If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
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? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
"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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
"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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
"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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
"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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
"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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
"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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
"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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting
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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting | AirRaid | General | 79 | August 3rd 06 02:15 AM |
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting | AirRaid Mach 2.5 | Intel | 0 | July 24th 06 11:55 PM |
Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting | AirRaid Mach 2.5 | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | July 24th 06 11:55 PM |