Digitally signed emails

[Phillip T. George]

Ha...I think it was Outlook...whch would probably mean that they were 
trying to use a Microsoft Exchange server....because they like the 
calendar and public folders and all of that stuff I'm sure.

-Phillip

Brian Fahrlander wrote:

>On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 19:35, Phillip T. George wrote:
>  
>
>>Brian,
>>
>>You are sadly mistaken.
>>1. Crackerjacks have GOOD prizes
>>2. Crackerjacks don't cost near that much $$$
>>    
>>
>
>    Good point.  :>
>
>  
>
>>:)
>>
>>Alls I was saying is $300 is not a good solution to run 
>>WinXP...especially if you had to pay for WinXP (I got my copy 
>>legitamately free.  A friend of mine attended some sort of Microsoft 
>>seminar).
>>
>>A better solution would be getting another computer and/or  KVM switch. 
>>Though you could even use remote desktop to get to the winXP machine, 
>>once properly configured (It wouldn't need a monitor, keyboard, or any 
>>of that crap).
>>    
>>
>
>    Well, if this is for home use, you can get it for less AND I'd bet
>that anything still requiring legacy software can be done without.
>
>    If it's a commercial situation, if the software is "necessary" then
>it's making money for them, and they can afford to justify the cost.
>There's no "but we really, really want it" when it comes to the bottom
>line- it's about costs and benefits.
>
>    And getting a KVM switch is the last resort. Now, we're buying/using
>a second computer to run these programs. Another pile of viruses in
>which to attempt to get work done. Another springboard for the next
>slammer, code red, call-it-what-you-will. Disabuse yourself of the KVM
>switch.  There are more and better ways around that.
>
>    When you transition, you'll know what I mean.  It's like one of the
>first cars being sold and the driver wants to know, 'It's a long trip-
>where do I put the spare hay so I don't have to stop?'
>
>    I have to go to work now, but what _is_ the application so precious
>that we think we need to stay on the legacy platform?
>  
>