PDA

View Full Version : Merged AMD-ATI monster embarks on monopoly-busting


AirRaid
July 25th 06, 12:01 AM
http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33230

Intel in the crosshairs, as execs explain themselves

By Paul Hales: Monday 24 July 2006, 14:31
BEST MATES AMD and ATI held a conference call today in which the
companies' biggest cheeses sought justify their new cohabitation.

The 'excited' executives were led by AMD CEO Hector Ruiz who lauded the
deal as re-shaping the future of the industry. "We're excited about
what we can do together in a market dominated for years by one
company," in the first of many digs at arch-competitor Intel.

AMD confirmed that much of ATI's operation will be brought in-house,
but AMD will remain, "committed to ATI's customers, employers and
Canada," said Ruiz.

He added that he didn't expect lay-offs "in any significant numbers".

Ruiz confessed that AMD had been mulling its best options for a
partnership over the past two to three years and it is ATI's expertise
in the mobility space as well as its chipset business that makes the
firm such a good fit with AMD.

The ATI team will play and key role in the joint future of the company
he said, adding he was confident that the companies and their
respective cultures would integrate well together, their products
having occupied "adjacent real-estate on motherboards" for so long.

The executives, Ruiz and ATI CEO Dave Orton, along with Dirk Meyer and
chief AMD bean counter Bob Rivet were agreed the deal would provide
better value to customers and shareholders in both companies. Bob said
the merged company would be better positioned to achieve AMD's stated
objective to "break the monopoly".

AMD's customers had been insisting AMD play a bigger role in the
"eco-system" of its mobility and consumer electronics marketplaces,
said Meyer.

He said he expected the PC to continue to play a central role in both
the business environment and the home, suggesting that "non-general
purpose" processing units such as GPUs would be integrated into
computing platforms much like the floating point co-processor had
disappeared over the past ten to fifteen years.

Dave Orton confessed to being as excited as anyone. Be said the
combined company would be able to look beyond the CPU, GPU and chipset
landscapes and increase its penetration into enterprise, mobile
computing and consumer electronics sectors.

"AMD has great CPUs, we have great GPUs," he said. He reckoned the next
stage for the merged company would be to integrate its offerings,
combining two or more products to create devices that improve on the
sum of their two parts.

The new company will achieve "cost synergies" worth $75 million by the
end of 2007, increasing to $125 million by the end of 2008. By then the
company will be well into its "integration plan", more details on which
it promised to deliver soon.

The company expects to lose ATI revenues from it work on Intel
platforms which bean-counting Bob said was worth about $100 million per
quarter, a loss Ruiz is confident the company will make up for.

Dave Orton said ATI would continue to deliver Intel chipsets for as
long as its customer wanted it to.

Quaestor
July 25th 06, 12:06 AM
AirRaid wrote:

>http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33230
>
>

I just want to know, does this mean I will have to go with intel to keep
using nvidia?

--
Godwin is a net-nazi
Learn about spam: http://www.seige-perilous.org/spam/spam.html

Garth
July 25th 06, 12:26 AM
"AirRaid" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33230
>
> Intel in the crosshairs, as execs explain themselves
>

yay, AMD and ATI, all the crap in one package now!

EDM
July 25th 06, 12:38 AM
"Quaestor" > wrote in message ...
> AirRaid wrote:
>
> >http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33230
>
> I just want to know, does this mean I will have to go with intel to keep
> using nvidia?

With Conroe being the platform of choice for the foreseeable
future, a better question is, why would you want to go with
AMD in the first place?

If ATI's shareholders approve this, they have rocks for brains.

Shawk
July 25th 06, 12:50 AM
Garth wrote:
> "AirRaid" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33230
>>
>> Intel in the crosshairs, as execs explain themselves
>>
>
> yay, AMD and ATI, all the crap in one package now!
>
>

Aah... I see this was x-posted to the NVidia NG.

shegeek72
July 25th 06, 01:47 AM
AirRaid wrote:
> http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33230
>
> Intel in the crosshairs, as execs explain themselves
>
> By Paul Hales: Monday 24 July 2006, 14:31
> BEST MATES AMD and ATI held a conference call today in which the
> companies' biggest cheeses sought justify their new cohabitation.

But will they get rid of the stupid and outdated .Net requirement to
d/l ATI drivers? I know they can be downloaded from other websites, but
I didn't find out about that until after hours of frustration trying to
download drivers from the ATI website and no response from ATI tech
support, and I'm sure many others aren't aware of it. I've swtiched to
nVidia because of it and it'll take a lot to get me to switch back.

SG
--
This isn't an office, it's hell with flourescent lighting.

Benjamin Gawert
July 25th 06, 01:56 AM
* shegeek72:

> But will they get rid of the stupid and outdated .Net requirement to
> d/l ATI drivers?

What problems do you have with .NET?

> I know they can be downloaded from other websites, but
> I didn't find out about that until after hours of frustration trying to
> download drivers from the ATI website and no response from ATI tech
> support, and I'm sure many others aren't aware of it. I've swtiched to
> nVidia because of it and it'll take a lot to get me to switch back.

Switching gfx cards just to avoid .NET is just plain silly...

Benjamin

Michael Hughes
July 25th 06, 04:20 AM
EDM wrote:

> If ATI's shareholders approve this, they have rocks for brains.

Yeah, and pass up that $US162 000 000 termination fee? Rocks for brains!
--
Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.

- Benford's Law of Controversy

HockeyTownUSA
July 25th 06, 12:56 PM
"EDM" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Quaestor" > wrote in message
> ...
>> AirRaid wrote:
>>
>> >http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33230
>>
>> I just want to know, does this mean I will have to go with intel to keep
>> using nvidia?
>
> With Conroe being the platform of choice for the foreseeable
> future, a better question is, why would you want to go with
> AMD in the first place?
>
> If ATI's shareholders approve this, they have rocks for brains.
>
>
>

Why is Intel the platform of choice? While I agree it seems they have the
performance crown for now, AMD is still a good bargain, and will probably be
cheaper than an equivalent Intel counterpart so AMD will win the
price/performance war. I just picked up an AM2 4600+ for $249 shipped to my
door.

The thing that boggles my mind is that AMD opted to ditch the 1MB L2 Cache
versions in favor of the 512KB. While I know this will just simplify the
product line, and the 1MB cache gave marginal increases in speed, if nothing
else, for marketing reasons, 1MB still looks better than 512KB when compared
with Conroe's 2MB and 4MB cache. I know AMD did it for cost reasons, but not
sure if it was a very wise choice.

Anyhow, guess I'll have to live with the "underdog" for a couple years now
that I've got it. ;)

magnate
July 25th 06, 05:11 PM
Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * shegeek72:
>
> > But will they get rid of the stupid and outdated .Net requirement to
> > d/l ATI drivers?
>
> What problems do you have with .NET?
>
> > I know they can be downloaded from other websites, but
> > I didn't find out about that until after hours of frustration trying to
> > download drivers from the ATI website and no response from ATI tech
> > support, and I'm sure many others aren't aware of it. I've swtiched to
> > nVidia because of it and it'll take a lot to get me to switch back.
>
> Switching gfx cards just to avoid .NET is just plain silly...

No, no it isn't. People switch their entire OS to avoid .NET - some of
us would happily switch our entire house.

CC

Shawk
July 25th 06, 05:25 PM
magnate wrote:
> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>> * shegeek72:
>>
>>> But will they get rid of the stupid and outdated .Net requirement to
>>> d/l ATI drivers?
>> What problems do you have with .NET?
>>
>>> I know they can be downloaded from other websites, but
>>> I didn't find out about that until after hours of frustration trying to
>>> download drivers from the ATI website and no response from ATI tech
>>> support, and I'm sure many others aren't aware of it. I've swtiched to
>>> nVidia because of it and it'll take a lot to get me to switch back.
>> Switching gfx cards just to avoid .NET is just plain silly...
>
> No, no it isn't. People switch their entire OS to avoid .NET - some of
> us would happily switch our entire house.

Why?

Clay Cahill
July 25th 06, 10:03 PM
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:56:18 -0400, "HockeyTownUSA"
> wrote:

>Why is Intel the platform of choice? While I agree it seems they have the
>performance crown for now, AMD is still a good bargain, and will probably be
>cheaper than an equivalent Intel counterpart so AMD will win the
>price/performance war.

Huh?
FX-62: $877.98,
Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.40GHz) $316

>I just picked up an AM2 4600+ for $249 shipped to my
>door.

Sure. & AMD is supposed to announce another price cut as well (though
they will be hard pressed to keep margins over %5), so they DO compete
well in that 4600 vs E6400 space, I guess... though with the 6600
trumping AMD's flagship for less than half the price, I'm not sure how
big that N-1 market will be for the next year or so.


--
Standard Disclaimer:
My Employer gives my internet access, but I don't speak for them...
So blame me for saying something dumb, not them.

I'm Clay Cahill, and I approve this post.

Ed Forsythe
July 25th 06, 11:52 PM
Once again, what's youz guyz problem with ,Net? - he asked with a pronounced
Brooklyn accent.

"Master Baiter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "shegeek72" >
> groups.com...
>> AirRaid wrote:
>>> http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33230
>>>
>>> Intel in the crosshairs, as execs explain themselves
>>>
>>> By Paul Hales: Monday 24 July 2006, 14:31
>>> BEST MATES AMD and ATI held a conference call today in which the
>>> companies' biggest cheeses sought justify their new cohabitation.
>>
>> But will they get rid of the stupid and outdated .Net requirement to
>> d/l ATI drivers? I know they can be downloaded from other websites, but
>> I didn't find out about that until after hours of frustration trying to
>> download drivers from the ATI website and no response from ATI tech
>> support, and I'm sure many others aren't aware of it. I've swtiched to
>> nVidia because of it and it'll take a lot to get me to switch back.
>
> FYI, if you choose to download only the display driver (in their "For
> slower connection" part), you don't need that stinking .NET thing. The
> .NET requirement only apply to the useless control center.
>
>
>>
>> SG
>> --
>> This isn't an office, it's hell with flourescent lighting.
>>
>
>

Benjamin Gawert
July 26th 06, 02:34 AM
* magnate:
>> Switching gfx cards just to avoid .NET is just plain silly...
>
> No, no it isn't. People switch their entire OS to avoid .NET - some of
> us would happily switch our entire house.

And the reason is?

Benjamin

Clay Cahill
July 26th 06, 04:56 PM
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:18:58 +0800, Man-wai Chang
> wrote:

>Ed Forsythe wrote:
>> Once again, what's youz guyz problem with ,Net? - he asked with a pronounced
>> Brooklyn accent.
>
>I am really puzzled when I learnt that a hardware driver would have
>something to do with .Net...

I beleive that the driver itself doesn't so if you simply install just
the driver (the low bandwidth download, or dial up download or
something like that) and not the fancy applets, you'll be fine. It's
the applets and the way they take advantage of some of the new aspx
calls.



--
Standard Disclaimer:
My Employer gives my internet access, but I don't speak for them...
So blame me for saying something dumb, not them.

Clay Cahill 2006

"I would just like to say that after all these years of heavy drinking, bright lights and late
nights, I still don't need glasses. I drink right out of the bottle." - David Lee Roth

July 26th 06, 11:32 PM
Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> And the reason is?

1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.
2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
(Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)
3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.
4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7
5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

Walter Mitty
July 26th 06, 11:54 PM
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 ...

Shawk
July 27th 06, 12:08 AM
wrote:
> Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>
>> And the reason is?
>
> 1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.
> 2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
> (Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)
> 3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
> widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

Link?

> 4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

Lol. "Security Alert. The name on the security certificate is invalid
or does not match the name on the site".

Got a link (preferably not tinyurl) that's less of a 'security risk'?

;)

> 5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.
>

EDM
July 27th 06, 12:28 AM
"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.

George Macdonald
July 27th 06, 12:36 AM
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:33:11 -0700, Clay Cahill
> wrote:

>On 24 Jul 2006 18:27:14 -0700, "GrispernMix" >
>wrote:
>
>>> I just want to know, does this mean I will have to go with intel to keep
>>> using nvidia?
>>>
>>> --
>>Actually i think it means you will have to stay with amd to keep ati,
>>you gotta get amd, and vice versa with intel,
>
>Nope. NOt so far. AMD has made a point to say that they wouldn't do
>anything to cause their products problems (like make crossfire not
>work on Intel chipsets)
>>
>>I think its going to be monumental move, if at least intel merges with
>>nvidia, and then it will be a battle of the titans,
>
>Never happen (IMO). Intel has no need for chipset design & foundry
>(which is what AMD's move was partly motivated by) & NVidia now sees a
>clear playing field for the super lucrative high end market that they
>already excel in.

AMD needs chipset design and foundry... from ATI?? Where did you pull that
from? First AMD knows how to do chipsets -- uhh, they've done it -- and
Ruiz has already stated "there are no plans in the near future to combine
the manufacturing of AMD and ATI chips into an integrated foundry".

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

Walter Mitty
July 27th 06, 01:01 AM
"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?

EDM
July 27th 06, 02:16 AM
"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?
Essentially none. Compare what you get with ATI's CCC,
and CP version used with TrayTools. Offhand I can't
think of anything extra you get with CCC.

July 27th 06, 02:37 AM
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.

> 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 ...

I was unable to d/l ANY drivers from the ATI website without .Net
installed. There was no response to three emails to ATI tech "support."

James_
July 27th 06, 03:01 AM
"EDM" > wrote in message
k.net...
> "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?
> Essentially none. Compare what you get with ATI's CCC,
> and CP version used with TrayTools. Offhand I can't
> think of anything extra you get with CCC.
>

Probably because the developers didn't want to write the app in the old SDK
Windows method. If they used MFC, then they have to distribute the MFC DLLs or
statically compile them in. MFC or .NET, 6 of one, half dozen of the other.
Supposedly they won't have DLL versioning problems with .NET. ATI just upgraded
to MS's next "big" thing.

shegeek72
July 27th 06, 03:23 AM
Shawk wrote:

> Link?

What link? Do some research on .Net and you'll find that's true.

> 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.

> 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.

https://www.microsoft.co.ke/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=C5E19719-000F-456A-BEAB-5BD7949F8AA2&displaylang=en

Benjamin Gawert
July 27th 06, 05:57 AM
* :

> 1. It's typical Microshaft bloatware.

The same can be said for Windows. So what?

> 2. It screwed up my desktop, that I spent a couple hours customizing
> (Fortunately, uninstalling .Net returned things to normal)

..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...

> 3. .Net is basically obsolete and a failure. It hasn't received the
> widespread acceptance and usage that MS wanted.

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...

> 4. It can be a security risk. See: http://tinyurl.com/jdom7

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...

> 5. There's no reason why it's needed to d/l video drivers.

So in short: you have no clue what .NET really is...

Benjamin

Benjamin Gawert
July 27th 06, 06:02 AM
* 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 ;-)

> 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...

Benjamin

Quaestor
July 27th 06, 08:23 AM
shegeek72 wrote:

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..
>
>
>
>>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.
>

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.

--
Godwin is a net-nazi
Learn about spam: http://www.seige-perilous.org/spam/spam.html

shegeek72
July 27th 06, 08:33 AM
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?

SG
--
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is intelligence has
its limits.

shegeek72
July 27th 06, 08:40 AM
Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> Of course there will be users fiddling around in system innards without
> having a f***ing clue what the things he [sic] plays around do and of course
> which will blame the resulting problems to MS alone...

Well, I happen to have a ****ing clue. Been working with 'em since '95,
build my own systems, tweak the OS, etc...

shegeek72
July 27th 06, 08:48 AM
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. :)

Shawk
July 27th 06, 09:56 AM
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/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=C5E19719-000F-456A-BEAB-5BD7949F8AA2&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?

Walter Mitty
July 27th 06, 10:27 AM
"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.

Walter Mitty
July 27th 06, 10:29 AM
"shegeek72" > writes:

> 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.

Walter Mitty
July 27th 06, 10:31 AM
"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.

EDM
July 27th 06, 10:47 AM
"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.

Walter Mitty
July 27th 06, 10:58 AM
"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.

EDM
July 27th 06, 10:58 AM
"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.

EDM
July 27th 06, 11:24 AM
"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.

J. Clarke
July 27th 06, 11:53 AM
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)

J. Clarke
July 27th 06, 11:56 AM
shegeek72 wrote:

> 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. :)

I got a certificate mismatch. In any case I can't see how the issuance of a
patch for an obsolete version indicated any kind of unusual security risk.
If you think that that is a problem then you should not be using Windows at
all.

>> 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?

If you hate them so much then why are you using their software?
>
> SG
> --
> The difference between intelligence and stupidity is intelligence has
> its limits.

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

J. Clarke
July 27th 06, 11:59 AM
Walter Mitty wrote:

> 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 ...

It's not needed to download. It's needed to run the new control panel. The
reason, most likely, is that ATI just upgraded their compilers and took the
defaults without thinking about what they were doing and hasn't seen fit to
configure defaults that don't link the .NET libraries.

My impression is that the inmates are running the asylum.

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

J. Clarke
July 27th 06, 12:00 PM
EDM wrote:

> "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.

Funny, I seem to have quite a lot of software that supports COM that die not
come from Microsoft.

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

J. Clarke
July 27th 06, 12:03 PM
George Macdonald wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:33:11 -0700, Clay Cahill
> > wrote:
>
>>On 24 Jul 2006 18:27:14 -0700, "GrispernMix" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> I just want to know, does this mean I will have to go with intel to
>>>> keep using nvidia?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>Actually i think it means you will have to stay with amd to keep ati,
>>>you gotta get amd, and vice versa with intel,
>>
>>Nope. NOt so far. AMD has made a point to say that they wouldn't do
>>anything to cause their products problems (like make crossfire not
>>work on Intel chipsets)
>>>
>>>I think its going to be monumental move, if at least intel merges with
>>>nvidia, and then it will be a battle of the titans,
>>
>>Never happen (IMO). Intel has no need for chipset design & foundry
>>(which is what AMD's move was partly motivated by) & NVidia now sees a
>>clear playing field for the super lucrative high end market that they
>>already excel in.
>
> AMD needs chipset design and foundry... from ATI?? Where did you pull
> that
> from? First AMD knows how to do chipsets -- uhh, they've done it -- and
> Ruiz has already stated "there are no plans in the near future to combine
> the manufacturing of AMD and ATI chips into an integrated foundry".

AMD has produced chipsets in the past that were uniformly dogs, which is why
they finally gave up.

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

Walter Mitty
July 27th 06, 12:43 PM
"EDM" > writes:

> "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

Err no. Where did I claim that? Developing this stuff costs serious money.

> was without question the biggest white elephant in MS history.

Active X certainly was.

> 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.

There is added functionality : it eases integration of other apps. What
point do you refuse to recognise? Why do you think ATI used it?

Walter Mitty
July 27th 06, 12:44 PM
"J. Clarke" > writes:

> Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>> 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 ...
>
> It's not needed to download. It's needed to run the new control panel. The
> reason, most likely, is that ATI just upgraded their compilers and
> took the

I know it isnt. It was a rehetorical question to hilite the previous
bull****. And the control panel *isnt* needed.

> defaults without thinking about what they were doing and hasn't seen fit to
> configure defaults that don't link the .NET libraries.
>
> My impression is that the inmates are running the asylum.

Walter Mitty
July 27th 06, 01:15 PM
"J. Clarke" > writes:

> EDM wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> Funny, I seem to have quite a lot of software that supports COM that die not
> come from Microsoft.

And loads of the distributed stuff with COM previous known as DCOM. He's
talking though his hole : pure & simple. There even exist COM-CORBA
gateways to interface MS crap with big distributed systems.

EDM
July 27th 06, 01:50 PM
"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 ...
> >> >> >> "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
>
> Err no. Where did I claim that? Developing this stuff costs serious money.
>
> > was without question the biggest white elephant in MS history.
>
> Active X certainly was.

ActiveX was not the biggest. Not by a longshot. Do we need
to start talking about MS-Blaster/port 135 exploits etc etc etc?
COM singlehandedly and permanently infected most of the
world's computer networks, including those of most major
ISPs around the globe.

> > 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.
>
> There is added functionality : it eases integration of other apps. What
> point do you refuse to recognise? Why do you think ATI used it?

I know ATI's claimed reasoning for using it, and I also know
why they used it. They can't write a decent Windows driver
to save their freaking lives. They haven't been able to for 15+
years. They won't even attempt a *nix driver. And they're
doing everything they can to suck Ballmer's dick as hard as
they can. If that includes trashing their own customers' XP
and 2K installations, tough luck.

Walter Mitty
July 27th 06, 02:31 PM
"EDM" > writes:

> "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 ...
>> >> >> >> "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
>>
>> Err no. Where did I claim that? Developing this stuff costs serious money.
>>
>> > was without question the biggest white elephant in MS history.
>>
>> Active X certainly was.
>
> ActiveX was not the biggest. Not by a longshot. Do we need
> to start talking about MS-Blaster/port 135 exploits etc etc etc?
> COM singlehandedly and permanently infected most of the
> world's computer networks, including those of most major
> ISPs around the globe.

I must admit that this *is* news to me. I have no doubts as to the
weaknesses of (any) services between networks/peers, but to deny that
COM serves a purpose is plain wrong.

>
>> > 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.
>>
>> There is added functionality : it eases integration of other apps. What
>> point do you refuse to recognise? Why do you think ATI used it?
>
> I know ATI's claimed reasoning for using it, and I also know

*claimed* eh? Do tell more.

> why they used it. They can't write a decent Windows driver
> to save their freaking lives. They haven't been able to for 15+

They never used to be able to : who will ever forget Derek Smart and ATI.

> years. They won't even attempt a *nix driver. And they're

They have rapidly improving Linux drivers. Even if I cant get HW
acceleration working. Unix? I dont know about that.

> doing everything they can to suck Ballmer's dick as hard as
> they can. If that includes trashing their own customers' XP
> and 2K installations, tough luck.

I have an ATI card (X800pro) and it works great. What did they do to
make you hate them so? Steal your toys?

J. Clarke
July 27th 06, 10:04 PM
Walter Mitty wrote:

> "EDM" > writes:
>
>> "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
>>> >> >> > ...
>>> >> >> >> "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
>>>
>>> Err no. Where did I claim that? Developing this stuff costs serious
>>> money.
>>>
>>> > was without question the biggest white elephant in MS history.
>>>
>>> Active X certainly was.
>>
>> ActiveX was not the biggest. Not by a longshot. Do we need
>> to start talking about MS-Blaster/port 135 exploits etc etc etc?
>> COM singlehandedly and permanently infected most of the
>> world's computer networks, including those of most major
>> ISPs around the globe.
>
> I must admit that this *is* news to me. I have no doubts as to the
> weaknesses of (any) services between networks/peers, but to deny that
> COM serves a purpose is plain wrong.
>
>>
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> There is added functionality : it eases integration of other apps. What
>>> point do you refuse to recognise? Why do you think ATI used it?
>>
>> I know ATI's claimed reasoning for using it, and I also know
>
> *claimed* eh? Do tell more.
>
>> why they used it. They can't write a decent Windows driver
>> to save their freaking lives. They haven't been able to for 15+
>
> They never used to be able to : who will ever forget Derek Smart and ATI.
>
>> years. They won't even attempt a *nix driver. And they're
>
> They have rapidly improving Linux drivers. Even if I cant get HW
> acceleration working. Unix? I dont know about that.
>
>> doing everything they can to suck Ballmer's dick as hard as
>> they can. If that includes trashing their own customers' XP
>> and 2K installations, tough luck.
>
> I have an ATI card (X800pro) and it works great. What did they do to
> make you hate them so? Steal your toys?

Maybe they fired him for having a bad attitude?

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

J. Clarke
July 27th 06, 11:23 PM
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)

NuQ
July 27th 06, 11:31 PM
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.

EDM
July 29th 06, 12:13 AM
"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.

Benjamin Gawert
July 29th 06, 12:21 AM
* 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

Walter Mitty
July 29th 06, 06:41 AM
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.

Allan C Cybulskie
July 29th 06, 12:34 PM
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.

Allan C Cybulskie
July 29th 06, 12:39 PM
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?

Walter Mitty
July 29th 06, 12:45 PM
"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.

Walter Mitty
July 29th 06, 12:46 PM
"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.

Allan C Cybulskie
July 29th 06, 02:06 PM
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.

Allan C Cybulskie
July 29th 06, 02:08 PM
Walter Mitty wrote:
> "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.

No, you missed mine.

You and Ben are implying that gamers could choose not to use Windows if
we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for
Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply.

Walter Mitty
July 29th 06, 02:34 PM
"Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:

> 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.
>

All SW is buggy to a degree. THe OP made an unsubstantiated link between
a desktop corruption and .NET. Millions of people use .net. It is not
obsolete. ATI had a reason to use it. The programmers are not "lazy" to
use it. And .NET is there to give flexibility and ease application
development. It is part of windows. It is not evil. It is there for a
reason. The OP should live with it and shut up spouting nonsense.

Walter Mitty
July 29th 06, 02:38 PM
"Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:

> Walter Mitty wrote:
>> "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.
>
> No, you missed mine.
>

No, I didnt. Really.

> You and Ben are implying that gamers could choose not to use Windows
> if

No : that anyone, not just gamers.

> we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for
> Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply.
>

No one said it was practical. I said that if he doesnt want to put with
the OS as it is then dont use it. Practical? mabye not. But it is the
OS, it is the OS for games so either use it or not. If "microshaft" are
such bollexes and .net is "such crap" etc etc etc then make a statement
and dont use it. Simple. But yes, if you choose not to use it then you
lose your gaming abiity (well, cedega does run dc games on linux).

me? Personally I think MS OSs are rather bloated and ugly and have
indeed moved to Linux for everything but games. But thats not to say I
dont see the advantages of windows in certain cases.

Benjamin Gawert
July 29th 06, 02:39 PM
* Allan C Cybulskie:

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

Consoles for example. No gfx drivers, no .NET you are so afraid of, no
system instabilities. And even there you can buy consoles that have
nothing from evil(tm) Microsoft (Playstation, Nintendo). For most people
complaining about Windows the little drawbacks of consoles (limited gfx,
limited controllers, more expensive games) are nothing when they just
can avoid .NET...

Probably the way to go...

Benjamin

Benjamin Gawert
July 29th 06, 02:47 PM
* Allan C Cybulskie:

> I believe the original comment -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong
> --was that the person installed .NET and noticed both problems, and
> then simply uninstalled .NET and the problems went away.

correct...

> If this is all that was done, it is perfectly reasonable for them to
> assume that .NET caused the problems.

Yeah, it's as reasonable as to say that the war in Irak caused this...

> and you comment that ".NET doesn't cause this" is an assumption that
> most designers of software quickly learn not to make; what you mean
> to say is ".NET SHOULDN'T cause this problem" [grin].

Nope. I really know that .NET doesn't do alter the desktop layout....

> Note that if it creates or alters a user as you claimed it did that
> could also revert the default desktop configuration to that of that
> user, thus causing the problem. So it isn't even that unlikely that
> it could be the result of .NET installation.

It's much more likely that he hosed something else up (usually people
install .NET only if at least one program needs it, so it can also be
the program he installed). My experience shows that the majority of
people blaming something totally unrelated for their problems rarely
tell the whole story...

Benjamin

Allan C Cybulskie
July 29th 06, 03:25 PM
Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Allan C Cybulskie:
>
> >> Exactly. No-one forces them to use Windows, and there are many
> >> alternatives which also leaves them enough room for complaining ;-)
> >
> > Like?
>
> Consoles for example.

I considered this (mostly to avoid upgrading as opposed to anything
else) and actually own a PS2. The problem is that I can't play CoH on
the PS2 or WoW or DAoC or Oblivion or Baldur's Gate or ... well, you
get the idea. There are certain games that you can only get on the PC.
And since those generally are written for Windows ... well, you can
see why this isn't a practical choice.

> No gfx drivers, no .NET you are so afraid of,

I think you've forgotten who you were replying to ... I've never said
anything about being afraid of .NET, or even that it isn't good ...

Allan C Cybulskie
July 29th 06, 03:34 PM
Walter Mitty wrote:
> "Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
>
> >
> >>
> >> .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.
> >
>
> All SW is buggy to a degree.

True enough. But if someone else's libraries are known to be
especially buggy -- and I'm not saying .NET IS, BTW -- it might make
sense to create your own because if there are bugs in your own code, it
is easy for you to change it. It's not that simple when it's the code
of another company, as they fix it when they get around to it, which
screws over your customers in the meantime.

> THe OP made an unsubstantiated link between
> a desktop corruption and .NET.

Well, from what he saw -- if accurate -- he has good reason to think
that there might be a link there. He could, of course, be wrong but so
could those who say that .NET just couldn't possibly do anything in any
situation to produce that behaviour.

As I said earlier, as a designer I've learned that sometimes side
effects of what you intended to do can be really, really odd [grin].

> Millions of people use .net. It is not
> obsolete. ATI had a reason to use it. The programmers are not "lazy" to
> use it. And .NET is there to give flexibility and ease application
> development. It is part of windows. It is not evil. It is there for a
> reason. The OP should live with it and shut up spouting nonsense.

I never supported any of these claims, so this is all irrelevant to
what I, personally, challenged in your posts. And the OP has decided
to not use .NET since currently he can avoid programs that use it. So
it seems like he's living with it as well as you are, since you seem to
constantly want to defend it as being GOOD. I don't think you have any
more support for that claim than he does that it's bad (and the number
of people using it is not sufficient support; they may simply not have
the resources to avoid using it).

Allan C Cybulskie
July 29th 06, 04:41 PM
Walter Mitty wrote:
> "Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
>
> > Walter Mitty wrote:
> >> "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.
> >
> > No, you missed mine.
> >
>
> No, I didnt. Really.
>
> > You and Ben are implying that gamers could choose not to use Windows
> > if
>
> No : that anyone, not just gamers.

I'm assuming that you realize that "anyone" includes the subgroup
"gamers", right? Thus, that's the claim you guys implicitly make ...

>
> > we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for
> > Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply.
> >
>
> No one said it was practical.

I never said that you SAID it ... I was VERY careful to use term
"imply" [grin].

Your argument is that he should just say "No" to Windows if he doesn't
like it. That implies that he could, practically, do so. Well, he
can't; to do so would mean he'd have to give up playing PC games. The
fact that he'd like to play PC games does not mean that he has to thus
avoid saying anythng bad about Windows or saying that he doesn't like
it. He wouldn't use it if not using it was practical, but it isn't.
So he has to use it, but that does not mean that he does or has to like
it.


> me? Personally I think MS OSs are rather bloated and ugly and have
> indeed moved to Linux for everything but games. But thats not to say I
> dont see the advantages of windows in certain cases.

There's no real evidence that he doesn't either. He just dislikes some
of the bad things about it like .NET -- in his opinion. His opinion
does not need to be yours.

Allan C Cybulskie
July 29th 06, 04:53 PM
Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Allan C Cybulskie:
>
> > I believe the original comment -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong
> > --was that the person installed .NET and noticed both problems, and
> > then simply uninstalled .NET and the problems went away.
>
> correct...
>
> > If this is all that was done, it is perfectly reasonable for them to
> > assume that .NET caused the problems.
>
> Yeah, it's as reasonable as to say that the war in Irak caused this...

As far as I'm concerned, if I install something and something breaks
and when I uninstall it it works, that's a pretty good indication that
it's likely that that was what caused the problem. It's the most
resaonable conclusion. I fail to see how you could assume that any
conclusion is more reasonable other than your insistence that .NET
COULDN'T cause that problem despite my pointing out one credible case
where it COULD.

>
> > and you comment that ".NET doesn't cause this" is an assumption that
> > most designers of software quickly learn not to make; what you mean
> > to say is ".NET SHOULDN'T cause this problem" [grin].
>
> Nope. I really know that .NET doesn't do alter the desktop layout....

No, you know that it doesn't TRY to do that. All you can say is that
if it does, it's a side-effect and not intentional.

>
> > Note that if it creates or alters a user as you claimed it did that
> > could also revert the default desktop configuration to that of that
> > user, thus causing the problem. So it isn't even that unlikely that
> > it could be the result of .NET installation.
>
> It's much more likely that he hosed something else up (usually people
> install .NET only if at least one program needs it, so it can also be
> the program he installed). My experience shows that the majority of
> people blaming something totally unrelated for their problems rarely
> tell the whole story...

Now, assuming that you are stopping short of out and out calling him a
liar ... what if that WAS all he did? Even if he just uninstalled .NET
and the problem went away, that would be a good indication that
something related to the .NET installation was the problem ...

(I suspect this is all related to that "user addition" thing that
others have said that it must do. Perhaps he logs in as a different
user after that point and so ends up with a different desktop?).

dizzy
July 29th 06, 04:59 PM
Walter Mitty wrote:

>"Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
>>
>> No, you missed mine.
>
>No, I didnt. Really.

Yes, you did. Really.

>> You and Ben are implying that gamers could choose not to use Windows
>> if
>
>No : that anyone, not just gamers.

Idiot.

>> we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for
>> Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply.
>>
>
>No one said it was practical. I said that if he doesnt want to put with
>the OS as it is then dont use it. Practical? mabye not. But it is the
>OS, it is the OS for games so either use it or not. If "microshaft" are
>such bollexes and .net is "such crap" etc etc etc then make a statement
>and dont use it. Simple. But yes, if you choose not to use it then you
>lose your gaming abiity (well, cedega does run dc games on linux).

Idiot.

Walter Mitty
July 29th 06, 05:58 PM
"Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:

> Walter Mitty wrote:
>> "Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> .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.
>> >
>>
>> All SW is buggy to a degree.
>
> True enough. But if someone else's libraries are known to be
> especially buggy -- and I'm not saying .NET IS, BTW -- it might make
> sense to create your own because if there are bugs in your own code, it
> is easy for you to change it. It's not that simple when it's the code
> of another company, as they fix it when they get around to it, which
> screws over your customers in the meantime.

Bleeding obvious. But it does work. We can all pontificate about things
in general.

>
>> THe OP made an unsubstantiated link between
>> a desktop corruption and .NET.
>
> Well, from what he saw -- if accurate -- he has good reason to think
> that there might be a link there. He could, of course, be wrong but so
> could those who say that .NET just couldn't possibly do anything in any
> situation to produce that behaviour.

Its not that bit thats the issue its the whole "microshaft" crap, and
spouting on about .net & com being "dead" etc and accusing ATI of being
"lazy". Yawn.

>
> As I said earlier, as a designer I've learned that sometimes side
> effects of what you intended to do can be really, really odd [grin].

As in all things.

>
>> Millions of people use .net. It is not
>> obsolete. ATI had a reason to use it. The programmers are not "lazy" to
>> use it. And .NET is there to give flexibility and ease application
>> development. It is part of windows. It is not evil. It is there for a
>> reason. The OP should live with it and shut up spouting nonsense.
>
> I never supported any of these claims, so this is all irrelevant to
> what I, personally, challenged in your posts. And the OP has decided
> to not use .NET since currently he can avoid programs that use it. So

Sure he has.

> it seems like he's living with it as well as you are, since you seem to
> constantly want to defend it as being GOOD. I don't think you have
> any

Good? I said shared libraries that make application development are a
good thing : and dont mistake it for "unnecessary bloatware".

> more support for that claim than he does that it's bad (and the number
> of people using it is not sufficient support; they may simply not have
> the resources to avoid using it).
>

Or the windows kernel.

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

Walter Mitty
July 29th 06, 06:02 PM
"Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:

> Walter Mitty wrote:
>> "Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
>>
>> > Walter Mitty wrote:
>> >> "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.
>> >
>> > No, you missed mine.
>> >
>>
>> No, I didnt. Really.
>>
>> > You and Ben are implying that gamers could choose not to use Windows
>> > if
>>
>> No : that anyone, not just gamers.
>
> I'm assuming that you realize that "anyone" includes the subgroup
> "gamers", right? Thus, that's the claim you guys implicitly make ...
>
>>
>> > we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for
>> > Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply.
>> >
>>
>> No one said it was practical.
>
> I never said that you SAID it ... I was VERY careful to use term
> "imply" [grin].
>
> Your argument is that he should just say "No" to Windows if he doesn't
> like it. That implies that he could, practically, do so. Well, he

Not it doesnt. This is getting boring. Inserting "Imply" doesnt make it
ok to misquote.

> can't; to do so would mean he'd have to give up playing PC games. The
> fact that he'd like to play PC games does not mean that he has to thus
> avoid saying anythng bad about Windows or saying that he doesn't like
> it. He wouldn't use it if not using it was practical, but it isn't.
> So he has to use it, but that does not mean that he does or has to like
> it.

Why are you defending this fanboyism? "microshaft" etc etc? He has no
idea what .net does, told lies about its penetration and accused ATI of
being lazy idiots. Is this ok by you?

>
>
>> me? Personally I think MS OSs are rather bloated and ugly and have
>> indeed moved to Linux for everything but games. But thats not to say I
>> dont see the advantages of windows in certain cases.
>
> There's no real evidence that he doesn't either. He just dislikes some
> of the bad things about it like .NET -- in his opinion. His opinion
> does not need to be yours.

YOu dont say? But opinions should be based on facts. And he presented
untruths and half truths.

BTW, I know we are all entitled to our own opinion. We really dont need
your winderful insight on that one ....

Walter Mitty
July 29th 06, 06:28 PM
dizzy > writes:

> Walter Mitty wrote:
>
>>"Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
>>>
>>> No, you missed mine.
>>
>>No, I didnt. Really.
>
> Yes, you did. Really.
>
>>> You and Ben are implying that gamers could choose not to use Windows
>>> if
>>
>>No : that anyone, not just gamers.
>
> Idiot.

You've got me there.

>
>>> we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for
>>> Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply.
>>>
>>
>>No one said it was practical. I said that if he doesnt want to put with
>>the OS as it is then dont use it. Practical? mabye not. But it is the
>>OS, it is the OS for games so either use it or not. If "microshaft" are
>>such bollexes and .net is "such crap" etc etc etc then make a statement
>>and dont use it. Simple. But yes, if you choose not to use it then you
>>lose your gaming abiity (well, cedega does run dc games on linux).
>
> Idiot.
>

I stand corrected.

Shawk
July 29th 06, 06:37 PM
Walter Mitty wrote:
> dizzy > writes:
>
>> Walter Mitty wrote:
>>
>>> "Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
>>>> No, you missed mine.
>>> No, I didnt. Really.
>> Yes, you did. Really.
>>
>>>> You and Ben are implying that gamers could choose not to use Windows
>>>> if
>>> No : that anyone, not just gamers.
>> Idiot.
>
> You've got me there.
>
>>>> we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for
>>>> Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply.
>>>>
>>> No one said it was practical. I said that if he doesnt want to put with
>>> the OS as it is then dont use it. Practical? mabye not. But it is the
>>> OS, it is the OS for games so either use it or not. If "microshaft" are
>>> such bollexes and .net is "such crap" etc etc etc then make a statement
>>> and dont use it. Simple. But yes, if you choose not to use it then you
>>> lose your gaming abiity (well, cedega does run dc games on linux).
>> Idiot.
>>
>
> I stand corrected.

It's the incisiveness of some folks arguments that make you realise you
just can't beat them isn't it? ;)

Allan C Cybulskie
July 29th 06, 07:17 PM
Walter Mitty wrote:
> "Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
>
> > Walter Mitty wrote:
> >> "Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> .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.
> >> >
> >>
> >> All SW is buggy to a degree.
> >
> > True enough. But if someone else's libraries are known to be
> > especially buggy -- and I'm not saying .NET IS, BTW -- it might make
> > sense to create your own because if there are bugs in your own code, it
> > is easy for you to change it. It's not that simple when it's the code
> > of another company, as they fix it when they get around to it, which
> > screws over your customers in the meantime.
>
> Bleeding obvious. But it does work. We can all pontificate about things
> in general.

Well, do you program in it? Do you know all the bugs that might be in
it? Do you know how easy is it to use?

The more important consideration in whether or not to use .NET as a
designer, BTW, is how likely you are to be doing something different
from the norm and how easy it is to massage .NET to do what you want it
to do. If it's too hard and you do that a lot, then you write your
own.

>
> >
> >> THe OP made an unsubstantiated link between
> >> a desktop corruption and .NET.
> >
> > Well, from what he saw -- if accurate -- he has good reason to think
> > that there might be a link there. He could, of course, be wrong but so
> > could those who say that .NET just couldn't possibly do anything in any
> > situation to produce that behaviour.
>
> Its not that bit thats the issue its the whole "microshaft" crap, and
> spouting on about .net & com being "dead" etc and accusing ATI of being
> "lazy". Yawn.

Well, both you and Ben have commented repeatedly that his problems
weren't/couldn't be caused by .NET, and that assumption is what I'm
replying to. Your replies sound more like fanboyism -- it CAN'T be
..NET, even though it really looks like it is -- than his comments were
(not that I'm accusing you OF that, BTW). The other comments I have no
concern with and care nothing about.

> > it seems like he's living with it as well as you are, since you seem to
> > constantly want to defend it as being GOOD. I don't think you have
> > any
>
> Good? I said shared libraries that make application development are a
> good thing : and dont mistake it for "unnecessary bloatware".

Ah, but you are really saying that .NET is a good example of a shared
library. Others may not share that opinion. Personally, I have no
opinion. But I do think you don't know enough about it to say one way
or the other it is a good example or not. You may correct me if I'm
wrong.

>
> > more support for that claim than he does that it's bad (and the number
> > of people using it is not sufficient support; they may simply not have
> > the resources to avoid using it).
> >
>
> Or the windows kernel.

You've proven my point. The fact that it's used does not make it good
.... just that it's a lot harder to do anything if you don't. This
doesn't mean, of course, that in certain cases it isn't better to work
around it if possible.

Allan C Cybulskie
July 29th 06, 07:32 PM
Walter Mitty wrote:
> "Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
>
> >> > we wanted to. My point is that since most games are WRITTEN for
> >> > Windows that choice is not as practical as you and he imply.
> >> >
> >>
> >> No one said it was practical.
> >
> > I never said that you SAID it ... I was VERY careful to use term
> > "imply" [grin].
> >
> > Your argument is that he should just say "No" to Windows if he doesn't
> > like it. That implies that he could, practically, do so. Well, he
>
> Not it doesnt. This is getting boring. Inserting "Imply" doesnt make it
> ok to misquote.

Um, inserting "imply" means that I'm not quoting you or saying that you
actually said that, and thus it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to misquote
you. The proper reply if I get it wrong is to say that you didn't mean
that, and then we go on from there. Not to accuse me of misquoting
when I wasn't quoting [grin].

But if you don't imply that it is practical for him or anyone else to
not use windows, then your ranting outrage seems utterly unreasonable
and misplaced. Surely -- as I showed in my work example -- I can
dislike and complain about something that I have no practical way to
avoid. The question is if Windows is annoying enough to give up PC
games entirely ... but anyone could still complain as vigorously if
they decided that their enjoyment of PC games outweighs their annoyance
at Windows. It would be more an indication of how much they like PC
games than an indication of how annoying or not annoying Windows is.

>
> > can't; to do so would mean he'd have to give up playing PC games. The
> > fact that he'd like to play PC games does not mean that he has to thus
> > avoid saying anythng bad about Windows or saying that he doesn't like
> > it. He wouldn't use it if not using it was practical, but it isn't.
> > So he has to use it, but that does not mean that he does or has to like
> > it.
>
> Why are you defending this fanboyism?

But I'm not defending his fanboyism. I'm simply claiming that someone
who dislikes Windows as much as he does is not being inconsistent to
still use it, since they may have no practical choice not to. And your
comment -- and i COULD quote that -- was all about them either not
complaining or stop using it.

"microshaft" etc etc? He has no
> idea what .net does, told lies about its penetration and accused ATI of
> being lazy idiots. Is this ok by you?

This reply is like if in a discussion about the Iraq war someone said
"All Americans are rednecks", and then if I came in and opposed that
comment accusing me of supporting the Iraq war. I'm simply disagreeing
with two specific points you and Ben made that I thought were
excessive, nothing more.

Walter Mitty
July 29th 06, 07:58 PM
"Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:

> Walter Mitty wrote:
>> "Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
>>
>> > Walter Mitty wrote:
>> >> "Allan C Cybulskie" > writes:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> .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.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> All SW is buggy to a degree.
>> >
>> > True enough. But if someone else's libraries are known to be
>> > especially buggy -- and I'm not saying .NET IS, BTW -- it might make
>> > sense to create your own because if there are bugs in your own code, it
>> > is easy for you to change it. It's not that simple when it's the code
>> > of another company, as they fix it when they get around to it, which
>> > screws over your customers in the meantime.
>>
>> Bleeding obvious. But it does work. We can all pontificate about things
>> in general.
>
> Well, do you program in it? Do you know all the bugs that might be in
> it? Do you know how easy is it to use?
>
> The more important consideration in whether or not to use .NET as a
> designer, BTW, is how likely you are to be doing something different
> from the norm and how easy it is to massage .NET to do what you want it
> to do. If it's too hard and you do that a lot, then you write your
> own.

As a designer, thats what everyon does. Its called design. But builders
dont make their own bricks normally.

>
>>
>> >
>> >> THe OP made an unsubstantiated link between
>> >> a desktop corruption and .NET.
>> >
>> > Well, from what he saw -- if accurate -- he has good reason to think
>> > that there might be a link there. He could, of course, be wrong but so
>> > could those who say that .NET just couldn't possibly do anything in any
>> > situation to produce that behaviour.
>>
>> Its not that bit thats the issue its the whole "microshaft" crap, and
>> spouting on about .net & com being "dead" etc and accusing ATI of being
>> "lazy". Yawn.
>
> Well, both you and Ben have commented repeatedly that his problems
> weren't/couldn't be caused by .NET, and that assumption is what I'm

No I didnt : I said he made unsubstantiated claims. But I have .net. So
do millions of others. No desktop issues at all. Thats not to say he
didnt have a problem because of it - but from that to "it sux" etc is a
big leap IMO.

> replying to. Your replies sound more like fanboyism -- it CAN'T be
> .NET, even though it really looks like it is -- than his comments were

I never said it cant be .net

> (not that I'm accusing you OF that, BTW). The other comments I have no
> concern with and care nothing about.
>
>> > it seems like he's living with it as well as you are, since you seem to
>> > constantly want to defend it as being GOOD. I don't think you have
>> > any
>>
>> Good? I said shared libraries that make application development are a
>> good thing : and dont mistake it for "unnecessary bloatware".
>
> Ah, but you are really saying that .NET is a good example of a shared
> library. Others may not share that opinion. Personally, I have no
> opinion. But I do think you don't know enough about it to say one way
> or the other it is a good example or not. You may correct me if I'm
> wrong.

I correct you. Its not perfect but it is there for a reason. And its
used a lot. use google.

>
>>
>> > more support for that claim than he does that it's bad (and the number
>> > of people using it is not sufficient support; they may simply not have
>> > the resources to avoid using it).
>> >
>>
>> Or the windows kernel.
>
> You've proven my point. The fact that it's used does not make it good
> ... just that it's a lot harder to do anything if you don't. This

exactly : I dont get your point. It eases some development.

> doesn't mean, of course, that in certain cases it isn't better to work
> around it if possible.
>

Work around what?

Clay Cahill
July 31st 06, 11:02 PM
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:36:49 -0400, George Macdonald
> wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:33:11 -0700, Clay Cahill
> wrote:
>>
>>Never happen (IMO). Intel has no need for chipset design & foundry
>>(which is what AMD's move was partly motivated by) & NVidia now sees a
>>clear playing field for the super lucrative high end market that they
>>already excel in.
>
>AMD needs chipset design and foundry... from ATI?? Where did you pull that
>from?

Um... from ol' Hector himself (and a working knowledge of the
industry... WHere did you get your condescension on subjects you are
deficient in?). ATI's strong relationships with foudries = AMD getting
in on those relationships (rather than the already in a shambles
relationships they have) especially for non-proc products.

>First AMD knows how to do chipsets -- uhh, they've done it -- and

Yeah, poorly. THat's why they don't now... and maybe why they picked
up someone with a good trackrecord of supporting their own products...

>Ruiz has already stated "there are no plans in the near future to combine
>the manufacturing of AMD and ATI chips into an integrated foundry".

WHen has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.

Wow, three on a stick.

Clay

--
Standard Disclaimer:
My Employer gives my internet access, but I don't speak for them...
So blame me for saying something dumb, not them.

Clay Cahill 2006

Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
Eric Hoffer

George Macdonald
August 3rd 06, 02:15 AM
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:02:07 -0700, Clay Cahill
> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:36:49 -0400, George Macdonald
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:33:11 -0700, Clay Cahill
> wrote:
>>>
>>>Never happen (IMO). Intel has no need for chipset design & foundry
>>>(which is what AMD's move was partly motivated by) & NVidia now sees a
>>>clear playing field for the super lucrative high end market that they
>>>already excel in.
>>
>>AMD needs chipset design and foundry... from ATI?? Where did you pull that
>>from?
>
>Um... from ol' Hector himself (and a working knowledge of the
>industry... WHere did you get your condescension on subjects you are
>deficient in?). ATI's strong relationships with foudries = AMD getting
>in on those relationships (rather than the already in a shambles
>relationships they have) especially for non-proc products.

The only thing "deficient" here is your out of date info... and the notion
that AMD needs "relationships" with (more) foundries. You *could* at least
try to pay attention.

>>First AMD knows how to do chipsets -- uhh, they've done it -- and
>
>Yeah, poorly. THat's why they don't now... and maybe why they picked
>up someone with a good trackrecord of supporting their own products...

Hmmm, somebody else with the voice of inexperience. The part they
incorporated into the CPU die certainly spanked you lot anyway.

>>Ruiz has already stated "there are no plans in the near future to combine
>>the manufacturing of AMD and ATI chips into an integrated foundry".
>
>WHen has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.
>
>Wow, three on a stick.
>
>Clay
>
>--
>Standard Disclaimer:
>My Employer gives my internet access, but I don't speak for them...
>So blame me for saying something dumb, not them.

Oh look - a genuine, authorized Intel troller!

--
Rgds, George Macdonald