What inkjet printer prints the best text?

The mirrors are usually front surface, so clean with care using a
solvent like isopropyl alcohol, and do not rum, as they can scratch, try
not to leave any residue behind.

A clean chamois or similar may work.

Art

Cal Bubo wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote:

Many scanners suffer from either plasticizers or volatiles of the
lubricants vaporizing and redepositing on the bottom surface of the
glass.

Most of them can be opened with care, by removing a couple of screws
and carefully cleaning the inside surface. Try not to knock the
scanning bar or moving it, and try to keep dust out and off the mirrors.


And if the mirrors are coated?...


Well, I'll find out, won't I?

PS: Hell with all this cross-posting. I've cut it down to one.

Bubba
When you're far from home in the west, desperate for a Bubba, just call
my name.

kony wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:22:15 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:


I respect and know Tony well enough from my personal correspondence with
him, as well as his many post here that I see no reason he would have to
try to deceive anyone here. I therefore believe his statements are
level headed evaluations based upon his personal experiences.


Tony may be a geat guy. Personally from my brief exposure,
I think he may have offered a fair, maybe even large amount
of help in the past.

Unfortunately, this is not an issue that is based around
character. It is not based around your perception of level
headedness either. It is based on the specific topic and
facts, and the arguments made when those facts were
presented.

Do try to backtrack and see this. It is not a fan club, it
is a discussion based on fact not loyalty.


I have read this thread through, and what I read was that Tony indicated
a mixture of his personal experience, the experiences of those he deals
with on a professional basis, and his informed opinion. Was it without
bias? No, we all have personal biases, including you. Was it informed,
level headed and based upon reasonable judgment? Yes, it appeared to
be. Did it come from a source I have come to respect and trust? Yes.
Do I fully agree with the conclusions reached? Not necessarily.

Am I (or you) right and he wrong? No, because much of this issue is
contextual, and personal. Is a pipe wrench a good tool or a bad one?
Well, it really depends upon what you plan to do with it. I wouldn't
try gardening with one.

To imply Vista is the worst thing to happen to PCs is as absurd as
stating it is manna from heaven. For people who bought it loaded on a
system that was appropriately powered for it, and who were able to use
their computer within the context of newer peripherals, it offers some
neat features unavailable on other PC operating systems. For others, it
is an evolutionary process that will eventually lead to some valuable
capabilities once the other parts are added to it either by Microsoft
as they release service packs, or by third party developers. For some,
it has been a hassle and unstable, or a waste of time to learn, and they
have gone back to XP, or elsewhere, and may return to a Microsoft OS if
they get it better next time, or may have permanetly left Microsoft OSs.


However, I also know that there has been a real backlash to Vista by
many people. This backlash to Vista was completely predicable, and it
had only partly to do with Vista itself, per se.


Not just predicable, there were plenty of those who not only
had an open mind, but had no idea and just bought their next
system with it installed. This isn't a political issue, not
a matter of bias.



Again, its contextual. If what you are saying was true uniformly then
the backlash would have been much more extreme, and Microsoft wouldn't
has sold as many copies of the unbundled software as they did, and the
market penetration would have been much lower. Yes, some people were
displeased with their user experience with Vista. Some people are also
quite content with it.


I predicted this
backlash nearly 5 years ago, in fact, I actually communicated that to
Microsoft back then, before Vista was even called Vista.


Then maybe you were ahead of your time, when someone makes a
statement like this I would love to accept it at full face
value, but do appreciate that on usenet, everything must be
taken with a grain of salt.


Whether you believe me or not is not actually relevant, but that's where
issues of trust and reputation come into play. People who know me, my
associations and affiliations know this is a credible statement and why
it is.

I am not anti-Vista. I am against blanket statements
without the customer being informed. CBFalconer provided
very pertinent information and that was brushed aside with
no justification. I am always offended when someone does
that, and hope you do see as I do that it is a clear choice
to ignore facts... because in fact, the issues linked are
not mostly addressed by patches or SP1, not even close. It
seems almost insulting that someone makes such a statement
when clearly it is impossible that they even read the links
and compared to patches... because there is clearly no
justification whatsoever for the statement made.



You are re-writing history, with a very strong spin to make your "facts"
fit you re-write.

In fact, here is what Tony stated about the links:

All of the links above are reasonably old in terms of the release cycle of a
new OS. Vista has improved immeasurably in the past few months and when SP1
comes out in the new year I suspect we will see better performance as well as
other improvements. Your comment about Vista reminds me of similar comments
about XP and previous versions of Windows during the early stages of release.
In many cases the end result was a pretty reliable OS (Windows98SE and Windows
XP with SP2 for eaxmple). Modern OS' are immensely complex and anybody who
thinks they can be released in their final totally stable version is dreaming.
All of the negatives in the above links have been refuted by people just as
expert as the authors. It seems to me that the links have been "cherry picked",
in other words chosen because they are all negative. There are many positive
links about Vista. I have been using Vista for many months with absolutely no
issues as of yet and am looking forward to SP1. I also lived with the Windows
98 XP iterations which resulted in a stable computing experience for me.
On a more specific note the first link is well worth a read, clearly the author
has an agenda. He says that "This document looks purely at the cost of the
technical portions of Vista's content protection" and immediately follows this
with comments that are critical of the OS with little or no relevance to the
subject matter.
Tony


Now, if you are speaking about CBFalconer's compulsion about Usenet
etiquette regarding where the message should appear relative to the
quotes, I'm sorry, but I consider that so much nonsense and quite
honestly, when people start griping about where information is within a
message it tends (for me) to discount how well considered other things
they post are, because like many things, the "truth" is shades of gray
and there are valid reasons for posting both ways, and the old
established way of doing something doesn't necessarily make it the most
appropriate today.

Platform wars are a waste of time and energy because, if it was all so
cut and dry, the "best one" would be the only one in use. Instead we
have numerous OSs in use, and most users swear by the one they use most.
CBFalconer has presented some interesting links, and they are worthwhile
considering. His editorial point of view however is also biased in some
of the statements he makes which may not help his argument. And lastly,
I have no way to confirm the accuracy of the content of the links he
provided, so I can read them but I cannot validate the veracity of the
claims.

In terms of sheer enthusiasm and user experience Apple should probably
be the number one selling OS (since Linux is basically free, it is
harder to classify by enthusiasm, since people often like free things
simply because they are free) yet it isn't. Maybe that's because things
just aren't as two dimensional as you would like them to be.


How did I know this? Well, there were a number of issues that told the
story. The first was that XP works, and it works pretty well. Coming

from a psychology background, I have a good idea about how people

respond to change. Change is only voluntarily embraced, especially in
an established population (meaning people who already have a set of
skills under their belt) when benefits obviously outstrip risks or
inconvenience. People were in no rush to change their OS again, finally
having one that did what they expected of it. Almost every one of us
has "survived" through one or more OS upgrades. It didn't take a genius
to know that the same problems were likely to occur again... broken
drivers, buggy initial release, obsolete peripherals, hours figuring out
what is broken and what is just "new and different", needing to learn a
new desktop, conflicts with older software.... etc.



You may be right on some factors, but did YOU even read the
links CBFalconer provided?

No this is not just about change. In addition to issues
linked, it is about quite higher overhead, bloating of an OS
already bloated beyond imagination. It is about an extreme
EULA. It is about extreme cost in a monopoly environment.
It is about years of delays and even then releasing an OS
that couldn't even copy a lot of files without severe lag.


Yes, I've read over the links (I haven't read each one fully, because
they would take an hour or more to complete and I have other things to
do) They admittedly raise some important questions. Some of the
content I think unfairly blames Microsoft for things that the whole
industry is up to and which Microsoft either went along for the ride or
perhaps thought they could forward new media with. I happen to agree
that much was probably poorly thought out, but I also believe that in
the end, market forces will dictate what it is people hold dear and
important. Microsoft can't afford to alienate more OS users when other
(cheaper) options are available.

I certainly have not ever attempted to talk anyone into moving to the
Vista platform, and I have probably talked more people who have asked me
out of it than anything else. Like I said, I didn't think we needed it
5 years ago and my opinion about that hasn't really changed, but that
doesn't mean it isn't useful for some people and won't be moreso as SP1
is released.

If you are as correct about Vista as you assume, it will be a bit shot
in the arm to Apple and to Linux.

I accept a new OS will have problems. I feel MS has done a
lot of good in developing an OS so many people find useful.
That does not make any particular OS ready for mass
consumption before major bugs are resolved, and someone
trying to ignore those bugs by stating "oh but WinXP was
once this bad" is missing a crucial element. We're not
looking to switch from a mature OS that works (XP today, not
years ago), based on the sayso of someone who claims it will
eventually be ok.


To a great degree computer buyers have become more savvy and less
tolerant of buying broken first attempts, and so it should be. We are
demanding better initial releases, and we are more jaded about the hype
we are told about what the newer products can and will do. I don't
disagree that software can't be sold on what it may be after it is
"fixed", but instead must be evaluated on what it is now.


If it will eventually be ok, let's see it happen, THEN make
the decision. Before that point, having consumers fullly
informed is important, not having someone like Tony try to
casually make excuses and claim it's ok, because bugs a

REALLY, REALLY NOT OK!
It is stupidity to promote something new when there is no
expressed need, when it only offers detriment.

Granted, we didn't get that far into the conversation before
everyone with ridiculously sensitive defense of Tony started
getting upset. Perhaps those people should be considered
the trolls since they took what could have been an
intelligent discussion and turned it into a drauma instead.


I think you are again rewriting history. I didn't jump in until you
began to deride Tony on a personal level and attack his character. Even
CBFalconer agreed your approach was inappropriate.

Further, there is much gray area here and the discussion was fast moving
into a platform war, which often just becomes a mud slinging contest.
Your approach and manner didn't help to keep the conversation on the
higher road.

Then again, Tony was also choosing not to address the linked
facts, so by definition we seem to have a conspiracy here
whether it was intentional or not.


Methinks you read more into this than was here. As mentioned above, he
did address them, although apparently not to your satisfaction. One
could read "conspiracy theory" into the links provided if one was so
inclined.


Then there were the promises: Vista had a difficult gestation and birth.
Numerous features which were promised never were implemented, or
failed and had to be removed, the OS was delayed nearly 2 years from its
first announced release date. This doesn't lead to a sense of trust. A
lot of Vista's surface improvements are flashy and for show, to help
sell hardware. A lot of what Vista "can be" requires more cooperation
with software and hardware manufacturers to embrace the architecture.
And to make best use of Vista's most valuable abilities, one needs what
was and may still be "leading edge" technology.


While some of your points I agree with, the overall concept
of stating the obvious is not especially useful.


Maybe not to you, because you seem to prefer to ignore "the obvious"
which I'm not so sure is a vast improvement. Further, since this is a
public set of forums, what may be obvious to you (and I don't know you
from Adam, so I'm not sure what is obvious to you and what isn't) may
not be obvious to someone else reading this, and perhaps dialogue in a
public forum should be more inclusive.

So yes, I agree with much of what you're writing above and
below this text, but it isn't especially relevant to the
issues discussed which were not just a general overview of
Vista in general.



You play a slippery game of debate which I'm not sure I want to continue
in. Below are some of your statements, which sound pretty general to
me. I don't think most people who rejected Vista did so because they
didn't like the DRM or worried about future premium content, or even
that it may have been slowed down by searching for DRM cues, people who
left Vista didn't like the interface, couldn't get peripherals or older
software to run correctly, actually pretty obvious types of problems.


There wasn't such a bachlash from consumers that OEMs
continued to offer Win9x when XP was released.

There weren't multiple websites claiming (the OS du jour)
had won worst product of the year when XP, ME, 98, 95, 3.1,
DOS, (take your pick), came out.

The truth is , never in the history of mankind have so many
people (revolted, I suppose a MS zealot would use this
term?) chose to avoid the next version of the software/OS
they were running.




A lot of the initial backlash was because the early "Vista ready" and
Vista on board systems could barely run Vista Basic/Home, which offered
very few improvements over XP and a number of issues. The many versions
of Vista confused the retailers and the consumers.

Things are changing slowly. Hardware and software is catching up with
the feature set Vista Ultimate has built in, and the machines that can
run the highest version of Vista have come way down in cost. Microsoft
is fixing the bugs and fleshing out the unimplimented features they
promised, and many will be made right in SP1.

There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft made major errors in their
original design, marketing and release of Vista. It was not ready for
prime time when released, and it was ahead of itself as well. I am not
sure it will ever recover the market it lost by the way they managed
things, but the OS does work for some people, especially those who
bought boxes designed around it.

Vista does have the largest in-box driver set ever offered in a MS OS,
meaning many peripherals are covered even if the manufacturers did not
make upgraded stand alone drivers.


That is good for those who have no other avenue for drivers,
but a bit like cheating others since getting drivers is a
pretty basic, one-time event for most users, and with the
more modern FULL drivers one has more features instead of
the stripped down functionality MS is so renowned for
limiting.


I expect that the reason Vista was received poorly was because the
release mimicked many of the problems XP had on release and people were
less willing to forgive Microsoft again after numerous OS releases not
meeting the hype. The sad part of this is that Vista probably had the
greatest potential to push the Windows technology forward, had it been
introduced in a more appropriate manner and advertised to the correct
demographic.



That might be one reason, among many reasons more
significant to other users.

More significant might be the idea that we should excuse or
understand or forgive or wait.


You have a very annoying habit that when someone writes something other
than what you think you should have read, you still assume it is what
you expected or wish to argue, and therefore you don't respond to what
is actually there, but what you wish to have been there. That makes it
pretty hard to carry on a discussion. I don't need you to reinterpret
(incorrectly, I might add) what I just wrote. What I indicated is what
I meant, thank you.

We are not *compelled* to find a reason to use Vista.


Who said you were. I said, as has Tony, that it works well for some
people. If anything, I said that for many people Vista wasn't
compelling enough for them to buy into it.

Some people truely do have a good reason and should use it.
This is a matter of specifics, not overgeneralized bull****.


No, some people tried it and like it, some don't. Some people have
specific uses for it because it holds features not found on other OSs to
date. Some people who would like to use those feature won't because
other aspects of Vista are otherwise not working for them.

I'm sorry if the term bull**** offends, but when you write
generic statements then close with the idea that all we're
focusing on is being convinced to us Vista, you entirely
miss the bigger picture that we aren't naive customers,
we're evaluating what is best suited to the jobs at hand.

I have no idea what the above sentence means, since I have stated from
the beginning that one needs to select the appropriate OS for one's
individual needs and that Vista is workable for some and not others
based upon what people require of it. I believe Tony stated the same thing.


Someday, Vista may be the best choice for everyone. Today,
there is much work to be done towards that end and until
then, it's a very subjective thing, and choice depends on
having good information, NOT what Tony was doing which was
ignoring facts presented because he either chose to, or
didn't feel that they subjectively mattered.


You are reading different postings that I am. I quoted above what Tony
stated.

It is crazy that you and he go out of your way to *defend*
Vista. I seriously wonder about your agenda now too.

I don't even know what to say to this. How ANYONE can say I *defend*
Vista after what I have written is beyond me. I defend people's right
to use the OS if it works well for them, and I defend people having the
right to have the opinion that it works well for them. I defend the
right of people to not use Vista and to not like using Vista and even to
point out the problems with Vista. What I do not defend is the right to
call people stupid and bullsh*tters and liars because they have personal
experiences and views that don't reflect yours.


Realize something. A product can stand on it's own merit if
it has enough for the purpose. Extra effort just raises a
red flag that the merits need srutinization.


The only problem with this statement is that it needs to have its
corollary as well then... if a product can't stand on it's own merit
no extra effort is needed to denigrate and malign it, and doing so
should raise a red flag... neither statement makes sense - debate is
about dialogue about the merits and deficiencies of an idea or concept.

It doesn't effect me either way if someone runs Vista or XP
or some 'nix variant. Note I didn't try to argue any
particular alternative, though I did assume the average
person was probably running XP at this point.

People need clear facts. CBFalconer linked to several
sources, but so far we have deliberate attempts to do
anything except address facts. That is a very damning
position to be in for anyone who cares to take it.


I'm in no position to argue the so-called facts in the links because I'm
not an expert in these issues, so I have no context to base the veracity
of those arguments. CBFalconer didn't argue them either, he simply
presented several links, which is easy to do. He probably doesn't know
if they are accurate or not either. I'm not arguing for or against
those links, I'm arguing that some people have found Vista a workable
solution for their OS needs, as is evident by the number of people who
use it without major issues. I tell most people to stay with XP if
that's what they've been using. I don't tell people to upgrade anything
if what they have is working for them, be it a OS, computer, printer, or
car or diet.

Your assumption that because I believe that a person I have grown to
trust states that he has had a positive experience with a product and
knows of other who have similar experiences somehow taints my ability to
reason is just insulting.

Art

kony wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:26:00 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:


A couple of things:

1) this posting is misattributed. I did not write any of the text which
was quoted below my name (which I have quoted below).


yes and no. Since I snipped out what you wrote, the rest
was consistent with usenet notation using "" symbol. So
really the thing I omitted was "snip" to show something
was missing.



Actually, everything I wrote was missing.


2) If this is a reply to one of my postings, it might be helpful to know
which posting it refers to by having at least a bit of the original
posting it is responding to...


If you have a proper newsreader, or even Google groups or
Outhouse Express, it will show which was replied to, but you
should know already, it was the post in which you tried to
get on your high horse and make a speech instead of
continuing the same (sub)topic.


Strangely, having been on newsgroups, and before that, bulletin boards
for something like 20 years now, until this message, where you removed
the full text of my posting, the assorted BBS software and newsreaders
I've used have functioned perfectly well for me. I have been able to
read and reply to postings, quoted messages, etc, without difficulty.

You may think that your posting is worthy of my tracking down the
original posting you are referring to, but I don't agree.

Art

"and do not rum" was supposed to read "and do not rub", you can drink
all the rum you like, perhaps in eggnog this time of year.

Art

Arthur Entlich wrote:

The mirrors are usually front surface, so clean with care using a
solvent like isopropyl alcohol, and do not rum, as they can scratch, try
not to leave any residue behind.

A clean chamois or similar may work.

Art

Cal Bubo wrote:

Arthur Entlich wrote:

Many scanners suffer from either plasticizers or volatiles of the
lubricants vaporizing and redepositing on the bottom surface of the
glass.

Most of them can be opened with care, by removing a couple of screws
and carefully cleaning the inside surface. Try not to knock the
scanning bar or moving it, and try to keep dust out and off the mirrors.



And if the mirrors are coated?...


Well, I'll find out, won't I?

PS: Hell with all this cross-posting. I've cut it down to one.

Bubba
When you're far from home in the west, desperate for a Bubba, just
call my name.

Arthur Entlich wrote:
"and do not rum" was supposed to read "and do not rub", you can drink
all the rum you like, perhaps in eggnog this time of year.

Art

AFTER you clean the mirrors, eh, Art?

TJ

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

CBFalconer wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote: *** and top-posted. Fixed ***

Arthur's contribution snipped

Posters are connected to their quotes by the number of '' at the
start of lines. That number should be one larger than the count in
the attribution line.

In addition proper posting will help greatly. I.e. do not
top-post. Do snip properly. Read the following URLs, which will
describe the conventions properly.

Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material. I fixed this one. See the following links:

Do you have any idea how much self-appointed Usenet etiquette police
annoy me? Never mind answering. I know you feel a Noble Calling to fix
all that is "wrong" with Usenet, and that you don't really care about
what annoys me, only what annoys YOU.

TJ

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

your stated reason

CBFalconer wrote:

Arthur Entlich wrote: *** and top-posted. Fixed ***



kony wrote:



If you can't bother to continue the previous conversation by posting in context, your post is wasted.

Not for


Show a little effort, or you have only shown you want to sidetrack the topic at hand.


ha ha ha


Is this seriously what you consider reasonable discussion, not replying to the context but instead making a speach?

do you mean a sermon



Sorry, but that is only reasonable in some alternate reality. I may reply to your original post, or may not, but it doesn't excuse your distraction from the topic.



A couple of things: 1) this posting is misattributed. I did not write any of the text which was quoted below my name (which I have quoted below). 2) If this is a reply to one of my postings, it might be helpful to know which posting it refers to by having at least a bit of the original posting it is responding to...



Posters are connected to their quotes by the number of '>' at the start of lines. That number should be one larger than the count in the attribution line. In addition proper posting will help greatly. I.e. do not top-post. Do snip properly. Read the following URLs, which will describe the conventions properly. Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all irrelevant material. I fixed this one. See the following links:

kony wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 04:26:00 GMT, Arthur Entlich wrote:



A couple of things: 1) this posting is misattributed. I did not write any of the text which was quoted below my name (which I have quoted below).



yes and no. Since I snipped out what you wrote, the rest was consistent with usenet notation using ">" symbol. So really the thing I omitted was "<snip>" to show something was missing.

Do you think anybody cares about usenet notation symbols from the dark ages of computing.






2) If this is a reply to one of my postings, it might be helpful to know which posting it refers to by having at least a bit of the original posting it is responding to...



If you have a proper newsreader, or even Google groups or Outhouse Express, it will show which was replied to, but you should know already, it was the post in which you tried to get on your high horse and make a speech instead of continuing the same (sub)topic.

Arthur Entlich wrote:


kony wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:22:15 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote:


I respect and know Tony well enough from my personal correspondence
with him, as well as his many post here that I see no reason he
would have to try to deceive anyone here. I therefore believe his
statements are level headed evaluations based upon his personal
experiences.
I do not share this opinion. He is in the business; therefore not
totally impartial.


Tony may be a geat guy. Personally from my brief exposure,
I think he may have offered a fair, maybe even large amount
of help in the past.

Unfortunately, this is not an issue that is based around
character. It is not based around your perception of level
headedness either. It is based on the specific topic and
facts, and the arguments made when those facts were
presented.

Do try to backtrack and see this. It is not a fan club, it
is a discussion based on fact not loyalty.


I have read this thread through, and what I read was that Tony
indicated a mixture of his personal experience, the experiences of
those he deals with on a professional basis, and his informed
opinion. Was it without bias? No, we all have personal biases,
including you. Was it informed, level headed and based upon
reasonable judgment? Yes, it appeared to be. Did it come from a
source I have come to respect and trust? Yes. Do I fully agree with
the conclusions reached? Not necessarily.

Am I (or you) right and he wrong? No, because much of this issue is
contextual, and personal. Is a pipe wrench a good tool or a bad one?
Well, it really depends upon what you plan to do with it. I wouldn't
try gardening with one.

To imply Vista is the worst thing to happen to PCs is as absurd as
stating it is manna from heaven. For people who bought it loaded on a
system that was appropriately powered for it, and who were able to use
their computer within the context of newer peripherals, it offers some
neat features unavailable on other PC operating systems. For others,
it is an evolutionary process that will eventually lead to some
valuable capabilities once the other parts are added to it either by
Microsoft
as they release service packs, or by third party developers. For
some, it has been a hassle and unstable, or a waste of time to learn,
and they have gone back to XP, or elsewhere, and may return to a
Microsoft OS if they get it better next time, or may have permanetly
left Microsoft OSs.


However, I also know that there has been a real backlash to Vista by
many people. This backlash to Vista was completely predicable, and
it had only partly to do with Vista itself, per se.


Not just predicable, there were plenty of those who not only
had an open mind, but had no idea and just bought their next
system with it installed. This isn't a political issue, not
a matter of bias.


Again, its contextual. If what you are saying was true uniformly then
the backlash would have been much more extreme, and Microsoft wouldn't
has sold as many copies of the unbundled software as they did, and the
market penetration would have been much lower. Yes, some people were
displeased with their user experience with Vista. Some people are
also quite content with it.


I predicted this backlash nearly 5 years ago, in fact, I actually
communicated that to Microsoft back then, before Vista was even
called Vista.


Then maybe you were ahead of your time, when someone makes a
statement like this I would love to accept it at full face
value, but do appreciate that on usenet, everything must be
taken with a grain of salt.


Whether you believe me or not is not actually relevant, but that's
where issues of trust and reputation come into play. People who know
me, my associations and affiliations know this is a credible statement
and why it is.

I am not anti-Vista. I am against blanket statements
without the customer being informed. CBFalconer provided
very pertinent information and that was brushed aside with
no justification. I am always offended when someone does
that, and hope you do see as I do that it is a clear choice
to ignore facts... because in fact, the issues linked are
not mostly addressed by patches or SP1, not even close. It
seems almost insulting that someone makes such a statement
when clearly it is impossible that they even read the links
and compared to patches... because there is clearly no
justification whatsoever for the statement made.



You are re-writing history, with a very strong spin to make your
"facts" fit you re-write.

In fact, here is what Tony stated about the links:

All of the links above are reasonably old in terms of the release
cycle of a new OS. Vista has improved immeasurably in the past few
months and when SP1 comes out in the new year I suspect we will see
better performance as well as other improvements. Your comment about
Vista reminds me of similar comments about XP and previous versions
of Windows during the early stages of release. In many cases the end
result was a pretty reliable OS (Windows98SE and Windows XP with SP2
for eaxmple). Modern OS' are immensely complex and anybody who thinks
they can be released in their final totally stable version is dreaming.
All of the negatives in the above links have been refuted by people
just as expert as the authors. It seems to me that the links have
been "cherry picked", in other words chosen because they are all
negative. There are many positive links about Vista. I have been
using Vista for many months with absolutely no issues as of yet and
am looking forward to SP1. I also lived with the Windows 98 XP
iterations which resulted in a stable computing experience for me.
On a more specific note the first link is well worth a read, clearly
the author has an agenda. He says that "This document looks purely at
the cost of the technical portions of Vista's content protection" and
immediately follows this with comments that are critical of the OS
with little or no relevance to the subject matter.
Tony


Now, if you are speaking about CBFalconer's compulsion about Usenet
etiquette regarding where the message should appear relative to the
quotes, I'm sorry, but I consider that so much nonsense and quite
honestly, when people start griping about where information is within
a message it tends (for me) to discount how well considered other
things they post are, because like many things, the "truth" is shades
of gray and there are valid reasons for posting both ways, and the old
established way of doing something doesn't necessarily make it the
most appropriate today.

Platform wars are a waste of time and energy because, if it was all so
cut and dry, the "best one" would be the only one in use. Instead we
have numerous OSs in use, and most users swear by the one they use most.
CBFalconer has presented some interesting links, and they are
worthwhile considering. His editorial point of view however is also
biased in some of the statements he makes which may not help his
argument. And lastly, I have no way to confirm the accuracy of the
content of the links he provided, so I can read them but I cannot
validate the veracity of the claims.

In terms of sheer enthusiasm and user experience Apple should probably
be the number one selling OS (since Linux is basically free, it is
harder to classify by enthusiasm, since people often like free things
simply because they are free) yet it isn't. Maybe that's because
things just aren't as two dimensional as you would like them to be.


How did I know this? Well, there were a number of issues that told
the story. The first was that XP works, and it works pretty well.
Coming

from a psychology background, I have a good idea about how people

respond to change. Change is only voluntarily embraced, especially
in an established population (meaning people who already have a set
of skills under their belt) when benefits obviously outstrip risks
or inconvenience. People were in no rush to change their OS again,
finally having one that did what they expected of it. Almost every
one of us has "survived" through one or more OS upgrades. It didn't
take a genius to know that the same problems were likely to occur
again... broken drivers, buggy initial release, obsolete
peripherals, hours figuring out what is broken and what is just "new
and different", needing to learn a new desktop, conflicts with older
software.... etc.



You may be right on some factors, but did YOU even read the
links CBFalconer provided?
No this is not just about change. In addition to issues
linked, it is about quite higher overhead, bloating of an OS
already bloated beyond imagination. It is about an extreme
EULA. It is about extreme cost in a monopoly environment.
It is about years of delays and even then releasing an OS
that couldn't even copy a lot of files without severe lag.


Yes, I've read over the links (I haven't read each one fully, because
they would take an hour or more to complete and I have other things to
do) They admittedly raise some important questions. Some of the
content I think unfairly blames Microsoft for things that the whole
industry is up to and which Microsoft either went along for the ride
or perhaps thought they could forward new media with. I happen to
agree that much was probably poorly thought out, but I also believe
that in the end, market forces will dictate what it is people hold
dear and important. Microsoft can't afford to alienate more OS users
when other (cheaper) options are available.

I certainly have not ever attempted to talk anyone into moving to the
Vista platform, and I have probably talked more people who have asked
me out of it than anything else. Like I said, I didn't think we
needed it 5 years ago and my opinion about that hasn't really changed,
but that doesn't mean it isn't useful for some people and won't be
moreso as SP1 is released.

If you are as correct about Vista as you assume, it will be a bit shot
in the arm to Apple and to Linux.

I accept a new OS will have problems. I feel MS has done a
lot of good in developing an OS so many people find useful.
That does not make any particular OS ready for mass
consumption before major bugs are resolved, and someone
trying to ignore those bugs by stating "oh but WinXP was
once this bad" is missing a crucial element. We're not
looking to switch from a mature OS that works (XP today, not
years ago), based on the sayso of someone who claims it will
eventually be ok.


To a great degree computer buyers have become more savvy and less
tolerant of buying broken first attempts, and so it should be. We are
demanding better initial releases, and we are more jaded about the
hype we are told about what the newer products can and will do. I
don't disagree that software can't be sold on what it may be after it
is "fixed", but instead must be evaluated on what it is now.


If it will eventually be ok, let's see it happen, THEN make
the decision. Before that point, having consumers fullly
informed is important, not having someone like Tony try to
casually make excuses and claim it's ok, because bugs a

REALLY, REALLY NOT OK!
It is stupidity to promote something new when there is no
expressed need, when it only offers detriment.

Granted, we didn't get that far into the conversation before
everyone with ridiculously sensitive defense of Tony started
getting upset. Perhaps those people should be considered
the trolls since they took what could have been an
intelligent discussion and turned it into a drauma instead.


I think you are again rewriting history. I didn't jump in until you
began to deride Tony on a personal level and attack his character.
Even CBFalconer agreed your approach was inappropriate.

Further, there is much gray area here and the discussion was fast
moving into a platform war, which often just becomes a mud slinging
contest. Your approach and manner didn't help to keep the conversation
on the higher road.

Then again, Tony was also choosing not to address the linked
facts, so by definition we seem to have a conspiracy here
whether it was intentional or not.


Methinks you read more into this than was here. As mentioned above,
he did address them, although apparently not to your satisfaction. One
could read "conspiracy theory" into the links provided if one was so
inclined.


Then there were the promises: Vista had a difficult gestation and
birth. Numerous features which were promised never were implemented,
or failed and had to be removed, the OS was delayed nearly 2 years
from its first announced release date. This doesn't lead to a sense
of trust. A lot of Vista's surface improvements are flashy and for
show, to help sell hardware. A lot of what Vista "can be" requires
more cooperation with software and hardware manufacturers to embrace
the architecture. And to make best use of Vista's most valuable
abilities, one needs what was and may still be "leading edge"
technology.


While some of your points I agree with, the overall concept
of stating the obvious is not especially useful.


Maybe not to you, because you seem to prefer to ignore "the obvious"
which I'm not so sure is a vast improvement. Further, since this is a
public set of forums, what may be obvious to you (and I don't know you
from Adam, so I'm not sure what is obvious to you and what isn't) may
not be obvious to someone else reading this, and perhaps dialogue in a
public forum should be more inclusive.

So yes, I agree with much of what you're writing above and
below this text, but it isn't especially relevant to the
issues discussed which were not just a general overview of
Vista in general.



You play a slippery game of debate which I'm not sure I want to
continue in. Below are some of your statements, which sound pretty
general to me. I don't think most people who rejected Vista did so
because they didn't like the DRM or worried about future premium
content, or even that it may have been slowed down by searching for
DRM cues, people who left Vista didn't like the interface, couldn't
get peripherals or older software to run correctly, actually pretty
obvious types of problems.


There wasn't such a bachlash from consumers that OEMs
continued to offer Win9x when XP was released.

There weren't multiple websites claiming (the OS du jour)
had won worst product of the year when XP, ME, 98, 95, 3.1,
DOS, (take your pick), came out.

The truth is , never in the history of mankind have so many
people (revolted, I suppose a MS zealot would use this
term?) chose to avoid the next version of the software/OS
they were running.




A lot of the initial backlash was because the early "Vista ready"
and Vista on board systems could barely run Vista Basic/Home, which
offered very few improvements over XP and a number of issues. The
many versions of Vista confused the retailers and the consumers.

Things are changing slowly. Hardware and software is catching up
with the feature set Vista Ultimate has built in, and the machines
that can run the highest version of Vista have come way down in
cost. Microsoft is fixing the bugs and fleshing out the
unimplimented features they promised, and many will be made right in
SP1.

There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft made major errors in
their original design, marketing and release of Vista. It was not
ready for prime time when released, and it was ahead of itself as
well. I am not sure it will ever recover the market it lost by the
way they managed things, but the OS does work for some people,
especially those who bought boxes designed around it.

Vista does have the largest in-box driver set ever offered in a MS
OS, meaning many peripherals are covered even if the manufacturers
did not make upgraded stand alone drivers.


That is good for those who have no other avenue for drivers,
but a bit like cheating others since getting drivers is a
pretty basic, one-time event for most users, and with the
more modern FULL drivers one has more features instead of
the stripped down functionality MS is so renowned for
limiting.


I expect that the reason Vista was received poorly was because the
release mimicked many of the problems XP had on release and people
were less willing to forgive Microsoft again after numerous OS
releases not meeting the hype. The sad part of this is that Vista
probably had the greatest potential to push the Windows technology
forward, had it been introduced in a more appropriate manner and
advertised to the correct demographic.



That might be one reason, among many reasons more
significant to other users.

More significant might be the idea that we should excuse or
understand or forgive or wait.


You have a very annoying habit that when someone writes something
other than what you think you should have read, you still assume it is
what you expected or wish to argue, and therefore you don't respond to
what is actually there, but what you wish to have been there. That
makes it pretty hard to carry on a discussion. I don't need you to
reinterpret (incorrectly, I might add) what I just wrote. What I
indicated is what I meant, thank you.

We are not *compelled* to find a reason to use Vista.


Who said you were. I said, as has Tony, that it works well for some
people. If anything, I said that for many people Vista wasn't
compelling enough for them to buy into it.

Some people truely do have a good reason and should use it.
This is a matter of specifics, not overgeneralized bull****.


No, some people tried it and like it, some don't. Some people have
specific uses for it because it holds features not found on other OSs
to date. Some people who would like to use those feature won't
because other aspects of Vista are otherwise not working for them.

I'm sorry if the term bull**** offends, but when you write
generic statements then close with the idea that all we're
focusing on is being convinced to us Vista, you entirely
miss the bigger picture that we aren't naive customers,
we're evaluating what is best suited to the jobs at hand.

I have no idea what the above sentence means, since I have stated from
the beginning that one needs to select the appropriate OS for one's
individual needs and that Vista is workable for some and not others
based upon what people require of it. I believe Tony stated the same
thing.


Someday, Vista may be the best choice for everyone. Today,
there is much work to be done towards that end and until
then, it's a very subjective thing, and choice depends on
having good information, NOT what Tony was doing which was
ignoring facts presented because he either chose to, or
didn't feel that they subjectively mattered.


You are reading different postings that I am. I quoted above what
Tony stated.

It is crazy that you and he go out of your way to *defend*
Vista. I seriously wonder about your agenda now too.

I don't even know what to say to this. How ANYONE can say I *defend*
Vista after what I have written is beyond me. I defend people's right
to use the OS if it works well for them, and I defend people having
the right to have the opinion that it works well for them. I defend
the right of people to not use Vista and to not like using Vista and
even to point out the problems with Vista. What I do not defend is
the right to call people stupid and bullsh*tters and liars because
they have personal experiences and views that don't reflect yours.


Realize something. A product can stand on it's own merit if
it has enough for the purpose. Extra effort just raises a
red flag that the merits need srutinization.


The only problem with this statement is that it needs to have its
corollary as well then... if a product can't stand on it's own merit
no extra effort is needed to denigrate and malign it, and doing so
should raise a red flag... neither statement makes sense - debate is
about dialogue about the merits and deficiencies of an idea or concept.

It doesn't effect me either way if someone runs Vista or XP
or some 'nix variant. Note I didn't try to argue any
particular alternative, though I did assume the average
person was probably running XP at this point.

People need clear facts. CBFalconer linked to several
sources, but so far we have deliberate attempts to do
anything except address facts. That is a very damning
position to be in for anyone who cares to take it.


I'm in no position to argue the so-called facts in the links because
I'm not an expert in these issues, so I have no context to base the
veracity of those arguments. CBFalconer didn't argue them either, he
simply presented several links, which is easy to do. He probably
doesn't know if they are accurate or not either. I'm not arguing for
or against those links, I'm arguing that some people have found Vista
a workable solution for their OS needs, as is evident by the number of
people who use it without major issues. I tell most people to stay
with XP if that's what they've been using. I don't tell people to
upgrade anything if what they have is working for them, be it a OS,
computer, printer, or car or diet.

Your assumption that because I believe that a person I have grown to
trust states that he has had a positive experience with a product and
knows of other who have similar experiences somehow taints my ability
to reason is just insulting.

Art

me too

TJ wrote: CBFalconer wrote:
Arthur Entlich wrote: *** and top-posted.  Fixed ***

<Arthur's contribution snipped>

Posters are connected to their quotes by the number of '>' at the
start of lines.  That number should be one larger than the count in
the attribution line.

In addition proper posting will help greatly.  I.e. do not
top-post.  Do snip properly.  Read the following URLs, which will
describe the conventions properly.

Please do not top-post.  Your answer belongs after (or intermixed
with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all
irrelevant material.  I fixed this one.  See the following links:

Do you have any idea how much self-appointed Usenet etiquette police annoy me? Never mind answering. I know you feel a Noble Calling to fix all that is "wrong" with Usenet, and that you don't really care about what annoys me, only what annoys YOU.

TJ