Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Microsoft JPEG Hoax!

Reply
Thread Tools

Microsoft JPEG Hoax!

 
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
Roland Karlsson writes:

> Yepp - you do scripts.


Even without scripts, text-based interfaces are usually faster.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
Roland Karlsson writes:

> BTW - do you PhotoShop users here do any scripting?


I have one or two small scripts, that's all. Most of what I do isn't
repetitive enough and/or consistent enough to justify a script.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
David J Taylor writes:

> Most situations - what a generalisation!


Yes.

> I thought we had already addressed the bandwidth issue - have
> the GUI on your desktop talking to the remote server - that's
> the UNIX way isn't it?


Yes, but it still wastes bandwidth compared to a simple text interface.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2004
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Maintaining Mickysoft crud is like swimming in an ocean of ****.

Even
>> the worst Unix environment (arguably AIX; it's pretty bad indeed)

is a
>> neo-Islamic paradise in comparison.

>
> Posts like this discredit those who might wish to voice legitimate
> criticism of Microsoft.


Only a microsoftie can argue, with apparent straight face, that the
truth is an illegitimate argument. Snort.

>> Only the profoundly ignorant call this "sour grapes", "jealousy",

or
>> "prejudice".

>
> Only the profoundly emotional are so irrationally vituperative with
> respect to Microsoft (or whatever other targets they become obsessed
> with).


I can only assume your livelihood is based on a connection between
your mouth and the Anus of Bill. Fine and dandy. If you like the
taste, enjoy.

>> And we spell it Windoze because Microshaft has a trademark for the
>> word "Windows" ((R) Microsoft Corporation), and we would rather not
>> step in Excrement of Bill^H^H^H, excuse me, trespass on their

Precious
>> Intellectual Property.

>
> Microsoft doesn't care if you say Windows.


Well Mr. Microsnot Attorney and Duly Appointered Representative, you
send me a letter, by registered mail, on verifiable letterhead with
proof of your bonafides and that furthermore formally vacates your
clients rights to sue re: my use of the word "Windows" ((R) Microsoft
Corportation, All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Bequeathed to the Public
Domain -- suckazzz!). Until then, Windoze it is. Windoze. Windoze.
WINDOOOOOZZZZZZZZZZZZZZE! HA HA HA!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-09-2004
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) writes:

> Only a microsoftie can argue, with apparent straight face, that the
> truth is an illegitimate argument. Snort.


Some people can debate without emotion.

> I can only assume your livelihood is based on a connection between
> your mouth and the Anus of Bill. Fine and dandy. If you like the
> taste, enjoy.


See above.

> Well Mr. Microsnot Attorney and Duly Appointered Representative, you
> send me a letter, by registered mail, on verifiable letterhead with
> proof of your bonafides and that furthermore formally vacates your
> clients rights to sue re: my use of the word "Windows" ((R) Microsoft
> Corportation, All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Bequeathed to the Public
> Domain -- suckazzz!). Until then, Windoze it is. Windoze. Windoze.
> WINDOOOOOZZZZZZZZZZZZZZE! HA HA HA!


No such letter is warranted.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2004
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Ray Fischer writes:
>
>> Compared to a horse and buggy all modern cars look nearly identical.
>> Does that make them identical?

>
>Compared to a horse and buggy, yes.
>
>> You just conceded that they did develop at least one OS.

>
>They tried and failed.


Obviously not.

>> Well, gee, when you get elected as God's replacement your
>> undereducated opinions might count for something.

>
>Personal computers were not my idea,


Given how little you know about them that much is obvious.

>> In the meanwhile
>> there are millions of people who find the multi-user security features
>> to be useful and the multi-process capabilities to be essential.

>
>If only they were old enough to remember that it has all been done
>before.


You can't even keep straight what you're arguing about.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry Caldwell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) (Mxsmanic) says...
> Roland Karlsson writes:
>
> > Strictly personal tools is not all that common, and never will be.

>
> In virtually every place I've worked, there was one computer for each
> employee who used a computer. Shared PCs were extremely rare.
>
> Perhaps in Europe, with its lower standard of living, companies are too
> cheap to pay for a computer for each employee. That wouldn't surprise
> me, even though it is penny-wise and pound-foolish.


Most companies larger than just a few employees share file servers and
gateway machines. Those of us who have been around for a while are
still using a terminal emulator to log on to a Unix box. There is a web
interface to the database for the general public, but using Unix tools
is faster and more compact, and gives access to data not available on
the web. In any case, that server is a shared machine too. You
certainly share a news server.

The first PCs were smart terminals intended to interface to a mainframe
and do a little computing locally. To the average user, it makes no
difference where the data is stored and where the program is running.
That's assuming sufficient bandwidth.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2004
Larry Caldwell wrote:
[]
> The first PCs were smart terminals intended to interface to a
> mainframe and do a little computing locally.

[]


That very much depends on your definition of PC!

My first PC was one I built myself and had no connection to any mainframe.

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mxsmanic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2004
Larry Caldwell writes:

> Most companies larger than just a few employees share file servers and
> gateway machines.


They also have personal PCs on every desk, generally one per employee.

> The first PCs were smart terminals intended to interface to a mainframe
> and do a little computing locally.


The first PCs were standalone machines with no connection to a mainframe
at all.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry Caldwell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-21-2004
In article <_npdd.11866$(E-Mail Removed)> , david-
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk (David J Taylor)
says...
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
> []
> > The first PCs were smart terminals intended to interface to a
> > mainframe and do a little computing locally.

> []
>
>
> That very much depends on your definition of PC!
>
> My first PC was one I built myself and had no connection to any mainframe.


Your first PC was years after they were common in the business world.
My first PC was a Reynolds and Reynolds TC-1000, designed to be a smart
terminal for a DEC PDP-11 at General Motors. The first kits were
designed to get affordable computers into the hands of home
experimenters, but they were a long ways from leading edge technology.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola MCSE 4 11-15-2006 02:40 AM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola Microsoft Certification 3 11-14-2006 05:18 PM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola MCSD 3 11-14-2006 05:18 PM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd realexxams@yahoo.com Microsoft Certification 0 05-10-2006 02:35 PM
microsoft.public.dotnet.faqs,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms,microsoft.public.dotnet.general,microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb Charles A. Lackman ASP .Net 1 12-08-2004 07:08 PM



Advertisments