Somewhere on teh intarwebs Larry wrote:
> Bigguy <bigguy******.com> wrote in
> news:7ko677F39t0hsU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Hysterical nonsense...
>>
>>
>
> Historical caution. Name one product Micro$oft ever produced where
> ver 1.0 was ready for issue......we'll wait.

Haven't you heard that it's all a big con? It isn't version 7.0, it's simply
a refresh of Vista (Ver. 6.0). That's why, when you type 'ver' at a command
prompt in Windows "7" <cough> it tells you that it's version 6.1.

> Remember Win ME?......just one example to get you started.....(c;]
>
> Oh, I already have you started!....sorry.

Heh!
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CAF4955F89Cnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>> Ablang <ron916******.com> wrote in news:f66805b9-d447-4c3a-9e6c-
>> d31c74318703@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Get Windows 7 on Your Netbook in a Half-Hour
>>> Follow these steps to prepare a USB key on a Windows XP-equipped
>>> computer and install Windows 7 on your netbook in under 30 minutes.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, NO! Don't screw up a good working XP machine with Vista 7!
>>
>> I was fooling around with WinVista7 at the store today. A brand new
>> laptop....6GB of RAM had 3.6GB of free memory to run your stuff? The only
>> program running on it was the little store demo! You gotta
>> have 6GB to run
>> it?! How crazy! A netbook only has 2GB, TOPS! How is a netbook
>> gonna run
>> this WinVista7 crapware and have room to run your stuff in 2 GB of
>> RAM on an N270 Atom??
>>
>> Geez it keeps getting BIGGER! How stupid! Really stupid on a
>> little Atom netbook! The little netbook will be HOSED!
>>
>
> You're posting bollocks yet again.
>
> Windows 7 (there is no such product as Vista7)

Correct. Windows '7' is in fact Vista.1. Vista was Windows 6.0 and '7' is
Windows 6.1.

Don't blame me, it's Microsoft who're misrepresenting their product.
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

> is actually smaller
> than Vista. It would be quite impossible to run the 32 bit version
> of Windows 7 if it required the memory that you claim it requires.

"~misfit~" <sore_n_happy******.com.au> wrote in message
news:hcbemf$v3p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs M.I.5¾ wrote:
>> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CAF4955F89Cnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>>> Ablang <ron916******.com> wrote in news:f66805b9-d447-4c3a-9e6c-
>>> d31c74318703@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> Get Windows 7 on Your Netbook in a Half-Hour
>>>> Follow these steps to prepare a USB key on a Windows XP-equipped
>>>> computer and install Windows 7 on your netbook in under 30 minutes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, NO! Don't screw up a good working XP machine with Vista 7!
>>>
>>> I was fooling around with WinVista7 at the store today. A brand new
>>> laptop....6GB of RAM had 3.6GB of free memory to run your stuff? The
>>> only program running on it was the little store demo! You gotta
>>> have 6GB to run
>>> it?! How crazy! A netbook only has 2GB, TOPS! How is a netbook
>>> gonna run
>>> this WinVista7 crapware and have room to run your stuff in 2 GB of
>>> RAM on an N270 Atom??
>>>
>>> Geez it keeps getting BIGGER! How stupid! Really stupid on a
>>> little Atom netbook! The little netbook will be HOSED!
>>>
>>
>> You're posting bollocks yet again.
>>
>> Windows 7 (there is no such product as Vista7)
>
> Correct. Windows '7' is in fact Vista.1. Vista was Windows 6.0 and '7' is
> Windows 6.1.
>

I have seen nothing that claims Windows 7 is just an "enhancement" of Vista
and much that claims that is a completely new development. If Windows 7 was
just an enhancement of Vista it would be unlikely to be smaller.

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hcasft$iue$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Re: "Name one product Micro$oft ever produced where ver 1.0 was ready for
> issue"
>
> Windows XP; and Windows 98. Sure, there were updates and service packs.
> There will ALWAYS be updates and service packs. That doesn't mean that
> the version without them was seriously flawed AT THE TIME OF IT'S RELEASE.
>
> Re: "Remember Win ME?"
>
> That's hitting below the belt. Not because it's incorrect, it's very
> correct. But because it is, absolutely, the worst OS that MS has ever
> released, and even MS will admit that. So was it awful? Of course it
> was, which EVERYONE (even) MS recognizes. But, consequently, the only
> thing that it proves is that MS can release a bad OS. Which is very
> different from your assertion that it always or usually does.
>

There was considerable evidence that ME was in fact, more or less Windows 98
third edition. Although ME appeared to have much changed functionality
(e.g. There was no real DOS mode and no ability to create bootable
floppies), in reality much of the Windows 98 functionality could be restored
as the changes were simply edits to configuration and start up files.

My Windows ME on my older laptop has had the real DOS mode restored, creates
bootable floppies and many other badly altered features altered back. Once
these changes are made ME was more stable and no worse than Windows 98 SE.
In reality Windows ME, had it not been for all the unnecessary functional
changes, was just a year 2000 update to Windows 98 SE.

"~misfit~" <sore_n_happy******.com.au> wrote in message
news:hcbbc4$dof$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Larry wrote:
>> Bigguy <bigguy******.com> wrote in
>> news:7ko677F39t0hsU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Hysterical nonsense...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Historical caution. Name one product Micro$oft ever produced where
>> ver 1.0 was ready for issue......we'll wait.
>
> Haven't you heard that it's all a big con? It isn't version 7.0, it's
> simply a refresh of Vista (Ver. 6.0). That's why, when you type 'ver' at a
> command prompt in Windows "7" <cough> it tells you that it's version 6.1.
>

'ver' at a command prompt is not really a reliable way of finding out the
parentage of an operating system. Especially when you consider a DOS
version some time ago that could be user configured to return any version
description of your chosing (DOS 6?).

"M.I.5¾" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in
news:4ae9663c$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net:

> My Windows ME on my older laptop has had the real DOS mode restored,
> creates bootable floppies and many other badly altered features
> altered back. Once these changes are made ME was more stable and no
> worse than Windows 98 SE. In reality Windows ME, had it not been for
> all the unnecessary functional changes, was just a year 2000 update to
> Windows 98 SE.
>
>
>

Cool! My only floppy drive is in my Dell Poweredge 2600 Server and
bathroom heater combo now. A floppy sure slows down dual 3.2Ghz Xeons and
6GB of 64 bit RAM....(c;]....

to a crawl!


--
Larry

In news:hcbb88$d4f$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:03:49 +1300:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> "Bigguy" <bigguy******.com> wrote in message
>> news:7ko677F39t0hsU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Hysterical nonsense...
>>
>> Well that was, but I am hear to comment what you said. ;-)
>
> Huh? For a man who types a lot you sure don't know how to say things
> in English properly. Did you even go to high school?

Hi Shaun! You mean, "hear" instead of "here"? Yes I saw that as I was
clicking on send. Newsgroups do not allow editing once the message is
sent.

Did I go to high school? Yes indeed! And back in about 2001, I was doing
my own research and I discovered that my left and right brain operates
more independently than most people. Which interesting enough offers
both pros and cons. I am sure the medical community will also discover
this in about 50 years from now. As they seem to be slower than some of
the rest of us to discover new things. Then they will create a label for
this and offer drugs to control it. lol

As an engineer, back in the 70's and 80's... engineers themselves wrote
most computer manuals. And what was funny is that non-engineer computer
users often commended how poorly the manuals were written. Which was
funny to me, since I could understand what other engineers were talking
about no matter how poorly they were worded. All of this changed in the
later 80's when companies had professional writers proofing the manuals.

And it is easy for me to see the difference being originally written by
an engineer and then proofed by a professional writer. Or one written by
a professional writer without any input from the engineer at all. And I
miss the old method. As now manuals are written like a manual for
dummies series. Which doesn't offer any insight to the internal workings
at all.

Studies have shown this over and over again. Those that are really good
in one area, often lack in another. And I have noticed really great
electronic engineers, are generally also poor writers. Although this is
found in many areas of expertise too. One great example is that Albert
Einstein was dyslexic. Nor was he good at math. And the German school
system said that Albert wouldn't ever amount to anything. They thought
he was as dumb as a rock. lol

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2

Somewhere on teh intarwebs M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "~misfit~" <sore_n_happy******.com.au> wrote in message
> news:hcbbc4$dof$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Larry wrote:
>>> Bigguy <bigguy******.com> wrote in
>>> news:7ko677F39t0hsU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> Hysterical nonsense...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Historical caution. Name one product Micro$oft ever produced where
>>> ver 1.0 was ready for issue......we'll wait.
>>
>> Haven't you heard that it's all a big con? It isn't version 7.0, it's
>> simply a refresh of Vista (Ver. 6.0). That's why, when you type
>> 'ver' at a command prompt in Windows "7" <cough> it tells you that
>> it's version 6.1.
>
> 'ver' at a command prompt is not really a reliable way of finding out
> the parentage of an operating system. Especially when you consider a
> DOS version some time ago that could be user configured to return any
> version description of your chosing (DOS 6?).

Ahh. OK. Anyway, now it's out Microsoft admit that Windows 7 is actually
Windows 6.1. They only called it 7 for marketing reasons, to imply that it
was a whole new OS and not related to the disaster that was Vista (version
6.0) at all.
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "~misfit~" <sore_n_happy******.com.au> wrote in message
> news:hcbemf$v3p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs M.I.5¾ wrote:
>>> "Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CAF4955F89Cnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>>>> Ablang <ron916******.com> wrote in news:f66805b9-d447-4c3a-9e6c-
>>>> d31c74318703@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Get Windows 7 on Your Netbook in a Half-Hour
>>>>> Follow these steps to prepare a USB key on a Windows XP-equipped
>>>>> computer and install Windows 7 on your netbook in under 30
>>>>> minutes.
>>>>
>>>> No, NO! Don't screw up a good working XP machine with Vista 7!
>>>>
>>>> I was fooling around with WinVista7 at the store today. A brand
>>>> new laptop....6GB of RAM had 3.6GB of free memory to run your
>>>> stuff? The only program running on it was the little store demo! You
>>>> gotta have 6GB to run
>>>> it?! How crazy! A netbook only has 2GB, TOPS! How is a netbook
>>>> gonna run
>>>> this WinVista7 crapware and have room to run your stuff in 2 GB of
>>>> RAM on an N270 Atom??
>>>>
>>>> Geez it keeps getting BIGGER! How stupid! Really stupid on a
>>>> little Atom netbook! The little netbook will be HOSED!
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're posting bollocks yet again.
>>>
>>> Windows 7 (there is no such product as Vista7)
>>
>> Correct. Windows '7' is in fact Vista.1. Vista was Windows 6.0 and
>> '7' is Windows 6.1.
>>
>
> I have seen nothing that claims Windows 7 is just an "enhancement" of
> Vista and much that claims that is a completely new development.

Then we read different sites. Believe me or not, '7' is in fact 6.1

> If
> Windows 7 was just an enhancement of Vista it would be unlikely to be
> smaller.

Do you understand 'enhancement'? (Or have you seen so much spam about
'enhancement' that you're now convinced that it means to make bigger? <g>)
Part of the remit was to make it less hardware-hungry as a lot of people
didn't upgrade to Vista as their machines, while running XP fine, didn't
look good for Vista..
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> In news:hcbb88$d4f$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> ~misfit~ typed on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:03:49 +1300:
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>> "Bigguy" <bigguy******.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7ko677F39t0hsU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Hysterical nonsense...
>>>
>>> Well that was, but I am hear to comment what you said. ;-)
>>
>> Huh? For a man who types a lot you sure don't know how to say things
>> in English properly. Did you even go to high school?
>
> Hi Shaun! You mean, "hear" instead of "here"? Yes I saw that as I was
> clicking on send. Newsgroups do not allow editing once the message is
> sent.

Well, that and the fact that the sentence doesn't make sense. Unless you
missed a word out as well as mis-spelled one.

> Did I go to high school? Yes indeed! And back in about 2001, I was
> doing my own research and I discovered that my left and right brain
> operates more independently than most people. Which interesting
> enough offers both pros and cons. I am sure the medical community
> will also discover this in about 50 years from now. As they seem to
> be slower than some of the rest of us to discover new things. Then
> they will create a label for this and offer drugs to control it. lol
>
> As an engineer, back in the 70's and 80's... engineers themselves
> wrote most computer manuals. And what was funny is that non-engineer
> computer users often commended how poorly the manuals were written.
> Which was funny to me, since I could understand what other engineers
> were talking about no matter how poorly they were worded. All of this
> changed in the later 80's when companies had professional writers
> proofing the manuals.
> And it is easy for me to see the difference being originally written
> by an engineer and then proofed by a professional writer. Or one
> written by a professional writer without any input from the engineer
> at all. And I miss the old method. As now manuals are written like a
> manual for dummies series. Which doesn't offer any insight to the
> internal workings at all.
>
> Studies have shown this over and over again. Those that are really
> good in one area, often lack in another. And I have noticed really
> great electronic engineers, are generally also poor writers. Although
> this is found in many areas of expertise too. One great example is
> that Albert Einstein was dyslexic. Nor was he good at math. And the
> German school system said that Albert wouldn't ever amount to
> anything. They thought he was as dumb as a rock. lol

So you compare yourself to Einstein as well as infer that you are a "really
great electronic engineer".

Do you have trouble getting that ego through doorways much?
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

In news:hcde4u$bia$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:05:31 +1300:
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:hcbb88$d4f$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>> ~misfit~ typed on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:03:49 +1300:
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>>>> "Bigguy" <bigguy******.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:7ko677F39t0hsU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Hysterical nonsense...
>>>>
>>>> Well that was, but I am hear to comment what you said. ;-)
>>>
>>> Huh? For a man who types a lot you sure don't know how to say things
>>> in English properly. Did you even go to high school?
>>
>> Hi Shaun! You mean, "hear" instead of "here"? Yes I saw that as I was
>> clicking on send. Newsgroups do not allow editing once the message is
>> sent.
>
> Well, that and the fact that the sentence doesn't make sense. Unless
> you missed a word out as well as mis-spelled one.

Well it is evident that computers doesn't make sense to you. Hyperpoles
confuse you. Marketing blinds you. And I am sure the more I learn about
you, I'll have a long list in no time.

>> Did I go to high school? Yes indeed! And back in about 2001, I was
>> doing my own research and I discovered that my left and right brain
>> operates more independently than most people. Which interesting
>> enough offers both pros and cons. I am sure the medical community
>> will also discover this in about 50 years from now. As they seem to
>> be slower than some of the rest of us to discover new things. Then
>> they will create a label for this and offer drugs to control it. lol
>>
>> As an engineer, back in the 70's and 80's... engineers themselves
>> wrote most computer manuals. And what was funny is that non-engineer
>> computer users often commended how poorly the manuals were written.
>> Which was funny to me, since I could understand what other engineers
>> were talking about no matter how poorly they were worded. All of this
>> changed in the later 80's when companies had professional writers
>> proofing the manuals.
>> And it is easy for me to see the difference being originally written
>> by an engineer and then proofed by a professional writer. Or one
>> written by a professional writer without any input from the engineer
>> at all. And I miss the old method. As now manuals are written like a
>> manual for dummies series. Which doesn't offer any insight to the
>> internal workings at all.
>>
>> Studies have shown this over and over again. Those that are really
>> good in one area, often lack in another. And I have noticed really
>> great electronic engineers, are generally also poor writers. Although
>> this is found in many areas of expertise too. One great example is
>> that Albert Einstein was dyslexic. Nor was he good at math. And the
>> German school system said that Albert wouldn't ever amount to
>> anything. They thought he was as dumb as a rock. lol
>
> So you compare yourself to Einstein as well as infer that you are a
> "really great electronic engineer".
>
> Do you have trouble getting that ego through doorways much?

Really? My observation about others makes you believe I have an ego
problem? I am just trying to be kind and trying to tell you to be
careful! And don't foolishly bite off more than you can chew. And to be
fair, I am doing so on your level and I have tied my legs, arms, and I
have blindfolded myself. And I am sure you didn't know this, otherwise
you wouldn't have ever said that at all.

Now if I *did* have an ego problem, I would have told you such things
as:

1) I had the highest engineering score they had seen in 5 years.

2) I *must* have been one of the *best* to be involved with the NASA
VTAS computer.

3) There was never anything I heard Einstein ever say that was above my
comprehension level.

4) Designing missiles to go where they are supposed to go, is akin to
being a rocket scientist. So what's the difference?

5) And ask what a pissy ant like you have done in comparison?

Since I didn't say any of these things, you might now understand I
couldn't possibly have an ego problem. Otherwise you would have heard
such things from me years ago.

And btw, it isn't bragging if it is all true. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2

"~misfit~" <sore_n_happy******.com.au> wrote in message
news:hcddck$4he$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs M.I.5¾ wrote:
>> "~misfit~" <sore_n_happy******.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:hcbbc4$dof$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Larry wrote:
>>>> Bigguy <bigguy******.com> wrote in
>>>> news:7ko677F39t0hsU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>> Hysterical nonsense...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Historical caution. Name one product Micro$oft ever produced where
>>>> ver 1.0 was ready for issue......we'll wait.
>>>
>>> Haven't you heard that it's all a big con? It isn't version 7.0, it's
>>> simply a refresh of Vista (Ver. 6.0). That's why, when you type
>>> 'ver' at a command prompt in Windows "7" <cough> it tells you that
>>> it's version 6.1.
>>
>> 'ver' at a command prompt is not really a reliable way of finding out
>> the parentage of an operating system. Especially when you consider a
>> DOS version some time ago that could be user configured to return any
>> version description of your chosing (DOS 6?).
>
> Ahh. OK. Anyway, now it's out Microsoft admit that Windows 7 is actually
> Windows 6.1. They only called it 7 for marketing reasons, to imply that it
> was a whole new OS and not related to the disaster that was Vista (version
> 6.0) at all.
>

So you are saying that it really is an updated version of Vista? Presumably
they have done their usual trick of enhancing and adding to the bugs and
misfeatures.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
> Now if I *did* have an ego problem, I would have told you such things
> as:
>
> 1) I had the highest engineering score they had seen in 5 years.
>
> 2) I *must* have been one of the *best* to be involved with the NASA
> VTAS computer.
>
> 3) There was never anything I heard Einstein ever say that was above
> my comprehension level.
>
> 4) Designing missiles to go where they are supposed to go, is akin to
> being a rocket scientist. So what's the difference?
>
> 5) And ask what a pissy ant like you have done in comparison?
>
> Since I didn't say any of these things, you might now understand I
> couldn't possibly have an ego problem. Otherwise you would have heard
> such things from me years ago.

LOL, I have, on and off. You're always hinting at how ****ing wonderful you
are, while not being able to string a sentence together. You've pretty much
said all of this before, just not strung together like that.

> And btw, it isn't bragging if it is all true. ;-)

Prove it.
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

Somewhere on teh intarwebs M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "~misfit~" <sore_n_happy******.com.au> wrote in message
> news:hcddck$4he$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs M.I.5¾ wrote:
>>> "~misfit~" <sore_n_happy******.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:hcbbc4$dof$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Larry wrote:
>>>>> Bigguy <bigguy******.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:7ko677F39t0hsU1@mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hysterical nonsense...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Historical caution. Name one product Micro$oft ever produced
>>>>> where ver 1.0 was ready for issue......we'll wait.
>>>>
>>>> Haven't you heard that it's all a big con? It isn't version 7.0,
>>>> it's simply a refresh of Vista (Ver. 6.0). That's why, when you
>>>> type 'ver' at a command prompt in Windows "7" <cough> it tells you
>>>> that it's version 6.1.
>>>
>>> 'ver' at a command prompt is not really a reliable way of finding
>>> out the parentage of an operating system. Especially when you
>>> consider a DOS version some time ago that could be user configured
>>> to return any version description of your chosing (DOS 6?).
>>
>> Ahh. OK. Anyway, now it's out Microsoft admit that Windows 7 is
>> actually Windows 6.1. They only called it 7 for marketing reasons,
>> to imply that it was a whole new OS and not related to the disaster
>> that was Vista (version 6.0) at all.
>>
>
> So you are saying that it really is an updated version of Vista?
> Presumably they have done their usual trick of enhancing and adding
> to the bugs and misfeatures.

Yes. It's Vista redux. Oh it's no doubt better than Vista was OOTB (it'd
have to be, there was a public swing away from MS after they released Vista)
but to call it 7 is blatent misrepresentation. It's 6.1.
--
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.

In news:hcjnpg$ces$1@news.eternal-september.org,
~misfit~ typed on :
> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote:
>> Now if I *did* have an ego problem, I would have told you such things
>> as:
>>
>> 1) I had the highest engineering score they had seen in 5 years.
>>
>> 2) I *must* have been one of the *best* to be involved with the NASA
>> VTAS computer.
>>
>> 3) There was never anything I heard Einstein ever say that was above
>> my comprehension level.
>>
>> 4) Designing missiles to go where they are supposed to go, is akin to
>> being a rocket scientist. So what's the difference?
>>
>> 5) And ask what a pissy ant like you have done in comparison?
>>
>> Since I didn't say any of these things, you might now understand I
>> couldn't possibly have an ego problem. Otherwise you would have heard
>> such things from me years ago.
>
> LOL, I have, on and off. You're always hinting at how f**king
> wonderful you are, while not being able to string a sentence
> together. You've pretty much said all of this before, just not strung
> together like that.

First, using profanity is often a sign of poor taste and is also
generally viewed as a person's lack of intelligence. Also I explained to
you that I noticed that many great engineers lacking with the language
side of their brains. Apparently that discussion went right over your
head. And remember I mentioned as great as Einstein was, the German
school system viewed him as a dummy that would never amount to anything?

I see this as a common theme when an individual greatly excels in one
area, also lacks in another. Not only in the intelligence area, but it
also happens with physical abilities too. Just look at Michael Jordan
for example. He's no pro when it comes to baseball or golf, but hand him
a basketball and everything changes.

And speaking about wonderful, you are showing how you are just the
opposite. Since you can't have a discussion and rely on your technical
abilities. You then resort to using profanity and ad hominem attacks.
Which quite frankly, isn't a sign of being very smart.

So are you going to continue to dig yourself a hole, or are you going to
stick to laptop discussions? If the former, I am sorry. As I am not
going to help you any further.

>> And btw, it isn't bragging if it is all true. ;-)
>
> Prove it.

Prove what? I used the above example to show what I would say if I *did*
have an ego problem. You really don't comprehend logic too well do you
Shaun?

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2