Re: Firefox 3.0 drops Win98 support
Boy, let me make this perfectly clear, when you post as you have been, you
ARE stupid.
The merger/buy out offer was on EVERY NEWS and Business/stock/whatever
broadcast... EVERY ONE of them...
Oh, and let's not forget Microsoft's OWN web pages and press
notifications...
You want users to move to that XP OS you have already stated was
essentially a piece of junk, poorly programmed, open to attack, and full of
vulnerabilities; FOR their security,, ah yeah, good idea... and only you and
a select few can safely use it because you know what your doing,, right,,,
As for your prior and present help, good, you still can perform at least
part of that function, and are one of the few who do so via email for which
I applaud that activity... but that still doesn't excuse your attitude or
your obnoxious nature... this group and others have tolerated EVERY one of
your prior health and mental related issues, and showed concern for you
during those times.. but that can be worn out, particularly when you become
as you are...
Leave it alone Gary... let's try to keep this as a help group, do your
other crap somewhere else..
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________
"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:eP8GN%2380IHA.5728@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| <meb@not
here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:eh1CQR60IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > What product,,,, you referring to XP,, ah yeah, who do you think
carefully
| > orchestrated almost two months of XP verses 9X related postings in this
| > group,, not you assuredly.
|
| No, of course not. You'll notice that I've refused to get pulled into any
| actual comparisons of the various OSes we've discussed. That's your game,
| not mine. I simply want to help average people with their Windows 98
| problems, and it's obsolesence is a major one of those problems. You just
| want to repeatedly go over and over your pet theories and want me to be
your
| foil. Well GFY. Everybody knows you're a pompous jackass, and this is just
| one more piece to the puzzle. Frankly, more than a lying fraud, you're a
| plain and simple A** H*LE.
|
| So, are you a lying POS or have you really, actually, honestly used
| 2K/XP/Vista?
|
| > Why would I be polite to you, here you are again spouting the same
stupid
| > ideas you fostered here, other 9X forums, and in XP forums.
|
| Because you're an lying fraud?
|
| > Once again you highjacked a thread to attempt to push your moronic ideas
| > upon more Windows users... just had to do so AGAIN, didn't you... are
you
| > getting PAID by Microsoft now, or is it that you have nothing else of
| > value
| > to do in your life now????
|
| I didn't hijack the thread. There wasn't any freaking thread. It was a
post
| about a vulnerability in a product that doesn't even work in Win9x. But
try
| to follow this simple bit of logic (I know it's almost impossible for
you --
| logic -- but try anyway.) Firefox has a serious vulnerability, right after
| it's released. End of story EXCEPT for the opportunity to discuss
comparatve
| vulnerabilities in OSes and applications and the larger picture of the
| question, "Is any computer safe to use?"
|
| > How many more times are you going to tell 9X and XP users they are
stupid,
| > that they CAN'T understand anything else because they apparently haven't
| > got
| > a brain according to your estimation,,
|
| You changed my wording, but yes, most of the PC using masses WANT their
| machine idiot-proofed, if that's what you're talking about. They're not
| stupid so much as lazy. It's the American Way. They want to plug it in and
| have it work. They DON'T want to manually update their system every week
or
| month or EVER. They don't wnt to have to spend two or three days pr month
| reading and researching all the patches, etc. They want it done for them.
| When it comes to a comparison of ANY other OS to XP, XP wins that battle
| hands down.
|
| Like it or not, Windows 98 is very close to truly, totally dead. It is
| foolish, even downright stupid, for any "average" user to continue to use
| it, and I have no qualms saying so. Having spent tens of thousands of
hours,
| posting tens upon tens of thousands of helpful posts in THIS group for the
| last 9.5 years, I think my integrity is well established. And through it
all
| (as you so kindly pointed out yesterday) I have never shied away from
| telling it like I think it is. I'm certainly not going to stop now.
|
| >I haven't, I called YOU stupid,,
| > you're SUPPOSED to be a knowledgeable person regarding Windows yet you
| > apparently don't understand it very well and you certainly have no
respect
| > for its users. At least that's what you've recently indicated and
| > posted...
|
| You haven't called me stupid because you know I'm not. I'm also not a
lying
| fraud, but you most certainly are. I also have more respect for Windows
| users than you have. I'm concerned about their safety and their ability to
| get what they want out of their machines. According to you, we're ALL
stupid
| for using Windows XP/Vista. Care to apologize? I thought not.
|
| > Oh yeah, lets ignore the prior boom, the collapse, and the failure of
| > Microsoft's stock to increase due to inflation, use, new products, or
| > anything else that indicates growth, consumer confidence, and actual
| > value..
| > The recent spike was due to the proposed Yahoo purchase,,, since
Microsoft
| > can't even get its search engine functioning properly..
|
| What recent spike? You mean the *bubble* back in late '07? The news of a
| possible merger didn't come out until early February -- AFTER the bubble
of
| late '07 had already collapsed. The whole merger thing didn't cause more
| than a few dollars variance, you ignorant fraud. If you're talking about
the
| merger talk back in Feb 2007, that died almost as soon as it was
"reported"
| in the blogs (and nowhere else, like any reputable source of information.)
|
| Again, you're a lying fraud. And that's been the way since the beginning
of
| your "orchestrated debate". Nothing but pure BS coming out of your
keyboard.
|
| >Now, this is a 9X forum, think you can manage to keep it relevant to 9X
| >without resorting to your new love, XP?
|
| I have no love for XP you moron. That's another thing that you don't get.
| Or, rather, maybe you do get it, you just like to lie. If that wasn't such
a
| lie of a question, I might answer it.
|
| >Does your wife know you're having this love affair? <G>
|
| Do you even have a wife? With all that circle-jerking you engage in, I
| figure not.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
|
http://grystmill.com
|
|
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > news:uWITHe30IHA.5564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| > | "MEB" <meb@not
here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | news:u3whfby0IHA.1572@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > | >
| > | > If that's the case then your definitions of XP reliability and
| > stableness
| > | > are based upon your failure to grasp just how much that OS does to
| > protect
| > | > you from your own stupidity [and good thing it does].. which you
| > | > constantly
| > | > and consistently expose in your own writings...
| > | > STABLE -
| > |
| > | Idiot-proofing is/was the whole idea, numbnuts. Always will be for 95%
+
| > of
| > | the market. Fortunately, most of that idiot-proofing can be disabled
and
| > | more sane settings applied. And, of course, you continue to expose
your
| > own
| > | extraordinary pomosity by presuming to know how I have my system
| > configured.
| > |
| > | Of course, your never having actually USED the product, you really
don't
| > | know what you're talking about, do you?
| > |
| > | > Should we peruse this group's archived histories, we would find YOU
| > | > spouting this same idiotic nonsense regarding SE prior to XP.... and
| > find
| > | > you berating those who continued to use 98 and 95 instead of
| > upgrading...
| > | > you haven't changed,, you still can't grasp what and how you are
| > | > manipulated, nor do you obviously care... YOU will battle on
| > Microsoft's
| > | > behalf regardless of how stupid that makes you and makes you appear
| > ...
| > | > how
| > | > much you have to ignore, how much you have to buy, how much you have
| > to
| > | > endure...
| > |
| > | If we're going to peruse histories, where were you prior to two years
| > ago.
| > | Hiding behind some alias, or perhaps going through your own dementia
| > after
| > | failing so miserably to make 98 what it should havbe been?
| > |
| > | It's polite (and sensible, if you're really interested in an honest
| > debate)
| > | to provide links to such things after you've gone to all the trouble
to
| > look
| > | it up.
| > |
| > | In any case, you make my point for me. OSes come, OSes go, and all for
| > good
| > | reason. Seems to me I've been right all along.
| > |
| > | > The only difference now, is that you are far more lunatic in your
| > | > insistences...
| > |
| > | You keep trying to insult me by calling me insane, referring to
personal
| > | issues, etc. When have I ever denied it? I've ALWAYS been crazy and
more
| > | than a little lunatic. I'm still saner than you are by a full league.
| > |
| > | > MSFT trades dozens of dollars lower now than before because EVERYONE
| > knows
| > | > Microsoft can't create anything on its own, and that IS what it will
| > have
| > | > to
| > | > do if it intends to support the new processors WITHOUT X86 legacy
| > code...
| > |
| > | Don't know much about the stock market either, do ya? FYI, MSFT is
| > trading
| > a
| > | little over a dollar below its price a year ago. In fact its chart
looks
| > | just as I'd expect it to over the last year. Rose on the general good
| > | feelings of last year from $29.50 in mid-June to $37 at the end of
| > October,
| > | and then, like the rest of the market, there was a major drop over the
| > | Christmas season and into the new year, bottoming at $27.20 in late
| > | February, and fluctuating a bit back and forth to settle at $28.23 on
| > Monday
| > | last.
| > |
| > | In fact, since the beginning of 2002, when the tech stock crash had
| > bottomed
| > | out, and MSFT stood at $31.85, it's been fairly steady within a
dollaar
| > or
| > | two until that spike last year.
| > |
| > | Dozens of dollars, eh? MSFT's entire history peaked at $58.38 in
| > December
| > | 1999. Unless you want to include the tech crash of 2000 in your
| > | calculations, MSFT hasn't LOST more than a dozen dollars over ANY
period
| > of
| > | time.
| > |
| > | You really are just a lying fraud, aren't you? Or are you just an
idiot
| > who
| > | can't think for yourself and have to spend all your time reading the
| > lies
| > of
| > | other, more well known frauds?
| > |
| > | > IN STARK CONTRAST we find Sun providing its 8 core Sparc T2 AND an
OS
| > that
| > | > supports it, and an OS which can easily be converted to ANY
processor
| > and
| > | > is
| > | > FREE... whereas you and other Microsoft junkies WILL once again be
| > | > required
| > | > to buy an unfinished OS AND new applications AND new devices AND be
| > | > subjected to hundreds of updates as Microsoft attempts to get it to
| > | > work..... when you could have something else... something that
doesn't
| > | > require you spend thousands of dollars just to support it... and if
| > you
| > | > want; can be purchased pre-configured so you don't need to know what
| > your
| > | > doing...
| > |
| > | I pay attention to facts, not theories. Fact is that 80% of the PC
| > market
| > | WANTS idiot-proofing, real PnP and out-of the-box functionality. That
| > same
| > | 80% can barely figure out how to use the incredibly user-friendly
| > Windows
| > | much less whatever your geeky, custom-built OS flavor of the day is.
| > | Besides, it's proven that you're a lying fraud, so I have no faith in
| > | anything you spout out these days.
| > |
| > | > MEANWHILE, the investors will likely downgrade Microsoft to junk
| > stock....
| > |
| > | Again, care to revise?
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > |
http://grystmill.com
| > |
| > | >
| > |
| > | > --
| > | > MEB
| > | >
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > --
| > | > _________
| > | >
| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > news:%23BpHE4v0IHA.416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > | > | "Stable" also means a house full of horsesh*t. Who cares what YOUR
| > | > | definition of "stable" is, we've already proven that you have a
hard
| > | > time
| > | > | with the English language. You just make up a definition and I'm
| > | > supposed
| > | > to
| > | > | accept it? No, I think I'll continue to use the word properly.
| > "Stable",
| > | > as
| > | > | in it runs reliably and doesn't fall flat on its face every time
you
| > try
| > | > to
| > | > | add/remove apps or hardware and/or even just use it for a full
day.
| > | > |
| > | > | Your definition of "stable" is just another way of saying
| > "obsolete."
| > No
| > | > | more code changes means whatever vulnerabilities remain will be
| > | > permanently
| > | > | available for hackers who might want to take advantage of them.
Add
| > that
| > | > to
| > | > | the steadily dwindling stock of anti-malware apps to protect the
9x
| > | > system
| > | > | online, and I'd say 9x is going to get less and less and less
stable
| > as
| > | > time
| > | > | goes by unless kept permanently isolated from the internet and
even
| > | > other
| > | > | machines that are connected to the internet. To me, that says
| > "totally
| > | > | obsolete and useless.
| > | > |
| > | > | "Open Source" project at MS is a cute little gimmick for ITs,
| > | > programmers
| > | > | and sundry amateur geeks who want/need to customize Windows and
| > don't
| > | > like
| > | > | Visual Studio. Whoopeee! Serendipity is a relatively tiny project
in
| > the
| > | > | scope of what is Microsoft, and Microsoft's Open Source project
| > | > (whatever
| > | > | they're calling it) will forever remain a tiny piece of
Microsoft's
| > | > overall
| > | > | activities.
| > | > |
| > | > | As for Windows 7, everything I've read on it suggests that it will
| > | > *maybe*
| > | > | meet the timetable I set out below. They claim 2010, which means
| > that
| > it
| > | > | might not really be out until 2011 or 2012, based upon recent MS
OS
| > | > | development history. Then it will have lots of problems that need
| > | > fixing,
| > | > | especially if it truly is a new paradigm in operating systems and
| > will
| > | > thus
| > | > | almost certainly not run well on older hardware, so people will
| > avoid
| > it
| > | > as
| > | > | long as possible, which means it won't be until 2012 to 2015
before
| > it
| > | > even
| > | > | starts to take over as Microsoft's reigning OS. And unless
something
| > | > truly
| > | > | amazing has happened at MS, it will *still* end up being another
NT
| > | > | iteration.
| > | > |
| > | > | Barring a true miracle, XP and Vista (eventually), will rule the
PC
| > | > world
| > | > | well into the next decade, if not throughout most of it. Not in
the
| > | > least
| > | > | bit comparable to various versions of MSDOS, Win3.1, and all those
| > | > others
| > | > | you named (except NT4), which had very short lifetimes relative to
| > XP
| > | > and,
| > | > | eventually, Vista.
| > | > |
| > | > | And, in all this, there STILL won't be any competitor worthy of
the
| > name
| > | > | anywhere around in anything that could resemble the near future..
| > | > |
| > | > | You know, all in all, you're writing suggests just what I
thought --
| > | > you've
| > | > | been reading a lot of gossip and guesswork by writers who have
| > nothing
| > | > | better to do. I've read some articles, too, and guess what, they
| > tend
| > to
| > | > | agree with me. Your mention of stock price is indicative of the
way
| > you
| > | > | think. As if you can glean any real information about the real
world
| > | > from
| > | > | stock prices. For the most part, that's just more people gossiping
| > and
| > | > | guessing (and then betting money on those guesses.) In my years of
| > | > | observance, MOST stock market players and purchasers, even the
large
| > | > | institutions, are wrong more than they're right.
| > | > |
| > | > | The ONLY thing that matters is who's using what OS and why. All
you
| > want
| > | > to
| > | > | do is engage in gossip and guesswork -- and your so-called
testing,
| > of
| > | > | course. All of which is just so much pud-pulling. Entertaining for
| > the
| > | > | puller (and for the circle of fellow pud-pullers), fruitless,
| > irrelevant
| > | > and
| > | > | repulsive for everyone else.
| > | > |
| > | > | As for the Kool-Aid, you should try some. If it helps you think
more
| > | > | rationally (which it often does), that will be good. Of course,
the
| > | > | alternative is that there won't be much change at all and you'll
| > still
| > | > be
| > | > a
| > | > | blithering idiot living in a obsessive little geeky mini-world
| > that's
| > | > | populated by likewise blithering idiots with geeky little minds,
all
| > of
| > | > you
| > | > | making less sense than Federal government policy makers. (That's a
| > major
| > | > | insult, in case you didn't catch that.)
| > | > |
| > | > | --
| > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > |
http://grystmill.com
| > | > |
| > | > | "MEB" <meb@not
here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | news:%23DY8Erp0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > STABLE, as in no more code changes because of no more updates...
| > | > | > duuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh, how many times do I have to include that in
| > these
| > | > | > discussions with you.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And get off your crap about market share and statistics
bullcrap,
| > that
| > | > is
| > | > | > a
| > | > | > real *who cares* situation.
| > | > | > If you bothered to keep up with Microsoft developments, such a
| > | > | > Serendipity,
| > | > | > Windows 7, the attempt at Home Server, and other nifty
| > indications,
| > | > maybe
| > | > | > you would have a scope about what is occurring verses what you
| > THINK
| > | > you
| > | > | > know.. You still don't get WHY Microsoft IS attempting open
source
| > | > | > activities.... you still don't get why all that other activity
| > has/is
| > | > | > going
| > | > | > on...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > AND watch the stock market for Microsoft share pricing.....
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And yes, your right, there will always be XP users as there NT4
| > users,
| > | > and
| > | > | > 95 users and Win3.11 users... hey DOS and BASIC are still being
| > used
| > | > to
| > | > | > PROGRAM chips, those being used in those fancy new OSs... so the
| > point
| > | > is
| > | > | > what..... did you drink too much of the Kool-Aid or what..
| > | > | >
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > MEB
| > | > | >
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > _________
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:ejWbSco0IHA.3776@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | "Whining"? What whining? Methinks you need some time with a
| > | > dictionary
| > | > | > and
| > | > | > | perhaps a refresher course in English. If anyone here is a
| > whiner
| > | > it's
| > | > | > you,
| > | > | > | because nobody believes a darned thing you say on the topic
| > (except
| > | > a
| > | > | > | minuscule portion of the population who, like you, live in
| > | > dreamland.)
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Same arguments you apply to DOS and 9x apply to XP. It "is a
| > stable
| > | > | > | environment whose users have come to accept it as it is."
(Same
| > | > thing
| > | > | > | applies to Windows 2000 and even NT4, both of which are more
| > stable
| > | > than
| > | > | > 9x
| > | > | > | systems, even if they're more difficult to manage.) And Vista
is
| > | > quickly
| > | > | > | maturing to that same state.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | As for your implication that 9x is more stable than XP,
ummm....
| > I
| > | > | > really
| > | > | > | think you ought to do some more "testing." Maybe in the real
| > world,
| > | > like
| > | > | > I
| > | > | > | do?
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | XP and it's iterations have several years to go, yet, as THE
| > major
| > | > OS
| > | > | > for
| > | > | > | PCs. Wanna put some money on it? When do you say XP and it's
| > | > iterations
| > | > | > will
| > | > | > | stop being the most used OS out there? I say around 2012,
maybe
| > | > 2015.
| > | > Or
| > | > | > | even later, depending on how long it takes MS to actually
| > produce
| > a
| > | > | > | non-NT-based OS or for a real competitor to emerge. There sure
| > isn't
| > | > | > | anything else out there, even in the dreams of 'Nixers, that
| > will
| > | > | > replace
| > | > | > | them anything like that soon, certainly no sooner.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | And you still haven't told us how you calculate the
comparative
| > | > usage
| > | > of
| > | > | > | OSes. Just guessing, based upon gossip, or do you have some
real
| > | > stats
| > | > | > to
| > | > | > | show us? Me, I have quite a few stats, and while I know that
| > stats
| > | > lie,
| > | > | > they
| > | > | > | don't all usually lie to the same degree. I will admit that my
| > stats
| > | > are
| > | > | > | mostly web stats, and you've come up with all kinds of valid
| > caveats
| > | > | > that
| > | > | > | would apply to such stats... But those caveats are minor and
| > hardly
| > | > | > affect
| > | > | > | the results at all. Even if we're very generous in their
| > | > applications,
| > | > | > the
| > | > | > | web stats still stand as a quite valid measure of PC usage in
| > the
| > | > home
| > | > | > and
| > | > | > | SOHO markets. (And, on the topic of stats, just because you're
| > | > afraid
| > | > of
| > | > | > W3C
| > | > | > | doesn't mean their stats are of no value.)
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The point you *did* bring up in past discussion that intrigued
| > me
| > is
| > | > | > that
| > | > | > | there is also the world of non-internet connected computers to
| > | > consider.
| > | > | > And
| > | > | > | I'd very much like to know those stats if you have any inkling
| > where
| > | > one
| > | > | > | could find them. Then again, I'd also be interested in usage
| > stats
| > | > on
| > | > | > | Windows Mobile and related XP-based OSes in other devices.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Whatever, so far, all that you've ever written on the topic in
| > this
| > | > | > group
| > | > | > | (which is apparently the only group you hang at unless you use
| > | > different
| > | > | > | aliases) either has no relevance to the topic or no real (or
| > even
| > | > more
| > | > | > or
| > | > | > | less real) facts to back them up. How about trying a little
| > harder
| > | > to
| > | > be
| > | > | > an
| > | > | > | honest debater? Hint: Comparing various OSes as to their
| > | > competencies,
| > | > | > | vulnerabilities, or any of that other stuff you keep dishing
out
| > in
| > | > | > these
| > | > | > | discussions isn't going to win the debate. Those issues are
| > totally
| > | > | > | irrelevant when it comes to determining consumer behavior, and
| > | > consumer
| > | > | > | behavior is what this discussion is about. And all the
| > speculation
| > | > in
| > | > | > the
| > | > | > | world by pundits, reporters, bloggers, geeks in newsgroups,
| > etc.,
| > | > don't
| > | > | > | amount to the tiniest speck of factual evidence. Compared to
all
| > | > those,
| > | > | > | statistics are as honest as the day is long and have a special
| > place
| > | > | > | reserved for them in Heaven.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | > |
http://grystmill.com
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not
here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > | news:ev4Wwin0IHA.552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | > No Gary, stop whining, XP is dead and a dead end OS. NT [or
| > its
| > | > new
| > | > | > | > itinerations] will proceed leaving XP as a *truly outdated*
| > and
| > | > | > defunct
| > | > | > OS
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Yeah, 9X WAS killed several years ago [end of line], so was
| > DOS,
| > | > but
| > | > | > it,
| > | > | > | > at
| > | > | > | > least, is a stable environment whose users have come to
accept
| > it
| > | > as
| > | > | > it
| > | > | > | > is.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > MEB
| > | > | > | >
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > _________
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > news:%23WEep1m0IHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | > | Everything you said is absolutely ludicrous. Shows what a
| > sloppy
| > | > | > thinker
| > | > | > | > you
| > | > | > | > | really are.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | WinXP dead as of the 30th!? If that's true, then Windows
98
| > was
| > | > dead
| > | > | > | > several
| > | > | > | > | years ago. What a laugh!! And Vista SP1works just fine.
| > Usual
| > | > | > quirks,
| > | > | > | > bit
| > | > | > | > of
| > | > | > | > | a learning curve, but what OS doesn't have a few quirks?
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | > | > |
http://grystmill.com
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | "MEB" <meb@not
here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > | news:uLx9Dwl0IHA.1628@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | > | > | > Take heart Franc, XP is dead as of June 30 [doesn't
matter
| > if
| > | > its
| > | > | > | > getting
| > | > | > | > | > updates, its dead]... Vista is a flop, so if your pining
| > on
| > | > what
| > | > | > to
| > | > | > go
| > | > | > | > to,
| > | > | > | > | > check outside of Microsoft...
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > | > MEB
| > | > | > | > | >
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | > | > | > --
| > | > | > | > | > _________
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > "Franc Zabkar" <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in
| > message
| > | > | > | > | > news:q9kl541hpesrtc57t1gvp1n52hu7mlsm84@4ax.com...
| > | > | > | > | > | On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:05:04 -0700 (PDT), Davej
| > | > | > | > <galt_57@hotmail.com>
| > | > | > | > | > | put finger to keyboard and composed:
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | >I guess 2.0.0.14 will be it.
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | <sigh>
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | Firefox gone, AdAware gone, AVG to go in August,
Spybot
| > | > | > unreliable,
| > | > | > | > | > | Opera 9.5 having troubles with GDI resources ...
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | It seems that all my Internet apps are slowly dropping
| > | > support
| > | > | > for
| > | > | > | > | > | W98.
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | In 2010 it is projected that we will run out of IPv4
IP
| > | > | > addresses.
| > | > | > | > As
| > | > | > | > | > | Win98/ME do not appear to have support for IPv6, will
| > that
| > | > | > really
| > | > | > be
| > | > | > | > | > | the end for W98/ME, at least for Internet purposes?
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | - Franc Zabkar
| > | > | > | > | > | --
| > | > | > | > | > | Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by
| > | > email.
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|