Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!ames!hc!lll-winken!uunet!microsoft!philba
From: philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.misc
Subject: Re: Using EMS 4.0 with Windows
Message-ID: <5657@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 5 May 89 17:43:27 GMT
References: <558@cullsj.UUCP> <68600020@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <5649@microsoft.UUCP> <560@cullsj.UUCP>
Reply-To: philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 54

In article <560@cullsj.UUCP> david@cullsj.UUCP (David Taylor) writes:
>In article <5649@microsoft.UUCP>, philba@microsoft.UUCP (Phil Barrett) writes:
>> 
>> false, patently false.  rtfm.  
>> 
>>  Its described in tfm. 
>> 
>> As for the original question
>>
>> call whitewater group 
>
>Yes, some stuff has been deleted, but you'd never miss it.
>
>When software manuals are no longer of help, I consult Usenet. In my 
>experience, the expertise here exceeds that of most tech support groups,
>and I don't have to listen to Lawrence Welk while I'm on hold.
>And when an employee of the vendor of the problem software enters the
>Net discussion, and can only say it's a "complex issue", "rtfm", and
>call the other software vendor, I consider it validation of my opinion
>that the Net is more helpful than most vendors (provided we can keep 
>certain vendors off the Net).
>
>Is it significant that you did not include a disclaimer?
>Here's mine:
>
>My opinions are mine, not theirs.


Try to be a little helpfull and what do you get?

sheesh.  First off, I was not responding to your statement when I said
rtfm.  The gent who responded to your question made a completely false
statement about ms windows, I suggested that he be aware of the facts before
responding (especially which such vehemence).

secondly. you are right, I should have included a disclaimer.  I do so at 
the end.

Thirdly, the gist of your question was about using expanded memory and
specifically, Actor.  I still suggest you call them because I believe
they have a new version that takes advantage of ems.  Why is this a vacuous
statement?  If I were in your position, I would be happy to find this out.
Or perhaps you'd rather not know so you can bitch in public?

Fourthly, have you called MS support?  They understand this stuff in detail.
Yes, ems is a complex issue but they can take you through a number of steps
to ensure that Windows is taking best possible advantage of ems.  I never
said don't put your question on Usenet.  What makes you think I did?  

Fifthly, I'd like to see how you plan to `keep certain vendors off the net'.
Does a site have to take special test (Usenet Access Request Form 37-234A:
Vendor Access to Usenet, Specific Test for Non-Bias, SW Supplier SubSection).

The above is opinions are mine and not those of my employer.