1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Install win xp over a network

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by Bandul, Jul 2, 2005.

  1. I'm talking about Kony's assertion of what would happen in a "competitive
    market."
    Which is irrelevant to Kony's posit about how companies behave in a
    "competitive market."

    Typical knee jerk illogic.
     
    David Maynard, Jul 5, 2005
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bandul

    kony Guest


    No, it's not.
     
    kony, Jul 5, 2005
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bandul

    Black Adder Guest

    not at all. Just used conventional networking practices.
    I agree that some features are not necessary, and are only there for people
    who don't know what they're doing.

    Like the home networking wizard! What a shamozzle!
     
    Black Adder, Jul 5, 2005
    #63
  4. Bandul

    Fred Guest

    Classic evasion of the point.
    Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective, as
    expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
    Who in their right mind would agree with that?
    Classic reading comprehension problem.
    Do I look like I give a **** what a shamozzle?
     
    Fred, Jul 5, 2005
    #64

  5. Yes, it is.

    Your posit was "they'd have to actually add features rather than subtract
    them if they had a competitive market." (which is not correct but that's
    already been dealt with)

    So how does whether Microsoft is a monopoly, or not, affect your claim of
    how they would behave in a competitive market?


    Answer: it doesn't.
     
    David Maynard, Jul 6, 2005
    #65
  6. Bandul

    kony Guest

    "Dealt with" merely meaning you disagree, which is fine as
    again we are not expected to meet middle ground here as in
    other discusssions.


    It is relevant to my position that they would need add
    features rather than deciding for us what we do or don't
    have available. By not having to compete, they don't have
    to be feature-competitive. It worked, it is even known how
    to make it work again. They certainly do NOT have any kind
    of financial restrains keeping them from testing it. Your
    arguments about cost are simply invalid. In FACT they could
    now give away windows free and still afford to support it.
    The arguement cannot be made about it being "good business"
    because it is most certainly NOT good business to maintain a
    monopoly and be in courts of multiple first-world nations
    because of it.
     
    kony, Jul 6, 2005
    #66
  7. I did not just 'disagree'. I gave you what the other alternatives are and
    those kinds of decisions are made every day in development meetings. You're
    faced with not only a 'feature' cost/benefit analysis but a target price,
    hence cost, as well so that you are almost always faced with deciding which
    features give the best return and the others, which might still have a
    'positive' effect, must be left out lest the price/cost escalate beyond the
    target market.

    So while Netbeui might have a limited benefit (and I'm not saying there is
    one) to a limited few under limited circumstances it doesn't rate enough to
    be there. And if you had sat in on their development meetings you'd
    probably find a few hundred other 'features' that didn't make it either.

    Netbeui is a no brainer. What does it do that the ones you MUST support
    don't? Nothing. Kill it.
    I know what 'point' you were trying to imply by the statement but that has
    nothing to do with the characteristics of a competitive market and that is
    what I was dealing with: your assertion of what a company 'would do' in a
    competitive market. And for that discussion it not only doesn't matter
    whether Microsoft is a 'monopoly', or not, it doesn't even matter whether
    it's Microsoft or someone selling sandals.
    Actually, being a 'monopoly' would make it easier for them to include
    useless things like Netbeui whereas in a competitive market price pressures
    would preclude such waste.
    They didn't 'break' it, at least not intentionally. They just don't
    'support' it nor test to see if something broke it. Nor do they intend to
    'fix' it if something did.

    And the reason is IT COSTS MONEY.
    I was not aware they had changed their charter to 'non profit'.
    My arguments are not only valid but anyone with any experience at all in
    software development/support is well aware of what 'support' means and the
    costs involved.

    If you want to argue that they should toss money down the toilet so someone
    can have Netbeui then *say* so instead of hiding it behind a false claim
    that support is 'free'.
    That's not what being a "business" means and the stock holders likely have
    a different opinion than yours about loosing money on the deal.
    "It" is a completely different topic than what "support" means.
     
    David Maynard, Jul 6, 2005
    #67
  8. Bandul

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!
    Why do you ask what the other alternatives are?
    How do you know I am almost always faced with deciding which features give
    the best return and the others?
    You most certainly are saying there is one.
    Hmmm really? Only a little?
    Classic pontification.
    Why should I support do not, Maynard?
    Nothing at all?
    Have you ever killed anyone?
    Everything I know fits into a 116kB database supported by 600k of AI code.
    Classic hearsay.
    Are you worried about money?
    Classic lack of specificity by someone who is humourless.
    Tell me about your intentions.
    If you need a reason, blame your parents.
    Why do you ask what 'support' means?
    What do you want from life?
    You seem frustrated.
    Are you trying to please an imaginary crowd?
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 6, 2005
    #68
  9. Bandul

    Duane Arnold Guest

    Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!
    Why do you ask what the other alternatives are?
    How do you know I am almost always faced with deciding which features give
    the best return and the others?
    You most certainly are saying there is one.
    Hmmm really? Only a little?
    Classic pontification.
    Why should I support do not, Maynard?
    Nothing at all?
    Have you ever killed anyone?
    Everything I know fits into a 116kB database supported by 600k of AI code.
    Classic hearsay.
    Are you worried about money?
    Classic lack of specificity by someone who is humourless.
    Tell me about your intentions.
    If you need a reason, blame your parents.
    Why do you ask what 'support' means?
    What do you want from life?
    You seem frustrated.
    Are you trying to please an imaginary crowd?
     
    Duane Arnold, Jul 6, 2005
    #69
  10. don't forget all the mindless network chatter.
     
    Curious George, Aug 4, 2005
    #70
  11. Bandul

    kony Guest

    It has a smaller footprint on a network than TCPIP so it's a
    bit irrelevant.
     
    kony, Aug 4, 2005
    #71
  12. Try SMS with netbui, for example.
     
    Curious George, Aug 4, 2005
    #72
  13. That is only true under limited circumstances and if you've got internet
    access you've got TCP/IP so regardless of how small the netbuei footprint
    is it's still an additional footprint, not a 'reduction'.
     
    David Maynard, Aug 4, 2005
    #73
  14. Bandul

    kony Guest

    Transferring data with it instead of TCPIP would be one of
    those, fairly popular circumstances.
    No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
    data with it. Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem, the
    focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
    Of course there are far larger gains seen from things like
    moving from 10Mb to 100Mb, but there's not a lot of point in
    itemizing every possible network performance limiter when
    the topic was already isolating one parameter.
     
    kony, Aug 4, 2005
    #74
  15. An idle network doesn't need any protocol at all so the point is moot.

    However, netbeui isn't idle when the network is idle. It's perpetually
    bombarding the thing with 'synchronization/identification' traffic.
    I have no idea what the point in there was supposed to be if it wasn't
    that, in the overall scheme of things, any 'efficiencies' imagined for
    netbeui don't justify keeping it.
     
    David Maynard, Aug 4, 2005
    #75
  16. Bandul

    kony Guest

    It's still valid because "chatter" that isn't exceeding
    network bandwidth potential in conjunction with other
    traffic or increasing latency is not a negative thing.
    "Bombard" is a bit strong, but even so, we don't have to
    care what it's doing with the network is idle, only that
    during actual transfers, it's faster, and that speed
    difference in actual transfers is the significant parameter.
    No, it was tha there are other ways to get more gain if one
    were to change only ONE thing, though such an artificial
    limit isn't reasonable to assume either.
     
    kony, Aug 4, 2005
    #76
  17. No, it's a meaningless thing, was my point, because no one gives a tinker's
    dam about the 'efficiency' of doing nothing, e.g. an "idle network."

    "Idle" is a useless state to debate about.
    However, when there are things to do a protocol that takes up bandwidth
    even when IT is 'idle' is not a good thing and network admins fight that
    problem all the time.

    Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
    protocol and it's attendant burdens.

    You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
    and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
    hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
    of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
    isn't worth the hundred bucks.
     
    David Maynard, Aug 5, 2005
    #77
  18. Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
    right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.
    That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
    in the face. He thinks a single transfer between two computers
    somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
    scale & management, etc. Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
    these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups. Even more spending a dollar to save a
    penny
     
    Curious George, Aug 6, 2005
    #78
  19. Bandul

    kony Guest

    LOL, pot calling kettle black.
     
    kony, Aug 6, 2005
    #79
  20. Kony and I get into debates from time to time and I have no problem with that.

    Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
    the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
    of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
    'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.

    What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
    if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
    for a 100 bucks analogy.
     
    David Maynard, Aug 6, 2005
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.