija board. Yes, more
information was provided LATER, but *you* asked about my statement made
EARLIER.
Get it yet? <sigh> Probably not.
NoStop said:Sorry no banana. YOU are the one that still doesn't get it. My
interpretation of what the OP said was the correct one. Yours was silly
speculation based on how YOU wanted to interpret the message. I guess that
is just part of living up to the term "vanguard". Always in the lead, but
failing to look back to see if the rest of your troops are following.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.