SP3 and HP/AMD Computers

Alias wrote:
> You'll never convince the MS fanboys that MS *ever* makes a mistake.
> They're acting like HP is some small mom and pop outfit that MS has
> never heard of. The TRUTH is that MS throws out software for the
> paying customer to test and then, and only then, they will put out
> a fix. For instance, Vista was NOT ready for the public and won't
> be until there's an SP2. Meanwhile, MS gets millions to test it for
> free and to top it off, they PAY MS to test it.
>
> You're right; it's criminal.
>
> Fed up? Check out Ubuntu at www.ubuntu.com/. It's free and comes
> with access to over 23,000 free programs.
>
> What can be done with Ubuntu?
<snip>

Or switch to a Macintosh. Any flavor of Linux you want (that's all Ubuntu
is). Run whatever. Doesn't really matter.

Did Microsoft screw up in this case - I don't see it - all they could do in
this case is hope for due-diligence from the OEMs that had the betas of the
service packs, etc.

Has Microsoft screwed up in the past? Yep. Will they screw up in the
future? Likely.

As for Vista being 'ready' - some would disagree with it not being ready
now - some would say it won't ever be ready. *shrug* I personally could
care less.

I run Vista Ultimate SP1 on one virtual machine and one physical machine. I
run Windows XP SP3 on 7 personal/work machines that i use almost daily. I
run Ubuntu on one physical and two virtual machines. I run Redhat on one
physical machine and SUSE on a virtual machine. I also have a Macintosh
with OS X on it (that's where two of the VMs are.

Each their own - all have their advantages and disadvantages. A Windows OS
wins for general daily use and interaction with others because it is out
there in larger numbers so being able to get what you want while using a
Windows machine is usually less of a chore. As for updates and such - I
have yet to see an OS that is in use not have them.

Everyone has their own opinion - I say the OEM dropped the ball on this one.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>> You'll never convince the MS fanboys that MS *ever* makes a mistake.
>> They're acting like HP is some small mom and pop outfit that MS has
>> never heard of. The TRUTH is that MS throws out software for the
>> paying customer to test and then, and only then, they will put out
>> a fix. For instance, Vista was NOT ready for the public and won't
>> be until there's an SP2. Meanwhile, MS gets millions to test it for
>> free and to top it off, they PAY MS to test it.
>>
>> You're right; it's criminal.
>>
>> Fed up? Check out Ubuntu at www.ubuntu.com/. It's free and comes
>> with access to over 23,000 free programs.
>>
>> What can be done with Ubuntu?
> <snip>
>
> Or switch to a Macintosh. Any flavor of Linux you want (that's all Ubuntu
> is). Run whatever. Doesn't really matter.
>
> Did Microsoft screw up in this case - I don't see it - all they could do in
> this case is hope for due-diligence from the OEMs that had the betas of the
> service packs, etc.
>
> Has Microsoft screwed up in the past? Yep. Will they screw up in the
> future? Likely.
>
> As for Vista being 'ready' - some would disagree with it not being ready
> now - some would say it won't ever be ready. *shrug* I personally could
> care less.
>
> I run Vista Ultimate SP1 on one virtual machine and one physical machine. I
> run Windows XP SP3 on 7 personal/work machines that i use almost daily. I
> run Ubuntu on one physical and two virtual machines. I run Redhat on one
> physical machine and SUSE on a virtual machine. I also have a Macintosh
> with OS X on it (that's where two of the VMs are.
>
> Each their own - all have their advantages and disadvantages. A Windows OS
> wins for general daily use and interaction with others because it is out
> there in larger numbers so being able to get what you want while using a
> Windows machine is usually less of a chore. As for updates and such - I
> have yet to see an OS that is in use not have them.
>
> Everyone has their own opinion - I say the OEM dropped the ball on this one.
>

I'd say both MS and HP dropped the ball. MS has heard of HP, right? They
know that HP is selling *their* operating system, right? Fact is that MS
releases software to be tested by paying customers who don't even know
they're testing it and that ain't right.

Alias

<snipped>

Alias wrote:
> I'd say both MS and HP dropped the ball. MS has heard of HP, right?
> They know that HP is selling *their* operating system, right? Fact
> is that MS releases software to be tested by paying customers who
> don't even know they're testing it and that ain't right.

HP has had access to SP3 for a LONG time. Longer than most consumers (and
they could have gotten BETAs anytime.)

However - the fact is this is not about SP3 - it isn't even about any patch
that would have done the same thing...

HP chose how they put the OS on their systems that they sell. They did not
use RIS, they did not use some unattended installation - they chose to make
an image (a single image) on one particular hardware set (Intel based
obviously) and apply it to all of their machines for some period of time.
Microsoft does not (and should not) have any say in how HP puts the OS on
the machine (what method is used to install it...) So - HP - given this
freedom chose as I pointed out and - in the end - it bit them.

It's all about how the OS was installed. If the OS was installed from
CD/DVD through the normal means or through some unattended network process
(RIS, WDS, etc) or even if HP had made an image for AMD systems and Intel
systems seperately - this conversation (using HP sepecifically) would not be
happening. They (obviously) did none of those things (at least for a time)
and made one image on an Intel based system (which they can do if they want)
and in the end - that messed them up.

Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
manufacturer/sell/support. ;-)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

"Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
manufacturer/sell/support."

Somebody should be 'dictating' something to these clowns. Obviously neither
HP nor Microsoft gives a damn about what customers have to go through when
an update wreaks havoc! 3 weeks after the SP3 update, HP finally puts an
update alert out on my computer. Duh......couldn't Microsoft have tested SP3
on the HP/AMD computers in question and alerted HP? Couldn't HP have tested
the update way before the release, considering they had access to it for
months? Who are you protecting? I'd say a lawsuit might be the best update
consumers can come up with! Take them both to court!

MT



"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OsTiYUbwIHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> <snipped>
>
> Alias wrote:
>> I'd say both MS and HP dropped the ball. MS has heard of HP, right?
>> They know that HP is selling *their* operating system, right? Fact
>> is that MS releases software to be tested by paying customers who
>> don't even know they're testing it and that ain't right.
>
> HP has had access to SP3 for a LONG time. Longer than most consumers (and
> they could have gotten BETAs anytime.)
>
> However - the fact is this is not about SP3 - it isn't even about any
> patch that would have done the same thing...
>
> HP chose how they put the OS on their systems that they sell. They did
> not use RIS, they did not use some unattended installation - they chose to
> make an image (a single image) on one particular hardware set (Intel based
> obviously) and apply it to all of their machines for some period of time.
> Microsoft does not (and should not) have any say in how HP puts the OS on
> the machine (what method is used to install it...) So - HP - given this
> freedom chose as I pointed out and - in the end - it bit them.
>
> It's all about how the OS was installed. If the OS was installed from
> CD/DVD through the normal means or through some unattended network process
> (RIS, WDS, etc) or even if HP had made an image for AMD systems and Intel
> systems seperately - this conversation (using HP sepecifically) would not
> be happening. They (obviously) did none of those things (at least for a
> time) and made one image on an Intel based system (which they can do if
> they want) and in the end - that messed them up.
>
> Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
> dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
> manufacturer/sell/support. ;-)
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
> --
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>

Shenan Stanley wrote:
> <snipped>
>
> Alias wrote:
>> I'd say both MS and HP dropped the ball. MS has heard of HP, right?
>> They know that HP is selling *their* operating system, right? Fact
>> is that MS releases software to be tested by paying customers who
>> don't even know they're testing it and that ain't right.
>
> HP has had access to SP3 for a LONG time. Longer than most consumers (and
> they could have gotten BETAs anytime.)
>
> However - the fact is this is not about SP3 - it isn't even about any patch
> that would have done the same thing...
>
> HP chose how they put the OS on their systems that they sell. They did not
> use RIS, they did not use some unattended installation - they chose to make
> an image (a single image) on one particular hardware set (Intel based
> obviously) and apply it to all of their machines for some period of time.
> Microsoft does not (and should not) have any say in how HP puts the OS on
> the machine (what method is used to install it...) So - HP - given this
> freedom chose as I pointed out and - in the end - it bit them.
>
> It's all about how the OS was installed. If the OS was installed from
> CD/DVD through the normal means or through some unattended network process
> (RIS, WDS, etc) or even if HP had made an image for AMD systems and Intel
> systems seperately - this conversation (using HP sepecifically) would not be
> happening. They (obviously) did none of those things (at least for a time)
> and made one image on an Intel based system (which they can do if they want)
> and in the end - that messed them up.
>
> Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
> dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
> manufacturer/sell/support. ;-)
>

Wow, so MS doesn't have one single HP machine to test on? Just shove it
out the door and see what happens, eh?

Alias

And of course you have read this:
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/s...=228&lang=e n
Microsoft Windows XP SP3 Upgrade Utility for systems with AMD processors.

--

TaurArian [MVP] 2005-2008 - Update Services
http://taurarian.mvps.org
======================================
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Computer Maintenance: Acronis / Diskeeper / Paragon / Raxco


"sasha gottfried" <sashago@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WdKdnTCAur4ObqPVnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
| "Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
| dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
| manufacturer/sell/support."
|
| Somebody should be 'dictating' something to these clowns. Obviously neither
| HP nor Microsoft gives a damn about what customers have to go through when
| an update wreaks havoc! 3 weeks after the SP3 update, HP finally puts an
| update alert out on my computer. Duh......couldn't Microsoft have tested SP3
| on the HP/AMD computers in question and alerted HP? Couldn't HP have tested
| the update way before the release, considering they had access to it for
| months? Who are you protecting? I'd say a lawsuit might be the best update
| consumers can come up with! Take them both to court!
|
| MT
|
|
|
| "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:OsTiYUbwIHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > <snipped>
| >
| > Alias wrote:
| >> I'd say both MS and HP dropped the ball. MS has heard of HP, right?
| >> They know that HP is selling *their* operating system, right? Fact
| >> is that MS releases software to be tested by paying customers who
| >> don't even know they're testing it and that ain't right.
| >
| > HP has had access to SP3 for a LONG time. Longer than most consumers (and
| > they could have gotten BETAs anytime.)
| >
| > However - the fact is this is not about SP3 - it isn't even about any
| > patch that would have done the same thing...
| >
| > HP chose how they put the OS on their systems that they sell. They did
| > not use RIS, they did not use some unattended installation - they chose to
| > make an image (a single image) on one particular hardware set (Intel based
| > obviously) and apply it to all of their machines for some period of time.
| > Microsoft does not (and should not) have any say in how HP puts the OS on
| > the machine (what method is used to install it...) So - HP - given this
| > freedom chose as I pointed out and - in the end - it bit them.
| >
| > It's all about how the OS was installed. If the OS was installed from
| > CD/DVD through the normal means or through some unattended network process
| > (RIS, WDS, etc) or even if HP had made an image for AMD systems and Intel
| > systems seperately - this conversation (using HP sepecifically) would not
| > be happening. They (obviously) did none of those things (at least for a
| > time) and made one image on an Intel based system (which they can do if
| > they want) and in the end - that messed them up.
| >
| > Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
| > dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
| > manufacturer/sell/support. ;-)
| >
| > --
| > Shenan Stanley
| > MS-MVP
| > --
| > How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
| > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
| >
|
|

sasha gottfried wrote:
> "Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft
> does not dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer
> they manufacturer/sell/support."
>
> Somebody should be 'dictating' something to these clowns. Obviously
> neither HP nor Microsoft gives a damn about what customers have to
> go through when an update wreaks havoc! 3 weeks after the SP3
> update, HP finally puts an update alert out on my computer.
> Duh......couldn't Microsoft have tested SP3 on the HP/AMD computers
> in question and alerted HP? Couldn't HP have tested the update way
> before the release, considering they had access to it for months?
> Who are you protecting? I'd say a lawsuit might be the best update
> consumers can come up with! Take them both to court!

So do it...

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

He should have: I'm pretty sure I posted it at some point in this thread.

TaurArian wrote:
> And of course you have read this:
> http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/s...=228&lang=e n
> Microsoft Windows XP SP3 Upgrade Utility for systems with AMD processors.
>
>
> "sasha gottfried" <sashago@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:WdKdnTCAur4ObqPVnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> "Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
>> dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
>> manufacturer/sell/support."
>>
>> Somebody should be 'dictating' something to these clowns. Obviously
>> neither
>> HP nor Microsoft gives a damn about what customers have to go through
>> when
>> an update wreaks havoc! 3 weeks after the SP3 update, HP finally puts an
>> update alert out on my computer. Duh......couldn't Microsoft have tested
>> SP3 on the HP/AMD computers in question and alerted HP? Couldn't HP have
>> tested the update way before the release, considering they had access to
>> it for months? Who are you protecting? I'd say a lawsuit might be the
>> best
>> update consumers can come up with! Take them both to court!
>>
>> MT
>>
>>
>>
>> "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OsTiYUbwIHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> I'd say both MS and HP dropped the ball. MS has heard of HP, right?
>>>> They know that HP is selling *their* operating system, right? Fact
>>>> is that MS releases software to be tested by paying customers who
>>>> don't even know they're testing it and that ain't right.
>>>
>>> HP has had access to SP3 for a LONG time. Longer than most consumers
>>> (and
>>> they could have gotten BETAs anytime.)
>>>
>>> However - the fact is this is not about SP3 - it isn't even about any
>>> patch that would have done the same thing...
>>>
>>> HP chose how they put the OS on their systems that they sell. They did
>>> not use RIS, they did not use some unattended installation - they chose
>>> to
>>> make an image (a single image) on one particular hardware set (Intel
>>> based
>>> obviously) and apply it to all of their machines for some period of
>>> time.
>>> Microsoft does not (and should not) have any say in how HP puts the OS
>>> on
>>> the machine (what method is used to install it...) So - HP - given this
>>> freedom chose as I pointed out and - in the end - it bit them.
>>>
>>> It's all about how the OS was installed. If the OS was installed from
>>> CD/DVD through the normal means or through some unattended network
>>> process
>>> (RIS, WDS, etc) or even if HP had made an image for AMD systems and
>>> Intel
>>> systems seperately - this conversation (using HP sepecifically) would
>>> not
>>> be happening. They (obviously) did none of those things (at least for a
>>> time) and made one image on an Intel based system (which they can do if
>>> they want) and in the end - that messed them up.
>>>
>>> Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
>>> dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
>>> manufacturer/sell/support. ;-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Shenan Stanley
>>> MS-MVP
>>> --
>>> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Yeah.....I read it, several weeks after SP3 tried to install itself on my
computer. It should have come WITH the upadate, not AFTER the update was
released!


"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uPiF55fwIHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> He should have: I'm pretty sure I posted it at some point in this thread.
>
> TaurArian wrote:
>> And of course you have read this:
>> http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/s...=228&lang=e n
>> Microsoft Windows XP SP3 Upgrade Utility for systems with AMD processors.
>>
>>
>> "sasha gottfried" <sashago@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:WdKdnTCAur4ObqPVnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> "Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
>>> dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
>>> manufacturer/sell/support."
>>>
>>> Somebody should be 'dictating' something to these clowns. Obviously
>>> neither
>>> HP nor Microsoft gives a damn about what customers have to go through
>>> when
>>> an update wreaks havoc! 3 weeks after the SP3 update, HP finally puts an
>>> update alert out on my computer. Duh......couldn't Microsoft have tested
>>> SP3 on the HP/AMD computers in question and alerted HP? Couldn't HP have
>>> tested the update way before the release, considering they had access to
>>> it for months? Who are you protecting? I'd say a lawsuit might be the
>>> best
>>> update consumers can come up with! Take them both to court!
>>>
>>> MT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OsTiYUbwIHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> <snipped>
>>>>
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> I'd say both MS and HP dropped the ball. MS has heard of HP, right?
>>>>> They know that HP is selling *their* operating system, right? Fact
>>>>> is that MS releases software to be tested by paying customers who
>>>>> don't even know they're testing it and that ain't right.
>>>>
>>>> HP has had access to SP3 for a LONG time. Longer than most consumers
>>>> (and
>>>> they could have gotten BETAs anytime.)
>>>>
>>>> However - the fact is this is not about SP3 - it isn't even about any
>>>> patch that would have done the same thing...
>>>>
>>>> HP chose how they put the OS on their systems that they sell. They did
>>>> not use RIS, they did not use some unattended installation - they chose
>>>> to
>>>> make an image (a single image) on one particular hardware set (Intel
>>>> based
>>>> obviously) and apply it to all of their machines for some period of
>>>> time.
>>>> Microsoft does not (and should not) have any say in how HP puts the OS
>>>> on
>>>> the machine (what method is used to install it...) So - HP - given
>>>> this
>>>> freedom chose as I pointed out and - in the end - it bit them.
>>>>
>>>> It's all about how the OS was installed. If the OS was installed from
>>>> CD/DVD through the normal means or through some unattended network
>>>> process
>>>> (RIS, WDS, etc) or even if HP had made an image for AMD systems and
>>>> Intel
>>>> systems seperately - this conversation (using HP sepecifically) would
>>>> not
>>>> be happening. They (obviously) did none of those things (at least for
>>>> a
>>>> time) and made one image on an Intel based system (which they can do if
>>>> they want) and in the end - that messed them up.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
>>>> dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
>>>> manufacturer/sell/support. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Shenan Stanley
>>>> MS-MVP
>>>> --
>>>> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
>>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>

....... build a bridge.

--

TaurArian [MVP] 2005-2008 - Update Services
http://taurarian.mvps.org
======================================
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Computer Maintenance: Acronis / Diskeeper / Paragon / Raxco


"sasha gottfried" <sashago@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mqudnWV4Qcp55qLVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
| Yeah.....I read it, several weeks after SP3 tried to install itself on my
| computer. It should have come WITH the upadate, not AFTER the update was
| released!
|
|
| "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news:uPiF55fwIHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| > He should have: I'm pretty sure I posted it at some point in this thread.
| >
| > TaurArian wrote:
| >> And of course you have read this:
| >>
http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/s...=228&lang=e n
| >> Microsoft Windows XP SP3 Upgrade Utility for systems with AMD processors.
| >>
| >>
| >> "sasha gottfried" <sashago@comcast.net> wrote in message
| >> news:WdKdnTCAur4ObqPVnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
| >>> "Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
| >>> dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
| >>> manufacturer/sell/support."
| >>>
| >>> Somebody should be 'dictating' something to these clowns. Obviously
| >>> neither
| >>> HP nor Microsoft gives a damn about what customers have to go through
| >>> when
| >>> an update wreaks havoc! 3 weeks after the SP3 update, HP finally puts an
| >>> update alert out on my computer. Duh......couldn't Microsoft have tested
| >>> SP3 on the HP/AMD computers in question and alerted HP? Couldn't HP have
| >>> tested the update way before the release, considering they had access to
| >>> it for months? Who are you protecting? I'd say a lawsuit might be the
| >>> best
| >>> update consumers can come up with! Take them both to court!
| >>>
| >>> MT
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>> "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
| >>> news:OsTiYUbwIHA.1772@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| >>>> <snipped>
| >>>>
| >>>> Alias wrote:
| >>>>> I'd say both MS and HP dropped the ball. MS has heard of HP, right?
| >>>>> They know that HP is selling *their* operating system, right? Fact
| >>>>> is that MS releases software to be tested by paying customers who
| >>>>> don't even know they're testing it and that ain't right.
| >>>>
| >>>> HP has had access to SP3 for a LONG time. Longer than most consumers
| >>>> (and
| >>>> they could have gotten BETAs anytime.)
| >>>>
| >>>> However - the fact is this is not about SP3 - it isn't even about any
| >>>> patch that would have done the same thing...
| >>>>
| >>>> HP chose how they put the OS on their systems that they sell. They did
| >>>> not use RIS, they did not use some unattended installation - they chose
| >>>> to
| >>>> make an image (a single image) on one particular hardware set (Intel
| >>>> based
| >>>> obviously) and apply it to all of their machines for some period of
| >>>> time.
| >>>> Microsoft does not (and should not) have any say in how HP puts the OS
| >>>> on
| >>>> the machine (what method is used to install it...) So - HP - given
| >>>> this
| >>>> freedom chose as I pointed out and - in the end - it bit them.
| >>>>
| >>>> It's all about how the OS was installed. If the OS was installed from
| >>>> CD/DVD through the normal means or through some unattended network
| >>>> process
| >>>> (RIS, WDS, etc) or even if HP had made an image for AMD systems and
| >>>> Intel
| >>>> systems seperately - this conversation (using HP sepecifically) would
| >>>> not
| >>>> be happening. They (obviously) did none of those things (at least for
| >>>> a
| >>>> time) and made one image on an Intel based system (which they can do if
| >>>> they want) and in the end - that messed them up.
| >>>>
| >>>> Microsoft may know HP, may know them VERY well - but Microsoft does not
| >>>> dictate something like how HP puts the OS onto a computer they
| >>>> manufacturer/sell/support. ;-)
| >>>>
| >>>> --
| >>>> Shenan Stanley
| >>>> MS-MVP
| >>>> --
| >>>> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
| >>>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
| >
|
|