Nice program... but I'm having a hard time pinning down any actual pre-allocated Office DLLs here... none seem to be connected with Office at all... I guess I'll just have to take people's words for it then eh? It's like God... can't prove nor disprove the existence of these miscreant DLLs...
But considering there's DLLs with the description of "MS Database Support DLL for Oracle", why is it wrong to pre-load DLLs of other things as well as Office? I'd like to not have it loaded, but hey, that's the price I pay for having Windows XP, right? If I were using Linux, I'd have to pay with having a hard set-up time and hardly any useful (to me) programs... give and take...
Er, okay... So the same amount of RAM is pre-allocated then... What's your point? I haven't lost actual memory... Sure, it's bad that Windows (supposedly) does this pre-allocating, but since the same amount is allocated before and after Office, what exactly is my loss? I have always prefered Office over Star Office, so what is the argument against Office? And plus, again, show me PROOF. I'm getting annoyed by all of these attacks against Windows without any proof whatsoever... Name me some DLLs, give me a program that I can test this out myself (since you disbelieve any MS programs from displaying things accurately), etc.
My RAM usage has been the same before and after my installatin of Office XP... Where are these supposed hooks going then? And why would I not want to load IE? I like it... Sure, I use Mozilla most of the time (like now), but IE is still useful/needed in some situations... (and plus, I kinda like the IE integration in WinXP and its progs... *shrug* )
Show me the proof of this. What DLLs/Services/Etc? I have the exact same amount of RAM used immediately after bootup without Office XP installed as I did with it... What, then, do you propose its loading? Unless, of course, you're theorizing that these so-called pre-loaded DLLs are built into Windows XP, which seems very unlikely...
I just checked on my system, and Word XP is using 11.1 megs... And it loads in a few seconds... and NO, I don't have anything preloading for me (I hate things loading at bootup). I have a Duron 800 w/ 192 megs of RAM, too... Not that big of a system...
RTM is very much less stringent. I even changed my MOTHERBOARD (from KT133 to KT133A, since the former died on me for whatever reason). Maybe it was because it was the same company (ECS), but whatever the case: XP didn't say a thing...
Well, being Canadian, I definitely know the differences between NZ and Oz, but I'm sure many others (read: Americans) don't, or, to put it more bluntly, couldn't care less.
After reading all of these comments, I'm really sad to admit that many of them are complete lies (or at least, false accusations). I've been using WinXP since it's RTM last week (being a beta tester, I got a free copy). I'm also a hacker, hardware enthusiast and general computer nerd... So far, it's actually impressed me (and my wife) and am glad to say that I'm quite happy with it.
There seems to be a lot of complaints about the UI: You can turn off the cuteness! There are tons of compaints about the WPA: I changed the motherboard, CPU, RAM and CD-ROM (to DVD-ROM) and still haven't had to call anyone. If I do later, then, presumably it should only take a few minutes... And, plus, we all know it's been cracked already: if we're such enthusiasts, we can crack WinXP so it doesn't complain anymore. The speed? I just finished Max Payne, and it was running at the same speed it did in Win98SE (on my Duron 800, 192megs PC133 system).
Sure, I love Linux. It's a great hobby operating system when it comes to home use. It may be powerful in the business world, but for my uses? It's far too clunky and lacks a huge number of features and utilities that I need to work with. The answers I get? "It's coming!" or "Make it yourself, it's open source!". Those are both silly, considering I'm using an OS only the paranoid will steer clear from that has everything I need, now.
If you're going from Win2k, then yes, here isn't a huge difference and may not be worth the extra money (yet), but I honestly thing it's worth the upgrade from Win98... (of course, I didn't pay for it, so it would all depend on your financial position... rent would be more important, for example).
*shrug* Basically, I'm just getting sick of hearing the same complaints from so many people who haven't even TRIED it yet... (quoting Beta 2 stats and misinformation, such as WinXP Home not supporting dual monitors, is annoying, to say the least).
The way it was worded made it sound like the parent of my reply didn't even know how Brazillians received the HIV virus in the first place "or whatever they do"... If he doesn't understand how AIDS can be transmitted, UNKNOWINGLY, through normal means, blood transfusions, sex with a partner claiming he/she is safe, etc. then he shouldn't be commenting. Many of the people drugs like these would cure are INNOCENT people who didn't just wake up one day and decide, "Hey, I'm going to have sex with a dozen people to see if I can get AIDS!"... But hey, what am I talking about? AIDS is obviously something people do to themselves right? They all deserve to die, isn't that what your saying? Nice attitude... *sigh*
You're automatically assuming that I WILL take an inch from your every day... where do you get the proof that I would? Or do you just assume that if someone takes an inch, they'll automatically (thanks to human nature) take another one?
Assuming things like that, as the saying goes, makes an ASS out of U and ME.
>Using the value of life to justify anything and
>everything is just as tiresome as listening to >the rants about how all companies are evil and
>how research can be compensated with some other
>nebulous means.
Uh, did I say that all companies are evil? Not whatsoever. I stated a fact that many pharmaceutical companies care more about the bottom line then people's health. I believe that it should be that way - people's lives are more important then how many more million a company can make then another company. Anyways, there's no point in debating - you couldn't care about your neighbour's life, unless you had some monetary benefit coming from it, right? If you saw your brother in law's son (2 years old) dying of an almost incurable disease, but a company was charching more then your brother in law could afford, wouldn't you care for the person or would you say it's the company's right?
>since the rest of the world would boo us off the
>planet.
With good cause... Money Vs. Life. That eternal question that's so easy for us as individuals to answer, but impossible for a society to answer. You say money (and would prefer a new born child to die a horrible death), I say life (and would not want to see a rich white man get millions upon millions atop his already rich fortunes).
I guess the old question of.. If your family was starving, and you had absolutely no money, would it be wrong to steal a loaf of bread to keep them alive? Or, to be more appropriate in this case, would it be wrong to steal a loaf of regenerating-bread that can used to keep someone alive until a natural death?
But we know YOUR answer: you'd prefer to see people die on the streets of starvation...
>While they start off doing this with the cover of
>"saving lives" how long before it becomes anything
>they want?
This is some of the most annoying rhetorics I've ever heard on Slashdot... If we let kids watch horror movies, how long until they start watching porn and God(tm) knows what else? If we let marijuana go legal (for health reasons, of course), how long before we legalize cocaine? If we let guns in the hands of kids (for hunting, of course), how long before my 5 year old baby starts to shoot one? You can use that sentence for ANY bloody argument, and it's starting to tick me off - how many times do Slashdotters have to hear/say that? How about, if we start letting pharmaceutical companies charge whatever they want, in spite of the deaths of thousands, when will they stop and actually care about humans? You'd think after the UN caught a half dozen of these Companies for fraud (as I mentioned in another reply, sending expired medicines, etc.) that people would start to look at them more critically... I guess not... Research, no matter by who, is automatically a Good Thing (tm) to some people I guess... even if it means to the deaths of others.
Humans are a strange bunch sometimes... Tens of thousands of people are dying in a poor country that couldn't afford to pay these companies for their research and pills, yet we attack them for ripping off these multi-billion dollar companies, many of whom have been caught doing undasterdly things themselves (sending expired medicines to Africa and other poor countries and using that "aid" and "goodwill" as advertising, overcharging countries who can't afford medicine, etc.).
I guess, in a way, you can boil it down to, What's more important: Making money or saving lives/helping your fellow human? If this were a perfect world (which it obviously is not), universities or other not-for-profit organizations would gladly take up the research and not expect to earn a profit (at least, earn enough to cover R&D, which most pharmaceutical companies make 10-fold).
Re:Why people use Netscape instead of IE or Mozill
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 1, Troll
The only people I know who still use Netscape (any version), other then careful website designers, are government agencies... Those poor souls are still using Netscape 4 in some places - although, amazingly, some are quietly switching to IE whenever they get a chance (and whenever a kindly visitor helps them in the switch). A lot of these saps, though, will be switching to Netscape 6.1... Why? Who knows... just "because that's what we've been using"... pfft.
Note: The diskette drive may already be "mounted" as/dev/floppy or/mnt/floppy in your
Linux distribution. If so, use that mount location instead of/dev/fd0.)
which means they already thought of the mounting issue. (they should, technically, point you to the section of the FAQ that talks about mounting)
It's nice to finally know the name of the author! For some reason, the saved message I have (from Usenet) never contained it... Where would I be able to get the other DotB shorts? I have the first two (like I mentioned), but it would be neat to get Usenet postings of the other ones (just to have more silly conversational pieces on my computer, I suppose).
Although not "essential", I use Messenger to video-conference with friends, and especially my family (I bought both my parents and sister a Quick Cam before they moved 2000 miles away so we could still see each other!). Although yes, the phone still works, it's unfair that I have to go a week without being able to see my family, as well as pay long distance charges...
Slashdot Mirror
Nice program... but I'm having a hard time pinning down any actual pre-allocated Office DLLs here... none seem to be connected with Office at all... I guess I'll just have to take people's words for it then eh? It's like God... can't prove nor disprove the existence of these miscreant DLLs...
But considering there's DLLs with the description of "MS Database Support DLL for Oracle", why is it wrong to pre-load DLLs of other things as well as Office? I'd like to not have it loaded, but hey, that's the price I pay for having Windows XP, right? If I were using Linux, I'd have to pay with having a hard set-up time and hardly any useful (to me) programs... give and take...
Er, okay... So the same amount of RAM is pre-allocated then... What's your point? I haven't lost actual memory... Sure, it's bad that Windows (supposedly) does this pre-allocating, but since the same amount is allocated before and after Office, what exactly is my loss? I have always prefered Office over Star Office, so what is the argument against Office? And plus, again, show me PROOF. I'm getting annoyed by all of these attacks against Windows without any proof whatsoever... Name me some DLLs, give me a program that I can test this out myself (since you disbelieve any MS programs from displaying things accurately), etc.
My RAM usage has been the same before and after my installatin of Office XP ... Where are these supposed hooks going then? And why would I not want to load IE? I like it... Sure, I use Mozilla most of the time (like now), but IE is still useful/needed in some situations... (and plus, I kinda like the IE integration in WinXP and its progs... *shrug* )
Show me the proof of this. What DLLs/Services/Etc? I have the exact same amount of RAM used immediately after bootup without Office XP installed as I did with it... What, then, do you propose its loading? Unless, of course, you're theorizing that these so-called pre-loaded DLLs are built into Windows XP, which seems very unlikely...
I just checked on my system, and Word XP is using 11.1 megs... And it loads in a few seconds... and NO, I don't have anything preloading for me (I hate things loading at bootup). I have a Duron 800 w/ 192 megs of RAM, too... Not that big of a system...
Nice rip from George Carlin....
RTM is very much less stringent. I even changed my MOTHERBOARD (from KT133 to KT133A, since the former died on me for whatever reason). Maybe it was because it was the same company (ECS), but whatever the case: XP didn't say a thing...
Well, being Canadian, I definitely know the differences between NZ and Oz, but I'm sure many others (read: Americans) don't, or, to put it more bluntly, couldn't care less.
After reading all of these comments, I'm really sad to admit that many of them are complete lies (or at least, false accusations). I've been using WinXP since it's RTM last week (being a beta tester, I got a free copy). I'm also a hacker, hardware enthusiast and general computer nerd... So far, it's actually impressed me (and my wife) and am glad to say that I'm quite happy with it.
There seems to be a lot of complaints about the UI: You can turn off the cuteness! There are tons of compaints about the WPA: I changed the motherboard, CPU, RAM and CD-ROM (to DVD-ROM) and still haven't had to call anyone. If I do later, then, presumably it should only take a few minutes... And, plus, we all know it's been cracked already: if we're such enthusiasts, we can crack WinXP so it doesn't complain anymore. The speed? I just finished Max Payne, and it was running at the same speed it did in Win98SE (on my Duron 800, 192megs PC133 system).
Sure, I love Linux. It's a great hobby operating system when it comes to home use. It may be powerful in the business world, but for my uses? It's far too clunky and lacks a huge number of features and utilities that I need to work with. The answers I get? "It's coming!" or "Make it yourself, it's open source!". Those are both silly, considering I'm using an OS only the paranoid will steer clear from that has everything I need, now.
If you're going from Win2k, then yes, here isn't a huge difference and may not be worth the extra money (yet), but I honestly thing it's worth the upgrade from Win98... (of course, I didn't pay for it, so it would all depend on your financial position... rent would be more important, for example).
*shrug* Basically, I'm just getting sick of hearing the same complaints from so many people who haven't even TRIED it yet... (quoting Beta 2 stats and misinformation, such as WinXP Home not supporting dual monitors, is annoying, to say the least).
Canada is unmetered as well... but of course, everyone just thinks of us as "Americans" or "USA" anyway, right? *sigh*
A Brazillian Slashdot user posted a message somewhere concerning 8 children who had AIDS... How are they not innocent?
The way it was worded made it sound like the parent of my reply didn't even know how Brazillians received the HIV virus in the first place "or whatever they do" ... If he doesn't understand how AIDS can be transmitted, UNKNOWINGLY, through normal means, blood transfusions, sex with a partner claiming he/she is safe, etc. then he shouldn't be commenting. Many of the people drugs like these would cure are INNOCENT people who didn't just wake up one day and decide, "Hey, I'm going to have sex with a dozen people to see if I can get AIDS!" ... But hey, what am I talking about? AIDS is obviously something people do to themselves right? They all deserve to die, isn't that what your saying? Nice attitude... *sigh*
You're automatically assuming that I WILL take an inch from your every day... where do you get the proof that I would? Or do you just assume that if someone takes an inch, they'll automatically (thanks to human nature) take another one?
Assuming things like that, as the saying goes, makes an ASS out of U and ME.
>Using the value of life to justify anything and
>everything is just as tiresome as listening to >the rants about how all companies are evil and
>how research can be compensated with some other
>nebulous means.
Uh, did I say that all companies are evil? Not whatsoever. I stated a fact that many pharmaceutical companies care more about the bottom line then people's health. I believe that it should be that way - people's lives are more important then how many more million a company can make then another company. Anyways, there's no point in debating - you couldn't care about your neighbour's life, unless you had some monetary benefit coming from it, right? If you saw your brother in law's son (2 years old) dying of an almost incurable disease, but a company was charching more then your brother in law could afford, wouldn't you care for the person or would you say it's the company's right?
Oh, and by the way...
>or whatever it is that Brazillians do to get AIDS
Try learning a fucking thing or two before condemning people to die.
>since the rest of the world would boo us off the
>planet.
With good cause... Money Vs. Life. That eternal question that's so easy for us as individuals to answer, but impossible for a society to answer. You say money (and would prefer a new born child to die a horrible death), I say life (and would not want to see a rich white man get millions upon millions atop his already rich fortunes).
>This world is going to shit.
I agree, but for different reasons.
I guess the old question of.. If your family was starving, and you had absolutely no money, would it be wrong to steal a loaf of bread to keep them alive? Or, to be more appropriate in this case, would it be wrong to steal a loaf of regenerating-bread that can used to keep someone alive until a natural death?
But we know YOUR answer: you'd prefer to see people die on the streets of starvation...
>While they start off doing this with the cover of
>"saving lives" how long before it becomes anything
>they want?
This is some of the most annoying rhetorics I've ever heard on Slashdot... If we let kids watch horror movies, how long until they start watching porn and God(tm) knows what else? If we let marijuana go legal (for health reasons, of course), how long before we legalize cocaine? If we let guns in the hands of kids (for hunting, of course), how long before my 5 year old baby starts to shoot one? You can use that sentence for ANY bloody argument, and it's starting to tick me off - how many times do Slashdotters have to hear/say that? How about, if we start letting pharmaceutical companies charge whatever they want, in spite of the deaths of thousands, when will they stop and actually care about humans? You'd think after the UN caught a half dozen of these Companies for fraud (as I mentioned in another reply, sending expired medicines, etc.) that people would start to look at them more critically... I guess not... Research, no matter by who, is automatically a Good Thing (tm) to some people I guess... even if it means to the deaths of others.
Humans are a strange bunch sometimes... Tens of thousands of people are dying in a poor country that couldn't afford to pay these companies for their research and pills, yet we attack them for ripping off these multi-billion dollar companies, many of whom have been caught doing undasterdly things themselves (sending expired medicines to Africa and other poor countries and using that "aid" and "goodwill" as advertising, overcharging countries who can't afford medicine, etc.).
I guess, in a way, you can boil it down to, What's more important: Making money or saving lives/helping your fellow human? If this were a perfect world (which it obviously is not), universities or other not-for-profit organizations would gladly take up the research and not expect to earn a profit (at least, earn enough to cover R&D, which most pharmaceutical companies make 10-fold).
Notice the big foot icon?
"It's funny. Laugh."
'Haw Haw' and all that.
The only people I know who still use Netscape (any version), other then careful website designers, are government agencies... Those poor souls are still using Netscape 4 in some places - although, amazingly, some are quietly switching to IE whenever they get a chance (and whenever a kindly visitor helps them in the switch). A lot of these saps, though, will be switching to Netscape 6.1 ... Why? Who knows... just "because that's what we've been using" ... pfft.
If you read a little bit further, it says:
/dev/floppy or /mnt/floppy in your
/dev/fd0.)
Note: The diskette drive may already be "mounted" as
Linux distribution. If so, use that mount location instead of
which means they already thought of the mounting issue. (they should, technically, point you to the section of the FAQ that talks about mounting)
It's nice to finally know the name of the author! For some reason, the saved message I have (from Usenet) never contained it... Where would I be able to get the other DotB shorts? I have the first two (like I mentioned), but it would be neat to get Usenet postings of the other ones (just to have more silly conversational pieces on my computer, I suppose).
And you -trust- that magazine? Try reading it fully sometime, and you'll see how much ... crap ... is really in it... *shrug*
Although not "essential", I use Messenger to video-conference with friends, and especially my family (I bought both my parents and sister a Quick Cam before they moved 2000 miles away so we could still see each other!). Although yes, the phone still works, it's unfair that I have to go a week without being able to see my family, as well as pay long distance charges...