Re: Install win xp over a network

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:14:05 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:

<snip>

>> I've never read anything concrete that explains just what is wrong
>> with netbuie
>
>You just listed one. It's non-routable.

don't forget all the mindless network chatter.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:29:15 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:14:05 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> I've never read anything concrete that explains just what is wrong
>>> with netbuie
>>
>>You just listed one. It's non-routable.
>
>don't forget all the mindless network chatter.

It has a smaller footprint on a network than TCPIP so it's a
bit irrelevant.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 04:28:07 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:29:15 GMT, Curious George
><cg@email.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:14:05 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>> I've never read anything concrete that explains just what is wrong
>>>> with netbuie
>>>
>>>You just listed one. It's non-routable.
>>
>>don't forget all the mindless network chatter.
>
>It has a smaller footprint on a network than TCPIP so it's a
>bit irrelevant.

Try SMS with netbui, for example.

kony wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:29:15 GMT, Curious George
> <cg@email.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:14:05 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>>I've never read anything concrete that explains just what is wrong
>>>>with netbuie
>>>
>>>You just listed one. It's non-routable.
>>
>>don't forget all the mindless network chatter.
>
>
> It has a smaller footprint on a network than TCPIP so it's a
> bit irrelevant.

That is only true under limited circumstances and if you've got internet
access you've got TCP/IP so regardless of how small the netbuei footprint
is it's still an additional footprint, not a 'reduction'.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:26:07 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:29:15 GMT, Curious George
>> <cg@email.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:14:05 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I've never read anything concrete that explains just what is wrong
>>>>>with netbuie
>>>>
>>>>You just listed one. It's non-routable.
>>>
>>>don't forget all the mindless network chatter.
>>
>>
>> It has a smaller footprint on a network than TCPIP so it's a
>> bit irrelevant.
>
>That is only true under limited circumstances

Transferring data with it instead of TCPIP would be one of
those, fairly popular circumstances.

>... and if you've got internet
>access you've got TCP/IP so regardless of how small the netbuei footprint
>is it's still an additional footprint, not a 'reduction'.
>

No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
data with it. Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem, the
focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
Of course there are far larger gains seen from things like
moving from 10Mb to 100Mb, but there's not a lot of point in
itemizing every possible network performance limiter when
the topic was already isolating one parameter.

kony wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:26:07 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 03:29:15 GMT, Curious George
>>><cg@email.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:14:05 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I've never read anything concrete that explains just what is wrong
>>>>>>with netbuie
>>>>>
>>>>>You just listed one. It's non-routable.
>>>>
>>>>don't forget all the mindless network chatter.
>>>
>>>
>>>It has a smaller footprint on a network than TCPIP so it's a
>>>bit irrelevant.
>>
>>That is only true under limited circumstances
>
>
> Transferring data with it instead of TCPIP would be one of
> those, fairly popular circumstances.
>
>
>>... and if you've got internet
>>access you've got TCP/IP so regardless of how small the netbuei footprint
>>is it's still an additional footprint, not a 'reduction'.
>>
>
>
> No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
> data with it. Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem,

An idle network doesn't need any protocol at all so the point is moot.

However, netbeui isn't idle when the network is idle. It's perpetually
bombarding the thing with 'synchronization/identification' traffic.

> the
> focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
> Of course there are far larger gains seen from things like
> moving from 10Mb to 100Mb, but there's not a lot of point in
> itemizing every possible network performance limiter when
> the topic was already isolating one parameter.

I have no idea what the point in there was supposed to be if it wasn't
that, in the overall scheme of things, any 'efficiencies' imagined for
netbeui don't justify keeping it.

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:12:02 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:


>> No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
>> data with it. Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem,
>
>An idle network doesn't need any protocol at all so the point is moot.

It's still valid because "chatter" that isn't exceeding
network bandwidth potential in conjunction with other
traffic or increasing latency is not a negative thing.

>
>However, netbeui isn't idle when the network is idle. It's perpetually
>bombarding the thing with 'synchronization/identification' traffic.

"Bombard" is a bit strong, but even so, we don't have to
care what it's doing with the network is idle, only that
during actual transfers, it's faster, and that speed
difference in actual transfers is the significant parameter.

>
>> the
>> focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
>> Of course there are far larger gains seen from things like
>> moving from 10Mb to 100Mb, but there's not a lot of point in
>> itemizing every possible network performance limiter when
>> the topic was already isolating one parameter.
>
>I have no idea what the point in there was supposed to be if it wasn't
>that, in the overall scheme of things, any 'efficiencies' imagined for
>netbeui don't justify keeping it.
>

No, it was tha there are other ways to get more gain if one
were to change only ONE thing, though such an artificial
limit isn't reasonable to assume either.

kony wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:12:02 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
>>>data with it. Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem,
>>
>>An idle network doesn't need any protocol at all so the point is moot.
>
>
> It's still valid because "chatter" that isn't exceeding
> network bandwidth potential in conjunction with other
> traffic or increasing latency is not a negative thing.

No, it's a meaningless thing, was my point, because no one gives a tinker's
dam about the 'efficiency' of doing nothing, e.g. an "idle network."


>>However, netbeui isn't idle when the network is idle. It's perpetually
>>bombarding the thing with 'synchronization/identification' traffic.
>
>
> "Bombard" is a bit strong, but even so, we don't have to
> care what it's doing with the network is idle,

"Idle" is a useless state to debate about.

> only that
> during actual transfers, it's faster, and that speed
> difference in actual transfers is the significant parameter.

However, when there are things to do a protocol that takes up bandwidth
even when IT is 'idle' is not a good thing and network admins fight that
problem all the time.


>>>the
>>>focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
>>>Of course there are far larger gains seen from things like
>>>moving from 10Mb to 100Mb, but there's not a lot of point in
>>>itemizing every possible network performance limiter when
>>>the topic was already isolating one parameter.
>>
>>I have no idea what the point in there was supposed to be if it wasn't
>>that, in the overall scheme of things, any 'efficiencies' imagined for
>>netbeui don't justify keeping it.
>>
>
>
> No, it was tha there are other ways to get more gain if one
> were to change only ONE thing, though such an artificial
> limit isn't reasonable to assume either.

Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
protocol and it's attendant burdens.

You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
isn't worth the hundred bucks.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:24:24 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:

<snip>

>Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
>protocol and it's attendant burdens.

Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.

>You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
>and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
>hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
>of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
>isn't worth the hundred bucks.

That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
in the face. He thinks a single transfer between two computers
somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
scale & management, etc. Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups. Even more spending a dollar to save a
penny

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 05:31:45 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:24:24 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
>>protocol and it's attendant burdens.
>
>Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
>right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.

LOL, pot calling kettle black.

Curious George wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:24:24 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
>>protocol and it's attendant burdens.
>
>
> Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
> right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.

Kony and I get into debates from time to time and I have no problem with that.


>>You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
>>and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
>>hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
>>of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
>>isn't worth the hundred bucks.
>
>
> That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
> in the face. He thinks a single transfer between two computers
> somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
> scale & management, etc. Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
> these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups. Even more spending a dollar to save a
> penny

Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.

What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
for a 100 bucks analogy.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:40:54 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:

>Curious George wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:24:24 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
>>>protocol and it's attendant burdens.
>>
>>
>> Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
>> right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.
>
>Kony and I get into debates from time to time and I have no problem with that.

As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
something much less than a "debate." Exchanging valid arguments is
one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.

>>>You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
>>>and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
>>>hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
>>>of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
>>>isn't worth the hundred bucks.
>>
>>
>> That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
>> in the face. He thinks a single transfer between two computers
>> somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
>> scale & management, etc. Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
>> these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups. Even more spending a dollar to save a
>> penny
>
>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.

I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
"certain situations".

>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>for a 100 bucks analogy.

If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
the market, esp the small network consumer market? Certainly the
answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
maintains, is indeed also a factor.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:59:47 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:


>As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
>something much less than a "debate."

Of course they do, and when you actively participate in that
as well it's a bit too late to come back and point at the
opposing view.

>Exchanging valid arguments is
>one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
>simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.

Then what would you prefer, that arguments go on flawed?
I"m well aware that you think you're right when you get into
arguments, but who doesn't have same belief in same
situations?

>>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
>>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
>>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
>>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
>
>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>"certain situations".

You really should pay more attention to my posts then, I
certainly did mention routablity previously.


>
>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>
>If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
>the market, esp the small network consumer market? Certainly the
>answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
>numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>maintains, is indeed also a factor.

I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
default?

Curious George wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:40:54 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Curious George wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 12:24:24 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Yes, lots of ways to gain a hundred fold more than keeping a useless
>>>>protocol and it's attendant burdens.
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't let 'em suck you in. He thinks having the last word = being
>>>right and he'll spend the next 3 week trying to wear you out.
>>
>>Kony and I get into debates from time to time and I have no problem with that.
>
>
> As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
> something much less than a "debate." Exchanging valid arguments is
> one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
> simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.
>
>
>>>>You've locked onto what you perceive as a 'benefit' but it is so limited,
>>>>and of such little value to so few people, that it's like spending a
>>>>hundred bucks to buy a penny. You can argue all day long about the 'value'
>>>>of a penny, and "a penny saved is a penny earned," or whatever but it still
>>>>isn't worth the hundred bucks.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's just where he's coming from and he'll repeat it until your blue
>>>in the face. He thinks a single transfer between two computers
>>>somehow translates to "network" behaviour generally and regardless of
>>>scale & management, etc. Hey WINS is also is a typical component of
>>>these NETBIOS, NETBUI setups. Even more spending a dollar to save a
>>>penny
>>
>>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
>>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
>>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
>>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
>
>
> I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
> acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
> "certain situations".

I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed

>
>
>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>
>
> If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
> proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior

According to the typical MS 'forcing' conspiracy theory it doesn't need to
be 'superior' ;) Just being 'their stuff' is sufficient.

> than why not "force" NETBUI on
> the market, esp the small network consumer market?

Of course. Amusing how MS gets accused of 'forcing' their own stuff and
then gets accused of 'forcing' NOT their own stuff.

> Certainly the
> answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
> numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
> maintains, is indeed also a factor.

Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
consider it.

Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
protocol.

kony wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:59:47 GMT, Curious George
> <cg@email.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
>>something much less than a "debate."
>
>
> Of course they do, and when you actively participate in that
> as well it's a bit too late to come back and point at the
> opposing view.
>
>
>>Exchanging valid arguments is
>>one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
>>simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.
>
>
> Then what would you prefer, that arguments go on flawed?
> I"m well aware that you think you're right when you get into
> arguments, but who doesn't have same belief in same
> situations?
>
>
>>>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
>>>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
>>>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
>>>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
>>
>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>"certain situations".
>
>
> You really should pay more attention to my posts then, I
> certainly did mention routablity previously.
>
>
>
>>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>>
>>If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>>proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
>>the market, esp the small network consumer market? Certainly the
>>answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
>>numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>>maintains, is indeed also a factor.
>
>
> I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
> dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
> Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
> they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
> default?

That argument is nonsense as Netbeui hasn't been a 'default' protocol for
multiple generations. Which is no wonder because you were TOLD that Netbeui
was going away before Win98 hit the streets.

So what's your next conspiracy theory?

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:14:42 -0500, David Maynard
<nospam@private.net> wrote:


>> I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
>> dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
>> Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
>> they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
>> default?
>
>That argument is nonsense as Netbeui hasn't been a 'default' protocol for
>multiple generations. Which is no wonder because you were TOLD that Netbeui
>was going away before Win98 hit the streets.
>
>So what's your next conspiracy theory?
>

I didn' realize that making XP networking easier for new
users was a conspiracy theory. I was told Netbeui was going
away? It seems more like it was supported at the time.

kony wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:14:42 -0500, David Maynard
> <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
>>>dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
>>>Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
>>>they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
>>>default?
>>
>>That argument is nonsense as Netbeui hasn't been a 'default' protocol for
>>multiple generations. Which is no wonder because you were TOLD that Netbeui
>>was going away before Win98 hit the streets.
>>
>>So what's your next conspiracy theory?
>>
>
>
> I didn' realize that making XP networking easier for new
> users was a conspiracy theory.

It isn't, but you tried to make it one nonetheless.

> I was told Netbeui was going
> away?

Yes. Whether you paid attention or not is another matter.

> It seems more like it was supported at the time.

It was. And it's common practice to announce end of life *before* support
is pulled. Otherwise it's not much of a warning, now is it?

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 02:47:55 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:59:47 GMT, Curious George
><cg@email.net> wrote:
>
>
>>As have I and many others. Problem is these things tend to degrade to
>>something much less than a "debate."
>
>Of course they do, and when you actively participate in that
>as well it's a bit too late to come back and point at the
>opposing view.

It's never too late to criticize someone for not making sense - like
you're doing now. There's no logical conflict with continuing to
argue/explaing something for the duration of flawed attempts at
counter-arguments, and at the same criticizing the very same argument
style which, esp several post in, frequently floods a thread with crap
& defensiveness instead of insight, just like this (now) silly thread.

There's no reason why an internet "debate" can't or shouldn't have
mostly valid arguments with little repetition and of varying
persuasiveness.

>>Exchanging valid arguments is
>>one thing. Posting to repeatedly correct flawed arguments or to
>>simply hold ground regardless is something quite different.
>
>Then what would you prefer, that arguments go on flawed?

Nope. You're again proving my point. Unable to develop more
convincing arguments or tolerate criticism, you're still just
generating text, getting defensive, and making no sense.

>I"m well aware that you think you're right when you get into
>arguments, but who doesn't have same belief in same
>situations?

If you put something out there and it turns out to be wrong, then suck
it up and move on. If its being challenged and you can make it more
convincing then do so. Believing your right no matter what and
getting mad instead of more clear/convincing is just plain stupid,
delusional & a waste of bandwidth. Just because you haven't
challenged me very successfully in the past doesn't mean I can never
acknowledge when I'm wrong or missing details. It happens- you're
just not there.

>>>Well, let's not get too carried away here. What you described is akin to
>>>the point I'm making about the the over all value/cost of Netbeui, or lack
>>>of it, but Kony hasn't argued that part. He's stuck to the argument it's of
>>>'value' under certain circumstances, not 'universally'.
>>
>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>"certain situations".
>
>You really should pay more attention to my posts then, I
>certainly did mention routablity previously.

Mention? Indeed little more.

and? So? Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP takes advantage of the
routability of these communication devices and is routable. You've
been talking down any impact from protocol combinations and talking up
the benefits of NETBUI. That you "mentioned" routability doesn't
really impeach that observation - or at least it doesn't do it very
well.

>>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>>
>>If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>>proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior than why not "force" NETBUI on
>>the market, esp the small network consumer market? Certainly the
>>answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
>>numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>>maintains, is indeed also a factor.
>
>I feel WinXP has made it pretty clear that MS sought to
>dumb-down networking and make it easier for the new users.
>Which is easier for (those users), multiple protocols where
>they have to pick things or just having TCPIP do it all by
>default?

The interface for configuring networking has been pretty standard or
at least closely related to/since the Win 95,NT days. Nothing's been
dummed down, really. It's only that some backwards-compatibility for
an EOL protocol is limited/problematic. It's not like 2000 came by
default with NETBIOS and no TCP-IP by default.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:

<snip>

>> I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>> acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>> "certain situations".
>
>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed

I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.

NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.


remember:

<quote>
>... and if you've got internet
>access you've got TCP/IP so regardless of how small the netbuei footprint
>is it's still an additional footprint, not a 'reduction'.
>

No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
data with it. Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem, the
focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.

</quote>

and it's supposed context to "chatter"


>>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>>
>>
>> If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>> proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior
>
>According to the typical MS 'forcing' conspiracy theory it doesn't need to
>be 'superior' ;) Just being 'their stuff' is sufficient.
>
>> than why not "force" NETBUI on
>> the market, esp the small network consumer market?
>
>Of course. Amusing how MS gets accused of 'forcing' their own stuff and
>then gets accused of 'forcing' NOT their own stuff.

Indeed

>> Certainly the
>> answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
>> numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>> maintains, is indeed also a factor.
>
>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>consider it.
>
>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>protocol.

Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.

Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
bad.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 07:56:34 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:

<snip>

>It's never too late to criticize someone for not making sense.

That's a pretty short-sighted thing for you to write
considering that you had ample opportunity to argue
logically in past discussions but kept drifting off.

Did you REALLY think waiting awhile them using even fewer
facts did anything more than look pathetic?

You're not criticizing for any reason but your bruised ego.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 07:56:35 GMT, Curious George
<cg@email.net> wrote:


>I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
>reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.

Who pushed it? Again we see your departure from reality.
NOBODY has been pushing NetBEUI. If I suggested it's
faster to use a calculator than an abacus, that doesn't mean
I'm "pushing" either.

If your arguments weren't half delusional you might find
fewer disagreements.

Curious George wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>"certain situations".
>>
>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>
>
> I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
> any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
> reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
> grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.

He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.

> NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
> understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
> can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
> with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.

There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument
because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the
transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.


> remember:
>
> <quote>
>
>>... and if you've got internet
>>access you've got TCP/IP so regardless of how small the netbuei footprint
>>is it's still an additional footprint, not a 'reduction'.
>>
>
>
> No it is still a reduction to whatever extent you transfer
> data with it. Idle networks aren't a bandwidth problem, the
> focus needs be on transfers, their efficiency and duration.
>
> </quote>
>
> and it's supposed context to "chatter"
>
>
>
>>>>What I find illogical is his apparent conviction that this limited 'value',
>>>>if such exists, justifies the cost of continuing support; hence my penny
>>>>for a 100 bucks analogy.
>>>
>>>
>>>If M$ can indeed "force" anything they want on the market, and their
>>>proprietary NETBUI is indeed superior
>>
>>According to the typical MS 'forcing' conspiracy theory it doesn't need to
>>be 'superior' ;) Just being 'their stuff' is sufficient.
>>
>>
>>>than why not "force" NETBUI on
>>>the market, esp the small network consumer market?
>>
>>Of course. Amusing how MS gets accused of 'forcing' their own stuff and
>>then gets accused of 'forcing' NOT their own stuff.
>
>
> Indeed
>
>
>>> Certainly the
>>>answer is in the question. Yes support, including the already mind
>>>numbing complexity of the products and features the company already
>>>maintains, is indeed also a factor.
>>
>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>>consider it.
>>
>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>>protocol.
>
>
> Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
>
> Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
> there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
> bad.

You lost me here.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:09:23 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:

>Curious George wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>>"certain situations".
>>>
>>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>>
>>
>> I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>> any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
>> reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>> grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
>
>He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.

Whatcha mean? You've just claimed you discussed it with him?

Were you the first to bring it up? It doesn't really matter in the
context of whether he has conceded that NetBEUI is for "certain
situations" & "not all." You and he have cited routability as
evidence of his concession. Indeed I can only find cursory mention:

<quote>
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 04:43:40 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>that it's routable.. Once you remove that need, you're left
>with a slower protocol.

</quote>


>> NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
>> understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
>> can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
>> with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
>
>There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument
>because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the
>transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.

If, as Kony claims, routability is the only feature he knows of that
that makes it appropriate for "certain situations" & "not all" then
that disintegrates with NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP as it is
essentially on an equal footing as TCP/IP in that regard. It also is
common among networks with both TCP/IP & NetBEUI, which have been
discussed here, so it warrants mention for both reasons.

<snip>
>>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>>>consider it.
>>>
>>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>>>protocol.
>>
>>
>> Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
>>
>> Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
>> there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
>> bad.
>
>You lost me here.

It sounds to me like you're essentially saying dropping NetBIOS
doesn't require a conspiracy as it is so un-useful presently. While
probably not untrue, I don't agree you've cited reasons here that
adequately support such a strong statement about NetBIOS as a
deficient protocol. Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the
opposite view as you.

Curious George wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:09:23 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Curious George wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>>>"certain situations".
>>>>
>>>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>>>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>>>any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
>>>reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>>>grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
>>
>>He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.
>
>
> Whatcha mean? You've just claimed you discussed it with him?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What was unclear?

> Were you the first to bring it up?

Yes, as one of the failings of netbeui.

> It doesn't really matter in the
> context of whether he has conceded that NetBEUI is for "certain
> situations" & "not all." You and he have cited routability as
> evidence of his concession. Indeed I can only find cursory mention:
>
> <quote>
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 04:43:40 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>>that it's routable.. Once you remove that need, you're left
>>with a slower protocol.
>
>
> </quote>

Well, you apparently missed part of the conversation.

>>>NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
>>>understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
>>>can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
>>>with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
>>
>>There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument
>>because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the
>>transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.
>
>
> If, as Kony claims, routability is the only feature he knows of that
> that makes it appropriate for "certain situations" & "not all" then
> that disintegrates with NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP as it is
> essentially on an equal footing as TCP/IP in that regard. It also is
> common among networks with both TCP/IP & NetBEUI, which have been
> discussed here, so it warrants mention for both reasons.

You're trying to 'guess' what people said and meant, when it would seem you
missed it, and then argue with your own 'guess'.

Netbios over TCP/IP has nothing to do with it because routing is not needed
in the limited use.

>
> <snip>
>
>>>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>>>>consider it.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>>>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>>>>protocol.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
>>>there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
>>>bad.
>>
>>You lost me here.
>
>
> It sounds to me like you're essentially saying dropping NetBIOS
> doesn't require a conspiracy as it is so un-useful presently. While
> probably not untrue, I don't agree you've cited reasons here that
> adequately support such a strong statement about NetBIOS as a
> deficient protocol.

Then you missed all that part too.

> Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the
> opposite view as you.

Clearly. Which was the point of how absurd conspiracy theories can get,
even to the point of missing the better 'conspiracy' because the typical
methodology is to simply find 'some' argument, no matter how obtuse or
outlandish, whether it's logical or not. It 'must' be pernicious so one
looks for the 'evidence' to justify the already determined conclusion and
since one starts with whatever conspiracy first came to mind it's likely to
be what's found since it's what one is seeking

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:46:07 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
wrote:

>Curious George wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 05:09:23 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Curious George wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:01:36 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>I think you're giving more credit than is due. AFAIK He has never
>>>>>>acknowledged ANY limitations of NETBUI that would limit its use to
>>>>>>"certain situations".
>>>>>
>>>>>I dunno. Maybe you missed the very beginning where the virtues of a
>>>>>routable protocol, like TCP/IP, vs the non routable netbeui was discussed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't really see such an equally weighed & measured comparisons in
>>>>any real context like you seem to characterize here. A simple
>>>>reference to sometimes wanting routability is not very explicit and
>>>>grossly overshadowed by excessive NetBEUI pushing.
>>>
>>>He didn't mention routability, or rather the lack of it, I did.
>>
>>
>> Whatcha mean? You've just claimed you discussed it with him?
>
>Yes, that's exactly what I mean. What was unclear?

Claiming responsibility for _your_ points does not deal with _his_ or
my assessment of them i.e. whether "more credit was given than is due"
as well as his "depth of comparison".

>> Were you the first to bring it up?
>
>Yes, as one of the failings of netbeui.

So? (in our current context)

>> It doesn't really matter in the
>> context of whether he has conceded that NetBEUI is for "certain
>> situations" & "not all." You and he have cited routability as
>> evidence of his concession. Indeed I can only find cursory mention:
>>
>> <quote>
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 04:43:40 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The fact of the matter is that the main benefit of TCP/IP is
>>>that it's routable.. Once you remove that need, you're left
>>>with a slower protocol.
>>
>>
>> </quote>
>
>Well, you apparently missed part of the conversation.

Either my server is missing part of the thread or we're just not
understanding each other. Sure that isn't the only post of his that
mentions routability, but I think this one pretty much sums up the
depth of his argument. It was too repetitive to quote everything.

I think the problem here is I see him arguing basically 'sometimes you
don't need routability - NetBEUI & TCP are different tools for
different jobs - so lets talk about NetBEUI's advantages where its
needed'. And I'm observing 'sometimes not needing routability is
different than 'NetBEUI can't ever be used on networks that also
require routability'. It doesn't really address limitations in any
_real_ context - not only the scarcity of that situation but also how
that changes with NetBIOS extensions which, in fact, demonstrate how
NetBEUI has long ago moved past this now synthetic "limited use"
scenario.' After all Some Guy's comment "I've never read anything
concrete that explains just what is wrong with netbuie -" started a
lot of this mess and it warrants deeper examination when posting under
it.

I'm trying to probe & nudge at looking at what's been said a little
deeper & the success of answering that earlier key question, rather
than simply repeat repetition or agree or disagree. Maybe I haven't
expressed this as articulately as I could, but there's a lot of that
blame that could be spread around - and what I'm trying to get at is
different than wholesale misinterpretation/ misreading - unless you
still think I'm missing the mark entirely.

Are we clear now? Is there really that much more _substance_ I've
missed from _his_ "limited use" discussion?


>>>>NetBEUI becomes routable via Advanced NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP. I
>>>>understand the focus is basic NETBEUI, not NetBIOS, but it really
>>>>can't be excluded from a practical discussion which includes networks
>>>>with _both_ TCP/IP & NetBEUI as well as one or the other.
>>>
>>>There was no desire on his part to 'counter' the routability argument
>>>because his Netbeui application is 'small networks' where Netbeui is the
>>>transport so Netbios riding on TCP/IP doesn't address anything in his case.
>>
>>
>> If, as Kony claims, routability is the only feature he knows of that
>> that makes it appropriate for "certain situations" & "not all" then
>> that disintegrates with NetBIOS over IPX or TCP/IP as it is
>> essentially on an equal footing as TCP/IP in that regard. It also is
>> common among networks with both TCP/IP & NetBEUI, which have been
>> discussed here, so it warrants mention for both reasons.
>
>You're trying to 'guess' what people said and meant, when it would seem you
>missed it, and then argue with your own 'guess'.

Now _you_ lost _me_.

Listen to yourself for a moment (or rather you're repetition of Kony).
Why would I bother to 'guess' meaning & then post responses
criticizing my guess? Why would I have to guess at all if the
arguments are clear & thorough? Why is this the only group (actually
only 2 ppl), in my last decade of usenet, I'm being accused of this?

I'm glad you two speak the same language. It's strange you do because
your back & forth with him sounded very familiar to me (minus some of
the anger perhaps). Maybe Kony & I are always butting heads because
we just don't understand each other. Since you speak Kony, maybe you
can translate? - or do we understand each other a little better now?

>Netbios over TCP/IP has nothing to do with it because routing is not needed
>in the limited use.

Nothing to do with what, exactly?

"Limited use" today is a crock; an academic hypothetical - even if
Kony stubbornly wouldn't budge from repeatedly trying to shove it down
your throat. Transfer speed & routability were major issues in the
comparison with TCP/IP. NetBIOS makes one of those issues basically
disappear and acknowledges that NetBEUI has long ago moved away from
this "limited use" model anyway. It therefore certainly has
_everything_ to do with YOUR criticism of his "fixation" on "limited
use". I suppose it does inject another variable, which may be seen as
a distraction or confusion, but how is it not germane _really_ to the
discussion of NetBEUI's strengths & limitations or a criticism of
"limited use"?

>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>Yep. But then one has to get over knee jerk conspiracy theories first to
>>>>>consider it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, in this case you don't. Surely MS wouldn't 'let go' of such a
>>>>>'useful' networking mechanism as a non routable, internet incompatible,
>>>>>protocol.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes but the conspiracy theorists disagree.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately you also agree both can exist together fine. An then
>>>>there's also NetBIOS. That's not reason enough to beat it down so
>>>>bad.
>>>
>>>You lost me here.
>>
>>
>> It sounds to me like you're essentially saying dropping NetBIOS
>> doesn't require a conspiracy as it is so un-useful presently. While
>> probably not untrue, I don't agree you've cited reasons here that
>> adequately support such a strong statement about NetBIOS as a
>> deficient protocol.
>
>Then you missed all that part too.

What part, exactly? I only went up a couple responses - where are
you?

>> Also the conspiracy theorists seem to hold the
>> opposite view as you.
>
>Clearly. Which was the point of how absurd conspiracy theories can get,
>even to the point of missing the better 'conspiracy' because the typical
>methodology is to simply find 'some' argument, no matter how obtuse or
>outlandish, whether it's logical or not. It 'must' be pernicious so one
>looks for the 'evidence' to justify the already determined conclusion and
>since one starts with whatever conspiracy first came to mind it's likely to
>be what's found since it's what one is seeking

At least we get each other here.

Curious George wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:46:07 -0500, David Maynard <nospam@private.net>
> wrote:
>
>