This win-ME newsgroup is now the dumping ground for spam

[98 Guy]

This win-me newsgroup is now the dumping ground for "cannot delete file"
long path tool spam.

We don't get spam like that posted to our win-98 newsgroup.

Ha Ha.

[Tim Meddick]

Windows Millennium is an infinitely better OS than Win98!

I am constantly surprised at just how like XP it really is!!

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

Post by 98 Guy
This win-me newsgroup is now the dumping ground for "cannot delete file"
long path tool spam.
We don't get spam like that posted to our win-98 newsgroup.
Ha Ha.

[98 Guy]

Tim Meddick used improper usenet message composition style by

Post by Tim Meddick
Windows Millennium is an infinitely better OS than Win98!

Hardly.

Post by Tim Meddick
I am constantly surprised at just how like XP it really is!!

Many people would consider that as detrimental or a disadvantage.

[Tim Meddick]

Get real!....

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

Post by 98 Guy
Tim Meddick used improper usenet message composition style by

[webster72n]

"Tim Meddick" wrote in message news:iti4au$38v$***@speranza.aioe.org...

Get real!....

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

I am 100% with you, Tim, thank you.

Harry.

Post by 98 Guy
Tim Meddick used improper usenet message composition style by

[Tim Meddick]

Hi Harry,
Just one "for instance" for you..... I used Win'98 for
several years before being given an XP PC and one major relief was being
able to simply plug-in a USB Memory-Stick (pen-drive) which would not ever
be read in an Win'98 PC!!

However, on all the subsequent client's computers running Windows
Millennium, I have never had any trouble using my 1GB USB stick, which is
recognised and installed immediately, and thereafter.

Unlike Win'98, which, no matter what extra USB drivers I installed, simply
refused to ever have anything to do with any Flash-Memory-Drives!

But for "98-Guy" to resort to "poking me" with "naughty, naughty,
top-poastie..." is just
pathetic!

Please, it just common sense to admit that WinME, since it came after, is a
more advanced version of Windows! I didn't deny you the right to still
like it more!! But it's ability to successfully detect, recognise and
install more Plug-and-Play devices should tell you I'm right about that....

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

Post by Tim Meddick
Get real!....
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
I am 100% with you, Tim, thank you.
Harry.

Post by 98 Guy
Tim Meddick used improper usenet message composition style by

[AnnonyMouse]

Tim,

As an old timer in this NG (40+K posts) who just happens to live no more
than a couple of miles up the road from yourself towards the Oval, you're
spot on about both Win Me and also the pathetic mad guy 98. Win Me was the
trial platform for much that was incorporated into XP with just two examples
being Windows Media Player and System Restore. Mad guy rarely if ever
contributed to this NG when it was active between May 2000 and its death in
2009/10. I suspect that this might have been because he didn't want to be
shown up as the ignorant Neanderthal that he is, for example his pathetic
comment about top posting, by the far more intelligent and knowledgeable
posters that frequented this newsgroup at that time.

Regards,

AM

Post by Tim Meddick
Hi Harry,
Just one "for instance" for you..... I used Win'98 for
several years before being given an XP PC and one major relief was being
able to simply plug-in a USB Memory-Stick (pen-drive) which would not ever
be read in an Win'98 PC!!
However, on all the subsequent client's computers running Windows
Millennium, I have never had any trouble using my 1GB USB stick, which is
recognised and installed immediately, and thereafter.
Unlike Win'98, which, no matter what extra USB drivers I installed, simply
refused to ever have anything to do with any Flash-Memory-Drives!
But for "98-Guy" to resort to "poking me" with "naughty, naughty,
top-poastie..." is just
pathetic!
Please, it just common sense to admit that WinME, since it came after, is a
more advanced version of Windows! I didn't deny you the right to still
like it more!! But it's ability to successfully detect, recognise and
install more Plug-and-Play devices should tell you I'm right about
that....2009/2010
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

[Tim Meddick]

Cheers, but so as not to rile anyone, I shall neither top nor bottom post -
this time!

Just to also mention another small innovation first introduced in WinME and
carried over into subsequent WinNT OSes....

Integrated ZIP-file handling!

(also called Compressed Folders)

Even Win2K did not have this but WinME did!!

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

[Joan Archer]

He's the only one who seems to find a problem with top posting in this ng.
<g>

I agree that WinME brought to attention the features that were to make XP so
popular.



Joan Archer
http://crossstitcher.webs.com/
"AnnonyMouse" wrote in message news:4e0061e9$0$1529$c3e8da3$***@news.astraweb.com...

Tim,

As an old timer in this NG (40+K posts) who just happens to live no more
than a couple of miles up the road from yourself towards the Oval, you're
spot on about both Win Me and also the pathetic mad guy 98. Win Me was the
trial platform for much that was incorporated into XP with just two examples
being Windows Media Player and System Restore. Mad guy rarely if ever
contributed to this NG when it was active between May 2000 and its death in
2009/10. I suspect that this might have been because he didn't want to be
shown up as the ignorant Neanderthal that he is, for example his pathetic
comment about top posting, by the far more intelligent and knowledgeable
posters that frequented this newsgroup at that time.

Regards,

AM

Post by Tim Meddick
Hi Harry,
Just one "for instance" for you..... I used Win'98 for
several years before being given an XP PC and one major relief was being
able to simply plug-in a USB Memory-Stick (pen-drive) which would not ever
be read in an Win'98 PC!!
However, on all the subsequent client's computers running Windows
Millennium, I have never had any trouble using my 1GB USB stick, which is
recognised and installed immediately, and thereafter.
Unlike Win'98, which, no matter what extra USB drivers I installed, simply
refused to ever have anything to do with any Flash-Memory-Drives!
But for "98-Guy" to resort to "poking me" with "naughty, naughty,
top-poastie..." is just
pathetic!
Please, it just common sense to admit that WinME, since it came after, is a
more advanced version of Windows! I didn't deny you the right to still
like it more!! But it's ability to successfully detect, recognise and
install more Plug-and-Play devices should tell you I'm right about
that....2009/2010
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

[N. Miller]

Post by AnnonyMouse
I suspect that this might have been because he didn't want to be
shown up as the ignorant Neanderthal that he is, for example his pathetic
comment about top posting, by the far more intelligent and knowledgeable
posters that frequented this newsgroup at that time.

Top posting was encouraged by the Gnomes of Redmond, who liked to do things,
"The Microsoft Way". There are three ways to do things:

1. The right way.
2. The wrong way.
3. The Microsoft way.

In any case, Microsoft decided to move their participation to the web, and
abandoned their newsgroups to the Usenet. And Usenet has long favored
contextual quoting over either top posting, or bottom posting. Contextual
quoting discourages both top posting and full quoting.

[98 Guy]

Post by Tim Meddick
However, on all the subsequent client's computers running Windows
Millennium, I have never had any trouble using my 1GB USB stick,
which is recognised and installed immediately, and thereafter.
Unlike Win'98, which, no matter what extra USB drivers I installed,
simply refused to ever have anything to do with any Flash-Memory
-Drives!

You haven't done your homework.

I can use any usb memory stick on my windows 98 system. I currently
have an 8 gb and 16 gb memory stick that I use to copy movies and music
between different computers.

I'm using USB drivers made by "OrangeWare Corporation", version 1.1.0.2,
dated 4-1-2003.

iusbehci.sys
iusb2hub.sys

I'm not sure where I originally got that driver, but here is a link for
it:

http://drivers.softpedia.com/get/Other-DRIVERS-TOOLS/Others/ECS-945PL-A-V10-Intel-OrangeWare-USB-20-Driver-1102.shtml

Post by Tim Meddick
But for "98-Guy" to resort to "poking me" with "naughty, naughty,
top-poastie..." is just pathetic!

If you're a top-poaster, then I'm just point that out. Top-posting is
bad form for usenet message composition style.

Post by Tim Meddick
Please, it just common sense to admit that WinME, since it came
after, is a more advanced version of Windows!

Windows ME is a joke compared to Windows 98.

Post by Tim Meddick
I didn't deny you the right to still like it more!!

Is english your first spoken language? I wouldn't think so based on the
above sentence.

Post by Tim Meddick
But it's ability to successfully detect, recognise and install
more Plug-and-Play devices should tell you I'm right about that

And that same ability can be installed into Windows 98, you moron.

[Tim Meddick]

Well, I thank you for the link - I have no doubt that it will come in
useful one day - as the default drivers certainly never worked for me in
Win98 (Unlike WinME, which do).

...And I did not have as much luck as you did in finding 3rd-party drivers
for a Memory-Drive.

Although, I did find some drivers for Pure DOS (7; 7.1; 8) that enabled me
to copy stuff over to a PC's hard-drive using a floppy start-up disk - but
these drivers were incompatible with, and could not be used under
Windows'98!!

Just in case anyone wants to know - here is the URL to download those USB
PURE DOS drivers :
http://www.4shared.com/file/156209872/7732c7df/USBDOS.html

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

Post by 98 Guy

Post by Tim Meddick
However, on all the subsequent client's computers running Windows
Millennium, I have never had any trouble using my 1GB USB stick,
which is recognised and installed immediately, and thereafter.
Unlike Win'98, which, no matter what extra USB drivers I installed,
simply refused to ever have anything to do with any Flash-Memory
-Drives!

You haven't done your homework.
I can use any usb memory stick on my windows 98 system. I currently
have an 8 gb and 16 gb memory stick that I use to copy movies and music
between different computers.
I'm using USB drivers made by "OrangeWare Corporation", version 1.1.0.2,
dated 4-1-2003.
iusbehci.sys
iusb2hub.sys
I'm not sure where I originally got that driver, but here is a link for
http://drivers.softpedia.com/get/Other-DRIVERS-TOOLS/Others/ECS-945PL-A-V10-Intel-OrangeWare-USB-20-Driver-1102.shtml

Post by Tim Meddick
But for "98-Guy" to resort to "poking me" with "naughty, naughty,
top-poastie..." is just pathetic!

If you're a top-poaster, then I'm just point that out. Top-posting is
bad form for usenet message composition style.

Post by Tim Meddick
Please, it just common sense to admit that WinME, since it came
after, is a more advanced version of Windows!

Windows ME is a joke compared to Windows 98.

Post by Tim Meddick
I didn't deny you the right to still like it more!!

Is english your first spoken language? I wouldn't think so based on the
above sentence.

Post by Tim Meddick
But it's ability to successfully detect, recognise and install
more Plug-and-Play devices should tell you I'm right about that

And that same ability can be installed into Windows 98, you moron.

[N. Miller]

Post by 98 Guy
Windows ME is a joke compared to Windows 98.

I have used both. Windows 98 would fall over irrecoverably when user
resources dropped below 30% free. About half the time, I could recover
Windows ME gracefully, even down to 10% free resources. In general, I found
nothing about Windows ME to dislike that I didn't dislike about Windows 98.

[Mart]

Not quite sure what YOU are seeing. Seems either my News Handler or my ISP
is blocking this spam from ever reaching my edition of OE - even if I am
currently using XP. The only 'Spam' I'm seeing in this group is the stuff
that YOU are perpetuating.

BTW - Top posting was from the beginning, the general rule in WinMe NG's
during its active years. I don't recall it ever being an issue (until
recently) - and for those 'purists' who used OE, it was (along with in-line)
the more logical method of posting. Bottom posting manifested itself by
'latecomers' as a result of resorting to the various alternative 'Kings New
Newsreaders' - but then, I note that you - as a 98 'purist' - use Mozilla.
Just a touch of irony - or should that be hypocrisy?

Fire extinguisher at the ready - for anticipated flaming.

Mart

Post by 98 Guy
This win-me newsgroup is now the dumping ground for "cannot delete file"
long path tool spam.
We don't get spam like that posted to our win-98 newsgroup.
Ha Ha.

[Tim Meddick]

I read, with some satisfaction, someone else who has "Top-Posted", and
found, as I have always said, that it is far easier way of reading new
material.

It just makes perfect sense to me to have the new, fresh text at the top
and the older repeated quoted text afterwards - I just cannot understand
how anyone, for the sake of some protocol, would want to have readers wade
through all the old quotes (often it having been repeated many times)
*before* one finally gets to the new stuff!!

I personally find it highly irritating to have to scroll to the very bottom
of a new post in order to read anything new (sometimes, just one line!)...

But I'll admit to not being too bright and to the possibility that there's
some justifiable, obscure reasoning as to just why it's necessary to
"bottom-post".

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

Post by Mart
Not quite sure what YOU are seeing. Seems either my News Handler or my
ISP is blocking this spam from ever reaching my edition of OE - even if I
am currently using XP. The only 'Spam' I'm seeing in this group is the
stuff that YOU are perpetuating.
BTW - Top posting was from the beginning, the general rule in WinMe NG's
during its active years. I don't recall it ever being an issue (until
recently) - and for those 'purists' who used OE, it was (along with
in-line) the more logical method of posting. Bottom posting manifested
itself by 'latecomers' as a result of resorting to the various
alternative 'Kings New Newsreaders' - but then, I note that you - as a 98
'purist' - use Mozilla. Just a touch of irony - or should that be
hypocrisy?
Fire extinguisher at the ready - for anticipated flaming.
Mart

Post by 98 Guy
This win-me newsgroup is now the dumping ground for "cannot delete file"
long path tool spam.
We don't get spam like that posted to our win-98 newsgroup.
Ha Ha.

[N. Miller]

Post by Tim Meddick
But I'll admit to not being too bright and to the possibility that there's
some justifiable, obscure reasoning as to just why it's necessary to
"bottom-post".

Like:

a bad idea?
top-posing
Why is

[N. Miller]

Post by Mart
BTW - Top posting was from the beginning, the general rule in WinMe NG's
during its active years.

Top posting was always favored by the Microsoft Wonks, as a result of the
way Microsoft designed their mail&news client.

Post by Mart
I don't recall it ever being an issue (until
recently) - and for those 'purists' who used OE, it was (along with in-line)
the more logical method of posting. Bottom posting manifested itself by
'latecomers' as a result of resorting to the various alternative 'Kings New
Newsreaders' - but then, I note that you - as a 98 'purist' - use Mozilla.
Just a touch of irony - or should that be hypocrisy?

Bottom posting is older than the Usenet, and the preferred method of
following up article in the Usenet at large. Usenet etiquette is older than
Microsoft.

Mozilla newsgroups encourage both bottom posting and full quoting, while
Microsoft newsgroups encouraged both top posting and full quoting. Now that
Microsoft has abandoned their newsgroups to the Usenet, maybe the Usenet
practice of contextual quoting will become as much the norm for the MS
groups as for the rest of the Usenet. Or not.

Post by Mart
Fire extinguisher at the ready - for anticipated flaming.

Nomex undies are also useful! ;)

[Mart]

In those early 'heady' days, I always found that replies within a thread
were so rapid that one couldn't help but 'keep-up with the conversation' and
hence there was no real need to bottom post as the conversation was always
fresh in ones mind, the topic being so transient.

However, certain individuals often decided to 'chirp-in' some several days
(even weeks or months) after the OP had gone away happy (or otherwise) with
the replies and the start of long debates even though the original topic had
become 'time expired' became typical.

It struck me that these late-comers, who were often Trolls, felt the need to
perpetuate a redundant thread (rather than start a new one) for posterity.
Almost always arguing that bottom posting should be used so that people
wouldn't lose the gist a of a thread some 100 years in the future (I
exaggerate!)

Sure, in those days, dial-up was the norm so one had to try to be
economical. In fact I seem to remember quite a bit of <snippage> being
applied to edit out redundant text to maintain short messages. So I
shouldn't really be surprised when some threads now can become many tens or
more deep.

Heck, if MS can promote bloatware, why not take advantage!

Mart

<snipped>

[webster72n]

Why is there a need for 'rule' in the first place?
I always found top-posting the most convenient,
but have no problem with any other method, since at times
one has to resort to one or the other.
What I do have a problem with is, being accused of cross-posting
at times, when I merely reply to the running post.
Why would that be?
P.S.: not in this particular news group.

Post by Mart
BTW - Top posting was from the beginning, the general rule in WinMe NG's
during its active years.

Top posting was always favored by the Microsoft Wonks, as a result of the
way Microsoft designed their mail&news client.

Post by Mart
I don't recall it ever being an issue (until
recently) - and for those 'purists' who used OE, it was (along with in-line)
the more logical method of posting. Bottom posting manifested itself by
'latecomers' as a result of resorting to the various alternative 'Kings New
Newsreaders' - but then, I note that you - as a 98 'purist' - use Mozilla.
Just a touch of irony - or should that be hypocrisy?

Bottom posting is older than the Usenet, and the preferred method of
following up article in the Usenet at large. Usenet etiquette is older than
Microsoft.

Mozilla newsgroups encourage both bottom posting and full quoting, while
Microsoft newsgroups encouraged both top posting and full quoting. Now that
Microsoft has abandoned their newsgroups to the Usenet, maybe the Usenet
practice of contextual quoting will become as much the norm for the MS
groups as for the rest of the Usenet. Or not.

Post by Mart
Fire extinguisher at the ready - for anticipated flaming.

Nomex undies are also useful! ;)

[N. Miller]

Post by webster72n
Why is there a need for 'rule' in the first place?

I am not aware of any "rules", only "conventions". Unlike driving on the
left side of the road (Australia, Japan, U.K.) v. right side of the road
(most of the rest of the industrialized world), Usenet convention is not a
matter of "rules", or "law".

Post by webster72n
I always found top-posting the most convenient,
but have no problem with any other method, since at times
one has to resort to one or the other.

Again, probably because of the default behavior of Microsoft clients. MSFT
designed their clients with business practices in mind; Usenet was
originally used for scholarly exchanges during a period when the Internet
was the Arpanet, and used for collaboration on defense R&D projects.

Post by webster72n
What I do have a problem with is, being accused of cross-posting
at times, when I merely reply to the running post.
Why would that be?
P.S.: not in this particular news group.

I don't use MS Outlook Express much, but ISTR it does not warn about
cross-posting, as other, purpose-built news clients I have used. I haven't
used Windows Live Mail all that much, but many of the flaws of MSOE were
carried over to both Windows Mail, and Windows Live Mail; I imagine this one
was, as well. If the user fails to observe that excessive cross-posting was
used in a post, 40tude Dialog, or any other purpose-built news client offers
a warning. MSFT clients apparently don't.

[webster72n]

Thanks for the enlightenment, Norman.
Have a wonderful day, or month, or better, a wonderful year and some.
BTW, no spam on this screen <g>.

Harry.

Post by webster72n
Why is there a need for 'rule' in the first place?

I am not aware of any "rules", only "conventions". Unlike driving on the
left side of the road (Australia, Japan, U.K.) v. right side of the road
(most of the rest of the industrialized world), Usenet convention is not a
matter of "rules", or "law".

Post by webster72n
I always found top-posting the most convenient,
but have no problem with any other method, since at times
one has to resort to one or the other.

Again, probably because of the default behavior of Microsoft clients. MSFT
designed their clients with business practices in mind; Usenet was
originally used for scholarly exchanges during a period when the Internet
was the Arpanet, and used for collaboration on defense R&D projects.

Post by webster72n
What I do have a problem with is, being accused of cross-posting
at times, when I merely reply to the running post.
Why would that be?
P.S.: not in this particular news group.

I don't use MS Outlook Express much, but ISTR it does not warn about
cross-posting, as other, purpose-built news clients I have used. I haven't
used Windows Live Mail all that much, but many of the flaws of MSOE were
carried over to both Windows Mail, and Windows Live Mail; I imagine this one
was, as well. If the user fails to observe that excessive cross-posting was
used in a post, 40tude Dialog, or any other purpose-built news client offers
a warning. MSFT clients apparently don't.

[Tim Meddick]

Here, here!!

At last.... someone who actually [appears] to agree with me!

Though, I consider "N. Miller" 's thoughts on contextual posting very
insightful...

It all makes a nice change from being bounced over the head for the
unspeakable 'crime' of top-posting!!

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

Post by webster72n
Why is there a need for 'rule' in the first place?
I always found top-posting the most convenient,
but have no problem with any other method, since at times
one has to resort to one or the other.
What I do have a problem with is, being accused of cross-posting
at times, when I merely reply to the running post.
Why would that be?
P.S.: not in this particular news group.

Post by Mart
BTW - Top posting was from the beginning, the general rule in WinMe NG's
during its active years.

Top posting was always favored by the Microsoft Wonks, as a result of the
way Microsoft designed their mail&news client.

Post by Mart
I don't recall it ever being an issue (until
recently) - and for those 'purists' who used OE, it was (along with in-line)
the more logical method of posting. Bottom posting manifested itself by
'latecomers' as a result of resorting to the various alternative 'Kings New
Newsreaders' - but then, I note that you - as a 98 'purist' - use Mozilla.
Just a touch of irony - or should that be hypocrisy?

Bottom posting is older than the Usenet, and the preferred method of
following up article in the Usenet at large. Usenet etiquette is older than
Microsoft.
Mozilla newsgroups encourage both bottom posting and full quoting, while
Microsoft newsgroups encouraged both top posting and full quoting. Now that
Microsoft has abandoned their newsgroups to the Usenet, maybe the Usenet
practice of contextual quoting will become as much the norm for the MS
groups as for the rest of the Usenet. Or not.

Post by Mart
Fire extinguisher at the ready - for anticipated flaming.

Nomex undies are also useful! ;)
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum