re: boot logo
Saturday, November 3, 2007 at 11:15 am
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Jim O'Calaghan
(264 messages posted)
Chris, you're not doing yourself any favours replying the way you do..you may well
need the Forum again at some stage. As for the 'experts' you're the only one who
used the term. None of the people here said that they are experts,even though they
are. Of the six people who took the trouble to respond to your post, three advised
you to reinstall, as the easier option, and particularly in your case because it's
almost idiot proof.
Ms Eagle said it all. Don't bother replying because I'm sure the Web Master will
delete the threads that are going nowhere.
Jim
On Friday, November 2, 2007 at 3:59 pm, Chris Rickards wrote:
>There are plenty lines of code. Only 1 or 2 lines, maybe 10 or 20, heck, I'd even
>go so far as to say there's 1000-2000 lines that I really care about (the ones that
>are now misbehaving on my system). Those are the lines that 'uncle bill' made imperfect
>when it was possible for him and or his designers to make perfect. Point, why is
>a Mac so stable? Hm, I wonder? They write pretty much perfect code. But this is
not
>a venue for debate. We know MicroSoft has produced an inferior product that has
necessitated
>a cottege industry to protect its vulnerabilies. So no need to go on further.
>
>An expert as you put it, would fix this issue in less than 5 minutes RATHER than
>the very timely job of reinstalling.
>
>Did you not read the line where I said all these issues came AFTER I installed the
>so called 'protection'?
>
>Which by the way, as I said, claim the system is free from viruses, maleware and
>and and....
>
>The main reason I stay away from these 'tools' is because they rob valuable resources
>and have a big negative impact on every aspect of performance. Hmm, over a year
without
>them slowing my system down .... hmmm???
>
>The suggestion to not use the system as an Administrator is fine ... I'm ignorant
>as to whether that is valid or not but until you are proven wrong, I'll take the
>advice. However I don't see any reason a virus/spyware wouldn't affect a user with
>minimal permissions versus a user with full permissions. Right or wrong, your premis
>just doesn't seem to hold water. Fine, if you are right ... great ... that's all
>everyone has to do to stop virus'/spyware. But I am not convinced. My experience
>has told me otherwise ... maybe incorrectly.
>
>As far as educating myself, I know enough about computers to know there's a lot
more
>to know than I already know. I don't care to know. I know I could know. But I don't
>want to know. I just want a stable system ... without compromising performance.
Maybe
>a mac is the solution.
>Maybe a unix box.... whatever.
>
>I know perfection is possible. But you're not reading this anyway it's a waste of
>your time.
>
>Anyway, for everyone else reading this, I'm not looking for an expert, I doubt any
>experts read these forums anyway, I just need someone to say, oh that's because
of
>this, go here do that and bingo, problem solved.
>
>No disrespect to knowledeble folks out there, I'm sure there are many reading this,
>it's just that people like to use the word 'expert' and 'professional' and 'genius'
>all too often. It has the impact of demeaning those words. Eventually a real 'expert'
>will have to be called a 'super-dyno-master-brilliant-genius-hero-awsomly-great'
>fill in profession.
>
>Anyway, this is getting too rediculously long a response. If you know what the problem
>is and how to fix it ... respond please. If not, I don't need any more advice, just
>a solution to the problem.
- Written in response to:
- re: boot logo (Chris Rickards: Friday, November 2, 2007 at 4:59 pm)
There are presently no replies to this message.
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 | boot logo (Chris Rickards: Thu, Nov 1, 2007, 6:37 am) |
 | | | | |  | | | |  | re: boot logo (Jim O'Calaghan: Sat, Nov 3, 2007, 10:15 am) |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|
