On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 9:46 PM, KAM.covad<[email protected]> wrote: > Full disclosure: I have not tried it. One of the support guys here is a > techy-type and has installed each Win7 beta using vmware or something like > that. He tries every version of our software on Win2000 - > win 7 and lets > the programmers (like me) know when there is a problem. All our 'windows > compiled' software is now in vfp9 sp2. To date, not even one problem has been > reported with Win7. > > I (this is my personal opinion) refuse to use Vista (nickname crap/Win ME). > Unfortunately we have many clients that got it on new hardware so we are > FORCED to support that crap. We are looking forward to Win7 because it seems > that it will have some parts that work, unlike Vista and ME. I still work on > Win2000 which I still insist is the last good operating system that M$ made. > > For me, the test is simple. Right-click on 'my computer'. Share the C: drive. > If it is really shared, you have an operating system that is worth a sh.t. If > it is not shared, then you have crap. Now, if M$ would have some kind of > dialog that would walk you through the sharing, then I would be convinced. To > date, sharing XP, 2003, Vista is hit or miss. When you 'share' the drive, you > have done nothing. The drive is not shared. Not even close. Instead of doing > the work I should be doing, I am fishing around on local policy, services, > and other obscure menus and stupidily worded selections that change with > every version. There is nothing consistent. Nothing is ever fixed. Things are > just moved around and renamed to make you think that there is some kind of > development going on at M$. -----------
You scare me dude from a security environment. > Right now, my development network has 2 Win2000, 2 XP and 1 Win2003 and a > Crapsta laptop that is turned off. All computers can freely share all files > This is required for development of software - except one of the XP computers > cannot access the 2003 server and the 2003 server cannot access that XP. Both > can 'see' each other in the network display. Neither can ping the other. When > you click on the computer name, it says you don't have permission. All > computers are logged in with the Administrator user so that is stupid and not > true. There is no domain. Only an idiot would design an operating system like > this. It is obvious that there is no quality control. No one tested this crap. --------------------- WTF? Only an idiot would design a system that included AD? I must say that AD rocks for keeping things safer in an exposed Internet / Intranet environment. It is easy to copy files between those two computers when you are on any of the other computers so there is no question about all computers being connected correctly. Microsoft designs are garbage. There is no quality. No thinking. There is no one in charge. The company is obviously run by lawyers a > nd sales people. The company is obviously a monopoly and we will all be > stuck with this crap for a long time. ----- Your identification of copying files as the primary criteria sounds like someone who rates Chinese restaurants on just on their hot and Sour soup. --------------- Hopefully you will only receive this one time ;-> -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer SQL Server DBA Web and Winform Development Independent Contractor Memphis TN 901.246-0159 _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
