🚀 go-pugleaf

Some Guy <Some@Guy.com> wrote in message
news:42C8BACD.6DE8EE7D@Guy.com...

> I suspect that Macro$oft discovered some degree
> of incompatibility or instability with NetBeui on XP

You're wrong. They didnt install it by default WAY back in 98.

> - plenty of evidence on the net that such instability exists, and some
> work-arounds (like using some files from Win-2K) have been suggested.

And only a fool bothers with it at all. You qualify.

> M$'s corporate direction of embracing the internet
> (after first dismissing it in the mid 1990's)

Lie.

> meant that TCP/IP took on more importance over NetBeui
> (I'm sure they gritted their teeth at the realization that they
> couldn't force their own protocal on the internet).

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys.

> With the introduction of XP, M$ knew it would face some
> raised eyebrows with the official "non-support" of NetBeui,
> so they began a propaganda smear campaign against it,

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys.

> as this blurb of theirs indicates:

Like hell it does.

> -------------
> Support for the NetBEUI network protocol has been discontinued in
> Windows XP. This protocol is not available to install in Windows XP.
> The NetBEUI protocol was developed in 1985. It is used by network
> operating systems such as Microsoft LAN Manager, Microsoft
> Windows for Workgroups, Microsoft Windows 95, and Microsoft
> Windows NT. The NetBEUI protocol implements the OSI LLC2
> protocol, and is a non-routable protocol.
> ------------

NOTHING even remotely resembling anything like 'a propaganda smear
campaign against it' you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.

> Interesting that they somehow fail to mention that Windows 98
> and Windows 2000 also included NetBeui as a supported protocal.

Just another of your pathetic little conspiracy theorys.

Anyone with a clue realises that those didnt even install it by default.

> Hell - who want's to associate themselves with the likes of WFWG or Win-95?
> Yech!

Leaves anything you have ever done for dead, fuckwit.

And its those that saw MS completely dominate personal desktop systems too.

> The above blurb is quoted on this page:
> http://www.marcspages.co.uk/nsd/rpm0124.htm
> and is followed by this line:

> --------------
> But it is this last fact that still makes it one of the fastest
> around, and is why Reliable Power Meters still use it.
> --------------

Pathetic, really.

> Hmmm.

Humming aint gunna save your bacon, child.

> For more level-headed discourse on NetBeui, have a look here:
> http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/42.htm

Soorree, doesnt qualify.

> Tell me that the default shares on XP and the default use (and settings)
> of TCP bindings aren't a recipe for disaster on home networks

Corse it aint, anyone with a clue uses a firewall, fuckwit.

> (most of which don't use NAT routers)

Another lie.

> and that wireless networking makes it worse.

Another pig ignorant lie.

> But nope - can't blame M$ for how they configured XP.
> Took them 4 years for SP2, but it's too late for the armies
> of trojan'd home computers that have turned the internet into
> spam-hell (that, ironically, corporations have to deal with).

Another pig ignorant lie.

> What was sacrificed to make corporate use of XP smooth
> and painless has instead given them grief because of all
> the infected XP boxes on residential networks.

Another pig ignorant lie.

> But no, that can't be.  We all trust M$ to always
> make the best, the wise decisions - right?

Wota terminal fuckwit.

> For more venting about M$ (and a little bit on NetBeui) look here:
> http://www.brain.com.pk/~mnk/Tutorials/HateMS.htm

Just more puerile silly shit.

> Bottom line is that if you're forced by your own delusions (or by
> misguided corporate policy) to "upgrade" to XP, you're better
> off not to mess with NetBeui because M$ got it wrong with XP.

Only fools bother with it with 2K too.

> But don't think they stopped "support" for it because
> it's antiquated (TCP is about 5 years older).

Pathetic, really.

> It's funny to see people rationalize the decisions M$ makes about
> this or that - as if they had the best interests of their current or
> previous customers in mind.  History has shown time and time again
> that they are always looking to see how they can (1) ease their
> support load and (2) better control the obselesence of their own
> products.  Logic and engineering rational fall victim to the marketing dept.

Nothing funny about your puerile pig ignorant drivel.