Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

--

_________

"Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

| On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com>

| put finger to keyboard and composed:

|

| >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

|

| <sigh>

|

| Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot unreliable,

| Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

|

| It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for

| W98.

|

| In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses. As

| Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really be

| the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

|

| - Franc Zabkar

| --

| Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

June 19, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

OR

If you're worried about still using 9X on the Internet and it finally does

become impossible to find 9X applications, put up a Linux server if front of

your 9X OS or network to access and filter the traffic, and supply the

missing support. There are some free servers out there...

--

MEB

| http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

--

_________

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its getting

| updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what to go to,

| check outside of Microsoft...

|

| --

| MEB

| --

| _________

|

| "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

| | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com>

| | put finger to keyboard and composed:

| |

| | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

| |

| | <sigh>

| |

| | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot unreliable,

| | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

| |

| | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for

| | W98.

| |

| | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses. As

| | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really be

| | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

| |

| | - Franc Zabkar

| | --

| | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

|

June 20, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy thinker you

really are.

WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was dead several

years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual quirks, bit of

a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its getting

> updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what to go to,

> check outside of Microsoft...

>

> --

> MEB

> --

> _________

>

> "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

> news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

> | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com>

> | put finger to keyboard and composed:

> |

> | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

> |

> | <sigh>

> |

> | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot unreliable,

> | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

> |

> | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for

> | W98.

> |

> | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses. As

> | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really be

> | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

> |

> | - Franc Zabkar

> | --

> | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

>

June 20, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its new

itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and defunct OS

Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS, but it, at

least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it as it is.

--

MEB

--

_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy thinker

you

| really are.

|

| WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was dead

several

| years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual quirks, bit

of

| a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?

|

| --

| Gary S. Terhune

| MS-MVP Shell/User

|

| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its

getting

| > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what to go

to,

| > check outside of Microsoft...

| >

| > --

| > MEB

| > --

| > _________

| >

| > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

| > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com>

| > | put finger to keyboard and composed:

| > |

| > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

| > |

| > | <sigh>

| > |

| > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot unreliable,

| > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

| > |

| > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for

| > | W98.

| > |

| > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses. As

| > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really be

| > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

| > |

| > | - Franc Zabkar

| > | --

| > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

| >

|

June 20, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

"Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a dictionary and

perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner it's you,

because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic (except a

minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in dreamland.)

Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a stable

environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same thing

applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more stable than 9x

systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is quickly

maturing to that same state.

As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I really

think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real world, like I

do?

XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major OS for

PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's iterations will

stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe 2015. Or

even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce a

non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure isn't

anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will replace

them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.

And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative usage of

OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real stats to

show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats lie, they

don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my stats are

mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid caveats that

would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and hardly affect

the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their applications, the

web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the home and

SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're afraid of W3C

doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)

The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me is that

there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to consider. And

I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling where one

could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats on

Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.

Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in this group

(which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use different

aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even more or

less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder to be an

honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their competencies,

vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out in these

discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are totally

irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and consumer

behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation in the

world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc., don't

amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all those,

statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special place

reserved for them in Heaven.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its new

> itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and defunct OS

>

> Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS, but it,

> at

> least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it as it

> is.

>

> --

> MEB

> --

> _________

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy thinker

> you

> | really are.

> |

> | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was dead

> several

> | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual quirks,

> bit

> of

> | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> |

> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its

> getting

> | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what to go

> to,

> | > check outside of Microsoft...

> | >

> | > --

> | > MEB

> | > --

> | > _________

> | >

> | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

> | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

> | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej

> <galt_57@hotmail.com>

> | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:

> | > |

> | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

> | > |

> | > | <sigh>

> | > |

> | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot unreliable,

> | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

> | > |

> | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for

> | > | W98.

> | > |

> | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses.

> As

> | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really be

> | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

> | > |

> | > | - Franc Zabkar

> | > | --

> | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

> | >

> |

>

June 20, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...

duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in these

discussions with you.

And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap, that is a

real *who cares* situation.

If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a Serendipity,

Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty indications, maybe

you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you THINK you

know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source

activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity has/is going

on...

AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....

And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4 users, and

95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being used to

PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the point is

what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..

--

MEB

--

_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a dictionary and

| perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner it's

you,

| because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic (except a

| minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in dreamland.)

|

| Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a stable

| environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same thing

| applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more stable than

9x

| systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is quickly

| maturing to that same state.

|

| As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I really

| think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real world, like I

| do?

|

| XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major OS for

| PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's iterations

will

| stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe 2015. Or

| even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce a

| non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure isn't

| anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will replace

| them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.

|

| And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative usage of

| OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real stats to

| show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats lie,

they

| don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my stats are

| mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid caveats that

| would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and hardly affect

| the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their applications, the

| web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the home and

| SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're afraid of

W3C

| doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)

|

| The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me is that

| there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to consider.

And

| I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling where one

| could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats on

| Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.

|

| Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in this group

| (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use different

| aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even more or

| less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder to be

an

| honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their competencies,

| vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out in these

| discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are totally

| irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and consumer

| behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation in the

| world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc., don't

| amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all those,

| statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special place

| reserved for them in Heaven.

|

| --

| Gary S. Terhune

| MS-MVP Shell/User

|

| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its new

| > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and defunct

OS

| >

| > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS, but it,

| > at

| > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it as it

| > is.

| >

| > --

| > MEB

| > --

| > _________

| >

| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy

thinker

| > you

| > | really are.

| > |

| > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was dead

| > several

| > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual quirks,

| > bit

| > of

| > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?

| > |

| > | --

| > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > |

| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its

| > getting

| > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what to

go

| > to,

| > | > check outside of Microsoft...

| > | >

| > | > --

| > | > MEB

| > | > --

| > | > _________

| > | >

| > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

| > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej

| > <galt_57@hotmail.com>

| > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:

| > | > |

| > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

| > | > |

| > | > | <sigh>

| > | > |

| > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot

unreliable,

| > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

| > | > |

| > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support for

| > | > | W98.

| > | > |

| > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP addresses.

| > As

| > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that really

be

| > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

| > | > |

| > | > | - Franc Zabkar

| > | > | --

| > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

| > | >

| > |

| >

|

June 20, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

"Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR

definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a hard time

with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm supposed to

accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly. "Stable", as

in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time you try to

add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full day.

Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying "obsolete." No

more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be permanently

available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them. Add that to

the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the 9x system

online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less stable as time

goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and even other

machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says "totally

obsolete and useless.

"Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs, programmers

and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and don't like

Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project in the

scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project (whatever

they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of Microsoft's overall

activities.

As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will *maybe*

meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means that it

might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS OS

development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need fixing,

especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and will thus

almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will avoid it as

long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015 before it even

starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless something truly

amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another NT

iteration.

Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the PC world

well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in the least

bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those others

you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to XP and,

eventually, Vista.

And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of the name

anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..

You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I thought -- you've

been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have nothing

better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they tend to

agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the way you

think. As if you can glean any real information about the real world from

stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping and

guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of

observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the large

institutions, are wrong more than they're right.

The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All you want to

do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called testing, of

course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for the

puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless, irrelevant and

repulsive for everyone else.

As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think more

rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course, the

alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll still be a

blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world that's

populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds, all of you

making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a major

insult, in case you didn't catch that.)

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...

> duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in these

> discussions with you.

>

> And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap, that is

> a

> real *who cares* situation.

> If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a

> Serendipity,

> Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty indications, maybe

> you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you THINK you

> know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source

> activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity has/is

> going

> on...

>

> AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....

>

> And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4 users, and

> 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being used to

> PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the point is

> what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..

>

> --

> MEB

> --

> _________

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a dictionary

> and

> | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner it's

> you,

> | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic (except a

> | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in dreamland.)

> |

> | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a stable

> | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same thing

> | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more stable than

> 9x

> | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is quickly

> | maturing to that same state.

> |

> | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I

> really

> | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real world, like

> I

> | do?

> |

> | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major OS

> for

> | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's iterations

> will

> | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe 2015. Or

> | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce a

> | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure isn't

> | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will

> replace

> | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.

> |

> | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative usage of

> | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real stats

> to

> | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats lie,

> they

> | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my stats are

> | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid caveats

> that

> | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and hardly

> affect

> | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their applications,

> the

> | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the home

> and

> | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're afraid of

> W3C

> | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)

> |

> | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me is

> that

> | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to consider.

> And

> | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling where one

> | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats on

> | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.

> |

> | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in this

> group

> | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use different

> | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even more

> or

> | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder to be

> an

> | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their competencies,

> | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out in

> these

> | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are totally

> | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and consumer

> | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation in

> the

> | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc., don't

> | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all those,

> | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special place

> | reserved for them in Heaven.

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> |

> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its new

> | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and

> defunct

> OS

> | >

> | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS, but

> it,

> | > at

> | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it as

> it

> | > is.

> | >

> | > --

> | > MEB

> | > --

> | > _________

> | >

> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy

> thinker

> | > you

> | > | really are.

> | > |

> | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was dead

> | > several

> | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual

> quirks,

> | > bit

> | > of

> | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?

> | > |

> | > | --

> | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > |

> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if its

> | > getting

> | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what

> to

> go

> | > to,

> | > | > check outside of Microsoft...

> | > | >

> | > | > --

> | > | > MEB

> | > | > --

> | > | > _________

> | > | >

> | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

> | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

> | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej

> | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>

> | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:

> | > | > |

> | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

> | > | > |

> | > | > | <sigh>

> | > | > |

> | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot

> unreliable,

> | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

> | > | > |

> | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support

> for

> | > | > | W98.

> | > | > |

> | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP

> addresses.

> | > As

> | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that

> really

> be

> | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

> | > | > |

> | > | > | - Franc Zabkar

> | > | > | --

> | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

> | > | >

> | > |

> | >

> |

>

June 20, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and stableness

are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to protect

you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you constantly

and consistently expose in your own writings...

STABLE -

Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find YOU

spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP.... and find

you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of upgrading...

you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are

manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on Microsoft's

behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you appear ... how

much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you have to

endure...

The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your

insistences...

MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because EVERYONE knows

Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it will have to

do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy code...

IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an OS that

supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY processor and is

FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be required

to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND be

subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it to

work..... when you could have something else... something that doesn't

require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and if you

want; can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know what your

doing...

MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk stock....

--

MEB

--

_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR

| definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a hard time

| with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm supposed

to

| accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly. "Stable",

as

| in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time you try

to

| add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full day.

|

| Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying "obsolete." No

| more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be

permanently

| available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them. Add that

to

| the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the 9x system

| online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less stable as

time

| goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and even other

| machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says "totally

| obsolete and useless.

|

| "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs, programmers

| and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and don't like

| Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project in the

| scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project (whatever

| they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of Microsoft's

overall

| activities.

|

| As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will *maybe*

| meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means that it

| might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS OS

| development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need fixing,

| especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and will

thus

| almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will avoid it

as

| long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015 before it

even

| starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless something truly

| amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another NT

| iteration.

|

| Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the PC world

| well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in the least

| bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those others

| you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to XP and,

| eventually, Vista.

|

| And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of the name

| anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..

|

| You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I thought --

you've

| been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have nothing

| better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they tend to

| agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the way you

| think. As if you can glean any real information about the real world from

| stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping and

| guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of

| observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the large

| institutions, are wrong more than they're right.

|

| The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All you want

to

| do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called testing, of

| course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for the

| puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless, irrelevant

and

| repulsive for everyone else.

|

| As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think more

| rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course, the

| alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll still be

a

| blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world that's

| populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds, all of

you

| making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a major

| insult, in case you didn't catch that.)

|

| --

| Gary S. Terhune

| MS-MVP Shell/User

|

| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...

| > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in these

| > discussions with you.

| >

| > And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap, that

is

| > a

| > real *who cares* situation.

| > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a

| > Serendipity,

| > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty indications,

maybe

| > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you THINK you

| > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source

| > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity has/is

| > going

| > on...

| >

| > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....

| >

| > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4 users,

and

| > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being used to

| > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the point

is

| > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..

| >

| > --

| > MEB

| > --

| > _________

| >

| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a dictionary

| > and

| > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner it's

| > you,

| > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic (except a

| > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in dreamland.)

| > |

| > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a stable

| > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same thing

| > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more stable

than

| > 9x

| > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is

quickly

| > | maturing to that same state.

| > |

| > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I

| > really

| > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real world,

like

| > I

| > | do?

| > |

| > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major OS

| > for

| > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's

iterations

| > will

| > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe 2015.

Or

| > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce a

| > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure isn't

| > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will

| > replace

| > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.

| > |

| > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative usage

of

| > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real stats

| > to

| > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats

lie,

| > they

| > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my stats

are

| > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid caveats

| > that

| > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and hardly

| > affect

| > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their applications,

| > the

| > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the home

| > and

| > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're afraid

of

| > W3C

| > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)

| > |

| > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me is

| > that

| > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to

consider.

| > And

| > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling where

one

| > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats on

| > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.

| > |

| > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in this

| > group

| > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use

different

| > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even more

| > or

| > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder to

be

| > an

| > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their competencies,

| > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out in

| > these

| > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are totally

| > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and

consumer

| > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation in

| > the

| > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc.,

don't

| > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all

those,

| > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special place

| > | reserved for them in Heaven.

| > |

| > | --

| > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > |

| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its new

| > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and

| > defunct

| > OS

| > | >

| > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS, but

| > it,

| > | > at

| > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it as

| > it

| > | > is.

| > | >

| > | > --

| > | > MEB

| > | > --

| > | > _________

| > | >

| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy

| > thinker

| > | > you

| > | > | really are.

| > | > |

| > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was

dead

| > | > several

| > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual

| > quirks,

| > | > bit

| > | > of

| > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?

| > | > |

| > | > | --

| > | > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | http://grystmill.com

| > | > |

| > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if

its

| > | > getting

| > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on what

| > to

| > go

| > | > to,

| > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...

| > | > | >

| > | > | > --

| > | > | > MEB

| > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | > --

| > | > | > _________

| > | > | >

| > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

| > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej

| > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>

| > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | <sigh>

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot

| > unreliable,

| > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping support

| > for

| > | > | > | W98.

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP

| > addresses.

| > | > As

| > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that

| > really

| > be

| > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar

| > | > | > | --

| > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

| > | > | >

| > | > |

| > | >

| > |

| >

|

June 21, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:u3whfby0IHA.1572@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

> If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and stableness

> are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to protect

> you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you

> constantly

> and consistently expose in your own writings...

> STABLE -

Idiot-proofing is/was the whole idea, numbnuts. Always will be for 95% + of

the market. Fortunately, most of that idiot-proofing can be disabled and

more sane settings applied. And, of course, you continue to expose your own

extraordinary pomosity by presuming to know how I have my system configured.

Of course, your never having actually USED the product, you really don't

know what you're talking about, do you?

> Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find YOU

> spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP.... and find

> you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of upgrading...

> you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are

> manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on Microsoft's

> behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you appear ...

> how

> much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you have to

> endure...

If we're going to peruse histories, where were you prior to two years ago.

Hiding behind some alias, or perhaps going through your own dementia after

failing so miserably to make 98 what it should havbe been?

It's polite (and sensible, if you're really interested in an honest debate)

to provide links to such things after you've gone to all the trouble to look

it up.

In any case, you make my point for me. OSes come, OSes go, and all for good

reason. Seems to me I've been right all along.

> The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your

> insistences...

You keep trying to insult me by calling me insane, referring to personal

issues, etc. When have I ever denied it? I've ALWAYS been crazy and more

than a little lunatic. I'm still saner than you are by a full league.

> MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because EVERYONE knows

> Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it will have

> to

> do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy code...

Don't know much about the stock market either, do ya? FYI, MSFT is trading a

little over a dollar below its price a year ago. In fact its chart looks

just as I'd expect it to over the last year. Rose on the general good

feelings of last year from $29.50 in mid-June to $37 at the end of October,

and then, like the rest of the market, there was a major drop over the

Christmas season and into the new year, bottoming at $27.20 in late

February, and fluctuating a bit back and forth to settle at $28.23 on Monday

last.

In fact, since the beginning of 2002, when the tech stock crash had bottomed

out, and MSFT stood at $31.85, it's been fairly steady within a dollaar or

two until that spike last year.

Dozens of dollars, eh? MSFT's entire history peaked at $58.38 in December

1999. Unless you want to include the tech crash of 2000 in your

calculations, MSFT hasn't LOST more than a dozen dollars over ANY period of

time.

You really are just a lying fraud, aren't you? Or are you just an idiot who

can't think for yourself and have to spend all your time reading the lies of

other, more well known frauds?

> IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an OS that

> supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY processor and

> is

> FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be

> required

> to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND be

> subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it to

> work..... when you could have something else... something that doesn't

> require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and if you

> want; can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know what your

> doing...

I pay attention to facts, not theories. Fact is that 80% of the PC market

WANTS idiot-proofing, real PnP and out-of the-box functionality. That same

80% can barely figure out how to use the incredibly user-friendly Windows

much less whatever your geeky, custom-built OS flavor of the day is.

Besides, it's proven that you're a lying fraud, so I have no faith in

anything you spout out these days.

> MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk stock....

Again, care to revise?

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

>

> --

> MEB

> --

> _________

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> | "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR

> | definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a hard

> time

> | with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm

> supposed

> to

> | accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly. "Stable",

> as

> | in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time you try

> to

> | add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full day.

> |

> | Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying "obsolete." No

> | more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be

> permanently

> | available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them. Add that

> to

> | the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the 9x

> system

> | online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less stable as

> time

> | goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and even

> other

> | machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says "totally

> | obsolete and useless.

> |

> | "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs,

> programmers

> | and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and don't

> like

> | Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project in the

> | scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project

> (whatever

> | they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of Microsoft's

> overall

> | activities.

> |

> | As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will

> *maybe*

> | meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means that it

> | might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS OS

> | development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need

> fixing,

> | especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and will

> thus

> | almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will avoid it

> as

> | long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015 before it

> even

> | starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless something

> truly

> | amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another NT

> | iteration.

> |

> | Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the PC

> world

> | well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in the

> least

> | bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those

> others

> | you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to XP

> and,

> | eventually, Vista.

> |

> | And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of the name

> | anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..

> |

> | You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I thought --

> you've

> | been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have nothing

> | better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they tend to

> | agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the way you

> | think. As if you can glean any real information about the real world

> from

> | stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping and

> | guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of

> | observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the large

> | institutions, are wrong more than they're right.

> |

> | The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All you want

> to

> | do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called testing, of

> | course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for the

> | puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless, irrelevant

> and

> | repulsive for everyone else.

> |

> | As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think more

> | rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course, the

> | alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll still

> be

> a

> | blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world that's

> | populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds, all of

> you

> | making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a major

> | insult, in case you didn't catch that.)

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> |

> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...

> | > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in these

> | > discussions with you.

> | >

> | > And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap, that

> is

> | > a

> | > real *who cares* situation.

> | > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a

> | > Serendipity,

> | > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty indications,

> maybe

> | > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you THINK

> you

> | > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source

> | > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity has/is

> | > going

> | > on...

> | >

> | > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....

> | >

> | > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4 users,

> and

> | > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being used

> to

> | > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the point

> is

> | > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..

> | >

> | > --

> | > MEB

> | > --

> | > _________

> | >

> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> | > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a

> dictionary

> | > and

> | > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner

> it's

> | > you,

> | > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic (except

> a

> | > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in

> dreamland.)

> | > |

> | > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a stable

> | > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same

> thing

> | > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more stable

> than

> | > 9x

> | > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is

> quickly

> | > | maturing to that same state.

> | > |

> | > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I

> | > really

> | > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real world,

> like

> | > I

> | > | do?

> | > |

> | > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major

> OS

> | > for

> | > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's

> iterations

> | > will

> | > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe

> 2015.

> Or

> | > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce a

> | > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure isn't

> | > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will

> | > replace

> | > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.

> | > |

> | > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative

> usage

> of

> | > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real

> stats

> | > to

> | > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats

> lie,

> | > they

> | > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my stats

> are

> | > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid caveats

> | > that

> | > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and hardly

> | > affect

> | > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their

> applications,

> | > the

> | > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the

> home

> | > and

> | > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're

> afraid

> of

> | > W3C

> | > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)

> | > |

> | > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me is

> | > that

> | > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to

> consider.

> | > And

> | > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling where

> one

> | > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats

> on

> | > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.

> | > |

> | > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in this

> | > group

> | > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use

> different

> | > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even

> more

> | > or

> | > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder

> to

> be

> | > an

> | > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their

> competencies,

> | > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out in

> | > these

> | > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are totally

> | > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and

> consumer

> | > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation

> in

> | > the

> | > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc.,

> don't

> | > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all

> those,

> | > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special place

> | > | reserved for them in Heaven.

> | > |

> | > | --

> | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > |

> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its

> new

> | > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and

> | > defunct

> | > OS

> | > | >

> | > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS,

> but

> | > it,

> | > | > at

> | > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept it

> as

> | > it

> | > | > is.

> | > | >

> | > | > --

> | > | > MEB

> | > | > --

> | > | > _________

> | > | >

> | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a sloppy

> | > thinker

> | > | > you

> | > | > | really are.

> | > | > |

> | > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98 was

> dead

> | > | > several

> | > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual

> | > quirks,

> | > | > bit

> | > | > of

> | > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?

> | > | > |

> | > | > | --

> | > | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | > | http://grystmill.com

> | > | > |

> | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter if

> its

> | > | > getting

> | > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on

> what

> | > to

> | > go

> | > | > to,

> | > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...

> | > | > | >

> | > | > | > --

> | > | > | > MEB

> | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > | > | > --

> | > | > | > _________

> | > | > | >

> | > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

> | > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

> | > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej

> | > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>

> | > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:

> | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

> | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | <sigh>

> | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot

> | > unreliable,

> | > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

> | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping

> support

> | > for

> | > | > | > | W98.

> | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP

> | > addresses.

> | > | > As

> | > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that

> | > really

> | > be

> | > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

> | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar

> | > | > | > | --

> | > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by

> email.

> | > | > | >

> | > | > |

> | > | >

> | > |

> | >

> |

>

June 21, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

What product,,,, you referring to XP,, ah yeah, who do you think carefully

orchestrated almost two months of XP verses 9X related postings in this

group,, not you assuredly.

Why would I be polite to you, here you are again spouting the same stupid

ideas you fostered here, other 9X forums, and in XP forums.

Once again you highjacked a thread to attempt to push your moronic ideas

upon more Windows users... just had to do so AGAIN, didn't you... are you

getting PAID by Microsoft now, or is it that you have nothing else of value

to do in your life now????

How many more times are you going to tell 9X and XP users they are stupid,

that they CAN'T understand anything else because they apparently haven't got

a brain according to your estimation,, I haven't, I called YOU stupid,,

you're SUPPOSED to be a knowledgeable person regarding Windows yet you

apparently don't understand it very well and you certainly have no respect

for its users. At least that's what you've recently indicated and posted...

Oh yeah, lets ignore the prior boom, the collapse, and the failure of

Microsoft's stock to increase due to inflation, use, new products, or

anything else that indicates growth, consumer confidence, and actual value..

The recent spike was due to the proposed Yahoo purchase,,, since Microsoft

can't even get its search engine functioning properly..

Now, this is a 9X forum, think you can manage to keep it relevant to 9X

without resorting to your new love, XP? Does your wife know you're having

this love affair? <G>

--

MEB

--

_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:uWITHe30IHA.5564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| news:u3whfby0IHA.1572@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| >

| > If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and

stableness

| > are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to

protect

| > you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you

| > constantly

| > and consistently expose in your own writings...

| > STABLE -

|

| Idiot-proofing is/was the whole idea, numbnuts. Always will be for 95% +

of

| the market. Fortunately, most of that idiot-proofing can be disabled and

| more sane settings applied. And, of course, you continue to expose your

own

| extraordinary pomosity by presuming to know how I have my system

configured.

|

| Of course, your never having actually USED the product, you really don't

| know what you're talking about, do you?

|

| > Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find YOU

| > spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP.... and

find

| > you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of

upgrading...

| > you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are

| > manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on Microsoft's

| > behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you appear ...

| > how

| > much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you have to

| > endure...

|

| If we're going to peruse histories, where were you prior to two years ago.

| Hiding behind some alias, or perhaps going through your own dementia after

| failing so miserably to make 98 what it should havbe been?

|

| It's polite (and sensible, if you're really interested in an honest

debate)

| to provide links to such things after you've gone to all the trouble to

look

| it up.

|

| In any case, you make my point for me. OSes come, OSes go, and all for

good

| reason. Seems to me I've been right all along.

|

| > The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your

| > insistences...

|

| You keep trying to insult me by calling me insane, referring to personal

| issues, etc. When have I ever denied it? I've ALWAYS been crazy and more

| than a little lunatic. I'm still saner than you are by a full league.

|

| > MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because EVERYONE

knows

| > Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it will

have

| > to

| > do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy

code...

|

| Don't know much about the stock market either, do ya? FYI, MSFT is trading

a

| little over a dollar below its price a year ago. In fact its chart looks

| just as I'd expect it to over the last year. Rose on the general good

| feelings of last year from $29.50 in mid-June to $37 at the end of

October,

| and then, like the rest of the market, there was a major drop over the

| Christmas season and into the new year, bottoming at $27.20 in late

| February, and fluctuating a bit back and forth to settle at $28.23 on

Monday

| last.

|

| In fact, since the beginning of 2002, when the tech stock crash had

bottomed

| out, and MSFT stood at $31.85, it's been fairly steady within a dollaar or

| two until that spike last year.

|

| Dozens of dollars, eh? MSFT's entire history peaked at $58.38 in December

| 1999. Unless you want to include the tech crash of 2000 in your

| calculations, MSFT hasn't LOST more than a dozen dollars over ANY period

of

| time.

|

| You really are just a lying fraud, aren't you? Or are you just an idiot

who

| can't think for yourself and have to spend all your time reading the lies

of

| other, more well known frauds?

|

| > IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an OS

that

| > supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY processor

and

| > is

| > FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be

| > required

| > to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND be

| > subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it to

| > work..... when you could have something else... something that doesn't

| > require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and if you

| > want; can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know what

your

| > doing...

|

| I pay attention to facts, not theories. Fact is that 80% of the PC market

| WANTS idiot-proofing, real PnP and out-of the-box functionality. That same

| 80% can barely figure out how to use the incredibly user-friendly Windows

| much less whatever your geeky, custom-built OS flavor of the day is.

| Besides, it's proven that you're a lying fraud, so I have no faith in

| anything you spout out these days.

|

| > MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk

stock....

|

| Again, care to revise?

|

| --

| Gary S. Terhune

| MS-MVP Shell/User

|

| >

|

| > --

| > MEB

| > --

| > _________

| >

| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| > | "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR

| > | definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a hard

| > time

| > | with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm

| > supposed

| > to

| > | accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly.

"Stable",

| > as

| > | in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time you

try

| > to

| > | add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full day.

| > |

| > | Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying "obsolete."

No

| > | more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be

| > permanently

| > | available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them. Add

that

| > to

| > | the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the 9x

| > system

| > | online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less stable

as

| > time

| > | goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and even

| > other

| > | machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says "totally

| > | obsolete and useless.

| > |

| > | "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs,

| > programmers

| > | and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and don't

| > like

| > | Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project in

the

| > | scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project

| > (whatever

| > | they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of Microsoft's

| > overall

| > | activities.

| > |

| > | As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will

| > *maybe*

| > | meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means that

it

| > | might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS OS

| > | development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need

| > fixing,

| > | especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and will

| > thus

| > | almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will avoid

it

| > as

| > | long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015 before it

| > even

| > | starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless something

| > truly

| > | amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another NT

| > | iteration.

| > |

| > | Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the PC

| > world

| > | well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in the

| > least

| > | bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those

| > others

| > | you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to XP

| > and,

| > | eventually, Vista.

| > |

| > | And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of the

name

| > | anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..

| > |

| > | You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I thought --

| > you've

| > | been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have nothing

| > | better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they tend

to

| > | agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the way

you

| > | think. As if you can glean any real information about the real world

| > from

| > | stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping and

| > | guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of

| > | observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the large

| > | institutions, are wrong more than they're right.

| > |

| > | The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All you

want

| > to

| > | do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called testing, of

| > | course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for the

| > | puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless,

irrelevant

| > and

| > | repulsive for everyone else.

| > |

| > | As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think more

| > | rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course, the

| > | alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll still

| > be

| > a

| > | blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world that's

| > | populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds, all

of

| > you

| > | making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a

major

| > | insult, in case you didn't catch that.)

| > |

| > | --

| > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > |

| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > | > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...

| > | > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in these

| > | > discussions with you.

| > | >

| > | > And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap,

that

| > is

| > | > a

| > | > real *who cares* situation.

| > | > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a

| > | > Serendipity,

| > | > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty indications,

| > maybe

| > | > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you THINK

| > you

| > | > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source

| > | > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity

has/is

| > | > going

| > | > on...

| > | >

| > | > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....

| > | >

| > | > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4

users,

| > and

| > | > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being used

| > to

| > | > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the

point

| > is

| > | > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..

| > | >

| > | > --

| > | > MEB

| > | > --

| > | > _________

| > | >

| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| > | > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a

| > dictionary

| > | > and

| > | > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a whiner

| > it's

| > | > you,

| > | > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic

(except

| > a

| > | > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in

| > dreamland.)

| > | > |

| > | > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a

stable

| > | > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same

| > thing

| > | > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more

stable

| > than

| > | > 9x

| > | > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is

| > quickly

| > | > | maturing to that same state.

| > | > |

| > | > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm.... I

| > | > really

| > | > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real

world,

| > like

| > | > I

| > | > | do?

| > | > |

| > | > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE major

| > OS

| > | > for

| > | > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's

| > iterations

| > | > will

| > | > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe

| > 2015.

| > Or

| > | > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually produce

a

| > | > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure

isn't

| > | > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that will

| > | > replace

| > | > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.

| > | > |

| > | > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative

| > usage

| > of

| > | > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real

| > stats

| > | > to

| > | > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that stats

| > lie,

| > | > they

| > | > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my

stats

| > are

| > | > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid

caveats

| > | > that

| > | > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and

hardly

| > | > affect

| > | > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their

| > applications,

| > | > the

| > | > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in the

| > home

| > | > and

| > | > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're

| > afraid

| > of

| > | > W3C

| > | > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)

| > | > |

| > | > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued me

is

| > | > that

| > | > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to

| > consider.

| > | > And

| > | > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling

where

| > one

| > | > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage stats

| > on

| > | > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.

| > | > |

| > | > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in

this

| > | > group

| > | > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use

| > different

| > | > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or even

| > more

| > | > or

| > | > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little harder

| > to

| > be

| > | > an

| > | > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their

| > competencies,

| > | > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out

in

| > | > these

| > | > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are

totally

| > | > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and

| > consumer

| > | > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the speculation

| > in

| > | > the

| > | > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups, etc.,

| > don't

| > | > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all

| > those,

| > | > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special

place

| > | > | reserved for them in Heaven.

| > | > |

| > | > | --

| > | > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | http://grystmill.com

| > | > |

| > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > | > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or its

| > new

| > | > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated* and

| > | > defunct

| > | > OS

| > | > | >

| > | > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was DOS,

| > but

| > | > it,

| > | > | > at

| > | > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept

it

| > as

| > | > it

| > | > | > is.

| > | > | >

| > | > | > --

| > | > | > MEB

| > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | > --

| > | > | > _________

| > | > | >

| > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a

sloppy

| > | > thinker

| > | > | > you

| > | > | > | really are.

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98

was

| > dead

| > | > | > several

| > | > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine. Usual

| > | > quirks,

| > | > | > bit

| > | > | > of

| > | > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | --

| > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | > | http://grystmill.com

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter

if

| > its

| > | > | > getting

| > | > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining on

| > what

| > | > to

| > | > go

| > | > | > to,

| > | > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...

| > | > | > | >

| > | > | > | > --

| > | > | > | > MEB

| > | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | > | > --

| > | > | > | > _________

| > | > | > | >

| > | > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message

| > | > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

| > | > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej

| > | > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>

| > | > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:

| > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

| > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | <sigh>

| > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot

| > | > unreliable,

| > | > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

| > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping

| > support

| > | > for

| > | > | > | > | W98.

| > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP

| > | > addresses.

| > | > | > As

| > | > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will that

| > | > really

| > | > be

| > | > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

| > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar

| > | > | > | > | --

| > | > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by

| > email.

| > | > | > | >

| > | > | > |

| > | > | >

| > | > |

| > | >

| > |

| >

|

June 21, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

<meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:eh1CQR60IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> What product,,,, you referring to XP,, ah yeah, who do you think carefully

> orchestrated almost two months of XP verses 9X related postings in this

> group,, not you assuredly.

No, of course not. You'll notice that I've refused to get pulled into any

actual comparisons of the various OSes we've discussed. That's your game,

not mine. I simply want to help average people with their Windows 98

problems, and it's obsolesence is a major one of those problems. You just

want to repeatedly go over and over your pet theories and want me to be your

foil. Well GFY. Everybody knows you're a pompous jackass, and this is just

one more piece to the puzzle. Frankly, more than a lying fraud, you're a

plain and simple A** H*LE.

So, are you a lying POS or have you really, actually, honestly used

2K/XP/Vista?

> Why would I be polite to you, here you are again spouting the same stupid

> ideas you fostered here, other 9X forums, and in XP forums.

Because you're an lying fraud?

> Once again you highjacked a thread to attempt to push your moronic ideas

> upon more Windows users... just had to do so AGAIN, didn't you... are you

> getting PAID by Microsoft now, or is it that you have nothing else of

> value

> to do in your life now????

I didn't hijack the thread. There wasn't any freaking thread. It was a post

about a vulnerability in a product that doesn't even work in Win9x. But try

to follow this simple bit of logic (I know it's almost impossible for you --

logic -- but try anyway.) Firefox has a serious vulnerability, right after

it's released. End of story EXCEPT for the opportunity to discuss comparatve

vulnerabilities in OSes and applications and the larger picture of the

question, "Is any computer safe to use?"

> How many more times are you going to tell 9X and XP users they are stupid,

> that they CAN'T understand anything else because they apparently haven't

> got

> a brain according to your estimation,,

You changed my wording, but yes, most of the PC using masses WANT their

machine idiot-proofed, if that's what you're talking about. They're not

stupid so much as lazy. It's the American Way. They want to plug it in and

have it work. They DON'T want to manually update their system every week or

month or EVER. They don't wnt to have to spend two or three days pr month

reading and researching all the patches, etc. They want it done for them.

When it comes to a comparison of ANY other OS to XP, XP wins that battle

hands down.

Like it or not, Windows 98 is very close to truly, totally dead. It is

foolish, even downright stupid, for any "average" user to continue to use

it, and I have no qualms saying so. Having spent tens of thousands of hours,

posting tens upon tens of thousands of helpful posts in THIS group for the

last 9.5 years, I think my integrity is well established. And through it all

(as you so kindly pointed out yesterday) I have never shied away from

telling it like I think it is. I'm certainly not going to stop now.

>I haven't, I called YOU stupid,,

> you're SUPPOSED to be a knowledgeable person regarding Windows yet you

> apparently don't understand it very well and you certainly have no respect

> for its users. At least that's what you've recently indicated and

> posted...

You haven't called me stupid because you know I'm not. I'm also not a lying

fraud, but you most certainly are. I also have more respect for Windows

users than you have. I'm concerned about their safety and their ability to

get what they want out of their machines. According to you, we're ALL stupid

for using Windows XP/Vista. Care to apologize? I thought not.

> Oh yeah, lets ignore the prior boom, the collapse, and the failure of

> Microsoft's stock to increase due to inflation, use, new products, or

> anything else that indicates growth, consumer confidence, and actual

> value..

> The recent spike was due to the proposed Yahoo purchase,,, since Microsoft

> can't even get its search engine functioning properly..

What recent spike? You mean the *bubble* back in late '07? The news of a

possible merger didn't come out until early February -- AFTER the bubble of

late '07 had already collapsed. The whole merger thing didn't cause more

than a few dollars variance, you ignorant fraud. If you're talking about the

merger talk back in Feb 2007, that died almost as soon as it was "reported"

in the blogs (and nowhere else, like any reputable source of information.)

Again, you're a lying fraud. And that's been the way since the beginning of

your "orchestrated debate". Nothing but pure BS coming out of your keyboard.

>Now, this is a 9X forum, think you can manage to keep it relevant to 9X

>without resorting to your new love, XP?

I have no love for XP you moron. That's another thing that you don't get.

Or, rather, maybe you do get it, you just like to lie. If that wasn't such a

lie of a question, I might answer it.

>Does your wife know you're having this love affair? <G>

Do you even have a wife? With all that circle-jerking you engage in, I

figure not.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:uWITHe30IHA.5564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | news:u3whfby0IHA.1572@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | >

> | > If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and

> stableness

> | > are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to

> protect

> | > you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you

> | > constantly

> | > and consistently expose in your own writings...

> | > STABLE -

> |

> | Idiot-proofing is/was the whole idea, numbnuts. Always will be for 95% +

> of

> | the market. Fortunately, most of that idiot-proofing can be disabled and

> | more sane settings applied. And, of course, you continue to expose your

> own

> | extraordinary pomosity by presuming to know how I have my system

> configured.

> |

> | Of course, your never having actually USED the product, you really don't

> | know what you're talking about, do you?

> |

> | > Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find YOU

> | > spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP.... and

> find

> | > you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of

> upgrading...

> | > you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are

> | > manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on

> Microsoft's

> | > behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you appear

> ...

> | > how

> | > much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you have

> to

> | > endure...

> |

> | If we're going to peruse histories, where were you prior to two years

> ago.

> | Hiding behind some alias, or perhaps going through your own dementia

> after

> | failing so miserably to make 98 what it should havbe been?

> |

> | It's polite (and sensible, if you're really interested in an honest

> debate)

> | to provide links to such things after you've gone to all the trouble to

> look

> | it up.

> |

> | In any case, you make my point for me. OSes come, OSes go, and all for

> good

> | reason. Seems to me I've been right all along.

> |

> | > The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your

> | > insistences...

> |

> | You keep trying to insult me by calling me insane, referring to personal

> | issues, etc. When have I ever denied it? I've ALWAYS been crazy and more

> | than a little lunatic. I'm still saner than you are by a full league.

> |

> | > MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because EVERYONE

> knows

> | > Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it will

> have

> | > to

> | > do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy

> code...

> |

> | Don't know much about the stock market either, do ya? FYI, MSFT is

> trading

> a

> | little over a dollar below its price a year ago. In fact its chart looks

> | just as I'd expect it to over the last year. Rose on the general good

> | feelings of last year from $29.50 in mid-June to $37 at the end of

> October,

> | and then, like the rest of the market, there was a major drop over the

> | Christmas season and into the new year, bottoming at $27.20 in late

> | February, and fluctuating a bit back and forth to settle at $28.23 on

> Monday

> | last.

> |

> | In fact, since the beginning of 2002, when the tech stock crash had

> bottomed

> | out, and MSFT stood at $31.85, it's been fairly steady within a dollaar

> or

> | two until that spike last year.

> |

> | Dozens of dollars, eh? MSFT's entire history peaked at $58.38 in

> December

> | 1999. Unless you want to include the tech crash of 2000 in your

> | calculations, MSFT hasn't LOST more than a dozen dollars over ANY period

> of

> | time.

> |

> | You really are just a lying fraud, aren't you? Or are you just an idiot

> who

> | can't think for yourself and have to spend all your time reading the

> lies

> of

> | other, more well known frauds?

> |

> | > IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an OS

> that

> | > supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY processor

> and

> | > is

> | > FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be

> | > required

> | > to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND be

> | > subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it to

> | > work..... when you could have something else... something that doesn't

> | > require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and if

> you

> | > want; can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know what

> your

> | > doing...

> |

> | I pay attention to facts, not theories. Fact is that 80% of the PC

> market

> | WANTS idiot-proofing, real PnP and out-of the-box functionality. That

> same

> | 80% can barely figure out how to use the incredibly user-friendly

> Windows

> | much less whatever your geeky, custom-built OS flavor of the day is.

> | Besides, it's proven that you're a lying fraud, so I have no faith in

> | anything you spout out these days.

> |

> | > MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk

> stock....

> |

> | Again, care to revise?

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> |

> | >

> |

> | > --

> | > MEB

> | > --

> | > _________

> | >

> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> | > | "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR

> | > | definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a hard

> | > time

> | > | with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm

> | > supposed

> | > to

> | > | accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly.

> "Stable",

> | > as

> | > | in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time you

> try

> | > to

> | > | add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full day.

> | > |

> | > | Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying

> "obsolete."

> No

> | > | more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be

> | > permanently

> | > | available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them. Add

> that

> | > to

> | > | the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the 9x

> | > system

> | > | online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less stable

> as

> | > time

> | > | goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and even

> | > other

> | > | machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says

> "totally

> | > | obsolete and useless.

> | > |

> | > | "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs,

> | > programmers

> | > | and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and

> don't

> | > like

> | > | Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project in

> the

> | > | scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project

> | > (whatever

> | > | they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of Microsoft's

> | > overall

> | > | activities.

> | > |

> | > | As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will

> | > *maybe*

> | > | meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means

> that

> it

> | > | might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS OS

> | > | development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need

> | > fixing,

> | > | especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and

> will

> | > thus

> | > | almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will

> avoid

> it

> | > as

> | > | long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015 before

> it

> | > even

> | > | starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless something

> | > truly

> | > | amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another NT

> | > | iteration.

> | > |

> | > | Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the PC

> | > world

> | > | well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in the

> | > least

> | > | bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those

> | > others

> | > | you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to

> XP

> | > and,

> | > | eventually, Vista.

> | > |

> | > | And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of the

> name

> | > | anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..

> | > |

> | > | You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I thought --

> | > you've

> | > | been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have

> nothing

> | > | better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they

> tend

> to

> | > | agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the way

> you

> | > | think. As if you can glean any real information about the real world

> | > from

> | > | stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping

> and

> | > | guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of

> | > | observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the large

> | > | institutions, are wrong more than they're right.

> | > |

> | > | The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All you

> want

> | > to

> | > | do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called testing,

> of

> | > | course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for

> the

> | > | puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless,

> irrelevant

> | > and

> | > | repulsive for everyone else.

> | > |

> | > | As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think more

> | > | rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course, the

> | > | alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll

> still

> | > be

> | > a

> | > | blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world

> that's

> | > | populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds, all

> of

> | > you

> | > | making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a

> major

> | > | insult, in case you didn't catch that.)

> | > |

> | > | --

> | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > |

> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | > | > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...

> | > | > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in

> these

> | > | > discussions with you.

> | > | >

> | > | > And get off your crap about market share and statistics bullcrap,

> that

> | > is

> | > | > a

> | > | > real *who cares* situation.

> | > | > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a

> | > | > Serendipity,

> | > | > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty

> indications,

> | > maybe

> | > | > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you

> THINK

> | > you

> | > | > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open source

> | > | > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity

> has/is

> | > | > going

> | > | > on...

> | > | >

> | > | > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....

> | > | >

> | > | > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4

> users,

> | > and

> | > | > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being

> used

> | > to

> | > | > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the

> point

> | > is

> | > | > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..

> | > | >

> | > | > --

> | > | > MEB

> | > | > --

> | > | > _________

> | > | >

> | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > | > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> | > | > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a

> | > dictionary

> | > | > and

> | > | > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a

> whiner

> | > it's

> | > | > you,

> | > | > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic

> (except

> | > a

> | > | > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in

> | > dreamland.)

> | > | > |

> | > | > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a

> stable

> | > | > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is." (Same

> | > thing

> | > | > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more

> stable

> | > than

> | > | > 9x

> | > | > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista is

> | > quickly

> | > | > | maturing to that same state.

> | > | > |

> | > | > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP, ummm....

> I

> | > | > really

> | > | > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real

> world,

> | > like

> | > | > I

> | > | > | do?

> | > | > |

> | > | > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE

> major

> | > OS

> | > | > for

> | > | > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's

> | > iterations

> | > | > will

> | > | > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012, maybe

> | > 2015.

> | > Or

> | > | > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually

> produce

> a

> | > | > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure

> isn't

> | > | > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that

> will

> | > | > replace

> | > | > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.

> | > | > |

> | > | > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the comparative

> | > usage

> | > of

> | > | > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some real

> | > stats

> | > | > to

> | > | > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that

> stats

> | > lie,

> | > | > they

> | > | > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my

> stats

> | > are

> | > | > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid

> caveats

> | > | > that

> | > | > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and

> hardly

> | > | > affect

> | > | > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their

> | > applications,

> | > | > the

> | > | > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in

> the

> | > home

> | > | > and

> | > | > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're

> | > afraid

> | > of

> | > | > W3C

> | > | > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)

> | > | > |

> | > | > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued

> me

> is

> | > | > that

> | > | > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to

> | > consider.

> | > | > And

> | > | > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling

> where

> | > one

> | > | > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage

> stats

> | > on

> | > | > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.

> | > | > |

> | > | > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in

> this

> | > | > group

> | > | > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use

> | > different

> | > | > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or

> even

> | > more

> | > | > or

> | > | > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little

> harder

> | > to

> | > be

> | > | > an

> | > | > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their

> | > competencies,

> | > | > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing out

> in

> | > | > these

> | > | > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are

> totally

> | > | > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and

> | > consumer

> | > | > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the

> speculation

> | > in

> | > | > the

> | > | > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups,

> etc.,

> | > don't

> | > | > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to all

> | > those,

> | > | > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special

> place

> | > | > | reserved for them in Heaven.

> | > | > |

> | > | > | --

> | > | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | > | http://grystmill.com

> | > | > |

> | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | > | > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or

> its

> | > new

> | > | > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated*

> and

> | > | > defunct

> | > | > OS

> | > | > | >

> | > | > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was

> DOS,

> | > but

> | > | > it,

> | > | > | > at

> | > | > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to accept

> it

> | > as

> | > | > it

> | > | > | > is.

> | > | > | >

> | > | > | > --

> | > | > | > MEB

> | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > | > | > --

> | > | > | > _________

> | > | > | >

> | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > | > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > | > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a

> sloppy

> | > | > thinker

> | > | > | > you

> | > | > | > | really are.

> | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows 98

> was

> | > dead

> | > | > | > several

> | > | > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine.

> Usual

> | > | > quirks,

> | > | > | > bit

> | > | > | > of

> | > | > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?

> | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | --

> | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | > | > | http://grystmill.com

> | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > | > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't matter

> if

> | > its

> | > | > | > getting

> | > | > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining

> on

> | > what

> | > | > to

> | > | > go

> | > | > | > to,

> | > | > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...

> | > | > | > | >

> | > | > | > | > --

> | > | > | > | > MEB

> | > | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > | > | > | > --

> | > | > | > | > _________

> | > | > | > | >

> | > | > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in

> message

> | > | > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

> | > | > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej

> | > | > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>

> | > | > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:

> | > | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

> | > | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | > | <sigh>

> | > | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August, Spybot

> | > | > unreliable,

> | > | > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

> | > | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping

> | > support

> | > | > for

> | > | > | > | > | W98.

> | > | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4 IP

> | > | > addresses.

> | > | > | > As

> | > | > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will

> that

> | > | > really

> | > | > be

> | > | > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

> | > | > | > | > |

> | > | > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar

> | > | > | > | > | --

> | > | > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by

> | > email.

> | > | > | > | >

> | > | > | > |

> | > | > | >

> | > | > |

> | > | >

> | > |

> | >

> |

>

June 21, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

Boy, let me make this perfectly clear, when you post as you have been, you

ARE stupid.

The merger/buy out offer was on EVERY NEWS and Business/stock/whatever

broadcast... EVERY ONE of them...

Oh, and let's not forget Microsoft's OWN web pages and press

notifications...

You want users to move to that XP OS you have already stated was

essentially a piece of junk, poorly programmed, open to attack, and full of

vulnerabilities; FOR their security,, ah yeah, good idea... and only you and

a select few can safely use it because you know what your doing,, right,,,

As for your prior and present help, good, you still can perform at least

part of that function, and are one of the few who do so via email for which

I applaud that activity... but that still doesn't excuse your attitude or

your obnoxious nature... this group and others have tolerated EVERY one of

your prior health and mental related issues, and showed concern for you

during those times.. but that can be worn out, particularly when you become

as you are...

Leave it alone Gary... let's try to keep this as a help group, do your

other crap somewhere else..

--

MEB

--

_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:eP8GN%2380IHA.5728@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| news:eh1CQR60IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > What product,,,, you referring to XP,, ah yeah, who do you think

carefully

| > orchestrated almost two months of XP verses 9X related postings in this

| > group,, not you assuredly.

|

| No, of course not. You'll notice that I've refused to get pulled into any

| actual comparisons of the various OSes we've discussed. That's your game,

| not mine. I simply want to help average people with their Windows 98

| problems, and it's obsolesence is a major one of those problems. You just

| want to repeatedly go over and over your pet theories and want me to be

your

| foil. Well GFY. Everybody knows you're a pompous jackass, and this is just

| one more piece to the puzzle. Frankly, more than a lying fraud, you're a

| plain and simple A** H*LE.

|

| So, are you a lying POS or have you really, actually, honestly used

| 2K/XP/Vista?

|

| > Why would I be polite to you, here you are again spouting the same

stupid

| > ideas you fostered here, other 9X forums, and in XP forums.

|

| Because you're an lying fraud?

|

| > Once again you highjacked a thread to attempt to push your moronic ideas

| > upon more Windows users... just had to do so AGAIN, didn't you... are

you

| > getting PAID by Microsoft now, or is it that you have nothing else of

| > value

| > to do in your life now????

|

| I didn't hijack the thread. There wasn't any freaking thread. It was a

post

| about a vulnerability in a product that doesn't even work in Win9x. But

try

| to follow this simple bit of logic (I know it's almost impossible for

you --

| logic -- but try anyway.) Firefox has a serious vulnerability, right after

| it's released. End of story EXCEPT for the opportunity to discuss

comparatve

| vulnerabilities in OSes and applications and the larger picture of the

| question, "Is any computer safe to use?"

|

| > How many more times are you going to tell 9X and XP users they are

stupid,

| > that they CAN'T understand anything else because they apparently haven't

| > got

| > a brain according to your estimation,,

|

| You changed my wording, but yes, most of the PC using masses WANT their

| machine idiot-proofed, if that's what you're talking about. They're not

| stupid so much as lazy. It's the American Way. They want to plug it in and

| have it work. They DON'T want to manually update their system every week

or

| month or EVER. They don't wnt to have to spend two or three days pr month

| reading and researching all the patches, etc. They want it done for them.

| When it comes to a comparison of ANY other OS to XP, XP wins that battle

| hands down.

|

| Like it or not, Windows 98 is very close to truly, totally dead. It is

| foolish, even downright stupid, for any "average" user to continue to use

| it, and I have no qualms saying so. Having spent tens of thousands of

hours,

| posting tens upon tens of thousands of helpful posts in THIS group for the

| last 9.5 years, I think my integrity is well established. And through it

all

| (as you so kindly pointed out yesterday) I have never shied away from

| telling it like I think it is. I'm certainly not going to stop now.

|

| >I haven't, I called YOU stupid,,

| > you're SUPPOSED to be a knowledgeable person regarding Windows yet you

| > apparently don't understand it very well and you certainly have no

respect

| > for its users. At least that's what you've recently indicated and

| > posted...

|

| You haven't called me stupid because you know I'm not. I'm also not a

lying

| fraud, but you most certainly are. I also have more respect for Windows

| users than you have. I'm concerned about their safety and their ability to

| get what they want out of their machines. According to you, we're ALL

stupid

| for using Windows XP/Vista. Care to apologize? I thought not.

|

| > Oh yeah, lets ignore the prior boom, the collapse, and the failure of

| > Microsoft's stock to increase due to inflation, use, new products, or

| > anything else that indicates growth, consumer confidence, and actual

| > value..

| > The recent spike was due to the proposed Yahoo purchase,,, since

Microsoft

| > can't even get its search engine functioning properly..

|

| What recent spike? You mean the *bubble* back in late '07? The news of a

| possible merger didn't come out until early February -- AFTER the bubble

of

| late '07 had already collapsed. The whole merger thing didn't cause more

| than a few dollars variance, you ignorant fraud. If you're talking about

the

| merger talk back in Feb 2007, that died almost as soon as it was

"reported"

| in the blogs (and nowhere else, like any reputable source of information.)

|

| Again, you're a lying fraud. And that's been the way since the beginning

of

| your "orchestrated debate". Nothing but pure BS coming out of your

keyboard.

|

| >Now, this is a 9X forum, think you can manage to keep it relevant to 9X

| >without resorting to your new love, XP?

|

| I have no love for XP you moron. That's another thing that you don't get.

| Or, rather, maybe you do get it, you just like to lie. If that wasn't such

a

| lie of a question, I might answer it.

|

| >Does your wife know you're having this love affair? <G>

|

| Do you even have a wife? With all that circle-jerking you engage in, I

| figure not.

|

| --

| Gary S. Terhune

| MS-MVP Shell/User

|

| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > news:uWITHe30IHA.5564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | news:u3whfby0IHA.1572@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > | >

| > | > If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and

| > stableness

| > | > are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to

| > protect

| > | > you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you

| > | > constantly

| > | > and consistently expose in your own writings...

| > | > STABLE -

| > |

| > | Idiot-proofing is/was the whole idea, numbnuts. Always will be for 95%

+

| > of

| > | the market. Fortunately, most of that idiot-proofing can be disabled

and

| > | more sane settings applied. And, of course, you continue to expose

your

| > own

| > | extraordinary pomosity by presuming to know how I have my system

| > configured.

| > |

| > | Of course, your never having actually USED the product, you really

don't

| > | know what you're talking about, do you?

| > |

| > | > Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find YOU

| > | > spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP.... and

| > find

| > | > you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of

| > upgrading...

| > | > you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are

| > | > manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on

| > Microsoft's

| > | > behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you appear

| > ...

| > | > how

| > | > much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you have

| > to

| > | > endure...

| > |

| > | If we're going to peruse histories, where were you prior to two years

| > ago.

| > | Hiding behind some alias, or perhaps going through your own dementia

| > after

| > | failing so miserably to make 98 what it should havbe been?

| > |

| > | It's polite (and sensible, if you're really interested in an honest

| > debate)

| > | to provide links to such things after you've gone to all the trouble

to

| > look

| > | it up.

| > |

| > | In any case, you make my point for me. OSes come, OSes go, and all for

| > good

| > | reason. Seems to me I've been right all along.

| > |

| > | > The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your

| > | > insistences...

| > |

| > | You keep trying to insult me by calling me insane, referring to

personal

| > | issues, etc. When have I ever denied it? I've ALWAYS been crazy and

more

| > | than a little lunatic. I'm still saner than you are by a full league.

| > |

| > | > MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because EVERYONE

| > knows

| > | > Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it will

| > have

| > | > to

| > | > do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy

| > code...

| > |

| > | Don't know much about the stock market either, do ya? FYI, MSFT is

| > trading

| > a

| > | little over a dollar below its price a year ago. In fact its chart

looks

| > | just as I'd expect it to over the last year. Rose on the general good

| > | feelings of last year from $29.50 in mid-June to $37 at the end of

| > October,

| > | and then, like the rest of the market, there was a major drop over the

| > | Christmas season and into the new year, bottoming at $27.20 in late

| > | February, and fluctuating a bit back and forth to settle at $28.23 on

| > Monday

| > | last.

| > |

| > | In fact, since the beginning of 2002, when the tech stock crash had

| > bottomed

| > | out, and MSFT stood at $31.85, it's been fairly steady within a

dollaar

| > or

| > | two until that spike last year.

| > |

| > | Dozens of dollars, eh? MSFT's entire history peaked at $58.38 in

| > December

| > | 1999. Unless you want to include the tech crash of 2000 in your

| > | calculations, MSFT hasn't LOST more than a dozen dollars over ANY

period

| > of

| > | time.

| > |

| > | You really are just a lying fraud, aren't you? Or are you just an

idiot

| > who

| > | can't think for yourself and have to spend all your time reading the

| > lies

| > of

| > | other, more well known frauds?

| > |

| > | > IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an

OS

| > that

| > | > supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY

processor

| > and

| > | > is

| > | > FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be

| > | > required

| > | > to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND be

| > | > subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it to

| > | > work..... when you could have something else... something that

doesn't

| > | > require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and if

| > you

| > | > want; can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know what

| > your

| > | > doing...

| > |

| > | I pay attention to facts, not theories. Fact is that 80% of the PC

| > market

| > | WANTS idiot-proofing, real PnP and out-of the-box functionality. That

| > same

| > | 80% can barely figure out how to use the incredibly user-friendly

| > Windows

| > | much less whatever your geeky, custom-built OS flavor of the day is.

| > | Besides, it's proven that you're a lying fraud, so I have no faith in

| > | anything you spout out these days.

| > |

| > | > MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk

| > stock....

| > |

| > | Again, care to revise?

| > |

| > | --

| > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > |

| > | >

| > |

| > | > --

| > | > MEB

| > | > --

| > | > _________

| > | >

| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| > | > | "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR

| > | > | definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a

hard

| > | > time

| > | > | with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm

| > | > supposed

| > | > to

| > | > | accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly.

| > "Stable",

| > | > as

| > | > | in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time

you

| > try

| > | > to

| > | > | add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full

day.

| > | > |

| > | > | Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying

| > "obsolete."

| > No

| > | > | more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be

| > | > permanently

| > | > | available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them.

Add

| > that

| > | > to

| > | > | the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the

9x

| > | > system

| > | > | online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less

stable

| > as

| > | > time

| > | > | goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and

even

| > | > other

| > | > | machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says

| > "totally

| > | > | obsolete and useless.

| > | > |

| > | > | "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs,

| > | > programmers

| > | > | and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and

| > don't

| > | > like

| > | > | Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project

in

| > the

| > | > | scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project

| > | > (whatever

| > | > | they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of

Microsoft's

| > | > overall

| > | > | activities.

| > | > |

| > | > | As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will

| > | > *maybe*

| > | > | meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means

| > that

| > it

| > | > | might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS

OS

| > | > | development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need

| > | > fixing,

| > | > | especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and

| > will

| > | > thus

| > | > | almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will

| > avoid

| > it

| > | > as

| > | > | long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015

before

| > it

| > | > even

| > | > | starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless

something

| > | > truly

| > | > | amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another

NT

| > | > | iteration.

| > | > |

| > | > | Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the

PC

| > | > world

| > | > | well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in

the

| > | > least

| > | > | bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those

| > | > others

| > | > | you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to

| > XP

| > | > and,

| > | > | eventually, Vista.

| > | > |

| > | > | And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of

the

| > name

| > | > | anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..

| > | > |

| > | > | You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I

thought --

| > | > you've

| > | > | been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have

| > nothing

| > | > | better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they

| > tend

| > to

| > | > | agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the

way

| > you

| > | > | think. As if you can glean any real information about the real

world

| > | > from

| > | > | stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping

| > and

| > | > | guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of

| > | > | observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the

large

| > | > | institutions, are wrong more than they're right.

| > | > |

| > | > | The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All

you

| > want

| > | > to

| > | > | do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called

testing,

| > of

| > | > | course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for

| > the

| > | > | puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless,

| > irrelevant

| > | > and

| > | > | repulsive for everyone else.

| > | > |

| > | > | As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think

more

| > | > | rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course,

the

| > | > | alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll

| > still

| > | > be

| > | > a

| > | > | blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world

| > that's

| > | > | populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds,

all

| > of

| > | > you

| > | > | making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a

| > major

| > | > | insult, in case you didn't catch that.)

| > | > |

| > | > | --

| > | > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | http://grystmill.com

| > | > |

| > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > | > | > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...

| > | > | > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in

| > these

| > | > | > discussions with you.

| > | > | >

| > | > | > And get off your crap about market share and statistics

bullcrap,

| > that

| > | > is

| > | > | > a

| > | > | > real *who cares* situation.

| > | > | > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a

| > | > | > Serendipity,

| > | > | > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty

| > indications,

| > | > maybe

| > | > | > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you

| > THINK

| > | > you

| > | > | > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open

source

| > | > | > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity

| > has/is

| > | > | > going

| > | > | > on...

| > | > | >

| > | > | > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....

| > | > | >

| > | > | > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4

| > users,

| > | > and

| > | > | > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being

| > used

| > | > to

| > | > | > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the

| > point

| > | > is

| > | > | > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..

| > | > | >

| > | > | > --

| > | > | > MEB

| > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | > --

| > | > | > _________

| > | > | >

| > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > | > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| > | > | > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a

| > | > dictionary

| > | > | > and

| > | > | > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a

| > whiner

| > | > it's

| > | > | > you,

| > | > | > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic

| > (except

| > | > a

| > | > | > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in

| > | > dreamland.)

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a

| > stable

| > | > | > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is."

(Same

| > | > thing

| > | > | > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more

| > stable

| > | > than

| > | > | > 9x

| > | > | > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista

is

| > | > quickly

| > | > | > | maturing to that same state.

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP,

ummm....

| > I

| > | > | > really

| > | > | > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real

| > world,

| > | > like

| > | > | > I

| > | > | > | do?

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE

| > major

| > | > OS

| > | > | > for

| > | > | > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's

| > | > iterations

| > | > | > will

| > | > | > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012,

maybe

| > | > 2015.

| > | > Or

| > | > | > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually

| > produce

| > a

| > | > | > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure

| > isn't

| > | > | > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that

| > will

| > | > | > replace

| > | > | > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the

comparative

| > | > usage

| > | > of

| > | > | > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some

real

| > | > stats

| > | > | > to

| > | > | > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that

| > stats

| > | > lie,

| > | > | > they

| > | > | > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my

| > stats

| > | > are

| > | > | > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid

| > caveats

| > | > | > that

| > | > | > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and

| > hardly

| > | > | > affect

| > | > | > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their

| > | > applications,

| > | > | > the

| > | > | > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in

| > the

| > | > home

| > | > | > and

| > | > | > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're

| > | > afraid

| > | > of

| > | > | > W3C

| > | > | > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued

| > me

| > is

| > | > | > that

| > | > | > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to

| > | > consider.

| > | > | > And

| > | > | > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling

| > where

| > | > one

| > | > | > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage

| > stats

| > | > on

| > | > | > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in

| > this

| > | > | > group

| > | > | > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use

| > | > different

| > | > | > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or

| > even

| > | > more

| > | > | > or

| > | > | > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little

| > harder

| > | > to

| > | > be

| > | > | > an

| > | > | > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their

| > | > competencies,

| > | > | > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing

out

| > in

| > | > | > these

| > | > | > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are

| > totally

| > | > | > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and

| > | > consumer

| > | > | > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the

| > speculation

| > | > in

| > | > | > the

| > | > | > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups,

| > etc.,

| > | > don't

| > | > | > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to

all

| > | > those,

| > | > | > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special

| > place

| > | > | > | reserved for them in Heaven.

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | --

| > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | > | http://grystmill.com

| > | > | > |

| > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > | > | > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or

| > its

| > | > new

| > | > | > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated*

| > and

| > | > | > defunct

| > | > | > OS

| > | > | > | >

| > | > | > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was

| > DOS,

| > | > but

| > | > | > it,

| > | > | > | > at

| > | > | > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to

accept

| > it

| > | > as

| > | > | > it

| > | > | > | > is.

| > | > | > | >

| > | > | > | > --

| > | > | > | > MEB

| > | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | > | > --

| > | > | > | > _________

| > | > | > | >

| > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > | > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | > | > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a

| > sloppy

| > | > | > thinker

| > | > | > | > you

| > | > | > | > | really are.

| > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows

98

| > was

| > | > dead

| > | > | > | > several

| > | > | > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine.

| > Usual

| > | > | > quirks,

| > | > | > | > bit

| > | > | > | > of

| > | > | > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?

| > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | --

| > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | > | > | http://grystmill.com

| > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | > | > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't

matter

| > if

| > | > its

| > | > | > | > getting

| > | > | > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining

| > on

| > | > what

| > | > | > to

| > | > | > go

| > | > | > | > to,

| > | > | > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...

| > | > | > | > | >

| > | > | > | > | > --

| > | > | > | > | > MEB

| > | > | > | > | > http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | > | > | > --

| > | > | > | > | > _________

| > | > | > | > | >

| > | > | > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in

| > message

| > | > | > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...

| > | > | > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej

| > | > | > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>

| > | > | > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:

| > | > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.

| > | > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | > | <sigh>

| > | > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August,

Spybot

| > | > | > unreliable,

| > | > | > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...

| > | > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping

| > | > support

| > | > | > for

| > | > | > | > | > | W98.

| > | > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4

IP

| > | > | > addresses.

| > | > | > | > As

| > | > | > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will

| > that

| > | > | > really

| > | > | > be

| > | > | > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?

| > | > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar

| > | > | > | > | > | --

| > | > | > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by

| > | > email.

| > | > | > | > | >

| > | > | > | > |

| > | > | > | >

| > | > | > |

| > | > | >

| > | > |

| > | >

| > |

| >

|

June 21, 2008

Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support

Oh boy, you caught me in a mistake. What about your "dozens of dollars" you

fake?

I'm through with discussing anything with such a lying fraud.

<PLONK>

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:%23frmPM90IHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Boy, let me make this perfectly clear, when you post as you have been, you

> ARE stupid.

>

> The merger/buy out offer was on EVERY NEWS and Business/stock/whatever

> broadcast... EVERY ONE of them...

> Oh, and let's not forget Microsoft's OWN web pages and press

> notifications...

>

> You want users to move to that XP OS you have already stated was

> essentially a piece of junk, poorly programmed, open to attack, and full

> of

> vulnerabilities; FOR their security,, ah yeah, good idea... and only you

> and

> a select few can safely use it because you know what your doing,, right,,,

>

> As for your prior and present help, good, you still can perform at least

> part of that function, and are one of the few who do so via email for

> which

> I applaud that activity... but that still doesn't excuse your attitude or

> your obnoxious nature... this group and others have tolerated EVERY one of

> your prior health and mental related issues, and showed concern for you

> during those times.. but that can be worn out, particularly when you

> become

> as you are...

>

> Leave it alone Gary... let's try to keep this as a help group, do your

> other crap somewhere else..

>

> --

> MEB

> --

> _________

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:eP8GN%2380IHA.5728@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | news:eh1CQR60IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > What product,,,, you referring to XP,, ah yeah, who do you think

> carefully

> | > orchestrated almost two months of XP verses 9X related postings in

> this

> | > group,, not you assuredly.

> |

> | No, of course not. You'll notice that I've refused to get pulled into

> any

> | actual comparisons of the various OSes we've discussed. That's your

> game,

> | not mine. I simply want to help average people with their Windows 98

> | problems, and it's obsolesence is a major one of those problems. You

> just

> | want to repeatedly go over and over your pet theories and want me to be

> your

> | foil. Well GFY. Everybody knows you're a pompous jackass, and this is

> just

> | one more piece to the puzzle. Frankly, more than a lying fraud, you're a

> | plain and simple A** H*LE.

> |

> | So, are you a lying POS or have you really, actually, honestly used

> | 2K/XP/Vista?

> |

> | > Why would I be polite to you, here you are again spouting the same

> stupid

> | > ideas you fostered here, other 9X forums, and in XP forums.

> |

> | Because you're an lying fraud?

> |

> | > Once again you highjacked a thread to attempt to push your moronic

> ideas

> | > upon more Windows users... just had to do so AGAIN, didn't you... are

> you

> | > getting PAID by Microsoft now, or is it that you have nothing else of

> | > value

> | > to do in your life now????

> |

> | I didn't hijack the thread. There wasn't any freaking thread. It was a

> post

> | about a vulnerability in a product that doesn't even work in Win9x. But

> try

> | to follow this simple bit of logic (I know it's almost impossible for

> you --

> | logic -- but try anyway.) Firefox has a serious vulnerability, right

> after

> | it's released. End of story EXCEPT for the opportunity to discuss

> comparatve

> | vulnerabilities in OSes and applications and the larger picture of the

> | question, "Is any computer safe to use?"

> |

> | > How many more times are you going to tell 9X and XP users they are

> stupid,

> | > that they CAN'T understand anything else because they apparently

> haven't

> | > got

> | > a brain according to your estimation,,

> |

> | You changed my wording, but yes, most of the PC using masses WANT their

> | machine idiot-proofed, if that's what you're talking about. They're not

> | stupid so much as lazy. It's the American Way. They want to plug it in

> and

> | have it work. They DON'T want to manually update their system every week

> or

> | month or EVER. They don't wnt to have to spend two or three days pr

> month

> | reading and researching all the patches, etc. They want it done for

> them.

> | When it comes to a comparison of ANY other OS to XP, XP wins that battle

> | hands down.

> |

> | Like it or not, Windows 98 is very close to truly, totally dead. It is

> | foolish, even downright stupid, for any "average" user to continue to

> use

> | it, and I have no qualms saying so. Having spent tens of thousands of

> hours,

> | posting tens upon tens of thousands of helpful posts in THIS group for

> the

> | last 9.5 years, I think my integrity is well established. And through it

> all

> | (as you so kindly pointed out yesterday) I have never shied away from

> | telling it like I think it is. I'm certainly not going to stop now.

> |

> | >I haven't, I called YOU stupid,,

> | > you're SUPPOSED to be a knowledgeable person regarding Windows yet you

> | > apparently don't understand it very well and you certainly have no

> respect

> | > for its users. At least that's what you've recently indicated and

> | > posted...

> |

> | You haven't called me stupid because you know I'm not. I'm also not a

> lying

> | fraud, but you most certainly are. I also have more respect for Windows

> | users than you have. I'm concerned about their safety and their ability

> to

> | get what they want out of their machines. According to you, we're ALL

> stupid

> | for using Windows XP/Vista. Care to apologize? I thought not.

> |

> | > Oh yeah, lets ignore the prior boom, the collapse, and the failure of

> | > Microsoft's stock to increase due to inflation, use, new products, or

> | > anything else that indicates growth, consumer confidence, and actual

> | > value..

> | > The recent spike was due to the proposed Yahoo purchase,,, since

> Microsoft

> | > can't even get its search engine functioning properly..

> |

> | What recent spike? You mean the *bubble* back in late '07? The news of a

> | possible merger didn't come out until early February -- AFTER the bubble

> of

> | late '07 had already collapsed. The whole merger thing didn't cause more

> | than a few dollars variance, you ignorant fraud. If you're talking about

> the

> | merger talk back in Feb 2007, that died almost as soon as it was

> "reported"

> | in the blogs (and nowhere else, like any reputable source of

> information.)

> |

> | Again, you're a lying fraud. And that's been the way since the beginning

> of

> | your "orchestrated debate". Nothing but pure BS coming out of your

> keyboard.

> |

> | >Now, this is a 9X forum, think you can manage to keep it relevant to 9X

> | >without resorting to your new love, XP?

> |

> | I have no love for XP you moron. That's another thing that you don't

> get.

> | Or, rather, maybe you do get it, you just like to lie. If that wasn't

> such

> a

> | lie of a question, I might answer it.

> |

> | >Does your wife know you're having this love affair? <G>

> |

> | Do you even have a wife? With all that circle-jerking you engage in, I

> | figure not.

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> |

> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > news:uWITHe30IHA.5564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | news:u3whfby0IHA.1572@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | > | >

> | > | > If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and

> | > stableness

> | > | > are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to

> | > protect

> | > | > you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you

> | > | > constantly

> | > | > and consistently expose in your own writings...

> | > | > STABLE -

> | > |

> | > | Idiot-proofing is/was the whole idea, numbnuts. Always will be for

> 95%

> +

> | > of

> | > | the market. Fortunately, most of that idiot-proofing can be disabled

> and

> | > | more sane settings applied. And, of course, you continue to expose

> your

> | > own

> | > | extraordinary pomosity by presuming to know how I have my system

> | > configured.

> | > |

> | > | Of course, your never having actually USED the product, you really

> don't

> | > | know what you're talking about, do you?

> | > |

> | > | > Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find

> YOU

> | > | > spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP....

> and

> | > find

> | > | > you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of

> | > upgrading...

> | > | > you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are

> | > | > manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on

> | > Microsoft's

> | > | > behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you

> appear

> | > ...

> | > | > how

> | > | > much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you

> have

> | > to

> | > | > endure...

> | > |

> | > | If we're going to peruse histories, where were you prior to two

> years

> | > ago.

> | > | Hiding behind some alias, or perhaps going through your own dementia

> | > after

> | > | failing so miserably to make 98 what it should havbe been?

> | > |

> | > | It's polite (and sensible, if you're really interested in an honest

> | > debate)

> | > | to provide links to such things after you've gone to all the trouble

> to

> | > look

> | > | it up.

> | > |

> | > | In any case, you make my point for me. OSes come, OSes go, and all

> for

> | > good

> | > | reason. Seems to me I've been right all along.

> | > |

> | > | > The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your

> | > | > insistences...

> | > |

> | > | You keep trying to insult me by calling me insane, referring to

> personal

> | > | issues, etc. When have I ever denied it? I've ALWAYS been crazy and

> more

> | > | than a little lunatic. I'm still saner than you are by a full

> league.

> | > |

> | > | > MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because

> EVERYONE

> | > knows

> | > | > Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it

> will

> | > have

> | > | > to

> | > | > do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy

> | > code...

> | > |

> | > | Don't know much about the stock market either, do ya? FYI, MSFT is

> | > trading

> | > a

> | > | little over a dollar below its price a year ago. In fact its chart

> looks

> | > | just as I'd expect it to over the last year. Rose on the general

> good

> | > | feelings of last year from $29.50 in mid-June to $37 at the end of

> | > October,

> | > | and then, like the rest of the market, there was a major drop over

> the

> | > | Christmas season and into the new year, bottoming at $27.20 in late

> | > | February, and fluctuating a bit back and forth to settle at $28.23

> on

> | > Monday

> | > | last.

> | > |

> | > | In fact, since the beginning of 2002, when the tech stock crash had

> | > bottomed

> | > | out, and MSFT stood at $31.85, it's been fairly steady within a

> dollaar

> | > or

> | > | two until that spike last year.

> | > |

> | > | Dozens of dollars, eh? MSFT's entire history peaked at $58.38 in

> | > December

> | > | 1999. Unless you want to include the tech crash of 2000 in your

> | > | calculations, MSFT hasn't LOST more than a dozen dollars over ANY

> period

> | > of

> | > | time.

> | > |

> | > | You really are just a lying fraud, aren't you? Or are you just an

> idiot

> | > who

> | > | can't think for yourself and have to spend all your time reading the

> | > lies

> | > of

> | > | other, more well known frauds?

> | > |

> | > | > IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an

> OS

> | > that

> | > | > supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY

> processor

> | > and

> | > | > is

> | > | > FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be

> | > | > required

> | > | > to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND

> be

> | > | > subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it

> to

> | > | > work..... when you could have something else... something that

> doesn't

> | > | > require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and

> if

> | > you

> | > | > want; can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know

> what

> | > your

> | > | > doing...

> | > |

> | > | I pay attention to facts, not theories. Fact is that 80% of the PC

> | > market

> | > | WANTS idiot-proofing, real PnP and out-of the-box functionality.

> That

> | > same

> | > | 80% can barely figure out how to use the incredibly user-friendly

> | > Windows

> | > | much less whatever your geeky, custom-built OS flavor of the day is.

> | > | Besides, it's proven that you're a lying fraud, so I have no faith

> in

> | > | anything you spout out these days.

> | > |

> | > | > MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk

> | > stock....

> | > |

> | > | Again, care to revise?

> | > |

> | > | --

> | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > |

> | > | >

> | > |

> | > | > --

> | > | > MEB