1  ...  34  35  36  37  38  39  ...  101  |   Order by default

Jul 13, 2002, 9:38pm

You're so silly ananas :D

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 13, 2002, 11:01pm

Race you there.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 18, 2002, 2:27pm

> A computer can freeze at *any* time for almost *any* reason. ;) However,
> if you use quality components in your system and have a fairly stable OS
> (Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP, etc.), then it shouldn't freeze very
> often, if at all. Just an FYI: if you want to run bots on Linux, you
> will probably need a Windows emulation program (such as WINE). And even
> then, bots may not work. I suggest you stick to Windows.

No need, bots work just fine in WINE. DOS bots work the best, the ones
without a GUI.

--Bowen--

Jul 18, 2002, 2:44pm

Um? DOS window and console (at least the console window is a DOS window)
are the same thing. The General term I meant by dos bot is that it doesn't
use windows functions. I'm fairly sure that if your connection can work in
DOS, that you can certainly run the bot in DOS. What difference does it make
if it's C or C++? They both work the same. They totally blow the smoke out
of the water with VB and are portable. So what's your big deal? ;)

Oh yeah, by the way, you use cancel instead of deleate, not delete instead
of cancel. :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 18, 2002, 6:41pm

Thank you, thank you. Everything I said is valid though. If you compile a
bot specifically for windows, it won't work in DOS. Rather if you compile
it for DOS, it will. The differences between C and C++ have little or
nothing to do with a bot and where/how it runs.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2002, 2:28pm

> Now you are taking my words the wrong way. I know that a bot compiled
> for Windows will not work in DOS. Come on, Bowen...I'm not *that* dumb!
> You are missing my point. My point of my second to last post in this
> thread wasn't meant to focus on C, C++, C#, or any other programming
> language. When you said "DOS bots work the best" is when I got confused.
> I personally don't know anyone who creates bots specifically for DOS,
> bots that run under DOS, how you would even make one (Assembly?), or
> know if they will even work. Why would you even want to make a DOS bot?

Let's not start a flame war over something this silly. I explained what I
meant by DOS bots in the original post itself, "DOS bots work the best, the
ones without a GUI." That's what I originally meant, oh well. You don't
"create it for DOS," You simply compile it for DOS. Althougth it probably
detects windows, and uses it for some functions I bet. You want to see a
Bot that runs under a dos window? Why would you make a DOS bot? Because
the API functions to make a "window" are far too complex in C++ just for a
silly bot, and not many people are that good. C # is more microsoft
proprietary crap btw, it shouldn't be associated with C/C++. :P

> I know many people who create bots that are made in VB, C, and C++
> (hence that is why I mentioned C and C++ in my previous post) that run
> in Windows and show a DOS *window* within Windows. When you said "DOS
> bots" and not something like "bots that run in a DOS window" is what I
> didn't understand. I didn't know you could make bots that work in pure
> old MS-DOS. Most sample bots in the AW SDK run under Windows in a DOS
> window so when I saw you type "DOS bots" and didn't include either "DOS
> window" or "DOS console," I thought your terminology was incorrect.
> According to you, one can make a bot that runs under DOS. I had no idea
> that that was possible. I have never tried this and I wonder if the SDK
> .dll file(s) will even allow it. If you are right, then I just learned
> something new and we can stop our bickering on this thread (unless, of
> course, you finish with some witty or smart ass comment. In that case, I
> will have to reply yet again ;).

Well they work in Linux without a graphical display. You may have to tweak
your bot/lib around to get it to work in dos though. Who knows, anything is
possible (Grimm said he was going to try and make a SDK for the gameboy
advance). I wish he'd make the linux sdk instead, bah.

--Bowen--

Jul 19, 2002, 7:18pm

He said he was going to try :) At least that's what I read.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 18, 2002, 2:33pm

Netscape burns through my precious system ram like it doesn't exist. Takes
more than a couple seconds to load on my machine too. Plus it takes up
space, and you can't uninstall IE, so what's the point? ;) I think Mozilla
is better than Netscape anyways. And yes, it's the same thing basically. I
don't care about viruses, nothing important is on my machine. So, how is it
better now? :P Actually IE was based on open source too (Mozilla I think
was the base of it) , they just didn't release the source.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 18, 2002, 3:48pm

> If you use the Quick Launch feature, then it'll load even quicker than
> IE does. As for taking up space and chewing up RAM, sounds to me like
> your system could use an overhaul if it can't handle something like NS.
> As far as IE being open source, if they don't release the source, then
> it's not *open*, hence not open source. And Mozilla is funded by
> Netscape (which is funded by AOL, which is funded...), so I don't think
> Microsoft would even *want* to use them as a basis for anything.
>
> At any rate, Netscape is still better, since you didn't refute any of my
> other claims. ;)

Um, first of all, I didn't say it WAS open source, I said it was BASED on
open source. The same as netscape. I did use the quick launch, it still
took longer than IE to start up. It took up 50 mb's of my ram to run it, IE
takes 5. Mozilla was the base of IE, a long long time ago. Before AOL
owned anything but AOL.

--Bowen--

Jul 18, 2002, 4:58pm

Works for windows ME as well.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 18, 2002, 6:40pm

As I said earlier, if you're one of the only people who sees this or not
everyone sees this it's often a problem with your graphics card. As andras
pointed out, not everything's a bug :P

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 18, 2002, 8:46pm

That doesn't mean anything. Radeon's have been known to be grumpy. You
have to upgrade your video drivers as well. Try the beta ones. I haven't
had this problem as well, most likely it's a video card problem. The ng
didn't get flooded with it yet so you must be the only one. Have a
screenshot to help us with what you're having problems with?

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2002, 2:20pm

Yeah they are. I said that earlier, the drivers should support DX8.1. Beta
driver are something I'd look into.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 18, 2002, 10:26pm

Something along those lines. It was a long time ago.. they're all M words..
I get confused :D

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2002, 7:20pm

Well then you just proved my point. You can't unload it so why waste even
MORE ram on another web browser that does the same thing? Sure there's
subtle differences in the way they view webpages, but they do the same
thing. I don't need to waste more ram of my already low system resources.
:P

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2002, 7:51pm

Netscape burns through my ram, AW doesn't (anymore). I don't have money,
care to spring me $100 to get some more ram? The prices have risen from the
free price tag to $100 for 256 mb's around here. I believe AW uses more
video card ram then netscape does (if netscape uses any).

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2002, 8:36pm

I'm too lazy to snip it out. You did it for me anyways. :P

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2002, 8:39pm

Well outlook isn't loaded into memory until you click a link like "mailto:"
or start it up yourself. What else could it be besides the browser itself?
The topic generally sways from the original subject. I do replys and I
don't change the subject.. it's pointless, no one does really excluding the
die hard usenet freaks like you. Why're you top posting? ;) It's as much a
style note as quoting sigs (so you know who it's from and don't need to
[View Quote] --Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 19, 2002, 10:21pm

Psh, efficiency in sigs is about 100 bytes on the average (usually shorter
exluding those punks who like to put little funky images around them).
Usenet protocol usually states that you don't top post either.. soo, why do
you do it if you do everything else per standard? :D

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 20, 2002, 1:31am

Well I don't post in html, all is saved. 1 or 2 kb's extra is nothing bad
:), especially when posts don't get too long. Once they hit 10 kb's, then I
worry.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 21, 2002, 5:57pm

No one's forcing you to download or read my messages though.. or 99% of the
people who post here. They're not familiar with the "efficiency" standard.
I just don't really care. I'm on broadband, sooooo no worries.;)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 22, 2002, 12:57am

Well that's the greatness of free choice. The newsgroups really don't play
an intricate role in the AW environment. So, if you want to partake in
them, you take the risk of downloading 1 kb longer messages or HTML messages
and/or file attachments. It's your choice. Simply comparing my (my being a
generalization to most users in the NG) not taking out a sig or two or not
changing the subject line to someone spamming or what have you is just
silly. :) I do clip my "quotes" when they get too long, other than that,
I'm just don't feel the need to spare you a kb every 2-3 messages. Ignore
the thread, don't download it's headers, etc.

I also don't think it's abuse in what I do.. you should've seen when
whomever posted that freaking giant penny in the AWTeen newsgroup. Now
that's abuse.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 22, 2002, 4:12am

> Sure, Bowen, it's all relative. But that doesn't mean you can't take a
piddly 2 seconds to delete unnecessary quoting and sigs. Learn how to use
newsgroups correctly, man. Your quoting REALLY looks like crap when it
breaks up like it does. Take some pride in your computer usage and learn how
to use it more efficiently. It benefits everyone in the long run, including
you.

But, didn't you make the subject line longer and then in fact cause it to
take up more memory? Where's that efficiency?? Everything is relative:
time, money, awarness, life in general. Only 2 seconds? Not if I want to
make it perfect for you. Everyone is too picky, which is why I gave up. So
why'd you requote your old quote that I quoted? I thought you only quote
what you're replying too?

I'm using a non-usenet newsgroup, there's no rules that say I have to clean
up my messages. Dear god I'm not the only one doing this, like I said 99%
of other users don't care and don't do it. Why single me out? Pride in my
computer usage? Computers are tools. If I want to be the uber efficient
master, I'd do it. I simply use it to get what I need to get done, and then
have some fun. Who's going to benefit from a 1 kb shorter message? Jeez,
it takes a 14.4 modem 1 second supposedly to download 1 kb file. Did you
notice I cleaned up all the stuff too? No.. probably not until I pointed
that out.

Tampering with the original message has dire consequences later on too.
Say.. someone wants proof but the original message is gone now? They won't
believe you until they see the signature, what then? It's all relative like
you said. Computers are relative too, they're just pieces of
metal/silicon/whathaveyou with electricity flowing through them and some
moving parts here and there with magnets, nothing more. Measuring the data
is relative too. You can't measure anything exactly, because there's always
something smaller. Maybe my 3 kb post was really 2.98 kb's or really
2.9999999999999998. We're just wasting even more bandwidth and storage
space fighting an extremely stupid battle that can't be won. Neither of us
will budge. I'm too lazy, you're too stubborn. That's life. Wait, isn't
that relative too? :D

--Bowen--
Dedicated to make make long posts for eep in this thread, to waste some more
bandwidth and storage space.

Jul 22, 2002, 12:38pm

> Well, now you're just being lame. First of all, the subject I changed,
"caring (was Re: newsreader woes)", is actually shorter than the previous
one, "newsreader woes (was Re: URL breakup)", which was changed a few posts
ago, by the way. You must be getting desperate for rebuttals. ;) Try not to
de-evolve too much in your desperation. Just let it go and you'll be fine.
You seem to understand my point so just accept it and move on.

Yeah and you changed that subject line too. If you had kept it's original
subject line, it would've been fine and short. I'm not desperate, I
answered all your "problems" so to speak. If the majority is doing it, then
it's acceptable. If the majority changes, then I guess I'll change too.
I'm not de-evolving. I still know much about computers. That doesn't mean
I want to follow someone's "efficiency" standard that only a few people in
the NG's follow as of now. Especially when it's just too much effort for a
quick reply. I understand your point, I accept it, but I'm not going to
follow it much after this thread most likely. Didn't say you had to read my
unclear quotes either :P

--Bowen--

Jul 23, 2002, 12:43pm

Did you hold control or shift? Shift moves the view in tiny amounts and
control moves the view in larger amounts. Funny thing is, they're not even
to the normal speed, so it's not like control is twice is fast it's like 1.5
times as fast.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 23, 2002, 2:36pm

Control does move it noticably further. Hold control while pressing page up
or down and you'll see it too. I can make it grey out hold page up and page
down though..

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 28, 2002, 11:25pm

I know, I made that correction in one of my posts someplace. It would be
nice if you didn't reply to threads that are really old. This one isn't bad
but oh well.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 24, 2002, 3:08pm

Telegram from OPAW, sent just now:
me puedes dar tu contraseña por fabor

Spanish speaking password theifs are on a rampage, lookout for them.
Contraseña means password, he's basically saying "can you give me your
password please." (he mispelt please with fabor) He seems to have multiple
cits (spider man) being the one I've noticed.

--Bowen--

Jul 24, 2002, 4:35pm

LoL just saying. I don't really care, if you're stupid enough to do it, oh
well. Just giving a heads up.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Jul 25, 2002, 6:48pm

Nah, these "people" all spoke spanish and not english. I was in AW at the
time, if you check out the beta newsgroup you'll see the picture of him as
OPAW at GZ.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

1  ...  34  35  36  37  38  39  ...  101  |   Order by default