Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting

Quaestor wrote:

If only you could disable the ratware, the "you must get billgates
permission to use what you've bought." If only you could disable it
down to a useful OS.

Not as long as Bill has a stranglehold on the market. Though the Euros
don't seem to be backing down. Or switch to Linux...unless you already
have.

shegeek72 wrote:
Shawk wrote:

Link?

What link? Do some research on .Net and you'll find that's true.

I didn't claim it was obsolete, a failure and didn't get widespread
acceptance and usage You did. Provide a link to back up why you are
saying this... or is it a personal opinion stated as a fact?

Lol. "Security Alert. The name on the security certificate is invalid
or does not match the name on the site".

I got the same warning. Most of the time those warnings are false.

Hmm. You don't sound as concerned about security risks in this post as
your last one. Some risks are acceptable and some aren't eh?

Got a link (preferably not tinyurl) that's less of a 'security risk'?

It makes no difference if it's a tinyurl link or not.

Really? Forgive me if I ignore any advice you may give on security in
the future

https://www.microsoft.co.ke/download...displaylang=en

That is a security update for Net 1.1. You disapprove of MS giving out
security updates or you think that only MS has folk trying to exploit
the software?

"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
(Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is more why the
hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just needed for the
installation? I dont recall it being needed to ftp the driver down ...

In Win2K/XP, .NET is never "needed", except for developers
(e.g. ATI) who're too incompetent, lazy or both to write their
own full drivers.

So its there to facilitate development of drivers? Well, theres the
point. Why is it "lazy" to use the OS services that MS provide? Is it
also lazy to us Direct X API?

That's a ridiculous analogy. Without DX users would lose
the ability to use most any modern sound app, play most
any modern game, and several thousand other applications.
What functionality does .NET provide for a video driver?

Integrataion support. Easy.

Is like asking why people bothered with COM.

"shegeek72" writes:

s wrote:

Switching gfx cards just to avoid .NET is just plain silly...

Not when it caused the problems it did on my system. Plus, no other
website has required .Net to d/l drivers, including nVidia..

You're beginning to sound like a fanboy and a troll.


Especially since Vista is going to have it integrated into the OS out
of the gate.

There probably will be many features to Vista when it's released that
the end-user will disable or not use.


Sur there will.

"shegeek72" writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

.NET hast exactly _zero_ to do with anything on the arrangement of your
desktop. The only thing that .NET 1.1 causes is that you are required to
logon even if you have setup autologon before since it adds an user
entry. Takes 30s at best to deactivate this user...

Then it screwing up my logon and desktop was my imagination? Yeah,
right.

Maybe you should get facts straight before posting because this is
completely BS. .NET is being used in lots of programs, and the number of
programs that use .NET ist increasing...

Not on my system and I have all the programs I want.

Yeah, speaking of security risks and at the same time providing a
tinyurl link where no-one knows what's behind is strange at best...

Try checking it out. Don't worry. Your computer won't be harmed.

So in short: you have no clue what .NET really is...

I know I don't want it on my system. Do you work for Microsquash?


You see, it didnt take long. This is nothing more than yet another rabid
anti-ms idiot that hates Bill Gates yet is quite happy to use his OS and
play games. Ive never understood this people. Dont like it? Dont use it.

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
(Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is more why the
hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just needed for the
installation? I dont recall it being needed to ftp the driver down ...

In Win2K/XP, .NET is never "needed", except for developers
(e.g. ATI) who're too incompetent, lazy or both to write their
own full drivers.

So its there to facilitate development of drivers? Well, theres the
point. Why is it "lazy" to use the OS services that MS provide? Is it
also lazy to us Direct X API?

That's a ridiculous analogy. Without DX users would lose
the ability to use most any modern sound app, play most
any modern game, and several thousand other applications.
What functionality does .NET provide for a video driver?

Integrataion support. Easy.

Is like asking why people bothered with COM.

I'm still trying to understand what point you're making.
There are very good reasons why no one except MS
bothered with COM, and the same is true for .NET.

"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
(Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is more why the
hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just needed for the
installation? I dont recall it being needed to ftp the driver down ...

In Win2K/XP, .NET is never "needed", except for developers
(e.g. ATI) who're too incompetent, lazy or both to write their
own full drivers.

So its there to facilitate development of drivers? Well, theres the
point. Why is it "lazy" to use the OS services that MS provide? Is it
also lazy to us Direct X API?

That's a ridiculous analogy. Without DX users would lose
the ability to use most any modern sound app, play most
any modern game, and several thousand other applications.
What functionality does .NET provide for a video driver?

Integrataion support. Easy.

Is like asking why people bothered with COM.

I'm still trying to understand what point you're making.
There are very good reasons why no one except MS
bothered with COM, and the same is true for .NET.

They are/were MS proprietary designed to give them the edge. For some
reason they insisted on reinventing the wheel. Interface layers were
produced for other OSs to talk via COM or even .net.

Thousands of 3 rd party apps use both.

I dont understand your angle here.

ATIs developers made use of the .net framework to simplify their driver
intregration. Its what its for. This idea that they are just "lazy" is
complete bull****. They saved unnecessary time and effort : there is a
HUGE difference.

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"shegeek72" writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

.NET hast exactly _zero_ to do with anything on the arrangement of your
desktop. The only thing that .NET 1.1 causes is that you are required to
logon even if you have setup autologon before since it adds an user
entry. Takes 30s at best to deactivate this user...

Then it screwing up my logon and desktop was my imagination? Yeah,
right.

Maybe you should get facts straight before posting because this is
completely BS. .NET is being used in lots of programs, and the number of
programs that use .NET ist increasing...

Not on my system and I have all the programs I want.

Yeah, speaking of security risks and at the same time providing a
tinyurl link where no-one knows what's behind is strange at best...

Try checking it out. Don't worry. Your computer won't be harmed.

So in short: you have no clue what .NET really is...

I know I don't want it on my system. Do you work for Microsquash?


You see, it didnt take long. This is nothing more than yet another rabid
anti-ms idiot that hates Bill Gates yet is quite happy to use his OS and
play games. Ive never understood this people. Dont like it? Dont use it.

Tell you what, Walter. Save this post, then come back
and read it in about two years -- IF your subscription to
Live Mail is paid up.

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
"EDM" writes:

"Walter Mitty" wrote in message ...
writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

Like the rest of the OS. .net is nothing special in this regard.

2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
(Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)

Did it? How?

3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Hardly obsolete though.

4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

As can all web services.

5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

There obviously is or you wouldnt need it. The question is more why the
hell it *is* needed? Are you sure its not just needed for the
installation? I dont recall it being needed to ftp the driver down ...

In Win2K/XP, .NET is never "needed", except for developers
(e.g. ATI) who're too incompetent, lazy or both to write their
own full drivers.

So its there to facilitate development of drivers? Well, theres the
point. Why is it "lazy" to use the OS services that MS provide? Is it
also lazy to us Direct X API?

That's a ridiculous analogy. Without DX users would lose
the ability to use most any modern sound app, play most
any modern game, and several thousand other applications.
What functionality does .NET provide for a video driver?

Integrataion support. Easy.

Is like asking why people bothered with COM.

I'm still trying to understand what point you're making.
There are very good reasons why no one except MS
bothered with COM, and the same is true for .NET.

They are/were MS proprietary designed to give them the edge. For some
reason they insisted on reinventing the wheel. Interface layers were
produced for other OSs to talk via COM or even .net.

Thousands of 3 rd party apps use both.

I dont understand your angle here.

ATIs developers made use of the .net framework to simplify their driver
intregration. Its what its for. This idea that they are just "lazy" is
complete bull****. They saved unnecessary time and effort : there is a
HUGE difference.

Now *that* is some serious bull****. You're claiming MS
hasn't spent 10x as much time and money dealing with COM's
problems as they've gained in business because of it? COM
was without question the biggest white elephant in MS history.
And you're claiming junking up people's computers with a
bloated, resource sucking piece of garbage for no added
functionality whatsoever qualifies as "necessary" for ATI?
That's nothing short of astonishing.

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

* shegeek72:

Switching gfx cards just to avoid .NET is just plain silly...

Not when it caused the problems it did on my system. Plus, no other
website has required .Net to d/l drivers, including nVidia..

What a reason. Who cares about 3D performance or game compatibility when
one can avoid .NET which is nothing the uninformed crowd believes it
is ;-)

And of course you have a monopoly on the Truth.

There probably will be many features to Vista when it's released that
the end-user will disable or not use.

Of course there will be users fiddling around in system innards without
having a f***ing clue what the things he plays around do and of course
which will blame the resulting problems to MS alone...

Projecting a bit?


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)