|
web
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Microsoft doesn't want you to use VB .NetI am coming to the conclusion that Microsoft doesn't want you to use VB
..Net, based on my experiences. I've downloaded the Express version and signed up for various support options etc. At every turn I have found the whole experience frustrating, involving endless non functioning software, broken links, incomprehensible and irrelevant information, examples that don't work, help files that don't help and a complete lack of any sort of reasonable support. I see no benefit in trying to carry on with this effort, and intend to reload VB 6.0 and use that instead. At least it works (mostly) and makes sense. H Hi...
Like most developers of my generation I had my first contact with computers with BASIC... some 20 years ago. When I started coding in BASIC the most powerful systems were developed using COBOL, Fortran, Algol, etc... (If you want to know a little bit more about it take a look at my blog... at http://pjondevelopment.50webs.com/) Anyway... Back then all you had to do to program in BASIC was pull up a chair, sit on your computer and (usually) start typing something like... 2 CLS 10 PRINT "Hello World!" 20 GOTO 10 Hehe... It was easy... :-P As I grew older BASIC grew up with me... It overcome many obstacles in its way. It left the ugly spaghetti programing, to become a procedural language... when you need to type something like: Sub Main() While (True) Print "Hello World!" Wend End Sub Then BASIC became an event-oriented programming (as of Visual Basic 1.0 for DOS -- I still have the Install :-) Where you'd need to type something like Sub Button_Click() MsgBox "Hello World!" End Sub And for quite some time it was a event-oriented language... regarded as a second level language for many C programmers that like their curly brackets and their ugly syntax. The difficulty to develop software was ever increasing as the time went by. Computers got twice as much power every six months... Moore's Law were obeyed more than Gravity's Law. BASIC wasn't keeping up with the demands of this new era... Many saw the end of BASIC as certain as death and taxes... But then in 2001 Microsoft presented us with VB.NET... It was not the BASIC everyone knew... yet, it was a familiar ground... something that we understand... we knew we could Master. The learning curve was not that steep... but there was a learning curve. It takes time. We need to learn how to do simple things once more... but it was good... it was fun... And that's what everything is about... FUN! Sure thing... A lot of us code for money... but a great deal more code because it's FUN! (and if we are paid for doing this... it is even better :-) If you code for some time you know what I am talking about... With VB.NET we need to learn about Classes, Interfaces, Polymorphism, Overloads, Shadows, Inheritance, etc, etc, etc... So many new things were thrown so hard at us that many of us had a very hard time adjusting themselves. But we managed to learn everything we need to know. Now... if you want to write that "Hello World" program now with VB.NET 2005, all you have to do is: Module HelloWorld Sub Main() Do While (True) System.Console.WriteLine("Hello World!") Loop End Sub End Module Oh yeah! I forgot to mention... we can build console application again now too.. :-) Regards, PJ PJ,
When Algol 68/Cobol started there was no direct user interface input (beside styles as faking a cardreader or a single value input from a teletype) At the start of BASIC there was no mouse and no Windows. Try to keep that in mind, (the enormous ammount of events that can happen now and to be managed while this is only one aspect) and I assume that you get an idea why things had to change. I hope this helps, Cor
Show quote
Hide quote
"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message But when you buy a new car you expect to be able to drive it away from the news:ehPY7Q4CGHA.3984@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > When Algol 68/Cobol started there was no direct user interface input > (beside styles as faking a cardreader or a single value input from a > teletype) > > At the start of BASIC there was no mouse and no Windows. > > Try to keep that in mind, (the enormous ammount of events that can happen > now and to be managed while this is only one aspect) and I assume that you > get an idea why things had to change. > > I hope this helps, dealer. You don't expect that you will have to bring your own gas, oil and water just to get the damn thing going. You don't expect that you will only drive it a block before one of the tires explodes. You don't expect that the battery is only good for 3 starts before you have to replace it. Yet that is often the experience you have with computers in general, and Microsoft in particular. Okay now I must doubt your intentions. This sounds just like bashing an
excellent product, just because its Microsoft, is that it? Yep thats it. If youve been around since punched cards? there is no excuse for what youve said about vb.net So since you cannot substantiate the claim in reality, why bother people who use vb.net and know its an outstanding product? > But when you buy a new car you expect to be able to drive it away from the Yeah, sure... whatever> dealer. You don't expect that you will have to bring your own gas, oil and > water just to get the damn thing going. You don't expect that you will only > drive it a block before one of the tires explodes. You don't expect that the > battery is only good for 3 starts before you have to replace it. Yet that is > often the experience you have with computers in general, and Microsoft in > particular. But face it Brad: Visual Studio .NET 2005 shipped to early, and is full of
terrible bugs, half-featered controls, etc... "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:HVLsf.34951$7P2.34888@trnddc07...Show quoteHide quote > Okay now I must doubt your intentions. This sounds just like bashing an > excellent product, just because its Microsoft, is that it? Yep thats it. > > If youve been around since punched cards? there is no excuse for what > youve > said about vb.net So since you cannot substantiate the claim in reality, > why bother people who use vb.net and know its an outstanding product? > > >> But when you buy a new car you expect to be able to drive it away from >> the >> dealer. You don't expect that you will have to bring your own gas, oil >> and >> water just to get the damn thing going. You don't expect that you will > only >> drive it a block before one of the tires explodes. You don't expect that > the >> battery is only good for 3 starts before you have to replace it. Yet that > is >> often the experience you have with computers in general, and Microsoft in >> particular. > > Yeah, sure... whatever > > Agreed. I am beyond frustrated by the bugs and shortcomings I've
encountered so far. I can only imagine what problems lie ahead. And contrary to Brad's simplistic, broad assertion, I for one am a true VB and VB.NET afficianado-- I'm just disappointed in what I've experienced so far with VB.NET, particularly on ASP.NET pages. It's not ready for prime time. Too many crucial features are missing or immature. The pathetic Clipboard limitations are a prime example. I can't even copy an html table to the Clipboard for crying out loud! That's just unacceptable IMO, and I feel Homer's pain. Randall Arnold Show quoteHide quote "Pieter" <pietercou***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23sF$elFDGHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > But face it Brad: Visual Studio .NET 2005 shipped to early, and is full of > terrible bugs, half-featered controls, etc... > > "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:HVLsf.34951$7P2.34888@trnddc07... >> Okay now I must doubt your intentions. This sounds just like bashing an >> excellent product, just because its Microsoft, is that it? Yep thats it. >> >> If youve been around since punched cards? there is no excuse for what >> youve >> said about vb.net So since you cannot substantiate the claim in >> reality, >> why bother people who use vb.net and know its an outstanding product? >> >> >>> But when you buy a new car you expect to be able to drive it away from >>> the >>> dealer. You don't expect that you will have to bring your own gas, oil >>> and >>> water just to get the damn thing going. You don't expect that you will >> only >>> drive it a block before one of the tires explodes. You don't expect that >> the >>> battery is only good for 3 starts before you have to replace it. Yet >>> that >> is >>> often the experience you have with computers in general, and Microsoft >>> in >>> particular. >> >> Yeah, sure... whatever >> >> > > Randall,
> The pathetic Clipboard limitations are a prime example. I can't even copy That has nothing to do with Net. Have a look at my explanation about this in > an html table to the Clipboard for crying out loud! That's just > unacceptable IMO, and I feel Homer's pain. > the thread of your problem. The way you can use the clipboard in not Web applications is outstanding in Net. Cor It has EVERYTHING to do with .net!
I never encountered this clipboard prejudice against objects until I tried moving the VB6 app in question to asp.net. I am told it's a security issue. Security on an INTRANET app??? Restricting me from copying objects to the clipboard in my own corporate environ??? Now just who is that supposed to protect against? Pure paranoia. And no, if I can't copy objects, it's NOT outstanding Cor, sorry. Randall Arnold Show quoteHide quote "Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstn***@planet.nl> wrote in message news:ursMyiRDGHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl... > Randall, > >> The pathetic Clipboard limitations are a prime example. I can't even >> copy an html table to the Clipboard for crying out loud! That's just >> unacceptable IMO, and I feel Homer's pain. >> > That has nothing to do with Net. Have a look at my explanation about this > in the thread of your problem. > > The way you can use the clipboard in not Web applications is outstanding > in Net. > > Cor > "Randall Arnold" <rgarnold@cathartis.com_> wrote in message Security is an excuse that has worked well for the current US news:uw5wil2DGHA.4028@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > It has EVERYTHING to do with .net! > > I never encountered this clipboard prejudice against objects until I tried > moving the VB6 app in question to asp.net. I am told it's a security > issue. Security on an INTRANET app??? Restricting me from copying objects > to the clipboard in my own corporate environ??? Now just who is that > supposed to protect against? > > Pure paranoia. And no, if I can't copy objects, it's NOT outstanding Cor, > sorry. administration. You can translate it as, "We just don't wanna"! Aha, this must be part of the problem, the Bush white house is so bad,
Microsoft is so bad... I see the pattern now. Microsoft's products needed improvement in security? So they put effort to solving the problem. The US administration also saw a need for security, since it was so lacking? And we have massive efforts to fix that security. But to some, you just cant win, Microsoft is now paranoid, and how dare the US admin spy on terrorists. Some people would complain that there was nothing to complain about. Show quoteHide quote > > Pure paranoia. And no, if I can't copy objects, it's NOT outstanding Cor, > > sorry. > > Security is an excuse that has worked well for the current US > administration. You can translate it as, "We just don't wanna"! > > > "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:s2fuf.32579$zJ3.19013@trnddc04...> Aha, this must be part of the problem, the Bush white house is so bad, The concept of "tongue in cheek" escapes you somehow?> Microsoft is so bad... I see the pattern now. Microsoft's products needed > improvement in security? So they put effort to solving the problem. The > US > administration also saw a need for security, since it was so lacking? And > we > have massive efforts to fix that security. But to some, you just cant > win, > Microsoft is now paranoid, and how dare the US admin spy on terrorists. > > Some people would complain that there was nothing to complain about. Tongue in cheek? I never knew what that meant but if its that youre kidding?
great. So then you actually DO support the Bush Admin? Thats great. I like to give credit where its due, there is a lot that I dont know about in politics, but do know when to trust a good leader (Bush). And do recognize Microsoft makes spectacular products, its a great time to be coding. I propose a toast in this time of New Year celebration, for success and increasing prosperity "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:ekhuf.28514$m05.20960@clgrps12...Show quoteHide quote > > "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:s2fuf.32579$zJ3.19013@trnddc04... > > > Aha, this must be part of the problem, the Bush white house is so bad, > > Microsoft is so bad... I see the pattern now. Microsoft's products needed > > improvement in security? So they put effort to solving the problem. The > > US > > administration also saw a need for security, since it was so lacking? And > > we > > have massive efforts to fix that security. But to some, you just cant > > win, > > Microsoft is now paranoid, and how dare the US admin spy on terrorists. > > > > Some people would complain that there was nothing to complain about. > > The concept of "tongue in cheek" escapes you somehow? > > "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dRluf.89$Uf7.9@trnddc01...> Tongue in cheek? I never knew what that meant but if its that youre Obviously you also go to Dr. Nick Riviera rather than to Dr. Julius Hibbert > kidding? > great. So then you actually DO support the Bush Admin? Thats great. > > I like to give credit where its due, there is a lot that I dont know about > in politics, but do know when to trust a good leader (Bush). And do > recognize Microsoft makes spectacular products, its a great time to be > coding. for your mental health needs. Aha! So you dont support the pres... Anyone who isnt in lockstep with the
accuse and hide left is "crazy". got it. Besides Dr Nick makes some good points sometimes, where that Julius guy just laughs, I dont like that. "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:mXluf.36936$OU5.31393@clgrps13...Show quoteHide quote > > "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:dRluf.89$Uf7.9@trnddc01... > > Tongue in cheek? I never knew what that meant but if its that youre > > kidding? > > great. So then you actually DO support the Bush Admin? Thats great. > > > > I like to give credit where its due, there is a lot that I dont know about > > in politics, but do know when to trust a good leader (Bush). And do > > recognize Microsoft makes spectacular products, its a great time to be > > coding. > > Obviously you also go to Dr. Nick Riviera rather than to Dr. Julius Hibbert > for your mental health needs. > > > And anyone who isn't in lockstep with the namecalling right must be left,
eh? Some of us are centrists, Brad. Libertarians. Independents. Party agnostic. Etc etc etc. People aren't obligated to fit into your simplistic definitions. Many of us abhor certain politicians for our own reasons, especially when said politicians violate the very principles upon which this great nation was founded and then impugn others as "traitors" for daring to question the status quo. Oh, and by the way: the founders were radical liberals. Wake up. Orwell was right. Randall Arnold "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Y9ouf.16285$yW1.2761@trnddc05...Show quoteHide quote > Aha! So you dont support the pres... Anyone who isnt in lockstep with > the > accuse and hide left is "crazy". got it. > > Besides Dr Nick makes some good points sometimes, where that Julius guy > just > laughs, I dont like that. > > > "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message > news:mXluf.36936$OU5.31393@clgrps13... >> >> "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:dRluf.89$Uf7.9@trnddc01... >> > Tongue in cheek? I never knew what that meant but if its that youre >> > kidding? >> > great. So then you actually DO support the Bush Admin? Thats great. >> > >> > I like to give credit where its due, there is a lot that I dont know > about >> > in politics, but do know when to trust a good leader (Bush). And do >> > recognize Microsoft makes spectacular products, its a great time to be >> > coding. >> >> Obviously you also go to Dr. Nick Riviera rather than to Dr. Julius > Hibbert >> for your mental health needs. >> >> >> > > It doesnt matter what party a person belongs to, but being intellectually
honest DOES MATTER. Youre entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. If you dont agreee with me? I can respect that. But speaking of namecalling, its the left that starts out with name calling, the right discusses issues and facts. Monkey in the white house? comes from the left. worst president ever? a childish and simplistic response to "lying liars" like Al Franken, Michael Moore, Cindy whatzername and others caught telling whoppers. Including "Bush lied" [fill in the blank] about the war, about the economy, etc... Look in to those claims? what a suprise, Bush never lied. does the left apologize? no, just more childish name calling. Traitors? I think there is a definition for the word, created long ago. Its great we have a nation that can mock the sitting president during wartime. But its a miserable failure to have major media outlets able to slander and libel a sitting president during wartime, saying things to encourage the enemy to "just keep trying" and defeat American Soldiers in harms way. Face it, the mainstream left only wants America to lose, the economy to fail, any any progress made to be given back. The nation is a disaster, sez the democrats... Come on, terrorists dont give up now? is the classic opening dialog of most mainstream news shows. Bush is wiretapping Americans? lets impeach him. Howard Dean was accused of being a traitor by Mike Reagan a few weeks back, but why?? What did Reagan say? I dont bait anyone, its all about facts. When a person cannot grasp technical concepts then says what a failure the Bush admin is? probably because the person ignored the facts? I make a parallel there, ignoring technical facts, ignoring current events, inventing "doom" scenarios and blaming Microsoft for being a success? Its like Nokia, dont get me started on them and the political nonsense. Show quoteHide quote "Randall Arnold" <randall.arn***@nokia.com> wrote in message news:uuBw$UIEGHA.2724@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > And anyone who isn't in lockstep with the namecalling right must be left, > eh? > > Some of us are centrists, Brad. Libertarians. Independents. Party > agnostic. Etc etc etc. > > People aren't obligated to fit into your simplistic definitions. Many of us > abhor certain politicians for our own reasons, especially when said > politicians violate the very principles upon which this great nation was > founded and then impugn others as "traitors" for daring to question the > status quo. Oh, and by the way: the founders were radical liberals. > > Wake up. Orwell was right. > > Randall Arnold > > "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Y9ouf.16285$yW1.2761@trnddc05... > > Aha! So you dont support the pres... Anyone who isnt in lockstep with > > the > > accuse and hide left is "crazy". got it. > > > > Besides Dr Nick makes some good points sometimes, where that Julius guy > > just > > laughs, I dont like that. > > > > > > "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message > > news:mXluf.36936$OU5.31393@clgrps13... > >> > >> "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> news:dRluf.89$Uf7.9@trnddc01... > >> > Tongue in cheek? I never knew what that meant but if its that youre > >> > kidding? > >> > great. So then you actually DO support the Bush Admin? Thats great. > >> > > >> > I like to give credit where its due, there is a lot that I dont know > > about > >> > in politics, but do know when to trust a good leader (Bush). And do > >> > recognize Microsoft makes spectacular products, its a great time to be > >> > coding. > >> > >> Obviously you also go to Dr. Nick Riviera rather than to Dr. Julius > > Hibbert > >> for your mental health needs. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > That's just more disingenuous commentary from you.
The left and right both lie. Politicos from both sides mistreat their constituents to put it mildly. Clinton lied, and whether you are intellectually honest enough to accept it or not, Bush lies too. I find him to be singlehandedly the most dishonest president in my lifetime-- which is saying something considering Johnson, Nixon and Clinton's records of dishonor. I see you have been brainwashed by the right into thinking it is unacceptable to "criticize a president during wartime". That is utter claptrap. If anything, that is when a president should be held MOST accountable, and that includes criticism that you arbitrarily deride as "mockery". Your comments about the left wanting "America to lose" are delusional. An objective person would know better than to entertain such useless hyperbole. people on the left are as human as you Brad-- they just have differing opinions based on the same reality to which you are exposed. Their filters work differently than your rightward ones. And though they are as misguided as you, they (and you) are still thinking, feeling humans and thus deserved of respect for that alone at the very least. Your wanton demonizing is naive serves no valid purpose. If you actually were "all about facts", you would be willing to face the facts about Bush that easily contradict your brainwashing. Instead, your talk is cheap. You want something of those you oppose that you are not willing to provide yourself. Pure partisan drivel. You are as bad as those about whom you complain, whether the subject be Bush, Microsoft or whomever. Your defenses are admirable in their tenacity, but pathetic in their content and motivation. Wake up, Brad. Orwell was right. Randall Arnold "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0nzuf.19944$z45.10294@trnddc02...Show quoteHide quote > It doesnt matter what party a person belongs to, but being intellectually > honest DOES MATTER. Youre entitled to your own opinions but not your own > facts. If you dont agreee with me? I can respect that. But speaking of > namecalling, its the left that starts out with name calling, the right > discusses issues and facts. Monkey in the white house? comes from the > left. worst president ever? a childish and simplistic response to "lying > liars" like Al Franken, Michael Moore, Cindy whatzername and others caught > telling whoppers. Including "Bush lied" [fill in the blank] about the > war, about the economy, etc... Look in to those claims? what a suprise, > Bush never lied. does the left apologize? no, just more childish name > calling. > > > Traitors? I think there is a definition for the word, created long ago. > Its great we have a nation that can mock the sitting president during > wartime. But its a miserable failure to have major media outlets able to > slander and libel a sitting president during wartime, saying things to > encourage the enemy to "just keep trying" and defeat American Soldiers in > harms way. > > Face it, the mainstream left only wants America to lose, the economy to > fail, any any progress made to be given back. The nation is a disaster, > sez > the democrats... Come on, terrorists dont give up now? is the classic > opening dialog of most mainstream news shows. Bush is wiretapping > Americans? lets impeach him. Howard Dean was accused of being a traitor > by > Mike Reagan a few weeks back, but why?? What did Reagan say? > > I dont bait anyone, its all about facts. When a person cannot grasp > technical concepts then says what a failure the Bush admin is? probably > because the person ignored the facts? I make a parallel there, ignoring > technical facts, ignoring current events, inventing "doom" scenarios and > blaming Microsoft for being a success? > > Its like Nokia, dont get me started on them and the political nonsense. > > "Randall Arnold" <randall.arn***@nokia.com> wrote in message > news:uuBw$UIEGHA.2724@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> And anyone who isn't in lockstep with the namecalling right must be left, >> eh? >> >> Some of us are centrists, Brad. Libertarians. Independents. Party >> agnostic. Etc etc etc. >> >> People aren't obligated to fit into your simplistic definitions. Many of > us >> abhor certain politicians for our own reasons, especially when said >> politicians violate the very principles upon which this great nation was >> founded and then impugn others as "traitors" for daring to question the >> status quo. Oh, and by the way: the founders were radical liberals. >> >> Wake up. Orwell was right. >> >> Randall Arnold >> >> "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:Y9ouf.16285$yW1.2761@trnddc05... >> > Aha! So you dont support the pres... Anyone who isnt in lockstep >> > with >> > the >> > accuse and hide left is "crazy". got it. >> > >> > Besides Dr Nick makes some good points sometimes, where that Julius guy >> > just >> > laughs, I dont like that. >> > >> > >> > "Homer J Simpson" <nob***@nowhere.com> wrote in message >> > news:mXluf.36936$OU5.31393@clgrps13... >> >> >> >> "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:dRluf.89$Uf7.9@trnddc01... >> >> > Tongue in cheek? I never knew what that meant but if its that youre >> >> > kidding? >> >> > great. So then you actually DO support the Bush Admin? Thats great. >> >> > >> >> > I like to give credit where its due, there is a lot that I dont know >> > about >> >> > in politics, but do know when to trust a good leader (Bush). And do >> >> > recognize Microsoft makes spectacular products, its a great time to > be >> >> > coding. >> >> >> >> Obviously you also go to Dr. Nick Riviera rather than to Dr. Julius >> > Hibbert >> >> for your mental health needs. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> > > That's just more disingenuous commentary from you.
> You accuse me of not being "candid"? not being honest? But aside from me,> The left and right both lie. Politicos from both sides mistreat their > constituents to put it mildly. Clinton lied, and whether you are > intellectually honest enough to accept it or not, Bush lies too. you have asserted Bush "might" lie? Or DOES lie? If you assert with no doubt Bush lies? Then you are required to. PROVE IT! Others such as myself take such accusations very seriously, and would ADMIT any such lies, if they existed. To then accuse me and other honest people of being dishonest because we "wont admit" Bush told lies as president? Youre also adding all mainstream Jewish and Christian religious leaders who exemplify honesty. To show how extensive your claim of "Bush lied" reaches? It locks in anyone who claims to be honest being duty-bound to admit the truth, so anyone who partakes of the lie is also dishonest. The 'religious right' and 'Christian conservatives' typical of Pat Robertson? Are not openly, publicly calling for Bush to apologize for being a liar. Why not? Maybe the truth is Bush and VP Cheney have not lied? Now I really don't follow news stories or the latest books. On 911, my opinion was that military action was needed, Bush led the military and now in 2005/6 we have the leftist media trying to tell me that they want to revise and extend their remarks from around 2001? And the start of the war in 2003?? No way, I followed the war then because it was important. What the left is saying today is not what happened a couple years ago. I find him > to be singlehandedly the most dishonest president in my lifetime-- which Johnson was a good "president" who would have went to war with Iraq. Kennedyis > saying something considering Johnson, Nixon and Clinton's records of > dishonor. was the crook, protected by the leftist media, whom Clinton idolized. Nixon, now that the swifties exposed Kerry and the left of lying about Vietnam? I also believe the left has lied about Nixon with empty accusations. a.. > I see you have been brainwashed by the right into thinking it is > unacceptable to "criticize a president during wartime". That is utter c.. Brainwashed? You wish. I didn't say criticize, did I? Without even> claptrap. If anything, that is when a president should be held MOST > accountable, and that includes criticism that you arbitrarily deride as > "mockery". b.. looking, I probably wrote slandered or libeled the president, which isnt the same. Criticism helps find solutions and its my belief that criticizing the president, or Microsoft brings about realization which leads to progress. d.. e.. f.. Your comments about the left wanting "America to lose" are > delusional. An objective person would know better than to entertain such h.. Don't say its useless hyperbole, because it's the absolute truth. Ive> useless hyperbole. g.. watched parts of Secy of defense Rumsfeld make a speech, then hours later hear nbc report on what he said? They misquote him. Then I noticed something, the leftist media interviews democrats. They then accuse republicans and get only them saying "Im innocent" then the reporter finishes by paraphrasing what the republican said, twisting it to imply guilt. They do this with everyone, interview the left, take a snippet of the right then add accusations and innuendo. Very clever method to brainwash people into hating Bush. That's kind of advanced analysis, I evaluate code in detail and am careful not to. ASSUME ANYTHING?!? So I apply similar standards. a.. b.. people on the left are as human as you Brad-- they just > have differing opinions based on the same reality to which you are e.. What demonizing? This is a perfect example, I have never called theexposed. > Their filters work differently than your rightward ones. And though they > are as misguided as you, they (and you) are still thinking, feeling humans > and thus deserved of respect for that alone at the very least. Your wanton > demonizing is naive serves no valid purpose. c.. d.. person names. I reserve the right to disagree with what a person SAYS?? But do not aspersionalize the person themselves. The left typically makes horrid and groundless accusations like Bush lied about the war, and when people say there was no lie, prove it? The response is: oh, we cant disagree or we are called traitors, you idiots on the right, youre insane, youre stupid, youre cavemen, youre monkeys. f.. g.. > j.. Yes, I want to know if Bush lied so I can point it out to everyone.> If you actually were "all about facts", you would be willing to face the > facts about Bush that easily contradict your brainwashing. Instead, your > talk is cheap. h.. i.. When I find Bush hasn't lied?? I point out people like Franken, Moore, Corn and others have the burden to apologize. Franken was ripped apart by conservatives and exposed as a liar, it was on foxnews (the only news outlet that lets conservatives speak) and Frankens errors were made public, I don't know them maybe Rush Limbaugh or other famous people do. Moore? He isnt in the news as much after being called a fraud and liar by Dick Morris, former Clinton advisor?? Former democrat?? a.. You want something of those you oppose that you are not > willing to provide yourself. Pure partisan drivel. You are as bad as c.. Im not sure who you've spoken to in the past, but I wont waste time onthose b.. 'drivel' or 'bologna'. I have respect for Bush who led the military into war to protect the nation, and what does the left say?? We are losing, its another Vietnam, it's a quagmire, we cant win, everything that's negative? That's what the left puts in the news. I hear soldiers who complain that what happens in Iraq is progress, but the news only shows or makes up negative things?? That's reality, soldiers there who are saying NO!! the networks are lying, they have some agenda. I point that out without mentioning the soldiers and you essentially call me a liar. d.. e.. The left talks about how many soldiers are killed in Iraq, as if when they get to some number they can start impeachment proceedings, they disrespect the soldiers and their deaths and that upsets me and every rational person with friends and family in the military. The economy gets better? Some democrat goes on tv and says the economy is the worst its ever been, its just like 1929. f.. g.. So who should seek intellectual honesty? Randall?? I think you and the mainstream left who try to find errors where none exist. h.. i.. > about whom you complain, whether the subject be Bush, Microsoft or l.. Pathetic?? Being honest and defending the truth is pathetic to you?whomever. > Your defenses are admirable in their tenacity, but pathetic in their content > and motivation. j.. k.. Defending America is pathetic to you? Wanting freedom and democracy in the middle east and making the world safer is pathetic to you? Randall you should be honest and just admit republicans have better ideas and run the nation and economy better. All the harping on lies or failures? Are just a pathetic attempt to tell the American voting public: "we democrats don't have ideas. But vote for us because the nation is so messed up and Bush lied" m.. n.. Oh everyone lies?? No Randall not everyone lies. Some of us have standards and find lying morally reprehensible. Bush has not lied in office. Be honest and admit that. o.. p.. Can you point to anything the left media does or says about the nation that is positive? Hopeful? Inspiring? NO!! NEVER! Its always doom and gloom. Show quoteHide quote > > Wake up, Brad. Orwell was right. > > Randall Arnold > You misunderstood significant portions of my post. Not surprising, based on
your ill-formed and poorly-thought replies. As for Bush lying, it's been adequately proven. As a sheep in the brainwashed right, you simply choose not to accept it. Partisan sheep like you, ironically, believe that all contradictions of their heroes are purely partisan-based and that none have any merit. This is improbable and illogical. But that's ok, Brad: the sheep on the left wouldn't accept that Clinton lied, either. Just keep your blinders on, though, and press on with the excuse-mongering. God forbid you or any other ignorant extremist, left or right, wake up. Randall Arnold "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:lnBuf.20007$z45.13066@trnddc02...Show quoteHide quote > That's just more disingenuous commentary from you. >> >> The left and right both lie. Politicos from both sides mistreat their >> constituents to put it mildly. Clinton lied, and whether you are >> intellectually honest enough to accept it or not, Bush lies too. > > You accuse me of not being "candid"? not being honest? But aside from me, > you have asserted Bush "might" lie? Or DOES lie? If you assert with no > doubt > Bush lies? Then you are required to. PROVE IT! Others such as myself take > such accusations very seriously, and would ADMIT any such lies, if they > existed. > > To then accuse me and other honest people of being dishonest because we > "wont admit" Bush told lies as president? Youre also adding all mainstream > Jewish and Christian religious leaders who exemplify honesty. To show how > extensive your claim of "Bush lied" reaches? It locks in anyone who claims > to be honest being duty-bound to admit the truth, so anyone who partakes > of > the lie is also dishonest. The 'religious right' and 'Christian > conservatives' typical of Pat Robertson? Are not openly, publicly calling > for Bush to apologize for being a liar. Why not? Maybe the truth is Bush > and > VP Cheney have not lied? Now I really don't follow news stories or the > latest books. On 911, my opinion was that military action was needed, Bush > led the military and now in 2005/6 we have the leftist media trying to > tell > me that they want to revise and extend their remarks from around 2001? And > the start of the war in 2003?? No way, I followed the war then because it > was important. What the left is saying today is not what happened a couple > years ago. > > > > > > I find him >> to be singlehandedly the most dishonest president in my lifetime-- which > is >> saying something considering Johnson, Nixon and Clinton's records of >> dishonor. > > Johnson was a good "president" who would have went to war with Iraq. > Kennedy > was the crook, protected by the leftist media, whom Clinton idolized. > Nixon, > now that the swifties exposed Kerry and the left of lying about Vietnam? I > also believe the left has lied about Nixon with empty accusations. > > a.. > I see you have been brainwashed by the right into thinking it is > > unacceptable to "criticize a president during wartime". That is utter > > claptrap. If anything, that is when a president should be held MOST > > accountable, and that includes criticism that you arbitrarily deride as > > "mockery". > b.. > c.. Brainwashed? You wish. I didn't say criticize, did I? Without even > looking, I probably wrote slandered or libeled the president, which isnt > the > same. Criticism helps find solutions and its my belief that criticizing > the > president, or Microsoft brings about realization which leads to progress. > d.. > e.. > f.. Your comments about the left wanting "America to lose" are > > delusional. An objective person would know better than to entertain > such > > useless hyperbole. > g.. > h.. Don't say its useless hyperbole, because it's the absolute truth. Ive > watched parts of Secy of defense Rumsfeld make a speech, then hours later > hear nbc report on what he said? They misquote him. Then I noticed > something, the leftist media interviews democrats. They then accuse > republicans and get only them saying "Im innocent" then the reporter > finishes by paraphrasing what the republican said, twisting it to imply > guilt. They do this with everyone, interview the left, take a snippet of > the > right then add accusations and innuendo. Very clever method to brainwash > people into hating Bush. > That's kind of advanced analysis, I evaluate code in detail and am careful > not to. ASSUME ANYTHING?!? So I apply similar standards. > > > > a.. > b.. people on the left are as human as you Brad-- they just > > have differing opinions based on the same reality to which you are > exposed. > > Their filters work differently than your rightward ones. And though > they > > are as misguided as you, they (and you) are still thinking, feeling > humans > > and thus deserved of respect for that alone at the very least. Your > wanton > > demonizing is naive serves no valid purpose. > c.. > d.. > e.. What demonizing? This is a perfect example, I have never called the > person names. I reserve the right to disagree with what a person SAYS?? > But > do not aspersionalize the person themselves. The left typically makes > horrid > and groundless accusations like Bush lied about the war, and when people > say > there was no lie, prove it? The response is: oh, we cant disagree or we > are > called traitors, you idiots on the right, youre insane, youre stupid, > youre > cavemen, youre monkeys. > f.. > g.. > > > > If you actually were "all about facts", you would be willing to face > the > > facts about Bush that easily contradict your brainwashing. Instead, > your > > talk is cheap. > h.. > i.. > j.. Yes, I want to know if Bush lied so I can point it out to everyone. > When I find Bush hasn't lied?? I point out people like Franken, Moore, > Corn > and others have the burden to apologize. Franken was ripped apart by > conservatives and exposed as a liar, it was on foxnews (the only news > outlet > that lets conservatives speak) and Frankens errors were made public, I > don't > know them maybe Rush Limbaugh or other famous people do. Moore? He isnt in > the news as much after being called a fraud and liar by Dick Morris, > former > Clinton advisor?? Former democrat?? > > > a.. You want something of those you oppose that you are not > > willing to provide yourself. Pure partisan drivel. You are as bad as > those > b.. > c.. Im not sure who you've spoken to in the past, but I wont waste time > on > 'drivel' or 'bologna'. I have respect for Bush who led the military into > war > to protect the nation, and what does the left say?? We are losing, its > another Vietnam, it's a quagmire, we cant win, everything that's negative? > That's what the left puts in the news. I hear soldiers who complain that > what happens in Iraq is progress, but the news only shows or makes up > negative things?? That's reality, soldiers there who are saying NO!! the > networks are lying, they have some agenda. I point that out without > mentioning the soldiers and you essentially call me a liar. > d.. > e.. The left talks about how many soldiers are killed in Iraq, as if when > they get to some number they can start impeachment proceedings, they > disrespect the soldiers and their deaths and that upsets me and every > rational person with friends and family in the military. The economy gets > better? Some democrat goes on tv and says the economy is the worst its > ever > been, its just like 1929. > f.. > g.. So who should seek intellectual honesty? Randall?? I think you and > the > mainstream left who try to find errors where none exist. > h.. > i.. > > about whom you complain, whether the subject be Bush, Microsoft or > whomever. > > Your defenses are admirable in their tenacity, but pathetic in their > content > > and motivation. > j.. > k.. > l.. Pathetic?? Being honest and defending the truth is pathetic to you? > Defending America is pathetic to you? Wanting freedom and democracy in the > middle east and making the world safer is pathetic to you? Randall you > should be honest and just admit republicans have better ideas and run the > nation and economy better. All the harping on lies or failures? Are just a > pathetic attempt to tell the American voting public: "we democrats don't > have ideas. But vote for us because the nation is so messed up and Bush > lied" > m.. > n.. Oh everyone lies?? No Randall not everyone lies. Some of us have > standards and find lying morally reprehensible. Bush has not lied in > office. > Be honest and admit that. > o.. > p.. Can you point to anything the left media does or says about the > nation > that is positive? Hopeful? Inspiring? NO!! NEVER! Its always doom and > gloom. > > > > Wake up, Brad. Orwell was right. > > > > Randall Arnold > > > > > Randall,
Im not sure what or who youre replying to there, my response was well formed and intellectual. Bush's lying has been contested but still never proven, its you in the brainwashed left that believes it without any proof. I challenge you to also claim the mainstream Jewish and Christian leaders worldwide are equally as lying?? Yikes, dont want to touch that one, do you? When it comes to proof? Then its not worth your erudite time, but I say again, I checked the claims of Bush lying, I checked the Rathergate forged papers, I checked the claims against Cheney. Interesting thing Randall, when people in the media or anyone are lying? they have similar patterns and react in similar ways when exposed. The word "lie" and "liar" have defined meanings. The left being caught falsely accusing Bush, now has the best defense of "well I just dont feel as romantic as I used to because Bush doesnt give me confidence. When Bush says the nation is doing better? well Im not, so he lied". Or if the topic is on yellowcake/Africa? Joe Wilson was caught lying saying VP Cheney sent him to Africa, do you care about that?? no. Clinton lied under oath, he admits it. In the day (1990s) the leftist media was spinning that "lying is a first amendment right to free speech". But now with Bush? he didnt even lie, yet your side claims he did and the mere accusation alone is good enough? Democrats are spiraling out of control, further into confusion, all they have is accusation. No substance on issues. No one has come forward with proof of Bush lies, and the left is tired of talking about it, its just an accepted fact Bush lied. That kind of demented, twisted gapingly flawed logic causes other failures in logic. What if Bush wrote software and you were the SQA person? Oh, its all full of lies, Bush lied in the software. But Randall, it runs, where are the bugs? oh they are in there, trust me. where? oh, youre just brainwashed into believing Bush. Show me a bug? I dont have to. you have to prove it doesnt have bugs. My email can be easily formed, youre most welcome to contact me and correct me. Im okay with others being democrats, Ive got friends on the left. But Im not okay with being called dishonest or unable to distinguish reality from some extremist agenda. I dont even care that much about politics and dont follow every issue, but the Bush lied thing is something that bothered me, Im certain there were no lies and no bugs in Bushes software. Show quoteHide quote "Randall Arnold" <randall.nospam.arnold@nokia.com.> wrote in message news:elWJOpKEGHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > You misunderstood significant portions of my post. Not surprising, based on > your ill-formed and poorly-thought replies. > > As for Bush lying, it's been adequately proven. As a sheep in the > brainwashed right, you simply choose not to accept it. Partisan sheep like > you, ironically, believe that all contradictions of their heroes are purely > partisan-based and that none have any merit. This is improbable and > illogical. But that's ok, Brad: the sheep on the left wouldn't accept that > Clinton lied, either. > > Just keep your blinders on, though, and press on with the excuse-mongering. > God forbid you or any other ignorant extremist, left or right, wake up. > > Randall Arnold > > "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:lnBuf.20007$z45.13066@trnddc02... > > That's just more disingenuous commentary from you. > >> > >> The left and right both lie. Politicos from both sides mistreat their > >> constituents to put it mildly. Clinton lied, and whether you are > >> intellectually honest enough to accept it or not, Bush lies too. > > > > You accuse me of not being "candid"? not being honest? But aside from me, > > you have asserted Bush "might" lie? Or DOES lie? If you assert with no > > doubt > > Bush lies? Then you are required to. PROVE IT! Others such as myself take > > such accusations very seriously, and would ADMIT any such lies, if they > > existed. > > > > To then accuse me and other honest people of being dishonest because we > > "wont admit" Bush told lies as president? Youre also adding all mainstream > > Jewish and Christian religious leaders who exemplify honesty. To show how > > extensive your claim of "Bush lied" reaches? It locks in anyone who claims > > to be honest being duty-bound to admit the truth, so anyone who partakes > > of > > the lie is also dishonest. The 'religious right' and 'Christian > > conservatives' typical of Pat Robertson? Are not openly, publicly calling > > for Bush to apologize for being a liar. Why not? Maybe the truth is Bush > > and > > VP Cheney have not lied? Now I really don't follow news stories or the > > latest books. On 911, my opinion was that military action was needed, Bush > > led the military and now in 2005/6 we have the leftist media trying to > > tell > > me that they want to revise and extend their remarks from around 2001? And > > the start of the war in 2003?? No way, I followed the war then because it > > was important. What the left is saying today is not what happened a couple > > years ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > I find him > >> to be singlehandedly the most dishonest president in my lifetime-- which > > is > >> saying something considering Johnson, Nixon and Clinton's records of > >> dishonor. > > > > Johnson was a good "president" who would have went to war with Iraq. > > Kennedy > > was the crook, protected by the leftist media, whom Clinton idolized. > > Nixon, > > now that the swifties exposed Kerry and the left of lying about Vietnam? I > > also believe the left has lied about Nixon with empty accusations. > > > > a.. > I see you have been brainwashed by the right into thinking it is > > > unacceptable to "criticize a president during wartime". That is utter > > > claptrap. If anything, that is when a president should be held MOST > > > accountable, and that includes criticism that you arbitrarily deride as > > > "mockery". > > b.. > > c.. Brainwashed? You wish. I didn't say criticize, did I? Without even > > looking, I probably wrote slandered or libeled the president, which isnt > > the > > same. Criticism helps find solutions and its my belief that criticizing > > the > > president, or Microsoft brings about realization which leads to progress. > > d.. > > e.. > > f.. Your comments about the left wanting "America to lose" are > > > delusional. An objective person would know better than to entertain > > such > > > useless hyperbole. > > g.. > > h.. Don't say its useless hyperbole, because it's the absolute truth. Ive > > watched parts of Secy of defense Rumsfeld make a speech, then hours later > > hear nbc report on what he said? They misquote him. Then I noticed > > something, the leftist media interviews democrats. They then accuse > > republicans and get only them saying "Im innocent" then the reporter > > finishes by paraphrasing what the republican said, twisting it to imply > > guilt. They do this with everyone, interview the left, take a snippet of > > the > > right then add accusations and innuendo. Very clever method to brainwash > > people into hating Bush. > > That's kind of advanced analysis, I evaluate code in detail and am careful > > not to. ASSUME ANYTHING?!? So I apply similar standards. > > > > > > > > a.. > > b.. people on the left are as human as you Brad-- they just > > > have differing opinions based on the same reality to which you are > > exposed. > > > Their filters work differently than your rightward ones. And though > > they > > > are as misguided as you, they (and you) are still thinking, feeling > > humans > > > and thus deserved of respect for that alone at the very least. Your > > wanton > > > demonizing is naive serves no valid purpose. > > c.. > > d.. > > e.. What demonizing? This is a perfect example, I have never called the > > person names. I reserve the right to disagree with what a person SAYS?? > > But > > do not aspersionalize the person themselves. The left typically makes > > horrid > > and groundless accusations like Bush lied about the war, and when people > > say > > there was no lie, prove it? The response is: oh, we cant disagree or we > > are > > called traitors, you idiots on the right, youre insane, youre stupid, > > youre > > cavemen, youre monkeys. > > f.. > > g.. > > > > > > If you actually were "all about facts", you would be willing to face > > the > > > facts about Bush that easily contradict your brainwashing. Instead, > > your > > > talk is cheap. > > h.. > > i.. > > j.. Yes, I want to know if Bush lied so I can point it out to everyone. > > When I find Bush hasn't lied?? I point out people like Franken, Moore, > > Corn > > and others have the burden to apologize. Franken was ripped apart by > > conservatives and exposed as a liar, it was on foxnews (the only news > > outlet > > that lets conservatives speak) and Frankens errors were made public, I > > don't > > know them maybe Rush Limbaugh or other famous people do. Moore? He isnt in > > the news as much after being called a fraud and liar by Dick Morris, > > former > > Clinton advisor?? Former democrat?? > > > > > > a.. You want something of those you oppose that you are not > > > willing to provide yourself. Pure partisan drivel. You are as bad as > > those > > b.. > > c.. Im not sure who you've spoken to in the past, but I wont waste time > > on > > 'drivel' or 'bologna'. I have respect for Bush who led the military into > > war > > to protect the nation, and what does the left say?? We are losing, its > > another Vietnam, it's a quagmire, we cant win, everything that's negative? > > That's what the left puts in the news. I hear soldiers who complain that > > what happens in Iraq is progress, but the news only shows or makes up > > negative things?? That's reality, soldiers there who are saying NO!! the > > networks are lying, they have some agenda. I point that out without > > mentioning the soldiers and you essentially call me a liar. > > d.. > > e.. The left talks about how many soldiers are killed in Iraq, as if when > > they get to some number they can start impeachment proceedings, they > > disrespect the soldiers and their deaths and that upsets me and every > > rational person with friends and family in the military. The economy gets > > better? Some democrat goes on tv and says the economy is the worst its > > ever > > been, its just like 1929. > > f.. > > g.. So who should seek intellectual honesty? Randall?? I think you and > > the > > mainstream left who try to find errors where none exist. > > h.. > > i.. > > > about whom you complain, whether the subject be Bush, Microsoft or > > whomever. > > > Your defenses are admirable in their tenacity, but pathetic in their > > content > > > and motivation. > > j.. > > k.. > > l.. Pathetic?? Being honest and defending the truth is pathetic to you? > > Defending America is pathetic to you? Wanting freedom and democracy in the > > middle east and making the world safer is pathetic to you? Randall you > > should be honest and just admit republicans have better ideas and run the > > nation and economy better. All the harping on lies or failures? Are just a > > pathetic attempt to tell the American voting public: "we democrats don't > > have ideas. But vote for us because the nation is so messed up and Bush > > lied" > > m.. > > n.. Oh everyone lies?? No Randall not everyone lies. Some of us have > > standards and find lying morally reprehensible. Bush has not lied in > > office. > > Be honest and admit that. > > o.. > > p.. Can you point to anything the left media does or says about the > > nation > > that is positive? Hopeful? Inspiring? NO!! NEVER! Its always doom and > > gloom. > > > > > > Wake up, Brad. Orwell was right. > > > > > > Randall Arnold > > > > > > > > > > > As with Clinton, love him or hate him, you have to admit he's told a few
fibs and, more often, - put some wonderfully crafted, deliberately misleading, spin on things. Since you asked for an example, here's one that springs to mind: Bush: "The vast majority of my tax cuts will go to the bottom end of the spectrum" Analysis: 42.6% went to the top 1% and over 60% to the top 12.6%. I don't see how that isn't a lie - or does it all boil down to your definition of majority? Anyway, if you want more, may I suggest: http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/index.htm - as a source for more lies for you to debunk. http://www.bushlies.com/ - as a late Christmas present. And http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4 as a good place as any to continue the rants. Full of terrible bugs? May I ask if you do software design?
You referred to Microsoft or their product developers as "those idiots" ? Are you just trying to pitch some open source product after saying you know what its like to use Visual Studio and its so terrible, etc? I could use any IDE on the market. Ive checked out many of them but found Microsoft to be the best, period. Best product, best support, in other words, the best. So thats what I use. Open source is fine for hobbyists or whatever. But methinks your bashing of Microsoft was done for things from around 10 years ago and the bashing lacks substantiation. If people want an open source product, they can find them. Advertising here by claiming Visual Studio is bad? In fact, which open source are you guys plugging? Ill check it and see if it can withstand the same scrutiny. Show quoteHide quote "Pieter" <pietercou***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23sF$elFDGHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > But face it Brad: Visual Studio .NET 2005 shipped to early, and is full of > terrible bugs, half-featered controls, etc... I used QBASIC, VB, and VB.NET my whole life. I really like it, and I don't
liek to have to work in another language. But really: did you try alreaddy the Visual Studio 2005.NET? It's really terrible! A missed oppurtunity, and a shame!! "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:KgVsf.126$MV3.91@trnddc05...Show quoteHide quote > Full of terrible bugs? May I ask if you do software design? > > You referred to Microsoft or their product developers as "those idiots" ? > Are you just trying to pitch some open source product after saying you > know > what its like to use Visual Studio and its so terrible, etc? > > I could use any IDE on the market. Ive checked out many of them but found > Microsoft to be the best, period. Best product, best support, in other > words, the best. So thats what I use. > > Open source is fine for hobbyists or whatever. But methinks your bashing > of > Microsoft was done for things from around 10 years ago and the bashing > lacks > substantiation. If people want an open source product, they can find > them. > Advertising here by claiming Visual Studio is bad? In fact, which open > source are you guys plugging? > > Ill check it and see if it can withstand the same scrutiny. > > > "Pieter" <pietercou***@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:%23sF$elFDGHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> But face it Brad: Visual Studio .NET 2005 shipped to early, and is full >> of >> terrible bugs, half-featered controls, etc... > > Yes I have VS2005 beta2 and notice the text on the main page has a problem,
there is a scroll kind of box on the right side, text is blanked out depending on some random thing, scroll up/down to try and get text back I had sample code trying to load, it said it must convert the file to something to use on VS2005 so I click yes, it does something then says error, cant open file and my VS2003 cant open it either So there were some problems, but first I suspect operator error. Im hoping to have time to really drive VS2005 around the block a few times, meanwhile Im SURE that all you smart folks who find any bugs or issues are writing them up with details on how to reproduce the problem and sending them to the bug report email, right?? Its one thing to expect a "hello world" program to run correct the first time, thats only what, a few thousand lines of ASM code? But a massive enterprise like VS2005, who expects it to be bug free the first time???? Its so big if it was spread out it would stretch from New York to Los Angeles, thats VERY big. Its not going to be bug free. Who expects their code that took 2 weeks to develop to be bug free? Its in Beta form because... help me out here... Show quoteHide quote "Pieter" <pietercou***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:%23m4ksuREGHA.3200@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > I used QBASIC, VB, and VB.NET my whole life. I really like it, and I don't > liek to have to work in another language. > But really: did you try alreaddy the Visual Studio 2005.NET? It's really > terrible! A missed oppurtunity, and a shame!! > > > "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:KgVsf.126$MV3.91@trnddc05... > > Full of terrible bugs? May I ask if you do software design? > > > > You referred to Microsoft or their product developers as "those idiots" ? > > Are you just trying to pitch some open source product after saying you > > know > > what its like to use Visual Studio and its so terrible, etc? > > > > I could use any IDE on the market. Ive checked out many of them but found > > Microsoft to be the best, period. Best product, best support, in other > > words, the best. So thats what I use. > > > > Open source is fine for hobbyists or whatever. But methinks your bashing > > of > > Microsoft was done for things from around 10 years ago and the bashing > > lacks > > substantiation. If people want an open source product, they can find > > them. > > Advertising here by claiming Visual Studio is bad? In fact, which open > > source are you guys plugging? > > > > Ill check it and see if it can withstand the same scrutiny. > > > > > > "Pieter" <pietercou***@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:%23sF$elFDGHA.1268@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > >> But face it Brad: Visual Studio .NET 2005 shipped to early, and is full > >> of > >> terrible bugs, half-featered controls, etc... > > > > > > "Brad Rogers" <bradz1234.nspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:OdTuf.3285$Uf7.2796@trnddc01...> Yes I have VS2005 beta2 and notice the text on the main page has a Just for your info:> problem, > [...] > Its in Beta form because... help me out here... - I used the Beta 1 (more than one year ago) and it wasn't too bad - Beta 2 was worse - the Release is almost as bad as the Beta 2: you can't make a normal application (a bit more than the Hello World) without having problems with the Visual Studio... It's jsut not normal that a program that has been hyped a lot, has been in Beta for more than a year, is still such a pain in the ass. I never had any problems with VS.NET 2003, but 2005 daily... "Pieter" <pietercou***@hotmail.com> wrote in message I do note that the 2005 seems to be more than a little different from the news:utDvACdEGHA.3984@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > Just for your info: > - I used the Beta 1 (more than one year ago) and it wasn't too bad > - Beta 2 was worse > - the Release is almost as bad as the Beta 2: you can't make a normal > application (a bit more than the Hello World) without having problems with > the Visual Studio... > > It's jsut not normal that a program that has been hyped a lot, has been in > Beta for more than a year, is still such a pain in the ass. I never had > any problems with VS.NET 2003, but 2005 daily... 2005. 
Other interesting topics
Unmanaged C dll call
The connection is dead OpenFileDialog Looking for an event that fires only once on startup XML question WIA.ImageFile to System.Drawing.Image How to loop thru each controls ? Using VB Keywords In An Enum Statement How to get a List of Checked items from a Treeview Developing Application like Photoshop |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
