--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 102 CONSUMER REPORTS Ref: F2U00006Date: 02/24/98 From: HANS MANGOLD Time: 10:58am \/To: MICHAEL SHARON (Read 2 times) Subj: still @ Win3.1 Hello MICHAEL! 20 Feb 98 14:51, MICHAEL SHARON wrote to HANS MANGOLD: HM>> Tom, that's not a good idea. Neither File Manager nor Program HM>> Manager can deal with Win95's long filenames. The W95 DeskTop HM>> and Explorer take a little getting used to, but once you've HM>> mastered them, you'll =never= want to go back to the pre-historic HM>> File / Program Manager. MS> So what, Hans? How long were you using "File Mgr." using the 8bit MS> filename capability before Win95 came along? You managed didn't you? Yes, I did "manage". Does that mean I should now suffer for the rest of my life with this primitive 8.3 implementation? MS> Additionally, MANY of the programs written today, even those MS> intended MS> exclusively for Win95, won't allow the 32bit filename capability MS> either! So what good is it to name your, "letter to the editor.doc" MS> using the longer 32bit filename, if your "made for Win95" scanner MS> program reads the filename as "LETTER~1." when you want to fax it to MS> your newspaper editor??? What good is the longer filename now? HM>> It appears you dislike Win95 without even being familiar with it. HM>> Win95 is not the greatest or best, but it is infinitely better HM>> than Win 3.1. MS> Only in some respects. IMO, not offering the full potential of File MS> Mgr. is a serious drawback. Another is the START button. How much of MS> an improvement was done there over the old Program Manager Groups? MS> Again, not much IMO. Besides, let the mouse pointer slide off the "hot MS> spot" for the area your trying to go to, and you have to start the MS> procedure all over again. That's a real waste of time isn't it? Well, all you have to do is adjust the timing slightly and you won't run into this problem much anymore, if at all. However, you are confusing things a bit: the new "Desktop" has taken the place of the old "Program Manager". The "Start" button launches the Windows Explorer, the replacement for the old File Manager. Michael, I'm not trying to defend one over the other, as far as I'm concerned, it's all still a bit Mickey Mouse and I hope the next generation of user interfaces will arrive sooner rather than later. But, in the meantime, I might as well get with the program and leave the past behind. MS> And, MS> how many times has that happened to you? Click on START, go to MS> PROGRAMS, goto ACCESSORIES, slide the pointer down diagonally to goto, MS> opps. START over...grrr! Nope, it only happened to me during the first few days, until I adjusted the timing (Menu Speed). Now it doesn't happen to me at all!!! (Hint: get the POWERTOYS, go into "Tweak UI", which will then be in the Control Panel, adjust "Menu Speed" to your preference.) MS> One "infinitely better" thing about Win95, is that it uses all of MS> your systems resources which makes apps run faster. Unlike Win3.xx. Yes, and it is in fact a multi-tasker. Finally I can run my BBS properly while still enjoying the rest of the computer; under Win 3.1, this was virtually impossible. Some sysops used "crutches" like DesqView, others, like myself, switched to OS/2 to get the benefit of efficient multi-tasking. Many (most?) who have gone that route have since looked at all of the compromises and decided Win95 was, on balance, the best choice. Win95 has a lot of drawbacks, but, as I said, on balance, it is the preferred choice for most PC users today. MS> OTHO, it "infinitely" takes far more space on your system than MS> Win3.xx. And, what it saves in speed, by using all of the systems MS> resources, programs like MS OFFICE eats the saved resources up again! That's life. A 350 V-8 will take more space than a sub-compact's 2 Ltr. engine. And, because it's heavier, it will require more horsepower just to move itself around. However, at the same token, when I installed Win 3.1 on my system, hard drive space was about $1.00/Meg., now it's ten cents and still falling. I have 64 MB of RAM in this system; back in the days of Win 3.1, it would have cost me about $3,200 -- I just bought it last week for =under= Can.$175 (equals US$125)! This allows me to have multiple OFFICE applications active at the same time, including ACCESS, which is a real memory hog, and the speed is just fantastic. Browsing the internet is infinitely faster now with the added memory. Want to compare that to "the good old days"??? I don't think so! If I compare what I paid for my old 20, 105 and 340 MB drives to today's 6.4 GB drives, and compare the size of the software then to now, no, thank you very much, you can keep "the good old days". :-) MS> You can't do much multitasking while using those programs, unless you MS> have more than the required RAM. And again, that is a waste of money MS> too. That makes little sense. If it gives you the efficiency you want, then it's obviously not a waste of money, is it? MS> Typically, according to many upgrade manufacturers, a 486 system MS> upgraded to a 586 133MHz CPU with 16M RAM is considered sufficient. That depends; are you talking about the crappy CPU's that one particular company fraudulently marketed as being a "586" when in fact it was and still is a 486? Or are you talking about the =true= 586 (speak: Pentium-class) CPUs? The Pentium-class benefits from many speed improvements at various levels, including the motherboard's chipset and bus, e.g. PCI vs. VESA, as well as the video and disk I/O interface. There are many variables, and by today's standards, a "586 133MHz" is not exactly a high performance system. 16MB of RAM are simply not adequate for running today's software in the manner we've become accustomed, i.e. multi-tasking. It was great under Win 3.1, but the way most of us actually =use= computers today, 32 MB is the minimum and that's exactly what is supplied even in the real entry-level systems. Don't forget the price of 32MB high-performance RAM is less than what the slow 16MB of just a few months went for. MS> Adding more RAM doesn't necessarily increase the speed of your MS> system. It does increase overall performance by a =huge= amount!!! Don't forget that Win95 has excellent memory management facilities, matter of fact, that's probably the best part of Win95! It will take advantage of the added resources and result in a very considerable performance gain, depending on applications used. One of my friends (in his mid-seventies) just upped his memory from 64 to 128MB to give Adobe Photoshop a bit of a boost. Talk to him about 16MB being adequate and more memory not necessarily increasing the speed! :-))) MS> Therefore, you're wasting money adding the additional RAM. MS OFFICE MS> requires 16M of RAM. However, 24M or more is considered ideal. MS> Obviously, using the typical minimum requirement of 16M, your entire MS> system runs well, until you use MS OFFICE, then it bogs down quite MS> noticeably. Michael, you're getting lost in tiny bits and pieces; it's penny-wise and dollar-foolish. Why bother with the difference between 16 and 24 MB of RAM? Heck, 32MB of high-performance RAM (SDRAM) cost here less than Can.$90, that's about US$65. Instead of worrying how much better 24 will be than 16, think how much better 64 will be instead of 32!!! MS> Now then, if the average home users child uses MS OFFICE maybe once MS> a MS> month to create a report for school, using detailed graphic MS> insertions, etc.. Is the added expense for the additional RAM really MS> worth it? Wrong question. What the heck is MS OFFICE doing on that system in the first place? Would MS Works not be much better suited? Same old argument, should I get a V-8 engine when all I'm doing is driving to church on Sunday mornings, three blocks down the street? And high-performance radials? But that doesn't mean everyone else should get whatever =I= buy to drive to church! MS> So, while I agree with you that Bill Gates has given us a lucrative MS> line of products for a reasonable price, (your opinion). The MS> additional costs incurred to the average user upgrading his system in MS> order to use those products, at the optimal performance level, is not MS> IMO, economically efficient. How much depreciation the moment you drive a brand-new car off the dealer's lot? Is that "economically efficient"? "Economically efficient" means "productivity". In my particular case, yes, indeed, having 64MB of RAM for US$125 instead of 32MB is economically efficient -- my internet usage has dropped considerably now that the browser works much faster and I am able to run multiple tasks at once, like ftp a file from one place while doing something else in the browser and transferring e-mail all at the same time. Time is money and my internet access is unfortunately not based on a flat fee. If I amortize the investment of an additional US$65 over 24 months (64MB instead of 32MB), meaning $2.70 per month or less than nine cents per day, yes, in my case it's "economically efficient", especially that =all= of my applications run considerably faster and the time savings really do add up at the end of a busy day! But heck, if all I were to do is write a report for school once per month, I'd fire up my old XT and WP5.1/DOS! BTW, having an "adequate" amount of memory reduces hard-drive access = wear and tear =dramatically= as Win95 will rely more on a large disk cache, etc., etc. Hard drives are for the most part =mechanical= devices, so the reduced wear and tear is an important factor in terms of "economic efficiency". Michael, I agree that today's software is absolutely bloated to the point of no return; the PC industry today is where the car industry used to be a few decades ago (bigger is better). Today, Detroit manufactures very efficient cars and at long last they've even learned from the Japanese and the Germans how to mount doors straight. It will take some time until we see a similar trend in the PC industry; for now, we'll just have to make the best of the best. :-) Cheers, Hans ... Let he who takes the plunge remember to return it! --- GoldED/386 2.50+ / Binkley32 / Maximus / Squish / WINDOWS 95 / V34+ * Origin: Digital Encounters * Kamloops BC Canada 250/374-6168 (1:353/710) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 102 CONSUMER REPORTS Ref: F2U00007Date: 02/24/98 From: HANS MANGOLD Time: 11:12am \/To: RICHARD PERRY (Read 2 times) Subj: MS & DOJ Hello Richard! 24 Feb 98 09:45, Hans Mangold wrote to Richard Perry: RP>> No one forces me at all. However, with the marketing might that RP>> Microsoft has, it must be careful not to leave the impression of RP>> limiting consumer choice or leading down a path of exclusivity. RP>> That is exactly what the DOJ calls "unfair" practices. That's RP>> what the Sherman AntiTrust Act was all about my friend. Richard, further to my last message....... The phenomenal success of the sub-$1,000 computer in the past 6 to 8 months has had a very =profound= impact on the entire PC industry; even the movers and shakers are only now beginning to grasp the fact that the evolution of the PC has taken an unscheduled detour. Witness: Intel, caught with their pants down, are now scrambling to introduce a =less= powerful system (Back to the Future?) consisting of a stripped-down PII (without the L2 cache) and a stripped-down motherboard chip-set (EX?). (Why not bring back the older Pentium 166MMX instead??? But, back to the point.....) In the process, this sub-$1,000 PC has brought about a greater fragmentation in the market, much, much sooner than anyone had anticipated. For some, it's a games machine, for others a business system, but for a considerable chunk of the 40% marketshare, it's..... a simple internet access tool. Now, should an internet access tool come with internet access tools? Should a car come with wheels? Cheers, Hans ... Mercy for the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. --- GoldED/386 2.50+ / Binkley32 / Maximus / Squish / WINDOWS 95 / V34+ * Origin: Digital Encounters * Kamloops BC Canada 250/374-6168 (1:353/710) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 102 CONSUMER REPORTS Ref: F2U00008Date: 02/24/98 From: BILL MITCHELL Time: 08:28pm \/To: JESSE SPURWAY (Read 2 times) Subj: Phone Scam ->> your LD to be switched. BJ>> That's too ridiculous to even debunk. JS> I don't understand why you think so. Whether it's true or JS> not, don't you think it is believable. Press 1 for yes, press JS> 2 for no. Capturing key input from a phone doesn't sound so JS> ridiculous to me. That's an example of someone's equipment connected to the phone line picking up the touch tones and acting on them. The hoax scheme would require that the _PHONE_SYSTEM_ pick them up and act on them, which it DOES NOT DO after the number has been dialed. After the number is dialed, the phone system could care less if you press 90# or some such sequence. The scheme even has you answering the phone, the phone system will not act on tones from your phone then at all. Even disabling call waiting, or using 3 way calling, or any other action on an incomming call requires that you flash the switchhook and therefore access a dial tone to enter the code. --- * Origin: The Verplanck Point mitch@magsystems.com (1:2604/539.11) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 102 CONSUMER REPORTS Ref: F2U00009Date: 02/25/98 From: BILL REYNA Time: 04:34am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Legal links To anyone having www access on the internet, you may find this link helpful for legal questions or just plain interesting surfing. www.peoplescourt.com The above www website besides itself of interest has immediate legal links to other legal forums which has provided me "general legal business forms" and the like within ease of pushing my mouse button. The ready source of info should help answer FAQs you may have. good luck -_-_-Bill --- * Origin: Bordertown - Last stop for Ford Tri-Motor Airways (1:234/43) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 102 CONSUMER REPORTS Ref: F2V00000Date: 02/23/98 From: SCOTT SCHEIBE Time: 09:31pm \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Elliptical Trainers Has CR done any reports on Elliptical Trainers? How about other exercise equipment. Scott Scheibe ... And when you add them, they magically become one new number. - Calvin * Silver Xpress V4.4 [Reg] --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: FIDO: The Ranch & Cattle Metro BBS * (602) 943-1497 (1:114/270.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 102 CONSUMER REPORTS Ref: F2V00001Date: 02/23/98 From: JIM OGINO Time: 11:29pm \/To: CHARLES HORSEY (Read 2 times) Subj: Dog training CH> Is there any product available which you cna use to spray inside to keep a dog away from a certain area? Pepper, either ground or whole, often works, but it's much better to just teach the dog to stay away by removing it every time it gets near there. You have to do this every time, and it can take from a few hours to as much as ten days. Treat the dog the exact same way each time - same action, same words, same tone of voice. Don't bother punishing the animal because it simply won't understand and just become neurotic. --- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 * Origin: FIDO: The Ranch & Cattle Metro BBS * (602) 943-1497 (1:114/270.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 102 CONSUMER REPORTS Ref: F2V00002Date: 02/25/98 From: RULE POSTER Time: 02:00am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: Echo Rules - Upd 05/16/97 (updated email addresses only) CONSUMER_REPORT ECHO Mission: The purpose of the Consumer_Report echo is to discuss the purchase aspect of all consumer goods. Our motto is "more bang for the buck". Brand names are acceptable for mention, as well as features, quality, value, and service. This echo is a GENERAL echo rather than a technical support echo. Rules specific to this echo: -It is acceptable to mention the country of origin of a consumer product. However, blanket statements about the products of a specific country are not acceptable. -Please refrain from flaming, making derogatory statements about a race or nationality, using gutter language. This is a family echo. -If using a handle in the By: line, please post your real name at the end of the message so we know who we are talking to. -The purpose of echoes are for communication. Graphic characters and devices do not improve communication, and only add to the sysop's cost of user participation in the echo, therefore lowering the sysop's "bang for the buck". For this reason, graphic characters and devices are not to be used in this echo. If you can't type it from the keyboard without the ctrl or alt keys, please don't use it. -This echo is a GENERAL echo rather than a technical echo. When a thread gets too technical for the majority of our participants, the thread needs to be moved to a more appropriate echo, by suggestion from participants or a moderator. -Specifically considered off topic: ads, economics, multi-level marketing, for sales, foreign trade, right to break laws, taxes, patriotism, politics, chain letters, research projects If you are unsure of a thread's topicality, please contact one of the moderators listed below. Rules specific to FidoNet: -Please do not post commercial ads in this echo. -Please quote only enough to remind participants of what was previously said. It is not necessary to quote headers, origin lines, or signature lines. This will save your sysop's phone bills. Quoting well is considered good etiquette. Generally, moderators will post occasional reminders in the echo if it is reasonably expected that many users may benefit from reading it. Otherwise, most moderator messages go netmail. There are four moderators, but at any given time, two are "on duty" and two are "off". If at any time, a moderator resigns, the remaining moderators may ask a qualified echo participant to join the team. Thanks!!! Your moderators: Doug Wittich -- 261/1082 -- (410)256-0170 (24 hr. BBS) email dwittich@concentric.net Donna Ransdell -- 202/1411 -- (mail only, 24 hours) email mbr3@juno.com Chuck Grimsby -- 282/47.1 -- (mail only, crash to 282/47) Honorary:Leslie Palm --- MsgPost v1.00 * Origin: Wit-Tech Via MsgPost, Perry Hall, Maryland (1:261/1082) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 102 CONSUMER REPORTS Ref: F2V00003Date: 02/24/98 From: BUD JAMISON Time: 10:03pm \/To: JESSE SPURWAY (Read 2 times) Subj: Phone Scam -> I don't understand why you think so. Whether it's true or not, don't -> you think it is believable. Press 1 for yes, press 2 for no. -> Capturing key input from a phone doesn't sound so ridiculous to me. Having a 'beep' on record is NOT good enough to switch your LD service. If someone were stupid enough to try it, they'd soon be in deep caca, subject to tons of fines, and possible jail time. --- Platinum Xpress/386/Wildcat! v1.3 * Origin: FidoNet International Coordinator Emeritus, for life (1:202/746) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 102 CONSUMER REPORTS Ref: F2V00004Date: 02/25/98 From: JESSE SPURWAY Time: 05:44am \/To: BILL MITCHELL (Read 2 times) Subj: Phone Scam BJ>> That's too ridiculous to even debunk. JS> I don't understand why you think so. Whether it's true or JS> not, don't you think it is believable. Press 1 for yes, press JS> 2 for no. Capturing key input from a phone doesn't sound so JS> ridiculous to me. BM> That's an example of someone's equipment connected to the phone line BM> picking up the touch tones and acting on them. The hoax scheme would BM> require that the _PHONE_SYSTEM_ pick them up and act on them, which it BM> DOES NOT DO after the number has been dialed. BM> After the number is dialed, the phone system could care less if you BM> press 90# or some such sequence. The scheme even has you answering the BM> phone, the phone system will not act on tones from your phone then at BM> all. Even disabling call waiting, or using 3 way calling, or any other BM> action on an incomming call requires that you flash the switchhook and BM> therefore access a dial tone to enter the code. Perhaps we're now talking about two different things. You are talking about the technical feasibilities and I'm talking about perceptions of everyday life. Wish I could recall the date that the DMN had the article in the paper - as a reference. The article did not debunk the scheme. I cannot recall if phone company personnel were quoted as a part of the article. My point is that people in general, including myself, have little knowledge of the technology behind the devices we use every day. You would agree with that? So, I don't understand why one would think it obvious that capturing phone input to trick another person is ridiculous. Sort of along the same line, there has been alot in the news about LD companies tricking people into changing LD service. I don't remember all the details but like the guy who named his LD company "I Don't Care" or somesuch. And isn't it nice we have places like this that one can bring up things like this and get some answers. Jesse --- Blue Wave/DOS v2.20 [NR] * Origin: * MacSavvy OS/2 BBS * Dallas, Texas * 972-250-4479 * (1:124/1208) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 102 CONSUMER REPORTS Ref: F2V00005Date: 02/25/98 From: JOE ZIMMERMAN Time: 06:41am \/To: ALL (Read 2 times) Subj: W/95 I have my computers assembled by a local company who has been in business for some 18 years. All of my machines have worked very well and I have never had the continual problems of sending it in or continual phone time for fixes. Talk to some of these local computer makers in your areas, who assemble good product from "generic parts" and ask them what they think about MicroSoft and Windows 95.... First if they include the W/95 on a new computer they pay full price for the program. Not the several dollars which a major computer manufacture pays to include it on their system. Second, when something goes wrong, most times it is conflict of software! "Not Hardware...". Then try to get a hold of MicroSoft for help with W/95. These small companies have the same long wait that we all have to get MS to respond by phone. With the DOS and W/3.x series, the computer hardware assembler had a chance to go into the operating system to see the conflict and make the proper adjustment to the operating system files. Now MicroSoft has closed down many of the avenues to the systems inner workings and the hardware assembler can no longer make adjustments for their customers to meet needs of the programs the customer wants to use. Many programs are in conflict with the basic program of w/95 or changes made with the addition of each new program into the computer. He can spend hours trying to resolve a W/95 conflict and cannot charge the customer for the time involved. Bottom line, the problem caused by W/95 may drive the small computer assembler out of his mind or even out of business..... Ask any small business company which assembles computers in your area. Mine told me this and he was very very unhappy with W/95.!!! He says His only hope is that W/98 will solve some of these problems or he will have to find another business as he will no longer be able to make a living in this area.... ... I smile a lot because I have no idea what's going on! --- Blue Wave/Max v2.30 * Origin: The HUB * Austin TX * Centex PCUG * 512-346-1852 (1:382/1201)