Re: 9i install quit right after setting installation types

Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:pan.2003.03.01.23.46.44.325371_at_yahoo.com.au...
> It doesn't take experience or knowledge to run setup.exe! Presuming you
> have a decent CD ROM and clean CDs, I suppose.

Then you are just lucky. Lucky because you never faced problems (especially when you are pressed by time) and lucky because you can do clean installs.

> possible solution which you dismissed as simply 'wrong', whilst throwing
> in personal comments about my needing a vacation.

And I explained you why it was wrong, but you avoid mentioning it. For the vacation, don't take it as an insult; It was my actual first thought. On the other hand, it would be normal, wouldn't it. Action brings reaction. If you want people to be nice to you, be nice to them. If you want me to give you more information about the problem, ask me. Don't grab me by the face that there "IS NO P4 BUG IN THE 9I" - I can read non-capitals, too. I am not blind.

> Check out Google, and you will discover about 4000 posts I've made there.
> Let me know when you have a track record of assistance, too.

I did - your initial reply to me was not the first time that I saw that "EIGHT EYE" written by you. That's not nice, is it.

> Your logic escapes me. Since I have plenty of trouble-free installs, I'm
> not qualified to offer advice to someone who *has* trouble? Perhaps the
> *way* I've avoided trouble might be of assistance to someone with an open
> mind on the matter?

Sorry, that's not how it is. The ideal person to offer me advice is the one who had the exact same problem and came through it. Next in line is somebody who has had similar problems, etc. The last one would be somebody who, I quote you, has "never had an issue doing it". That's what I think anyway.

> By definition, if they were two *identical* machines, then what works on
> one will indeed work on the other, gamma ray strikes excepted.

Exactly my point. In theory or definition, same thing, that's how it should be. In reality, rarely it is though.

> get an initial response that you may not find palatable. So then you

Understatement.

> respond with clarification, and you'll get a subtler reply. And so the
> exchange goes back and forth until the problem is solved (usually). In
> this case, you got an unpalatable reply, and rather than clarifying the
> issue, leap off into the ad hominem.

Not quite. I got an answer that instead of encouraging me to give those extra clarifications, thus giving a push to the back-forth procedure, was rather provocative. In your perfect world (because my perfect world is just different) that may be the correct way to do things. Is my not giving enough information though worth categorizing my writings as nonsense ? It escapes me why my logic escapes you.

> My comments about the Pentium IV bug were addressed to you and everyone
> else who *wastes time* even thinking about it in the context of 9i. It
> isn't an issue, and never has been for 9i. So direct your thoughts to more

With the nature of your comments you seem to demand from people to have this knowledge from always.

> whatever... If you feel the need to respond to a necessarily abbreviated
> version of that advice with personal comments about needing a vacation,
> that's up to you.

Ok wait, I finally got it. You say "I wish we could clear this nonsense up once and for all". This is actually an *abbreviation* for "direct your thoughts to more
productive lines of enquiry, such as kakked registries, faulty RAM, faulty install media, messed up environment variables, service pack status, whatever.".
Why didn't I see it in the first place ? Maybe I'm the one who needs the vacation after all.

Thanks
Kostas Received on Sun Mar 02 2003 - 12:26:28 CST