Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #117604

Re: Microsoft end of support dates

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com>
news:monmgfdna3sgj0eo7def2sgdf27ml8e5ro@4ax.com Sun, 12 Jul 2020
19:19:22 GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote: 

> That could be true, but I knew about Windows API console
> programming in 1995, when I bought Borland C++.

I was writing windows 3.x native NE files in early 1991, myself. First 
with straight assembler via tasm. I moved onto C++ and various basic 
like dialects for efficiency reasons. I'd switch to pure asm to strip 
down the file, or make a particular routine super efficient as compared 
to what the HLL offered at the time.
 
> I have to say, I'd be amazed if anyone pulled it off.  I've heard
> of getting them to run Linux, but at best I'd expect them to be
> underpowered for Windows.

Linux isn't out of the realm of possibility, the chromebook itself is 
already using a proprietary stripped down linux already. So it's not 
that much of a jump to give it a real distro instead. Windows ten on 
the other hand, an entirely different creature that isn't going to be 
friendly with the hardware of a chromebook.
 
>>senile? Joel, umm, let's not even go there; I've yet to state that
>>I thought I was Jesus Christ himself at any point in time, but I
>>do recall you stating as such...
> 
> 
> Not precisely, Jesus was a deity in the flesh, and still is
> spiritually.

Point being, let's not be pointing fingers. I already let you slide on 
your more than slightly crazy rants already in your first reply to me. 
Quite uncalled for, and downright out of line for you to have written 
to me in the manner in which you did; especially when you went back 
once we began discussion and admitted I know a hell of a lot more than 
you about this. That was just, entirely, stupid of you to have gone and 
attacked me as you did in that post, Joel.

But, I'm not taking it personal; I don't even care. I just reminded you 
of it so we don't point fingers in the future. As well, if you don't 
have clean hands, you know, the hyprocrisy. :)
 
> 
>>>>NT doesn't even support NE based code natively anymore, and that
>>>>wasn't DOS. Legacy is on the way out, and has been for a long
>>>>time now, Joel. MS doesn't want you running legacy apps anymore,
>>>>they pose a security risk due to their inherent designs which
>>>>cannot easily be corrected with a modern OS.
>>> 
>>> Again, we weren't discussing the current era, we were discussing
>>> 18-20 years ago.
>>
>>NE apps aren't DOS, Joel. They're native Windows compiled .exe
>>files, but they aren't PE exe files and for that reason, later
>>editions of Windows will not run them for you, without some
>>extensive hand holding on your part, and that's not always a sure
>>thing either. 
> 
> 
> Right, but I was speaking specifically of the 2000/XP era.

Hmm. Joel, do you know what an NE file actually is? Same question for a 
PE file. And just tell me yourself if you actually do or not, don't try 
to save face and post something you got from a google search; I might 
ask you a specific question about something to do with either that 
won't be an easy search away. So, it's best to play straight, from the 
get go.
 
>>XP isn't a modern OS, Joel; it's from 2001. And it had security in
>>mind with it's design too. Vista and up took things much more 
>>seriously to the point of being too restrictive, imho, and much
>>worse for legacy apps completely unaware of the OS security rules
>>changes. 
> 
> 
> I know what you're saying there, but at the same time, there's
> always a point at which a piece of software is obsolete.  On the
> whole, I think Microsoft has done a decent job of supporting
> legacy code as long as is reasonable.

I don't disagree with you concerning that. My disagreement as you well 
know is what you thought was going on concerning the legacy code 
support. And well, your continued claims that you thought mistakenly, 
that Windows vista was a from scratch total rewrite. It's not.

Btw, did you know that the source for 2000, XP, Vista, and some flavors 
of Windows 7 have been leaked? Would it surprise you to know I've seen 
the source code? Would it surprise you to know that prior to my finding 
the articles to support my position, that I already knew you were wrong 
because I compared the code for myself, personally and was able to see 
with ma own two eyes what they spent so much time doing? I actually 
stopped short of giving you a dump login so you could go and snag a 
copy for yourself, to see for yourself that you were mistaken.

It wasn't a total code rewrite. Vista has a shitload of new protection 
code against malware infections. And they spent a considerable amount 
of code writing the new default interface. Some of that new protection 
code is directly responsible for some older hardware which was 
supported fine on XP no longer functional on vista, and you can't use 
the old OS driver upgrade trick due to that code.
 
>>>>I'm not your bitch Joel. Thanks. It wasn't an upgrade, either.
>>>>It was a new flavor, a new series, but it was based on NT4.
>>> 
>>> So if a person running NT 4 bought the 2000 Professional upgrade
>>> package, it wouldn't be usable to upgrade their NT?  Gee, that's
>>> strange ...
>>
>>That's not what I wrote, Joel...
> 
> 
> Not precisely, you're right, it's just that you hadn't interpreted
> what I wrote fairly either.  When I called 2000 an "upgrade" to NT
> 4, I simply meant it was the next version of that OS, built on its
> existing codebase.

I interpreted what you wrote, actually, just fine. The problem I had 
with what you wrote is that code base comparisons via leaked source 
code don't support your opinion. And, I knew that prior to finding the 
article from 2017 (just a few years back mind you) discussing the issue 
with a senior MS software developer. I've been a collector of things, 
like OS source code and complete OSes since I was a kid; but back then, 
I was dumping eeproms and roms to images to study the OS andor support 
files. It's how I cracked thexter for the coco, actually. It was a 
cartridge based game. I figured out how to dump the contents of the 
cartridge into a file that could be run from a floppy disk with a boot 
strap to convince the computer it was coming from a cartridge that 
passed an ID check.

That's another one of those "things" I did with a computer, at a young 
age. I also discussed a disk copier I wrote some months back with Snit; 
he chastised me for my lack of morals, but must have forgotten all 
about it. I couldn't have written it if I had the reading comprehension 
issues he's tried to project onto me. :)

>>NT was coming for everyone regardless, MS wanted DOS dead; it was 
>>insecure from the getgo and nothing they did on the windows 9x
>>side was ever going to change that for the better.
> 
> 
> Well, yeah, I for one couldn't even wait for them to finish the
> job, that's why I insisted on my mom and I getting a computer with
> 2000 shortly after its release.  It took a little persuasion, but
> once we got it home, she agreed with me it was the right way to
> go.  No comparison to running Win98.

Windows98 actually had no better security concepts than DOS, which is 
another reason why that fork of the MS os family had to go into the 
history books. Windows 9x wasn't comparable in any way to OS/2 warp. It 
was by far, the superior choice. But it suffered the fate of IBM; they 
couldn't advertise if their lives depended on it.

I don't personally jump to the next release of an OS as soon as it's 
out, I know it's going to have some problems, and as I treat any other 
software, I'll wait until they iron out some issues before I jump in 
the pool. I always forgo the latest and greatest for stability. I'm 
focused on production machines you see, and you never, ever, upgrade 
any part of them if they are stable, without checking thoroughly before 
hand. 

I run production machines, I don't fuck around with that aspect either. 
I depend on them to help me do what I do for a living. I'm responsible 
for keeping various small business clients production machines up and 
going as well. Needless to say, upgrades are not performed just for the 
sake of doing an upgrade. The end user experience is quite different, 
of course.

>>I started with motorola and moved upto x86 when I got my first 286
>>at home...
> 
> 
> I started with 6502, because there was no other really powerful
> way to program the Apple IIe we had before the Win95 computer.  I
> then read a book about x86 assembly, and took a class on it in
> college (just 16-bit DOS, though, admittedly).

Assembler is always, imho, going to be the best way to get the most out 
of the hardware. It's niche, it's always been niche, but it's a very 
good thing to learn to code in. It teaches you to think in a very 
logical manner as well. It's very unforgiving if you try to write 
spaghetti code style - just as it should be. It also doesn't hold your 
hand, it'll teach you how the hardware really treats the code you 
write. And, if you seriously get into it, you can use it to tweak 
whatever you write in an HLL or semi HLL language. 

I for example, during a code competition with another usenetter, took 
advantage of my assembler knowledge and created my own .exe header, 
which shaved off over 500 bytes of my final .exe in a single shot. I 
told the compiler to compile the source as a .com file; which always 
loads and executes exactly as you see on disk in it's .com format as 
it'll be memory later. a .com file is over 500 something bytes smaller, 
always than it's .exe counterpart in ASIC v5. ASIC writes perfectly 
fine exe headers mind you, but it's not doing it in an optimized 
manner. One can create a much much smaller one that is perfect for a 
fixed load location executable, like a .com file. :) So, I wrote my own 
exe header, dumped it out as a file, prepended it to the front of my 
previously compiled .com file, and tada; one super tiny fixed size, 
fully functional tiny exe file. <G> Normally, since it's a .com file, 
the exe would be forced to allocate the full 64k block, but since I 
already knew (thanks to assembler knowledge) exactly what my program 
actually needed, I was able to adjust the .exe header I created for it 
to allocate 7kilobytes of memory, vs 64kilobytes.

So, I smoked my competition with a working .exe hundreds of bytes 
smaller than his, which retained full functionality (his no longer 
closed a previously opened file handle, he removed all of that code to 
reduce size - So, if you converted his source code into a subroutine, 
you wouldn't be able to call it very many times before you exhausted 
all available file handles for the NTVDM session. With my source code, 
oth, because I continued doing things properly, you could convert mine 
to a subroutine and call it as much as you liked, it wouldn't run out 
of file handles at any point, because mine released it when it was 
finished, and his did not), as well as reduced it's memory runtime 
needs to 7kilobytes where has his was at this point, doing 64kilobyte 
allocations because he was compiling as a .com and just renaming it as 
an .exe (we were supposed to be making the smallest .exe file). Even 
when he tried to cheat, as I explained there, he still failed.

Yes, in case you didn't already guess, that was another expose the 
poseur chat I had with Pooh. :) The individual David formally thought 
was going to hand me my ass concerning code. That is, until Ftr 
explained he didn't see what he thought he did, that it was pooh who 
got his arse handed to him, and how.

We were seeing who could write the smallest program possible, both in 
terms of physical footprint as well as memory consumption, while still 
remaining fully functional. Needless to say, I smoked his arse with 
that trick. :) He actually removed needed code and reduced overall 
functionality with his program to try and shave those bytes off.

Even going so far as to limit his version to a single file. Mine could 
process an entire folder in one shot. <G> Again, I didn't strip any 
functional code out of my program, despite optimizing the fuck out of 
it, I still kept all functions intact. And I beat his ass at his own 
challenge by hundreds of bytes. Hundreds, of bytes dude, smaller than 
his, but mine wasn't crippled, it still performed as was designed.

I really do know my shit man, I kid you not. I've been at this for a 
very very long time.

>>I'm not perfect, Joel, and, we've been discussing things from a
>>long time ago. lol.
> 
> 
> True, I'm actually kind of surprised I remember it all so well, if
> I'd been my current age back then, I doubt I would.

This might sound a little crazy, but I actually wish I had the memory 
recall issues you've inferred you suffer with. It would, I think, 
improve my general outlook on things. Sadly for me, or great depending 
on your point of view, I have a reliable, very reliable nearly 
photographic memory. I can recall entire events, like watching a 
bluray, in full color, full detail, from a very young age.

My memory has, without a doubt in my mind, played a significant role in 
the abilities I have as well as the information I've been able to 
acquire and retain. It's a double edged sword.
 
> I would clarify that the differences became more relevant in the
> later years of XP's life, because 2000 was no longer supported by
> Microsoft and application developers.  And of course, since then,
> 7 has become more the baseline version.

The differences from a programming aspect were scary at some points 
along the way. You never could be to sure an MS update wasn't about to 
break something your code depends on. I had that happen on several 
occasions when I was actively supporting my own antimalware utility 
known as BugHunter. Technically, all that was required for my code to 
execute was DOS 3.2+ INT calls. So, Windows NT shouldn't have had any 
difficultly providing me a suitable host environment, yet, I had to 
perform several memory allocation changes from SP to SP, and sometimes, 
with a single update on windows 2000 systems, and initially XP systems 
as well. So that's another reason why I know the legacy support you 
thought was so important for them to keep as they did, improvements you 
thought they were making; well, As a coder doing it at the time, those 
weren't all improvements. They broke perfectly working code, DOS based 
as well as Windows API based several times with those update cycles.

And, sadly, MS still does this shit today; it's gotten worse in some 
respects. Especially if you still have to support older legacy code 
that doesn't really do well with Windows ten.


-- 
Be my brother or I'll kill you.

Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10 | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Microsoft end of support dates Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2020-07-11 15:29 +1200
  Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-10 21:42 -0700
    Re: Microsoft end of support dates David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-11 06:06 +0100
      Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-10 22:18 -0700
        Re: Microsoft end of support dates David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-11 06:33 +0100
          Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-10 22:53 -0700
            Re: Microsoft end of support dates David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-11 07:31 +0100
              Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-11 12:54 -0700
            Re: Microsoft end of support dates Boyce Wilson <offroading4me19@gmail.com> - 2020-07-11 11:49 +0000
    Re: Microsoft end of support dates Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-07-11 06:54 -0700
      Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-11 13:00 -0700
        Re: Microsoft end of support dates Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-07-12 06:47 -0700
    Re: Microsoft end of support dates "Apd" <not@all.invalid> - 2020-07-11 19:54 +0100
      Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-11 15:30 -0400
        Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-11 13:04 -0700
          Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-11 16:54 -0400
            Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-11 15:09 -0700
            Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 04:27 +0000
              Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 07:12 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-07-12 13:44 +0200
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 07:59 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates David_B <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-12 14:06 +0100
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 09:10 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 15:57 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 15:57 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 12:09 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 18:41 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 14:59 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-14 00:34 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-12 11:07 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-12 18:57 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 23:49 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-12 17:03 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-14 00:34 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-13 18:09 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-15 10:18 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-12 11:05 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 18:41 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-12 18:55 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-12 12:18 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 15:57 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 12:27 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-12 11:14 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 18:41 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 15:19 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-16 10:59 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 09:00 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-16 23:28 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-16 16:44 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-19 05:39 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 08:24 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Donald Kingman <dorokkingman@myemail.org> - 2020-07-19 07:48 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-19 15:25 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-17 08:27 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-19 05:39 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-19 09:31 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-20 05:54 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-19 09:47 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-20 05:54 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-12 11:02 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 18:41 +0000
        Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 04:27 +0000
          Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 07:15 -0400
            Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 15:57 +0000
              Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 12:36 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 18:41 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 15:33 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-12 12:35 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 16:11 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-12 13:17 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 16:47 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-12 13:52 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 09:18 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-13 16:18 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-12 21:02 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 23:49 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 09:46 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-14 00:34 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-14 07:45 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-15 10:18 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-15 08:23 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates "Apd" <not@all.invalid> - 2020-07-15 15:56 +0100
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-15 15:33 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates "Apd" <not@all.invalid> - 2020-07-15 16:55 +0100
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-15 16:01 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates "Apd" <not@all.invalid> - 2020-07-15 18:14 +0100
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-15 17:46 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2020-07-15 14:50 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Steve Carroll <"Steve Carroll"@noSPAM.none> - 2020-07-16 15:11 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-15 12:02 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-16 10:59 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-15 13:09 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-16 10:59 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 09:02 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-16 11:48 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-16 23:28 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-16 16:45 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-16 23:28 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-17 08:31 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-19 05:39 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2020-07-19 09:35 -0400
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 11:59 -0700
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-20 05:54 +0000
                Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-19 23:24 -0700
      Re: Microsoft end of support dates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-07-11 13:03 -0700
    Re: Microsoft end of support dates Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2020-07-11 14:59 -0500
    Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 04:27 +0000
      Re: Microsoft end of support dates Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-07-12 06:58 -0700
        Re: Microsoft end of support dates Diesel <nobody@haph.org> - 2020-07-12 15:57 +0000
      Re: Microsoft end of support dates Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2020-07-12 07:09 -0700
  Re: Microsoft end of support dates Mark Lloyd <not@mail.invalid> - 2020-07-11 14:57 -0500

csiph-web