Searching \ for '[OT]: This time Microsoft have gone too far!' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: massmind.org/techref/timers.htm?key=time
Search entire site for: 'This time Microsoft have gone too far!'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: This time Microsoft have gone too far!'
2002\07\25@172408 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Reply to Ken (non PICLIst)
From: "Ken Mardle" <>
Subject: this time Microsoft have gone too far


> Russell,
>
> In today's Herald....
>
> On Feb 1 2019 it is being claimed NT7 will arrive.  Apparently it is 2km
> wide and is expected to cause widespread devastation on Earth.  Apart from
> being somewhat larger than earlier versions of NT what else is different ?

At first I was surprised at the size but a little mental figuring made me
realise that it is about what you would expect. 2019 is 17 years away - call
it 18 to make things easier. Moore's law says computer stuff doubles every
1.5 years. 18 years / 1.5 years = 12 so the size would be expected to be
about 2^12 bigger = 8192 time bigger. Call that 10000 for rough calculation
purposes. 2km across / 10,000 = about 0.2m or s00 mm. I don't know how big
NT is (or was?) at present but 200mm is somewhat smaller than the size of a
typical PC (but maybe a bit large for a Mac tablelamp) so I guess they know
what they are taking about. Sure is a funny way to dimension an O/S.

I see its expected to be NT7 by then. With that sort of lead time you just
KNOW it's going top be late - several years at least - I'd say also that NT7
doesn't have the ring you'd expect - I'd guess it would by then be NT2019
or, allowing for the year of probable release NT2025. Still doesn't sound
right though.

Alternatively - NT7 - coming to a planet near you not very soon - Google for
it to find out more.


           RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\25@174221 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Subject: [OT]: This time Microsoft have gone too far!

I'll say!  Though I have different reasons.  In the course of
tweaking my new (several months old, but still modern) system, which,
unfortunately, is running Windows XP (I am still in the process of
doing a switch to Linux, but I am delaying it for my own reasons, not
limited exclusively to the fact that my video card is supported not
by xfree86, as one would expect, but, in fact, only by a company that
sells Linux graphics drivers, the driver in question costing
$120USD), I came to a terrifying conclusion:

Microsoft expects the average user to be dumb!  I came to this
conclusion, not throught the absolutely disgusting default interface,
but through a little menu option hidden in the system properties.

It seems that in order to "help" the user, Microsoft thought that it
would be fun for them to be able to manipulate your PC; I found a
little check box  in the aforementioned properties that said
something like "allow remote control of your PC" (I'm sure I have the
wording slightly off, but that was the effect)

My response was, of course "!??!!"

I immediately unchecked the box which came checked by default on
install.  There was some mention in that section of the properties
about "remote help requests" but, frankly, I don't want help if it
involves control of my PC without my permission.

So, yes, Microsoft has gone too far.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPUBwkwVk8xtQuK+BEQLbcgCgk4K0iAgq5+RYPaBR82CWX0Ud+J4An1Nq
Yoh4iyxFg0KXjhcBmGr6zBLK
=VWrP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\25@180231 by BryanW

flavicon
face
I have a home network for driver writing, the remote access is a
brilliant thing, I can run drivers that may trash my development machine
on another machine and have access to that machine through the remote
access.

Also I have found this helpful when helping friends to get stuff
working, they can invite you to connect to their machine and you can do
the changes for them.

MS isn't as bad as all that really, I've been running XP since its
release and apart from my test machine crashing on driver tests, it has
never had a blue screen once. By the way the test machine is for me to
crash :)

The name by the way explains what it is "remote help requests", you
still have to say yes or no to do this.

Bryan

Brendan Moran wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu


2002\07\25@181917 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> I have a home network for driver writing, the remote access is a
> brilliant thing, I can run drivers that may trash my development
> machine on another machine and have access to that machine through
> the remote access.

The difference, though, is that for most users, the ability to
control their PC remotely is a bad thing.  Most users want others not
to be able to control their PC.

> Also I have found this helpful when helping friends to get stuff
> working, they can invite you to connect to their machine and you
> can do the changes for them.

As far as I knew, netmeeting has this ability.  What's wrong with it?

> MS isn't as bad as all that really, I've been running XP since its
> release and apart from my test machine crashing on driver tests, it
> has never had a blue screen once. By the way the test machine is
> for me to crash :)

I have crashed XP several times in the last 3 months.  None from
driver errors.

> The name by the way explains what it is "remote help requests", you
> still have to say yes or no to do this.

Fair enough.  But I still don't like it being enabled by default.
It's not that hard to explain how to get to that to someone, so that
they can enable it, and you can fix their problem.

I agree that remote administration has its place.  I simply do not
think that it should be enabled by default on a personal use package.
In a business environment, it makes enormous sense.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPUB5iQVk8xtQuK+BEQIcFACfVZlYYYrDm/lMrQHBQOjhx+7hI6sAnRcx
3vqmSJQ1OUo4EndXxYK8aQgd
=TnRX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...