On 2009-01-30, dsi1 > wrote:

> Don't hassle me if you cannot get Vista to work without crashing. My
> technical skills with OS is meager but it's enough that I can at least
> do that. Linux eggheads just don't appreciate the fact the for most
> folks, Linux ain't ready for prime time.

One, I'm not stupid enough to pay for Vista. Two, I have no interest in
hassling you. Three, how do you know Linux is not ready for prime time if
you've not tried it? I can tell your haven't. Enjoy.

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-30, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>> Don't hassle me if you cannot get Vista to work without crashing. My
>> technical skills with OS is meager but it's enough that I can at least
>> do that. Linux eggheads just don't appreciate the fact the for most
>> folks, Linux ain't ready for prime time.
>
> One, I'm not stupid enough to pay for Vista. Two, I have no interest in
> hassling you. Three, how do you know Linux is not ready for prime time if
> you've not tried it? I can tell your haven't. Enjoy.
>
> nb


The 2 Vista laptops I bought did not have an option for a Linux install.
At the price I got them for, I'll take whatever OS is loaded on 'em.
Does this make me stupid or a bad man?

I have a linux machine at work but there's room only for 3 computers and
it's temporarily in storage. I have no problem with Linux but the 3
computers run XP very smoothly and I have to have a good reason to
monkey around with that setup. I also have two extra XP machines but
there's no way I'd run yet another XP machine. The fourth computer will
obviously be my little Intel Atom machine running Linux - when I can
figure out where the hell to set it up. :-)

Another problem is that the proprietary programming software I use is
not made for linux or for any Apple machine. I wish it did run in Linux
but that's the breaks.

My guess is that you probably don't know what you're talking about when
you say I have tons of choices. What are they?

On 2009-01-31, dsi1 > wrote:
>
> The 2 Vista laptops I bought did not have an option for a Linux install.
> At the price I got them for, I'll take whatever OS is loaded on 'em.
> Does this make me stupid or a bad man?

Neither. It makes you an uninformed man. You do not need an "option" to
install linux. FYI, you could have gotten them cheaper with no OS
installed. It's called a "barebones" computer.

> I have a linux machine at work but there's room only for 3 computers and
> it's temporarily in storage. I have no problem with Linux but the 3
> computers run XP very smoothly and I have to have a good reason to
> monkey around with that setup. I also have two extra XP machines but
> there's no way I'd run yet another XP machine. The fourth computer will
> obviously be my little Intel Atom machine running Linux - when I can
> figure out where the hell to set it up. :-)

I'll leave the interpretation of the above to others.

> Another problem is that the proprietary programming software I use is
> not made for linux or for any Apple machine. I wish it did run in Linux
> but that's the breaks.

I understand that delima. What programming software is that? Are you sure
there isn't an OSS (open source software) alternative? Is it possible you
could accomplish the same thing with an OSS software?

> My guess is that you probably don't know what you're talking about when
> you say I have tons of choices. What are they?

Depends on what you are doing. I realize M$ seems to have a lock on your
choices, but do they? Did you know that you can run Window's Word and Excel
on linux? Do you realize you can send text documents in something other
than .doc files? A simple .txt document can be read by all OSs I know of,
including Windows, Apple, and Linux. Other formats like pdf, txt, html,
etc, are not OS specific. Again, we're back to choice. If you want choice,
you have to stand up for it.

nb

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:05:51 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>I suspect not. It sounds like she buys a machine with what she wants on
>it, and uses it until it's obsolete or dies, and then buys another
>machine that already has what she needs.

All very true!

>The people who have the most
>MS OS problems are those who are continually upgrading and fiddling.

Thanks, that's what I think too.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:49:02 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>'m$ disciples'? i've seen far more messianic fervor on the parts of linux
>and mac o.s. users.

They're projecting their attitude (that includes belittling another
wildly successful OS, probably to justify their choice) on us.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:05:05 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-01-30, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> 'm$ disciples'? i've seen far more messianic fervor on the parts of linux
>> and mac o.s. users.
>
>Apple maybe. You haven't seen real fervor until you get the " ...when they
>pry it from my cold dead hands!" line over XP. When asked why, it's usually
>no comment or some insightful reason like, "cuz I likes it". At least linux
>fans can give valid compelling reasons... in excrutiating detail.
>

Nobody cares - except the Mac/Linux user who is trying to convert the
MS user. You're getting to be as arrogant (and nutty) as any rabid
Mac user, nb. We have lots of Linux and Mac users here who never
comment about which OS they are using. Why is this an issue for the
type like you are? MS users LOVE the MS software, in fact MS saved
Mac's butt by writing Office and other software to run on that system.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:41:37 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:09:07 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > sf > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:11:24 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Blue Screen of Death, Window's notorious crash msg screen:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/b4oaf4
>> >>
>> >> My only retort is that if you get that blue screen of death and your
>> >> hard drive isn't dead, you've been screwing around with something you
>> >> know nothing about and did it to yourself, the OS didn't just up and
>> >> decide it was going to have a bad day.
>> >
>> >I have it from a reliable source (the little voices in my head) that one
>> >of the BSOD crashes mentioned by nb:
>> >
>> >http://digilander.libero.it/torshind/bsod/mcd_bsod.jpg
>> >
>> >was caused by the customer in the McDonalds drive-through trying to
>> >order beetroot on his hamburger. Obviously, the Windows OS was never
>> >designed to handle something like that!
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the insider information!
>>
>> The McDonald's drive in order screen isn't something I work with on an
>> everyday basis, but IMO what you posted was a case in point that
>> software causes the problem.
>
>You *are* aware that the OS is software?

I am, but who calls an OS "software"?.... they just call it an OS.

>The most complicated software
>on the machine, but still just software? And that the BSoD is an OS
>software failure?

Like I said before... I don't get a blue screen, unless my HARD DRIVE
dies.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On 2009-01-31, sf > wrote:

> Nobody cares - except the Mac/Linux user who is trying to convert the
> MS user.

Who else would it be? The drive-in order taker at McDs?


> You're getting to be as arrogant (and nutty) as any rabid
> Mac user, nb.

ME <--- ooh, froth!

> We have lots of Linux and Mac users here who never
> comment about which OS they are using.

Oh, so since I do, I'm a what? Since you so vehemently respond, you are
what?

> Why is this an issue for the
> type like you are?

Oooh! ....I'm a "type" Jinkies!

> MS users LOVE the MS software, in fact MS saved
> Mac's butt by writing Office and other software to run on that system.

I'm not even going there. Mac users?

nb

On 2009-01-31, sf > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:41:37 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> sf > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:09:07 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article >,
>>> > sf > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:11:24 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Blue Screen of Death, Window's notorious crash msg screen:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >http://tinyurl.com/b4oaf4
>>> >>
>>> >> My only retort is that if you get that blue screen of death and your
>>> >> hard drive isn't dead, you've been screwing around with something you
>>> >> know nothing about and did it to yourself, the OS didn't just up and
>>> >> decide it was going to have a bad day.
>>> >
>>> >I have it from a reliable source (the little voices in my head) that one
>>> >of the BSOD crashes mentioned by nb:
>>> >
>>> >http://digilander.libero.it/torshind/bsod/mcd_bsod.jpg
>>> >
>>> >was caused by the customer in the McDonalds drive-through trying to
>>> >order beetroot on his hamburger. Obviously, the Windows OS was never
>>> >designed to handle something like that!
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the insider information!
>>>
>>> The McDonald's drive in order screen isn't something I work with on an
>>> everyday basis, but IMO what you posted was a case in point that
>>> software causes the problem.
>>
>>You *are* aware that the OS is software?
>
> I am, but who calls an OS "software"?.... they just call it an OS.
>
>>The most complicated software
>>on the machine, but still just software? And that the BSoD is an OS
>>software failure?
>
> Like I said before... I don't get a blue screen, unless my HARD DRIVE
> dies.
>
>
>

"dsi1" > wrote
>
> Vista has a lot going for it, I think. It's stable in the machines I've
> used, feature-rich and you can use all those cool Aero effects if you've
> got the machine that's up to the task. What's not desirable about that?
> The reality is that Vista is working just fine for us and changing over to
> Win 7 seems like a nutty idea - a step backwards instead of forwards.

I've decided I like Vista. I never notice it, which means it is doing its
job.

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dsi1" > wrote
>>
>> Vista has a lot going for it, I think. It's stable in the machines I've
>> used, feature-rich and you can use all those cool Aero effects if you've
>> got the machine that's up to the task. What's not desirable about that?
>> The reality is that Vista is working just fine for us and changing over
>> to Win 7 seems like a nutty idea - a step backwards instead of forwards.
>
> I've decided I like Vista. I never notice it, which means it is doing its
> job.

Yeah I got Vista on my clinic computer and it works just fine.

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-31, dsi1 > wrote:
>> The 2 Vista laptops I bought did not have an option for a Linux install.
>> At the price I got them for, I'll take whatever OS is loaded on 'em.
>> Does this make me stupid or a bad man?
>
> Neither. It makes you an uninformed man. You do not need an "option" to
> install linux. FYI, you could have gotten them cheaper with no OS
> installed. It's called a "barebones" computer.

As far as I know, there are no barebone kits for laptops. Barebone kits
hold no economic advantage over just buying the components since the
shipping would cost over $70 - mostly because of the bulky computer
case. They also tend to come with laughable sub-standard power supplies
that I'd replace anyway.

>
>> I have a linux machine at work but there's room only for 3 computers and
>> it's temporarily in storage. I have no problem with Linux but the 3
>> computers run XP very smoothly and I have to have a good reason to
>> monkey around with that setup. I also have two extra XP machines but
>> there's no way I'd run yet another XP machine. The fourth computer will
>> obviously be my little Intel Atom machine running Linux - when I can
>> figure out where the hell to set it up. :-)
>
> I'll leave the interpretation of the above to others.
>
>> Another problem is that the proprietary programming software I use is
>> not made for linux or for any Apple machine. I wish it did run in Linux
>> but that's the breaks.
>
> I understand that delima. What programming software is that? Are you sure
> there isn't an OSS (open source software) alternative? Is it possible you
> could accomplish the same thing with an OSS software?

This is non-commercial proprietary software that would hold little
interest to anybody outside of my industry. Alternate software is not an
option - trust me.

>
>> My guess is that you probably don't know what you're talking about when
>> you say I have tons of choices. What are they?
>
> Depends on what you are doing. I realize M$ seems to have a lock on your
> choices, but do they? Did you know that you can run Window's Word and Excel
> on linux? Do you realize you can send text documents in something other
> than .doc files? A simple .txt document can be read by all OSs I know of,
> including Windows, Apple, and Linux. Other formats like pdf, txt, html,
> etc, are not OS specific. Again, we're back to choice. If you want choice,
> you have to stand up for it.

I don't care much for the idea of running windows programs through an
emulator. Why not just run windows if you need to do this? It would be
simpler, less buggy and faster. What's wrong with Open Office? There are
plenty of great, free linux programs - why would anybody fuss with a
program like wine?

>
> nb

cybercat wrote:
>
> "dsi1" > wrote
>>
>> Vista has a lot going for it, I think. It's stable in the machines
>> I've used, feature-rich and you can use all those cool Aero effects if
>> you've got the machine that's up to the task. What's not desirable
>> about that? The reality is that Vista is working just fine for us and
>> changing over to Win 7 seems like a nutty idea - a step backwards
>> instead of forwards.
>
> I've decided I like Vista. I never notice it, which means it is doing
> its job.

My experience is similar. I had some trepidation about using Vista at
first but as you say, I don't have to think about Vista at all. That's
probably the best feature any OS could have. :-)

On 2009-01-31, dsi1 > wrote:

> I don't care much for the idea of running windows programs through an
> emulator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software)

> plenty of great, free linux programs - why would anybody fuss with a
> program like wine?

Precisely. I haven't fired up Word in years. I recall when Word upgraded
and tried to make itself backwards imcompatible ('98-99?). Temp agencies
demanded resumes in generic txt format, refusing doc files. You want me to
read something, don't send me a doc file. I won't even bother with it.

nb

"dsi1" > wrote
>> I've decided I like Vista. I never notice it, which means it is doing its
>> job.
>
> My experience is similar. I had some trepidation about using Vista at
> first but as you say, I don't have to think about Vista at all. That's
> probably the best feature any OS could have. :-)

Yes indeed. And a PC in general. (When you have enough memory, a big enough
hard drive, and a fast enough processor, you never have to think about the
computer, you just do what you want to do.)

Maybe you and I waited long enough for MS to get some of the bugs out of
Vista.

On 2009-01-31, dsi1 > wrote:

> As far as I know, there are no barebone kits for laptops.

I have to agree, but there are plenty of laptops with linux that you don't
have to pay the Windows fee.

> Barebone kits
> hold no economic advantage over just buying the components since the
> shipping would cost over $70

Not everyone has to buy hardware via USPS. I've bought and configured
several barebones boxes for ppl on a budget and they all worked just fine.

nb

On 2009-01-31, cybercat > wrote:

> Maybe you and I waited long enough for MS to get some of the bugs out of
> Vista.

Maybe you and dsil had enough money to buy a monster of a computer. I
don't.

Up until a week ago, I was using a 450 PII with 312M ram. Granted, this was
my choice, as I didn't see any need to buy M$ required hardware when I
didn't use Windows and didn't need more horsepower. Now, I'm on an i686
2.4MHz box with .5G ram. Light speed fast with Linux, but still not good
enough for Vista.

I'm happy Vista is working for you. I am all for choice and Windows
qualifies. I have no doubt with the right hardware and not pushed too
hard, Vista is a decent OS. Unfortunately, enough people have had problems
with Vista that even M$ loyalists are avoiding it like the plague and it's a
total fiasco for M$. Hopefully, M$ will break its MO and you won't have to
upgrade h/w to run Windows 7, should you decide to.

nb

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:05:05 GMT, notbob wrote:

> On 2009-01-30, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> 'm$ disciples'? i've seen far more messianic fervor on the parts of linux
>> and mac o.s. users.
>
> Apple maybe. You haven't seen real fervor until you get the " ...when they
> pry it from my cold dead hands!" line over XP. When asked why, it's usually
> no comment or some insightful reason like, "cuz I likes it". At least linux
> fans can give valid compelling reasons... in excrutiating detail.
>
> nb

in fairness, i should say that i know some pretty sensible people who like
linux. but there are other people who use it because they feel microsoft
is unspeakable evil, and should be banished from the earth, possibly with
all its users.

the mac people seem to be most often heard from when someone complains of
their ms system and their one-size-fits-all solution is 'get a mac.'

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:03:41 -0500, cybercat wrote:

> "dsi1" > wrote
>>
>> Vista has a lot going for it, I think. It's stable in the machines I've
>> used, feature-rich and you can use all those cool Aero effects if you've
>> got the machine that's up to the task. What's not desirable about that?
>> The reality is that Vista is working just fine for us and changing over to
>> Win 7 seems like a nutty idea - a step backwards instead of forwards.
>
> I've decided I like Vista. I never notice it, which means it is doing its
> job.

i had to dick with it a little, but it seems pretty tractable now. there
wasn't nearly the *sturm und drang* i was led to expect.

that was with 32-bit, service pack 1, for what it's worth.

zero appearances of the blue screen of death. but this was on a new
machine and new peripherals.

your pal,
blake

On 2009-01-31, blake murphy > wrote:

> in fairness, i should say that i know some pretty sensible people who like
> linux. but there are other people who use it because they feel microsoft
> is unspeakable evil, and should be banished from the earth, possibly with
> all its users.

The evil is not unspeakable in my book. M$ will resort to any dirty trick,
tell any lie, spread any untruth. M$ is responsible for the now ubiquitous
acronym, FUD... Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. They are no stranger to blatant
theft and they prosper by extortion on a level that would make organized
crime weep for joy. They offer a product that is getting worse, not better,
while charging ever more money for it. They work overtime to limit the
choice of the worldwide digital community. Banished? Nah. Like I said,
choice above all, but I do believe M$ should be in the dictionary next to
the definition of slimey.


I espouse Linux because I feel it is a superior OS, but I do not condemn
anyone for using Windows. I may think Windows users are a bit lazy and
astonishingly shortsighted, but that's only my opinion.

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-01-31, sf > wrote:

> > MS users LOVE the MS software, in fact MS saved
> > Mac's butt by writing Office and other software to run on that system.
>
> I'm not even going there. Mac users?

I finally gave up the battle, and bought MS Office for the Mac. My wife
is always getting stuff for her jobs that is in the latest MS Word
format. She normally had trouble getting it open. It was easier just
to spend the US$100+ to get the home version of MS Office, than to fool
around with Appleworks and NeoSoft.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-31, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>> As far as I know, there are no barebone kits for laptops.
>
> I have to agree, but there are plenty of laptops with linux that you don't
> have to pay the Windows fee.

My objective was to buy laptops at a good price, be it a linux or
Windows or OS-X. If a linux machine was available at a good price, I
would be using it now. In the end, it's all an question of economics and
what's available.


>
>> Barebone kits
>> hold no economic advantage over just buying the components since the
>> shipping would cost over $70
>
> Not everyone has to buy hardware via USPS. I've bought and configured
> several barebones boxes for ppl on a budget and they all worked just fine.

As I say, it's all a question of economics. Barebone kits cost too much
when you're stranded out in the middle of the pacific. Obviously, you
find it cost effective. I do not.

In my case, I just ship in the separate components without the enclosure
- that's just the way the numbers work out. Economics aside, I'm not a
big fan of barebones kits anyway because you're forced to go with a
build that most likely contains some very cheap parts. Why would I want
those kinds of limitations? I'd rather use the components of my choice
i.e., not the most expensive ones but not the cheapest ones either.

I would buy a barebones kit if I required a small form factor computer
where it's important that the motherboard, the power supply and the CPU
cooler all fit together. If you're building one of these small computers
at a low cost, barebones make a lot of sense but that's about the only
time that it does - for me.


>
> nb

notbob wrote:

> Precisely. I haven't fired up Word in years. I recall when Word upgraded
> and tried to make itself backwards imcompatible ('98-99?). Temp agencies
> demanded resumes in generic txt format, refusing doc files. You want me to
> read something, don't send me a doc file. I won't even bother with it.

If you sent me a doc file, I'd try to open it since it ain't it ain't
such a big deal for me to click on a file. Sorry to hear you have
problems with this. Of course, I wouldn't send anybody a doc file either.

I'll convert any doc I create to a pdf if I need to transmit it
anywhere. I can even upload pieces I create for newspaper ads to the
publishers as a pdf file ready for printing. An incredible convenience.
Sending documents in pdf form also gives your docs a measure of security
as it makes casual editing difficult. Thank God for pdfs!

>
> nb

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:03:41 -0500, cybercat wrote:
>
>> "dsi1" > wrote
>>>
>>> Vista has a lot going for it, I think. It's stable in the machines
>>> I've used, feature-rich and you can use all those cool Aero effects
>>> if you've got the machine that's up to the task. What's not
>>> desirable about that? The reality is that Vista is working just
>>> fine for us and changing over to Win 7 seems like a nutty idea - a
>>> step backwards instead of forwards.
>>
>> I've decided I like Vista. I never notice it, which means it is
>> doing its job.
>
> i had to dick with it a little, but it seems pretty tractable now.
> there wasn't nearly the *sturm und drang* i was led to expect.

When I had to get a new machine after my old one was
eaten alive by adware or whatever, I dreaded the Vista
that would be on the new pc.

Fact is, it's fine, no drama. Love the calendar function.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:

> When I had to get a new machine after my old one was
> eaten alive by adware or whatever, I dreaded the Vista
> that would be on the new pc.

The dirty little secret of WinXP is that with normal use, the system
will gradually slow down until it's a pain to use. This has to do with
programs loading themselves into your start menu, your registry being
messed up and adware and God knows what else. I'm very careful about
keeping startup programs to a minimum, the registry clean, and removing
adware and malware but I've had to do several fresh installs of XP on my
machines. This seems to be required by the OS every 18 to 24 months. It
will be interesting to see if Vista has this nasty problem.

>
> Fact is, it's fine, no drama. Love the calendar function.
>
> nancy

dsi1 wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> When I had to get a new machine after my old one was
>> eaten alive by adware or whatever, I dreaded the Vista
>> that would be on the new pc.
>
> The dirty little secret of WinXP is that with normal use, the system
> will gradually slow down until it's a pain to use. This has to do with
> programs loading themselves into your start menu, your registry being
> messed up and adware and God knows what else. I'm very careful about
> keeping startup programs to a minimum, the registry clean, and
> removing adware and malware but I've had to do several fresh installs
> of XP on my machines. This seems to be required by the OS every 18 to
> 24 months. It will be interesting to see if Vista has this nasty
> problem.

Very interesting, thanks! I'll keep that in mind, that would
certainly be an annoying feature, for lack of a better word.
Not really sure how long I've had this pc, I think since last
July, and I don't notice anything like that. But, I wasn't looking.

nancy

On 2009-01-31, dsi1 > wrote:

> The dirty little secret of WinXP is that with normal use, the system
> will gradually slow down until it's a pain to use.

XP!? This has been true of every version of Windows since W95. If you're a
power user and install and remove many programs, a fresh install is
necessary about once a year, even without the malware and viruses. Then
starting with XP, M$ began some sort of bull about getting permission to
reinstall. Also that whole DRM thing. That was the last straw for me. I
quit flirting with Linux while using W98SE and went full tilt boogie with
Linux. Now my computer does what I want, not what some twit up in Redmond
wants.

I finally got a look at XP on my mom's Vaio box. Boy, if anyone can crap up
a computer worse than M$, it's Sony. As for XP, I see nothing that wasn't
available on W95 or NT, except for fluff and gimmickry which required newer more
powerful hardware. Linux runs great on it.


nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-31, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>> The dirty little secret of WinXP is that with normal use, the system
>> will gradually slow down until it's a pain to use.
>
> XP!? This has been true of every version of Windows since W95. If you're a
> power user and install and remove many programs, a fresh install is
> necessary about once a year, even without the malware and viruses. Then
> starting with XP, M$ began some sort of bull about getting permission to
> reinstall. Also that whole DRM thing. That was the last straw for me. I
> quit flirting with Linux while using W98SE and went full tilt boogie with
> Linux. Now my computer does what I want, not what some twit up in Redmond
> wants.

I can't say that I remember this being much of a problem with my
previous windows. Makes sense though - the advent of broadband
connection is the most logical reason.

>
> I finally got a look at XP on my mom's Vaio box. Boy, if anyone can crap up
> a computer worse than M$, it's Sony. As for XP, I see nothing that wasn't
> available on W95 or NT, except for fluff and gimmickry which required newer more
> powerful hardware. Linux runs great on it.

I'm glad that linux runs great for you - this is the first time I've
heard you say this. Please continue to use it. :-)

>
>
> nb

On 2009-01-31, dsi1 > wrote:

> I'm glad that linux runs great for you - this is the first time I've
> heard you say this.

Now you're just being sarcastic.

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2009-01-31, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>> I'm glad that linux runs great for you - this is the first time I've
>> heard you say this.
>
> Now you're just being sarcastic.

You're right. Sometimes I even annoy myself. :-)

>
> nb

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:30:12 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>
>> Precisely. I haven't fired up Word in years. I recall when Word upgraded
>> and tried to make itself backwards imcompatible ('98-99?). Temp agencies
>> demanded resumes in generic txt format, refusing doc files. You want me to
>> read something, don't send me a doc file. I won't even bother with it.
>
>If you sent me a doc file, I'd try to open it since it ain't it ain't
>such a big deal for me to click on a file. Sorry to hear you have
>problems with this. Of course, I wouldn't send anybody a doc file either.
>
>I'll convert any doc I create to a pdf if I need to transmit it
>anywhere. I can even upload pieces I create for newspaper ads to the
>publishers as a pdf file ready for printing. An incredible convenience.
>Sending documents in pdf form also gives your docs a measure of security
>as it makes casual editing difficult. Thank God for pdfs!

I send doc files. If I know in advance that the person I'm sending it
to will have a problem opening it (like Mac users of old), I'll
convert it to RTF.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:
> I send doc files. If I know in advance that the person I'm sending it
> to will have a problem opening it (like Mac users of old), I'll
> convert it to RTF.

I think a lot of folks would be able to open doc format files but I got
into the habit of converting everything into pdfs because I often create
advertising pieces in MS Publisher. What program do you use to generate
RTF files? I'm not too familiar with that format - feeling kinda dumb
about that. :-)

On Sun 01 Feb 2009 01:56:03a, dsi1 told us...

> sf wrote:
>> I send doc files. If I know in advance that the person I'm sending it
>> to will have a problem opening it (like Mac users of old), I'll
>> convert it to RTF.
>
> I think a lot of folks would be able to open doc format files but I got
> into the habit of converting everything into pdfs because I often create
> advertising pieces in MS Publisher. What program do you use to generate
> RTF files? I'm not too familiar with that format - feeling kinda dumb
> about that. :-)

You can use "Save As" in Word and scroll down the file types. There is an
RTF extension.

--
Wayne Boatwright
e-mail to wayneboatwright at gmail dot com
************************************************** **********************
Date: Sunday, 02(II)/01(I)/09(MMIX)
************************************************** **********************
Today is: National Freedom Day
Countdown till President's Day
2wks 13hrs 50mins
************************************************** **********************
Bureaucrats cut red tape -- lengthwise.
************************************************** **********************

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:56:03 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

>sf wrote:
>> I send doc files. If I know in advance that the person I'm sending it
>> to will have a problem opening it (like Mac users of old), I'll
>> convert it to RTF.
>
>I think a lot of folks would be able to open doc format files but I got
>into the habit of converting everything into pdfs because I often create
>advertising pieces in MS Publisher. What program do you use to generate
>RTF files? I'm not too familiar with that format - feeling kinda dumb
>about that. :-)

Good old Word!

(go to the File Menu)
Save As > Save as type (drop down menu) > choose Rich Text Format.




--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On 2009-01-31, dsi1 > wrote:

> I'll convert any doc I create to a pdf if I need to transmit it
> anywhere. I can even upload pieces I create for newspaper ads to the
> publishers as a pdf file ready for printing. An incredible convenience.
> Sending documents in pdf form also gives your docs a measure of security
> as it makes casual editing difficult. Thank God for pdfs!

Interesting approach. I never thought about such an obvious method of
bypassing proprietary file formats.

I just ran across this helpful piece for making interactive pdf's, a recent
feature improvement from adobe.

http://tinyurl.com/55u4ns

Too bad Adobe is one of the more greedy software purveyors. At a couple
hundred bucks for AApro9, who can afford that? Certainly not I. I have
several OSS (open source software) pdf readers, but was not aware of any oss
pdf authoring software till this article. One respondant mentions Scribus,
oss for linux, mac, and windows. It looks like it will do the AApro work
and at no cost. Dang them self-serving linux ppl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribus

Thnx for the good idea.

nb

In article >, dsi1 > wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > I send doc files. If I know in advance that the person I'm sending it
> > to will have a problem opening it (like Mac users of old), I'll
> > convert it to RTF.
>
> I think a lot of folks would be able to open doc format files but I got
> into the habit of converting everything into pdfs because I often create
> advertising pieces in MS Publisher. What program do you use to generate
> RTF files? I'm not too familiar with that format - feeling kinda dumb
> about that. :-)

Many people can open a .doc MS Word file, just not the one you sent them!

:-(

Before you save a file in MS Word, you must specify what kind of machine
it is going to (Mac or PC) and which version of Word. How many people
do you think do that? How many even have a clue?

So you have to call the recipient first, and find out what they have and
can read. Sometimes they just don't know. Sometimes you are sending an
Email attachment to a list with hundreds of members. It just isn't
reasonable to ask everybody on the list, especially if you think maybe
10% might even take a look at it.

RTF (Rich Text Format) was designed to avoid these problems. Nearly
every word processing and text software can read and write it. It
doesn't matter what machine the software is running on.

PDF has some definite advantages, but although it is simple, it
sometimes is not friendly to the recipient. Many times you cannot cut
and paste from it. You sometimes cannot save it as text, only as a
picture.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2009-02-01, Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> You can use "Save As" in Word and scroll down the file types. There is an
> RTF extension.

The .rtf file extension is Rich Text Format, a cross platform file format
that allows a document to be read by non-Word word processors.
Unfortunately, most Windows users haven't a clue of its existence any more
than they are aware they can also choose the .txt file extention/format,
which is readable by even the most crude and basic text software.

nb

On 2009-02-01, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> PDF has some definite advantages, but although it is simple, it
> sometimes is not friendly to the recipient. Many times you cannot cut
> and paste from it. You sometimes cannot save it as text, only as a
> picture.

That's was my issue with pdf's. No copy and paste, which really sucks.
I've since learned some pdf's can be copy n pasted by using a simple
keyboard shortcut, which I now forget. Apparently later AAreaders included
a menu tool for this.

http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/gen...opyfrompdf.htm

nb

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:52:20 -1000, dsi1 wrote:

> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> When I had to get a new machine after my old one was
>> eaten alive by adware or whatever, I dreaded the Vista
>> that would be on the new pc.
>
> The dirty little secret of WinXP is that with normal use, the system
> will gradually slow down until it's a pain to use. This has to do with
> programs loading themselves into your start menu, your registry being
> messed up and adware and God knows what else. I'm very careful about
> keeping startup programs to a minimum, the registry clean, and removing
> adware and malware but I've had to do several fresh installs of XP on my
> machines. This seems to be required by the OS every 18 to 24 months. It
> will be interesting to see if Vista has this nasty problem.
>

christ, i hope not.

i've never had a machine so gunked up as to require a re-install of the
o.s.

your pal,
blake

notbob wrote:

> On 2009-02-01, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>PDF has some definite advantages, but although it is simple, it
>>sometimes is not friendly to the recipient. Many times you cannot cut
>>and paste from it. You sometimes cannot save it as text, only as a
>>picture.
>
>
> That's was my issue with pdf's. No copy and paste, which really sucks.
> I've since learned some pdf's can be copy n pasted by using a simple
> keyboard shortcut, which I now forget. Apparently later AAreaders included
> a menu tool for this.
>
> http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/gen...opyfrompdf.htm
>
> nb

pdf readers always had a select tool just for selecting images
and text. Maybe you haven't found it yet. It's the arrow icon, as
opposed to the hand icon.

And, if you can't select and copy from a pdf document don't
blame Adobe. It's because the author 'locked' it. Content
creators often use acrobat just for it this feature. They
want to disable copying to the clipboard.