G
Gene E. Bloch
I probably said it before, but I don't even try, or at least I don't try
very hard
I probably said it before, but I don't even try, or at least I don't try
very hard
C
Char Jackson
I probably said it before, but I don't even try, or at least I don't try
very hard
I tried following it as it was happening, but one top posts while the
other bottom posts, and both apparently use the broken version of WLM.
It's just ridiculous.
W
...winston
Apparently the op understood it since the original objective
(upgrading from Win7 Pro to Ultimate) on a new SSD was achieved.
While MSFT help was used...the op realized later that entering the correct
Win7 Ultimate upgrade key (previously received in an email) instead of an
incorrect one (wrong Product key or the Product ID) would have made the
process a lot easier (and faster) and probably without:
1. Microsoft Help
2. The need to clean install using the upgrade disk (ie. no product key
first time, enter second time) by the way that method would have failed
since the wrong key/ID was being used.
3. Wading through the Forte discussion which hijacked his request for info.
--
....winston
msft mvp mail
"Char Jackson" wrote in message
I tried following it as it was happening, but one top posts while the
other bottom posts, and both apparently use the broken version of WLM.
It's just ridiculous.
(upgrading from Win7 Pro to Ultimate) on a new SSD was achieved.
While MSFT help was used...the op realized later that entering the correct
Win7 Ultimate upgrade key (previously received in an email) instead of an
incorrect one (wrong Product key or the Product ID) would have made the
process a lot easier (and faster) and probably without:
1. Microsoft Help
2. The need to clean install using the upgrade disk (ie. no product key
first time, enter second time) by the way that method would have failed
since the wrong key/ID was being used.
3. Wading through the Forte discussion which hijacked his request for info.
--
....winston
msft mvp mail
"Char Jackson" wrote in message
I probably said it before, but I don't even try, or at least I don't try
very hard
I tried following it as it was happening, but one top posts while the
other bottom posts, and both apparently use the broken version of WLM.
It's just ridiculous.
B
BillW50
I tried following it as it was happening, but one top posts while the
other bottom posts, and both apparently use the broken version of WLM.
It's just ridiculous.
Thank goodness for those References used in the header. As it is a piece
of cake to see who said what. Although this Thunderbird would be a poor
choice for this task. As it can't see watched already read threads. :-(
C
Char Jackson
So what's your excuse for posting so poorly? I'm not trying to change
your behavior, I know that's not likely to happen, but I'm curious to
hear why you do it.
K
Ken Blake
I tried following it as it was happening, but one top posts while the
other bottom posts, and both apparently use the broken version of WLM.
It's just ridiculous.
To me, trying to follow a conversation where even one person uses the
broken version of WLM makes it very difficult to follow. It's bad
enough if it's a single reply, but it gets much worse when it goes
back and forth a couple of times. And if one top posts while the other
bottom posts, and *both* use the broken version of WLM, it so quickly
becomes unintelligible that I don't even try.
Some people may save the older messages in a thread, and follow the
conversation by looking at all of them, but I don't. That's far too
time-consuming for me; once I read a message, it's gone, and the only
way I can follow a thread is if each message has quoted what's needed
to follow it.
And I feel exactly the same about e-mail with Windows Live Mail. It's
almost impossible to follow.
C
Char Jackson
I'm with you, Ken. In a medium that's supposed to be all about
effective communication, I've never understood why some folks go out
of their way to make communication more difficult.
G
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
Some people are confused between communication and communication
technology. A fancy gadget does not make your communication better
just by being used, and it can make it worse.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Some people are confused between communication and communication
technology. A fancy gadget does not make your communication better
just by being used, and it can make it worse.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
G
Gene E. Bloch
Perhaps they are descended from a long line of politicians, or are
themselves politicians.
W
...winston
As far as I can see..the op found what he needed in my response and
subsequent response and managed to wade his way through all the other
incidental garbage that others introduced either by way of not understanding
the original op problem or digressing off-topic.
Does it really matter if you any other contributor in this thread needed to
follow along.....the op managed to do so and received an accurate response
and plan of action in less than 48hrs and also had the courtesy to follow-up
acknowledging success a contributory concern to the original problem.
If the same problem arises again (upgrading an o/s and needing MSFT help
since they were unknowingly using the wrong Product Key or Product ID) I'm
confident someone will ask the question before wading through any correctly
or incorrectly threaded previous conversations nor will they worry about
what newsreader they or anyone is using.
I do agree that WLM as a newsreader has its shortcomings for nntp...yet in
the same light...the op used it to post and respond as well as I and
regardless of that use the op achieved his original objective..what everyone
else thinks under the 'I-me-me-mine' umbrella is secondary fodder.
--
....winston
msft mvp mail
"Ken Blake" wrote in message
To me, trying to follow a conversation where even one person uses the
broken version of WLM makes it very difficult to follow. It's bad
enough if it's a single reply, but it gets much worse when it goes
back and forth a couple of times. And if one top posts while the other
bottom posts, and *both* use the broken version of WLM, it so quickly
becomes unintelligible that I don't even try.
Some people may save the older messages in a thread, and follow the
conversation by looking at all of them, but I don't. That's far too
time-consuming for me; once I read a message, it's gone, and the only
way I can follow a thread is if each message has quoted what's needed
to follow it.
And I feel exactly the same about e-mail with Windows Live Mail. It's
almost impossible to follow.
subsequent response and managed to wade his way through all the other
incidental garbage that others introduced either by way of not understanding
the original op problem or digressing off-topic.
Does it really matter if you any other contributor in this thread needed to
follow along.....the op managed to do so and received an accurate response
and plan of action in less than 48hrs and also had the courtesy to follow-up
acknowledging success a contributory concern to the original problem.
If the same problem arises again (upgrading an o/s and needing MSFT help
since they were unknowingly using the wrong Product Key or Product ID) I'm
confident someone will ask the question before wading through any correctly
or incorrectly threaded previous conversations nor will they worry about
what newsreader they or anyone is using.
I do agree that WLM as a newsreader has its shortcomings for nntp...yet in
the same light...the op used it to post and respond as well as I and
regardless of that use the op achieved his original objective..what everyone
else thinks under the 'I-me-me-mine' umbrella is secondary fodder.
--
....winston
msft mvp mail
"Ken Blake" wrote in message
I tried following it as it was happening, but one top posts while the
other bottom posts, and both apparently use the broken version of WLM.
It's just ridiculous.
To me, trying to follow a conversation where even one person uses the
broken version of WLM makes it very difficult to follow. It's bad
enough if it's a single reply, but it gets much worse when it goes
back and forth a couple of times. And if one top posts while the other
bottom posts, and *both* use the broken version of WLM, it so quickly
becomes unintelligible that I don't even try.
Some people may save the older messages in a thread, and follow the
conversation by looking at all of them, but I don't. That's far too
time-consuming for me; once I read a message, it's gone, and the only
way I can follow a thread is if each message has quoted what's needed
to follow it.
And I feel exactly the same about e-mail with Windows Live Mail. It's
almost impossible to follow.
K
Ken Blake
Good, and glad to hear it. But two points:
1. I wasn't commenting about this thread. I was commenting about *all*
threads in which "one top posts while the other bottom posts, and both
apparently use the broken version of WLM." They are *extremely* hard
to follow.
2. I agree that the OP getting the answer he's looking for is what's
most important. But it's not the only factor. It's also important to
the rest of us here--those of us who read all the messages
posted--that we are able to read and understand all messages posted.
We read all the messages for several reasons--to correct mistakes when
we see them, and to learn something about areas where we don't know a
lot. And when there is a thread in which "one top posts while the
other bottom posts, and both apparently use the broken version of
WLM," that quickly becomes nearly impossible.
Yes, I think it does. See the above.
Once again, glad to hear it.
We clearly have very different views on this. I wouldn't say it "has
its shortcomings." I would say it's downright *terrible*. The worst of
all the choices of newsreaders/e-mail clients I know of.
As I said above, I agree that it's secondary. But where we disagree is
that I think that, even though it's secondary, it's still important.