U
Unknown
You've got more understanding than that to make that type of comment. Cool
it.
it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
U
Unknown
Are you such a perfectionist that you have to complain about friendly
posts????
posts????
?
=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA
there is no rule against
cross posting, Hemi.
http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales/help/help_en-us.htm: cross-post
Adding a single post to more than one discussion group at the same time.
Cross-posting is an advanced feature and should only be used if you
really believe that more than one discussion group will be interested in
your thread.
btw:
Ditto on your observations.
Gerimandering the sub threads
is the problem.
--
..
cross posting, Hemi.
http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales/help/help_en-us.htm: cross-post
Adding a single post to more than one discussion group at the same time.
Cross-posting is an advanced feature and should only be used if you
really believe that more than one discussion group will be interested in
your thread.
btw:
Ditto on your observations.
Gerimandering the sub threads
is the problem.
--
db ·´¯`·.¸. said:<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
..
G
Guest
HEMI I enjoyed your post here but, there is one comment that I'd like to ask
you about --- "the original PC that didn't even have DOS, that came in with
the XT"--did you possibly mean to say CP/M, from the wonderful company that
was called DIGITAL RESEARCH? The reason I ask is because, I still have that
1st edition XT, that you speak of, downstairs in my garage. And if I cleaned
it up, plugged it in and "fired" it up, DOS would "magically" appear, and be
available for me to give that PC instructions. My first "PC" was a VIC-20 and
the next was that 4.77MHz IBM PC. And like you, I hung up my programmer hat
around 1992, because it wasn't fun anymore to me.
you about --- "the original PC that didn't even have DOS, that came in with
the XT"--did you possibly mean to say CP/M, from the wonderful company that
was called DIGITAL RESEARCH? The reason I ask is because, I still have that
1st edition XT, that you speak of, downstairs in my garage. And if I cleaned
it up, plugged it in and "fired" it up, DOS would "magically" appear, and be
available for me to give that PC instructions. My first "PC" was a VIC-20 and
the next was that 4.77MHz IBM PC. And like you, I hung up my programmer hat
around 1992, because it wasn't fun anymore to me.
H
HEMI-Powered
=?Utf-8?B?aDEyNDc=?= added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...
The very, very first IBM PC came with just two floppy drives and
pretty much nothing else. DOS hadn't been invented yet. The only
software that was available had been written in assembly language
using only the BIOS for I/O. CP/M WAS an option, but in my
company, we actually waited a bit until IBM announced the XT with
DOS 1.0 and a 10 MB (!) HD.
I ran through 3 different Apple computers, the original ][, a
later //e, and a //c compact for my daughter. My first real PC
was what was then called a clone and had DOS 4.0 on it. Later, I
tried Windows 3.0 that say on top of DOS but to say it was
unstable was an understatement. Win 3.1 wasn't bad, then I went
to 95, passed up ME and 2000, and built new ones with XP. First,
just XP, then SP1. And, my current PC used an SP1 installed CD
with SP2 on a CD I'd ordered from MS.
BTW, I'll tell you how primative Apple's were in late 1978: they
didn't even have a floppy, as that takes some sort of O/S. So,
for almost a year, I saved my BASIC programs to audio cassette
tapes! We've come a long way, baby!
discussion du jour ...
HEMI I enjoyed your post here but, there is one comment that
I'd like to ask you about --- "the original PC that didn't
even have DOS, that came in with the XT"--did you possibly
mean to say CP/M, from the wonderful company that was called
DIGITAL RESEARCH? The reason I ask is because, I still have
that 1st edition XT, that you speak of, downstairs in my
garage. And if I cleaned it up, plugged it in and "fired" it
up, DOS would "magically" appear, and be available for me to
give that PC instructions. My first "PC" was a VIC-20 and the
next was that 4.77MHz IBM PC. And like you, I hung up my
programmer hat around 1992, because it wasn't fun anymore to
me.
The very, very first IBM PC came with just two floppy drives and
pretty much nothing else. DOS hadn't been invented yet. The only
software that was available had been written in assembly language
using only the BIOS for I/O. CP/M WAS an option, but in my
company, we actually waited a bit until IBM announced the XT with
DOS 1.0 and a 10 MB (!) HD.
I ran through 3 different Apple computers, the original ][, a
later //e, and a //c compact for my daughter. My first real PC
was what was then called a clone and had DOS 4.0 on it. Later, I
tried Windows 3.0 that say on top of DOS but to say it was
unstable was an understatement. Win 3.1 wasn't bad, then I went
to 95, passed up ME and 2000, and built new ones with XP. First,
just XP, then SP1. And, my current PC used an SP1 installed CD
with SP2 on a CD I'd ordered from MS.
BTW, I'll tell you how primative Apple's were in late 1978: they
didn't even have a floppy, as that takes some sort of O/S. So,
for almost a year, I saved my BASIC programs to audio cassette
tapes! We've come a long way, baby!
H
HEMI-Powered
I do NOT crosspost myself, EVER. But, if I was replying to someonethere is no rule against
cross posting, Hemi.
http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales/help/help_en-us.htm:
cross-post Adding a single post to more than one discussion
group at the same time. Cross-posting is an advanced feature
and should only be used if you really believe that more than
one discussion group will be interested in your thread.
btw:
Ditto on your observations.
Gerimandering the sub threads
is the problem.
who had, that would explain why MY replies appeared multiple
places.
B
Bob I
HEMI-Powered said:=?Utf-8?B?aDEyNDc=?= added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...
HEMI I enjoyed your post here but, there is one comment that
I'd like to ask you about --- "the original PC that didn't
even have DOS, that came in with the XT"--did you possibly
mean to say CP/M, from the wonderful company that was called
DIGITAL RESEARCH? The reason I ask is because, I still have
that 1st edition XT, that you speak of, downstairs in my
garage. And if I cleaned it up, plugged it in and "fired" it
up, DOS would "magically" appear, and be available for me to
give that PC instructions. My first "PC" was a VIC-20 and the
next was that 4.77MHz IBM PC. And like you, I hung up my
programmer hat around 1992, because it wasn't fun anymore to
me.
The very, very first IBM PC came with just two floppy drives and
pretty much nothing else. DOS hadn't been invented yet. The only
software that was available had been written in assembly language
using only the BIOS for I/O. CP/M WAS an option, but in my
company, we actually waited a bit until IBM announced the XT with
DOS 1.0 and a 10 MB (!) HD.
I ran through 3 different Apple computers, the original ][, a
later //e, and a //c compact for my daughter. My first real PC
was what was then called a clone and had DOS 4.0 on it. Later, I
tried Windows 3.0 that say on top of DOS but to say it was
unstable was an understatement. Win 3.1 wasn't bad, then I went
to 95, passed up ME and 2000, and built new ones with XP. First,
just XP, then SP1. And, my current PC used an SP1 installed CD
with SP2 on a CD I'd ordered from MS.
BTW, I'll tell you how primative Apple's were in late 1978: they
didn't even have a floppy, as that takes some sort of O/S. So,
for almost a year, I saved my BASIC programs to audio cassette
tapes! We've come a long way, baby!
I thinks XT came with PC-DOS 2.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-DOS
U
Unknown
Didn't it come with MS-DOS???
Bob I said:HEMI-Powered said:=?Utf-8?B?aDEyNDc=?= added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...HEMI I enjoyed your post here but, there is one comment that
I'd like to ask you about --- "the original PC that didn't
even have DOS, that came in with the XT"--did you possibly
mean to say CP/M, from the wonderful company that was called
DIGITAL RESEARCH? The reason I ask is because, I still have
that 1st edition XT, that you speak of, downstairs in my
garage. And if I cleaned it up, plugged it in and "fired" it
up, DOS would "magically" appear, and be available for me to
give that PC instructions. My first "PC" was a VIC-20 and the
next was that 4.77MHz IBM PC. And like you, I hung up my
programmer hat around 1992, because it wasn't fun anymore to
me.
The very, very first IBM PC came with just two floppy drives and pretty
much nothing else. DOS hadn't been invented yet. The only software that
was available had been written in assembly language using only the BIOS
for I/O. CP/M WAS an option, but in my company, we actually waited a bit
until IBM announced the XT with DOS 1.0 and a 10 MB (!) HD.
I ran through 3 different Apple computers, the original ][, a later //e,
and a //c compact for my daughter. My first real PC was what was then
called a clone and had DOS 4.0 on it. Later, I tried Windows 3.0 that say
on top of DOS but to say it was unstable was an understatement. Win 3.1
wasn't bad, then I went to 95, passed up ME and 2000, and built new ones
with XP. First, just XP, then SP1. And, my current PC used an SP1
installed CD with SP2 on a CD I'd ordered from MS.
BTW, I'll tell you how primative Apple's were in late 1978: they didn't
even have a floppy, as that takes some sort of O/S. So, for almost a
year, I saved my BASIC programs to audio cassette tapes! We've come a
long way, baby!
I thinks XT came with PC-DOS 2.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-DOS
H
HEMI-Powered
Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
That was circa 1982, a long time ago for my feeble brain, so maybe
you're right. I would comment, gently, that I don't believe most of
what wikipedia says in general because of their very loose rules
for editorial review of the correctness of submitted articles. You
could very well be right, that DOS 1.0 may have even come with the
floppy-only version. However, that wasn't my point.
The gist of the way this thread has gone OT is into nostalgic
rememberences of times gone by in an ON-topic way to explain why
even when the O/S was extremely simple and small by today's
standards, there were bugs, and there's been bugs ever since. And,
anyone who thinks that ANY software will EVER be "bug free"
(whatever that even means) is a naive fool or simply has no
previous experience.
I thinks XT came with PC-DOS 2.0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-DOS
That was circa 1982, a long time ago for my feeble brain, so maybe
you're right. I would comment, gently, that I don't believe most of
what wikipedia says in general because of their very loose rules
for editorial review of the correctness of submitted articles. You
could very well be right, that DOS 1.0 may have even come with the
floppy-only version. However, that wasn't my point.
The gist of the way this thread has gone OT is into nostalgic
rememberences of times gone by in an ON-topic way to explain why
even when the O/S was extremely simple and small by today's
standards, there were bugs, and there's been bugs ever since. And,
anyone who thinks that ANY software will EVER be "bug free"
(whatever that even means) is a naive fool or simply has no
previous experience.
H
HEMI-Powered
Unknown added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....
NO! Bill Gates showed himself even as a very young man to be a very
astute businessman. He wrote a license agreement some 150 pages
long for the IBM guys in Florida secretly developing the PC to
study and sign. Buried in it was that he maintained the rights to
sell it himself as MS-DOS. What IBM brand PCs had was a minor
variation that was called PC-DOS.
And then, of course, is the story of how Gates managed to con the
kernel of what because his DOS from a developer of an earlier O/S
that was competing with CP/M. He bought the exclusive rights for
just $50,000. Without that, he'd have not been able to meet IBM's
deadline that he'd already signed up for to provide an O/S to them.
....
Didn't it come with MS-DOS???
NO! Bill Gates showed himself even as a very young man to be a very
astute businessman. He wrote a license agreement some 150 pages
long for the IBM guys in Florida secretly developing the PC to
study and sign. Buried in it was that he maintained the rights to
sell it himself as MS-DOS. What IBM brand PCs had was a minor
variation that was called PC-DOS.
And then, of course, is the story of how Gates managed to con the
kernel of what because his DOS from a developer of an earlier O/S
that was competing with CP/M. He bought the exclusive rights for
just $50,000. Without that, he'd have not been able to meet IBM's
deadline that he'd already signed up for to provide an O/S to them.
B
Bob I
HEMI-Powered said:Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
That was circa 1982, a long time ago for my feeble brain, so maybe
you're right. I would comment, gently, that I don't believe most of
what wikipedia says in general because of their very loose rules
for editorial review of the correctness of submitted articles. You
could very well be right, that DOS 1.0 may have even come with the
floppy-only version. However, that wasn't my point.
The gist of the way this thread has gone OT is into nostalgic
rememberences of times gone by in an ON-topic way to explain why
even when the O/S was extremely simple and small by today's
standards, there were bugs, and there's been bugs ever since. And,
anyone who thinks that ANY software will EVER be "bug free"
(whatever that even means) is a naive fool or simply has no
previous experience.
Not a problem in my book. We are all getting old ;-), but it beats the
alternative! As for OT, the original question was OT two of the 3
groups, and even for general it was a stretch! So we have a nice
dicsussion about operating systems and reality. No biggie.
H
HEMI-Powered
Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
been showing up multiple places but I can assure everyone that I
do NOT cross-post. If the replies are somewhat similar, I may
have given similar advice elsewhere, but a couple of people have
said I am posting identical text to at least 3 NGs. That's news
to me. Usually, Xnews warns me when I am about to reply to
someone who originally cross-posted, but I've not seen that for
this particular thread, not originally, not the middle, and not
where we are now.
So, if anyone is annoyed at what I've said that you think is
inappropriate or excessively OT, I apologize for that. But, I am
NOT intentionally trying to circumvent conventions established by
MS for these NGs nor am I intentionally inciting to riot. But,
there seems to be at least some evidence that a couple of people
taking issue with me have their own over-sensitivity issues, so
I'm trying to bow out.
Ditto for the meandering FAT32 thread that refuses to die. I want
to leave that one as my questions have been answered, it no
longer has meaning to me, and further comments I might make could
educate me or even a lurker but are going too far afield from the
original intent of the OP. So, I'm trying to disengage there
also.
Again, what I'd really prefer NOT happen is for some silly abuse
reporting war start because those things sweep everybody up, as
every person that gets censured, temporarily suspended, or even
losing their account usually get pretty well pissed-off and
report everybody in sight that may have at all been a reporter of
them. Nobody wins those wars, I hope we can avoid it here.
Now, I think there's been some excellent discussion in this
thread even afield of what would be considered ON-topic. I've
received comments either directly or indirectly that people are
learning from each other, so that sounds like a good thing, even
though we stopped talking literally about SP3 some time ago.
Have a good evening, everyone!
Bob, please enlighten me: apparently some/all of my replies haveNot a problem in my book. We are all getting old ;-), but it
beats the alternative! As for OT, the original question was OT
two of the 3 groups, and even for general it was a stretch! So
we have a nice dicsussion about operating systems and reality.
No biggie.
been showing up multiple places but I can assure everyone that I
do NOT cross-post. If the replies are somewhat similar, I may
have given similar advice elsewhere, but a couple of people have
said I am posting identical text to at least 3 NGs. That's news
to me. Usually, Xnews warns me when I am about to reply to
someone who originally cross-posted, but I've not seen that for
this particular thread, not originally, not the middle, and not
where we are now.
So, if anyone is annoyed at what I've said that you think is
inappropriate or excessively OT, I apologize for that. But, I am
NOT intentionally trying to circumvent conventions established by
MS for these NGs nor am I intentionally inciting to riot. But,
there seems to be at least some evidence that a couple of people
taking issue with me have their own over-sensitivity issues, so
I'm trying to bow out.
Ditto for the meandering FAT32 thread that refuses to die. I want
to leave that one as my questions have been answered, it no
longer has meaning to me, and further comments I might make could
educate me or even a lurker but are going too far afield from the
original intent of the OP. So, I'm trying to disengage there
also.
Again, what I'd really prefer NOT happen is for some silly abuse
reporting war start because those things sweep everybody up, as
every person that gets censured, temporarily suspended, or even
losing their account usually get pretty well pissed-off and
report everybody in sight that may have at all been a reporter of
them. Nobody wins those wars, I hope we can avoid it here.
Now, I think there's been some excellent discussion in this
thread even afield of what would be considered ON-topic. I've
received comments either directly or indirectly that people are
learning from each other, so that sounds like a good thing, even
though we stopped talking literally about SP3 some time ago.
Have a good evening, everyone!
?
=?iso-8859-1?Q?_db_=B4=AF`=B7.._=3E=3C=29=29=29=BA
from microsoft the properties of
your / our postings for this
thread are as follows:
-----------------------------------
From: "HEMI-Powered" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Subject: Re: XP SP3 Details?
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:54:27 -0000
Organization: Car Picture Collector
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
User-Agent: Xnews/06.12.01
X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
Lines: 58
Path:
TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTFEEDS01.phx.gbl!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!image.surnet.ru!mtu.ru!sn-xt-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-01!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail
Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:1761357
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:771106
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics:304175
Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
--
..
your / our postings for this
thread are as follows:
-----------------------------------
From: "HEMI-Powered" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Subject: Re: XP SP3 Details?
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:54:27 -0000
Organization: Car Picture Collector
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
User-Agent: Xnews/06.12.01
X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
Lines: 58
Path:
TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTFEEDS01.phx.gbl!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!image.surnet.ru!mtu.ru!sn-xt-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-01!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail
Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:1761357
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:771106
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics:304175
Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
--
db ·´¯`·.¸. said:<)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
..
G
Gary S. Terhune
Your post (the one I'm repaying to) is cross-posted to windwosxp.basics,
windowsxp.general and windowsxp.help_and_support.
(Note, I have no problem with your X-posting, just thought I'd let you
know.)
windowsxp.general and windowsxp.help_and_support.
(Note, I have no problem with your X-posting, just thought I'd let you
know.)
B
Bob I
HEMI-Powered said:Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
Bob, please enlighten me: apparently some/all of my replies have
been showing up multiple places but I can assure everyone that I
do NOT cross-post. If the replies are somewhat similar, I may
have given similar advice elsewhere, but a couple of people have
said I am posting identical text to at least 3 NGs. That's news
to me. Usually, Xnews warns me when I am about to reply to
someone who originally cross-posted, but I've not seen that for
this particular thread, not originally, not the middle, and not
where we are now.
So, if anyone is annoyed at what I've said that you think is
inappropriate or excessively OT, I apologize for that. But, I am
NOT intentionally trying to circumvent conventions established by
MS for these NGs nor am I intentionally inciting to riot. But,
there seems to be at least some evidence that a couple of people
taking issue with me have their own over-sensitivity issues, so
I'm trying to bow out.
Ditto for the meandering FAT32 thread that refuses to die. I want
to leave that one as my questions have been answered, it no
longer has meaning to me, and further comments I might make could
educate me or even a lurker but are going too far afield from the
original intent of the OP. So, I'm trying to disengage there
also.
Again, what I'd really prefer NOT happen is for some silly abuse
reporting war start because those things sweep everybody up, as
every person that gets censured, temporarily suspended, or even
losing their account usually get pretty well pissed-off and
report everybody in sight that may have at all been a reporter of
them. Nobody wins those wars, I hope we can avoid it here.
Now, I think there's been some excellent discussion in this
thread even afield of what would be considered ON-topic. I've
received comments either directly or indirectly that people are
learning from each other, so that sounds like a good thing, even
though we stopped talking literally about SP3 some time ago.
Have a good evening, everyone!
The thread was originally crossposted to and is currently crossposting to:
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
and FWIW I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about your
postings in this thread.
have a good one!
K
Ken Blake
Bob, please enlighten me: apparently some/all of my replies have
been showing up multiple places but I can assure everyone that I
do NOT cross-post. If the replies are somewhat similar, I may
have given similar advice elsewhere, but a couple of people have
said I am posting identical text to at least 3 NGs. That's news
to me. Usually, Xnews warns me when I am about to reply to
someone who originally cross-posted, but I've not seen that for
this particular thread, not originally, not the middle, and not
where we are now.
I'm not Bob, but just FYI, XNews is apparently not warning you. This thread,
and your reply is cross-posted to
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,
and microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
I don't have all problem with such cross-posting, by the way. As far as I'm
concerned, cross-posting to a few related groups is fine. Cross-posting
mostly got its bad reputation because it's the traditional tool of the
spammer, but the kind of crossposting in this thread clearly isn't spam.
H
HEMI-Powered
Gary S. Terhune added these comments in the current discussion
du jour ...
multiple places it can only mean I am replying to someone who did.
I know how to cross-post, when it should be done and when it should
not be done. Almost exclusively, I do NOT do that. If I am not
replying to a cross-poster, which would automagically propogate my
reply as well, then I don't know what is going on.
du jour ...
Again, /I/ am NOT cross-posting, so if my posts are showing upYour post (the one I'm repaying to) is cross-posted to
windwosxp.basics, windowsxp.general and
windowsxp.help_and_support.
(Note, I have no problem with your X-posting, just thought I'd
let you know.)
multiple places it can only mean I am replying to someone who did.
I know how to cross-post, when it should be done and when it should
not be done. Almost exclusively, I do NOT do that. If I am not
replying to a cross-poster, which would automagically propogate my
reply as well, then I don't know what is going on.
H
HEMI-Powered
Bob I added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
This is what I thought, thanks for the confirmation. Usually, Xnews
warns me about this, but it hasn't for this thread.
Yes, thank you again. I believe it is only 2 people who are
annoyed, but since there may have been lurkers annoyed I didn't
know about, I thought it polite and professional to apologize even
though I didn't think I was doing anything all that bad.
And, you have a great day, too, Bob!
The thread was originally crossposted to and is currently
crossposting to:
microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
This is what I thought, thanks for the confirmation. Usually, Xnews
warns me about this, but it hasn't for this thread.
and FWIW I don't think anyone is particularly concerned about
your postings in this thread.
Yes, thank you again. I believe it is only 2 people who are
annoyed, but since there may have been lurkers annoyed I didn't
know about, I thought it polite and professional to apologize even
though I didn't think I was doing anything all that bad.
have a good one!
And, you have a great day, too, Bob!
G
Gary S. Terhune
But you ARE replying to a cross-posted message, which automatically makes
your reply cross-posted as well. I can't tell you what's wrong with your
newsreader, but your posts are definitely cross-posted, as are all of the
posts in this thread.
your reply cross-posted as well. I can't tell you what's wrong with your
newsreader, but your posts are definitely cross-posted, as are all of the
posts in this thread.
H
HEMI-Powered
Ken Blake added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....
You are exactly right, Ken, as usual. Xnews usually pops up a
dialog box asking me if I want to post to all the cross-posted
places or just the OP I am replying to. When I see that, I uncheck
"all" so that I do NOT cross-post myself.
the preferred way of asking a question in multiple places because
one isn't sure which NG is the right one to ask in, but NOT to
force readers in 2, 3, 5 NGs to wade through what looks like the
same question. And, in my experience, yes, it is the spammerrs and
now the sporgers that flood NGs in large numbers this way give an
ordinarily useful tool a bad connotation.
Thanks for your comments and observations, Ken.
....
I'm not Bob, but just FYI, XNews is apparently not warning
you. This thread, and your reply is cross-posted to
You are exactly right, Ken, as usual. Xnews usually pops up a
dialog box asking me if I want to post to all the cross-posted
places or just the OP I am replying to. When I see that, I uncheck
"all" so that I do NOT cross-post myself.
There is a time and a place for cross-posting. In general, it ismicrosoft.public.windowsxp.basics,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,
and microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
I don't have all problem with such cross-posting, by the way.
As far as I'm concerned, cross-posting to a few related groups
is fine. Cross-posting mostly got its bad reputation because
it's the traditional tool of the spammer, but the kind of
crossposting in this thread clearly isn't spam.
the preferred way of asking a question in multiple places because
one isn't sure which NG is the right one to ask in, but NOT to
force readers in 2, 3, 5 NGs to wade through what looks like the
same question. And, in my experience, yes, it is the spammerrs and
now the sporgers that flood NGs in large numbers this way give an
ordinarily useful tool a bad connotation.
Thanks for your comments and observations, Ken.