What happened to BentRiderOnline? - Page 4

"Randy Rhine" <rrrhine@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vs-dndQRgbQBvG3dRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>
>..... For many years, I was a sysprog for a large company.
>I and 1 other person supported 25,000 people on an IBM
>mainframe runing VM. Then they started to migrate to Unix
>and eventully to Windows...and the number of support
>people increased dramatically. That's when I decided to
>retire. ....

You and 1 other person "supported" 25,000 active users on an
IBM VM mainframe? I'm impressed! Let's see. You installed
and maintained VM, you did backup and restores, you manned
the help desk, you solved user problems, you installed and
maintained applications software, you operated the computer,
you maintained security and you controlled user accounts.
Did I miss anything? No wonder they paid you so much and no
wonder you retired. You must be exhausted!

Chuck Davis

> Windows and I dread the thought of learning another OS. I
> guess I will wait and stay with Windows until things get
> quite a bit worse. It may be that Microsoft will get a
> handle on all the problems with Windows (mainly security
> issues it seems to me).
>

Ed, I understand perfectly where you are coming from. BUT
the problem is that the experts have been saying for 10
years that MAYBE MS will get a handle on the problems. Now
they are saying that it's time to give up on
IE. (NOT Windows in general, XP was a god send for most of
us). It's just got TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many holes and the
main reason is the attacks are getting MUCH more
sophisticated. I've dumped IE and Outlook and whatever
their newsreader is (can't even remember), but XP is
fine and I'm not doing anything about switching it.

Edward Dolan wrote:

> Why is anyone using Mozilla when everyone else in the
> world is using Microsoft IE? Even Netscape creates
> problems that I don't get on IE. I would be interested in
> hearing what it is that you don't like about IE. It seems
> fast but is sometimes a bit unstable when you pile up too
> many web sites. What am I missing?

Um, no viruses, faster browsing time, the pleasure of
knowing that you aren't following the Cult of Gates, etc.,
etc., etc. -- not to mention that I always thought MSIE
stunk royally and looks like a dog.

--
Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, But much benefit is
derived from the labor of the ox.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:39:52 -0500, MLB <mikeb46815@yahoo.com> wrote
in message <Xns95228B0ED3AC9mikeb46815yahoocom@216.196.97.136>:

>What problems are MOST people having with XP??????? It's
>solved 99% of my WIndows complaints?

Security issues are top of the list, but random freezing,
applications which won't run, "crreping death" (a registry
problem where a machine over 18 months old gets slower and
slower until you have to re-install Windows) - and in fact
anything to do with the poxy registry.

A friend took delivery of a brand new XP machine, it took
two hours to download all the patches via broadband.

But you're right that it's better than many of theiur
previous offerings.

My verdict on XP has always been "it hardly sucks at all"
:-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in
news:m6c0f0dva9krqvevhakh76as8p2ipeli48@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:07:05 -0700, Randy Rhine
> <rrrhine@comcast.net> wrote in message <vs-dndQRgbQBvG3dRVn-
> iQ@comcast.com>:
>
>>> I run a network of Windows machines. You want a list of
>>> the problems? Windows is a giant job creation scheme for
>>> geeks.
>
>>Ah...a network of machines...that's different that a
>>single machine or small home network (like I have...4
>>machines). I can understand that.
>
> But the problems are the same, the machines break down if
> anything less often than home ones because the software
> environment is well controlled.
>
> Guy

What problems are MOST people having with XP??????? It's
solved 99% of my WIndows complaints?

Edward Dolan wrote:

> with it in order to keep it going. I am counting on
> Microsoft to solve all the problems inherent with
> computers so that the rest of us (the vast majority) do
> not have to become geeks in order to keep the computer
> operational.

YIKES! That is a really awful thing to place your trust in.
Gates has said that the flaws in IE are necessary for it to
be integrated with the OS and that they really can't be
totally removed.

--
Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, But much benefit is
derived from the labor of the ox.

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:15:47 GMT, Melinda Meahan - remove TRASH to
reply <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote in message
<DfXHc.1535$54.18834@typhoon.sonic.net>:

>> Why is anyone using Mozilla when everyone else in the
>> world is using Microsoft IE?

>Um, no viruses, faster browsing time, the pleasure of
>knowing that you aren't following the Cult of Gates, etc.,
>etc., etc. -- not to mention that I always thought MSIE
>stunk royally and looks like a dog.

My principle objection to IE is that it is "throatware" -
i.e. it is rammed down your throat. I don't like the fact
that you can't uninstall it, and I don't like the fact that
it effectively gives web sites root access to your machine,
whatever your user privileges.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:53:40 -0400, Larry Varney <lvarney@fuse.net>
wrote in message <OQXHc.12807$1F6.7094@fe37.usenetserver.com>:

> And it's now owned by Microsoft, and costs over $200.
> I'm tempted - but that's more than I've spent on Linux
> software in 15 years altogether! LOTS more! And, as
> infrequently as I fiddle around with the Macs that my
> wife has, I really don't see them as being all that
> great, or at least enough to justify the premium price
> they charge. I'm much happier with a PC running Mandrake
> Linux, with its (equivalent) thousands of dollars of
> software, for far less than just the Mac hardware costs.

Under my desk right now I have one Mac running OS X, one PC
running XP and one running Red Hat 9.

The thing I always liked about Macs was the consistency.
Each new piece of software looks & feels sufficiently
similar to the others that I could always produce a result
very quickly. I also liked the fact that I could buy a Mac,
put it on a desk, and five years later it would still be
there doing the same job. I never needed to upgrade, patch,
tweak, mess or rescue them.

Back then I was admin and in-house applicaitons developer
for an office of about 50 people, and I did it on 8 days per
month. When we changed to Windows I had to go full time.

I like Linux a lot, for the cheap hardware and all-round
robustness, but I still have a lot of time for the Mac
as a desktop platform because it is so easy to use, and
so reliable.

Of course, if everyone used Macs the virus writers would
probably focus more on them and they would maybe require
more security patches than they do. But neither Apple nor
any Linux vendor ever had to launch a "trustworthy
computing" initiative, because they were never considered
untrustworthy :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:02:46 -0400, Larry Varney
> <lvarney@fuse.net> wrote in message
> <NcWHc.12792$1F6.11357@fe37.usenetserver.com>:
>
>
>> The only time I need to boot into Windows (you can have
>> dual-booting machines, so you don't have to totally
>> abandon Windows) instead of Linux, is when I want to
>> download a different set of maps into my Garmin GPS.
>> They don't make a Linux version of their software.
>
>
> And if you had a Mac you could do that with VirtualPC :-D
>
> Guy

And it's now owned by Microsoft, and costs over $200. I'm
tempted - but that's more than I've spent on Linux
software in 15 years altogether! LOTS more! And, as
infrequently as I fiddle around with the Macs that my
wife has, I really don't see them as being all that
great, or at least enough to justify the premium price
they charge. I'm much happier with a PC running Mandrake
Linux, with its (equivalent) thousands of dollars of
software, for far less than just the Mac hardware costs.

--
Larry Varney Cold Spring, KY
http://home.fuse.net/larryvarney

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:51:27 -0500, MLB <mikeb46815@yahoo.com> wrote
in message <Xns9522A181F231mikeb46815yahoocom@216.196.97.136>:

>I have had zero freezeup, all apps run perfectly and now
>creeping death on my now 2 y/o install. I"m running 4
>computers, all with XP and have zero complaints, other than
>it's from Microsuck.

Lucky you :-) "This is our most reliable computer, provided
you don't use software".

> Think your bud better check his broadband, took about 10
> mintues for the one I did last week.........

512k tested fine. I have 1 Mbit at work, it takes about an
hour there. I build probably three or four XP boxes per
week, plus the ones I use Ghost for.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in
news:b5g0f0912l1c5jgjep8tt83s4tii5a0n8q@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 13:39:52 -0500, MLB
> <mikeb46815@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> <Xns95228B0ED3AC9mikeb46815yahoocom@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>What problems are MOST people having with XP??????? It's
>>solved 99% of my WIndows complaints?
>
> Security issues are top of the list, but random freezing,
> applications which won't run, "crreping death" (a registry
> problem where a machine over 18 months old gets slower and
> slower until you have to re-install Windows) - and in fact
> anything to do with the poxy registry.
>
> A friend took delivery of a brand new XP machine, it took
> two hours to download all the patches via broadband.
>
> But you're right that it's better than many of theiur
> previous offerings.
>
> My verdict on XP has always been "it hardly sucks at
> all" :-)
>
> Guy

I have had zero freezeup, all apps run perfectly and now
creeping death on my now 2 y/o install. I"m running 4
computers, all with XP and have zero complaints, other than
it's from Microsuck. Think your bud better check his
broadband, took about 10 mintues for the one I did last
week......... I do like your MS motto!

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message
newsac0f0tlubhjj4u9dcqn55b5cmj554gqi1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:56:07 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
> <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message <it-dnfor-fgMnm3dRVn-
> ig@prairiewave.com>:
>
> >I know a couple of geeks (these are invariably young kids
> >between the
ages
> >of 18 and 21) and they both will have absolutely nothing
> >to do with Mac. They also do not like Linux and are in
> >fact both Windows fanatics.
>
> In which case they are not proper geeks. Real geeks love
> anything Unix-like, are into Linux, can aceept MacOS X
> because it has BSD under the hood, and hate Windows for
> too many reasons to name.
>
> Here's where to find real geeks: http://slashdot.org -
> note that Bill is portrayed as Gates of Borg.

Well, they are kids and do not have any higher education in
computing, but they sure do know how to fix anything that
goes wrong with Windows. I have yet to meet a young person
who will have anything to do with Mac.

Frankly, I could live just fine with Windows if it weren't
for all these confounded security issues.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"MLB" <mikeb46815@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95228A1C89E8Amikeb46815yahoocom@216.196.97.136...
>
> > Windows and I dread the thought of learning another OS.
> > I guess I will wait and stay with Windows until things
> > get quite a bit worse. It may be that Microsoft will get
> > a handle on all the problems with Windows (mainly
> > security issues it seems to me).
> >
>
> Ed, I understand perfectly where you are coming from. BUT
> the problem is that the experts have been saying for 10
> years that MAYBE MS will get a handle on the problems. Now
> they are saying that it's time to give up on
> IE. (NOT Windows in general, XP was a god send for most of
> us). It's just got TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many holes and
> the main reason is the attacks are getting MUCH more
> sophisticated. I've dumped IE and Outlook and whatever
> their newsreader is (can't even remember), but XP is
> fine and I'm not doing anything about switching it.

OK, thanks MLB. Point taken.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Melinda Meahan - remove TRASH to reply" <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote in
message newsfXHc.1535$54.18834@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > Why is anyone using Mozilla when everyone else in the
> > world is using Microsoft IE? Even Netscape creates
> > problems that I don't get on IE. I
would
> > be interested in hearing what it is that you don't like
> > about IE. It
seems
> > fast but is sometimes a bit unstable when you pile up
> > too many web
sites.
> > What am I missing?
>
> Um, no viruses, faster browsing time, the pleasure of
> knowing that you aren't following the Cult of Gates, etc.,
> etc., etc. -- not to mention that I always thought MSIE
> stunk royally and looks like a dog.

Melinda, what I know about computers you could put in a
thimble. I am totally out of my element here. However, I am
giving all those far more knowledgeable than I a novice's
view point of how novices relate to computers. Most of us
who are novices will remain so all our lives and we will
refuse to learn much of anything about computers other than
how to turn them on and how to turn them off.

I think IE looks just fine, but beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. But IE was the first and the only browser that I
know and so it was love at first sight, a not uncommon human
reaction to something new.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Larry Varney" <lvarney@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:NcWHc.12792$1F6.11357@fe37.usenetserver.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > "dada's mail" <hschultz1@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:tJIHc.26362$SO5.9512@twister.socal.rr.com...
> >
> >>I have been running linux for the last couple of years,
> >>recently
switched
> >>back to windows for the ease of using a "needed"
> >>problem, the question should be why is everyone else
> >>using windows? I couldn't live with the hassle it takes
> >>to keep it running online. Linux isnt' that hard to
learn
> >>and it takes much less work to keep it up,, howie
> >
> >
> > I have heard that refrain before about how someone
> > switched to Linux and then switched back to Windows
> > because only Windows could handle what it
is
> > they needed to do.
> >
>
> The only time I need to boot into Windows (you can have
> dual-booting machines, so you don't have to totally
> abandon Windows) instead of Linux, is when I want to
> download a different set of maps into my Garmin GPS.
> They don't make a Linux version of their software.
> Other than that, there's nothing I do, from web stuff
> to word processing, from playing/burning CDs to working
> with digital photographs, that I can't do on Linux with
> software that is just as advanced, more stable, and
> MUCH cheaper. As in, usually free.

Well, that may be so but there is no way with my very
limited knowledge of computers that I am going to go to
another operating system. I may or may not try a different
browser and/or a different e-mail program including a
different newsreader, but I am stuck with Windows XP for as
long as I can foresee. Others have told me that Windows XP
is the best version of Windows yet to come down the pike.
That is good enough for me.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota