Text 5696, 428 rader
Skriven 2005-07-05 21:01:42 av Rich (1:379/45)
   Kommentar till text 5694 av Tony Ingenoso (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Productivity
========================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_011E_01C581A4.BF9B41D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
   You appear to have forgotten your claim and are incapable of reading =
it to remind yourself.  Whether you can still run Windows 3.1 is not =
relevant.  You need to support you claim that nothing since provides any =
productivity improvement.  Note that virtually all of the Internet falls = in
the category of "anything since about the 486 and Win31 or OS/2" = though this
is not by far all you were making claims about.  You also = have not made any
attempt to support your claim of software getting = slower.
Rich
  "Tony Ingenoso" <admin@spamcop.net> wrote in message =
news:42cb2eeb$1@w3.nls.net...
  Win31 and OS/2 have browsers and email.  They still work fine.
  Software doesn't rot like wood.
  About 3 months ago I surfed the web with Win31 running the Win31 IE5 =
on a
  486DX33 and it performed as well as anything else for the pages I was
  viewing.
  Now you can tell me how I was hallucinating the whole experience...
  "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42caff8b@w3.nls.net...
     Let me remind everyone of your claim so that you know what it is =
you are
  trying to support.  You clearly forgot what you wrote.  Remember to =
include
  Windows 3.1 and OS/2 in your reply and also to support your claim of
  software being slower.
      "Tony Ingenoso" <admin@spamcop.net> wrote in message
  news:42c34a24@w3.nls.net...
      I reject the notion of you placing such constraints on my =
comparason.
      "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42c31ca0@w3.nls.net...
          Of software users use for productivity tasks (e.g. not games =
nor
  likely multimedia) that has gotten slower.  Since you mention the 486 =
I
  would expect the comparison to be between someone that purchased a new
  computer and software in 1989 when the 486 was introduced and someone =
that
  purchases a new computer and software today.
      Rich
        "Tony Ingenoso" <admin@spamcop.net> wrote in message
  news:42c3170b@w3.nls.net...
        Examples of what?
        "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42c31595@w3.nls.net...
           Can you give real world examples?
        Rich
          "Tony Ingenoso" <admin@spamcop.net> wrote in message
        news:42c3121d$1@w3.nls.net...
          In terms of real life bankable productivity gains, I'm not =
convinced
          anything since about the 486 and Win31 or OS/2 has actually =
made
  ordinary
          users more productive in meaningful ways.
          The software has gotten slower about as fast as the hardware =
has
  gotten
          faster ;->
  Rich
    "Tony Ingenoso" <admin@spamcop.net> wrote in message
  news:42cacd68@w3.nls.net...
    FACT: Microsoft shipped NT4 and several modern versions of Office =
and
  IE/OE
    that support 486 class machines.
    QED
    "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42ca228b@w3.nls.net...
       Still trying to change the topic.  You made a claim.  Support =
your
  claim
    with facts.  Asking random questions is not supporting your claims.
    Rich
      "Tony Ingenoso" <admin@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    news:42ca2080$1@w3.nls.net...
      OK, I'll wast the bandwidth is you want.
      So why is it again that NT4 and IE/OE's through at least 6.X =
support the
      486?
      If they're not productive, why do you support them?
      "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42c8a45b@w3.nls.net...
         Still trying to change the topic.  Let's remind everyone of =
what you
      wrote.  If you want to save bandwidth please answer the question =
and
    provide
      support for the claims you made.
          "Tony Ingenoso" <admin@spamcop.net> wrote in message
      news:42c34a24@w3.nls.net...
          I reject the notion of you placing such constraints on my
  comparason.
          "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42c31ca0@w3.nls.net...
              Of software users use for productivity tasks (e.g. not =
games nor
      likely multimedia) that has gotten slower.  Since you mention the =
486 I
      would expect the comparison to be between someone that purchased a =
new
      computer and software in 1989 when the 486 was introduced and =
someone
  that
      purchases a new computer and software today.
          Rich
            "Tony Ingenoso" <admin@spamcop.net> wrote in message
      news:42c3170b@w3.nls.net...
            Examples of what?
            "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42c31595@w3.nls.net...
               Can you give real world examples?
            Rich
              "Tony Ingenoso" <admin@spamcop.net> wrote in message
            news:42c3121d$1@w3.nls.net...
              In terms of real life bankable productivity gains, I'm not
    convinced
              anything since about the 486 and Win31 or OS/2 has =
actually made
      ordinary
              users more productive in meaningful ways.
              The software has gotten slower about as fast as the =
hardware has
      gotten
              faster ;->
      Rich
        "Tony Ingenoso" <admin@spamcop.net> wrote in message
      news:42c83368@w3.nls.net...
        How many 486 class machines shipped with Win95 preloaded?
        Is the number more than zero?
        "Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42c7270f@w3.nls.net...
           Good that you admit that part of your claim was bullshit.  =
Now how
      about
        the rest?
------=_NextPart_000_011E_01C581A4.BF9B41D0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>   You appear to have =
forgotten your=20
claim and are incapable of reading it to remind yourself.  Whether = you
can=20
still run Windows 3.1 is not relevant.  You need to support you = claim
that=20
nothing since provides any productivity improvement.  Note that =
virtually=20
all of the Internet falls in the category of "<FONT face=3D"Times New =
Roman"=20
size=3D3>anything since about the 486 and Win31 or OS/2</FONT>" though = this
is not=20
by far all you were making claims about.  You also have not made = any=20
attempt to support your claim of software getting slower.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV>"Tony Ingenoso" <<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:admin@spamcop.net">admin@spamcop.net</A>> wrote in =
message <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42cb2eeb$1@w3.nls.net">news:42cb2eeb$1@w3.nls.net</A>...</DI=
V>Win31=20
  and OS/2 have browsers and email.  They still work =
fine.<BR><BR>Software=20
  doesn't rot like wood.<BR><BR>About 3 months ago I surfed the web with =
Win31=20
  running the Win31 IE5 on a<BR>486DX33 and it performed as well as =
anything=20
  else for the pages I was<BR>viewing.<BR><BR>Now you can tell me how I =
was=20
  hallucinating the whole experience...<BR><BR>"Rich" <@> wrote in =
message=20
  <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42caff8b@w3.nls.net">news:42caff8b@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
  Let me remind everyone of your claim so that you know what it is you=20
  are<BR>trying to support.  You clearly forgot what you =
wrote. =20
  Remember to include<BR>Windows 3.1 and OS/2 in your reply and also to =
support=20
  your claim of<BR>software being slower.<BR><BR>    =
"Tony=20
  Ingenoso" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:admin@spamcop.net">admin@spamcop.net</A>>=20
  wrote in message<BR><A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c34a24@w3.nls.net">news:42c34a24@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;  =20
  I reject the notion of you placing such constraints on my=20
  comparason.<BR><BR>    "Rich" <@> wrote in =
message <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c31ca0@w3.nls.net">news:42c31ca0@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR><BR>=
       =20
  Of software users use for productivity tasks (e.g. not games =
nor<BR>likely=20
  multimedia) that has gotten slower.  Since you mention the 486 =
I<BR>would=20
  expect the comparison to be between someone that purchased a =
new<BR>computer=20
  and software in 1989 when the 486 was introduced and someone =
that<BR>purchases=20
  a new computer and software today.<BR><BR>   =20
  Rich<BR><BR>      "Tony Ingenoso" <<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:admin@spamcop.net">admin@spamcop.net</A>> wrote in=20
  message<BR><A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c3170b@w3.nls.net">news:42c3170b@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;    =20
  Examples of what?<BR><BR>      "Rich" =
<@> wrote=20
  in message <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c31595@w3.nls.net">news:42c31595@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;       =20
  Can you give real world =
examples?<BR><BR>     =20
  Rich<BR><BR>        "Tony Ingenoso" =
<<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:admin@spamcop.net">admin@spamcop.net</A>> wrote in=20
  message<BR>      <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c3121d$1@w3.nls.net">news:42c3121d$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
       =20
  In terms of real life bankable productivity gains, I'm not=20
  convinced<BR>        anything since =
about=20
  the 486 and Win31 or OS/2 has actually=20
  made<BR>ordinary<BR>        users =
more=20
  productive in meaningful=20
  ways.<BR><BR>        The software =
has=20
  gotten slower about as fast as the hardware=20
  has<BR>gotten<BR>        faster=20
  ;-><BR><BR><BR><BR>Rich<BR><BR>  "Tony Ingenoso" <<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:admin@spamcop.net">admin@spamcop.net</A>> wrote in=20
  message<BR><A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42cacd68@w3.nls.net">news:42cacd68@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;=20
  FACT: Microsoft shipped NT4 and several modern versions of Office=20
  and<BR>IE/OE<BR>  that support 486 class machines.<BR><BR> =20
  QED<BR><BR>  "Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42ca228b@w3.nls.net">news:42ca228b@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;   =20
  Still trying to change the topic.  You made a claim.  =
Support=20
  your<BR>claim<BR>  with facts.  Asking random questions is =
not=20
  supporting your claims.<BR><BR>  Rich<BR><BR>    =
"Tony=20
  Ingenoso" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:admin@spamcop.net">admin@spamcop.net</A>>=20
  wrote in message<BR>  <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42ca2080$1@w3.nls.net">news:42ca2080$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
   =20
  OK, I'll wast the bandwidth is you want.<BR><BR>    So =
why is=20
  it again that NT4 and IE/OE's through at least 6.X support=20
  the<BR>    486?<BR><BR>    If they're =
not=20
  productive, why do you support them?<BR><BR>    "Rich"=20
  <@> wrote in message <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c8a45b@w3.nls.net">news:42c8a45b@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;     =20
  Still trying to change the topic.  Let's remind everyone of what=20
  you<BR>    wrote.  If you want to save bandwidth =
please=20
  answer the question and<BR>  provide<BR>    =
support for=20
  the claims you made.<BR><BR>        =
"Tony=20
  Ingenoso" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:admin@spamcop.net">admin@spamcop.net</A>>=20
  wrote in message<BR>    <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c34a24@w3.nls.net">news:42c34a24@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;      =20
  I reject the notion of you placing such constraints on=20
  my<BR>comparason.<BR><BR>        =
"Rich"=20
  <@> wrote in message <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c31ca0@w3.nls.net">news:42c31ca0@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR><BR>=
           =20
  Of software users use for productivity tasks (e.g. not games=20
  nor<BR>    likely multimedia) that has gotten =
slower. =20
  Since you mention the 486 I<BR>    would expect the =
comparison=20
  to be between someone that purchased a new<BR>    =
computer and=20
  software in 1989 when the 486 was introduced and=20
  someone<BR>that<BR>    purchases a new computer and =
software=20
  today.<BR><BR>       =20
  Rich<BR><BR>          =
"Tony=20
  Ingenoso" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:admin@spamcop.net">admin@spamcop.net</A>>=20
  wrote in message<BR>    <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c3170b@w3.nls.net">news:42c3170b@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;        =20
  Examples of=20
  what?<BR><BR>          =
"Rich"=20
  <@> wrote in message <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c31595@w3.nls.net">news:42c31595@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;           =20
  Can you give real world=20
  =
examples?<BR><BR>         =20
  =
Rich<BR><BR>          &=
nbsp;=20
  "Tony Ingenoso" <<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:admin@spamcop.net">admin@spamcop.net</A>> wrote in=20
  message<BR>          <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c3121d$1@w3.nls.net">news:42c3121d$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
           =20
  In terms of real life bankable productivity gains, I'm not<BR> =20
  =
convinced<BR>          =
 =20
  anything since about the 486 and Win31 or OS/2 has actually=20
  made<BR>   =20
  =
ordinary<BR>          &=
nbsp;=20
  users more productive in meaningful=20
  =
ways.<BR><BR>          =
 =20
  The software has gotten slower about as fast as the hardware=20
  has<BR>   =20
  =
gotten<BR>          &nb=
sp;=20
  faster ;-><BR><BR><BR><BR>   =20
  Rich<BR><BR>      "Tony Ingenoso" <<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:admin@spamcop.net">admin@spamcop.net</A>> wrote in=20
  message<BR>    <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c83368@w3.nls.net">news:42c83368@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;    =20
  How many 486 class machines shipped with Win95=20
  preloaded?<BR><BR>      Is the number more =
than=20
  zero?<BR><BR>      "Rich" <@> wrote in =
message=20
  <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:42c7270f@w3.nls.net">news:42c7270f@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p;       =20
  Good that you admit that part of your claim was bullshit.  Now=20
  how<BR>    about<BR>      the=20
rest?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_011E_01C581A4.BF9B41D0--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
 |