I think I've set a world's record for screw-ups on one project. Instead
of cutting a stile to the correct width, I cut another part of 3" wide
oak to the stile length. The part I cut was supposed to be several
inches longer. Aaargh!
So I left my shop before making further stupid mistakes and installed
service pack 2 to beat the rush. Today is the last day that the "block
SP2" program will work, according to sources. After 45 minutes, my PC
actually didn't blow up, slow down, lock up, or bitch at me about
anything SO far, except to politely ask me if I wanted Flight Simulator
to access the internet. Looks like I my concerns over SP2 wreaking
complete and utter havoc to my PC were unwarranted. (But hey, there's
always tomorrow, and the apps that I haven't tried since the upgrade. <g> )
Dave
Several older apps I have won't run on SP2, I get a can't run 16 bit error.
Good thing I still have ME on the laptop, and it works flawlessly. Never
had any issues with ME on the laptop, but on the desktop it was flakey as
heck.
Bill
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I think I've set a world's record for screw-ups on one project. Instead of
>cutting a stile to the correct width, I cut another part of 3" wide oak to
>the stile length. The part I cut was supposed to be several inches longer.
>Aaargh!
>
> So I left my shop before making further stupid mistakes and installed
> service pack 2 to beat the rush. Today is the last day that the "block
> SP2" program will work, according to sources. After 45 minutes, my PC
> actually didn't blow up, slow down, lock up, or bitch at me about anything
> SO far, except to politely ask me if I wanted Flight Simulator to access
> the internet. Looks like I my concerns over SP2 wreaking complete and
> utter havoc to my PC were unwarranted. (But hey, there's always tomorrow,
> and the apps that I haven't tried since the upgrade. <g> )
>
> Dave
David,
I'm in the software industry, and as I recall, SP2 mostly reaked havoc on
computers that had spyware programs running on them. If your PC was
relatively clean, you were usually okay with the install.
Mark
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I think I've set a world's record for screw-ups on one project. Instead of
>cutting a stile to the correct width, I cut another part of 3" wide oak to
>the stile length. The part I cut was supposed to be several inches longer.
>Aaargh!
>
> So I left my shop before making further stupid mistakes and installed
> service pack 2 to beat the rush. Today is the last day that the "block
> SP2" program will work, according to sources. After 45 minutes, my PC
> actually didn't blow up, slow down, lock up, or bitch at me about anything
> SO far, except to politely ask me if I wanted Flight Simulator to access
> the internet. Looks like I my concerns over SP2 wreaking complete and
> utter havoc to my PC were unwarranted. (But hey, there's always tomorrow,
> and the apps that I haven't tried since the upgrade. <g> )
>
> Dave
Gee...you must be "speculating" on what Microsoft's own list of incompatible
applications says, because I checked out the documentation and counted a
grand total of...31. In addition, there were another 30 or so that needed a
port opened manually...easy enough. Yes, technically that "broke" this
second group, but the woodworking equivalent would be to say your saw was
broken because you needed to tighten your arbor nut.
Look, I'm not a Microsoft apologist by any stretch. I think they're a
shitty company run by a worse human being, and they give the entire software
industry a bad name with their horrid QA.
But the fact of the matter is that XP was a security nightmare, and SP2
fixed the vast majority of the problems. You should have it on your
computer if you're running Windows XP. End of story.
The issue I was describing was the problem many users had when their
spyware-infected PCs crashed completely after loading SP2. Many of them
never got their PC's operating again. Was that Microsoft's fault? Nope.
By definition, spyware doesn't belong on a computer. You paid your money,
you took your chances. Microsoft now advises that you rid your computer of
spyware before you install SP2.
Common sense tells you to rid your computer of spyware anyway.
Check your attitude at the keyboard.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:51:09 -0400, Mark Cooper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> I'm in the software industry, and as I recall, SP2 mostly reaked havoc on
>> computers that had spyware programs running on them. If your PC was
>> relatively clean, you were usually okay with the install.
>
> Microsoft's own list of incompatible applications differs from your
> speculation. Couple hundred apps that it broke.
>
Dave,
If you're going to correct my spelling, make sure yours is spot on. (Hint:
It isn't. Let's just start with "creaters." Oh, and "people" is already
plural...the apostrophe goes before the 's.')
And thanks for "fixing" my top-posting. (Another hint: If it ain't broke,
don't fix it.)
And you still don't get what I was trying to say in the first place. SP2
didn't "break" spyware...it broke the computers that were infested with it.
Much of that spyware was loaded on computers willingly by users. They
downloaded and installed programs which they were completely unfamiliar with
(Kazaa comes to mind) and had no idea they were then being spyed upon. So
your contention that the "real" problem was that SP2 broke legitimate
software is...well...it's pretty much your opinion. Those whose computers
wouldn't reboot because they installed some dumbass adware would argue
differently.
As for the "real" software it broke (as opposed to virtual software, I
guess), yes there were many applications "broken" as a result. My claim,
which you didn't bother to attempt to disclaim (no doubt realizing the
futility), was that it wasn't in the hundreds, but rather in the dozens. So
as to "...no matter how you count them," I'm using base-ten numeration. Get
on board: 31 is not equal to "hundreds."
I am now tired of this conversation.
But more so of you.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:07:00 -0400, Mark Cooper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> (Top-posting fixed)
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:51:09 -0400, Mark Cooper <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I'm in the software industry, and as I recall, SP2 mostly reaked havoc
>>> on
>>> computers that had spyware programs running on them. If your PC was
>>> relatively clean, you were usually okay with the install.
>>
>> Microsoft's own list of incompatible applications differs from your
>> speculation. Couple hundred apps that it broke.
>
>> Gee...you must be "speculating" on what Microsoft's own list of
>> incompatible
>> applications says, because I checked out the documentation and counted a
>> grand total of...31. In addition, there were another 30 or so that
>> needed a
>> port opened manually...easy enough. Yes, technically that "broke" this
>> second group, but the woodworking equivalent would be to say your saw was
>> broken because you needed to tighten your arbor nut.
>
> And yet it directly counters your claim that "SP2 mostly reaked(sic) havoc
> on computers that had spyware programs running on them.". Not only was
> that not the problem, but the problem really was with legitimate
> applications, however you count them.
>
>> Look, I'm not a Microsoft apologist by any stretch. I think they're a
>> shitty company run by a worse human being, and they give the entire
>> software
>> industry a bad name with their horrid QA.
>
> OK, but...?
>
>> But the fact of the matter is that XP was a security nightmare, and SP2
>> fixed the vast majority of the problems.
>
> Yes. XP is a security nightmare, and SP2 is a compatibility nightmare.
> I'm not saying people shouldn't go to SP2 if they've chosen to inflict
> windows on themselves, I'm saying that it broke real peoples' real
> software,
> not "infested machines" as you claimed.
>
>> You should have it on your
>> computer if you're running Windows XP. End of story.
>
> Yes. But it broke more than just infested systems. AMD processors,
> for instance, in some cases ended up being unbootable after the patch
> was put in place. Hardware layer, not app layer or even OS layer.
>
>> The issue I was describing was the problem many users had when their
>> spyware-infected PCs crashed completely after loading SP2. Many of them
>> never got their PC's operating again. Was that Microsoft's fault? Nope.
>
> That's arguable at best. MS's crappy design decisions are what made
> their OS (and only their OS) susceptible to spyware, so they're at least
> secondarily responsible. Of course, the spyware, spammer, and virus
> creaters should be taken out and shot, but making a system wide open
> by design is definitely on MS's list of things they've done wrong.
>
>> By definition, spyware doesn't belong on a computer. You paid your
>> money,
>> you took your chances. Microsoft now advises that you rid your computer
>> of
>> spyware before you install SP2.
>
> Which is fine.
>
>> Common sense tells you to rid your computer of spyware anyway.
>
> Of course.
>
>> Check your attitude at the keyboard.
>
> Which is odd to see from you, given that my message was taking exception
> to your claim that it was about breaking infested computers, rather than
> breaking legitimate apps on a well-maintained windows box. That's all.
> SP2 sucks. XP sucks without SP2. By now, most third-party apps that
> were screwed by SP2 have released patches, so if you haven't patched it
> by now, it's your own damn fault. But, it _did_ break legitimate apps,
> not just spyware.
Dave, you're not exactly the sharpest chisel on the bench now, are you?
Indeed, I think I've had hammers that were sharper than you.
Looking back to my original post, I used the phrases "usually wreaked havoc"
and "you were usually okay." I never said, as you quote, that it "only
broke infessted (sic) systems." Never said it. Let me repeat that for you,
dumbass: I never said it.
It broke systems with spyware, and it caused problems with legitimate
software, too. I acknowledged that once, and I will acknowledge that again
for you here, since you obviously missed it before. As a matter of fact, I
will even quote myself: "As for the 'real' software it broke...yes there
were many applications 'broken' as a result."
My whole fucking point was regarding the _magnitude_ of the problem, and
which type of user was effected more, the "infested" computer, or the user
with legit software which ceased to work correctly. Your opinion is the
latter, and my opinion is that, well, my opinion is that I don't give a
shit.
The last word will now be yours, should you so choose.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:17:55 -0400, Mark Cooper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> If you're going to correct my spelling, make sure yours is spot on.
>> (Hint:
>> It isn't. Let's just start with "creaters." Oh, and "people" is already
>> plural...the apostrophe goes before the 's.')
>
> Obviously you aren't aware of the rule that any speeling flame must
> contain
> at least one error.
>
>> And thanks for "fixing" my top-posting. (Another hint: If it ain't
>> broke,
>> don't fix it.)
>
> Well, if you're not trying to communicate effectively, then sure,
> answering
> without coherent context is fine I suppose.
>
>> And you still don't get what I was trying to say in the first place. SP2
>> didn't "break" spyware...it broke the computers that were infested with
>> it.
>
> And it broke computers (as defined by, their users couldn't use them as
> they had before) which had no spyware on it, but had many many legitimate
> programs on it. Which is my point. Which you're going out of your
> way to pretend not to understand.
>
>> Much of that spyware was loaded on computers willingly by users.
>
> "willingly" but not in an informed way. Yes, you're an idiot if you
> (a) install it, and/or (b) leave it there. But if you think that anyone
> said "I think I'll install some spyware", I would suggest that you're
> mistaken.
>
>> They
>> downloaded and installed programs which they were completely unfamiliar
>> with
>> (Kazaa comes to mind) and had no idea they were then being spyed upon.
>
> Yes, the OS was written in such a way that it was simple for people to
> harm their own setup. What's your point?
>
>
>> So
>> your contention that the "real" problem was that SP2 broke legitimate
>> software is...well...it's pretty much your opinion.
>
> Are you saying it didn't break "legitimate software"? MS disagrees with
> you.
> Oddly enough, I agree with MS on that one, which may be a first in
> decades.
>
>> Those whose computers
>> wouldn't reboot because they installed some dumbass adware would argue
>> differently.
>
> I am not aware of any adware which makes a computer unusable. If you think
> about it, that would be rather stupid to write a piece of software to
> display ads to a user, which prevents the user from seeing the ads, y'see.
>
>> As for the "real" software it broke (as opposed to virtual software, I
>> guess), yes there were many applications "broken" as a result. My claim,
>> which you didn't bother to attempt to disclaim (no doubt realizing the
>> futility), was that it wasn't in the hundreds, but rather in the dozens.
>
> OK, so it was dozens rather than hundreds. Either way, it makes your
> claim
> that it was just infested computers that were harmed, wrong.
>
>> So
>> as to "...no matter how you count them," I'm using base-ten numeration.
>> Get
>> on board: 31 is not equal to "hundreds."
>
> Whatever. You claimed it only broke infessted systems. That much is
> true.
> It broke windows-infested systems.
>
>> I am now tired of this conversation.
>> But more so of you.
>
> Good. As long as you don't post bullshit like "it only broke spyware
> infested systems", we won't have anything else to say to each other.
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
Throckmorton P. Ruddygore <[email protected]> wrote:
>jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> David wrote:
>>> I bet you remember the DEC Rainbow. <g>
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> jo4hn wrote:
>>>
>>>> CP/M rules.
>>>> j4
>>
>> Fidonet forever.
>>
>Howdy Dave
> Nope, too new
>DEC TOPS 20
Those are fairly nice boxes.
I'd rather have a CDC 6600, though.
wonderfully simple hardware instruction set. *So* simple, in fact, that the
machine *couldn't*add*. It performed addition by "complement and subtract". :)
(yes, there _was_ a good reason way it did things that way, too.)
No 'privileged mode' or anything like it. CPU HALT was a valid "user level"
instruction ; did _exactly_ that ; and was the standard/accepted way for an
application to indicate that it was finished.
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:51:43 -0400, "Mark Cooper"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>which type of user was effected more, the "infested" computer, or the user
I think you meant to say "affected". ;-)
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:51:09 -0400, Mark Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:
> David,
>
> I'm in the software industry, and as I recall, SP2 mostly reaked havoc on
> computers that had spyware programs running on them. If your PC was
> relatively clean, you were usually okay with the install.
Microsoft's own list of incompatible applications differs from your
speculation. Couple hundred apps that it broke.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:07:00 -0400, Mark Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:
(Top-posting fixed)
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:51:09 -0400, Mark Cooper <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> I'm in the software industry, and as I recall, SP2 mostly reaked havoc on
>> computers that had spyware programs running on them. If your PC was
>> relatively clean, you were usually okay with the install.
>
> Microsoft's own list of incompatible applications differs from your
> speculation. Couple hundred apps that it broke.
> Gee...you must be "speculating" on what Microsoft's own list of incompatible
> applications says, because I checked out the documentation and counted a
> grand total of...31. In addition, there were another 30 or so that needed a
> port opened manually...easy enough. Yes, technically that "broke" this
> second group, but the woodworking equivalent would be to say your saw was
> broken because you needed to tighten your arbor nut.
And yet it directly counters your claim that "SP2 mostly reaked(sic) havoc
on computers that had spyware programs running on them.". Not only was
that not the problem, but the problem really was with legitimate
applications, however you count them.
> Look, I'm not a Microsoft apologist by any stretch. I think they're a
> shitty company run by a worse human being, and they give the entire software
> industry a bad name with their horrid QA.
OK, but...?
> But the fact of the matter is that XP was a security nightmare, and SP2
> fixed the vast majority of the problems.
Yes. XP is a security nightmare, and SP2 is a compatibility nightmare.
I'm not saying people shouldn't go to SP2 if they've chosen to inflict
windows on themselves, I'm saying that it broke real peoples' real software,
not "infested machines" as you claimed.
> You should have it on your
> computer if you're running Windows XP. End of story.
Yes. But it broke more than just infested systems. AMD processors,
for instance, in some cases ended up being unbootable after the patch
was put in place. Hardware layer, not app layer or even OS layer.
> The issue I was describing was the problem many users had when their
> spyware-infected PCs crashed completely after loading SP2. Many of them
> never got their PC's operating again. Was that Microsoft's fault? Nope.
That's arguable at best. MS's crappy design decisions are what made
their OS (and only their OS) susceptible to spyware, so they're at least
secondarily responsible. Of course, the spyware, spammer, and virus
creaters should be taken out and shot, but making a system wide open
by design is definitely on MS's list of things they've done wrong.
> By definition, spyware doesn't belong on a computer. You paid your money,
> you took your chances. Microsoft now advises that you rid your computer of
> spyware before you install SP2.
Which is fine.
> Common sense tells you to rid your computer of spyware anyway.
Of course.
> Check your attitude at the keyboard.
Which is odd to see from you, given that my message was taking exception
to your claim that it was about breaking infested computers, rather than
breaking legitimate apps on a well-maintained windows box. That's all.
SP2 sucks. XP sucks without SP2. By now, most third-party apps that
were screwed by SP2 have released patches, so if you haven't patched it
by now, it's your own damn fault. But, it _did_ break legitimate apps,
not just spyware.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:17:55 -0400, Mark Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> If you're going to correct my spelling, make sure yours is spot on. (Hint:
> It isn't. Let's just start with "creaters." Oh, and "people" is already
> plural...the apostrophe goes before the 's.')
Obviously you aren't aware of the rule that any speeling flame must contain
at least one error.
> And thanks for "fixing" my top-posting. (Another hint: If it ain't broke,
> don't fix it.)
Well, if you're not trying to communicate effectively, then sure, answering
without coherent context is fine I suppose.
> And you still don't get what I was trying to say in the first place. SP2
> didn't "break" spyware...it broke the computers that were infested with it.
And it broke computers (as defined by, their users couldn't use them as
they had before) which had no spyware on it, but had many many legitimate
programs on it. Which is my point. Which you're going out of your
way to pretend not to understand.
> Much of that spyware was loaded on computers willingly by users.
"willingly" but not in an informed way. Yes, you're an idiot if you
(a) install it, and/or (b) leave it there. But if you think that anyone
said "I think I'll install some spyware", I would suggest that you're
mistaken.
> They
> downloaded and installed programs which they were completely unfamiliar with
> (Kazaa comes to mind) and had no idea they were then being spyed upon.
Yes, the OS was written in such a way that it was simple for people to
harm their own setup. What's your point?
> So
> your contention that the "real" problem was that SP2 broke legitimate
> software is...well...it's pretty much your opinion.
Are you saying it didn't break "legitimate software"? MS disagrees with you.
Oddly enough, I agree with MS on that one, which may be a first in decades.
> Those whose computers
> wouldn't reboot because they installed some dumbass adware would argue
> differently.
I am not aware of any adware which makes a computer unusable. If you think
about it, that would be rather stupid to write a piece of software to
display ads to a user, which prevents the user from seeing the ads, y'see.
> As for the "real" software it broke (as opposed to virtual software, I
> guess), yes there were many applications "broken" as a result. My claim,
> which you didn't bother to attempt to disclaim (no doubt realizing the
> futility), was that it wasn't in the hundreds, but rather in the dozens.
OK, so it was dozens rather than hundreds. Either way, it makes your claim
that it was just infested computers that were harmed, wrong.
> So
> as to "...no matter how you count them," I'm using base-ten numeration. Get
> on board: 31 is not equal to "hundreds."
Whatever. You claimed it only broke infessted systems. That much is true.
It broke windows-infested systems.
> I am now tired of this conversation.
> But more so of you.
Good. As long as you don't post bullshit like "it only broke spyware
infested systems", we won't have anything else to say to each other.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:01:10 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> I bet you remember the DEC Rainbow. <g>
Remember? Hell, I've still _got_ one.
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:51:43 -0400, Mark Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave, you're not exactly the sharpest chisel on the bench now, are you?
> Indeed, I think I've had hammers that were sharper than you.
Yawn. And you top-post, too. Charming.
<plonk>.
"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:01:10 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I bet you remember the DEC Rainbow. <g>
>
> Hey! I remember those. I did a major batch of d-Base programming on
> one of those.
I still shudder when I think of Ashton-Tate and dot prompts....
David wrote:
> I think I've set a world's record for screw-ups on one project. Instead
> of cutting a stile to the correct width, I cut another part of 3" wide
> oak to the stile length. The part I cut was supposed to be several
> inches longer. Aaargh!
>
> So I left my shop before making further stupid mistakes and installed
> service pack 2 to beat the rush. Today is the last day that the "block
> SP2" program will work, according to sources. After 45 minutes, my PC
> actually didn't blow up, slow down, lock up, or bitch at me about
> anything SO far, except to politely ask me if I wanted Flight Simulator
> to access the internet. Looks like I my concerns over SP2 wreaking
> complete and utter havoc to my PC were unwarranted. (But hey, there's
> always tomorrow, and the apps that I haven't tried since the upgrade.
> <g> )
>
> Dave
I installed SP2 several months ago and one major bit of software no
longer worked: Paint Shop Pro. LOML uses it a LOT for her photo hobby.
Restored a previous system and talked to the Paint Shop folks. It was
another month before the new version of PSP was available.
grumble,
jo4hn
in 1198478 20050415 043108 jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote:
>CP/M rules.
>j4
yep, Windoze users are always good for a laugh.
David wrote:
> I bet you remember the DEC Rainbow. <g>
>
> Dave
>
> jo4hn wrote:
>
>> CP/M rules.
>> j4
Now that box was something. Built like a tank -- but generally useless
as H***.
Company I worked for wanted the staff to sell them. I just laughed. They
never sold. Got used as anchors. They missed the market by about 2 or 3
years.
--
Will
Occasional Techno-geek
jo4hn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> David wrote:
>> I bet you remember the DEC Rainbow. <g>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> jo4hn wrote:
>>
>>> CP/M rules.
>>> j4
>
> Fidonet forever.
>
Howdy Dave
Nope, too new
DEC TOPS 20
--
Throckmorton P. Ruddygore
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That's why you had no problems, Leon. Your PC had no idea it was
> vulnerable. :)
Yeah... LOL.
I installed SP2 long ago before people started having problems. I had no
problems.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I think I've set a world's record for screw-ups on one project. Instead of
>cutting a stile to the correct width, I cut another part of 3" wide oak to
>the stile length. The part I cut was supposed to be several inches longer.
>Aaargh!
>
> So I left my shop before making further stupid mistakes and installed
> service pack 2 to beat the rush. Today is the last day that the "block
> SP2" program will work, according to sources. After 45 minutes, my PC
> actually didn't blow up, slow down, lock up, or bitch at me about anything
> SO far, except to politely ask me if I wanted Flight Simulator to access
> the internet. Looks like I my concerns over SP2 wreaking complete and
> utter havoc to my PC were unwarranted. (But hey, there's always tomorrow,
> and the apps that I haven't tried since the upgrade. <g> )
>
> Dave
That's why you had no problems, Leon. Your PC had no idea it was
vulnerable. :)
Dave
Leon wrote:
> I installed SP2 long ago before people started having problems. I had no
> problems.
>
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:01:10 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>I bet you remember the DEC Rainbow. <g>
Hey! I remember those. I did a major batch of d-Base programming on
one of those.
--
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and bring something to kill"
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:32:27 -0700, David wrote:
> That's why you had no problems, Leon. Your PC had no idea it was
> vulnerable. :)
>
> Dave
>
I don't know how you guys read that, but it looks like an in-line change
to me. Quite probably the in-line change did not get the testing the main
portion should have gotten.
That was the computer that displayed 132 columns to every other's 80,
right? That's my recollection of it, anyway, when looking to buy a PC
circa 1984 or maybe '83. I was leery of getting an OS that seemed at
the time to not be "the standard". I finally settled on a AT&T 6300.
$2500. Monochrome. No mouse. 20 Meg HD. Slooow. DOS 5.0. A POS dot
matrix 9-pin Okidata to go along with it. I was so stupid I spent nearly
as much on a plain paper feeder for it, which never worked right; it
would feed a random number of sheets, instead of one at a time. I ended
up using it only with fan-fold paper.
A related note regarding standards: I also avoided Betamax and went with
a mammoth sized, overpriced RCA SelectaVison with a 4 event timer and
WIRED remote. I still can't believe I paid $1299 for that monstrosity!
Back then, there were enough good shows on at the same time to warrant
recording them. I can't remember when I've lasted taped a TV program.
I don't own a TIVO.
Dave
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:01:10 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I bet you remember the DEC Rainbow. <g>
>
>
> Remember? Hell, I've still _got_ one.
>