Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting

shegeek72 wrote:

Walter Mitty wrote:

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

I thought this newsgroup would be intelligent people discussing nVidia
and other video cards. Instead I found a bunch of idiots who just want
to argue and flame. Sorry if I misjudged you. You can't even get my
gender right.

ta-ta!

Tara

And you expected something different on USENET? Sure that's not T'Ra and
not Tara?

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

wrote:
Walter Mitty wrote:

Did it? How?

It required a password to logon to XP, when I'd set the password
function off. Also, "removed" my custom desktop / theme (custom
background, icons, etc.) and replaced it with Windoze default desktop.

To Login automatically to a user account, follow the instructions below:

1) Click on Run
2) Type in the following command and click OK

control userpasswords2

3) Highlight the user you want to log into automatically, then uncheck
the box for

"Users must enter a username and password to use this computer"

4) Click on Apply and you'll be asked to verify the username and
password to log in automatically
5) Click OK and the next time you restart your computer, you'll
automatically be logged in without having the classic prompt or Welcome
Screen.

"Benjamin Gawert" wrote in message ...
* Walter Mitty:

You see, it didnt take long.

Right, but most of these cocks will continue whining around because of
something they simply don't understand. Besides that, flaming MS seems
still to be politically correct these days.

Screw you. No need to believe me or anyone. Just wait and watch.

* EDM:

"X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807"

Screw you. No need to believe me or anyone. Just wait and watch.

Yeah, whatever...

Benjamin

Benjamin Gawert writes:


Sure, because you simply have no clue as you permanently continue to
proove. But to change this deficit here's a link where you can learn
something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework


Dont do that! He might actually get a clue.

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

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.

Exactly. No-one forces them to use Windows, and there are many
alternatives which also leaves them enough room for complaining ;-)

Like?

The only credible, readily-accessible one that I can think of is Linux,
and I'm pretty sure that that one won't run all Windows games out of
the box, without tweaking. Add to the fact that it isn't generally
installed on basic systems and so you'd basically be left installing a
new OS and then at a minimum tweaking it for every game you wanted to
play, this "alternative" seems like an alternative only technically and
not practically. In short, we COULD do that, but it would be an
incredible annoyance to.

Walter Mitty wrote:

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.

Why do people use it? Because they want to play PC games and despite
its annoyances it's the easiest and most certain way to guarantee that
you can play any PC game. Your comment here is like saying that you
don't understand people who claim to hate work and yet are happy to
work their 40 hours a week and get their paycheque at the end of the
week. If they don't like work, they should just not do it.
Unfortunately, the end result -- money, in that case -- outweighs the
annoyance of working. But they can still want things to be better.
The same thing applies here. It's clear to me that Windows is
generally an inferior and annoying OS, but since it's the easiest way
to guarantee that I can play all PC games I'm willing to use it.

If the other alternatives were so good, how come no one uses them?

"Allan C Cybulskie" writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

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.

Exactly. No-one forces them to use Windows, and there are many
alternatives which also leaves them enough room for complaining ;-)

Like?

The only credible, readily-accessible one that I can think of is Linux,
and I'm pretty sure that that one won't run all Windows games out of
the box, without tweaking. Add to the fact that it isn't generally

This is the point. People like above spout nonsense about certain OS
features. But are quite willing to use the SW for games etc. They get a
bee in their bonnet about something like .NET with no regard for all the
other stuff that makes up their OS. Why doesnt he refuse to use the
"stupid registry" or the "crap tcp/ip stack"?

installed on basic systems and so you'd basically be left installing a
new OS and then at a minimum tweaking it for every game you wanted to
play, this "alternative" seems like an alternative only technically and
not practically. In short, we COULD do that, but it would be an
incredible annoyance to.


So windows isnt so bad then? Good. Personally I only use windows for
games and its damn good at it.

..NET is basically a shared library to facilitate application
development. And to suggest that application writers should bypass its
features and do it all themsleves is (a) incredibly stupid and (b) leads
to *even more* bloatware sicne each app would be re-inventing the wheel.


--
Getting your moral direction from politicians is like getting health
tips from Keith Richards.

"Allan C Cybulskie" writes:

Walter Mitty wrote:

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.

Why do people use it? Because they want to play PC games and despite
its annoyances it's the easiest and most certain way to guarantee that
you can play any PC game. Your comment here is like saying that you
don't understand people who claim to hate work and yet are happy to
work their 40 hours a week and get their paycheque at the end of the
week. If they don't like work, they should just not do it.
Unfortunately, the end result -- money, in that case -- outweighs the
annoyance of working. But they can still want things to be better.
The same thing applies here. It's clear to me that Windows is
generally an inferior and annoying OS, but since it's the easiest way
to guarantee that I can play all PC games I'm willing to use it.

If the other alternatives were so good, how come no one uses them?


Personally I do. But you missed my point really. See the other post. The
bottom line is that .net is jus another shared library cluster and is
there for a reason.

Walter Mitty wrote:
"Allan C Cybulskie" writes:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

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.

Exactly. No-one forces them to use Windows, and there are many
alternatives which also leaves them enough room for complaining ;-)

Like?

The only credible, readily-accessible one that I can think of is Linux,
and I'm pretty sure that that one won't run all Windows games out of
the box, without tweaking. Add to the fact that it isn't generally

This is the point. People like above spout nonsense about certain OS
features. But are quite willing to use the SW for games etc.

Because they don't have a practical choice.

They get a
bee in their bonnet about something like .NET with no regard for all the
other stuff that makes up their OS. Why doesnt he refuse to use the
"stupid registry" or the "crap tcp/ip stack"?

Because he has no choice: the games use them. Right now, none of the
software he wants to runs uses .NET, as he said. And I'm sure he'd use
..NET happily if he thought it worked [grin].


installed on basic systems and so you'd basically be left installing a
new OS and then at a minimum tweaking it for every game you wanted to
play, this "alternative" seems like an alternative only technically and
not practically. In short, we COULD do that, but it would be an
incredible annoyance to.


So windows isnt so bad then? Good. Personally I only use windows for
games and its damn good at it.

This says nothing about how good Windows is ... and says more about
either how much of a monopoly MS has on the OS market (everyone makes
their games to run on that PS) or how bad the other OS' are at running
games.

Basically, we have to use it not because it is good, but because the
game companies write their games for it.


.NET is basically a shared library to facilitate application
development. And to suggest that application writers should bypass its
features and do it all themsleves is (a) incredibly stupid and (b) leads
to *even more* bloatware sicne each app would be re-inventing the wheel.

Well, let me challenge (a): it might not be incredibly stupid. Whether
it is or not depends on how flexible .NET is (how hard is it to massage
..NET to doing something that you want to do that is not necessarily
standard) and how good .NET is. If .NET is inflexible and buggy, then
it is not stupid to bypass it and is instead SMART to bypass it. It's
all in knowing what it can do and what you want to do.