Re: Over 100 bug fixes coming!!!


"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-4EBC4F.13441818122008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
In article
<alangbaker-C1BC7C.13383318122008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <a9601$494abe70$8443@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Me" <me@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-8CE17A.12174118122008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
In article <a494f$494a9840$11393@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Me"
<me@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-31E1AB.09282018122008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <e91ff$494a75b9$17850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Me"
<me@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-17C042.16282717122008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <e97b8$49499662$17149@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Me"
<me@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-FF1AD4.16004417122008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <548dd$4949910f$11410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Me"
<me@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-EC40AE.15091617122008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
..
In article
<0001HW.C56EC5C20014131BF01846D8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Sonnova <sonnova@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:00:42 -0800, Me wrote
(in article <28fc$49495a6b$23750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):


"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-59B150.11482317122008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.n
et.
..
In article <e098f$494926bc$2786@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Me"
<me@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Sonnova" <sonnova@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:0001HW.C56431A300214D9AF01846D8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:11:49 -0800, Chance Furlong
wrote
(in article
<t-bone-F9D376.15114809122008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
):

In article
<3oA%k.6049$n_5.3884@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"zara" <zspook@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

9 years old, and still being patched up?


http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/08/over_100
_f
ixe
s_c
omi
ng_
in_
m
ac
_o
s_
x_10_5_6_update.html

Apple's Mac OS X 10.5.6 Update is on course to
deliver
dozens
of
new
bug
fixes to users of the company's Leopard operating
system.

Some of the more recent code corrections target
miscellaneous
graphics
corruption issues, problems with DVI and display
detection,
sluggish
syncing
services, printing PDFs from Mail, and a variety
of
MobileMe
synching
problems

OS X is not 9 years old, it is 7 oears old, ***.
Take
remedial
math
and grammar classes.

Actually, Leopard is only about 1 year old.
Win-nuts
need
to
understand
that
the name OSX is to Apple as the name Windows is to
Microsoft.
Just
as
Vista
is the latest Windows, Leopard is the latest OSX.
Oh,
yes,
and
Windows
is
almost 15 years old! People who live in glass
computers
shouldn't
cast
aspersions.

Vista is a complete rewrite, a whole new OS.

No, it's not. They abandoned that effort.

You're wrong.

Maybe so, but think about this: If Vista is the "whole
new
ball
game"
that
you insist it is, how come Microsoft made the same old
mistakes
with
it
that
they made with the earlier versions? Wouldn't a new OS
take
a
new
tack?
That
they didn't just goes to prove that Vista IS NOT a
"whole
new
OS."
End
of
story.

"So the entire codebase was "reset." Instead of being
based
on
XP,
it
would be based on Windows 2003 Service Pack 1. "

<http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/vista-under-the-hood.ars/6>

Me reminds me of another Wintroll who was always wrong.
:-)

"To the casual observer, Windows Server 2003 looks like
nothing
more
than
the Windows XP graphical user interface on top of the old
Windows
2000
server operating system, with a few added utilities.
However,
now
that
organizations have been able to deploy Windows 2003
throughout
their
enterprises, when you look under the hood, Windows Server
2003
is a
major
rewrite of the Windows 2000 operating system, with
significant
changes
to
the kernel that makes Windows Server 2003 achieve the
reliability,
fault
tolerance, and scalability that major organizations have
been
demanding
of
their network operating system for years."

http://www.aspfree.com/c/a/MS-SQL-Server/Windows-Server-2003-Tec
hn
olo
gy-
Pri
mer
/

Which you presented to assert...

...what?

Is the material too difficult for you to understand? The
relevant
portion
is as plain as the nose on your face.

So why can't you have stated it in your own words?

I did that from the start.

No. You didn't.

Yes, I did.

You've claimed that Vista was a complete rewrite

So I did state it in my own words from the start.

and
then tried to use a paragraph that claims that Windows Server 2003
is
a
"major rewrite" as proof of that.

Who explained my quote to you? Regardless, it does prove me
correct.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Nowhere in your first reference does it even *mention* Vista.

It doesn't have to mention Vista. You pointed out that Vista is
based on
Windows Server 2003, and that's a rewritten OS.

But not a "completely rewritten OS", so even Windows Server 2003 doesn't
match your claim.

And since Vista was based on 2003, it itself wasn't even a "major
rewrite", was it?

Follow up:

In the past you've claimed that Mac OS X is "just BSD", when there are
obvious major changes to the OS, but now you want to claim that:

"Vista is a complete rewrite, a whole new OS."

when the truth is that it is a modification of an existing OS that
itself wasn't even a complete rewrite."

So according to you, major changes and additions to BSD leave Mac OS X
BSD, but changes to Windows Server 2003 make Vista "a whole new OS".

LOLLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOOLLOLOLOLO

So you must be trying to say you don't think Mac OS X is anything but BSD
because it's not a complete rewrite.

For my part I say Vista is a whole new OS.

Just admit you're wrong and move on.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
.