A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » The Basics
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

XP SP3 Details?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old August 17th 07, 07:51 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default XP SP3 Details?

You've got more understanding than that to make that type of comment. Cool
it.
"Doug W." stand@attention wrote in message
...
Why don't you post to ten more NGs?
-
PLONK

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Gerry added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

If you need to continues these off topic dialogues for ever
and a day how about snipping! Also do these posts need to
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public .windowsxp.ge
neral,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support. Surely one
group is sufficient.

Gerry, if you have been following my comments, then you know that
I DO snip the useless prior quotes as well as interleave post so
that people can connect what I'm replying to. I'm sorry if you
think I'm doing it wrong, but I seldom top post (I did do a
couple recently) and I seldom repeat all the previous testimony.

Now, what specifically are you alleging I am posting that is OT?
NOt all of what I've said, or what anyone says, is exactly on-
topic for the actual subject of the OP's thread, but that is the
way that threads evolve. There is no general MS NG for OT-style
posts but if we roll with the punches a little when people drift,
it makes life more pleasant, and any OT-ness can be quickly
ascertained and you just stop reading.

One more comment. It has been said before that sometimes people
are so ignorant of a problem they can't even ask an intelligent
question. So, if I chime into a thread with a personal
observations and somebody gives me a heads up that I'm missing
the boat, I take heed.

I suspect your issue in this thread is that there has been a LOT
of discussion from many people about the nature of the software
biz, that may the source of your angst. Don't you ever recant
stories from your youth in support of why you're experienced
enough to do what you do today? And, please feel free to exercise
your rights to ignore or plonk me if you think I am single-handed
monopolizing so many of your fav NGs.

--
HP, aka Jerry




Ads
  #62  
Old August 17th 07, 07:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default XP SP3 Details?

Are you such a perfectionist that you have to complain about friendly
posts????
"Gerry" wrote in message
...
What does this dialogue have to do with SP3?

Why does it require posting to three newsgroups?


--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


HEMI-Powered wrote:
Gerry added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

If you need to continues these off topic dialogues for ever
and a day how about snipping! Also do these posts need to
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public .windowsxp.ge
neral,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support. Surely one
group is sufficient.

Gerry, if you have been following my comments, then you know that
I DO snip the useless prior quotes as well as interleave post so
that people can connect what I'm replying to. I'm sorry if you
think I'm doing it wrong, but I seldom top post (I did do a
couple recently) and I seldom repeat all the previous testimony.

Now, what specifically are you alleging I am posting that is OT?
NOt all of what I've said, or what anyone says, is exactly on-
topic for the actual subject of the OP's thread, but that is the
way that threads evolve. There is no general MS NG for OT-style
posts but if we roll with the punches a little when people drift,
it makes life more pleasant, and any OT-ness can be quickly
ascertained and you just stop reading.

One more comment. It has been said before that sometimes people
are so ignorant of a problem they can't even ask an intelligent
question. So, if I chime into a thread with a personal
observations and somebody gives me a heads up that I'm missing
the boat, I take heed.

I suspect your issue in this thread is that there has been a LOT
of discussion from many people about the nature of the software
biz, that may the source of your angst. Don't you ever recant
stories from your youth in support of why you're experienced
enough to do what you do today? And, please feel free to exercise
your rights to ignore or plonk me if you think I am single-handed
monopolizing so many of your fav NGs.





  #63  
Old August 18th 07, 10:37 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
db ´¯`·.. >
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default XP SP3 Details?

there is no rule against
cross posting, Hemi.

http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales...elp_en-us.htm: cross-post
Adding a single post to more than one discussion group at the same time.
Cross-posting is an advanced feature and should only be used if you
really believe that more than one discussion group will be interested in
your thread.


btw:

Ditto on your observations.

Gerimandering the sub threads
is the problem.



--

db ·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·..)))x`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸)))º¸.
)))º·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. )))º`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸)))º



..


"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Doug W. added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

Why don't you post to ten more NGs?
-
PLONK

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Gerry added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...

If you need to continues these off topic dialogues for ever
and a day how about snipping! Also do these posts need to
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public .windowsxp.
ge neral,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support. Surely
one group is sufficient.

Gerry, if you have been following my comments, then you know
that I DO snip the useless prior quotes as well as interleave
post so that people can connect what I'm replying to. I'm
sorry if you think I'm doing it wrong, but I seldom top post
(I did do a couple recently) and I seldom repeat all the
previous testimony.


I'll assume you plonked me and not my namesake, but either way, who
cares? BTW, anybody take notice on the very positive exchanges with
Ken Blake hereabouts? No, probably not. I have seen threads in this
and ALL the MS NGs as well as 24hoursupport go on for hundreds of
posts and weeks at a time, yet nobody seems to care. What makes
this one so different? And what, pray tell, is the "problem" with
making rational judgments about MS and subject of this thread, SP3?

--
HP, aka Jerry


  #64  
Old August 20th 07, 03:52 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
h1247
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default XP SP3 Details?

HEMI I enjoyed your post here but, there is one comment that I'd like to ask
you about --- "the original PC that didn't even have DOS, that came in with
the XT"--did you possibly mean to say CP/M, from the wonderful company that
was called DIGITAL RESEARCH? The reason I ask is because, I still have that
1st edition XT, that you speak of, downstairs in my garage. And if I cleaned
it up, plugged it in and "fired" it up, DOS would "magically" appear, and be
available for me to give that PC instructions. My first "PC" was a VIC-20 and
the next was that 4.77MHz IBM PC. And like you, I hung up my programmer hat
around 1992, because it wasn't fun anymore to me.

"HEMI-Powered" wrote:

Unknown added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

Wed at the hips----------???? Supposing you wrote the OS. How
would you control it and/or keep your customers happy. Many
companies write programs to run with XP (the OS) and when a
problem occurs, MS is immediately blamed. Be objective.


Let's just say that I've been around MS more than long enough,
all the way back to the original PC that didn't even have DOS,
that came in with the XT, to understand them pretty well. I don't
mean to be vindictively critical, but surely you will admit they
have less than a stellar record of their own releases, they have
a rep for hiding key parts of their various APIs even from those
who buy their development packages all the way back to the SDK,
reverse engineering of several versions of the major components
of MS Office have been found to contain fairly large percentages
of commands and API calls that seem not to be documented, and MS
like all commercial companies reserves the rights to control its
copyrighted software and give "guidance" to developers.

I didn't say, BTW, that all problems are MS, I am not at all that
naive and not at all an anti-MS bigot to believe that. Rogue and
misbehaving applications, especially systems utilities of all
kinds, are rampant throughout the 25 years since the first PC,
they suffer from their own bugs, side-effects bugs, and the rush
to bring new versions to market no matter what. This super
competitiveness all the way around makes for not only strange
bedfellows but interlocking dependencies that can make full
diagnosis of major or even minor systems issue deceptively
difficult.

I hung up my programmer clothes circa 1995 or so, thus I am more
than a little out-of-date for direct knowledge of whence I speak,
but in monitoring this and many other NGs, I see no real signs of
improvement, if anything, I think the situation is deteriorating.
I'm sorry if you feel I am not being objective, let's just say
that I am a pragmatist and always suspicious of extravagent
claims from ANY developer on either side of problems. Thanks for
listening.

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Unknown added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Look closely at all the postings in this group. You'll be
amazed that most problems are not caused by MS but by Non MS
programs, reg cleaners, and virus detect/scan protection?
programs.

That may well be true, but the major developers are wed at
the hips body and soul to the God of Microsoft because they
must play ball or risk losing their certification. But, it is
certainly true that reg cleaners in the hands of the novices
will wreck an otherwise good system and are more harm than
good most of the time.

--
HP, aka Jerry







--
HP, aka Jerry

  #65  
Old August 20th 07, 06:37 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

=?Utf-8?B?aDEyNDc=?= added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

HEMI I enjoyed your post here but, there is one comment that
I'd like to ask you about --- "the original PC that didn't
even have DOS, that came in with the XT"--did you possibly
mean to say CP/M, from the wonderful company that was called
DIGITAL RESEARCH? The reason I ask is because, I still have
that 1st edition XT, that you speak of, downstairs in my
garage. And if I cleaned it up, plugged it in and "fired" it
up, DOS would "magically" appear, and be available for me to
give that PC instructions. My first "PC" was a VIC-20 and the
next was that 4.77MHz IBM PC. And like you, I hung up my
programmer hat around 1992, because it wasn't fun anymore to
me.


The very, very first IBM PC came with just two floppy drives and
pretty much nothing else. DOS hadn't been invented yet. The only
software that was available had been written in assembly language
using only the BIOS for I/O. CP/M WAS an option, but in my
company, we actually waited a bit until IBM announced the XT with
DOS 1.0 and a 10 MB (!) HD.

I ran through 3 different Apple computers, the original ][, a
later //e, and a //c compact for my daughter. My first real PC
was what was then called a clone and had DOS 4.0 on it. Later, I
tried Windows 3.0 that say on top of DOS but to say it was
unstable was an understatement. Win 3.1 wasn't bad, then I went
to 95, passed up ME and 2000, and built new ones with XP. First,
just XP, then SP1. And, my current PC used an SP1 installed CD
with SP2 on a CD I'd ordered from MS.

BTW, I'll tell you how primative Apple's were in late 1978: they
didn't even have a floppy, as that takes some sort of O/S. So,
for almost a year, I saved my BASIC programs to audio cassette
tapes! We've come a long way, baby!

--
HP, aka Jerry
  #66  
Old August 20th 07, 06:38 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

db ´¯`·.. )))º` .. . added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

there is no rule against
cross posting, Hemi.

http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales...elp_en-us.htm:
cross-post Adding a single post to more than one discussion
group at the same time. Cross-posting is an advanced feature
and should only be used if you really believe that more than
one discussion group will be interested in your thread.


btw:

Ditto on your observations.

Gerimandering the sub threads
is the problem.

I do NOT crosspost myself, EVER. But, if I was replying to someone
who had, that would explain why MY replies appeared multiple
places.

--
HP, aka Jerry
  #67  
Old August 20th 07, 07:43 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bob I
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,943
Default XP SP3 Details?



HEMI-Powered wrote:

=?Utf-8?B?aDEyNDc=?= added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...


HEMI I enjoyed your post here but, there is one comment that
I'd like to ask you about --- "the original PC that didn't
even have DOS, that came in with the XT"--did you possibly
mean to say CP/M, from the wonderful company that was called
DIGITAL RESEARCH? The reason I ask is because, I still have
that 1st edition XT, that you speak of, downstairs in my
garage. And if I cleaned it up, plugged it in and "fired" it
up, DOS would "magically" appear, and be available for me to
give that PC instructions. My first "PC" was a VIC-20 and the
next was that 4.77MHz IBM PC. And like you, I hung up my
programmer hat around 1992, because it wasn't fun anymore to
me.



The very, very first IBM PC came with just two floppy drives and
pretty much nothing else. DOS hadn't been invented yet. The only
software that was available had been written in assembly language
using only the BIOS for I/O. CP/M WAS an option, but in my
company, we actually waited a bit until IBM announced the XT with
DOS 1.0 and a 10 MB (!) HD.

I ran through 3 different Apple computers, the original ][, a
later //e, and a //c compact for my daughter. My first real PC
was what was then called a clone and had DOS 4.0 on it. Later, I
tried Windows 3.0 that say on top of DOS but to say it was
unstable was an understatement. Win 3.1 wasn't bad, then I went
to 95, passed up ME and 2000, and built new ones with XP. First,
just XP, then SP1. And, my current PC used an SP1 installed CD
with SP2 on a CD I'd ordered from MS.

BTW, I'll tell you how primative Apple's were in late 1978: they
didn't even have a floppy, as that takes some sort of O/S. So,
for almost a year, I saved my BASIC programs to audio cassette
tapes! We've come a long way, baby!


I thinks XT came with PC-DOS 2.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-DOS

  #68  
Old August 20th 07, 08:50 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default XP SP3 Details?

Didn't it come with MS-DOS???
"Bob I" wrote in message
...


HEMI-Powered wrote:

=?Utf-8?B?aDEyNDc=?= added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...
HEMI I enjoyed your post here but, there is one comment that
I'd like to ask you about --- "the original PC that didn't
even have DOS, that came in with the XT"--did you possibly
mean to say CP/M, from the wonderful company that was called
DIGITAL RESEARCH? The reason I ask is because, I still have
that 1st edition XT, that you speak of, downstairs in my
garage. And if I cleaned it up, plugged it in and "fired" it
up, DOS would "magically" appear, and be available for me to
give that PC instructions. My first "PC" was a VIC-20 and the
next was that 4.77MHz IBM PC. And like you, I hung up my
programmer hat around 1992, because it wasn't fun anymore to
me.



The very, very first IBM PC came with just two floppy drives and pretty
much nothing else. DOS hadn't been invented yet. The only software that
was available had been written in assembly language using only the BIOS
for I/O. CP/M WAS an option, but in my company, we actually waited a bit
until IBM announced the XT with DOS 1.0 and a 10 MB (!) HD.

I ran through 3 different Apple computers, the original ][, a later //e,
and a //c compact for my daughter. My first real PC was what was then
called a clone and had DOS 4.0 on it. Later, I tried Windows 3.0 that say
on top of DOS but to say it was unstable was an understatement. Win 3.1
wasn't bad, then I went to 95, passed up ME and 2000, and built new ones
with XP. First, just XP, then SP1. And, my current PC used an SP1
installed CD with SP2 on a CD I'd ordered from MS.

BTW, I'll tell you how primative Apple's were in late 1978: they didn't
even have a floppy, as that takes some sort of O/S. So, for almost a
year, I saved my BASIC programs to audio cassette tapes! We've come a
long way, baby!


I thinks XT came with PC-DOS 2.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-DOS



  #69  
Old August 20th 07, 09:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

I thinks XT came with PC-DOS 2.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-DOS


That was circa 1982, a long time ago for my feeble brain, so maybe
you're right. I would comment, gently, that I don't believe most of
what wikipedia says in general because of their very loose rules
for editorial review of the correctness of submitted articles. You
could very well be right, that DOS 1.0 may have even come with the
floppy-only version. However, that wasn't my point.

The gist of the way this thread has gone OT is into nostalgic
rememberences of times gone by in an ON-topic way to explain why
even when the O/S was extremely simple and small by today's
standards, there were bugs, and there's been bugs ever since. And,
anyone who thinks that ANY software will EVER be "bug free"
(whatever that even means) is a naive fool or simply has no
previous experience.

--
HP, aka Jerry
  #70  
Old August 20th 07, 09:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

Unknown added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

Didn't it come with MS-DOS???


NO! Bill Gates showed himself even as a very young man to be a very
astute businessman. He wrote a license agreement some 150 pages
long for the IBM guys in Florida secretly developing the PC to
study and sign. Buried in it was that he maintained the rights to
sell it himself as MS-DOS. What IBM brand PCs had was a minor
variation that was called PC-DOS.

And then, of course, is the story of how Gates managed to con the
kernel of what because his DOS from a developer of an earlier O/S
that was competing with CP/M. He bought the exclusive rights for
just $50,000. Without that, he'd have not been able to meet IBM's
deadline that he'd already signed up for to provide an O/S to them.

--
HP, aka Jerry
  #71  
Old August 20th 07, 10:01 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bob I
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,943
Default XP SP3 Details?



HEMI-Powered wrote:

Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...


I thinks XT came with PC-DOS 2.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-DOS



That was circa 1982, a long time ago for my feeble brain, so maybe
you're right. I would comment, gently, that I don't believe most of
what wikipedia says in general because of their very loose rules
for editorial review of the correctness of submitted articles. You
could very well be right, that DOS 1.0 may have even come with the
floppy-only version. However, that wasn't my point.

The gist of the way this thread has gone OT is into nostalgic
rememberences of times gone by in an ON-topic way to explain why
even when the O/S was extremely simple and small by today's
standards, there were bugs, and there's been bugs ever since. And,
anyone who thinks that ANY software will EVER be "bug free"
(whatever that even means) is a naive fool or simply has no
previous experience.


Not a problem in my book. We are all getting old ;-), but it beats the
alternative! As for OT, the original question was OT two of the 3
groups, and even for general it was a stretch! So we have a nice
dicsussion about operating systems and reality. No biggie.

  #72  
Old August 21st 07, 12:54 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default XP SP3 Details?

Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

The gist of the way this thread has gone OT is into nostalgic
rememberences of times gone by in an ON-topic way to explain
why even when the O/S was extremely simple and small by
today's standards, there were bugs, and there's been bugs
ever since. And, anyone who thinks that ANY software will
EVER be "bug free" (whatever that even means) is a naive fool
or simply has no previous experience.


Not a problem in my book. We are all getting old ;-), but it
beats the alternative! As for OT, the original question was OT
two of the 3 groups, and even for general it was a stretch! So
we have a nice dicsussion about operating systems and reality.
No biggie.

Bob, please enlighten me: apparently some/all of my replies have
been showing up multiple places but I can assure everyone that I
do NOT cross-post. If the replies are somewhat similar, I may
have given similar advice elsewhere, but a couple of people have
said I am posting identical text to at least 3 NGs. That's news
to me. Usually, Xnews warns me when I am about to reply to
someone who originally cross-posted, but I've not seen that for
this particular thread, not originally, not the middle, and not
where we are now.

So, if anyone is annoyed at what I've said that you think is
inappropriate or excessively OT, I apologize for that. But, I am
NOT intentionally trying to circumvent conventions established by
MS for these NGs nor am I intentionally inciting to riot. But,
there seems to be at least some evidence that a couple of people
taking issue with me have their own over-sensitivity issues, so
I'm trying to bow out.

Ditto for the meandering FAT32 thread that refuses to die. I want
to leave that one as my questions have been answered, it no
longer has meaning to me, and further comments I might make could
educate me or even a lurker but are going too far afield from the
original intent of the OP. So, I'm trying to disengage there
also.

Again, what I'd really prefer NOT happen is for some silly abuse
reporting war start because those things sweep everybody up, as
every person that gets censured, temporarily suspended, or even
losing their account usually get pretty well ****ed-off and
report everybody in sight that may have at all been a reporter of
them. Nobody wins those wars, I hope we can avoid it here.

Now, I think there's been some excellent discussion in this
thread even afield of what would be considered ON-topic. I've
received comments either directly or indirectly that people are
learning from each other, so that sounds like a good thing, even
though we stopped talking literally about SP3 some time ago.

Have a good evening, everyone!

--
HP, aka Jerry
  #73  
Old August 21st 07, 01:14 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
db ´¯`·.. >
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default XP SP3 Details?

from microsoft the properties of
your / our postings for this
thread are as follows:

-----------------------------------

From: "HEMI-Powered"
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support

Subject: XP SP3 Details?
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:54:27 -0000
Organization: Car Picture Collector
Message-ID:
References:





t







User-Agent: Xnews/06.12.01
X-Complaints-To:
Lines: 58
Path:
TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTFEEDS01.phx.gbl!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!image.surnet.ru!mtu .ru!sn-xt-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-01!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail

Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:1761357
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:771106
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics:304175

Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

--

db ·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·..)))º`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸)))º¸.
)))º·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. )))º`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸)))º



..


"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

The gist of the way this thread has gone OT is into nostalgic
rememberences of times gone by in an ON-topic way to explain
why even when the O/S was extremely simple and small by
today's standards, there were bugs, and there's been bugs
ever since. And, anyone who thinks that ANY software will
EVER be "bug free" (whatever that even means) is a naive fool
or simply has no previous experience.


Not a problem in my book. We are all getting old ;-), but it
beats the alternative! As for OT, the original question was OT
two of the 3 groups, and even for general it was a stretch! So
we have a nice dicsussion about operating systems and reality.
No biggie.

Bob, please enlighten me: apparently some/all of my replies have
been showing up multiple places but I can assure everyone that I
do NOT cross-post. If the replies are somewhat similar, I may
have given similar advice elsewhere, but a couple of people have
said I am posting identical text to at least 3 NGs. That's news
to me. Usually, Xnews warns me when I am about to reply to
someone who originally cross-posted, but I've not seen that for
this particular thread, not originally, not the middle, and not
where we are now.

So, if anyone is annoyed at what I've said that you think is
inappropriate or excessively OT, I apologize for that. But, I am
NOT intentionally trying to circumvent conventions established by
MS for these NGs nor am I intentionally inciting to riot. But,
there seems to be at least some evidence that a couple of people
taking issue with me have their own over-sensitivity issues, so
I'm trying to bow out.

Ditto for the meandering FAT32 thread that refuses to die. I want
to leave that one as my questions have been answered, it no
longer has meaning to me, and further comments I might make could
educate me or even a lurker but are going too far afield from the
original intent of the OP. So, I'm trying to disengage there
also.

Again, what I'd really prefer NOT happen is for some silly abuse
reporting war start because those things sweep everybody up, as
every person that gets censured, temporarily suspended, or even
losing their account usually get pretty well ****ed-off and
report everybody in sight that may have at all been a reporter of
them. Nobody wins those wars, I hope we can avoid it here.

Now, I think there's been some excellent discussion in this
thread even afield of what would be considered ON-topic. I've
received comments either directly or indirectly that people are
learning from each other, so that sounds like a good thing, even
though we stopped talking literally about SP3 some time ago.

Have a good evening, everyone!

--
HP, aka Jerry


  #74  
Old August 21st 07, 01:17 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Gary S. Terhune
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,366
Default XP SP3 Details?

Your post (the one I'm repaying to) is cross-posted to windwosxp.basics,
windowsxp.general and windowsxp.help_and_support.

(Note, I have no problem with your X-posting, just thought I'd let you
know.)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
...
Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

The gist of the way this thread has gone OT is into nostalgic
rememberences of times gone by in an ON-topic way to explain
why even when the O/S was extremely simple and small by
today's standards, there were bugs, and there's been bugs
ever since. And, anyone who thinks that ANY software will
EVER be "bug free" (whatever that even means) is a naive fool
or simply has no previous experience.


Not a problem in my book. We are all getting old ;-), but it
beats the alternative! As for OT, the original question was OT
two of the 3 groups, and even for general it was a stretch! So
we have a nice dicsussion about operating systems and reality.
No biggie.

Bob, please enlighten me: apparently some/all of my replies have
been showing up multiple places but I can assure everyone that I
do NOT cross-post. If the replies are somewhat similar, I may
have given similar advice elsewhere, but a couple of people have
said I am posting identical text to at least 3 NGs. That's news
to me. Usually, Xnews warns me when I am about to reply to
someone who originally cross-posted, but I've not seen that for
this particular thread, not originally, not the middle, and not
where we are now.

So, if anyone is annoyed at what I've said that you think is
inappropriate or excessively OT, I apologize for that. But, I am
NOT intentionally trying to circumvent conventions established by
MS for these NGs nor am I intentionally inciting to riot. But,
there seems to be at least some evidence that a couple of people
taking issue with me have their own over-sensitivity issues, so
I'm trying to bow out.

Ditto for the meandering FAT32 thread that refuses to die. I want
to leave that one as my questions have been answered, it no
longer has meaning to me, and further comments I might make could
educate me or even a lurker but are going too far afield from the
original intent of the OP. So, I'm trying to disengage there
also.

Again, what I'd really prefer NOT happen is for some silly abuse
reporting war start because those things sweep everybody up, as
every person that gets censured, temporarily suspended, or even
losing their account usually get pretty well ****ed-off and
report everybody in sight that may have at all been a reporter of
them. Nobody wins those wars, I hope we can avoid it here.

Now, I think there's been some excellent discussion in this
thread even afield of what would be considered ON-topic. I've
received comments either directly or indirectly that people are
learning from each other, so that sounds like a good thing, even
though we stopped talking literally about SP3 some time ago.

Have a good evening, everyone!

--
HP, aka Jerry



  #75  
Old August 21st 07, 01:49 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bob I
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,943
Default XP SP3 Details?


HEMI-Powered wrote:

Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...


The gist of the way this thread has gone OT is into nostalgic
rememberences of times gone by in an ON-topic way to explain
why even when the O/S was extremely simple and small by
today's standards, there were bugs, and there's been bugs
ever since. And, anyone who thinks that ANY software will
EVER be "bug free" (whatever that even means) is a naive fool
or simply has no previous experience.


Not a problem in my book. We are all getting old ;-), but it
beats the alternative! As for OT, the original question was OT
two of the 3 groups, and even for general it was a stretch! So
we have a nice dicsussion about operating systems and reality.
No biggie.


Bob, please enlighten me: apparently some/all of my replies have
been showing up multiple places but I can assure everyone that I
do NOT cross-post. If the replies are somewhat similar, I may
have given similar advice elsewhere, but a couple of people have
said I am posting identical text to at least 3 NGs. That's news
to me. Usually, Xnews warns me when I am about to reply to
someone who originally cross-posted, but I've not seen that for
this particular thread, not originally, not the middle, and not
where we are now.

So, if anyone is annoyed at what I've said that you think is
inappropriate or excessively OT, I apologize for that. But, I am
NOT intentionally trying to circumvent conventions established by
MS for these NGs nor am I intentionally inciting to riot. But,
there seems to be at least some evidence that a couple of people
taking issue with me have their own over-sensitivity issues, so
I'm trying to bow out.

Ditto for the meandering FAT32 thread that refuses to die. I want
to leave that one as my questions have been answered, it no
longer has meaning to me, and further comments I might make could
educate me or even a lurker but are going too far afield from the
original intent of the OP. So, I'm trying to disengage there
also.

Again, what I'd really prefer NOT happen is for some silly abuse
reporting war start because those things sweep everybody up, as
every person that gets censured, temporarily suspended, or even
losing their account usually get pretty well ****ed-off and
report everybody in sight that may have at all been a reporter of
them. Nobody wins those wars, I hope we can avoid it here.

Now, I think there's been some excellent discussion in this
thread even afield of what would be considered ON-topic. I've
received comments either directly or indirectly that people are
learning from each other, so that sounds like a good thing, even
though we stopped talking literally about SP3 some time ago.

Have a good evening, everyone!


The thread was originally crossposted to and is currently crossposting to:

microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support

and FWIW I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about your
postings in this thread.

have a good one!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.