Moo Bunny Amiga - thread "windos XP _not_ for desktops(the gates wont admit such as fact)"
underwater bunnies (2002)

windos XP _not_ for desktops(the gates wont admit such as fact)

Direct link to this message

windos XP _not_ for desktops(the gates wont admit such as fact)

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
BEYOND COMPREHENSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I'm playing Axis and Allies.....

The computer stops my game, THEN it reboots!

Meanwhile, poor old "Joe Average" would have NO FUCKEN CLUE what's happening, but I know already.

This is PURE SHIT COMPUTING!

The microsoft concept of "computing" is BEYOND COMPREHENSION _flawed_!


What happened is that my free 2 weeks trial version of norton anti-virus expired, so in the middle of my game, it just decided to shut itself down!!!! AND _shutting off and rebooting the computer!!!!_ to complete the process, then get this!!! First, I couldn't find the file that installed norton (I was going to try to reinstall it, hehe. Not sure, it may have been erased by norton), then I found a file called NAVG09EN.exe.... I ran it, and it proceeded to uninstall Norton!!?!?!?!???.... So, was norton uninstalled before, or not? It didn't even explain that the rebooting was uninstalling norton!!!!!


BTW, NAVG09EN.exe is a 61 megabyte program..... does it take 61 MEGABYTES to UNINSTALL SOFTWARE on win-dos xpoo????



THIS IS TOTAL CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!


x86 PCs with windows are TOTALLY CORRUPT!

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

windosXP _not_ for desktops(the gates won't admit such as fact)

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:

>
> What happened is that my free 2 weeks trial version of norton anti-virus
> expired, so in the middle of my game, it just decided to shut itself
> down!!!! AND _shutting off and rebooting the computer!!!!_ to complete the
> process, then get this!!! First, I couldn't find the file that installed
> norton (I was going to try to reinstall it, hehe. Not sure, it may have
> been erased by norton), then I found a file called NAVG09EN.exe.... I ran
> it, and it proceeded to uninstall Norton!!?!?!?!???.... So, was norton
> uninstalled before, or not? It didn't even explain that the rebooting was
> uninstalling norton!!!!!



That last sentence refers to when it rebooted the computer after STOPPING MY GAME to shut down norton anti-virus.... and that could have happened at any time, even if someone was playing EverQuest, or Quake III or doing some other kind of time critical procedure (in addition to the 2 mentioned), like running a nuclear power plant!!!!!


Does this make norton's SW's strange behaviour a national security risk????


Can I sue their ass off????

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windos XP _not_ for desktops(the gates wont admit such as

Ronald. ....

(24.200.111.163) [24.200.111.163]
On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> BEYOND COMPREHENSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>

IS THERE NO END TO THIS TRAGEDY?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

.. ..

(94.246.126.86) [94.246.126.86]
On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
>
> >
> > What happened is that my free 2 weeks trial version of norton anti-virus
> > expired, so in the middle of my game, it just decided to shut itself
> > down!!!! AND _shutting off and rebooting the computer!!!!_ to complete the
> > process, then get this!!! First, I couldn't find the file that installed
> > norton (I was going to try to reinstall it, hehe. Not sure, it may have
> > been erased by norton), then I found a file called NAVG09EN.exe.... I ran
> > it, and it proceeded to uninstall Norton!!?!?!?!???.... So, was norton
> > uninstalled before, or not? It didn't even explain that the rebooting was
> > uninstalling norton!!!!!
>
>

Excuse me, but you were told to use something other then norton. Avast is both free for home use and offers far superior protection to norton. For the best protection kaspersky or NOD32 - but you have to pay for those.

Don't blame windows because you decided to ignore everything you were told!

>
> That last sentence refers to when it rebooted the computer after STOPPING
> MY GAME to shut down norton anti-virus.... and that could have happened at
> any time, even if someone was playing EverQuest, or Quake III or doing some
> other kind of time critical procedure (in addition to the 2 mentioned),
> like running a nuclear power plant!!!!!
>

You wouldn't run XP to operate a nuclear facility. In fact if you had a legit copy you would read in the manual that it specifically excludes it's use in mission critical operations.

>
> Does this make norton's SW's strange behaviour a national security
> risk????

Nope. Because they pay for their software.

>
>
> Can I sue their ass off????
>

LOLWUT? You're using a pirate version of windows you retard! You were told in no uncertain terms to use something, anything except norton. You didn't even bother to pay for that and no doubt planned to get a warez'd keyfile for it.

Sue them? They're more liable to sue you!

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windos XP ...

GK. malibannnospam@t-online.de.

(217.113.178.29) 217.113.178.29
On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:

> "Joe Average" would have NO FUCKEN CLUE
> what's happening, but I know already.

You are not smarter than 'Joe Average' but you think you are.

o- You are using a raid controller and run into troubles.
-> "Joe Average" wouldn't use a raid controller

o- You are using different partitions and run into troubles.
-> "Joe Average" wouldn't use different partitions

o- You installed a outdated anti virus package and run into troubles.
-> "Joe Average" wouldn't this package.

You see? Most of your problems are direct results in you attempting to be smarter than "Joe Average" without knowledge what you are really doing.

And most of your problems are not a result of WinXP, they are a result of applications installes on WinXP and in an unproper setup.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windos XP _not_ for desktops

notAtheist2. .@..

(72.24.136.154) 72-24-136-154.cpe.cableone.net
On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> Meanwhile, poor old "Joe Average" would have NO FUCKEN CLUE what's
> happening,

"Joe Average" bought a PC with Windows preinstalled. He probably also received a *6-month* trial of Norton preinstalled, which gave multiple warnings before time ran out. If he was "Joe slightly above average" he uninstalled Norton the day the computer landed on his desk and replaced it with one of the various alternatives that have been recommended to you. Otherwise he springs for the Norton subscription on day 179.

> but I know already.

Of course. You already know EVERYTHING, after all.

> then I found a file called NAVG09EN.exe.... I ran
> it, and it proceeded to uninstall Norton!!?!?!?!???....

Oh, THAT was intelligent, you ran an unknown .exe just because it LOOKED like it belonged to Norton? Did you even consider, say, googling the filename first?

> x86 PCs with windows are TOTALLY CORRUPT!

Yours certainly is. Pirated OS, incorrectly partitioned HD, less-than-optimum virus protection...and then you complain, at length, how all this stuff you somehow got FOR FREE doesn't work the way you think it should - possibly because you didn't bother to look at the documentation. You got a time-limited free trial but couldn't be bothered to ask what happens when time runs out.

I don't know how many times you need to be told this: THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE YOU A FREE GAMING PLATFORM.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

notAtheist2. .@..

(72.24.136.154) 72-24-136-154.cpe.cableone.net
> > That last sentence refers to when it rebooted the computer after STOPPING
> > MY GAME to shut down norton anti-virus.... and that could have happened at
> > any time, even if someone was playing EverQuest, or Quake III or doing some
> > other kind of time critical procedure (in addition to the 2 mentioned),
> > like running a nuclear power plant!!!!!

Because, after all, you playing games is JUST AS IMPORTANT as running a nuclear power plant. The mind reels.

> You wouldn't run XP to operate a nuclear facility. In fact if you had a
> legit copy you would read in the manual that it specifically excludes it's
> use in mission critical operations.

Back in the day, I remember seeing a clause to this effect when I received the package for AmigaOS 3.5. I found it hard to believe anyone would even consider such use. I figured someone's lawyers had insisted on the language to cover even the remotest possibility of liability.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Windows XP is _not_ for the developmentally challenged

XraalE. moo.

(82.40.25.245) 82-40-25-245.cable.ubr04.uddi.blueyonder.co.uk
Thierry, how about getting off your lazy fucking ass and stop being such and idle, useless sponging cunt? Then you'll be able to pay for working software, bigger HDDs, and who knows, maybe even meet people.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

windosXP _not_ for desktops(the gates won't admit such as fact)

Jungle Bunny. #.

(65.121.157.245) 65-121-157-245.dia.static.qwest.net
On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:

> That last sentence refers to when it rebooted the computer after STOPPING
> MY GAME to shut down norton anti-virus.... and that could have happened at
> any time, even if someone was playing EverQuest, or Quake III or doing some
> other kind of time critical procedure (in addition to the 2 mentioned),
> like running a nuclear power plant!!!!!

You wouldn't run a power plant on pirated shit with trial software. Most people wouldn't even run MS word that way, but then there's you...

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windos XP _not_ for desktops...

megol. .@..

(90.233.247.160) [90.233.247.160]
On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> BEYOND COMPREHENSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> I'm playing Axis and Allies.....
>
> The computer stops my game, THEN it reboots!
>
> Meanwhile, poor old "Joe Average" would have NO FUCKEN CLUE what's
> happening, but I know already.
>
> This is PURE SHIT COMPUTING!
>
> The microsoft concept of "computing" is BEYOND COMPREHENSION _flawed_!
>
> ...
> THIS IS TOTAL CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> x86 PCs with windows are TOTALLY CORRUPT!
>
But the problem is more likely with Norton (which you have been repeatably warned from using)! The problem is that Norton and some other antivirus products integrate deeply into the operating system causing stability problems. Uninstalling is not a 100% solution as there usually are some things left.
It could be better removing the main "hook" into the system (better as then we'd at least have less useless Windows rants here).
The later makes it possible to still use Norton (as long as you don't get/have any hardware or boot problems at least) but makes the system state more stable, speeds up booting (the system doesn't do a lot of unnecessary things any more) and makes the whole computer seem faster at what it does.

There is an open source program that can help fixing what I think is the main problem, read about it here (beware: strange site with strange humor):
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Windows_Optimizer
The 2009-r1a version download worked for me last I tried (scroll down to the first external link).

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windos XP _not_ for desktops...

pixie. ncosta@esec.pt.

(85.245.195.205) [85.245.195.205]
On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, megol wrote:
> But the problem is more likely with Norton (which you have been repeatably
> warned from using)! The problem is that Norton and some other antivirus
> products integrate deeply into the operating system causing stability
> problems. Uninstalling is not a 100% solution as there usually are some
> things left.
> It could be better removing the main "hook" into the system (better as then
> we'd at least have less useless Windows rants here).
> The later makes it possible to still use Norton (as long as you don't
> get/have any hardware or boot problems at least) but makes the system state
> more stable, speeds up booting (the system doesn't do a lot of unnecessary
> things any more) and makes the whole computer seem faster at what it does.
>
> There is an open source program that can help fixing what I think is the
> main problem, read about it here (beware: strange site with strange
> humor):
> http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Windows_Optimizer
> The 2009-r1a version download worked for me last I tried (scroll down to
> the first external link).

Ouch! There's a trojan in it!

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windos XP _not_ for desktops

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:

> I don't know how many times you need to be told this: THE WORLD DOES NOT
> OWE YOU A FREE GAMING PLATFORM.

Oh, I don't know, I figure if I _buy_ a PC game, I _should be_ entitled to a way to PLAY it.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windos XP _not_ for desktops

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
Sorry, I didn't have time to mention it till now, but I finally installed the free AVAST anti-virus program, about 12 hours after first post in this thread.


Thank you for that advice to everybody that brought it up.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:
> > > That last sentence refers to when it rebooted the computer after STOPPING
> > > MY GAME to shut down norton anti-virus.... and that could have happened at
> > > any time, even if someone was playing EverQuest, or Quake III or doing some
> > > other kind of time critical procedure (in addition to the 2 mentioned),
> > > like running a nuclear power plant!!!!!
>
> Because, after all, you playing games is JUST AS IMPORTANT as running a
> nuclear power plant. The mind reels.
>
> > You wouldn't run XP to operate a nuclear facility. In fact if you had a
> > legit copy you would read in the manual that it specifically excludes it's
> > use in mission critical operations.
>
> Back in the day, I remember seeing a clause to this effect when I received
> the package for AmigaOS 3.5. I found it hard to believe anyone would even
> consider such use. I figured someone's lawyers had insisted on the
> language to cover even the remotest possibility of liability.



What???? win-XP, the _rock solid_ BECAUSE OF, MULTI-USER (password protected), MMU using with _memory protection_, *and* VIRTUAL MEMORY on the hard drive NOT capable of running a nuclear power plant?

ALL of these WONDER 21st CENTURY ENHANCEMENTS and YET unable to perform? What's the purpose of these _such awesome_ things then????


Keep in mind, _NASA_ was able to find a use for Amiga OS, for how long was it??? :-DDDD


Also, if the restore point mechanism is turned on and multi-user is enabled, I guess that 14 to 20 Gigabytes of HD space is needed as the install partition.... and a strange question, can another user than the administrator install win-dos 98 in their "user space"???

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windos XP _not_ for desktops...

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, megol wrote:

> It could be better removing the main "hook" into the system (better as then
> we'd at least have less useless Windows rants here).


Useless rants???

Really? Why is that, because win-dross is SOOOOOOOOOOO grrreat?



Well, here's 2 more then for your incapability for seeing the plain obvious!

1) It's bad enough how long it takes win-dross to boot up, but now that I'm "multi-user", set up a second user to try out new SW, as it's suggested NOT to install unknown software logged in as administrator with full privileges. So, now, if I leave from the computer when I boot up, as it takes a while, I only come back to a computer that HAS NOT booted up, because it wants me to pick a user account to boot into, and I have to sit through YET ANOTHER boot up..... DAMN!


2) The "green screen OF DEATH"??????

Yes, that's right, the GREEN SCREEN of death?

Anyone here know what I'm talking about, before I spill the beans on _this_ DOOZIE???!!!

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windos XP _not_ for desktops

notAtheist2. .@..

(72.24.136.154) 72-24-136-154.cpe.cableone.net
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:
>
> > I don't know how many times you need to be told this: THE WORLD DOES NOT
> > OWE YOU A FREE GAMING PLATFORM.
>
> Oh, I don't know, I figure if I _buy_ a PC game, I _should be_ entitled to
> a way to PLAY it.

By this logic, the game company should also provide you with a free PC, free electricity, a free house to keep the PC in, free food to keep you alive while you play...

Here's a clue. Since you *bought* the game, presumably in some legal fashion, please go and get the box the disc came in. Somewhere on that box, and/or elsewhere in the documentation, will be something about "system requirements." Yes, YOU are REQUIRED to provide the PC and OS. Not the game company, not Microsoft, not Santa. And these things ARE NOT FREE. (At least not a PC with enough CPU/graphics card to play any sort of recent game, and not the OS the game was written to run on.)

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

notAtheist2. .@..

(72.24.136.154) 72-24-136-154.cpe.cableone.net
> ALL of these WONDER 21st CENTURY ENHANCEMENTS and YET unable to perform?
> What's the purpose of these _such awesome_ things then???

Performs quite well enough for several million people, especially the ones who have even half a clue what they're doing. This obviously does not include you.

As to "purpose" - I believe Microsoft sells the OS to "enhance shareholder value", i.e. to make money. I believe people buy the OS because they believe (rightly or otherwise) that they need this particular OS to run their computer...perhaps because, for instance, a particular GAME they want to play is written to run on that OS.

> Keep in mind, _NASA_ was able to find a use for Amiga OS, for how long was
> it??? :-DDDD

"Find a use" =\= "mission critical". NASA certainly was NOT using AmigaOS to launch rockets, maintain environmental controls or other "man-rated" systems. Nor would they use XP for such.

> Also, if the restore point mechanism is turned on and multi-user is
> enabled, I guess that 14 to 20 Gigabytes of HD space is needed as the
> install partition....

I generally recommend turning off system restore, as it typically takes up 10 to 15 percent of your hard disk. And system restore can do more harm than good, i.e. "restoring" viruses and such.

> and a strange question, can another user than the
> administrator install win-dos 98 in their "user space"???

Not sure what you're trying to do here. Are you talking about installing old software that ran under Win9x in XP using compatibility mode? Or are you under the impression you can "install" Win98 within XP?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windos XP _not_ for desktops...

notAtheist2. .@..

(72.24.136.154) 72-24-136-154.cpe.cableone.net
> 1) It's bad enough how long it takes win-dross to boot up, but now that I'm
> "multi-user", set up a second user to try out new SW, as it's suggested NOT
> to install unknown software logged in as administrator with full
> privileges. So, now, if I leave from the computer when I boot up, as it
> takes a while, I only come back to a computer that HAS NOT booted up,
> because it wants me to pick a user account to boot into, and I have to sit
> through YET ANOTHER boot up..... DAMN!

Seriously? You don't understand the difference between "boot up" and "log in"? Take the computer back to the store.

>
> 2) The "green screen OF DEATH"??????
>
> Yes, that's right, the GREEN SCREEN of death?
>
> Anyone here know what I'm talking about, before I spill the beans on _this_
> DOOZIE???!!!

Bad color monitor (displays green for blue)? Corrupted video driver? Failing video card hardware? None of which, by the way, would be the fault of the OS, most likely.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:

> > and a strange question, can another user than the
> > administrator install win-dos 98 in their "user space"???
>
> Not sure what you're trying to do here. Are you talking about installing
> old software that ran under Win9x in XP using compatibility mode?


> Or are
> you under the impression you can "install" Win98 within XP?

Yes, this part here, as peculiar as it is.

I mean, the user has this segment of the HD as _his own_, so in theory, could he use it 100% as he wishes, _including_ installing another OS? I mean, it IS _multi-user_, IS IT NOT?

If he can't, it isn't GENUINE multi-user, never has been...... another strike against macro-slop.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

GK. malibannnospam@t-online.de.

(217.113.178.29) 217.113.178.29
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:

> I mean, the user has this segment of the HD as _his own_, so in theory,
> could he use it 100% as he wishes, _including_ installing another OS? I
> mean, it IS _multi-user_, IS IT NOT?

Yes he can, it is his HD, he can install several incompatible programs and he can smash it with a hammer ...

Think !:
You want to use an OS, you want to use software, if you want it working properly it is your task to make a proper setup.

If you install garbage that interrupts your games, it is your fault, because you installed the garbage.

And yes, you can use XP to run a nuclear power station, but you are responsible for a correct setup, you have to do the layout of the backup systems and you are responsible in using redundant hardware ...

And if someone sells a computer and others used it in Tschernobyl, the computer manufacturer doesn't want to be responsible for using his computer.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

.. ..

(80.239.242.31) [80.239.242.31]
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:

> Well, here's 2 more then for your incapability for seeing the plain
> obvious!

Oh this should be a blast.
>
> 1) It's bad enough how long it takes win-dross to boot up, but now that I'm
> "multi-user", set up a second user to try out new SW, as it's suggested NOT
> to install unknown software logged in as administrator with full
> privileges. So, now, if I leave from the computer when I boot up, as it
> takes a while, I only come back to a computer that HAS NOT booted up,
> because it wants me to pick a user account to boot into, and I have to sit
> through YET ANOTHER boot up..... DAMN!
>

Err no, logging into a specific account does not constitute "boot up". If you're failing to even understand this then there really is no hope.

>
> 2) The "green screen OF DEATH"??????
>
> Yes, that's right, the GREEN SCREEN of death?
>
> Anyone here know what I'm talking about, before I spill the beans on _this_
> DOOZIE???!!!
>

Only time I've seen something like that was when my monitor cable worked its way loose. Otherwise check to make sure you're using the correct drivers and haven't done something retarded like set the monitor resolution/frequency above what the monitor can handle.


> > Or are
> > you under the impression you can "install" Win98 within XP?
>
> Yes, this part here, as peculiar as it is.
>
> I mean, the user has this segment of the HD as _his own_, so in theory,

Stop, you fail at theory.

> could he use it 100% as he wishes, _including_ installing another OS? I
> mean, it IS _multi-user_, IS IT NOT?
>

Operating systems do not work that way you muppet! You want to run Win98 you either dualboot or run a virtual machine.

> If he can't, it isn't GENUINE multi-user, never has been...... another
> strike against macro-slop.
>

Oh get real, your not understanding even the basics of how to operate a computer does not equate, nor has ever equated to it being microsoft's fault.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, . wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> > On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:
> > > Or are
> > > you under the impression you can "install" Win98 within XP?
> >
> > Yes, this part here, as peculiar as it is.
> >
> > I mean, the user has this segment of the HD as _his own_, so in theory,
>
> Stop, you fail at theory.
>
> > could he use it 100% as he wishes, _including_ installing another OS? I
> > mean, it IS _multi-user_, IS IT NOT?
> >
>
> Operating systems do not work that way you muppet! You want to run Win98
> you either dualboot or run a virtual machine.
>
> > If he can't, it isn't GENUINE multi-user, never has been...... another
> > strike against macro-slop.
> >
>
> Oh get real, your not understanding even the basics of how to operate a
> computer does not equate, nor has ever equated to it being microsoft's
> fault.



Let me get this straight, the alternate to administrator user, who is promised his OWN computing eXPerience, can't erase everything after he logs into HIS user space and install win-dross 98 and boot into it?

I understand multi-user to mean, "distinct separate areas where others can't intrude and you can do as you please without affecting others as well".

Seems that micro-shit doesn't understand the TRUE definition, and is ripping everyone off. Sums it up pretty good, I'd say.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

.. ..

(80.239.242.31) [80.239.242.31]
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, . wrote:
> > On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> > > On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:
> > > > Or are
> > > > you under the impression you can "install" Win98 within XP?
> > >
> > > Yes, this part here, as peculiar as it is.
> > >
> > > I mean, the user has this segment of the HD as _his own_, so in theory,
> >
> > Stop, you fail at theory.
> >
> > > could he use it 100% as he wishes, _including_ installing another OS? I
> > > mean, it IS _multi-user_, IS IT NOT?
> > >
> >
> > Operating systems do not work that way you muppet! You want to run Win98
> > you either dualboot or run a virtual machine.
> >
> > > If he can't, it isn't GENUINE multi-user, never has been...... another
> > > strike against macro-slop.
> > >
> >
> > Oh get real, your not understanding even the basics of how to operate a
> > computer does not equate, nor has ever equated to it being microsoft's
> > fault.
>
>
>
> Let me get this straight, the alternate to administrator user, who is
> promised his OWN computing eXPerience, can't erase everything after he logs
> into HIS user space and install win-dross 98 and boot into it?
>

Operating systems do not work that way. If you want to run different operating systems you have one of two choices: Virtualisation and dual booting. This goes for Windows, MacOS, Linux, BSD, Irix, Solaris etc.

> I understand multi-user to mean, "distinct separate areas where others
> can't intrude and you can do as you please without affecting others as
> well".
>

You fail, so hard.

> Seems that micro-shit doesn't understand the TRUE definition, and is
> ripping everyone off. Sums it up pretty good, I'd say.
>

No, you are deliberately misinterpreting the meaning of multi user. Within a multi user operating system, a person may use his or her own account to access programs, save their own personal settings for their programs without it effecting the settings of others as well as store their own documents in a separate area that is not accessible to other users (barring admin or superuser accounts). No OS ever written allows you to do what you are suggesting.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

.. ..

(80.239.242.31) [80.239.242.31]
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, . wrote:
> > On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> > > On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:
> > > > Or are
> > > > you under the impression you can "install" Win98 within XP?
> > >
> > > Yes, this part here, as peculiar as it is.
> > >
> > > I mean, the user has this segment of the HD as _his own_, so in theory,
> >
> > Stop, you fail at theory.
> >
> > > could he use it 100% as he wishes, _including_ installing another OS? I
> > > mean, it IS _multi-user_, IS IT NOT?
> > >
> >
> > Operating systems do not work that way you muppet! You want to run Win98
> > you either dualboot or run a virtual machine.
> >
> > > If he can't, it isn't GENUINE multi-user, never has been...... another
> > > strike against macro-slop.
> > >
> >
> > Oh get real, your not understanding even the basics of how to operate a
> > computer does not equate, nor has ever equated to it being microsoft's
> > fault.
>
>
>
> Let me get this straight, the alternate to administrator user, who is
> promised his OWN computing eXPerience, can't erase everything after he logs
> into HIS user space and install win-dross 98 and boot into it?
>

Operating systems do not work that way. If you want to run different operating systems you have one of two choices: Virtualisation and dual booting. This goes for Windows, MacOS, Linux, BSD, Irix, Solaris etc.

> I understand multi-user to mean, "distinct separate areas where others
> can't intrude and you can do as you please without affecting others as
> well".
>

You fail, so hard.

> Seems that micro-shit doesn't understand the TRUE definition, and is
> ripping everyone off. Sums it up pretty good, I'd say.
>

No, you are deliberately misinterpreting the meaning of multi user. Within a multi user operating system, a person may use his or her own account to access programs, save their own personal settings for their programs without it effecting the settings of others as well as store their own documents in a separate area that is not accessible to other users (barring admin or superuser accounts). No OS ever written allows you to do what you are suggesting.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

GK. malibannnospam@t-online.de.

(217.113.178.29) 217.113.178.29
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, . wrote:

> > Let me get this straight, the alternate to administrator user, who is
> > promised his OWN computing eXPerience, can't erase everything after he logs
> > into HIS user space and install win-dross 98 and boot into it?
> >
>
> Operating systems do not work that way. If you want to run different
> operating systems you have one of two choices: Virtualisation and dual
> booting. This goes for Windows, MacOS, Linux, BSD, Irix, Solaris etc.

And before Atheist starts ranting again, let me mention the Amiga, where you could use multiuser systems like Linux, NetBSD, UNIX ... but Atheist will charge Microsoft for not understanding the meaning of multiuser even on Amiga.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, GK wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, . wrote:
>
> > > Let me get this straight, the alternate to administrator user, who is
> > > promised his OWN computing eXPerience, can't erase everything after he logs
> > > into HIS user space and install win-dross 98 and boot into it?
> > >
> >
> > Operating systems do not work that way. If you want to run different
> > operating systems you have one of two choices: Virtualisation and dual
> > booting. This goes for Windows, MacOS, Linux, BSD, Irix, Solaris etc.
>
> And before Atheist starts ranting again, let me mention the Amiga, where
> you could use multiuser systems like Linux, NetBSD, UNIX ... but Atheist
> will charge Microsoft for not understanding the meaning of multiuser even
> on Amiga.



Huh?

A.O.S., AMIGA...OPERATING...SYSTEM, isn't now, or ever before, multi-user.

So, if you run UNIX on AMIGA HW, A.O.S. need not be present. Right. So what are you trying to say?


And yes, I still stick with what I say, IF it's MULTI-USER, then each and every user can do what they want, and should EVEN be able to install Linux in their segment of user space, and when they start their user account, Linux boots up.

micro-shaft IS guilty of FALSE ADVERTISING of their "multi-user" system.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

.. ..

(80.239.242.31) [80.239.242.31]
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, GK wrote:
> > On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, . wrote:
> >
> > > > Let me get this straight, the alternate to administrator user, who is
> > > > promised his OWN computing eXPerience, can't erase everything after he logs
> > > > into HIS user space and install win-dross 98 and boot into it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Operating systems do not work that way. If you want to run different
> > > operating systems you have one of two choices: Virtualisation and dual
> > > booting. This goes for Windows, MacOS, Linux, BSD, Irix, Solaris etc.
> >
> > And before Atheist starts ranting again, let me mention the Amiga, where
> > you could use multiuser systems like Linux, NetBSD, UNIX ... but Atheist
> > will charge Microsoft for not understanding the meaning of multiuser even
> > on Amiga.
>
>
>
> So, if you run UNIX on AMIGA HW, A.O.S. need not be present. Right. So what
> are you trying to say?
>

That you're an idiot.

>
> And yes, I still stick with what I say, IF it's MULTI-USER, then each and
> every user can do what they want, and should EVEN be able to install Linux
> in their segment of user space, and when they start their user account,
> Linux boots up.
>

Yes, you can, it doesn't change the fact that you're fundamentally wrong. Operating systems are not applications. You can achieve what you're talking about either through virtualisation or through dual booting. Nothing else.

> micro-shaft IS guilty of FALSE ADVERTISING of their "multi-user" system.
>

Microsoft are guilty of nothing of the sort - your fundamental (and I believe wilful) misunderstanding of the term multi-user and indeed what an operating system is/does changes nothing.

Read and understand: No OS ever written offers the user to do what you are suggesting.

Virtualisation or dual booting are your options, regardless of the base OS.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

opi. jah.

(217.113.233.204) staticline51933.toya.net.pl
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:

> A.O.S., AMIGA...OPERATING...SYSTEM, isn't now, or ever before, multi-user.

I know you don't know anything about Amiga or computers, let me give you a hint. There was a piece of software called MultiUserFileSystem. Once you got it running, you had extended file system that could deal with bits that where used in UNIX (owner/group/other), plus some fancy tools. Then you get Geek Gadgets, collection of *NIX tools, compilers and frameworks that utilized your muFS installation.

A person with a brain could do a pretty nice *NIX-like setup in AmigaOS without losing it distinct feel. I take a pride in my old AmigaOS setup. My friend even wired my two "blank" keys on A12K keyboard to do left/right mouse click. With that you could turn into hacker-god, no mouse required.

muFS+GG+AmiTCP showed me a way to UNIX land. That's why I keep memories about Amiga fond.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

notAtheist2. .@..

(65.183.246.217) dsl-mhd.atm.702communications.com
> Let me get this straight, the alternate to administrator user, who is
> promised his OWN computing eXPerience, can't erase everything after he logs
> into HIS user space and install win-dross 98 and boot into it?

The whole point of a non-admin account is NOT to have full privileges, i.e. not to run as root. Why? So when (not if) YOU get a virus, trojan, or other malware, it doesn't inherit root privileges from you. It is one of the major failings of XP that it defaults to running as an administrator, but it's the work of mere seconds to fix this by adding another account for everyday tasks...as you appear to have done. Good. No, your beloved "Joe Average" probably doesn't know he should do this.

As you've already been told multiple times, dual-boot or virtualization are the options here. Given your demonstrated lack of technical skills, I wouldn't recommend you attempt a dual-boot setup. MS makes Virtual PC available as a FREE (there's that word you like) download. There are other, better, alternatives, many of which are also free, but let's keep things simple here.

If you decide to try Virtual PC, you do want to be sure NOT to get the newest version intended for Windows 7, but the older Virtual PC 2007. Here, I'll even point to it for you: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/support/virtual-pc-2007.aspx

Oh, and before you go off on MS for eating up your disk space again, please do note that the 35MB of disk space required for Virtual PC 2007 does include the space you'll need to install any guest OS. The documentation makes this clear, but you seem to have a knack for ignoring or misunderstanding documentation.

I'm mostly putting this here for the benefit of anyone who comes across this thread by accident, so THEY will find at least SOME useful information.

> I understand multi-user to mean, "distinct separate areas where others
> can't intrude and you can do as you please without affecting others as
> well".
>
> Seems that micro-shit doesn't understand the TRUE definition

You're the one who doesn't understand the concept. You also have demonstrated a lack of understanding of nearly every concept of modern computing. At least TRY to learn, please.

Or take the computer back to the store.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

notAtheist2. .@..

(65.183.246.217) dsl-mhd.atm.702communications.com
On Thursday, Oct 8, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:
> Oh, and before you go off on MS for eating up your disk space again, please
> do note that the 35MB of disk space required for Virtual PC 2007 does
> include the space you'll need to install any guest OS.

Editing error above, should read "does NOT include". I don't claim to be infallible...

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
Been thinking about it, and, as usual, I am 100% correct.

REAL "multi-user", a person should be able to install ANY OTHER OS in THEIR "user space".

So, when they sign-in into their profile, they should be able to boot directly into anything they install there; Ubuntu, or any other Linux, or MacOSX or even win-dross 98 or 95 or MS-DOS3.3 (meanwhile, if nothing IS installed, the default would be a win-xp(ee) boot up).


I'm sorry, but for all your claims of being superior in computing knowledge, you HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY duped by the TRULY INCOMPETENT micro-slug.

You PROMOTE that a _modern current_ OS has multi-user, but until last week, YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT WAS!

Instead, you have been conned, and eagerly defend hopelessly incapable micro-slop.


And I haven't even told you about the green screen problem yet!

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

dammy. damocles@thenostromo.com.

(68.142.7.184) dsl-7-184.cofs.net
On Sunday, Oct 11, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> Been thinking about it, and, as usual, I am 100% correct.
>
> REAL "multi-user", a person should be able to install ANY OTHER OS in THEIR
> "user space".

Name one OS that does this unless it's a VM.

Dammy

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

notAtheist2. .@..

(65.183.246.217) dsl-mhd.atm.702communications.com
> Been thinking about it, and, as usual, I am 100% correct.

Whatever you have to tell yourself. You're not making a great case for yourself here.

> REAL "multi-user", a person should be able to install ANY OTHER OS in THEIR
> "user space".

Where REAL is defined as "what I decided it should mean" as opposed to, you know, any basis in reality. Wishing doesn't make it so. You don't understand what multi-user means. You also, earlier, demonstrated you don't understand the difference between "boot up" and "log in". But, of course, whatever YOU decide to believe is right, and everything else is wrong.

> So, when they sign-in into their profile, they should be able to boot
> directly into anything they install there; Ubuntu, or any other Linux, or
> MacOSX or even win-dross 98 or 95 or MS-DOS3.3 (meanwhile, if nothing IS
> installed, the default would be a win-xp(ee) boot up).

Uh, no. "Sign-in to their profile" indicates they're already within an OS. You seem to think that somehow, you can "nest" an OS inside another. Not so, unless you're running a virtual machine. One could, I suppose, set up a user profile so it automatically launches a VM with another OS as selected by the user. But you refuse to believe the VM is necessary.

> I'm sorry, but for all your claims of being superior in computing
> knowledge, you HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY duped by the TRULY INCOMPETENT
> micro-slug.
>
> You PROMOTE that a _modern current_ OS has multi-user, but until last week,
> YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT WAS!
>
> Instead, you have been conned, and eagerly defend hopelessly incapable
> micro-slop.

Yes, of course. You don't understand, so that means you're right about everything, and everyone else is a dupe of MS. Sure. Keep digging that hole.

Not here to defend MS. They have plenty to answer for. But what you're accusing them of is a figment of your too-fertile imagination and too-obvious lack of knowledge, and willful misunderstanding of those who try to show you where you're in error.

Here's another clue. It isn't just XP, or other MS OS products that behave this way. Linux (or any implementation of *NIX) also is multi-user, and also has various options for running VMs.

> And I haven't even told you about the green screen problem yet!

No, but you've already been given several possible diagnoses. None of which would be the fault of MS, and most of which would be the fault of the user. That's YOU.

Or it could be bad hardware. Take the computer back to the store.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

notAthe ist2. .@..

(65.183.246.217) dsl-mhd.atm.702communications.com
And with that, I've decided I've spent enough time feeding the troll.

Atheist2, if you hate MS so much, don't use their products. Simple enough.

Good luck finding an OS, *any* OS, that works the way you think it should. I very strongly doubt that such exists.

On the very, very slim chance the OS *does* exist, good luck finding applications that run on it. Especially those games you seem to like so much.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Sunday, Oct 11, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:
> You don't
> understand what multi-user means. You also, earlier, demonstrated you
> don't understand the difference between "boot up" and "log in". But, of
> course, whatever YOU decide to believe is right, and everything else is
> wrong.


Well, let's see. When I choose the profile to use, in the lower right, SW needs to be launched, THEREFORE I'm _not_ finished booting up. That's what I mean by, booting up, then booting up a second time. Effectively there's another delay to working with the computer, even though, the computer could have been turned on for half an hour. And that delay exists, even on a quad core 3.8 GHz computer!!!

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

notAtheist2. .@..

(65.183.246.217) dsl-mhd.atm.702communications.com
OK, one more morsel for the troll, then I'm *really* stopping.

> On Sunday, Oct 11, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:
> > You don't
> > understand what multi-user means. You also, earlier, demonstrated you
> > don't understand the difference between "boot up" and "log in". But, of
> > course, whatever YOU decide to believe is right, and everything else is
> > wrong.
>
>
> Well, let's see. When I choose the profile to use, in the lower right, SW
> needs to be launched, THEREFORE I'm _not_ finished booting up. That's what
> I mean by, booting up, then booting up a second time.

Thus you demonstrate your lack of knowledge. You not only don't understand the difference between "boot up" and "log in", you don't even understand what "boot up" means. "Boot up" does NOT mean "launches all the software I want to use, whatever that happens to be".

Again, one COULD configure the user profile to do this. One COULD configure the computer to automatically log into a particular, non-admin profile, for that matter. You could still log into the admin account as necessary. I'm sure there's plenty of easy-to-follow tutorials out there that would walk you through this, if you take the trouble to READ and FOLLOW their instructions. You haven't shown a lot of reading comprehension skills here.


> Effectively there's
> another delay to working with the computer, even though, the computer could
> have been turned on for half an hour. And that delay exists, even on a quad
> core 3.8 GHz computer!!!

Even when you're right, you're wrong. Yes, the delay exists. No, processor speed has NOTHING to do with it. Nor does the OS. It's just that, the computer is DONE BOOTING and waiting for user input. User - that's YOU. The delay is because of YOU. Because YOU aren't there to give input, and YOU haven't configured the computer otherwise.

I'm done here. Take your computer back to the store, and quit your whining.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

Bernd Meyer. moo@umilator.net.

(67.152.80.226) [67.152.80.226]
On Sunday, Oct 11, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:

> And that delay exists, even on a quad core 3.8 GHz computer!!!

What quad-core 3.8GHz computer? No such thing in the general consumer space...

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

notAtheist2. .@..

(65.183.246.217) dsl-mhd.atm.702communications.com
On Monday, Oct 12, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> What quad-core 3.8GHz computer? No such thing in the general consumer
> space...

Given the logic displayed in this and other recent threads, I'd not be surprised to learn this is actually 4 cores at 950MHz each. Which, you know, adds up to 3.8GHz. If your mind works a certain way.

Or, someone slapped a "3.8GHz quad-core!" tag on some random box, and our hero bought it because it "sounds fast."

Or, it's overclocked. Perhaps, not particularly stable? One more reason things aren't working right? Which, by the way, MUST be the fault of teh ebil M$!!!1!ONE! WHY WON'T THE WORLD WAKE UP TO THIS TRAVESTY?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
On Monday, Oct 12, 2009, notAtheist2 wrote:
> On Monday, Oct 12, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> > What quad-core 3.8GHz computer? No such thing in the general consumer
> > space...
>
> Given the logic displayed in this and other recent threads, I'd not be
> surprised to learn this is actually 4 cores at 950MHz each. Which, you
> know, adds up to 3.8GHz. If your mind works a certain way.
>
> Or, someone slapped a "3.8GHz quad-core!" tag on some random box, and our
> hero bought it because it "sounds fast."
>
> Or, it's overclocked. Perhaps, not particularly stable? One more reason
> things aren't working right? Which, by the way, MUST be the fault of teh
> ebil M$!!!1!ONE! WHY WON'T THE WORLD WAKE UP TO THIS TRAVESTY?


I was throwing out a number a bit higher than is currently available, but soon within reach, and yet could NOT help the incredibly useless BLOATED behemoths.


"Top-of-the-line" barely cuts the mustard.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

Bernd Meyer. moo@umilator.net.

(67.152.80.242) [67.152.80.242]
On Monday, Oct 12, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
>
> I was throwing out a number a bit higher than is currently available

You should work on your tenses, then.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

.. ..

(94.196.37.26) [94.196.37.26]
On Sunday, Oct 11, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> Been thinking about it, and, as usual, I am 100% correct.
>

What you mean is, your balls further shrivelled up at the mere thought of having to concede you were wrong. So you're ploughing on regardless.

> REAL "multi-user", a person should be able to install ANY OTHER OS in THEIR
> "user space".
>

Only in your world. And the above is possible if you use a virtual machine. You know, if you quit trying to redefine the english language in order to justify your idiocy. You might actually get somewhere in life.

> So, when they sign-in into their profile, they should be able to boot
> directly into anything they install there; Ubuntu, or any other Linux, or
> MacOSX or even win-dross 98 or 95 or MS-DOS3.3 (meanwhile, if nothing IS
> installed, the default would be a win-xp(ee) boot up).
>

Virtualisation is fun. Again XP can be set to auto login to any account you want. Same goes for most linux desktop distributions and I'd hazard a guess the same would be true of MacOS.

So, yet another complaint due to PEBKAC.

>
> I'm sorry, but for all your claims of being superior in computing
> knowledge, you HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY duped by the TRULY INCOMPETENT
> micro-slug.
>

Well see, Unix has been around for what... 30 odd years now? I've yet to see anything unix or unix alike (linux/bsd/macOS) that can offer what you're suggesting. At least without having to employ a virtual machine.

> You PROMOTE that a _modern current_ OS has multi-user, but until last week,
> YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT WAS!
>

Excuse me, your redefining of the term multi-user is bullshit. We (IE people who know their shit when it comes to computers and technical definitions) have already explained what the term multi-user means. It does not mean what you are desperately trying to claim it does so as to justify your microsoft hate.

> Instead, you have been conned, and eagerly defend hopelessly incapable
> micro-slop.
>

Sorry, no OS in the world ever written is capable of doing what you just redefined multi-user to mean without the use of virtualisation.

>
> And I haven't even told you about the green screen problem yet!
>

I suggest it's a layer 7 issue. I may be wrong, but I figure with you if I just put down every single issue you have as being down to your own incompetence I will be right more often then wrong.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

.. ..

(94.196.37.26) [94.196.37.26]
On Monday, Oct 12, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:

>
> "Top-of-the-line" barely cuts the mustard.
>

You've never owned a top of the line system, much less one that has been set up by someone who actually knows what they're doing.

How is it that people using XP on a netbook have the barest fraction of the troubles you have had I wonder...

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

BS. ..

(70.29.57.92) [70.29.57.92]
On Monday, Oct 12, 2009, . wrote:
>
> How is it that people using XP on a netbook have the barest fraction of the
> troubles you have had I wonder...
>

How far would he get with SATA RAID on any of the systems running AmigaOS 4.1?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

Atheist2. nofudge@yahoo.com.

(64.180.70.121) [64.180.70.121]
To bad you guys are wanna-bes.

Clueless jerk offs, defending the wonderful micro-crap.

Deranged and don't know it.


Amiga was and _is_ "it".

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: windosXP _not_ for desktops

.. ..

(80.239.242.30) [80.239.242.30]
On Tuesday, Oct 13, 2009, Atheist2 wrote:
> To bad you guys are wanna-bes.
>

Riiight, that's why we have secure, stable computers that work, and you have a pirated, broken hunk of crap operated by an idiot.

> Clueless jerk offs, defending the wonderful micro-crap.
>

Just because you lack the intelligence to install and operate a modern OS doesn't mean the rest of the world has such issues.

> Deranged and don't know it.
>

Lol

>
> Amiga was and _is_ "it".
>

Which is why you have a windows machine. Hypocrite.

Reply to this

Short list view

Previous thread - Next thread

Back to Moo Bunny

It is now: 17:26:11 GMT.
Moo Bunny brand Message Boards
[General Stuff (16:45:22)] [Space (Aug 2009)] [Anime (2007)]
[WalkingFish (Oct 3)] [Cabinet of Curiosities (2007)] [Portland (2008)]
Retro and Exotic Computing
[Atari ST (2007)] [WeirdMac (Jan 2009)]
Amiga Boards
[Amiga Section (16:48:50)]
John Shepard's Projects
[Rastport (Tuesday)] [Squid's Amiga Page & Rumor Mill (n/a)] [Art by John Shepard (Sep 2009)]