SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 53
  1. #26
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ah, Victory! I finally found the bug report page and was able to submit this error. Now I only have to sit back and wait what happens

    I could suggest the webmaster(s) of the MS site something: a sitemap. Spending more than ten minutes on a site just to find one single form is a little too long, isn't it?

    ------------------
    Elledan Dunedain
    http://elledan.virtualave.net
    Everyone has a destiny in life. Some just never reach it

  2. #27
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>
    Either you didn't read my post, or you ignored what I said. I DID research it, and I DON'T plan on actually using it on anyone who DOESN'T know what it will do. The link I supplied DOES work on my Windows 98 MIE5. If it didn't work on you, oh well. That doesn't mean that I'm going to try to get a way for it to...as I was just speding a few minutes of my day to discover the full effects of a Microsoft bug.

    Richard
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    My message was not directed towards a specific person. If it was I would have directed it directly to you by enclosing your username in bold.

    ------------------
    Wayne Luke - Sitepoint Forums Administrator
    Digital Magician Magazine - MetaQuark Creations (Coming Soon)
    sitepoint@digitalmagician.com

  3. #28
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I see, I appologize if I may have come across as rude. That was not my intention. It's just been my experience in the past that my posts are read, and people reply without taking into account what I have said...although I have seen this gradually chenge. Besides, atleast 7 people clicked on the byebye link yesterday, and of those 3 did not get the full page (I guess this means their browser froze ).

    Have a nice day!

    Richard

    ------------------
    richard@brevig.com

  4. #29
    SitePoint Wizard wdmny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    1,010
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Did anyone check out the post I made? Microsoft knows of this already, it doesn't even have to do with Windows. It is caused from accessing DOS devices in a strange way. This has been around for a while, it was from an archived Bugtraq in March. There is a patch in one of the security updates too, but not in IE, for I have IE 5.

  5. #30
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I know how you feel Wes, I did read your post. I guess we are just two out in the middle of no where.

    Richard

    ------------------
    richard@brevig.com

  6. #31
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    TWTCommish
    I was alluding to the following posts if I must spell it out for everyone. That post truly signifies hostile exploitation of users. Users who could be the ones paying for the future advertising on a profitable site owned by someone in these forums.

    If the intent is not truly there then why bother giving it to other potentially more hostile people. The reference to "guts" simply means if your going to try and devise a why to maliciously crash someones computer, you should at least test it on your own machine first.

    Again my original post was not pointed at any one person and I realize that the posts below are originally from Elledan. The fact that anyone who calls them a professional computer developer or aspires to be, could sit around an think of malicious uses for this instead of trying to think of a possible cause and/or solution bothers me.

    NO system is perfect and even non-windows OSes crash especially if you develop on them. I have routinely crashed Macintoshes and Unix machines due to errant C pointers and other bugs in software being developed. I have even had problems with third party software. Not once have I ever posted an exploit like or thought of ways of using it against others without first trying to figure out a fix for it. I see my role as a professional developer to fix the problems in computer systems, not take advantage of them to promote Fear and Distrust among the general population.

    Now I don't expect you to agree with me but I thought for sure I would be allowed to post my own opinion.

    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>It could be a good function to avoid getting Windows 9x users on your site: just put this link ( file://c|/con/con ) in a META-refresh tag, and they're gone!

    Oh man, it feels good to be evil...
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>This is a thing you'd use as a practical joke, as pointed out before. Or you can use as a manner to take revenge by building it into one of the .ini files of Windows, so that they've to go into safe mode and remove the line before they can use Windows again.
    If they ever find out... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Elledan
    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>
    Wayne: You stated that you could find things very fast on the MS site. Why don't you give it a try right now?

    Yahoo and About.com are clearly organized. MS.com isn't, or I'm to dumb to understand the navigation scheme...
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Simple....

    If you go to Microsoft.com Guide (top-right corner) and hover your mouse a menu drops down and on the list is "Contact Us".

    Also you can go to their support page and on the lefthand side is a list of links. One includes Online Support, another a list of phone numbers for voice support.

    Third if you want to look it up yourself there is an extensive knowledge base with search in result and drilldown capabilities.


    ------------------
    Wayne Luke - Sitepoint Forums Administrator
    Digital Magician Magazine - MetaQuark Creations (Coming Soon)
    sitepoint@digitalmagician.com

    [This message has been edited by wluke (edited August 09, 2000).]

    [This message has been edited by wluke (edited August 09, 2000).]

  7. #32
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>Originally posted by wluke:

    NO system is perfect and even non-windows OSes crash especially if you develop on them. I have routinely crashed Macintoshes and Unix machines due to errant C pointers and other bugs in software being developed. I have even had problems with third party software. Not once have I ever posted an exploit like or thought of ways of using it against others without first trying to figure out a fix for it. I see my role as a professional developer to fix the problems in computer systems, not take advantage of them to promote Fear and Distrust among the general population.

    Now I don't expect you to agree with me but I thought for sure I would be allowed to post my own opinion.

    Simple....

    If you go to Microsoft.com Guide (top-right corner) and hover your mouse a menu drops down and on the list is "Contact Us".

    Also you can go to their support page and on the lefthand side is a list of links. One includes Online Support, another a list of phone numbers for voice support.

    Third if you want to look it up yourself there is an extensive knowledge base with search in result and drilldown capabilities.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Uhm... Wayne? Those 'nice' guys that developed the MS site have probably never heard of 'cross-browser compatibility': I'm using NS and I DIDN'T see a drop-down menu. So those s*****s of MS must have used a script that only works in IE!

    I admit that every OS is stuffed with bugs, but Windows still carries the most and that's not my opinion, that's a fact.

    This thread was just meant to be amusing, without any intention to commit evil things and it WAS amusing until you spoiled it (no offense!)

    ------------------
    Elledan Dunedain
    http://elledan.virtualave.net
    Everyone has a destiny in life. Some just never reach it

  8. #33
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Elledan is right, when viewed in NS, the only button missing is Contact Us. I wonder if that was done on purpose to avoid contact with non-MIE people, to clear up room as NS shows the items larger, or it's another Microsoft bug.

    Interesting.

    Richard

    ------------------
    richard@brevig.com

  9. #34
    Kat's Meow Senior ******* WebKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    1,071
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No one is 'spoiling' this thread by expressing diverse opinions. I am quoting my earlier post again because it does appear that as long as we are part of the 'just find it amusing club' then we can comment...

    Wayne has just expanded further on this subject. While I suppose my opposing opinion was just ignored. I can find humor in the strangest places, but I can't find any in this topic when there are laughs at the expense of others. This has happened before in other topics and it should not be acceptable behavior, whether in a forum or office environment or personal relationships.

    Finding any kind of 'bug' or 'quirk' in ANY system or program should be something that should not be promoted in a way that, when activated - this particular one had to be 'run' and not just 'clicked' on a link - can affect others negatively. Especially if you dare to call yourselves Professionals.

    Practical joke, good to feel evil, meta-tag refresh, add to image tags, never find out why - what was the point? I don't find anything 'amusing' about posting these remarks even in jest. Rather you should have been informing others about how to avoid this from happening to them...and I want to thank those members that did help.

    Being a moderator has no bearing on my opinions. I would have said the same before as I do now!

    Dlynn aka WebKat


    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>Originally posted by WebKat:
    I would like to know where you can find the humor in even thinking of adding this 'crash bug' as a link to a website, making it an automatic load by putting it in a meta-refresh tag or including it within an image tag? This is a rhetorical question because I don't need any reasoning to justify doing something so cruel and distructive...

    I can understand the curiosity to know how this works. But have the common courtesy of informing others to watch out for this, not laughing about others crashing their systems. This is beneath anyone who calls themselves a business professional. Even just thinking of making another's system crash just for the fun is childish and could do more damage than you think on some systems. Whether this is a 'legit' bug is not the point, intervention of other's systems is...

    SP Members should not lower themselves to this common denominator...I believe that the majority of SP members do not find this humorous and would flip if someone contributed to crashing their computers just for a joke!

    This may seem rather opinionated and some may tell me to simply 'chill out and have a laugh' - but this is not something that I find funny...

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    ------------------
    Dlynn ~SitePoint Moderator~
    PawPrint Designs by WebKat
    "Let's keep Ethics on the Web"

    [This message has been edited by WebKat (edited August 10, 2000).]

  10. #35
    SitePoint Guru CJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Mechelen, Belgium, Europe
    Posts
    684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>Originally posted by Elledan:
    Uhm... Wayne? Those 'nice' guys that developed the MS site have probably never heard of 'cross-browser compatibility': I'm using NS and I DIDN'T see a drop-down menu. So those s*****s of MS must have used a script that only works in IE!

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    So you're stating that NOBODY can use this great script just because NetScape doesn't support it? That's what you've said. In fact I think NS will never add support to that script just because the MS.com website uses it. You know NetScape is in hands of AOL. This is typical for AOL. They're also the ONLY company which's Instant Messnger can't be used with things like Odigo. Therefore this is solely NetScape's fault. I think every IE3+ browser supports the script. So why not NS6? Answer: Because MS.com uses it.

    But you prefer --of course-- to use a browser, which goes 40% slower, supports 80% less technologies and takes 900% longer to load. Doesn't that make you kindof stupid? --no offense--

    Christophe



    ------------------
    Freesources.net - the ultimate webmaster resources site
    WebmasterCJ design - opening new worlds for small prices

  11. #36
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    freesources: That's just nonsense you're talking and you know that.
    There are at least a thousand examples of drop-down menus available that work in both IE and NS, so there's no excuse to use a IE-only script.

    And NS ISN'T slow. Ever seen NS in action while running on Linux? Then you know what is meant with 'mind-blowing' speeds.
    Besides, Netscape 6 PR2 is MUCH faster than IE 5.01 on my PC.

    Nice detail to finish this speech: On the computer of my younger brother IE won't run. You can visit a maximum of three sites, then the program crashes. This is after a clean install of Windows less than a month ago.

    ------------------
    Elledan Dunedain
    http://emudreams.tsx.org

    Everyone has a destiny in life. Some just never reach it

  12. #37
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>
    So you're stating that NOBODY can use this great script just because NetScape doesn't support it? That's what you've said. In fact I think NS will never add support to that script just because the MS.com website uses it. You know NetScape is in hands of AOL. This is typical for AOL. They're also the ONLY company which's Instant Messnger can't be used with things like Odigo. Therefore this is solely NetScape's fault. I think every IE3+ browser supports the script. So why not NS6? Answer: Because MS.com uses it.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    ....Obviously your strong point isn't reading.
    He said, quite clearly, that NS doesn't support that script for the simple fact that Microsoft.com uses it. Your point of 'There are at least a thousand examples of drop-down menus available that work in both IE and NS, so there's no excuse to use a IE-only script.' is invalid because NETSCAPE DOES NOT LIKE NETSCAPE, AND IT IS ONLY THE SCRIPT THAT IS ON MS.COM THAT DOESN'T WORK.

    NS is about as easy to use as a fighter plane. IE is streamlined.

    Also, IE likes developers. They do not force upon people the DOM. They offer limited support for it, and more support for better technology. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a standard, but not a standard that sacrifices features.

    On my computer Netscape won't even load up one site. Oh! No, it must be evil Microsoft sabotaging Netscape! YES! BAD MICROSOFT! BAD BAD MICROSOFT!

    ------------------
    Mike Fisher
    Hypertrophy Design
    matrix@hypertrophy.thinkhost.com
    ICQ: 38389521

    [This message has been edited by Hypertrophy (edited August 10, 2000).]

  13. #38
    SitePoint Wizard wdmny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    1,010
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now that we have the topic of NS in Linux, when I was using Linux, it would take 5-10 minutes to load Netscape.

  14. #39
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    On my system it takes 2-4 seconds, so I guess you've an exception.

    ------------------
    Elledan Dunedain
    http://emudreams.tsx.org

    Everyone has a destiny in life. Some just never reach it

  15. #40
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Posts
    1,390
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    IE is more bloated than NS, but the thing is it is integrated into Windows. Since a great deal of IE loads with Windows, using Internet Explorer is much speedier than Netscape.

    Pretend Netscape made its own OS. Of course, the Netscape browser would be integrated in it and it would be very fast too. If Microsoft developed IE into Netscapes OS (if they had one, keep pretending ), then it would be sluggish.

    Microsoft has the advantage of stuffing IE in our faces. Still, if we are talking about a neutural platform that supports BOTH browsers (such as MacOS) IE would still be faster and would still display pages better than Netscape would.

    The bottom line is that Micorosoft is being big and not being fair. That's competition. IE works better on Windows. It even works better on MacOS. Netscape really flies on Linux because Linux is a speedy OS. IE would fly at about the same speed.

    I timed how long Netscape 6PR1 took to launch on my 486 running Windows 98. I don't remember the exact time, but it was over 5 minutes. That's pretty bad even for a 486. Pretty far away from 2-4 seconds as Elledan stated.

    Opening a IE window takes 0-2 seconds not because IE is a better browser (which it is ) but because it was preloaded with the OS. Back in Win95, both browsers have a sluggish loadtime.

    Hope I didn't offend anyone
    Let's keep this interesting discussion going...

    ------------------
    Aidan Bahta
    abahta@activewm.com

    ActiveWM.com - The place for the Active Webmaster.

  16. #41
    SitePoint Guru CJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Mechelen, Belgium, Europe
    Posts
    684
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But Aidan... Your points just state that NS loads slower than IE in Windows. It loads also faster in MacOS as in NS.

    Now the loading time is one big thing another big thing is the rendering engine of IE which is much faster than the one of NS. This has nothing to do with the OS... And tests have proven that (ZDnet... or is it C-ZD|net now??)

    Christophe

    ------------------
    Freesources.net - the ultimate webmaster resources site
    WebmasterCJ design - opening new worlds for small prices

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Posts
    1,390
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    True, I have read the reviews at CNET that state that IE's rendering engine is much faster than netscape. This is true on and off the Windows platform.

    It has been p-r-o-v-e-n!

    ------------------
    Aidan Bahta
    abahta@activewm.com

    ActiveWM.com - The place for the Active Webmaster.

  18. #43
    SitePoint Wizard TWTCommish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wayne: yes, obviously you can post your opinions...and you DID, no one has stopped you...that doesn't mean I can't post my opinions; that you were reacting harshly. I'm not mad, upset, or something, I just think you over-reacted a tad...that's all! Really!

    Why, you might ask? From Dictionary.com:

    malicious: Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful

    I don't think this was meant to be spiteful, and he's not trying to trick anyone into crashing their computer...I for one have considered trying it to see it for myself, and from what I've read others have done the same...I've yet to hear of a report on these forums of someone clicking on the link not knowing what it would do, probably because Elledan used very clear language and capital letters (not to mention the words "Click To Crash") to make sure that no one was doing something they didn't want to.

    All he did (what from I've gathered) is talk about how this could be used as a vicious prank...I don't see him putting it into use or anything of the sort.

    As for "guts"...I see what you mean: he should have tested it...but "guts" is absolutely the wrong word. Call me odd, but I don't think failing to test his little discovery on multiple browsers/op. systems (whatever it was) makes him a coward, or lacking guts...those terms are better suited for other things IMHO.

    Besides, I don't see why he "ought to test it" if he's going to sabotage people...that's like saying that if you're GOING to rob a bank, you ought to map it out beforehand so you don't screw up; it seems sort of, well, irrelvant really. And even moreso since it's obvious he's not trying to mess with anyone's computer here.

    Hope this clears my position up a bit...not looking to pick a fight, just the way I see things; even if it is through caffeine-tinted glass.


    ------------------
    Chris Bowyer chris@mycoding.com
    MyCoding.com: Visit for Launch Notification!
    DomainMailings.com: Who Says All The Good Ones Are Taken?
    MovieForums.com: Talk About Your Favorite Flicks!

    [This message has been edited by TWTCommish (edited August 10, 2000).]

  19. #44
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>
    Besides, I don't see why he "ought to test it" if he's going to sabotage people...that's like saying that if you're GOING to rob a bank, you ought to map it out beforehand so you don't screw up; it seems sort of, well, irrelvant really. And even moreso since it's obvious he's not trying to mess with anyone's computer here.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If I was going to rob a bank, I sure would map it out first. That way you know where the guards and video cameras are and which door you should run out of so you don't trip over the stantions for the line.

    Trying to devise a way to put it on a website that could potentially disrupt 90% of the world's computers is disturbing to say the least if not malicious.

    More editorial
    I have also done a little more research on this problem and its not actually a bug at all but a problem with backwards compatibility and the feature set of DOS and even UNIX. Con is short for console as any C/C++ programmer would know. If you go to the DOS prompt on your Windows machine and typed copy con filename.ext (cat con filename.ext on UNIX), it would appear that the system has frozen. In actuality what it is doing is waiting for you to type in what belongs in filename.ext. If you press control-c (control-d on UNIX), it will save your file and return you to the prompt.

    The same with the other "Device Drivers" mentioned above only these aren't device drivers but standard devices built into any system built using C or C++ (stdin, stdout, aux, clock, con, print (not sure about this one but I know there are 6)). These six device files are the basis of input and output in every operating system in the world. They are also used heavily in DOS. The reason the problem occurs in Windows 9x (should occur in Windows 3.x as well), is because of backwards compatibility. It won't work in NT because it doesn't allow software to access these six devices directly which is why it isn't backwards compatible.

    When you type in that command it triggers the command processor (command.com) which is loaded every time you boot Windows then placed into hibernation mode after it starts win.com (the Windows command processor). So here is command.com sleeping away happily and you type in a command it recognizes so it jumps up and tries to process it. Win.com wants to process it as well... Boom Blue Screen because command.com doesn't know about virtual memory and high memory or any of that fancy stuff. It has to be backwards compatible to 1983 when that stuff didn't exist.

    Blue screens are almost always caused by errant memory access (the OE or OD number) because of 16-bit code. If a 32-bit program has a problem it causes a GPF and you get a dialog box letting you close the application.

    SO they fight... boom boom boom... Now win.com thinks it has won so it returns control to explorer (the GUI). Explorer lets you return to work and perform your first action, at this time command.com say "hah, I have priority because people like their programs from 1983" and proceeds to open the console(con) file for input. Now explorer can't do anything because command.com isn't able to multitask (remember 1983), so it sits there waiting for you to type in whatever you wanted to enter into con and close the file. Explorer can't send the commands to the file because its not capable of that kind of input, hence the freeze.

    There is no way that Microsoft can fix this in Windows 9X without sacrificing the backwards compatibility that millions if not billions of users want or drastically redoing the system. Well Windows Millenium and Windows 2000 (they are very similar architecturally) did both so it should go away.

    Now I am not a big fan of backwards compatibility. Look at Windows CE, instant-on capabilites, runs in 8 megs of ram, stored in another 8 megs. Can use Word, Access, Outlook, Excel and Internet Explorer in another 8 and rarely, if ever, fails. What is it missing that Windows 9x has??? Backwards compatibility which makes a bloated API because you have to have at 3 versions of every piece of functionality. Backwards compatibility adds bugs because you have to try and modify new technology to fit within the limits of the old in one instance yet support it fully in the new at the same time.

    Why is Linux quick, small and hardly if ever fails??? No backwards compatibility.

    Why are Macs more stable??? No backwards compatibility.

    Why does one Windows machine crash repeatedly (to use an example Elledan's but only because he mentioned it) and another that does not crash repeatedly (mine, Win98 has been rebooted once in 60 days now and that was due to hardware failure in a 5 year old floppy drive, I bought for $5.00)??? Backwards compatibility. I am not saying Elledan's machine isn't state of the art but if you don't choose your software, devices and drivers carefully you can introduce backwards compatibility problems into the system. For instance I don't use the EISA bus at all because every device that uses it introduces 16 bit code. MY printer is installed over the network so it uses 32-bit drivers instead of 16-bit drivers... so on and so forth.

    Since Windows ME will not have a DOS Mode and hence shouldn't have a command.com, it should not have this petty sibling rivalry going on that causes this problem.

    ------------------
    Wayne Luke - Sitepoint Forums Administrator
    Digital Magician Magazine - MetaQuark Creations (Coming Soon)
    sitepoint@digitalmagician.com



    [This message has been edited by wluke (edited August 10, 2000).]

  20. #45
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    166
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wayne, thanks for explaining it...I find it very interesting (No, this is not sarcasm, I actually do find it interesting in a good way).

    Richard

    ------------------
    richard@brevig.com

  21. #46
    SitePoint Evangelist Timothy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    414
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    WebKat:

    I couldn't agree more. I haven't clicked the link yet becuase I don't see a point in see if my computer will crash nor do I have the time to reboot.

    [Soap Box]

    In my opinion you could have warned us, but I don't think posting a link to it or even dicussing META-Refresh, Linking, etc. is appropriate at all for a public facility like the forums. As WebKat stated, SP members are generally regarded as professional web developers; I don't think this is something that is professional at all. This one wasn't dangerous, but what IF someone (no one in here) would happen to place a link to a virus? Would everyone click it like they did this time? I think of a bug and virus on the same level. Think About It.....

    [/Soap Box]

    Now I didn't mean to sound harsh, but I happen to have a very strong opinion on this thread and I thought I'd make everyone aware of it. Sorry if I made anyone mad.



    ------------------
    Timothy
    ICQ: 32876466 | MSN: TimothyD2000

  22. #47
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the explanation, Wayne! So if understand it right, it's the fact that you've DOS and Windows besides each other and try to process the same commands because you have 'activated' command.com, but since command.com is too primitive things go terrible wrong. Am I right?

    Well, so much for the backwards compatibility... It was a nice idea, though.

    ------------------
    Elledan Dunedain
    http://emudreams.tsx.org

    Everyone has a destiny in life. Some just never reach it

  23. #48
    Fluffy Kitten Programmer~ Elledan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yup, those threads most of the time go on and on, just like a thread between a FP Lover and DW fans Sometimes they get a 'little' hysterical so maybe it's a good thing we're not sitting in the same room

    ------------------
    Elledan Dunedain
    http://emudreams.tsx.org

    Everyone has a destiny in life. Some just never reach it

  24. #49
    SitePoint Evangelist Timothy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    414
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wayne,

    Your explination makes sense and strangely enough, I think I understand a little more about what windows is based on and how it works.


    ------------------
    Timothy
    ICQ: 32876466 | MSN: TimothyD2000

  25. #50
    Your Lord and Master, Foamy gold trophy Hierophant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Lancaster, Ca. USA
    Posts
    12,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Basically that is the correct idea. If DOS was multitask aware like Unix is, then you wouldn't have a problem. But even though DOS is based on CP/M which is kind of based on Unix, multi-tasking wasn't thought of for home users until almost 1990. It wasn't even seriously implemented by third party software until 1992.

    ------------------
    Wayne Luke - Sitepoint Forums Administrator
    Digital Magician Magazine - MetaQuark Creations (Coming Soon)
    sitepoint@digitalmagician.com


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •