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. Bandul

    kony Guest

    Funny, many people do realize there is. Do you have access
    to a dictionary?
    Of course not, you're here to troll around and argue.

    Have a nice day.
    kony, Aug 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What was unclear?
    Yes, as one of the failings of netbeui.
    Well, you apparently missed part of the conversation.
    You're trying to 'guess' what people said and meant, when it would seem you
    missed it, and then argue with your own 'guess'.

    Netbios over TCP/IP has nothing to do with it because routing is not needed
    in the limited use.
    Then you missed all that part too.
    Clearly. Which was the point of how absurd conspiracy theories can get,
    even to the point of missing the better 'conspiracy' because the typical
    methodology is to simply find 'some' argument, no matter how obtuse or
    outlandish, whether it's logical or not. It 'must' be pernicious so one
    looks for the 'evidence' to justify the already determined conclusion and
    since one starts with whatever conspiracy first came to mind it's likely to
    be what's found since it's what one is seeking
    David Maynard, Aug 10, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. You're kidding, right?

    Sure there _can_ be a difference between "most" & "dominant" but that
    depends on context. When you make an unqualified generalization about
    businesses (which logically groups everybody into 1 market) & try to
    characterize market share of 2, maybe 3, big desktop OS players (which
    take up basically the whole pie) & 1 of which you characterize as
    "dominant"- that potential for distinction goes out the window.

    Do you understand the difference between paraphrasing and a direct
    quote? I'm not so sure you didn't call Win98 "dominant" at some point
    in that thread. It doesn't matter here though. At least you're done
    an _awfully_ poor job of explaining how it could be possible.
    You sure you want to go there? Like YOUR hands are clean?

    Try to throw stones if you like. I only noted you contradicted
    yourself. I've made no claims about market share or "total quantity"
    or "dominance" of either OS here. I don't _need_ to cite a survey to
    prove you've contradicted yourself. Your writing does the work.

    It's absurd you HAD to Shoot down "Black Adder" that way when
    _you_admit_ you don't even have the data to make that statement - and
    then try to back peddle when you're called out with basically sloppy
    writing & poor analogy (I'm being generous). Cry to mommy when your
    goofs are found instead of wasting bandwidth.
    I did . Then I paused for a moment to chuckle at your expense.

    Curious George, Aug 10, 2005
  4. Claiming responsibility for _your_ points does not deal with _his_ or
    my assessment of them i.e. whether "more credit was given than is due"
    as well as his "depth of comparison".
    So? (in our current context)
    Either my server is missing part of the thread or we're just not
    understanding each other. Sure that isn't the only post of his that
    mentions routability, but I think this one pretty much sums up the
    depth of his argument. It was too repetitive to quote everything.

    I think the problem here is I see him arguing basically 'sometimes you
    don't need routability - NetBEUI & TCP are different tools for
    different jobs - so lets talk about NetBEUI's advantages where its
    needed'. And I'm observing 'sometimes not needing routability is
    different than 'NetBEUI can't ever be used on networks that also
    require routability'. It doesn't really address limitations in any
    _real_ context - not only the scarcity of that situation but also how
    that changes with NetBIOS extensions which, in fact, demonstrate how
    NetBEUI has long ago moved past this now synthetic "limited use"
    scenario.' After all Some Guy's comment "I've never read anything
    concrete that explains just what is wrong with netbuie -" started a
    lot of this mess and it warrants deeper examination when posting under

    I'm trying to probe & nudge at looking at what's been said a little
    deeper & the success of answering that earlier key question, rather
    than simply repeat repetition or agree or disagree. Maybe I haven't
    expressed this as articulately as I could, but there's a lot of that
    blame that could be spread around - and what I'm trying to get at is
    different than wholesale misinterpretation/ misreading - unless you
    still think I'm missing the mark entirely.

    Are we clear now? Is there really that much more _substance_ I've
    missed from _his_ "limited use" discussion?

    Now _you_ lost _me_.

    Listen to yourself for a moment (or rather you're repetition of Kony).
    Why would I bother to 'guess' meaning & then post responses
    criticizing my guess? Why would I have to guess at all if the
    arguments are clear & thorough? Why is this the only group (actually
    only 2 ppl), in my last decade of usenet, I'm being accused of this?

    I'm glad you two speak the same language. It's strange you do because
    your back & forth with him sounded very familiar to me (minus some of
    the anger perhaps). Maybe Kony & I are always butting heads because
    we just don't understand each other. Since you speak Kony, maybe you
    can translate? - or do we understand each other a little better now?
    Nothing to do with what, exactly?

    "Limited use" today is a crock; an academic hypothetical - even if
    Kony stubbornly wouldn't budge from repeatedly trying to shove it down
    your throat. Transfer speed & routability were major issues in the
    comparison with TCP/IP. NetBIOS makes one of those issues basically
    disappear and acknowledges that NetBEUI has long ago moved away from
    this "limited use" model anyway. It therefore certainly has
    _everything_ to do with YOUR criticism of his "fixation" on "limited
    use". I suppose it does inject another variable, which may be seen as
    a distraction or confusion, but how is it not germane _really_ to the
    discussion of NetBEUI's strengths & limitations or a criticism of
    "limited use"?
    What part, exactly? I only went up a couple responses - where are
    At least we get each other here.
    Curious George, Aug 11, 2005
  5. It does when I am the one who made the point and he didn't. E.g. It ain't
    his point if it's mine.
    Maybe you should deal with simply what's said instead of trying to count
    how many angels are dancing on the pin head.

    You keep trying to attribute to Kony some kind of routing argument and I
    simply pointed out that it was *I* who brought it up, as a failing of
    Netbeui, and not Kony.

    It is a simple statement and a simple point.

    The current context is who brought it up. I did, as failing of netbeui.

    So... what was unclear?
    You're stuck on 'routability' and it has nothing to do with his argument.
    He's never made any 'limited use' argument. I did.

    He says Netbeui has desirable features.

    I say, even if so they are of limited use.

    Note that my argument is not his and his argument is not mine.
    An argument that no one made.
    Netbios is not Netbeui and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from it's model
    His question was answered.

    I think you're preoccupied with arguing about phraseology and how many
    angels are dancing on the pin heads.

    The argument is quite simple. He says there are cases where netbeui is of
    benefit and I'm arguing that, even if so, it is of such limited benefit in
    limited circumstances to so few people that it does not justify the cost of

    I've noticed you go to quite a lot of effort arguing about 'how it was
    said' even after it's explained and that's been pretty much the
    'discussion' in these last few go rounds with you trying to disassemble
    each sentence and 'decode' trivial meanings.

    I brought up routing first (I.E. it wasn't a part of Kony's argument as he
    wasn't the one who mentioned it.)

    Simple sentence. Simple meaning. Yet you've been 'debating' it with me.
    Hell if I know. Maybe they call it something different.
    You're confusing "understanding" what someone says with "agreement."

    His argument that Netbeui has benefits.
    Since you insist on parsing semantics, pardon me, but that, as an
    'absolute' statement, is itself a crock as very few things are 'universally
    applicable to all situations'.

    Virtually everything is of 'limited use' so the issue, in a negative
    context, becomes a comparison of limitations. In the positive it's a
    comparison of capabilities.
    But again, as I mentioned above, you seem to want to argue about
    phraseology rather than the subject matter. It was I who used the phrase
    "limited use," and not Kony, because the 'limitations' of Netbeui was *my*
    Lack of routability was a point I made.
    Netbios isn't Netbeui and, no, Netbeui has not 'moved away' from anything.
    It might have had something to do with *my* argument, except that netbios
    isn't netbeui, but the topic was what Kony's argument was and it has
    nothing to do with that.
    Because the topic here was what Kony's argument was and his argument did
    not depend on any form of 'routability' of the non routable Netbeui.

    I'm in Texas.
    Yippee ;)
    David Maynard, Aug 12, 2005
  6. Only that is a totally ineffective rebuttal to my post.
    I wish you would take your own advice. Hint: that means reading to
    what I said before attempting to rebut it.
    & he rebutted that you won't miss routing if it isn't needed. Both
    sides in a debate get to have "arguments." Both of you contributed
    points to a routability-based argument. You're overly-possessive of a
    regurgitation of a factoid. That doesn't give you the corner market
    on "argument."
    Yes indeed. Both are. So?
    Wrong. You should take your own advice and "deal with simply what's
    said." Clearly you've "checked out" of this discussion long ago.
    You should "deal with simply what's said." Do you see me claim that?

    You argued the NetBEUI scenario he described was "limited use." What
    HE DESCRIBED. Your discussion with him is connected even if you think
    you invented the wheel with a regurgitation of the "routability"
    So? That argument is a REBUTTAL. You are not writing in a vacuum
    i.e. both are contributing points on the topic.

    You're awfully possessive of a regurgitation of a factoid.
    Possessiveness doesn't answer or explain my points. Remember me? The
    guy your responding to?
    So I'm "no one" now?
    Not completely.

    NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3 carrier
    protocol. It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the NetBIOS
    Nope. It indeed adds/augments functionality.
    Mine weren't.

    So you're happy with you're prior points in a discussion with someone
    else- how nice for you.
    By "checking out" & ignoring "phraseology" you're missing meaning &
    not realizing what you're "responding" to. "Details" & "context" are
    not "philosophy." You should know the difference. That kind of quip
    is a cute distraction, though.
    That's doesn't add anything to what I said & is your debate with him.
    Not mine with you. You should try actually addressing the person to
    whom you're allegedly responding.
    Because I'm trying to get you back on track. You've drifted off
    somewhere with a dismissive attitude; I must not understand the thread
    because you feel you finished debating with Kony. You're right, I am
    trying too hard. It doesn't matter if I re-explain myself if you're
    not interested.
    See, this is why you'd be better off paying more attention to
    No. I'm trying to get you to rebut my points- the points at hand.
    You're caught back there. I've taken it the next step.
    Yeah. It's called punishment for stupidly wandering into a
    gen.HW.newbie group & giving the local know-it-alls the benefit of the
    doubt & a soapbox. Clearly my patience is a liability.
    Again another sage piece of advice you should follow.

    However the only thing wrong with your advice is it misjudges just how
    much room there really is for "opinion" in factual descriptions of
    technical details.
    True it isn't his argument but it does indeed have to do with his
    argument. That you feel you complete your discussion with Kony
    doesn't really apply here.
    Nice try. But that's so pedantic you've lost the forrest for the
    trees. It's too silly to mock me effectively.

    If we agree with you that when a computer has internet access it also
    has TCP/IP and NetBEUI would be an addition to network overhead and
    the comparison is between NetBEUI & TCP/IP-

    then tell me something, how many XP networks out there are strictly a
    small local workgroup (<10 computers), with no internet, no apps
    requiring TCP, & where faster transfers in NetBEUI are/could be
    noticed/appreciated or whern NetBEUI is otherwise REQUIRED? It's an
    academic hypothetical & you indeed have argued the limitations of
    NetBEUI benefits with equally strong language. Its a crock. A crock
    to waste so much time on it like its real & realistic.
    You've clearly "checked out" of this discussion long ago.
    And he responded to your assessment of routability being a limitation
    by saying it doesn't matter when you don't need it. You were indeed
    engaged together in a routability-based discussion even though it
    passed you by - I guess you were busy creaming yourself you could
    repeat that "NetBEUI isn't routable...which is important."
    Nope. NetBEUI is NetBIOS operating over a LAN without a layer 3
    carrier protocol. It is, as it's name suggests, an extension of the
    NetBIOS API. Historically, both terms have been interchangeable in
    certain contexts. Nevertheless they rely on each other. NetBIOS is
    not a separate & distinct protocol (it's not even really a protocol at
    all). Yes it indeed adds functionality.
    Nope You missed it.
    NetBEUI & NetBIOS are VERY closely related. NetBIOS is effectively an
    interface, an API, not even really a protocol. So you can't complain/
    infer it's some third disparate, unrelated protocol that screws up the
    argument because it doesn't belong there.
    Nope. It's a routability-based discussion insofar as a) his claims of
    benefits depend on scenarios that do not require routability b) he
    responded to your assessment of routability as a limitation by saying
    it doesn't mater when you don't need it. c) You both then "took
    sides" by repeating your high valuation of routability and his of
    transfer speed. I think you're word parsing needs a little work.
    Maybe you shouldn't do it from memory after you've lost interest in a
    Wheh! I thought you were in Konylandia (or maybe the Netherlands)

    I agree with you're general perception that at this point we are
    debating argument & reading comprehension rather than any kind of
    worthwhile technical discussion. I've continued with explanation to
    break your "fixation" on simply regurgitating old points that don't
    respond to my observations. You want to regurgitate & move on & I
    want to assess & fill in missing gaps of the debate. Unfortunately
    responding to assessment with simple regurgitation is pointless. In
    that context further explanation is equally pointless. If I haven't
    broken through yet I don't think I will 10 posts from now.

    This whole thread has indeed been taken WAY too far in basic
    "hardware" groups; it probably doesn't even belong here anyway. Yes
    killing NetBEUI is a no-brainer. We've wasting a lot of time
    Curious George, Aug 12, 2005
  7. Bandul

    kony Guest

    So you're wasting everyone's time beause we didn't pretend
    you're always right.
    kony, Aug 13, 2005
  8. I don't know how it gets any simpler than it wasn't his point means it
    wasn't his point.

    I did. Why I am not sure because it's you seem to invent arguments where
    there are none and insist that your microscopically dissected and
    syntactically tortured 'analysis' of what someone says is what they said no
    matter how much the author clarifies his own opinion.

    Clinton pondered what the meaning of 'is' is but you would argue the
    galactic significance to the shape of the dot.
    Which makes it clear that "routability" is irrelevant to the 'features' he
    espoused for Netbeui.
    No kidding? Who'd a thunk it?
    And the "routability-based argument" was mine. His 'argument' was that
    routability did not apply to *his* case. Wise argument too as Netbeui is
    No, it's simply that you've decided 'routability' is a key component of
    Kony's argument and will apparently hold to that position even if God
    himself came down and told you otherwise.

    I brought up routing and Kony's 'argument' was it didn't apply to the case
    he was making and, so, irrelevant.

    You will now, no doubt, argue about the 'relevancy' of irrelevancy.
    His case for the benefits of Netbeui had nothing to do with being routable
    because Netbeui isn't.

    No but I'm about to because arguing with you about nothing is fruitless.
    Believe whatever you want. You're going to anyway, regardless.

    A waste of time stating the obvious.
    Remember the topic? What Kony's case was?
    This whole thing began with me trying to clarify what Kony's position was
    after you made a sort of 'accusation'. So, yes, in that context you're "no
    one" as you're not Kony.
    Netbios is an API and Netbeui is a network protocol

    Non sequitur. The 'functionality' Netbeui adds is the same 'model' it
    always was and has not 'moved', away or otherwise.

    Not my job.
    Yes, thank you.
    It's potentially important when one does so for illumination but you don't.
    You do it simply for the sake of arguing. It becomes a debate of the
    obscure and irrelevant.
    I think you're so lost in 'debating' that you haven't any idea what the
    topic was.

    All I did was tell you that your assertion "He thinks a single transfer
    between two computers somehow translates to "network" behavior generally
    and regardless of scale & management, etc." miss stated the case he made.

    I'm seem dismissive because you want to debate with me about what the
    meaning of my debate was. I was there. I was in it. And I was simply
    telling you what transpired so you'd better understand but now you want to
    'debate' whether what happened is what happened.

    I did. Or he did. One or the other.
    If you're trying to 'explain' to me that I don't know what happened in my
    debate then no, I'm not interested because I already know.
    No, it's where you'd be better off if you'd accept that I know what the
    hell the debate I was in was about.
    Could you please be a little more vague? Because I almost got a meaning in
    that. Next step? Two step? Polka? Waltz?

    No sense in arguing about it.

    It's not 'advice' it's a statement about your 'surprise' that I can
    understand Kony yet disagree.
    No, it doesn't. You expressed 'strangeness' at my apparent 'understanding'
    of Kony yet going "back & forth with him."

    I can understand him but not agree with it. In fact, it's dern difficult to
    debate, productively anyway, if you don't 'understand' the other.

    And if anyone need proof of it they can read this thread.
    No, it doesn't. It has to do with *your* argument.
    What that has to do with the price of eggs is anyone's guess.
    It may seem pedantic but it's true.

    Would seem to be the common case.
    Then we agree on this point and if you had said it with enough detail, like
    just then, so that I had a clue what you meant then we could have avoided
    this little go round.

    And 'which' discussion is that?
    Yes, which makes routability irrelevant to his argument. Not to mine but to
    How does one get it through your head that when someone says "not in my
    case" that it means "not in my case?"
    And you're busy creaming yourself that Kony is talking about the virtues of
    routing netbios over TCP/IP when he's said his case isn't routed and the
    topic is the Netbeui protocol.
    No, Netbeui is a network protocol and Netbios is an API.
    It was created to support Netbios but Netbeui is a network protocol and
    Netbios can be packaged otherwise, as in Netbios over TCP/IP.
    Yes, people have historically misused the terms but it's important to know
    which is which when the topic is network protocols and not APIs.
    "Adds functionality" is a non sequitur. You claimed "Netbeui" had "long ago
    moved away from this "limited use" model anyway" and Netbeui has done no
    such thing. It's just as limited as it always was, which is why support for
    it was dropped.

    Netbios is still there, riding on TCP/IP.

    Were. Pretty hard to make that case when one is still there and the other
    There's no 'not even really' to it. It's not a network protocol and never
    has been. It's an API.
    I not only "can't," I never have. Netbios is an API. Netbeui is a network
    protocol and the debate with Kony was about MS dropping support for Netbeui.

    Which immediately removes any consideration of routability from being
    relevant to his argument.
    Which immediately removes any consideration of routability from being
    relevant to his argument.

    *You* want it to be relevant because it's *your* argument.
    Put simply, no.

    Once the 'not needed' case was made my case was that his supposed Netbeui
    benefit was of limited scope and value.
    I'm more interested in the meaning.
    Maybe you should stop trying to discover the 'hidden meaning' of the obvious.
    The reason for that is that you insist on telling me that when someone says
    "it doesn't matter to my case" that they not only mean it matters but their
    entire case depends on using it.

    Well, if you want to "fill in missing gaps of the debate" then we need to
    start a different discussion because this one was about me trying to
    clarify to you what Kony's argument was, not make new ones for him.
    You haven't 'broken through' because it would seem that, in the midst of
    all this, you somewhere decided to sail off in another direction.

    David Maynard, Aug 13, 2005
  9. LOL

    Hello. Remember me? The guy whose points you're trying to rebut?

    When you're ready to take your own advice and ready to start reading &
    engaging the person you are posting a response to - instead of this
    mindless & prejudicial silliness - I'll be around to discuss subjects
    in the appropriate groups.

    Curious George, Aug 13, 2005
  10. What I did was fill you in on Kony's argument but you wanted to argue that
    the case he made wasn't the case he made. Then you wanted to argue that the
    supposed 'original question', not by Kony, wasn't answered, as if that has
    anything to do with Kony's case, and when that didn't fly (lord knows where
    it was supposed to fly to) you tossed in "mine weren't." Not that you had
    asked any discernible questions, spending most of your effort explaining
    how no one knows what they said or meant.

    I'm sure it all somehow made sense to you but on this end it's you
    fluttering hither and yon to anything with no apparent purpose other than
    to simply argue and it's not my job, even if it were possible, to 'answer'
    mythical questions invented just to make another argument.

    Ironically, my 'non responsive' response there was intended to prevent
    adding more arguments to the already absurd mix but now you want to argue
    that I'm not arguing, while snipping out the only matter of real substance
    that was just discussed: what Netbeui and Netbios are.

    And the ultimate irony of all, you agreed with my case about Netbeui yet
    STILL wanted to argue with me about it.
    You're confusing 'engage' with 'capitulate'.
    How about we cut down on the arguments by not arguing with things we agree on?
    David Maynard, Aug 13, 2005
    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.