Subj : Synchronet can maybe...? To : Time Warrior From : Digital Man Date : Mon Aug 01 2005 02:48 pm Re: Synchronet can maybe...? By: Time Warrior to Digital Man on Sun Jul 31 2005 11:33 am > > > The words HOW and COME were used and the question ended with, low and > > > a question mark. > > > > THANK YOU for the answer, seeing as I did *ask a question*. > > > Immediately following your completely false STATEMENTS: > > > "Windows 95 through ME needed Dos 7, Dos 8, etc..." FALSE: there > > was no "DOS 7, DOS 8". > > I think I just said "DOS" for that one but I don't recall. Actually, I quoted your message verbatim. That's what the quote-marks were supposed to indicate. > Either way, > perhaps there was no 7 or 8. However a "DOS" whatever you'd like to call it, > was created that supports long filenames. That's not true either. There is no version of DOS (from Microsoft) that you can boot and use long filenames. If you boot to a Windows 9x "Startup Disk" for example, long filenames appear in their Micros~1 shortened form. You must actually be running a 32-bit version of Windows to see and use long filenames. > I don't know its proper name > apparently, if it even has one. Also, unless I am wrong here too, Windows 9x > and ME loaded over DOS version "whatever you'd like to call it". Yes, Windows 9x/Me used DOS as a "loader" and even left portions of it resident (for DOS device drivers), *and* it ran DOS programs "natively" (using the virutal x86 mode of the i386 processor). These are true statements. > However, albeit this is a vuage memory, but I revall years back typing "ver" > (or SOMETHING anyways) in the command prompt on Windows 95 and it saying > something about DOS 7. Now, seeing as there HAPPENS TO BE a Windows 98 > machine down stairs, i'm gonna mess with that and see if it says it or not. > Even if I remeber right and 95 did, I currently do not have a Win95 machine > anywhere. I do and typing "ver" says "Windows 95". > > "now some say the NT Kernel isn't built on top of Dos and others say it i > > FALSE: No one but you "says it is". > > I've spoken with plenty of other people who also have said it is. I've seen > websites that say similar things. Sight references, please. > Now perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps the people > spoke with are wrong and perhaps those website are wrong. However, that does > not mean I am the only person on the planet who has or has ever had that > opinion. You're the only person on the planent that I know of. And that "opinion" is like having the "opinion" that the earth is flat. You can have that opinion all you want, but it's clearly false and I feel compelled to inform anyone that expresses that "opinion" as such. > To make THAT claim is giving some misinformation of your own :-) Uh uh. > > "No *real* way to prove it" FALSE: There are *many* "real" ways to > > prove it. But it'd be like proving th the moon isn't made of cheese. > > It'd be a stupid point to prove. > > Ok there is "no real way for non-programmers who lack the skill, time, > resources or desire and / or ability to obtain those things, to go about > proving it". Hows that? lol Sure there is: 1. Boot to DOS. 2. Try to run a Windows NT-based OS withOUT rebooting. Or simply read any technical review of Windows NT. There are literally hundreds of them. > > "and i'm sure it's not something M$ would be too quick to admit." > > FALSE: That's just absurd. > > You're right. Microsoft admits everything and corporations always tell the > truth. Thanks for reminding me! :-) When something is technically undeniable, corporations look pretty stupid when they attempt to deny it. > > So are you saying that the fact that you followed these utterly false > > statements with a question meant that you were in fact not making any sta > > at all? Should I treat every message of yours that contains a question ma > > complete conjecture devoid of any actual statements of fact? > > No, I think you should treat any question as a question and give the answer > without belittling the person asking the question. I didn't belittle you. I simply pointed out that you were wrong and where you were wrong. Then you attempted to defend your statements or reduce them to merely "opinions". Regardless, they're wrong. > I *want* you to correct me if i'm wrong. Okay. > I already KNOW you're ALOT more knowledgable than me. However, > just because I don't know all that you do, nor am I as skilled as you are, > does not make me a complete twit either. I didn't say you were a complete twit. > If one can learn to get past the "no, you're wrong, you moron" type responce > (it took me awhile but i've managed! :-) I've never called you moron (in public at least). :-) > then there is ALOT a person stands > to learn from someone as knowledgable as you are. There's a lot to learn from the web. Try using it. :-) > As far as your technical insights, I take what you say very seriously. You > may not know this (maybe not even beleive it) but I have ALOT of respect for > you. > > > If you think by just removing your false statements from your quoted text > > somehow change the history of the thread, you're wrong (again). > > As i said, I WANT you to tell me when i'm wrong. Thats how I learn. I just > wish that when I ask for a lump or two, that you put sugar cubes in my coffe > as opposed to administering those lumps to my forehead with a baseball bat > :-) If all I say is "you're wrong", how is that beating you with a baseball bat? When you post technical statements here that you're unsure of, be prepared to be corrected. Or better yet, do some research first. digital man Snapple "Real Fact" #125: Pigeons have been trained by the U.S. Coast Guard to spot people lost at sea. .