In which case, Microsoft have been able to develop only so far into supporting old applications.
Whereas Microsoft monopolizes the market and gets most manufacturers who produce peripherals to send them their drivers in order to enlist their support and to add them to the Harware listing.
In which case any company that decides not to, will surely lose some business because their stuff isn't driver signed.
Sorry, what? If that's your argument as to why Microsoft is responsible for your scanner not working, could you explain that? I can't make any sense of it.
Makes good sense. Pretty odd that your state requires you to renew (and judging from your last sentence it sounds as if the fed. directory has a 5-year duration?) It'd make more sense that your registration roll over until such time as you decide to cancel your registry. I guess one reason for this is to make sure that if you move and change your phone number, the person who inherited your old number isn't stuch with the choice you made. I think in NY state you register for life, so I didn't think that there could be such nuance. Thanks for the reply, Sys.
Umm. Ok fine I'm upset. I still think I have a valid reason. In which case, I think that's is still an oversight by the manufacturer and in this case I would include the OS developper, to make obsolete a product that is 5 years in existence when it still works perfectly.
If this is your gripe in a nutshell, I don't see a reason to blame the OS maker for your scanner becoming osolete. It's the responsibility of the manufacturer, and responsible manufacturers (the ones who want you to do business with them again) have done that, to make sure that their legacy products work with new technologies. It's too bad that your manufacturer (and mine) didn't bother doing this. How is it the fault of Microsoft?
Nonsense, the post said "we don't want to help phone companies." Most players in the cell field are phone companies: at&t, sprint, xingular, verizon. By advocating cellular, one generally advicates putting more money in the pockets of those companies.
Personally, I don't care - I am just happy getting the service. But if one "hates phone companies" (whatever the hell that means) then one should be a little more elaborate in one's plans to deprive them of profit.
Sorry quietdemon, but what you're upset over nothing.
Very much like yourself, I've purchased a shitty scanner with win9x drivers that does not work under 2k or XP. My dad has had the identical experience. So, whose fault is it (or what are the choices?)
1. My personal opinion is that it's the responsibility of the hardware manufacturer to make sure their old products still work with new OSs. I am fairly certain that you won't be buying anything from "Plustek" again, given their lack of interest in supporting their product into the future. On the other hand, you'd probably not have this problem if you bought from HP or Canon because those firms have a reputation to maintain.
2. The opinion that I DO NOT subscribe to is that it's Microsoft's responsibility to be responsible for these kind of things. It's 2003 now, so Win98 is approximately 5 years old. That's quite a long time in computer years. Hardware improvements mean that Win98 already probably doesn't work well on very new machines (or at least, fails to take advantage of a lot of things) meaning that Microsoft doesn't worry about making sure the OS works on new stuff moving forward. The reasonable conclusion is that Win98 is mainly used by people with old hardware, who've already gotten their system to some stable state over the last 5 years. In that sense, these people aren't going to be left high and dry. Cutting off support doesn't mean that you have to not use the OS anymore. It means you won't be getting any patches or improvements - but it should work as well as it does now on your current stuff.
Which obviously egged me on to another question: Who are they to dictate that we're rich enough to throw away good working equipment, in order to bend to the will of the OS?
No one is dictating anything. If you want to keep using Win98, why not keep using it? You can't reasonably expect Microsoft to divert resources to supporting the technology, though. Similarly, you can't forse a shitty manufacturer to support their cheapo scanner into the future.
Since land lines will become less of an annoyance to people, they'll start using them again (I switched to cellular a long time ago). I hate all phone companies. Monopolies are evil.
You mean "cellular" service isn't offered by "phone companies" ?
Pal, I don't know what you're reading, but in my browser/. is either.org or.com. Those are American top level domains, if I am not mistaken. If it was.org.uk or whatever, then it'd be reasonable to assume that "national" refers to "british" etc.
I had a good experience with my state's Do Not Call list, so I decided to try the FTC site, donotcall.gov.
For what purpose? Your state's list already protects you in the sense that anyone who wants to telemarket to people in your state needs to obtain their do not call list first. There should be no benefit to you of being registered twice.
0. Anecdotal Evidence: my phone number has been on New York State's 'Do Not Call' for as long as that's been around (feels like years) and no one calls. I take it nearly for granted, and it surprises the hell out of me when I am at my dad's or my gf's house and two out of the three phone calls are telemarketing.
1. It takes a lot more to launch a telemarketing operation than it does to launch a spam compaign. A telemarketer needs to hire and train people, set up an office, etc. Once an operation has a size like that, they have to worry about legal concerns and implications of violating laws (very costly, in this case)
3. When a telemarketer tries to sell you something, they usually... umm... tell you what it is that they are trying to sell. Most of the calls I happened to pick up while at other people's homes are either from long distance phone companies, newspapers/magazines, etc. They tell you upfront who they are, and I don't think getting their manager's phone number is a big deal.
4. Why the hell would you put your cell number on the list if no one is calling you on it. Your cell number is not in the phone book and not on anyone's list, so why bother? It's like saying 'I don't see the need for anyone to use firewall software because my computer is not connected to the net!' Obviously! The 'Do Not Call' lists are designed to help those who get a ton of these phonecalls. If you have a number that doesn't, why bother?
5. Companies in the U.S. generally are not intrested in outright breaking the law. If they can lobby to change laws, or employ legal loopholes to circumvent them, of course they will. But to operate outside of legality is not safe or comfortable, so it seems natural that businesses will try to comply with this regulation rather than face the consequences.
All the griping aside, isn't this preferable? When they went after sharing services, the counter-argument was that these services had legitimate use and should not be shut down on account of providing means for illegal activity. I agree with that. Here, they are going after specific individuals they know (and will try to prove in court) are sharing THEIR (the music industry's) copyrighted materials.
No one has argued in this thread that those who share copyrighted files are not guilty of that infringement. What's the issue then?
Granted, I understand that "we don't like the RIAA" and that "information wants to be free" and all such - but in the end of the day, we are arguing that a party with a significant investment in its copyrighted property is "bad" for suing to protect their rights, and I've yet to see a coherent, non-emotional argument that'd convince me this so so.
It's too bad they didn't show her trying to find binary packages for the distro - failing to, hunting down all the dependancies,./configure; make, take a nap, make install.
That's a genius copy protection scheme! It would take some kind of uber-haxor to bypass it by... umm... printing out their returns and slapping a 37 cent stamp on the envelope.
I strongly suggest you check out Microsoft Money Deluxe 2003. It can certainly print out invoices, and let you design the forms. I haven't used other features you are interested in, so I don't know about them.
I suggest you grab a copy of MS Money from Kazaa or something (Deluxe is what you need, that's the part of it that's got business features) to make sure it has what you need, then buy it if it's right for you.
Umm. May be you should read the article. He said Unix is dead, long live RedHat.
People want to engage in a "Linux IS Unix" circle jerk on here, and that's fine, but the idea he voices is a correct one, even as you pick at the nomenclature.
I find your attitude curious. Dell makes decent machines, and they're essentially the first choice most people look at when buying a system, inlcuding people who do have the capacity to build their own systems from PriceWatch parts.
Companies that make closed source Unix OS's lose money, then they fire people.... More closed source companies lose money, more fire people.... I bet the more such people get fired, the more of them will have nothing better to do than to contribute to open source software.
Slashdot Mirror
In which case, Microsoft have been able to develop only so far into supporting old applications.
Whereas Microsoft monopolizes the market and gets most manufacturers who produce peripherals to send them their drivers in order to enlist their support and to add them to the Harware listing.
In which case any company that decides not to, will surely lose some business because their stuff isn't driver signed.
Sorry, what? If that's your argument as to why Microsoft is responsible for your scanner not working, could you explain that? I can't make any sense of it.
Who cares? We can write our own open sores drivers.
I always figured that driver unavailibility is par for the course, when it comes to the Linux experience.
Of course I am only kidding about this being a good thing.
Makes good sense. Pretty odd that your state requires you to renew (and judging from your last sentence it sounds as if the fed. directory has a 5-year duration?) It'd make more sense that your registration roll over until such time as you decide to cancel your registry. I guess one reason for this is to make sure that if you move and change your phone number, the person who inherited your old number isn't stuch with the choice you made. I think in NY state you register for life, so I didn't think that there could be such nuance. Thanks for the reply, Sys.
Umm. Ok fine I'm upset. I still think I have a valid reason. In which case, I think that's is still an oversight by the manufacturer and in this case I would include the OS developper, to make obsolete a product that is 5 years in existence when it still works perfectly.
If this is your gripe in a nutshell, I don't see a reason to blame the OS maker for your scanner becoming osolete. It's the responsibility of the manufacturer, and responsible manufacturers (the ones who want you to do business with them again) have done that, to make sure that their legacy products work with new technologies. It's too bad that your manufacturer (and mine) didn't bother doing this. How is it the fault of Microsoft?
Nonsense, the post said "we don't want to help phone companies." Most players in the cell field are phone companies: at&t, sprint, xingular, verizon. By advocating cellular, one generally advicates putting more money in the pockets of those companies.
Personally, I don't care - I am just happy getting the service. But if one "hates phone companies" (whatever the hell that means) then one should be a little more elaborate in one's plans to deprive them of profit.
.. oh
Sorry quietdemon, but what you're upset over nothing.
Very much like yourself, I've purchased a shitty scanner with win9x drivers that does not work under 2k or XP. My dad has had the identical experience. So, whose fault is it (or what are the choices?)
1. My personal opinion is that it's the responsibility of the hardware manufacturer to make sure their old products still work with new OSs. I am fairly certain that you won't be buying anything from "Plustek" again, given their lack of interest in supporting their product into the future. On the other hand, you'd probably not have this problem if you bought from HP or Canon because those firms have a reputation to maintain.
2. The opinion that I DO NOT subscribe to is that it's Microsoft's responsibility to be responsible for these kind of things. It's 2003 now, so Win98 is approximately 5 years old. That's quite a long time in computer years. Hardware improvements mean that Win98 already probably doesn't work well on very new machines (or at least, fails to take advantage of a lot of things) meaning that Microsoft doesn't worry about making sure the OS works on new stuff moving forward. The reasonable conclusion is that Win98 is mainly used by people with old hardware, who've already gotten their system to some stable state over the last 5 years. In that sense, these people aren't going to be left high and dry. Cutting off support doesn't mean that you have to not use the OS anymore. It means you won't be getting any patches or improvements - but it should work as well as it does now on your current stuff.
Which obviously egged me on to another question: Who are they to dictate that we're rich enough to throw away good working equipment, in order to bend to the will of the OS?
No one is dictating anything. If you want to keep using Win98, why not keep using it? You can't reasonably expect Microsoft to divert resources to supporting the technology, though. Similarly, you can't forse a shitty manufacturer to support their cheapo scanner into the future.
Since land lines will become less of an annoyance to people, they'll start using them again (I switched to cellular a long time ago). I hate all phone companies. Monopolies are evil.
You mean "cellular" service isn't offered by "phone companies" ?
Pal, I don't know what you're reading, but in my browser /. is either .org or .com. Those are American top level domains, if I am not mistaken. If it was .org.uk or whatever, then it'd be reasonable to assume that "national" refers to "british" etc.
I had a good experience with my state's Do Not Call list, so I decided to try the FTC site, donotcall.gov.
For what purpose? Your state's list already protects you in the sense that anyone who wants to telemarket to people in your state needs to obtain their do not call list first. There should be no benefit to you of being registered twice.
Your logic is flawed to the extreme.
0. Anecdotal Evidence: my phone number has been on New York State's 'Do Not Call' for as long as that's been around (feels like years) and no one calls. I take it nearly for granted, and it surprises the hell out of me when I am at my dad's or my gf's house and two out of the three phone calls are telemarketing.
1. It takes a lot more to launch a telemarketing operation than it does to launch a spam compaign. A telemarketer needs to hire and train people, set up an office, etc. Once an operation has a size like that, they have to worry about legal concerns and implications of violating laws (very costly, in this case)
3. When a telemarketer tries to sell you something, they usually... umm... tell you what it is that they are trying to sell. Most of the calls I happened to pick up while at other people's homes are either from long distance phone companies, newspapers/magazines, etc. They tell you upfront who they are, and I don't think getting their manager's phone number is a big deal.
4. Why the hell would you put your cell number on the list if no one is calling you on it. Your cell number is not in the phone book and not on anyone's list, so why bother? It's like saying 'I don't see the need for anyone to use firewall software because my computer is not connected to the net!' Obviously! The 'Do Not Call' lists are designed to help those who get a ton of these phonecalls. If you have a number that doesn't, why bother?
5. Companies in the U.S. generally are not intrested in outright breaking the law. If they can lobby to change laws, or employ legal loopholes to circumvent them, of course they will. But to operate outside of legality is not safe or comfortable, so it seems natural that businesses will try to comply with this regulation rather than face the consequences.
All the griping aside, isn't this preferable? When they went after sharing services, the counter-argument was that these services had legitimate use and should not be shut down on account of providing means for illegal activity. I agree with that. Here, they are going after specific individuals they know (and will try to prove in court) are sharing THEIR (the music industry's) copyrighted materials.
No one has argued in this thread that those who share copyrighted files are not guilty of that infringement. What's the issue then?
Granted, I understand that "we don't like the RIAA" and that "information wants to be free" and all such - but in the end of the day, we are arguing that a party with a significant investment in its copyrighted property is "bad" for suing to protect their rights, and I've yet to see a coherent, non-emotional argument that'd convince me this so so.
Quick, name a business PC user who *doesn't* use Outlook (/Express)
Glad to see they're keeping with the spirit...
... my University, which has X.Y/16 (no, I'm not dumb enough to specify what X and Y are)
They are variables to put in place of real numbers. There, I said it.
It's too bad they didn't show her trying to find binary packages for the distro - failing to, hunting down all the dependancies, ./configure; make, take a nap, make install.
i'd really relate to that
Some more obscure browsers, like MSIE, do this also.
you gotta admit it "sounds" informative!
Sun is on my shit list now
Man, they are really screwed NOW!
That's a genius copy protection scheme! It would take some kind of uber-haxor to bypass it by... umm... printing out their returns and slapping a 37 cent stamp on the envelope.
Michael
I strongly suggest you check out Microsoft Money Deluxe 2003. It can certainly print out invoices, and let you design the forms. I haven't used other features you are interested in, so I don't know about them.
I suggest you grab a copy of MS Money from Kazaa or something (Deluxe is what you need, that's the part of it that's got business features) to make sure it has what you need, then buy it if it's right for you.
Umm. May be you should read the article. He said Unix is dead, long live RedHat.
People want to engage in a "Linux IS Unix" circle jerk on here, and that's fine, but the idea he voices is a correct one, even as you pick at the nomenclature.
Our expensive Dell servers run RedHat, too.
I find your attitude curious. Dell makes decent machines, and they're essentially the first choice most people look at when buying a system, inlcuding people who do have the capacity to build their own systems from PriceWatch parts.
Have your say!
I say this won't save you, Saddam.
Companies that make closed source Unix OS's lose money, then they fire people.... More closed source companies lose money, more fire people. ... I bet the more such people get fired, the more of them will have nothing better to do than to contribute to open source software.
It's kinda cool if you think about it.