Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer - GEOS

This is a discussion on Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer - GEOS ; Are you saying that old PCs ae not power pigs? ROTFL! "hyubso" wrote in message news:3F3B4DF6.5040307@prodigy.net... > pat.. it is very simple to see that modern pcs use more energy than > older pcs.. most modern pcs have **two** large ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

  1. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    Are you saying that old PCs ae not power pigs? ROTFL!


    "hyubso" wrote in message
    news:3F3B4DF6.5040307@prodigy.net...
    > pat.. it is very simple to see that modern pcs use more energy than
    > older pcs.. most modern pcs have **two** large fans to exhaust the
    > greater amount of heat generated inside the pc case.. .. one forth e
    > case and one inside the power supply.. this is so all that heat
    > thrown off buy all componenets not inside the power supply case does
    > not flow out *thru* the power supply, causing it to overheat/wear out
    > the power supply fan and thus blow a power supply component and who
    > knows what else.
    >
    >
    > AFAIK, the original ibm pc had a 63 watt power supply, and the XT with
    > the hard drive had a power supply not much over 100 watts.. much
    > lower than what today's pcs require...
    >
    >
    > C'mon pat, when you are getting ready for a hot date, and you want to
    > dry your hair faster, would you choose the 63 watt hair dryer, or the
    > 300 watt hair dryer?
    >
    > does a 60 watt lightbulb use more electricity than a 300 watt lightbulb?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Pat wrote:
    > > Come on, Hans/ The power supplies on modern PC is so much more advanced

    in
    > > the way they operate. Also, the older motherboards had greater use of
    > > components and compared to now, where dozens of logic chips are on a

    couple
    > > of ICs. Also, memory is far les power hungry compared to those old pigs.
    > >
    > >
    > > "Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
    > > news:NewsReader.1.0.2003813316102522960@news1.teli a.com...
    > >
    > >>Then they would approximately consume the same amount of power. In new

    PCs
    > >>the CPU voltage is lower than in older ones, but OTOH the CPUs is

    clocked
    > >>with a much higher frequency, which will generate more heat, and a

    higher
    > >>surface temperature will risen the power consumption. Simple physics. I

    > >
    > > have
    > >
    > >>also measured the power consumption in an old P75 and compared that to a
    > >>P41.8GHz Celeron. The power consumption is about the same.
    > >>
    > >>Well, most of the computers today is standardized. If you take an

    ordinary
    > >>desktop computer, the power supply have been 200 watts ones for ages,

    > >
    > > where
    > >
    > >>approximately 60 watts is used under normal conditions.
    > >>
    > >>Hans
    > >>
    > >>Pat wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Hello Hans,
    > >>>
    > >>>A generalizations, you make. Unlike Apple Macs, where you have a single
    > >>>manufacturer, the PC is a ubiquitous and amorphous beast. Many

    different
    > >>>implementations exist. So why not just compare apples with apples and
    > >>
    > >>say
    > >>
    > >>>the old and new PCs are on and off at the same time.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>"Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
    > >>>news:NewsReader.1.0.200381221923508752@news1.telia .com...
    > >>>
    > >>>>Pat wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>"Ray Kopczynski" wrote in message
    > >>>>>news:20030810001647.23687.00001814@mb-m27.aol.com...
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>><< The application meets the needs of users, who increasingly
    > >>>>>

    > > demand
    > >
    > >>>>it.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>>BINGO! The magic bullet! If/when that that lightning bolt
    > >>>>>

    > > strikes
    > >
    > >>>>me
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>("meets
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>>the needs of users..."), then I too will buy into that process.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>Do you use Windows apps, that a native mode GEOS app can not
    > >>>>

    > > accomplish
    > >
    > >>>>the
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>same goal, or where the GEOS app does not exist?
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>><< I would venture to say that most GEOS users already have high
    > >>>>>
    > >>end
    > >>
    > >>>>PCs
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>that run Windows XP. >>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>>I disagree, but we'll never know...
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>Old computers are more wasteful of electricity use than new ones.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>It all depends on how you use them. This is so often stated that it
    > >>>
    > >>have
    > >>
    > >>>>become a truth, but it all comes down to how they are used. An old
    > >>>
    > >>>computer
    > >>>
    > >>>>that is powered on when used and shutdown when not in use is less
    > >>>

    > > power
    > >
    > >>>consuming
    > >>>
    > >>>>than a new computer that is always on with all the power management
    > >>>
    > >>>features
    > >>>
    > >>>>on. In fact, a poorly configured power management is at high risk more
    > >>>
    > >>>power
    > >>>
    > >>>>consuming than an old computer that is always on. And newer computer
    > >>>
    > >>uses
    > >>
    > >>>>components that produces more heat that needs to be cooled compared
    > >>>
    > >>to old
    > >>
    > >>>>ones. Heat that needs t be cooled by electrical fans. And the hotter
    > >>>
    > >>the
    > >>
    > >>>>computer gets inside the more the power consumption rises. One might
    > >>>
    > >>save
    > >>
    > >>>>some watts in better components, but I the difference in small
    > >>>

    > > compared
    > >
    > >>to
    > >>
    > >>>>what have happenend in the monitor area. The sigificant difference
    > >>>
    > >>is CRT
    > >>
    > >>>>versus LCD, where LCD is less power consuming than CRT:s. Plasma
    > >>>

    > > screens
    > >
    > >>>>are also less power-consuming than CRT:s, but that is "marginally"
    > >>>
    > >>>compared
    > >>>
    > >>>>to LCD:s.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>Also, its
    > >>>>>plain impossible to find ISA bus parts any more. Yes, you can
    > >>>>

    > > definitely
    > >
    > >>>>>find anything you want if you like hard enough. I guess that goes
    > >>>>
    > >>for
    > >>
    > >>>>buying
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>buggy whips. But its just not convenient to maintain an old piece
    > >>>>
    > >>of
    > >>
    > >>>iron.
    > >>>
    > >>>>Yep, I agree with you, but who says that one needs to hunt ISA cards?
    > >>>
    > >>If
    > >>
    > >>>>they still exist, there is a slot to put them into, and they are doing
    > >>>
    > >>>fine,
    > >>>
    > >>>>there is no need to change. There is an fine old motto: If it's not
    > >>>
    > >>>broken,
    > >>>
    > >>>>don't fix it!
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>Hell, these things are not living breathing pets or human beings,
    > >>>>
    > >>they
    > >>
    > >>>>are
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>old computers that wear out and eventually become door stops. Lok,
    > >>>>
    > >>I am
    > >>
    > >>>>>talking about the vast majority. Everytime I make a statement you
    > >>>>
    > >>tend
    > >>
    > >>>>to
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>personalize it. In your case, the general rule gets broken.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>People tends to get nostalgic in ISA, as it was a technology that was
    > >>>
    > >>>created
    > >>>
    > >>>>by engineers, hard to understand for newbies, but when understood,
    > >>>

    > > once
    > >
    > >>>and
    > >>>
    > >>>>for all, it was working very well. PCI, with plug and play, on the
    > >>>
    > >>other
    > >>
    > >>>>hand, is a standard that have matured only during the recent year and
    > >>>
    > >>a
    > >>
    > >>>half.
    > >>>
    > >>>>Nowadays it works like a solid rock, but I still have had examples of
    > >>>
    > >>>conflicts
    > >>>
    > >>>>only a year and a half ago that could make anybody puke. I think that
    > >>>
    > >>>these
    > >>>
    > >>>>things stick in peoples minds......
    > >>>>
    > >>>>The most memorable events in ISA/PCI hardware conflicts was when a
    > >>>
    > >>>collegue
    > >>>
    > >>>>of mine managed to get all PCI hardware to hook up on IRQ11, including
    > >>>
    > >>the
    > >>
    > >>>>USB. You can imagine the SCSI adapter, graphics adapter, network
    > >>>

    > > adapter
    > >
    > >>>>and the USB hooked up to IRQ11. Now, that computer worked strangely,
    > >>>
    > >>or
    > >>
    > >>>did
    > >>>
    > >>>>not work at all, and I still remember how I laughed. We fixed the
    > >>>

    > > problem
    > >
    > >>>>by removing the three cards, and putting them back one by one. I have
    > >>>
    > >>>never
    > >>>
    > >>>>seen anything like that since. This was some years ago, in the early
    > >>>
    > >>days
    > >>
    > >>>>of USB.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>BR,
    > >>>>Hans
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>

    > >
    > >

    >




  2. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    are yuou saying a 60 watt bulb uses more electricity than a 300 watt bulb?




    Pat wrote:
    > Are you saying that old PCs ae not power pigs? ROTFL!
    >
    >
    > "hyubso" wrote in message
    > news:3F3B4DF6.5040307@prodigy.net...
    >
    >>pat.. it is very simple to see that modern pcs use more energy than
    >>older pcs.. most modern pcs have **two** large fans to exhaust the
    >>greater amount of heat generated inside the pc case.. .. one forth e
    >>case and one inside the power supply.. this is so all that heat
    >>thrown off buy all componenets not inside the power supply case does
    >>not flow out *thru* the power supply, causing it to overheat/wear out
    >>the power supply fan and thus blow a power supply component and who
    >>knows what else.
    >>
    >>
    >>AFAIK, the original ibm pc had a 63 watt power supply, and the XT with
    >>the hard drive had a power supply not much over 100 watts.. much
    >>lower than what today's pcs require...
    >>
    >>
    >>C'mon pat, when you are getting ready for a hot date, and you want to
    >>dry your hair faster, would you choose the 63 watt hair dryer, or the
    >>300 watt hair dryer?
    >>
    >>does a 60 watt lightbulb use more electricity than a 300 watt lightbulb?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Pat wrote:
    >>
    >>>Come on, Hans/ The power supplies on modern PC is so much more advanced

    >>

    > in
    >
    >>>the way they operate. Also, the older motherboards had greater use of
    >>>components and compared to now, where dozens of logic chips are on a

    >>

    > couple
    >
    >>>of ICs. Also, memory is far les power hungry compared to those old pigs.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
    >>>news:NewsReader.1.0.2003813316102522960@news1.teli a.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Then they would approximately consume the same amount of power. In new
    >>>

    > PCs
    >
    >>>>the CPU voltage is lower than in older ones, but OTOH the CPUs is
    >>>

    > clocked
    >
    >>>>with a much higher frequency, which will generate more heat, and a
    >>>

    > higher
    >
    >>>>surface temperature will risen the power consumption. Simple physics. I
    >>>
    >>>have
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>also measured the power consumption in an old P75 and compared that to a
    >>>>P41.8GHz Celeron. The power consumption is about the same.
    >>>>
    >>>>Well, most of the computers today is standardized. If you take an
    >>>

    > ordinary
    >
    >>>>desktop computer, the power supply have been 200 watts ones for ages,
    >>>
    >>>where
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>approximately 60 watts is used under normal conditions.
    >>>>
    >>>>Hans
    >>>>
    >>>>Pat wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Hello Hans,
    >>>>>
    >>>>>A generalizations, you make. Unlike Apple Macs, where you have a single
    >>>>>manufacturer, the PC is a ubiquitous and amorphous beast. Many
    >>>>

    > different
    >
    >>>>>implementations exist. So why not just compare apples with apples and
    >>>>
    >>>>say
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>the old and new PCs are on and off at the same time.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"Hans Lindgren" wrote in message
    >>>>>news:NewsReader.1.0.200381221923508752@news1.telia .com...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Pat wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>"Ray Kopczynski" wrote in message
    >>>>>>>news:20030810001647.23687.00001814@mb-m27.aol.com...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>><< The application meets the needs of users, who increasingly
    >>>>>>>
    >>>demand
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>BINGO! The magic bullet! If/when that that lightning bolt
    >>>>>>>
    >>>strikes
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>me
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>("meets
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>the needs of users..."), then I too will buy into that process.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Do you use Windows apps, that a native mode GEOS app can not
    >>>>>>
    >>>accomplish
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>the
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>same goal, or where the GEOS app does not exist?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>><< I would venture to say that most GEOS users already have high
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>end
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>PCs
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>that run Windows XP. >>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>I disagree, but we'll never know...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Old computers are more wasteful of electricity use than new ones.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>It all depends on how you use them. This is so often stated that it
    >>>>>
    >>>>have
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>become a truth, but it all comes down to how they are used. An old
    >>>>>
    >>>>>computer
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>that is powered on when used and shutdown when not in use is less
    >>>>>
    >>>power
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>consuming
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>than a new computer that is always on with all the power management
    >>>>>
    >>>>>features
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>on. In fact, a poorly configured power management is at high risk more
    >>>>>
    >>>>>power
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>consuming than an old computer that is always on. And newer computer
    >>>>>
    >>>>uses
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>components that produces more heat that needs to be cooled compared
    >>>>>
    >>>>to old
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>ones. Heat that needs t be cooled by electrical fans. And the hotter
    >>>>>
    >>>>the
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>computer gets inside the more the power consumption rises. One might
    >>>>>
    >>>>save
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>some watts in better components, but I the difference in small
    >>>>>
    >>>compared
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>to
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>what have happenend in the monitor area. The sigificant difference
    >>>>>
    >>>>is CRT
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>versus LCD, where LCD is less power consuming than CRT:s. Plasma
    >>>>>
    >>>screens
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>are also less power-consuming than CRT:s, but that is "marginally"
    >>>>>
    >>>>>compared
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>to LCD:s.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Also, its
    >>>>>>>plain impossible to find ISA bus parts any more. Yes, you can
    >>>>>>
    >>>definitely
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>>find anything you want if you like hard enough. I guess that goes
    >>>>>>
    >>>>for
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>buying
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>buggy whips. But its just not convenient to maintain an old piece
    >>>>>>
    >>>>of
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>iron.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Yep, I agree with you, but who says that one needs to hunt ISA cards?
    >>>>>
    >>>>If
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>they still exist, there is a slot to put them into, and they are doing
    >>>>>
    >>>>>fine,
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>there is no need to change. There is an fine old motto: If it's not
    >>>>>
    >>>>>broken,
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>don't fix it!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Hell, these things are not living breathing pets or human beings,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>they
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>are
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>old computers that wear out and eventually become door stops. Lok,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>I am
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>talking about the vast majority. Everytime I make a statement you
    >>>>>>
    >>>>tend
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>to
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>personalize it. In your case, the general rule gets broken.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>People tends to get nostalgic in ISA, as it was a technology that was
    >>>>>
    >>>>>created
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>by engineers, hard to understand for newbies, but when understood,
    >>>>>
    >>>once
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>and
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>for all, it was working very well. PCI, with plug and play, on the
    >>>>>
    >>>>other
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>hand, is a standard that have matured only during the recent year and
    >>>>>
    >>>>a
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>half.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Nowadays it works like a solid rock, but I still have had examples of
    >>>>>
    >>>>>conflicts
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>only a year and a half ago that could make anybody puke. I think that
    >>>>>
    >>>>>these
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>things stick in peoples minds......
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>The most memorable events in ISA/PCI hardware conflicts was when a
    >>>>>
    >>>>>collegue
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>of mine managed to get all PCI hardware to hook up on IRQ11, including
    >>>>>
    >>>>the
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>USB. You can imagine the SCSI adapter, graphics adapter, network
    >>>>>
    >>>adapter
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>and the USB hooked up to IRQ11. Now, that computer worked strangely,
    >>>>>
    >>>>or
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>did
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>not work at all, and I still remember how I laughed. We fixed the
    >>>>>
    >>>problem
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>by removing the three cards, and putting them back one by one. I have
    >>>>>
    >>>>>never
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>seen anything like that since. This was some years ago, in the early
    >>>>>
    >>>>days
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>of USB.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>BR,
    >>>>>>Hans
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>

    >
    >



  3. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    Pat wrote:

    Dear Pat/Bob/Jekyl/Hyde/Hyubso et all

    You're way OT here. The OP is about Sun's installer.
    Please stop wasting our bandwidth with trivial dribble......netiquette
    dictates you should take this offline.

    While we're at it, will everyone please refrain from top posting....TIA

    Kenj

    (Yes I'm still here =:0 )

  4. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    Ken,

    What is top posting? Is it like I'm doing now - putting my reply above
    the post to which I'm replying? If so, why is it a "bad thing"? Seems
    to me like the most convenient way to reply. You get to read the
    important stuff (the reply) at the top, and scroll down if you need to
    refresh your memory about the original post. Especially for short posts.

    John ;-)

    Kenj wrote:

    > Pat wrote:
    >
    > Dear Pat/Bob/Jekyl/Hyde/Hyubso et all
    >
    > You're way OT here. The OP is about Sun's installer.
    > Please stop wasting our bandwidth with trivial dribble......netiquette
    > dictates you should take this offline.
    >
    > While we're at it, will everyone please refrain from top posting....TIA
    >
    > Kenj
    >
    > (Yes I'm still here =:0 )



  5. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:41:42 UTC, John Howard
    wrote:

    > Ken,
    >
    > What is top posting? Is it like I'm doing now - putting my reply above
    > the post to which I'm replying? If so, why is it a "bad thing"? Seems
    > to me like the most convenient way to reply. You get to read the
    > important stuff (the reply) at the top, and scroll down if you need to
    > refresh your memory about the original post. Especially for short posts.


    There's no reason for it! Doesn't your news reader follow threads?

    http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usen.../faq_topp.html

    --
    Regards,
    Doug

    **** remove leading g for email replies. ****

  6. Re: Top Posting was--Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    On 17 Aug 2003 19:14:04 -0500, "William Ove" wrote:

    >Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
    >A: Why is top posting frowned upon?
    >
    >



    :-)


    --
    Thomas L. Christensen
    A. Top posters
    Q. What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

  7. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    "Doug Fitzpatrick" wrote to explain the basics
    of Usenet courtesy at
    http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usen.../faq_topp.html.

    Great link Doug! - looking around the same site I found other useful
    things too, described with the gentle wit that only the English seem
    to manage really well.

    http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usen.../faq_trol.html

    "Where trolling becomes bad is when it is done by someone who has no
    real interest in the group's topic and is there purely to hurt or
    disrupt the normal flow of discussion or, as said above, to try to
    actually destroy the group by turning it into a continual flame war.
    .....Trolls have increasingly adopted the habit of using 'sockpuppets',
    fake identities pretending to be someone else ..."


    http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usen.../faq_fwit.html

    " They [f***wits] respond by flaming the complainants and insisting
    that they have the right to post what they want where they want
    .....[and] by loudly complaining that they are being censored by a
    clique of netcops and fascists who are inhibiting their right to
    freedom of speech."


    Goodness - recognise anyone? : )

  8. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 02:47:23 UTC, harvey_tim@yahoo.com (Tim) wrote:

    >
    > Great link Doug! - looking around the same site I found other useful
    > things too, described with the gentle wit that only the English seem
    > to manage really well.
    >
    > http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usen.../faq_trol.html


    > http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usen.../faq_fwit.html


    I got the link with a search. I didn't look at the others, but now
    will. Thanks.

    > Goodness - recognise anyone? : )


    lol. I do.


    --
    Regards,
    Doug

    **** remove leading g for email replies. ****

  9. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    John Howard schrieb:
    >
    > Ken,
    >
    > What is top posting?
    > Is it like I'm doing now - putting my reply above
    > the post to which I'm replying?


    Yes, top posting is, what you do. You're writing your answer on top and
    let the reader figure out himself what you're replying to.
    Usually, top poster tend to quote the whole thread on the bottom of
    their answer, so the reader of their mail has to search through several
    kilopbytes of uninterestig stuff to find the single sentence the top
    poster is answering to.

    This is the default behaviour of Outlook (Express) and some other
    mailing programs.

    > If so, why is it a "bad thing"? Seems
    > to me like the most convenient way to reply.


    Well, as soon as there is more than one reader of a message, the writer
    should take the effort to make his writing readable instead of letting
    all the reader figure out the meaning themselves.
    IMHO it is more important, to make somehting easier to read and
    understand than making it easier to write. (unfortunately, the 'new'
    German language has made writing easier for all those who have problems
    learning proper writing, and made it more difficult to read for all the
    others)


    > You get to read the
    > important stuff (the reply) at the top, and scroll down if you need to
    > refresh your memory about the original post. Especially for short posts.


    If you read my reply, you'll see that this is the more convenient way to
    make the reply readable to others.
    First, you see what I'm replying to, then you read the reply.
    This way, you clearly know to what I refer with my reply.
    While top posting is not a problem for replying to short posts, it is a
    real mess and leads to misunderstanding.
    You know what you're referring to with your reply.
    But the reader can chose to which part of the original post you reply.

    Best example: the original post was a series of several questions. And
    on top of these quoted questions you reply with a single 'yes'. or,
    better, with '3* yes and 2*no'.
    Guess what this reply is worth for anyone...

    Grossibaer

    --
    A: top posters
    Q: what is the most annoying thing in usenet?

  10. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    Bob schrieb:
    >
    > Oh Commander! How dare you?!?! Don't u know top posting is the default
    > for Outlook Express? The evil empire. Jens is damning you to hell for even
    > thinking top posting is OK. It is evil.


    Well, it isn't evil because it is default for OE. It is evil because it
    makes the answert more difficult to understand than necessary and leads
    to massive quoting without necessity.
    As for you, there is no difference between top posting or not. YOur
    posts are usually off-topic (so the quoted part can be ignored) and
    useless (the the reply part can be ignored too).
    The order of both is of no importance there.

    Grossibaer

    --
    Take a class. Read a book. Don't expect computers to be simple, because
    they are not.

  11. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer


    "Ray Kopczynski" wrote in message
    news:20030826204619.21190.00000859@mb-m10.aol.com...
    > << It (top posting) is evil because it makes the answer more difficult to
    > understand than necessary and leads to massive quoting without necessity.
    >>

    >
    > Absolutely correct!!!
    >
    > Ray


    Absolutely INcorrect! Users are responsible for the "massive quoting." They
    are the ones that do not cut the unneeded portion(s), of the original
    thread. Top posting is quite OK. It is actually now the standard. If you are
    so mentally challenged that you find it difficult to read ones reply, then
    read what they are replying to, and put 1 and 1 together then I can see why
    one would argue that GEOS is still a viable entity in today's age.



  12. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    << Top posting is quite OK. It is actually now the standard. >>

    Bob -- I do not equate this reply to be "top posting" -- do you?

    Ray



  13. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    >Subject: Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer
    >From: "Bob" bob12754@comcast.net
    >Date: 8/27/03 11:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
    >Message-id:
    >"Ray Kopczynski" wrote in message
    >news:20030826204619.21190.00000859@mb-m10.aol.com...
    >> << It (top posting) is evil because it makes the answer more difficult to
    >> understand than necessary and leads to massive quoting without necessity.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Absolutely correct!!!
    >>
    >> Ray

    >
    >Absolutely INcorrect! Users are responsible for the "massive quoting." They
    >are the ones that do not cut the unneeded portion(s), of the original
    >thread. Top posting is quite OK. It is actually now the standard. If you are
    >so mentally challenged that you find it difficult to read ones reply, then
    >read what they are replying to, and put 1 and 1 together then I can see why
    >one would argue that GEOS is still a viable entity in today's age.


    This is "top posting" by my definition and is 100% a waste of my time &
    effort..

    Ray


  14. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    Bob schrieb:
    >
    > "Ray Kopczynski" wrote in message
    > news:20030826204619.21190.00000859@mb-m10.aol.com...
    > > << It (top posting) is evil because it makes the answer more difficult to
    > > understand than necessary and leads to massive quoting without necessity.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Absolutely correct!!!
    > >
    > > Ray

    >
    > Absolutely INcorrect! Users are responsible for the "massive quoting." They
    > are the ones that do not cut the unneeded portion(s), of the original
    > thread. Top posting is quite OK.


    users are always responsible for what they post. Only if they do not
    post at all, they aren't responsible for what the post.

    The choice whether to top post or not is always the users
    responsibility. YOu con quote 'correct' even with OE.
    If you decide to top post, it is your choice and not the only way to go.
    But people who decide to top post because of lazyness (or don't know
    better) are also usually too lazy to cut down the quotes. Why should
    they? The answer is on top and that's all what counts for them. Usually,
    they do not even recognize that 20 pages of quoting are below because
    they only answer to the top post of someone else and didn't recognize
    the rest of the mail at all.

    > It is actually now the standard.


    The standard is that you die after 69 years. I don't think that everyone
    is happy with the standard. Of course not those who die earlier. And I
    don't think everyone who is above standard will commit suicide to comply
    to the standard.

    > If you are
    > so mentally challenged that you find it difficult to read ones reply, then
    > read what they are replying to, and put 1 and 1 together then I can see why
    > one would argue that GEOS is still a viable entity in today's age.


    If you are so mentally weak that it is soo much for you to format you
    answer in a way (one-time-effort) that all the others can read it and
    understand the context without deep research in the quoted text below
    (many-time effort, once for every reader), then you shouldn't wonder if
    your posts are ignored.

    If you think what you have to say is so important that everyone should
    read it, it is up to you to make reading it as painless as possible for
    all those you are addressing.

    But well, it's only important that you have it a little more
    comfortable, no matter how much effort it means to the rest of the
    world, eh?

    --
    If Microsoft would only invest 5 minutes to make windows boot 1/1000
    second faster, the world would save 30 working hours every day.

  15. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    Caution: Bottom posted.
    Contents may have settled during shipment.


    In news:20030827210606.21879.00000030@mb-m04.aol.com,
    Ray Kopczynski wrote:
    || Subject: Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer
    || From: "Bob" bob12754@comcast.net
    || Date: 8/27/03 11:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time
    || Message-id:
    || "Ray Kopczynski" wrote in message
    || news:20030826204619.21190.00000859@mb-m10.aol.com...
    ||| << It (top posting) is evil because it makes the answer more
    ||| difficult to understand than necessary and leads to massive quoting
    ||| without necessity.
    ||||
    |||
    ||| Absolutely correct!!!
    |||
    ||| Ray
    ||
    || Absolutely INcorrect! Users are responsible for the "massive
    || quoting." They are the ones that do not cut the unneeded portion(s),
    || of the original thread. Top posting is quite OK. It is actually now
    || the standard. If you are so mentally challenged that you find it
    || difficult to read ones reply, then read what they are replying to,
    || and put 1 and 1 together then I can see why one would argue that
    || GEOS is still a viable entity in today's age.
    |
    | This is "top posting" by my definition and is 100% a waste of my time
    | & effort..
    |
    | Ray


    I learned that top-posting was adding your remarks to the *top* of the
    previous post.
    For short response to short questions, it probably don't make no
    never-mind, but for replying to longer posts, it's annoying. For
    example, consider reading a book this way:

    "Yeah, you too!"
    "Well, here's my ride. Take care, now."
    "That's good to hear! Hope you're ready for it."
    "Great, we're having a baby in a few months."
    "Ha ha, funny. How's the wife?"
    "What, the change or the money?"
    "Well, we can all use some of that."
    "Yeah, it was time for a change, and it's more money besides."
    "Oh, same old stuff. I heard you got a new job."
    "Hi, Bill. Nice to see you, too. What have you been up to?"
    "Hey Al, how's it going? Haven't seen you in a while."

    Now, about interspersal posting....

    Tom










  16. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    Bob schrieb:
    > "Jens-Michael Gross" wrote in message
    > news:3F4E08C7.50B720F6@grossibaer.de...
    > > But well, it's only important that you have it a little more
    > > comfortable, no matter how much effort it means to the rest of the
    > > world, eh?

    >
    > That's the American way!
    >


    I see. Every day in the news.

    Grossibaer

    --
    Take a class. Read a book. Don't expect computers to be simple, because
    they are not.

  17. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    "Jens-Michael Gross" wrote in message
    news:3F534F1F.652078B5@grossibaer.de...
    > Bob schrieb:
    > > "Jens-Michael Gross" wrote in message
    > > news:3F4E08C7.50B720F6@grossibaer.de...
    > > > But well, it's only important that you have it a little more
    > > > comfortable, no matter how much effort it means to the rest of the
    > > > world, eh?

    > >
    > > That's the American way!
    > >

    >
    > I see. Every day in the news.
    >
    > Grossibaer


    Yup. Sad state of affairs ain't it?



  18. Re: known bug in sun's ensemble installer

    Bob schrieb:
    >
    > "Jens-Michael Gross" wrote in message

    [...]
    >
    > Yup. Sad state of affairs ain't it?


    I see, you finally managed to do bottom posting.
    All that's still missing now is to remove unneeded parts of the quoted
    text

    I tend to believe now that you're not a Microsoft advertising robot, as
    you seem to be able to learn

    Grossibaer

    --
    Take a class. Read a book. Don't expect computers to be simple, because
    they are not.

+ Reply to Thread