Thread: why>?

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>your terms are not acceptable

In other words, Excel works exactly as I said it does, thus undermining
your claims, proving you know next to nothing about Excel, so you're
going to try to hide behind claims that . . .

>most windows users don't know how to set a file to read only.
....

Most Windows users don't know how to write SQL queries *or* how to use
QBE either, but you don't let that stop you from ranting on about how
they should be using Access rather than Excel.

What's the matter, Aaron, can't take being proven wrong (again & again
& again)?

Harlan

most people aren't born knowing how to jerk off all day in Excel either

it's not my fault that your 1st grade teacher taught you the wrong
program

all im saying is that Excel DOESNT WORK

your 'resolution' still leaves everyone propted 'you can only open this
read only'

even if you 'reccomend' that it's ready only; it doesn't make it a
multi-user solution




Harlan Grove wrote:
> aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
> >your terms are not acceptable
>
> In other words, Excel works exactly as I said it does, thus undermining
> your claims, proving you know next to nothing about Excel, so you're
> going to try to hide behind claims that . . .
>
> >most windows users don't know how to set a file to read only.
> ...
>
> Most Windows users don't know how to write SQL queries *or* how to use
> QBE either, but you don't let that stop you from ranting on about how
> they should be using Access rather than Excel.
>
> What's the matter, Aaron, can't take being proven wrong (again & again
> & again)?

and for the record?

im not sure i ever said i was going to make EVERYONE learn queries.

technically; back in '98 i was working as a software tester; and our
boss gave us a 30 minute projector demo on how to do it

it's not hard to learn QBE

but i want people to use DUMBER applications

where REAL DEVELOPERS can implement solutions and you kids just sit
around and fill in numbers

as it is; your spaghetti code Excel vba mess is a nightmare to manage

KILL YOUR SPREADMART!!!






Harlan Grove wrote:
> aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
> >your terms are not acceptable
>
> In other words, Excel works exactly as I said it does, thus undermining
> your claims, proving you know next to nothing about Excel, so you're
> going to try to hide behind claims that . . .
>
> >most windows users don't know how to set a file to read only.
> ...
>
> Most Windows users don't know how to write SQL queries *or* how to use
> QBE either, but you don't let that stop you from ranting on about how
> they should be using Access rather than Excel.
>
> What's the matter, Aaron, can't take being proven wrong (again & again
> & again)?

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>ACROBAT DOES STAY IN MY MEMORY
>it is a TSR
....

This is OT, but WTH.

I'm running Windows XP SP-2. I haven't loaded Acrobat since my last
reboot, and it doesn't appear in Task Manager's process list, and the
only Adobe DLL loaded in memory per msinfo is the browser plug-in.
Also, my available system memory is around 236MB. Then I load Acrobat
Reader 5.0. Now it shows up in Task Manager's process and application
lists, and my available memory is around 221MB with the process list
showing AcroRd32.exe using 20.6MB. It doesn't quite add up because
there are also some Acrobat DLL taking up memory that may not show up
as memory allocated to AcroRd32.exe. Then I close Acrobat Reader. Once
again only the browser plug-in appears in msinfo, nothing from Acrobat
appears in either Task Manager's process or application lists, and
available system memory is now about 239MB. In my case, loading then
closing Acrobat Reader seems to have FREED UP 3MB.

Does this look like it's a TSR? Or maybe you have an incoherent,
idiosyncratic definition of TSR as well.

What makes you believe Acrobat is a TSR other than burden of your
addled brain, untrustworthy memory and very limited intellect?

>i care that every ******* version of acrobat; for the past 10 years--
>stays resident in memory even after you close it.

Really? How do you know that? Where does it show up in Task Manager or
msinfo after you close it? Are you likening it to a rootkit which can't
be detected? Do you have any clue what's really going on on your
system? Are you confusing recent versions with ancient ones?

I realize proving asertions with details and a semblance of reason are
very difficult things for you to attempt (so you fail to achieve then
most of the time), but you're so full of it in this case it'd be funny
if it weren't so pathetic.

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>qualifiying products include ACCESS EXCEL OR FRONTPAGE
....

You're missing Office, but fair point. So how many computers have
Access or Frontpage stand-alone without Office or Excel on a typical
business user's PC?

>I've found a hundred references that include the statement 'owc ships
>with frontpage, access, excel'

I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is that there are few if any
business end users in large companies who don't have some version of
Office installed on their PCs, and that means Excel, PPT and Word with
everything else maybe included or maybe not. Since I work for a company
that uses Lotus Notes for e-mail, I don't have Outlook (though for some
bizarre reason, I do have Outlook Express as part of the base image),
and while *I* have Access, no one else around me does.

>sure; there is a little bit of ambiguity; but it's real cut and dry--
>microsoft says that owc comes with those other 3 products

Granted, but if a business PC user doesn't have Excel on their PC, then
it's extremely unlikely they have any of the other qualifying products
either. Since it's cheaper to buy Office Pro than any two Office apps a
la carte (e.g., Word and Access), why would any rational business
software buyer purchase Office apps other than Excel along with Access
a la carte rather than Office Pro?

>re:
>
>'oh i dont need admin priveleges'
>
>if you weren't locked down on priveleges; then you could download FREE
>--REAL-- PROGRAMS instead of relying on a worthless program like Excel
....

Since admin priviledges also allow one to download and install FREE
REAL MALWARE most IT departments tend to disallow downloading and
installing anything.

I fully agree that there's some very useful free software available,
and I've succeeded in making the case for using gawk and R where I
work, but I only get them on my own machine rather than them becoming
parts of the base image.

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>qualifiying products include ACCESS EXCEL OR FRONTPAGE
....

You're missing Office, but fair point. So how many computers have
Access or Frontpage stand-alone without Office or Excel on a typical
business user's PC?

>I've found a hundred references that include the statement 'owc ships
>with frontpage, access, excel'

I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is that there are few if any
business end users in large companies who don't have some version of
Office installed on their PCs, and that means Excel, PPT and Word with
everything else maybe included or maybe not. Since I work for a company
that uses Lotus Notes for e-mail, I don't have Outlook (though for some
bizarre reason, I do have Outlook Express as part of the base image),
and while *I* have Access, no one else around me does.

>sure; there is a little bit of ambiguity; but it's real cut and dry--
>microsoft says that owc comes with those other 3 products

Granted, but if a business PC user doesn't have Excel on their PC, then
it's extremely unlikely they have any of the other qualifying products
either. Since it's cheaper to buy Office Pro than any two Office apps a
la carte (e.g., Word and Access),

>re:
>
>'oh i dont need admin priveleges'
>
>if you weren't locked down on priveleges; then you could download FREE
>--REAL-- PROGRAMS instead of relying on a worthless program like Excel
....

Since admin priviledges also allow one to download and install FREE
REAL MALWARE most IT departments tend to disallow downloading and
installing anything.

I fully agree that there's some very useful free software available,
and I've succeeded in making the case for using gawk and R where I
work, but I only get them on my own machine rather than them becoming
parts of the base image.

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
....
>your 'resolution' still leaves everyone propted 'you can only open this
>read only'

Wrong. The combination of setting Read-only recommended when saving the
file, then setting the file attributes to read-only in a shared
directory means EVERYONE opens the file READ-ONLY and NO ONE sees any
prompts.

Follow the directions in the order given (if your capable of doing so)
and you can verify this for yourself.

>even if you 'reccomend' that it's ready only; it doesn't make it a
>multi-user solution

In terms of multiple users being able to see each others' changes and
all these users being able to save their changes, you're right. That'd
require shared workbooks, which provide some multiple user abilities,
but nothing like Excel's single user functionality. I already agreed
that multiple users can't CHANGE files at the same time (other than by
using shared workbooks with their limitations), but you're the idiot
claiming multiple users can't READ Excel files at the same time.

Still can't admit you got that one dead wrong, can you?

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>i have different results.
....
>Harlan Grove wrote:
....
>>closing Acrobat Reader seems to have FREED UP 3MB.
>>
>> Does this look like it's a TSR? Or maybe you have an incoherent,
>> idiosyncratic definition of TSR as well.
....

OK, so either I have Acrobat configured better than you do, or I know
how to check system memory usage and running processes and DLLs while
you don't. Also, you seem constitutionally incapable of providing any
details.

What version of Acrobat are you claiming is memory resident? How much
memory does Task Manager report that it uses when it appears in the
application list? What Acrobat processes remain running and appear in
Taks Manager's process list when Acrobat isn't open and doesn't appear
in Task Manager's application list? What Acrobat DLLs does msinfo
report are in memory when Acrobat isn't open and doesn't appear in Task
Manager's application list? If you need help with that, run msinfo
which you should have under the full pathname

C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\MSInfo\msinfo32.exe

and check under Software Environment > Loaded Modules.

Details make postings credible. Rants do the reverse. In plainer terms,
I think this is just more BS from you stemming from bad memories from
long ago.

yeah you're right

i must have tripped and fell and misread task manager

lol


you have it CONFIGURED better than I do?


it's a goddamn graphics format; there shouldn't be any config necessary



i've got it uninstalled on this box; and every other box i touch
because i can't handle it tieing up 30 mb of memory on my 512mb desktop

i open a document; i close a document-- bring up task manager-- and
it's still there!

im on windows 2000 though; if i wasn't using 2000 i'd probably be using
nt4 lol

XP is too 'artsy-fartsy' for me
and there's a lot of features I dont care for.

I actually use MSDE licensed server on a couple of boxes; so i don't
have the 10 connection limit

it's a pita for dev

-Aaron




Harlan Grove wrote:
> aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
> >i have different results.
> ...
> >Harlan Grove wrote:
> ...
> >>closing Acrobat Reader seems to have FREED UP 3MB.
> >>
> >> Does this look like it's a TSR? Or maybe you have an incoherent,
> >> idiosyncratic definition of TSR as well.
> ...
>
> OK, so either I have Acrobat configured better than you do, or I know
> how to check system memory usage and running processes and DLLs while
> you don't. Also, you seem constitutionally incapable of providing any
> details.
>
> What version of Acrobat are you claiming is memory resident? How much
> memory does Task Manager report that it uses when it appears in the
> application list? What Acrobat processes remain running and appear in
> Taks Manager's process list when Acrobat isn't open and doesn't appear
> in Task Manager's application list? What Acrobat DLLs does msinfo
> report are in memory when Acrobat isn't open and doesn't appear in Task
> Manager's application list? If you need help with that, run msinfo
> which you should have under the full pathname
>
> C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\MSInfo\msinfo32.exe
>
> and check under Software Environment > Loaded Modules.
>
> Details make postings credible. Rants do the reverse. In plainer terms,
> I think this is just more BS from you stemming from bad memories from
> long ago.

and i dont have msinfo

i might have something called serverinfo i've got to find the exact
name of the exe



Harlan Grove wrote:
> aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
> >i have different results.
> ...
> >Harlan Grove wrote:
> ...
> >>closing Acrobat Reader seems to have FREED UP 3MB.
> >>
> >> Does this look like it's a TSR? Or maybe you have an incoherent,
> >> idiosyncratic definition of TSR as well.
> ...
>
> OK, so either I have Acrobat configured better than you do, or I know
> how to check system memory usage and running processes and DLLs while
> you don't. Also, you seem constitutionally incapable of providing any
> details.
>
> What version of Acrobat are you claiming is memory resident? How much
> memory does Task Manager report that it uses when it appears in the
> application list? What Acrobat processes remain running and appear in
> Taks Manager's process list when Acrobat isn't open and doesn't appear
> in Task Manager's application list? What Acrobat DLLs does msinfo
> report are in memory when Acrobat isn't open and doesn't appear in Task
> Manager's application list? If you need help with that, run msinfo
> which you should have under the full pathname
>
> C:\Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\MSInfo\msinfo32.exe
>
> and check under Software Environment > Loaded Modules.
>
> Details make postings credible. Rants do the reverse. In plainer terms,
> I think this is just more BS from you stemming from bad memories from
> long ago.

this

If the real developers knew business and there were enough of them,
maybe that could work


is why all your excel dorks need to drop what you're doing and become
'real developers'

I 1000000% agree with you harlan on this.

you excel kids-- you know more about your particular line of business

i won't argue that.

'us real developers' are too overworked because there are NEVER enough
of us.

instead of a 1,000 person company having 10 developers and 800 excel
dorks?
it should be a 500 person company with 10 excel dorks and 200 'real
developers'






Harlan Grove wrote:
> aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
> >and for the record?
> >
> >im not sure i ever said i was going to make EVERYONE learn queries.
> ...
> >it's not hard to learn QBE
>
> Arguable. I've only ever taken two training classes for software, one
> for SAS and another for Paradox, both more than 15 years ago. I took
> the Paradox course with 3 other fellow employees where I worked back
> then. Of the 4 of us, 3 of us figured out QBE, but the 4th person just
> never got it.
>
> >but i want people to use DUMBER applications
> >
> >where REAL DEVELOPERS can implement solutions and you kids just sit
> >around and fill in numbers
> ...
>
> If the real developers knew business and there were enough of them,
> maybe that could work. However, in the real world there are few
> developers who know anything other than coding, and most of them move
> to management as soon as they can.
>
> Aside from difficulties with offline use, I have little against
> centralized storage other than experience that most companies just
> won't provide the necessary server storage capacity. Most companies
> have little difficulty upgrading 100 PCs from ones with 20GB drives to
> ones with 40GB drives (so 2TB additional storage in total), but won't
> shell out for more than 500GB for drives on each regional office
> server, if that.
>
> As for centralized development, the advent of PCs in the early 1980s
> let the genie out of the bottle. Departments and regional offices were
> finally able to do what they believed they needed to do themselves
> without having to wait for MIS/DP. That's not going to change any time
> soon. Recentralization isn't necessary. Some training in sensible
> development processes and some realization that time must be spent on
> documentation are what's really needed.
>
> >as it is; your spaghetti code Excel vba mess is a nightmare to manage
> ...
>
> Good software can be written in any language. Some may require more
> discipline than others, but it's not the language that makes poor
> software. And the converse is also true: no language makes good
> software no matter how many tools it provides.

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
....
>'us real developers' are too overworked because there are NEVER enough of us.
....

No, it's because it takes too much time for us nondevelopers to have to
explain 'business logic' to you for the umteenth time.

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
....
>it's a goddamn graphics format; there shouldn't be any config necessary

If it's not acting like a TSR on my system, but it is on yours, what
would explain such a difference other than configuration or each of us
using different versions?

>i've got it uninstalled on this box; and every other box i touch
>because i can't handle it tieing up 30 mb of memory on my 512mb desktop

In other words, you have no idea how it behaves. All you have is old
faulty memories, if that.

>i open a document; i close a document-- bring up task manager-- and
>it's still there!
....

Closing a document is different than closing the application in which
multiple documents could be open at the same time. You'd need to close
the application (which would close all documents open in it as well) in
order to have it release memory. This SHOULD BE really basic stuff that
a person who claims to be an experience software developer shouldn't
need to have explained.

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
>and i dont have msinfo
....

No? It's installed by default when installing Office or any a la carte
Office app, such as Access. Did you use custom installation and chose
not to install it?

Maybe you do have it, but somewhere else. Presumably you have Access.
If so, run the menu command Help > About Microsoft Office Access to
display the 'About Microsoft Office Access' dialog. It should have a
button near the bottom labeled 'System Info...' Try clicking on that
button.

aaron.kempf@gmail.com wrote...
....
>if it works on your machine; but it's a TSR on mine-- then the program
>is inconsistent and unnecessary

It's not inconsistent if the difference in behavior is due to USER
configuration settings. I've got it configured right, and you don't.

>if adobe can't figure out how to make a non-tsr program they can screw
>themselves

Obviously they can and have since it's not a TSR on my system. Maybe
idiots like you should consider spending some of their ranting time
reading manuals instead.