🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:44:28 -0700, "Luc The Perverse"
<sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote:
>Have you ever heard a lot of shit about a certain topic and wondered if it 
>is really as bad as everyone says? Perhaps many people out there are 
>followers as I know many people choose important decisions like heath and 
>similar based solely on anecdotal evidence. I, on the other hand, prefer to 
>approach all information with a grain of salt. Me doubting, so called, 
>fundamental aspects of humanity based on my logical approach has caused me 
>to be labeled some pretty nasty things.
*snip bollocks*
>So, I am trying to copy some files over to the new computer into my 
>documents. I am moving a file called "My Music" and Windows stops me. It 
>says the files inside the My Music folder will be placed inside the "music 
>folder". So, I'm muttering, looking for the button that's says fuck off and 
>it isn't there. My choices are continue and cancel. WTF? I decide to do a 
>little experiment; I rename the folder and try to copy it in - works fine. 
>So, now windows is telling me that I cannot copy a folder named "My Music" 
>into My Documents??? Where else can't I copy it to? How many CPU cycles are 
>being dedicated to ensuring that what I am telling the computer to do is not 
>what it's going to fucking do? Who does it think it is? I AM LORD AND MASTER 
>OVER MY COMPUTER. Don't tell me you can't do that. (Damn, I sound like Steve 
>Allan)
*snip load of crap too long to bother reading*

Music is the new My Music. Did you happen to notoice how My Documents
is just Documents, My Pictures is just Pictures, etc. There are hidden
redirects for each of the 'old style' naming schemes so that programs
that store stuff in any of these folders end up storing them in the
new-style naming scheme and you don't end up with a My Documents
duplicate of your Documents folder with half in each. You complained
about some favorite links thing, which are completely customizable,
though they come with a default set which would be better labelled
"commonly used links" or something more clumsy. Yeah, you can't get
rid of it, but it doesn't take up that much space, big whoop. Simply
executing an exe file isn't much of a threat, since unless it has
admin access it can't modify any protected files, add itself to the
startup programs list, or anything silly like that.

Navigating in folders... double clicking to open a new window has
always seemed retarded to me. As for the lack of an 'up' button, just
click on one folder up from your current position in the address bar,
same function, except you can go multiple steps at a time and you know
exactly where you're going before you do it. (I thought that was a bit
of a no-brainer...) And what's this about the address bar not being
part of a window or something? It always shows up for me, and it
switches between something that looks like ...folder>folder>folder to
c:\folder\folder\folder if you click in the bar to enter text.

The one complaint I agree with is the analanalanal file permissions
bullshit. By default, you can't change anything in any of your own
'system' directories without first taking ownership and giving
yourself write/modify access to it, then when you do try to modify,
you once again (I think this is probably about the third time) have to
approve administator access to be able to modify the damn thing. It's
a real bitch, and the main reason I disabled user account control. And
if you're trying to copy stuff from an old xp install, then you have
to go through the entire process FOR EVERY SINGLE FILE AND FOLDER AND
SUBFOLDER AND EVERY FILE IN EACH SUB FOLDER. It's far easier to copy
the stuff while in xp to some permissions neutral location (like a
fat32 drive or something) then copy it from within vista.

Other than that, I like how it looks, how it runs, the lots of little
improvements I find here and there in the UI. It'll run directx 10,
which is the main reason I installed it (even though I won't have a
directx 10 video card for at least a year). It seems to be just as
stable as XP, which is remarkable given how awful it was in the betas
and RCs. As for major improvements of XP.... there aren't really any
important ones. UAC is so goddamned annoying that I couldn't put up
with it just using my computer (granted, I do a lot more modifying of
"important files" than most users...), and aero glass is pretty, but
mostly meaningless fluff. I definitely wouldn't have upgraded if I
hadn't gotten a free business key through the MSDN academic alliance &
my school... but whatteva.

If you really have that much of a problem with vista, then why not use
linux? It's just as easy to install as windows, unless you happen to
be one of the many many people who happen to have some random hardware
device not supported natively by default, in which case you have to
jump through some kernel compiling hoops and say some prayers and
chants and whathaveyou and when you're done it may work or you might
have to continue looking for other people who happen to have gotten
this bizzaro hardware from the land of oompalooompa to work in linux,
but their instructions don't seem to work so perhaps they have some
tiny revision in their firmware or version number that makes the whole
damn thing fall apart... Oh, but if you can get it to work, linux runs
circles around windows. :)

--
ZTCL

"Zealot The Crazy Lui" <yahooNOk...@jeemaledotcom.com> wrote in message 
news:li3qv2tih771guiugggf00h2itmmor5o9a@4ax.com...
> Music is the new My Music. Did you happen to notoice how My Documents
> is just Documents, My Pictures is just Pictures, etc. There are hidden
> redirects for each of the 'old style' naming schemes so that programs
> that store stuff in any of these folders end up storing them in the
> new-style naming scheme and you don't end up with a My Documents
> duplicate of your Documents folder with half in each. You complained
> about some favorite links thing, which are completely customizable,
> though they come with a default set which would be better labelled
> "commonly used links" or something more clumsy. Yeah, you can't get
> rid of it, but it doesn't take up that much space, big whoop. Simply
> executing an exe file isn't much of a threat, since unless it has
> admin access it can't modify any protected files, add itself to the
> startup programs list, or anything silly like that.
>
> Navigating in folders... double clicking to open a new window has
> always seemed retarded to me. As for the lack of an 'up' button, just
> click on one folder up from your current position in the address bar,
> same function, except you can go multiple steps at a time and you know
> exactly where you're going before you do it. (I thought that was a bit
> of a no-brainer...) And what's this about the address bar not being
> part of a window or something? It always shows up for me, and it
> switches between something that looks like ...folder>folder>folder to
> c:\folder\folder\folder if you click in the bar to enter text.
>
> The one complaint I agree with is the analanalanal file permissions
> bullshit. By default, you can't change anything in any of your own
> 'system' directories without first taking ownership and giving
> yourself write/modify access to it, then when you do try to modify,
> you once again (I think this is probably about the third time) have to
> approve administator access to be able to modify the damn thing. It's
> a real bitch, and the main reason I disabled user account control. And
> if you're trying to copy stuff from an old xp install, then you have
> to go through the entire process FOR EVERY SINGLE FILE AND FOLDER AND
> SUBFOLDER AND EVERY FILE IN EACH SUB FOLDER. It's far easier to copy
> the stuff while in xp to some permissions neutral location (like a
> fat32 drive or something) then copy it from within vista.
>
> Other than that, I like how it looks, how it runs, the lots of little
> improvements I find here and there in the UI. It'll run directx 10,
> which is the main reason I installed it (even though I won't have a
> directx 10 video card for at least a year). It seems to be just as
> stable as XP, which is remarkable given how awful it was in the betas
> and RCs. As for major improvements of XP.... there aren't really any
> important ones. UAC is so goddamned annoying that I couldn't put up
> with it just using my computer (granted, I do a lot more modifying of
> "important files" than most users...), and aero glass is pretty, but
> mostly meaningless fluff. I definitely wouldn't have upgraded if I
> hadn't gotten a free business key through the MSDN academic alliance &
> my school... but whatteva.
>
> If you really have that much of a problem with vista, then why not use
> linux? It's just as easy to install as windows, unless you happen to
> be one of the many many people who happen to have some random hardware
> device not supported natively by default, in which case you have to
> jump through some kernel compiling hoops and say some prayers and
> chants and whathaveyou and when you're done it may work or you might
> have to continue looking for other people who happen to have gotten
> this bizzaro hardware from the land of oompalooompa to work in linux,
> but their instructions don't seem to work so perhaps they have some
> tiny revision in their firmware or version number that makes the whole
> damn thing fall apart... Oh, but if you can get it to work, linux runs
> circles around windows. :)

So . . .    There is a little niceness with the UI, it is stable (albeit 
slower) and it is more annoying than XP.    Oh yeah and it has this one 
important feature that I won't be able to use for a year and tons of legacy 
software won't run.   And because you and Bill Gates don't like more than 
one explorer window open it shouldn't be an option for me?  Gee . .  sign me 
up.

And the choices are Vista or Linux?   Huh?  What happened to Windows XP? 
I'm perfectly happy running that.  (I do have a linux machine in the house 
though.)

Babysitting options are fine.   Even having them on by default.  But it is 
insulting to have an OS entirely based around the principle that the user 
will need protection from his/her self.   Microsoft began pissing me off 
with "protections that couldn't be disabled" I believe in Outlook 2000 when 
there was absolutely no way to disable the "protection" of not being able to 
receive an EXE file via e-mail.  (And I don't count "hacking the registry" 
as an option . . . that is generally inconvenient but I make exceptions for 
MenuShowDelay, NoLowDiskSpaceChecks and disabling all auto run.)

And yes . . I was rambling a little bit, and I wrote it while I was upset . 
. so perhaps logically everything I complained about isn't necessarily a 
problem.   But I never have these problems in windows XP . . . and I never 
had similar problems "upgrading" MS OSes before.

Ah yes, though . .the curse of the "get the free OS" bug.  Historically that 
has been a good propeganda tool for Microsoft.  But when the OS sucks . . 
it doesn't help much.

--
LTP

:) 

"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message 
news:7p4sc4-6pu.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au...
**SNIP RANT**

An unbiased 3rd party opinion from a veteran computer user is always nice.

http://www.mindprod.com/jgloss/windowsvista.html

I focus on the things that piss me off . .and most (all?) of the things that 
are nice were things I took for granted from XP.

--
LTP

:) 

"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message 
news:7p4sc4-6pu.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au...
> Have you ever heard a lot of shit about a certain topic and wondered if it 
> is really as bad as everyone says? Perhaps many people out there are 
> followers as I know many people choose important decisions like heath and 
> similar based solely on anecdotal evidence. I, on the other hand, prefer 
> to approach all information with a grain of salt. Me doubting, so called, 
> fundamental aspects of humanity based on my logical approach has caused me 
> to be labeled some pretty nasty things.
>
> But I am not here to talk about my modus operandi. I am here to talk about 
> my wonderful experience with Windows Vista for the past hour and a half. 
> On overclockers.com an article was posted in which Ed (readers of OC will 
> know him) said he was buying a computer that was coming with Vista and he 
> was going to pay extra to buy an OEM copy of Windows XP to protect his 
> poor innocent friend from the evils he doesn't know about.
>
> Of course, I chuckled. I enjoy Ed's atypical input any day. But in the 
> back of my mind, like most outrageous things I read, a little flag goes up 
> and says it can't really be all that bad.
>
> Well, I hate to break it to you. It REALLY is that bad.
>
> Holy Jesus Fucking Christ I want to kill this OS!!! Vista made me so mad 
> that I was shaking violently and couldn't hold the mouse. Mind you, no 
> human has ever made me that mad.
>
> So I have a job to do - move some files from one computer to another. I 
> take a look at the "new" computer and immediately notice that it's . . 
> just not quite right. Oh God! It's Vista. Well, I knew it was coming some 
> time, so I guess I'd better give it a shot.
>
> So, I am trying to copy some files over to the new computer into my 
> documents. I am moving a file called "My Music" and Windows stops me. It 
> says the files inside the My Music folder will be placed inside the "music 
> folder". So, I'm muttering, looking for the button that's says fuck off 
> and it isn't there. My choices are continue and cancel. WTF? I decide to 
> do a little experiment; I rename the folder and try to copy it in - works 
> fine. So, now windows is telling me that I cannot copy a folder named "My 
> Music" into My Documents??? Where else can't I copy it to? How many CPU 
> cycles are being dedicated to ensuring that what I am telling the computer 
> to do is not what it's going to fucking do? Who does it think it is? I AM 
> LORD AND MASTER OVER MY COMPUTER. Don't tell me you can't do that. (Damn, 
> I sound like Steve Allan)
>
> Is there a list of "forbidden actions" somewhere? Am I allowed to name 
> files "Bill Gates Sucks" or type "Revert to Windows XP" in a Word 
> document?

If there is such a feature, I am intrigue to know more. Folder and user 
rights permissions is what we administrators have been dreaming off since 
day one. For corporate environment, the users are not supposed to have 
administrator's account. THE IT DEPARTMENT IS THE LORD AND MASTER! :

> Fuck it, whatever. You know - it doesn't want a folder called My Music, I 
> can get over that. So, a big ugly ass Try AOL icon is staring me in the 
> face. So I try to delete the bastard and I get some weird Access Denied 
> error. Bof! I remember this, people talking about the "four notifications 
> before deleting an icon" so I go out on a quest to turn off the warning. 
> Except, it's not a warning. I actually did not have permission to remove 
> the icon from my desktop (I found this out after some work) The 
> administrator has to grant me that right - and unfortunately, he didn't 
> leave his password anywhere around.

BAH! Big deal! Even if I were to have read your ranting thus far, I would 
still agree with Bill Gates and install Vista anyway. Users need to be 
controlled (with an iron fists if I may add :P) and that is final!

> You have got to be shitting me?? Users don't own their desktop? (I can 
> understand in a corporate environment where changing desktop icons might 
> want to be explicitly denied - but to deny it by default for non admin 
> accounts. I mean seriously, big-time WTF) I was finally able to hide 
> desktop icons, thank god!

We administrators gets kinda edgy whenever a user calls up and says that 
their icon to the ERP system is missing from their desktop. It makes you 
feel like taking out a shot gun and blow them away in pieces. Of course if 
the request were to be coming from your computer illiterate boss, you have 
to be happy to oblidge (with some self swearing).

> So I am looking in My Documents, swearing like fucking Dennis Leary. So 
> off, to the left, there is this bar in every explorer window - some 
> favorite shit. Once again Windows has decided for me what my favorites 
> are - which of course is reassuring in an age where I am no longer allowed 
> to have preferences. So I try to shrink it to make it go away. Doesn't 
> work. Right clicking doesn't work. There is no fucking menu bar anywhere 
> to get to folder options. Go to control panel (which has had a seizure 
> since windows XP) and I find the folder options in there, and change to 
> classic windows folders and open ever link in a new window option. It 
> doesn't go away. So, close it down, reopen. Still not gone. Try to open a 
> new window . . IT OPENS IN THE SAME FUCKING WINDOW!!!!! And there is no 
> god damned up button, just forward and backwards arrows. (Incidentally, I 
> did finally find a way to get rid of it, but I have to interact with one 
> of those gay drop down button things, which I've trained myself to ignore 
> otherwise. And you can get the menu back by clicking alt, but it goes away 
> as soon as you do anything with the window. You have to have favorites and 
> shitty toolbars shoved down your throat, but if you want something useful 
> like a fucking menu, it has to be gone.)

What feature is that? My time spend with Vista was kinda limited.

> I had more problems related to not having access to admin account. I 
> couldn't install real codec. Yay! You can't do anything - this will 
> certainly keep users safe. Next week - new initiative to induce paralysis 
> in everyone 16 years of age or older promises to virtually eliminate drunk 
> driving! And the best part, is that even with all these things blocked - I 
> was still able to run a copy of putty! I mean - I can't delete a desktop 
> Icon, but I can run an EXE file I downloaded of the net. Whooopdeedo! I 
> mean, come on!

Well, you're not supposed to play with Codecs at work :p

<snip>
-- 
Steven Ung
Return of the Ignorant Asian! 

"The Ignorant Asian" <ste...@nodomainname.com> wrote in message 
news:45fe6b3d_1@news.tm.net.my...
> If there is such a feature, I am intrigue to know more. Folder and user 
> rights permissions is what we administrators have been dreaming off since 
> day one. For corporate environment, the users are not supposed to have 
> administrator's account. THE IT DEPARTMENT IS THE LORD AND MASTER! :

I highly doubt it.  It was probably hard coded somewhere by some intern 
programmer.

> BAH! Big deal! Even if I were to have read your ranting thus far, I would 
> still agree with Bill Gates and install Vista anyway. Users need to be 
> controlled (with an iron fists if I may add :P) and that is final!

I said I can understand such a restriction being an option.  What I cannot 
understand is it being denied by default.  That is messed up.

I'm sure there are a lot of sadomasichistic people who would love to install 
an OS that lets them do nothing.  Of course, it is cheaper to have no OS at 
all ;)

> We administrators gets kinda edgy whenever a user calls up and says that 
> their icon to the ERP system is missing from their desktop. It makes you 
> feel like taking out a shot gun and blow them away in pieces. Of course if 
> the request were to be coming from your computer illiterate boss, you have 
> to be happy to oblidge (with some self swearing).

Touch�e.   Keep in mind, Vista is currently being shoved down home users' 
throats - Windows XP can still be sold as business machines without threat 
of loss of kickbacks.

> What feature is that? My time spend with Vista was kinda limited.

You lost me somewhere.

> Well, you're not supposed to play with Codecs at work :p

I wasn't at work ;)

Putty just as easily could have been a D.O.S. client, or a password grabbing 
trojan horse

--
LTP

:) 

"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message 
news:v1s2d4-rmf.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au...
> "The Ignorant Asian" <ste...@nodomainname.com> wrote in message 
> news:45fe6b3d_1@news.tm.net.my...
>> If there is such a feature, I am intrigue to know more. Folder and user 
>> rights permissions is what we administrators have been dreaming off since 
>> day one. For corporate environment, the users are not supposed to have 
>> administrator's account. THE IT DEPARTMENT IS THE LORD AND MASTER! :
>
> I highly doubt it.  It was probably hard coded somewhere by some intern 
> programmer.

You're misleading. It is lucky that you're not yet the President of the 
United States.

>> BAH! Big deal! Even if I were to have read your ranting thus far, I would 
>> still agree with Bill Gates and install Vista anyway. Users need to be 
>> controlled (with an iron fists if I may add :P) and that is final!
>
> I said I can understand such a restriction being an option.  What I cannot 
> understand is it being denied by default.  That is messed up.

If it is not a default option, lazy administrators like me won't even be 
bothered to set it up as the time to issue a new PC to the users are like 
2~3 hours upon delivery of the PC.

</EVIL ADMINISTRATOR>
"It's not about restriction, ITS KEEPING THOSE DARN USERS IN LINE!"
<EVIL ADMINISTRATOR>

> I'm sure there are a lot of sadomasichistic people who would love to 
> install an OS that lets them do nothing.  Of course, it is cheaper to have 
> no OS at all ;)

I agree.

>> We administrators gets kinda edgy whenever a user calls up and says that 
>> their icon to the ERP system is missing from their desktop. It makes you 
>> feel like taking out a shot gun and blow them away in pieces. Of course 
>> if the request were to be coming from your computer illiterate boss, you 
>> have to be happy to oblidge (with some self swearing).
>
> Touch�e.   Keep in mind, Vista is currently being shoved down home users' 
> throats - Windows XP can still be sold as business machines without threat 
> of loss of kickbacks.

Excuse me but since when do home users have to pay for Windows OS :p

>> What feature is that? My time spend with Vista was kinda limited.
>
> You lost me somewhere.

Technically speaking since you started it, YOU are the one who made me get 
lost.

>> Well, you're not supposed to play with Codecs at work :p
>
> I wasn't at work ;)
>
> Putty just as easily could have been a D.O.S. client, or a password 
> grabbing trojan horse

The word Putty sounds awefully familiar.
-- 
Steven Ung
Return of the Ignorant Asian! 

"The Ignorant Asian" <ste...@nodomainname.com> wrote in message 
news:45ff52c9$1_1@news.tm.net.my...
> "Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message 
> news:v1s2d4-rmf.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au...
>> "The Ignorant Asian" <ste...@nodomainname.com> wrote in message 
>> news:45fe6b3d_1@news.tm.net.my...
>>> If there is such a feature, I am intrigue to know more. Folder and user 
>>> rights permissions is what we administrators have been dreaming off 
>>> since day one. For corporate environment, the users are not supposed to 
>>> have administrator's account. THE IT DEPARTMENT IS THE LORD AND MASTER! 
>>> :
>>
>> I highly doubt it.  It was probably hard coded somewhere by some intern 
>> programmer.
>
> You're misleading. It is lucky that you're not yet the President of the 
> United States.

No you have to be full of shit and have hundreds of millions of dollars to 
do that.

Now stop insulting Bush or he will invade your country.

Heil Bush!

>>> BAH! Big deal! Even if I were to have read your ranting thus far, I 
>>> would still agree with Bill Gates and install Vista anyway. Users need 
>>> to be controlled (with an iron fists if I may add :P) and that is final!
>>
>> I said I can understand such a restriction being an option.  What I 
>> cannot understand is it being denied by default.  That is messed up.
>
> If it is not a default option, lazy administrators like me won't even be 
> bothered to set it up as the time to issue a new PC to the users are like 
> 2~3 hours upon delivery of the PC.

Forgive me for shouting but A USER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTROL HIS DESKTOP 
EVEN IF HE IS NOT AN ADMIN!!!  Ok I feel better now.

> </EVIL ADMINISTRATOR>
> "It's not about restriction, ITS KEEPING THOSE DARN USERS IN LINE!"
> <EVIL ADMINISTRATOR>

Your mixed up the </TAG> is supposed to go at the end

>> I'm sure there are a lot of sadomasichistic people who would love to 
>> install an OS that lets them do nothing.  Of course, it is cheaper to 
>> have no OS at all ;)
>
> I agree.

Thank you

>> Touch�e.   Keep in mind, Vista is currently being shoved down home users' 
>> throats - Windows XP can still be sold as business machines without 
>> threat of loss of kickbacks.
>
> Excuse me but since when do home users have to pay for Windows OS :p

Vista is quite hard to rip off comparitively.

>>> What feature is that? My time spend with Vista was kinda limited.
>>
>> You lost me somewhere.
>
> Technically speaking since you started it, YOU are the one who made me get 
> lost.

We are both lost.  Please don't leave me Mr Bean!

>>> Well, you're not supposed to play with Codecs at work :p
>>
>> I wasn't at work ;)
>>
>> Putty just as easily could have been a D.O.S. client, or a password 
>> grabbing trojan horse
>
> The word Putty sounds awefully familiar.

Lightweight, standalone SSH client.  I use it log into remote linux boxes 
(IE Chris' box)

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/

Of course you could also be thinking of silly putty

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

--
LTP

:)

"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message 
news:rl64d4-7ni.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au...
> "The Ignorant Asian" <ste...@nodomainname.com> wrote in message 
> news:45ff52c9$1_1@news.tm.net.my...
>> "Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in 
>> message news:v1s2d4-rmf.ln1@loki.cmears.id.au...
>>> "The Ignorant Asian" <ste...@nodomainname.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:45fe6b3d_1@news.tm.net.my...
>>>> If there is such a feature, I am intrigue to know more. Folder and user 
>>>> rights permissions is what we administrators have been dreaming off 
>>>> since day one. For corporate environment, the users are not supposed to 
>>>> have administrator's account. THE IT DEPARTMENT IS THE LORD AND MASTER! 
>>>> :
>>>
>>> I highly doubt it.  It was probably hard coded somewhere by some intern 
>>> programmer.
>>
>> You're misleading. It is lucky that you're not yet the President of the 
>> United States.
>
> No you have to be full of shit and have hundreds of millions of dollars to 
> do that.
>
> Now stop insulting Bush or he will invade your country.
>
> Heil Bush!

Somehow that remark of "Heil Bush!" with an exclamation mark is more 
sarcastic and insulting towards Bush than mine ;)

>>>> BAH! Big deal! Even if I were to have read your ranting thus far, I 
>>>> would still agree with Bill Gates and install Vista anyway. Users need 
>>>> to be controlled (with an iron fists if I may add :P) and that is 
>>>> final!
>>>
>>> I said I can understand such a restriction being an option.  What I 
>>> cannot understand is it being denied by default.  That is messed up.
>>
>> If it is not a default option, lazy administrators like me won't even be 
>> bothered to set it up as the time to issue a new PC to the users are like 
>> 2~3 hours upon delivery of the PC.
>
> Forgive me for shouting but A USER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTROL HIS 
> DESKTOP EVEN IF HE IS NOT AN ADMIN!!!  Ok I feel better now.

We don't mind if the users is able to take care of his/her own desktop and 
when things go wrong they know how to recover.

>> </EVIL ADMINISTRATOR>
>> "It's not about restriction, ITS KEEPING THOSE DARN USERS IN LINE!"
>> <EVIL ADMINISTRATOR>
>
> Your mixed up the </TAG> is supposed to go at the end

Which is why *I* am the manager and you are the programmer :p

>>> I'm sure there are a lot of sadomasichistic people who would love to 
>>> install an OS that lets them do nothing.  Of course, it is cheaper to 
>>> have no OS at all ;)
>>
>> I agree.
>
> Thank you
>
>>> Touch�e.   Keep in mind, Vista is currently being shoved down home 
>>> users' throats - Windows XP can still be sold as business machines 
>>> without threat of loss of kickbacks.
>>
>> Excuse me but since when do home users have to pay for Windows OS :p
>
> Vista is quite hard to rip off comparitively.

Though not impossible ;)

>>>> What feature is that? My time spend with Vista was kinda limited.
>>>
>>> You lost me somewhere.
>>
>> Technically speaking since you started it, YOU are the one who made me 
>> get lost.
>
> We are both lost.  Please don't leave me Mr Bean!

Okay now I am not lost, but confused. What has Mr. Bean has to do with this 
conversation? :(

And,... I haven't heard from Mr. Bean since what...? 1999?

>>>> Well, you're not supposed to play with Codecs at work :p
>>>
>>> I wasn't at work ;)
>>>
>>> Putty just as easily could have been a D.O.S. client, or a password 
>>> grabbing trojan horse
>>
>> The word Putty sounds awefully familiar.
>
> Lightweight, standalone SSH client.  I use it log into remote linux boxes 
> (IE Chris' box)
>
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/
>
> Of course you could also be thinking of silly putty
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_Putty

Sounds kinda technie... :(

-- 
Steven Ung
Return of the Ignorant Asian! 

"The Ignorant Asian" <ste...@nodomainname.com> wrote in message 
news:4600d40f$1_1@news.tm.net.my...
>> Now stop insulting Bush or he will invade your country.
>> Heil Bush!
> Somehow that remark of "Heil Bush!" with an exclamation mark is more 
> sarcastic and insulting towards Bush than mine ;)

You are wrong - I am not insulting and sarcastic!

>> Forgive me for shouting but A USER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTROL HIS 
>> DESKTOP EVEN IF HE IS NOT AN ADMIN!!!  Ok I feel better now.
>
> We don't mind if the users is able to take care of his/her own desktop and 
> when things go wrong they know how to recover.

Oh is that what the problem was?

>> Your mixed up the </TAG> is supposed to go at the end
>
> Which is why *I* am the manager and you are the programmer :p

So you can suck and I can rule??!!

>> Vista is quite hard to rip off comparitively.
>
> Though not impossible ;)

Is it hacked yet?

>> We are both lost.  Please don't leave me Mr Bean!
>
> Okay now I am not lost, but confused. What has Mr. Bean has to do with 
> this conversation? :(
> And,... I haven't heard from Mr. Bean since what...? 1999?

Sooner than that!

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly_Putty
>
> Sounds kinda technie... :(

Silly putty is very complicated

--
LTP

:)