Microsoft shortens Windows name

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:T4hVc.1825883$Ar.572890@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
| The previously named Windows XP and 2003 "64-bit edition for 64-bit extended
| systems" has now just been shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
| or Windows Server 2003 for X64.
|
| Looks like Microsoft has decided on X64 as the universal moniker for all
| X86-64 marketing names.
|
| Yousuf Khan
|

How many staff meetings did it take for them to think up 'X64'
I wonder?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Ed Light" <nobody@nobody.there> wrote in message
news:F_wVc.86533$Lj.46626@fed1read03...
>
> "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote
> > shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
> > or Windows Server 2003 for X64.
>
> Will there be a Home edition?

The Home edition seems to be somewhat dysfunctional - they're thinking about
calling it X Spouse. It was going to be finalized in a matter of weeks, but
attorneys for both parties are dragging matters out and it's getting very
messy.

(Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 17:02:37 -0700, "Stubby Boardman" <sb@azkaban.gov>
wrote:
>
>"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
>news:T4hVc.1825883$Ar.572890@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>| The previously named Windows XP and 2003 "64-bit edition for 64-bit extended
>| systems" has now just been shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
>| or Windows Server 2003 for X64.
>|
>| Looks like Microsoft has decided on X64 as the universal moniker for all
>| X86-64 marketing names.
>|
>| Yousuf Khan
>|
>
>How many staff meetings did it take for them to think up 'X64'
>I wonder?

Probably none. It sounds to me like the middle management was off
having countless staff meetings to decide on "64-bit edition for
64-bit extended systems" while everyone actually doing the work just
ignored all that garbage and decided on 'X64'.

Then, after the bean counters figured out that the staff-meeting name
was going to require them to completely redesign the box, labels and
all marketing material because it was just too long, someone figured
on the bright idea of completely ignoring the morons who thought of
this name in the first place and just using 'X64', which is what
everyone was calling it in the first place.


Ok... maybe that's just my version of the events without having
actually been involved in any way :>

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

LOL!

IIRC, "I can't get no satisfaction" was used for Win95?

"Johannes H Andersen" <johs@wsrexaoxazxsizefitterwozeoarrxzx.com> wrote in
message news:4127330F.8E07C48C@wsrexaoxazxsizefitterwozeoarrxzx.com...
>
>
> Ed Light wrote:
> >
> > "Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote
> > > shorted to "for X64". Eg. Windows XP Pro for X64
> > > or Windows Server 2003 for X64.
> >
> > Will there be a Home edition?
>
> Since M$ used Rolling Stones 'Start me up' for promoting Win95,
> I suppose that this time they will use The Beatles 'When I'm 64'.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 19:26:50 GMT, "Lee Waun" <leewaun@telus.net> wrote:

>
>"Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:xwIVc.8681$3O3.5084@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> LOL!
>>
>> IIRC, "I can't get no satisfaction" was used for Win95?
>>
>
>Nope it was "Start me Up" for win95
>
Later it was changed to....
(Try to) Start Me Up

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Lee Waun wrote:
> "Alexander Grigoriev" <alegr@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:xwIVc.8681$3O3.5084@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> LOL!
>>
>> IIRC, "I can't get no satisfaction" was used for Win95?
>>
>
> Nope it was "Start me Up" for win95

He was trying to be clever.

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

>> Nope it was "Start me Up" for win95
>
> Though they edited the song to removed the line "You make a grown
> man cry".

Good point.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Nelson M. G. Santiago" <triffid@tutopia.com.br> wrote in message
news:412b3ed1$1$aryfba$mr2ice@news.individual.net...
> In <86vff94m6r.fsf@number6.magda.ca>, on 08/23/04
> at 04:46 PM, David Magda <dmagda+trace040726@ee.ryerson.ca> said:
>
>
> >Though they edited the song to removed the line "You make a grown man
> >cry".
>
> It would do them no good to plainly state the obvious! 8-))))

If that were true, McDonalds and Burger King would not have been sued by
people spilling commonly known hot beverages in their laps. We might have a
foundation here for a class action lawsuit. Hmmm.

(I wonder ... if my kid burns his hand on the stove, who would I sue: the
stove manufacturer, the electric company, the installer, the supplier, the
interior designer, the landlord? After all, our (US) court system has pretty
much accepted we are not responsible for our own actions these days.)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Rob Stow" <rob.stow.nospam@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:7_IWc.207899$gE.98828@pd7tw3no...
> MyndPhlyp wrote:
> >
> > (I wonder ... if my kid burns his hand on the stove, who would I sue:
the
> > stove manufacturer, the electric company, the installer, the supplier,
the
> > interior designer, the landlord? After all, our (US) court system has
pretty
> > much accepted we are not responsible for our own actions these days.)
> >
>
> None of the above. Your wife was the one who
> left the stove unattended while the burner was
> hot. :-D

Ah - no good. She would have grounds for a countersuit since I (presumably)
had something to do with the conception and there would undoubtedly be a
jury out there willing to listen to a liar ... er, lawyer argue the kid
wouldn't have burnt his hand if he hadn't been conceived in the first place.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Lee Waun" <leewaun@telus.net> wrote in message
news:euVWc.53330$X12.40618@edtnps84...
> >>
> >> None of the above. Your wife was the one who
> >> left the stove unattended while the burner was
> >> hot. :-D
> >
> > Ah - no good. She would have grounds for a countersuit since I
> > (presumably)
> > had something to do with the conception and there would undoubtedly be a
> > jury out there willing to listen to a liar ... er, lawyer argue the kid
> > wouldn't have burnt his hand if he hadn't been conceived in the first
> > place.
> >
> >
> Well then your parents should be sued for concieving you as they made you
> etc.
>
> Why not just everyone sue everyone. Wait in America they do do that.

Yeppers. Somehow your post escaped me. Now that I've found it, you can
expect a summons delivery soon. I'm going to sue you for defamation of
character. <g>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:C5rZc.2$jbq.1@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Lee Waun wrote:
>> I am not fond of AMD. I am a long time Intel user and read these
>> newsgroups everyday and despite all the pro AMD info circulated
>> around these newsgroups I will not change machines. Something about a
>> old dog and tricks or something like that. I also killfiled JK a long
>> time ago.
>
> Killfiling JK is no proof that you're pro-Intel or anti-AMD. :-)
>
> Yousuf Khan
>

Yah but it sure makes the group easier to read.

I hope Intel catches up to AMD tech wise but even if they don't I won't buy
AMD just to piss JK off.
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:%RyZc.2123$4et.1578@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Lee Waun wrote:
>>> Killfiling JK is no proof that you're pro-Intel or anti-AMD. :-)
>>>
>>> Yousuf Khan
>>>
>>
>> Yah but it sure makes the group easier to read.
>>
>> I hope Intel catches up to AMD tech wise but even if they don't I
>> won't buy AMD just to piss JK off.
>
> He's making AMDroids wanna go buy a Pentium.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>
He he He. Maybe he really is an Intel plant. Makes sense if you really
think about it. No one can really be as stupid as he seems to be. It has to
be an act to make AMD look bad. It is working too.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/ [...] upid_ID=19

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

http://www.liberator.net/articles/ [...] ility.html

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/lawsuits.html

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

Archen wrote:
> In article <%7D%c.405$h8.397@fe61.usenetserver.com>,
> The Chief <cwo@usarmy.ret> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>
>
> We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
> tort reforms go through.

I personally don't feel that way and I don't think that has held true
throughout history. I think that if you have a legitimate case you will
be able to go forward with it. I think the subject speaks for itself
and means exactly what it says.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

The Chief wrote:

> Archen wrote:
>
>> In article <%7D%c.405$h8.397@fe61.usenetserver.com>,
>> The Chief <cwo@usarmy.ret> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>>
>>
>>
>> We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
>> tort reforms go through.
>
>
> I personally don't feel that way and I don't think that has held true
> throughout history. I think that if you have a legitimate case you will
> be able to go forward with it. I think the subject speaks for itself
> and means exactly what it says.
>

Not if the "tort reformers" get their way -- they don't recognize _any_
lawsuits not brought _by them_ as nonfrivolous.

I have some personal experience in this matter. When my mother died as
a result of clear healthcare professional negligence, she was in a state
that had passed tort reform. As a result, we were unable to sue her
murderers.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:q2quj0l750kqvavsf9djgh4m0pa2nqe7st@4ax.com...
> Archen <ATN@ss.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <%7D%c.405$h8.397@fe61.usenetserver.com>,
> > The Chief <cwo@usarmy.ret> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
> >
> >We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
> >tort reforms go through.
>
> Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
> outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
> passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
> for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
> someone is the common worker and his company.

Ooo ... bad example.

Malpractice insurance is optional, at least in the US, and serves only as a
safety blanket for unqualified so-called professionals.

Consider this alternative - eliminate (read: outlaw) malpractice insurance.
Any "reward" from a malpractice suit is now limited to the assets of the
so-called doctor. If the doctor is not worth his pay (read: quack), he will
abandon the profession because it is no longer profitable. The net result is
a thinning of the herd thereby strengthening the surviving members and the
overall health thereof. It the suit is tossed out, the persons filing the
suit get slapped with all the court costs and legal fees from both sides.

Does malpractice insurance do anything to benefit the consumer? No. The
absence of malpractice insurance does.

As a trickle down effect, the legal system is no longer clogged by so-called
victims chasing after their bite of the apple. Quite possibly the consumer's
cost for medical services get decreased since the doctors no longer pay the
"outlandish" insurance premiums. Yes, the choices for medical services
become limited, but the quality increases.

(And to think this whole OT subject started at the beginning of the month
when Grumble started in on the McD case not being an example of a frivolous
lawsuit. For the record, I didn't start this mess by calling the McD case
frivolous. I don't even think I've used the word "frivolous" in this thread
until this posting, but I've been wrong once before ... or maybe I was just
mistaken that one time.)

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>
>> Archen <ATN@ss.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <%7D%c.405$h8.397@fe61.usenetserver.com>,
>>>The Chief <cwo@usarmy.ret> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.calahouston.org/perkins.html
>>>
>>>We will all pay with unsafe goods, and dangerous doctors if the so called
>>>tort reforms go through.
>>
>>
>> Bullsh*t. All doctors, not just "dangerous" ones, have to pay the
>> outlandish malpractice insurance. Of course, all the costs get
>> passed-on to the consumer, and their insurance. Someone has to pay
>> for these lawyers and the ridiculous "punitive damages", and that
>> someone is the common worker and his company.
>>
>
>So you think it's better to leave the dangerous ones alone.

Illogical.

>I disagree.

With your straw man, you mean?

>Or do you think the dangerous ones have signs on their office doors to
>make them easy to identify?

?