|  |
|
| |
By: rorschach
Date: 1/23/99 10:18:43 PM
# Replies: 52
Perhaps you all have noticed my conspicuous absence of late.... welll.. leme tell ya........
I went and bought the current package deal at comp-U-Suck-Ass and got quicken and turbo tax, brought it home, and installed it... one of the things it did i wasn't real peased with was it wanted to install IE4 with strong encryption support... but i figured what the hell, if i don't then i won't be able to file electronically anyway so i let it.... unbeknownst to me, it realized i wasn't using the win32 winsock layer that comes with windows and it replaced MINE with micky$oft's layer. my dialer wants to use it's own and IE4 want to use micky$oft's.... what to do what to do... ok fine, i'll set up dial up networking to do my dialing.... well, i end up having to type in this long string of nonsense of a password at every attempt because although there is a check box to remember the password it is greyed out and i can't figure out how to check it. also, how do i set up IE4's mail utility? i got all the password data required. is there a wizard?
Response #1
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 1/24/99 6:37:17 PM
It's grayed out because you're not "logged in".
When you originally started up the computer, did you put a username and password in for Windows? That's the most likely cause. The next time you got the logon prompt, you just hit enter or esc instead of typing in the password, so windows doesn't have a *.pwl file (it holds your passwords and system settings) to save a password to.
Response #2
By: rorschach
Date: 1/28/99 6:38:10 PM
IEEEEEEEE! this stupid thing! bill gates needs a penectomy! (sooz, you can translate...)
Response #3
By: Da Sissop
Date: 1/31/99 10:01:52 PM
As for mail support, I suppose that depends on the installset of IE4 that the friendly folks at Quicken provided for ya. I seem to recall that Microsoft had a few different installsets available for download, one of which was just the bare minimum browser components.
I'd say if you don't see an icon for Outlook Express in your Internet Explorer program group (which would automatically launch a wizard the first time you invoked it), then you probably don't have a mail client. You might be able to download it as its own component from Microsoft's web site (I *know* you can download it as part of the whole IE4 package, but knowing you I doubt you'd go gently into that long download... :)
Response #4
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 2/2/99 9:33:43 PM
Hmm. I can either respond to this thread with my non-Microsoft email client options, or I can go into the kitchen and eat some magic brownies before they're all gone.
These are the choices that make up our lives.
Response #5
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 2/3/99 1:22:10 AM
Non-M$ email clients? What, you mean something like Netscape, Opera, or Eudora?
:)
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #6
By: rorschach
Date: 2/11/99 11:07:43 PM
The SAGA continues....
just when I get the machine up and running (more or less) again, my primary hard drive suffers a bloody head wound (i.e. HEAD CRASH!) and EVERYTHING on it gets wiped (it just happened to occur IN THE BLEEDING DIRECTORY TRACK!) but I am BACK! and THANK YOU ALTA VISTA! for actually LISTING webnuns' new address!
Response #7
By: Ralf
Date: 4/1/99 10:40:25 PM
You know, Internet Explorer 5 just came out.
Response #8
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/2/99 12:42:27 AM
Non IE5 users can also enjoy the IE5 experience by shrinking your primary Hard Drive partition by 40Megs and removing a couple of stick of RAM from your machine. :)
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #9
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/2/99 9:40:34 AM
Oh and don't forget to soak your mouse in syrup.
Response #10
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 4/2/99 10:21:03 PM
It's funny how Microsoft programs always seem to make your machines run slower, Sorc, when they seem to be working fine on mine.
IE5 gets two thumbs up from me.
Response #11
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/3/99 6:29:56 AM
Gowan Sez:
============================
It's funny how Microsoft programs always seem to make your machines run slower, Sorc, when they seem to be working fine on mine.
============================
Well the comment *specifically* about IE5 was a jest (note the :>) since I haven't installed IE5. But my experience, personally & professionally, and the experience of people I work with and customers is M$ products just keep getting bigger and bigger and suck more and more resources. Minimum system *TRUE* system requirements (as opposed to what is on the box) keep increasing. I don't want to have to keep upgrading my hardware all the time. My primary PC is a P166 w/ 64M of RAM. I put Win98 on it, performance sucked. I didn't like the integrated Internet Explorer (actually, isn't that IE5?) so I installed Netscape. Netscape didn't preform as well as I expected and seemed unstable. I went though the process of removing Internet Explorer from Win98. Performance of 98 overall got "better" but still sucked. Removed and reinstalled Netscape. Netscape worked much better with I.E. gone (amazing huh?). Got tired of sluggish behavior, blew it all away, reimaged my machine from the drive image I made before installing Win98.
You might suggest I upgrade my primary PC. Why? So I can get about the same performance I get NOW on my 95 config? If I upgrade my PC I'm gonna put my Win95/Linux/OS2 setup on it. If more horsepower will my Win98 bearable, just think what it will do for 95/Linux/OS2!
Lest you think my machine is cursed.... The company issued a bunch of us new laptops. Tecra 550CDT (Pentium 266, 160Meg of RAM) with Win98 installed. It just didn't give me the HUGE performance boost I expected going from my old P133, 64Meg RAM Satellite Pro. After a few weeks I heard through the grapevine that some of the other analysts had built a Win95 image for this laptop. I snagged the CD, imaged the laptop, and NOW I actually BELIEVE I've got a 266 with 160Meg of RAM.
Upgrading M$ products doesn't seem to make my machine slower, it DOES make my machine slower. Exact same hardware, before upgrade vs after upgrade, very distinctive performance decrease. If I was the only person who experienced this then I would say I probably just don't know how to install the software, but I'm not. I see and hear the same thing at work and read the same thing in the industry newspapers.
Response #12
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/3/99 8:41:27 AM
I guess I should however note that I load my machines down pretty heavy and probably push their performance envelope a little more than alot of people. When working on my most recent project with the Win98 and Win95 configs of the laptop above I would frequently have open:
WORD97 (writing project deliverable)
EXCEL97 (updating & calculating stats for project, import to WORD97)
Visio Professional 5 (network & infrastructure diagrams, charts for WORD97)
AutoCad R13 (wiring plant, charts not easily done in Visio, frequent off-and-on use)
MS Project (tracking project deliverable targets, into WORD97)
MS Outlook (local client's email, meeting schedules, etc)
Eudora Pro (Sprint Email via VPN)
ICQ (Chat Client, file transfer & collaboration with other analysts working for me on this project)
CheckPoint VPN Client
So maybe I'm just more sensitive or less tolerant of performance problems.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #13
By: Ralf
Date: 4/4/99 3:22:57 PM
It's possible to overgeneralize something. "Because IE4 was a pig, IE5 must be also" is a dangerous assumption.
Criticizing a product based soley on how it performs on your equipment is valid as far as your organization goes -- it's your equipment, and your project, afterall -- but lots of people have different experiences with IE5. Some (me, for instance) notice an improvement in performance. And I'm not alone.
When I hear you complain about upgrades making your system slower and compare your experiences to mine, all I can come up with is "your configuration is different" and shrug. Obviously, you're a sharp guy and you'd recognize a performance degredation when you saw one... so it's gotta be real. But I and a lot of other really smart people I know never had a problem. IE5 runs faster than IE4 on all my computers, from my P100 to my P-II/400.
You're dead on about IE4: it was a pig, and Microsoft learned from that mistake. VB4 was a pig, and Microsoft learned from THAT too... VB5 and VB6 are vastly superior products. Office95 sucks compared to Office97, and Office2000 looks like a similar improvement.
It's very fashionable to bash Microsoft, especially on WebNunz. God knows they've pulled some evil shit and delivered crappy product, but there's also good things they've done, like Word. They're not 100% evil or stupid, else they wouldn't command the market they do. I myself have a love/hate relationship with them, the same feelings I have for IBM and Oracle.
My point? Don't assume that because something they did in the past sucked that everything they do now sucks. Keep that up and you'll get a nasty surprise when a competitor exploits something they do that doesn't suck and eats you alive. Like XML on IE5.
BTW, Win98 comes with IE4, not IE5. :-)
Response #14
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/4/99 7:17:31 PM
I understand that JScript under IE5 can now kill your favorites, add pages to your favorites, and re-program the back button. Also, every time it opens a web page, it checks the server for a 'favorites.ico' file which it can use as an icon in the favorites menu, which isn't a bad idea, except that it *always* does it, making every server's error log triple in size every twenty-three minutes.
I'd suggest that *these* are the things which will eat you alive, not XML support. :-) The funny part is that Microsoft thinks these are *features*. "Look how cool we are! We've given people you don't know the ability to screw up your web browser!"
Speaking of doing cool things before your competitors: I'm using iCab a lot, and it knows what to do with <LINK REL="..."> tags. It's waycool, if the pages you're looking at support it. I think I'll put LINK tags on all my web pages and design an 'Optimized for HTML (and iCab)' badge.
Response #15
By: sooz
Date: 4/5/99 9:29:24 AM
Ralf, some days, I think you're just too cool for words.
Response #16
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/5/99 8:56:10 PM
Ralf Sez:
================================
When I hear you complain about upgrades making your system slower and compare your experiences to mine, all I
can come up with is "your configuration is different" and shrug. Obviously, you're a sharp guy and you'd recognize a
performance degredation when you saw one... so it's gotta be real.
=================================
Thanks for accepting that I'm not just blowing smoke out of my ass when I say these problems are real and not the product of my imagination. Seriously.
Ralf also Sez:
=================================
It's possible to overgeneralize something. "Because IE4 was a pig, IE5 must be also" is a dangerous assumption. Criticizing a product based soley on how it performs on your equipment is valid as far as your organization goes -- it's your equipment, and your project, afterall -- but lots of people have different experiences with IE5. Some (me,
for instance) notice an improvement in performance. And I'm not alone.
==================================
As I said in my original post, the comment specifically about IE5 was a joke, since I haven't personally used IE5. I'll have to remember to censor my humor in the future when it comes to MicroSoft so I don't stir people up needlessly. But as for my comments about Win98 and what I've said in the past about MS products I have to stand by my personal experiences and those of collegues...which is really all anyone can ever do. In any case, the fact that there are alot of people who have positive experiences with MS products doesn't negate or lessen the negative experiences alot of other people have either. Not all complaints about MS products are just anti-Microsoft propaganda. :)
Ralf also Sez:
==================================
My point? Don't assume that because something they did in the past sucked that everything they do now sucks.
==================================
Wouldn't dream of it. If I thought like that I wouldn't have plunked down $100 to try Win98, yes? Granted, in retrospect, thinking like that WOULD have saved me $100 in this particular case. :)
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #17
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 4/6/99 12:02:18 AM
Of course, there is once again evidence that Microsoft *is* evil.
They're re-releasing Windows 98 with bug fixes and some extras as "Microsoft 98 Version 2" and charging $100 for it. There may be a lesser "upgrade" price for users of Windows 98 Version 1, but nothing has been set in stone yet.
Response #18
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 4/6/99 12:25:46 AM
First off, I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were blowing smoke out of your ass (although I've seen you do it :) ).
All aboard the train of thought...
It's funny how you talk about going back to your "good ole Win95/OS2/Linux" system, though considering how repulsed you were by Windows95 when it came out. I'm sure you still hate it, but it's the lesser of the evils.
I'm not Microsoft's cheerleader. They have some shitty business practices and some shitty software. However, I get irritated when people make generalizations about Microsoft's products. I'd never try to say that Microsoft makes flawless software. I can't think of anyone who DOES make flawless software. I can't remember you ever saying anything good about ANY Microsoft product, though, although it appears you use at least five. Out of necessity, I'm sure.
Of course Linux is gonna run faster on your hardware. It doesn't have to support three completely different previous operating systems. If you wanna talk performance from your hardware, you should be running BeOs. It's not compatible with anything, but it BLAZES on a standard Pentium.
I deal with a large volume of various systems at my new office. Some run Windows 95, some run Windows 98, some run Windows NT. I can have two identical systems and one will run the operating system great and the other will give me BSODs all day long. The majority, however, run fine. All the time. 24-7. Is it me? Is it the hardware? Is it the software? Is it all three or a combination unthought of? Yes.
I doubt I've made much sense, but what I made was mine.
Bartle and I thank you for your support.
Response #19
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/6/99 7:55:45 AM
Gowan Sez:
================================
It's funny how you talk about going back to your "good ole Win95/OS2/Linux" system, though considering how repulsed you were by
Windows95 when it came out. I'm sure you still hate it, but it's the lesser of the evils.
================================
Yes, the irony of my statement isn't lost on me. I wouldn't say that I *hate* it, but I've worked in several other OSs such that I know there are better platforms/environments to work in. Platforms that are more robust, more stable and allow more control and configurability. I have Win95 on my system for 3 reasons. 1) SprintParanet's standard is Office97 so all documents, slide presentations, timesheets and expense forms have to be in those formats. However I've started using StarOffice more and more from the Linux partitions of my PC and Laptop and the Solaris version on my Sparcstation. It works fine with all the MS Office document formats, nobody at the office has noticed or complained yet, and IT'S FREE! The only thing that I'm still having trouble with is one of the hugeass Excel97 workbooks with a shitload of macros and links and stuff. 2) Just because I've moved away from a desktop support role doesn't mean I can let one of my marketable skills die. For good or ill, MS dominates the desktop right now and to ignore that regardless of I think of their products would be a totally ignorant thing to do. 3) There are some applications that I can't do without (Visio springs to mind) that aren't available under OS2/Linux/Solaris. But I have growing hopes with the growing excitement around Linux.
Gowan also Sez:
============================
I can't remember you ever saying anything good about ANY Microsoft product, though, although it appears you use at least five. Out of necessity, I'm sure.
============================
There are already plenty of M$ evangelists in out there. They don't need me to sing praises for something when it works. It SHOULD work, that's kindofa basic expectation, that's what I'm paying for! When something DOESN'T work, THAT'S when you need to say something. Other OSs I laud because alot of people have so bought into the mindset that MS is their ONLY choice, that MS is the best it can be, that MS OSs and apps are the ONLY OSs and apps that work. This is absolutely wrong. MS OSs and apps, like anything else, have their place. The decisions as to what OSs and apps to use should be based (IMHO) upon what makes the best business sense, what's the most productive, and consideration of you Total Cost of Ownership/Operation of those solutions. The Exchange/Notes situation I spoke about a few days ago is a perfect example. The company rolled out about 20000 nodes of exchange and supporting servers because the CIO had bought into the "if that is what MicroSoft suggests then it has to be the way of the future" BS. Totally ignored the fact that exchange is VERY chatty on the WAN compared to mail solutions like Notes or Unixmail (Bandwith = Big Bucks). Totally ignored the fact that enterprise NT administration costs are greater than other NOSs. Totally ignored the fact that Exchange doesn't give you the whole integrated "paperless office" / Intranet / automatic document routing & management system they had in their corporate IS vision, whereas Notes does. Alot of people in this industry become One Trick Pony's. All they know about is MicroSoft so the only solutions they have/give to a business need is a MicroSoft one. In my mind, as a consultant, that is unconscionable. I believe it is important to know as much as you can about a wide variety of options or AT LEAST be aware that there ARE a wide variety of options. THAT is what you are being paid large sums of money for, your informed opinion and experience. If a CIO has his eyes glazed over for a MS end-to-end solution AND IT MAKES SENSE for his business and the stated company direction you give it to him/her. If he is out of touch with reality, you let him know that too...in a polite way of course. :) Not the butt-licking, yes-man approach my branch sales team would like me to take but my job is to give an honest analysis not to tell people what they want to hear.
Gowan Sez:
==========================
Of course Linux is gonna run faster on your hardware. It doesn't have to support three completely different previous operating systems. If
you wanna talk performance from your hardware, you should be running BeOs. It's not compatible with anything, but it BLAZES on a
standard Pentium.
===========================
I plan to try out BeOs as soon as I get the chance. I'm kinda saturated right now with Linux, OpenStep and work to take on another new project. But I will when I can free-up another machine.
Gowan then Sez:
============================
I deal with a large volume of various systems at my new office. Some run Windows 95, some run Windows 98, some run Windows NT. I
can have two identical systems and one will run the operating system great and the other will give me BSODs all day long. The majority,
however, run fine. All the time. 24-7. Is it me? Is it the hardware? Is it the software? Is it all three or a combination unthought of? Yes.
============================
I don't doubt your experiences, the performance of the platform is unpredictable, and especially it seem the more non-MS programs you throw into the mix. THAT bugs me.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #20
By: Ralf
Date: 4/8/99 1:42:00 AM
I had a nice counter-rant all ready to go, then I changed my mind.
It won't make any difference. Y'all know how I feel, and saying it again won't enrich anyone's life. There's no new knowledge or experience to be gained here.
It's software. It's business. People have been making do with half-busted software since Babbage conceived of the damned stuff. I suspect 30 years from now we'll be bitching about AI systems that misunderstand our telepathic commands.
It's in our nature to complain about our tools and the stupid stuff other humans do & believe, and there's no magical combination of words I can type here to change that one iota.
I'm going to bed.
Response #21
By: sooz
Date: 4/9/99 1:36:34 PM
Again, Ralf is so cool. He puts a broader view on it... helps us get out of the forest so we can see the freakin' trees.
Response #22
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/9/99 3:25:25 PM
Sooz Sez:
======================================
He puts a broader view on it... helps us get out of the forest so we can see the freakin' trees.
======================================
Well at the risk of proving myself to be even more woefully uncool for voicing a contrary opinion (guess that means I can't set with the Cool Kids in the lunch room now), would you care to elaborate on exactly how I (or we) are by contrast more narrow of view and lacking the ability to see the forest for the trees?
Don't get me wrong, I've always thought Ralf is pretty darn cool myself. I probably wouldn't be where I am today careerwise were it not for Ralf's help. I'm sure he's well aware that I hold him in the highest regard, and whether we agree on a given issue or not has absolutely no bearing on that. But then I've never thought any less of most people that I know here.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #23
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/10/99 9:40:57 AM
I'll sit with ya. And I'd like to give you this flower, and this pamphlet, entitled "The Road Ahead".
Response #24
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/11/99 12:50:12 PM
Cool. Who's this Billgwan Sri Gatesnishi guy on the cover?
:)
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #25
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/11/99 2:47:16 PM
A false prophet, that's who!
You should read this pamphlet instead, by The Right Reverend Torvalds.
Response #26
By: sooz
Date: 4/11/99 3:08:25 PM
Ok, here's my explanation for why I like Ralf's view, in this instance.
Y'all are bickering about which is better, the old Microsoft stuff or the new. You argue whether Microsoft is evil. You go to great lengths (your one post was precisely 919 words) to explain your view on Microsoft.
These are the trees, up close.
Ralf comes along and says that whatever he says isn't going to change your mind, and in a few short years everything will have changed so much that none of this will matter.
This is the forest, from a far-off view.
Did that help?
I'm not trying to be a Ralf cheerleader here. He's no more my favorite than Gowan, Fang, Sorc', or any of the rest of ya's. Ralf has his faults like the rest of us. He's too loud in bed, for example.
But in this case, I think he's right-on.
There. That oughtta stir some shit.
Response #27
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/11/99 5:09:05 PM
Sooz Sez:
================================
Y'all are bickering about which is better, the old Microsoft stuff or the new. You argue whether Microsoft is evil. You
go to great lengths (your one post was precisely 919 words) to explain your view on Microsoft.
These are the trees, up close.
Ralf comes along and says that whatever he says isn't going to change your mind, and in a few short years everything will have changed so much that none of this will matter.
This is the forest, from a far-off view.
================================
Ok, so let me put it this way. I believe the rest us do quite clearly see things from the "forest" view as well as the "tree" view. The thing is, the far-off view is good for overall perspective, keeping one's technical ego in check, etc. But the day-to-day business of dealing with these silicon monsters (most of us bitching are "chipheads" by profession) requires a "tree" view too.
So I propose that it would be more acurate to say that the rest of us do see the forest and the trees, but we stayed at the "forest" level view we wouldn't have anything to argue or joke about. :)
In fact, the only thing I was ACTUALLY trying to do was be funny in the beginning. I don't think anyone is really trying to drastically change anyone's mind here. The absolute *best* you can hope to do is maybe add a little more information or a little bit different perspective on a given issue that perhaps someone else hadn't run across before.
Sooz also Sez:
==================================
You go to great lengths (your one post was precisely 919 words) to explain your view on Microsoft.
==================================
I tend to go to great length to explain my view on anything when it's "my turn" (for lack of a better phrase) to have my say. Most people's views seem to be more complex than they let on at first and it takes a while to drag out all the details. I've got a big mouth...err...keyboard so I blurt it out in large chunks.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #28
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/11/99 5:12:56 PM
Homer Sez:
===================================
A false prophet, that's who!
You should read this pamphlet instead, by The Right Reverend Torvalds.
===================================
Heh.... Don't you mean His Holiness Jobs I. He has been pulling of a few minor miracles over in Cupertino.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #29
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 4/11/99 11:35:58 PM
Waitasecond...I thought *I* was your favorite.
Response #30
By: Ralf
Date: 4/12/99 12:30:55 AM
Thanks, Sooz & Sorc' for the kind words.
They make me smile most goofily.
Anyone wish to discuss the merits of the C64 vs the Atari 800? :-)
Response #31
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/12/99 1:44:14 AM
There's alot of love in this room....
Ralf Sez:
==========================
Anyone wish to discuss the merits of the C64 vs the Atari 800? :-)
==========================
I think the 800 was a most excellent machine! :) I miss the days when computers had more character. I got a complete Atari 800 system off of eBay a few months ago and recently was able to find a favorite old game of mine, CAVERNS OF MARS!! I feel like a geeky kid again! If only I could find a cache of old APX and Atari WAREZ on the web somewhere....
Never even touched a commie before, unless you count a VIC-20. :)
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #32
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/12/99 4:29:23 AM
YOU TOO can fondly remember those thrilling days of yesteryear when you though it was impressive that the program took up all 48k on your machine!
Just go to The Atari New User/Emulator FAQ and learn how YOU can run an Atari, on your OWN PC!
Response #33
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/12/99 2:55:18 PM
Office 2000 does indeed have imporvements, but it IS a huge pig. Ror, there is a little program that you can d/l off of download.com that will solve pretty much the situation you area dealing on login. (Keep in mind this is a band-aid, and NOT a real fix.) it's called Advanced Dialer, and it's basically a back-bone for DUN. It will manage your PW's for you, keep track of your time online, and you can even set it to automatically redial upon drop from your ISP.
Or, you can get a cable modem. :)
Problem(s) solved!
Ralf, Windows 2000 comes with IE5. :)
Here's an even more encompassing, realistic perspective for you sooz, and what I believe is pretty much the bottom line about it. (Also something I have said NUMEROUS times)
You can bitch about MS, you can love them. Some of their products are good, some are crap. You don't HAVE to deal with them, if you really don't want to. But here's the reality: If you want to run the majority of the SW on the market today, or if you desire to make a living in the computer industry, you ARE indeed going to have to deal with them. It's real easy to complain, bitch and moan about how wrong and bad they are, and how Bill Gates is eveil, sold his soul to the devil to get the wife he has and the money (heck, it's even fun, I do it too!) If you don't like them SO much, come up with a better idea or product, and I garuntee you that the world will either beat a path to your door, or MS will buy it from you, and then you will LOVE MS.
Response #34
By: sooz
Date: 4/12/99 3:32:36 PM
I know it's been said before, so here it is for the sake of argument, in the form of an example:
My mama. She's a publisher, editor and author. She runs the Thomas Jefferson University Press. The entire operation (GASP) is run on Macs. And she makes good money.
Go figure. She doesn't hate or love Bill Gates and MS. She uses what works best for her business, and in the publishing world, apparently Mac has the software.
Response #35
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/12/99 8:34:54 PM
Computers. Use 'em. Don't use 'em. Whatever.
I'm on the verge of going Luddite. Perl is doing it to me, too.
Response #36
By: Ralf
Date: 4/12/99 11:30:25 PM
The biggest selling software package for the Mac is MS Office.
Go figger.
Response #37
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 4/14/99 1:05:13 PM
much as i hate the idea of microsoft taking over the world, i've gotta admit this IE5.0 is pretty nifty. full screen view with auto-hide search, and that auto-complete on passwords is handy too. plus everything is a tad faster. i highly recommend it.
Response #38
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 4/16/99 3:05:41 PM
MS Office was alledgedly written from the ground up as a Mac app, and Mac users like it when software companies alledge things like that. Microsoft learned that lesson with IE4; it got installed on LOTS of computers because 1) they developed it to be a Mac app, rather than a ported Windoze app, 2) Microsoft gave Apple a bunch of money so they could have a pull quote which said: "IE is my main browser of choice." -- Steve Jobs.
Plus, in either case, the software could actually be good. :-)
And for those of you following along, Perl isn't such a killer now. I think I can keep using computers.
Response #39
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/16/99 3:14:17 PM
"And for those of you following along, Perl isn't such a killer now. I think I can keep using computers. "
Thanks for the update.
Now if we can just break you of this MAC insanity that you have! :)
Response #40
By: Da Sissop
Date: 4/17/99 7:59:17 AM
Re: IE5 and stored passwords... any wagers on how long before some whiz kid finds a security hole and is able to steal your passwords if you visit his webpage?
Response #41
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/17/99 8:22:35 PM
Uhhh, Jim IE4 stored passwords as well. MS says that supposedly with the 128 bit encryption version, that can't happen. (shrug)
Response #42
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/18/99 8:04:57 PM
Jim Sez:
=============================
Re: IE5 and stored passwords... any wagers on how long before some whiz kid finds a security hole and is able to
steal your passwords if you visit his webpage?
=============================
Actually, I *BELIEVE* I saw a message about someone having an exploit for just that very thing under IE4 on one of our internal net-security mailing lists some months ago. Can't honestly remember seeing anything on IE5, but I'm kinda' curious. I'll post it if I find one.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #43
By: Ralf
Date: 4/18/99 11:11:59 PM
You people worry too much. If somebody wants your passwords they'll just access 1-900-DIAL-NSA and pay $1.50/min to hear them.
Response #44
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/19/99 9:50:45 PM
There is an exploit of the stored password problem in RISKS Digest, but there is a possibility that loading the latest service pack for IE5 may fix it. I don't have the followup article on this computer. So if you have a concern it is at least worth trying installing the FixPack.
I did run across a couple of other tidbits though:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
There is a security bug in Internet Explorer 5.0 which circumvents
"Cross-frame security" and opens several security holes.
This is a modification of the "%01 security bug" (that was fixed in IE 5.0) I found in January.
The problem seems to be in the "Microsoft Scriptlet Component". If you add '%01someURL' after the URL you pass to "Microsoft Scriptlet Component", IE thinks that the document is loaded from the domain of 'someURL'.
Some of the vulnerabilities are:
1) IE allows reading local files and sending them to an arbitrary server. The filename must be known.
The bug may be exploited using HTML mail message.
Demo is available at: http://www.nat.bg/~joro/scriptlet.html
2) IE allows "window spoofing". After visiting a hostile page (or clicking a hostile link) a window is opened and its location is a trusted site. However, the content of the window is not that of the original site, but it is supplied by the owner of the page. So, the user is misled he is browising a trusted site, while he is browsing a hostile page and may provide sensitive information, such as credit card number.
The bug may be exploited using HTML mail message.
Demo is available at: http://www.nat.bg/~joro/scrspoof.html
Workaround: Disable Javascript
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #45
By: rorschach
Date: 4/21/99 10:25:03 PM
on a different note, I have a problem with word 7.0a at work...I do alot of assembly procedures in word by scarfing autocad pics and embedding them in word documents... on my machine only (other machines set up similarly work fine even the one that crashes 15 times a day...)the picture looks like i drew it freehand while suffering from a bad case of parkinsons. Jaggie as hell... through experimentation i discovered that switching to the screen's highest resolution (1280x1024), making sure the drawing was zoomed to extents and regened befor insertion and/or quitting editing for an already inserted pic, I can greatly reduce the jaggieness, and on some smaller pictures, they look great, but for large drawings with alot of vectors and vertices (like splined plines and such)there just doesn't seem to be any hope... anybody have any ideas?
Response #46
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 4/23/99 8:09:25 AM
Not knowing enough about how Autocad does it's images, not much more I could tell you. What format does it store them in?
Response #47
By: Ralf
Date: 4/23/99 9:50:11 AM
Make sure your bitmaps are in 24-bit (16 million colors) mode. If you're cutting & pasting into Word, make sure your display is in 24-bit mode -- the clipboard shares your display's palette.
Once Word has enough colors to work with, it'll eliminate jaggies with color extrapolation. If you're pasting monochrome bitmaps, that may be the whole problem.
Of course, your Word documents can get huge if you embed a ton of hirez bitmaps. Word 7.0x tops out at 32M max per document (ask me how I know :-). If you want to manipulate larger documents, use Word97 (v8.0). Once you get the jaggies fixed, you might consider "linking" images instead of embedding. The document sizes stay small, but it's more steps than cutting/pasting.
Send me some email if you need a hand with any of this.
Response #48
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/23/99 7:20:02 PM
Ror Sez:
====================================
on a different note, I have a problem with word 7.0a at work...I do alot of assembly procedures in word by scarfing autocad pics and embedding them in word documents... on my machine only (other machines set up similarly work fine even the one that crashes 15 times a day...)the picture looks like i drew it freehand while suffering from a bad case of parkinsons. Jaggie as hell... through experimentation i discovered that switching to the screen's highest resolution (1280x1024), making sure the drawing was zoomed to extents and regened befor insertion and/or quitting editing for an already inserted pic, I can greatly reduce the jaggieness, and on some smaller pictures, they look great, but for large drawings with alot of vectors and vertices (like splined plines and such)there just doesn't seem to be any
hope... anybody have any ideas?
===================================
When you say "autocad pics" are you talking about bitmap pictures of autocad drawings or are you talking about actual Autocad .DXF or .DWG files? Is there anyway you can fire up Autocad and plot the drawings to HPGL plotfiles? If so, doublecheck Word 7 to make sure you can import HPGL (PLT) plotfiles. And just import them that way.
If they dropped HPGL plotfile support in Word7 and you have a copy of Visio or Corel Draw you can try using them as an intermediate step. If you can use WordPerfect instead of Word, it will import .WMF files which you can export from Autocad.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #49
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 4/23/99 7:24:36 PM
Spaz Sez:
==========================
Not knowing enough about how Autocad does it's images, not much more I could tell you. What format does it store
them in?
==========================
Autocad DXF and DWG files are not really "graphic" files as much as they are files that contain the vector information that loads into the Autocad drawing database.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #50
By: Ralf
Date: 4/26/99 7:12:21 AM
Right, that's why I assumed he was pasting bitmaps, which if they're coming from a CAD application, may only be using 4-bits of color information.
Up the bits, baby!
Response #51
By: rorschach
Date: 4/27/99 7:00:55 PM
ok lemme see if i can clarify a bit. i am doing a copy embed directly from autocad so that it is easier to edit the picture when the actual parts get changed (real common occurrence, as in daily...). there are no intermediate files in between and NO BMP's to deal with (thankfully)so i refuse to loose the picture/autocad link, i'll live with the crappy output before i do that. the picture in autocad is basically one bit color. black and white (which gets inverted when you insert it...)only. the reason for this is that word dithers the output to a greyscale image when you try to output it to a laserprinter and have you ever tried to read red text that was dithered to grey? give it UP! Autocad for all you graphic arts people, is a vector graphics system. the closest thing autocad has to bitmaps is the screen memory (which is what i suspect win95/word is trying to use).
Response #52
By: Ralf
Date: 4/29/99 7:16:05 AM
You're telling me acad has NO WAY to save a graphic image to a file?
If it can, just up the palette to 24-bits and try pasting THAT into Word. Set your desktop to use as many colors as it can -- 24-bit "True Color" preferred.
Use MSPaint.exe to open the file, select all (CTRL-A) then copy (CTRL-C). Switch to Word and paste (CTRL-V).
See what that does for ya.