Text 5725, 532 rader
Skriven 2005-07-06 22:35:38 av Rich (1:379/45)
Kommentar till text 5723 av Tony Ingenoso (1:379/45)
Ärende: Re: Productivity
========================
From: "Rich" <@>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C5827B.08A11590
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It is up to you to support your claim. Asking questions of others =
about your claims is not supporting them.
Now if you had claimed that your own productivity has not increased =
or that you don't believe anyone else's productivity has increased you = would
be in a different position. The former might even be true and if = you were
posting here with some Windows 3.1 or OS/2 client instead of = what appears to
be Outlook Express 6.0 on Windows XP SP1 it might hold = some weight. The
latter would simply be incorrect.
As for your new claim, again it would hold more weight if you were =
using a 386. It would still be irrelevant and inaccurate.
Rich
"Tony Ingenoso" <admin@spamcop.net> wrote in message =
news:42ccb907@w3.nls.net...
What "value add" is there to any current email app over Win31 or OS/2 =
email
app?
I see none - unless you consider worms and viruses a "value add".
A 386 can download and process email as well as the newest P4.
"Rich" <@> wrote in message news:42cb5675@w3.nls.net...
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_003F_01C5827B.08A11590
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> It is up to you to support =
your=20
claim. Asking questions of others about your claims is not =
supporting=20
them.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Now if you had claimed =
that your own=20
productivity has not increased or that you don't believe anyone else's=20
productivity has increased you would be in a different position. = The=20
former might even be true and if you were posting here with some Windows = 3.1
or=20
OS/2 client instead of what appears to be Outlook Express 6.0 on Windows = XP
SP1=20
it might hold some weight. The latter would simply be=20
incorrect.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> As for your new claim, =
again it would=20
hold more weight if you were using a 386. It would still be = irrelevant
and=20
inaccurate.</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><BR>Rich</DIV>
<DIV></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:42ccb907@w3.nls.net">news:42ccb907@w3.nls.net</A>...</DIV>Wh=
at=20
"value add" is there to any current email app over Win31 or OS/2=20
email<BR>app?<BR><BR>I see none - unless you consider worms and =
viruses a=20
"value add".<BR><BR>A 386 can download and process email as well as =
the newest=20
P4.<BR><BR>"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42cb5675@w3.nls.net">news:42cb5675@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
You appear to have forgotten your claim and are incapable of reading =
it<BR>to=20
remind yourself. Whether you can still run Windows 3.1 is not=20
relevant.<BR>You need to support you claim that nothing since provides =
any=20
productivity<BR>improvement. Note that virtually all of the =
Internet=20
falls in the category<BR>of "anything since about the 486 and Win31 or =
OS/2"=20
though this is not by<BR>far all you were making claims about. =
You also=20
have not made any attempt to<BR>support your claim of software getting =
slower.<BR><BR>Rich<BR><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:42cb2eeb$1@w3.nls.net">news:42cb2eeb$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
=20
Win31 and OS/2 have browsers and email. They still work=20
fine.<BR><BR> Software doesn't rot like wood.<BR><BR> =
About 3=20
months ago I surfed the web with Win31 running the Win31 IE5 on =
a<BR> =20
486DX33 and it performed as well as anything else for the pages I=20
was<BR> viewing.<BR><BR> Now you can tell me how I was=20
hallucinating the whole experience...<BR><BR> "Rich" <@> =
wrote in=20
message <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=20
you<BR>are<BR> trying to support. You clearly forgot what =
you=20
wrote. Remember to<BR>include<BR> Windows 3.1 and OS/2 in =
your=20
reply and also to support your claim of<BR> software being=20
slower.<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: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=20
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> =20
likely multimedia) that has gotten slower. Since you mention the =
486=20
I<BR> would expect the comparison to be between someone that =
purchased a=20
new<BR> computer and software in 1989 when the 486 was =
introduced and=20
someone that<BR> purchases a new computer and software=20
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"=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> =
"Tony=20
Ingenoso" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:admin@spamcop.net">admin@spamcop.net</A>>=20
wrote in 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=20
=
not<BR>convinced<BR>  =
;=20
anything since about the 486 and Win31 or OS/2 has actually =
made<BR> =20
ordinary<BR> =
users more=20
productive in meaningful=20
ways.<BR><BR> =
The=20
software has gotten slower about as fast as the hardware has<BR> =
gotten<BR> =
faster=20
;-><BR><BR><BR><BR> Rich<BR><BR> "Tony =
Ingenoso"=20
<<A 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=20
machines.<BR><BR> QED<BR><BR> =
"Rich"=20
<@> 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=20
questions is not supporting your claims.<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: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> =20
So why is it again that NT4 and IE/OE's through at least 6.X=20
support<BR>the<BR> =20
486?<BR><BR> If they're not productive, =
why do=20
you support them?<BR><BR> "Rich" =
<@> wrote=20
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=20
what<BR>you<BR> wrote. If you want =
to save=20
bandwidth please answer the question and<BR> =20
provide<BR> support for the claims you=20
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 my<BR> =20
=
comparason.<BR><BR> =
=20
"Rich" <@> wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:42c31ca0@w3.nls.net">news:42c31ca0@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR><BR>=
&=
nbsp;=20
Of software users use for productivity tasks (e.g. not=20
games<BR>nor<BR> likely multimedia) that =
has=20
gotten slower. Since you mention the=20
486<BR>I<BR> would expect the comparison =
to be=20
between someone that purchased a new<BR> =
computer and software in 1989 when the 486 was introduced and=20
someone<BR> that<BR> purchases a =
new=20
computer and software=20
today.<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:42c3170b@w3.nls.net">news:42c3170b@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>&nbs=
p; =20
Examples of=20
=
what?<BR><BR> =
=20
"Rich" <@> 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> &n=
bsp; =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> &n=
bsp;=20
<A=20
=
href=3D"news:42c3121d$1@w3.nls.net">news:42c3121d$1@w3.nls.net</A>...<BR>=
&=
nbsp;=20
In terms of real life bankable productivity gains, I'm=20
not<BR> =20
=
convinced<BR> =
=20
anything since about the 486 and Win31 or OS/2 has=20
actually<BR>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=20
hardware<BR>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=20
more than zero?<BR><BR> =
"Rich"=20
<@> wrote in message <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. =20
Now<BR>how<BR> =20
about<BR> the=20
rest?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_003F_01C5827B.08A11590--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)
|