Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!

This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially 
wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even 
remotely close to what was announced today.

33% Thinner!
2 Cameras / Back is HD
1.3 Pounds
9 Times Faster Video
Smart Magnetic Covers
1080p Mirroring
10-18 hours of battery life
Wireless Video into your Television
Up to 64GB of SSD
Supports Facetime to iPhone, iPod Touch and Macs
3G on both Verizon and ATT
Three-axis gyroscope
Still $499

Be sure to WATCH the Video on the main link below, it really illustrates 
what just happened. Again, watch the video...

http://www.apple.com/ipad/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/built-in-apps/
http://www.apple.com/ipad/ios4/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/smart-cover/

general keynote details here:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/live-from-apples-ipad-2-event/

They go on sale in 10 days, March 11th. $499

If you haven't started making money on the iPad Revolution, here is the 
link to start making millions:

http://developer.apple.com/technologies/ios/

more later, it's another great day for computing!

Oxford

On Mar 2, 3:03=A0pm, Oxford   <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>
> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially
> wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years.

Only 90% that's total fail.

Microsoft has held 98% of the desktop OS..... for nearly 3 decades.

Oxford wrote:

> S

Steve Blow Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!

He's going to Libya.



Attacking Appil Asstroturfers Reduces trolling?
-----------------------------------------------

Just one of those noticeable things.

Linux markets its cheaper products while appil trolls 
who promote products to milk wimmin out of money with
their money milking debt creating iPiddys, and MP3 players such as ipod 
will happily side with appil and their milking maidens targeting wimmin to 
milk wimmin dry and putting them into debt.

Most wimmin I know that has an ipone or ipidyy of any sort are also 
seriously deluded and seriously in debt. I bet appil doesn't care.

On Mar 2, 3:22=A0pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <d53b097e-6a16-401a-a6eb-dd3d322ca...@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 3:03 pm, Oxford =A0 <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> > > Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>
> > > This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 official=
ly
> > > wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years.
>
> > Only 90% that's total fail.
>
> > Microsoft has held 98% of the desktop OS..... for nearly 3 decades.
>
> No... ...it hasn't.
>
See the blue line, right below 100%, that's Microsoft

See the green line right on the 0% that's Apple.

LOL

See how the lines are essentially flat for 3 decades...... LOL

Fuck Alan is stupid.

http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=3D9&qptimeframe=3D=
M&qpsp=3D122&qpnp=3D25

In article 
<08b84234-5264-481b-af06-f49411eaf11d@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> See the blue line, right below 100%, that's Microsoft
> 
> See the green line right on the 0% that's Apple.
> 
> LOL
> 
> See how the lines are essentially flat for 3 decades...... LOL
> 
> Fuck Alan is stupid.
> 
> http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=
> 122&qpnp=25

See the numbers in the table below the chart?  How how the highest number 
for Microsoft is 93.51% in March 2009, and how it steadily goes down until 
it's at 89.69% in February 2011?  See how your 98% is a lie?

Also, notice how Apple's numbers go up over that period of time?  See how 
that time line is only two years, which is only about 7% of your claimed 
three decades?

See what a fucking liar you are, Moo Moo Boy?

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article 
<08b84234-5264-481b-af06-f49411eaf11d@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 2, 3:22�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d53b097e-6a16-401a-a6eb-dd3d322ca...@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 3:03 pm, Oxford � <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> > > > Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
> >
> > > > This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially
> > > > wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years.
> >
> > > Only 90% that's total fail.
> >
> > > Microsoft has held 98% of the desktop OS..... for nearly 3 decades.
> >
> > No... ...it hasn't.
> >
> See the blue line, right below 100%, that's Microsoft

And it's not at 98% for any month covered by that graph...

....nor for any other month going all the way back to November 2007.

> 
> See the green line right on the 0% that's Apple.

It's not "right on 0%" and if you add up Mac OS and iOS (you know: the 
"Apple" you just mentioned), it's now 7% and climbing...

....as long as hitslink reports.

:-)

> 
> LOL
> 
> See how the lines are essentially flat for 3 decades...... LOL

How can we see "3 decades" when the data only goes back to November 2007?

> 
> Fuck Alan is stupid.

LOL

> 
> http://www.netmarketshare.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=
> 122&qpnp=25

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

In news:apony-2AD272.13033502032011@news.qwest.net Oxford   
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!

Are you what they call a "fan boi?"

-- 
Bert Hyman	St. Paul, MN	bert@iphouse.com

In article <Xns9E9C99D3DE4F7VeebleFetzer@216.250.188.140>,
 Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> In news:apony-2AD272.13033502032011@news.qwest.net Oxford   
> <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> 
> > Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
> 
> Are you what they call a "fan boi?"

Yes, he is, and an extremely annoying one...  :)

-- 
Lloyd

Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

> > Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
> 
> Are you what they call a "fan boi?"

no, i've never been called a fan boy, but yes a very informative person.

learn what terms mean...

> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
> 
> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially 
> wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even 
> remotely close to what was announced today.
> 
> 33% Thinner!
> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> 1.3 Pounds
> 9 Times Faster Video
> Smart Magnetic Covers
> 1080p Mirroring
> 10-18 hours of battery life
> Wireless Video into your Television
> Up to 64GB of SSD
> Supports Facetime to iPhone, iPod Touch and Macs
> 3G on both Verizon and ATT
> Three-axis gyroscope
> Still $499
> 
> Be sure to WATCH the Video on the main link below, it really illustrates 
> what just happened. Again, watch the video...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/built-in-apps/
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/ios4/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/smart-cover/
> 
> general keynote details here:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/live-from-apples-ipad-2-event/
> 
> They go on sale in 10 days, March 11th. $499
> 
> If you haven't started making money on the iPad Revolution, here is the 
> link to start making millions:
> 
> http://developer.apple.com/technologies/ios/
> 
> more later, it's another great day for computing!
> 
> Oxford

In article <apony-D04A2A.14401402032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > Are you what they call a "fan boi?"
> 
> no, i've never been called a fan boy, 

oh yes you have, and you make the usual fanbois look normal.

> but yes a very informative person.

except when you're wrong, which is often.

On Mar 2, 4:40=A0pm, Oxford   <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > > Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>
> > Are you what they call a "fan boi?"
>
> no, i've never been called a fan boy, but yes a very informative person.
>
> learn what terms mean...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>
> > This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially
> > wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even
> > remotely close to what was announced today.
>
> > 33% Thinner!
> > 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> > 1.3 Pounds
> > 9 Times Faster Video
> > Smart Magnetic Covers
> > 1080p Mirroring
> > 10-18 hours of battery life
> > Wireless Video into your Television
> > Up to 64GB of SSD
> > Supports Facetime to iPhone, iPod Touch and Macs
> > 3G on both Verizon and ATT
> > Three-axis gyroscope
> > Still $499
>
> > Be sure to WATCH the Video on the main link below, it really illustrate=
s
> > what just happened. Again, watch the video...
>
> >http://www.apple.com/ipad/
>
> >http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
>
> >http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
>
> >http://www.apple.com/ipad/built-in-apps/
> >http://www.apple.com/ipad/ios4/
>
> >http://www.apple.com/ipad/smart-cover/
>
> > general keynote details here:
>
> >http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/live-from-apples-ipad-2-event/
>
> > They go on sale in 10 days, March 11th. $499
>
> > If you haven't started making money on the iPad Revolution, here is the
> > link to start making millions:
>
> >http://developer.apple.com/technologies/ios/
>
> > more later, it's another great day for computing!
>
> > Oxford

Actually I think like 6 people just did call you a fanbois. Even some
the other fanbois call u a fanbois. Wake up.

7 wrote:

> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!

Why are you against our industry moving massively forward?

check out the new iPad 2, even you will be impressed...

http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/

you can become a developer right here, so why are you complaining?

http://developer.apple.com/technologies/ios/

---

This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially 
wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even 
remotely close to what was announced today.

33% Thinner!
2 Cameras / Back is HD
1.3 Pounds
9 Times Faster Video
Smart Magnetic Covers
1080p Mirroring
10-18 hours of battery life
Wireless Video into your Television
Up to 64GB of SSD
Supports Facetime to iPhone, iPod Touch and Macs
3G on both Verizon and ATT
Three-axis gyroscope
Still $499

Be sure to WATCH the Video on the main link below, it really illustrates 
what just happened. Again, watch the video...

http://www.apple.com/ipad/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/built-in-apps/
http://www.apple.com/ipad/ios4/

http://www.apple.com/ipad/smart-cover/

general keynote details here:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/live-from-apples-ipad-2-event/

They go on sale in 10 days, March 11th. $499

If you haven't started making money on the iPad Revolution, here is the 
link to start making millions:

http://developer.apple.com/technologies/ios/

more later, it's another great day for computing!

Oxford

Oxford wrote:

> 7 wrote:
> 
>> S

Steve Blow Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!

He's going to Libya and become gadaffi's gurl fiend.



Attacking Appil Asstroturfers Reduces trolling?
-----------------------------------------------

Just one of those noticeable things.

Linux markets its cheaper products while appil trolls 
who promote products to milk wimmin out of money with
their money milking debt creating iPiddys, and MP3 players such as ipod 
will happily side with appil and their milking maidens targeting wimmin to 
milk wimmin dry and putting them into debt.

Most wimmin I know that has an ipone or ipidyy of any sort are also 
seriously deluded and seriously in debt. I bet appil doesn't care.

In article 
<fe304938-ee8d-47c1-996f-b1c0021631c3@b13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 2, 4:44�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0b94bc6c-9cff-42e8-a42e-e6d572105...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 3:47 pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <08b84234-5264-481b-af06-f49411eaf...@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Microsoft has held 98% of the desktop OS..... for nearly 3 
> > > > > > > decades.
> >
> > > > > > No... ...it hasn't.
> >
> > > > > See the blue line, right below 100%, that's Microsoft
> >
> > > > > See the green line right on the 0% that's Apple.
> >
> > > > > LOL
> >
> > > > > See how the lines are essentially flat for 3 decades...... LOL
> >
> > > > see how that has absolutely nothing to do with mobile devices, tablets
> > > > or phones, where microsoft is hurting, big time. microsoft might end up
> > > > being a distant third with windows phone 7 and nokia but that's about
> > > > it. they could even be #4 if hp/palm webos does well. it's far too
> > > > early to call.
> >
> > > > apple has over 90% of the tablet market share right now. that will drop
> > > > a little with the zillions of android tablets coming out (notice that
> > > > they're not microsoft windows phone tablets, nor are they hp webos
> > > > tablets), but apple's mobile market share is not going to be 'right on
> > > > the 0%' any time soon, if ever.
> >
> > > Then I guess you're in the wrong group. The group for PMP devices is
> > > two doors down.
> >
> > > Lets talk computer market share... since the group is "COMP"
> >
> > And you've already agreed that the iPad is a computer....
> >
> Is this Xbox a computer? Yes or No and why?

Can it be used for general purpose computer tasks? No.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

In article 
<942fba6e-7283-4f49-8eeb-79a52a0494b3@z3g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 2, 4:45�pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0b94bc6c-9cff-42e8-a42e-e6d572105...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Then I guess you're in the wrong group. The group for PMP devices is
> > > two doors down.
> >
> > the group in which i'm reading this is comp.mobile.ipad. that's as
> > appropriate as it gets.
> >
> > > Lets talk computer market share... since the group is "COMP"
> >
> > the ipad is a tablet computer.
> 
> So I can buy an iPad at Best Buy unwrap it in my car and just start
> using it?

Yup.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

In article
<942fba6e-7283-4f49-8eeb-79a52a0494b3@z3g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Lets talk computer market share... since the group is "COMP"
> >
> > the ipad is a tablet computer.
> 
> So I can buy an iPad at Best Buy unwrap it in my car and just start
> using it?

interesting definition of computer. that must mean ipods are also
computers, as are cameras and gps devices. all three can be unwrapped
and used in a car.

can you buy a minitower at best buy, unwrap it and use it in your car?
nope, not unless you have a fairly high power inverter and a spacious
car to set it all up. that must mean it's not a computer, using your
own definition.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > Are you what they call a "fan boi?"
> > 
> > no, i've never been called a fan boy, 
> 
> oh yes you have, and you make the usual fanbois look normal.

thanks!

> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially wins 
> 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even remotely close 
> to what was announced today.
> 
> 33% Thinner!
> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> 1.3 Pounds
> 9 Times Faster Video
> Smart Magnetic Covers
> 1080p Mirroring
> 10-18 hours of battery life
> Wireless Video into your Television
> Up to 64GB of SSD
> Supports Facetime to iPhone, iPod Touch and Macs
> 3G on both Verizon and ATT
> Three-axis gyroscope
> Still $499
> 
> Be sure to WATCH the Video on the main link below, it really illustrates what 
> just happened. Again, watch the video...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/built-in-apps/
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/ios4/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/smart-cover/
> 
> general keynote details here:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/live-from-apples-ipad-2-event/
> 
> They go on sale in 10 days, March 11th. $499
> 
> If you haven't started making money on the iPad Revolution, here is the link 
> to start making millions:
> 
> http://developer.apple.com/technologies/ios/
> 
> more later, it's another great day for computing!
> 
> AAPL will become a $3500 stock, just watch.
> 
> They are replacing all "paper".

In article 
<cb3e99f2-b042-4574-a3f8-3aca299be39e@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 2, 4:52�pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <942fba6e-7283-4f49-8eeb-79a52a049...@z3g2000prz.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 4:45 pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <0b94bc6c-9cff-42e8-a42e-e6d572105...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Then I guess you're in the wrong group. The group for PMP devices is
> > > > > two doors down.
> >
> > > > the group in which i'm reading this is comp.mobile.ipad. that's as
> > > > appropriate as it gets.
> >
> > > > > Lets talk computer market share... since the group is "COMP"
> >
> > > > the ipad is a tablet computer.
> >
> > > So I can buy an iPad at Best Buy unwrap it in my car and just start
> > > using it?
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> Can you explain the process. I open it up in my car, turn it on,and
> all I see is a USB connector pic telling me to connect to a computer.
> Other than that I can't do anything. How did you get around this with
> your iPad? Oh wait. You don't own one, you probably have no clue.

You got a pic of that?

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

"nospam"  wrote in message news:020320111343311282%nospam@nospam.invalid... 

In article <apony-D04A2A.14401402032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > Are you what they call a "fan boi?"
> 
> no, i've never been called a fan boy, 

oh yes you have, and you make the usual fanbois look normal.

> but yes a very informative person.

except when you're wrong, which is often.

Not "often".... it is always

On Mar 2, 4:51=A0pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <fe304938-ee8d-47c1-996f-b1c002163...@b13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 4:44 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <0b94bc6c-9cff-42e8-a42e-e6d572105...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 2, 3:47 pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <08b84234-5264-481b-af06-f49411eaf...@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com=
>,
>
> > > > > MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Microsoft has held 98% of the desktop OS..... for nearly 3
> > > > > > > > decades.
>
> > > > > > > No... ...it hasn't.
>
> > > > > > See the blue line, right below 100%, that's Microsoft
>
> > > > > > See the green line right on the 0% that's Apple.
>
> > > > > > LOL
>
> > > > > > See how the lines are essentially flat for 3 decades...... LOL
>
> > > > > see how that has absolutely nothing to do with mobile devices, ta=
blets
> > > > > or phones, where microsoft is hurting, big time. microsoft might =
end up
> > > > > being a distant third with windows phone 7 and nokia but that's a=
bout
> > > > > it. they could even be #4 if hp/palm webos does well. it's far to=
o
> > > > > early to call.
>
> > > > > apple has over 90% of the tablet market share right now. that wil=
l drop
> > > > > a little with the zillions of android tablets coming out (notice =
that
> > > > > they're not microsoft windows phone tablets, nor are they hp webo=
s
> > > > > tablets), but apple's mobile market share is not going to be 'rig=
ht on
> > > > > the 0%' any time soon, if ever.
>
> > > > Then I guess you're in the wrong group. The group for PMP devices i=
s
> > > > two doors down.
>
> > > > Lets talk computer market share... since the group is "COMP"
>
> > > And you've already agreed that the iPad is a computer....
>
> > Is this Xbox a computer? Yes or No and why?
>
> Can it be used for general purpose computer tasks? No.
>
What is a general purpose computer? Please be specific.

In article 
<b0d8906a-a0c5-45ee-bbab-83de6112b2ec@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Is this Xbox a computer? Yes or No and why?
> >
> > Can it be used for general purpose computer tasks? No.
> >
> What is a general purpose computer? Please be specific.

Can you get an email program for it? 

Calendaring software?

Time billing software?

A word processor?

Spreadsheet?

Image editor?

Newsclient?

Is that specific enough?

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

"Ness-Net" <richardno@dammnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> > > Are you what they call a "fan boi?"
> > 
> > no, i've never been called a fan boy, 
>
> oh yes you have, and you make the usual fanbois look normal.

when?

> > but yes a very informative person.
> 
> except when you're wrong, which is often.

i haven't been wrong yet, so why are you against fact based people?

> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially wins 
> 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even remotely close 
> to what was announced today.
> 
> 33% Thinner!
> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> 1.3 Pounds
> 9 Times Faster Video
> Smart Magnetic Covers
> 1080p Mirroring
> 10-18 hours of battery life
> Wireless Video into your Television
> Up to 64GB of SSD
> Supports Facetime to iPhone, iPod Touch and Macs
> 3G on both Verizon and ATT
> Three-axis gyroscope
> Still $499
> 
> Be sure to WATCH the Video on the main link below, it really illustrates what 
> just happened. Again, watch the video...
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/built-in-apps/
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/ios4/
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/smart-cover/
> 
> general keynote details here:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/live-from-apples-ipad-2-event/
> 
> They go on sale in 10 days, March 11th. $499
> 
> If you haven't started making money on the iPad Revolution, here is the link 
> to start making millions:
> 
> http://developer.apple.com/technologies/ios/
> 
> more later, it's another great day for computing!
> 
> AAPL will become a $3500 stock, just watch.
> 
> They are replacing all "paper".

In article <apony-6A855C.17133802032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > but yes a very informative person.
> > 
> > except when you're wrong, which is often.
> 
> i haven't been wrong yet, so why are you against fact based people?

you're wrong fairly frequently.

like here:
> > AAPL will become a $3500 stock, just watch.
> > 
> > They are replacing all "paper".

Yes, but will it blend ?

Oxford wrote:
> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>
> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2
> officially wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years.
> Nobody is even remotely close to what was announced today.
>
> 33% Thinner!
> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> 1.3 Pounds
> 9 Times Faster Video
> Smart Magnetic Covers
> 1080p Mirroring
> 10-18 hours of battery life
> Wireless Video into your Television
> Up to 64GB of SSD
> Supports Facetime to iPhone, iPod Touch and Macs
> 3G on both Verizon and ATT
> Three-axis gyroscope
> Still $499
>
> Be sure to WATCH the Video on the main link below, it really
> illustrates what just happened. Again, watch the video...
>
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/
>
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
>
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
>
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/built-in-apps/
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/ios4/
>
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/smart-cover/
>
> general keynote details here:
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/live-from-apples-ipad-2-event/
>
> They go on sale in 10 days, March 11th. $499
>
> If you haven't started making money on the iPad Revolution, here is
> the link to start making millions:
>
> http://developer.apple.com/technologies/ios/
>
> more later, it's another great day for computing!
>
> Oxford 

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:45:16 -0700, Oxford   <apony@pasture.com>
wrote:

>This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially 
>wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even 
>remotely close to what was announced today.

For the next 10 years?   Then Apple is wasting its time working on the
iPad 3?

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > i haven't been wrong yet, so why are you against fact based people?
> 
> you're wrong fairly frequently.
> 
> like here:
> > > AAPL will become a $3500 stock, just watch.

you'll see, yes, it's a few years off, but will happen.

so keep with the facts...

Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>
> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially 
> wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even 
> remotely close to what was announced today.
>
> 33% Thinner!
> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> 1.3 Pounds

So... still too heavy

> 9 Times Faster Video

Um, OK. What does this mean? 9 times faster video? so I can watch a 30 minute 
show in 3 minutes?

> Still $499

Still way too expensive

Alan Baker wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:51:50 -0800]:
> In article 
> <fe304938-ee8d-47c1-996f-b1c0021631c3@b13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>  MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 2, 4:44 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <0b94bc6c-9cff-42e8-a42e-e6d572105...@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >  MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Mar 2, 3:47 pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> > > > In article
>> > > > <08b84234-5264-481b-af06-f49411eaf...@o7g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>> >
>> > > > MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > Microsoft has held 98% of the desktop OS..... for nearly 3 
>> > > > > > > decades.
>> >
>> > > > > > No... ...it hasn't.
>> >
>> > > > > See the blue line, right below 100%, that's Microsoft
>> >
>> > > > > See the green line right on the 0% that's Apple.
>> >
>> > > > > LOL
>> >
>> > > > > See how the lines are essentially flat for 3 decades...... LOL
>> >
>> > > > see how that has absolutely nothing to do with mobile devices, tablets
>> > > > or phones, where microsoft is hurting, big time. microsoft might end up
>> > > > being a distant third with windows phone 7 and nokia but that's about
>> > > > it. they could even be #4 if hp/palm webos does well. it's far too
>> > > > early to call.
>> >
>> > > > apple has over 90% of the tablet market share right now. that will drop
>> > > > a little with the zillions of android tablets coming out (notice that
>> > > > they're not microsoft windows phone tablets, nor are they hp webos
>> > > > tablets), but apple's mobile market share is not going to be 'right on
>> > > > the 0%' any time soon, if ever.
>> >
>> > > Then I guess you're in the wrong group. The group for PMP devices is
>> > > two doors down.
>> >
>> > > Lets talk computer market share... since the group is "COMP"
>> >
>> > And you've already agreed that the iPad is a computer....
>> >
>> Is this Xbox a computer? Yes or No and why?
>
> Can it be used for general purpose computer tasks? No.

Yes.

Alan Baker wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:30:32 -0800]:
> In article 
> <b0d8906a-a0c5-45ee-bbab-83de6112b2ec@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
>  MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > > Is this Xbox a computer? Yes or No and why?
>> >
>> > Can it be used for general purpose computer tasks? No.
>> >
>> What is a general purpose computer? Please be specific.
>
> Can you get an email program for it? 
>
> Calendaring software?
>
> Time billing software?
>
> A word processor?
>
> Spreadsheet?
>
> Image editor?
>
> Newsclient?
>
> Is that specific enough?

Can it play Flash?

Justin stated in post slrnimtvec.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net on 3/2/11 7:32
PM:

> Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
>> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>> 
>> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially
>> wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even
>> remotely close to what was announced today.
>> 
>> 33% Thinner!
>> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
>> 1.3 Pounds
> 
> So... still too heavy
> 
>> 9 Times Faster Video
> 
> Um, OK. What does this mean? 9 times faster video? so I can watch a 30 minute
> show in 3 minutes?

You can record a 30 minute video in 3 minutes.  It is awesome - they tied it
into their Time Machine technology and now you can actually record the
future or the past.  Nobody else is doing anything else like it.  On their
next update, I have read, you will be able to record what the dinosaurs were
doing in your area.  Awesome!

>> Still $499
> 
> Still way too expensive



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

In article <slrnimtvec.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> > 1.3 Pounds
> 
> So... still too heavy

which 10" tablet weighs less? 

it sure isn't the 1.6 pound motorola xoom, the only android tablet (so
far) that runs honeycomb, google's tablet os.

> > 9 Times Faster Video
> 
> Um, OK. What does this mean? 9 times faster video? so I can watch a 30 minute 
> show in 3 minutes?

the gpu is up to 9x faster in benchmarks.

> > Still $499
> 
> Still way too expensive

which 10" tablet costs less? 

it sure isn't the motorola xoom, which costs $800.

In article <apony-E8BF8A.19210202032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > i haven't been wrong yet, so why are you against fact based people?
> > 
> > you're wrong fairly frequently.
> > 
> > like here:
> > > > AAPL will become a $3500 stock, just watch.
> 
> you'll see, yes, it's a few years off, but will happen.

how much would you like to wager on that?

In article <slrnimtvh9.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
 Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> >> > > Then I guess you're in the wrong group. The group for PMP devices is
> >> > > two doors down.
> >> >
> >> > > Lets talk computer market share... since the group is "COMP"
> >> >
> >> > And you've already agreed that the iPad is a computer....
> >> >
> >> Is this Xbox a computer? Yes or No and why?
> >
> > Can it be used for general purpose computer tasks? No.
> 
> Yes.

Such as...

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

In article <slrnimtvj2.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
 Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 15:30:32 -0800]:
> > In article 
> > <b0d8906a-a0c5-45ee-bbab-83de6112b2ec@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> >  MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > > Is this Xbox a computer? Yes or No and why?
> >> >
> >> > Can it be used for general purpose computer tasks? No.
> >> >
> >> What is a general purpose computer? Please be specific.
> >
> > Can you get an email program for it? 
> >
> > Calendaring software?
> >
> > Time billing software?
> >
> > A word processor?
> >
> > Spreadsheet?
> >
> > Image editor?
> >
> > Newsclient?
> >
> > Is that specific enough?
> 
> Can it play Flash?

The iPad? No. 

The inability to run one particular app doesn't not preclude a device 
from being a personal computer. The inability to run pretty much all of 
the software that defines personal computing does.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

nospam wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:45:57 -0800]:
> In article <slrnimtvec.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > 1.3 Pounds
>> 
>> So... still too heavy
>
> which 10" tablet weighs less? 

Doesn't matter, it's still too heavy

>> > Still $499
>> 
>> Still way too expensive
>
> which 10" tablet costs less? 
>
> it sure isn't the motorola xoom, which costs $800.

Doesn't matter, both cost way too much.

In article <slrnimu1kj.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
 Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> nospam wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:45:57 -0800]:
> > In article <slrnimtvec.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
> > <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > 1.3 Pounds
> >> 
> >> So... still too heavy
> >
> > which 10" tablet weighs less? 
> 
> Doesn't matter, it's still too heavy
> 
> >> > Still $499
> >> 
> >> Still way too expensive
> >
> > which 10" tablet costs less? 
> >
> > it sure isn't the motorola xoom, which costs $800.
> 
> Doesn't matter, both cost way too much.

$499 is "way too much"? If you own it for just two years that works out 
to less than 75� a day...

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000, Justin wrote:

> Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
>> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>>
>> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially
>> wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even
>> remotely close to what was announced today.
>>
>> 33% Thinner!
>> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
>> 1.3 Pounds
> 
> So... still too heavy
> 
>> 9 Times Faster Video
> 
> Um, OK. What does this mean? 9 times faster video? so I can watch a 30
> minute show in 3 minutes?
> 
>> Still $499
> 
> Still way too expensive


This guy an Apple shill, or what?

And, does he know Apples are made at the SAME Foxconn plant in China that
makes, Dell, HP, Compaq and others? 

Alan Baker wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 19:44:19 -0800]:
> In article <slrnimu1kj.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
>  Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> nospam wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 18:45:57 -0800]:
>> > In article <slrnimtvec.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
>> > <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > 1.3 Pounds
>> >> 
>> >> So... still too heavy
>> >
>> > which 10" tablet weighs less? 
>> 
>> Doesn't matter, it's still too heavy
>> 
>> >> > Still $499
>> >> 
>> >> Still way too expensive
>> >
>> > which 10" tablet costs less? 
>> >
>> > it sure isn't the motorola xoom, which costs $800.
>> 
>> Doesn't matter, both cost way too much.
>
> $499 is "way too much"? If you own it for just two years that works out 
> to less than 75¢ a day...

for 499 I can buy a real computer.
That still costs 75c a day.

I can keep an ipad for 12 hours and that 1000 a day.

Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> >> 33% Thinner!
> >> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> >> 1.3 Pounds
> > 
> > So... still too heavy

then name a lighter tablet with 10-18 hours of battery life.

> >> 9 Times Faster Video
> > 
> > Um, OK. What does this mean? 9 times faster video? so I can watch a 30
> > minute show in 3 minutes?

ah, it means gamers will continue to flock to the iPad. and pushing out 
wireless video to a large HDTV screen will be even more smooth.
 
> >> Still $499
> > 
> > Still way too expensive

then name a single tablet with that many features for less... waiting.

$499 is extremely cheao when you look at the specs:

http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

> This guy an Apple shill, or what?
> 
> And, does he know Apples are made at the SAME Foxconn plant in China that
> makes, Dell, HP, Compaq and others? 

nobody really cares who assembles it, what matters is the precision 
engineering and ecosystem it works within. the iPad is about 6 years 
ahead of anyone else, so you still need to learn what we are talking 
about.

you can start to learn here:

http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/

or

http://www.apple.com/jp/ipad/features/

At 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000 Justin wrote:
> Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
> > Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
> >
> > This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2
officially 
> > wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even 
> > remotely close to what was announced today.
> >
> > 33% Thinner!
> > 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> > 1.3 Pounds
> 
> So... still too heavy

Yep- 7-8" and under a pound would be my preference as well.
 

> > Still $499
> 
> Still way too expensive


Perhaps, but $349 isn't.  I almost pulled the trigger on a refurb
tonight, but my wife and I still don't like the size/weight.  I played
with the Android 2.2-based Viewsonic G Tablet at Office Depot today (10"
diagonal like the iPad, but 16x9 so it's a little smaller.)  Nice machine
but still a wee bit too large and heavy.

The Viewsonic is actually a nice Android tablet, but at $379 it's no
longer a bargain vs. a $349-399 iPad v1.  I'd still prefer a reasonably
priced 7" 'droid tab with a capacitive screen to either.  The Velocity
Cruz 103 might have been it at it's new reduced price of $170, but
Velocity stuck a MIPS chip in it instead of an ARM (what were they
thinking!?!) so it's slow and has compatibility issues. 


Frankly, considering the iPad's success, I'm surprised more serious
competition hasn't arrived, though Google's partially to blame for
disallowing non-cellular tablets access to Google apps and services like
the Android Market.  

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 21:42:58 -0700, Oxford wrote:

>> This guy an Apple shill, or what?
>> 
>> And, does he know Apples are made at the SAME Foxconn plant in China
>> that makes, Dell, HP, Compaq and others?
> 
> nobody really cares who assembles it, what matters is the precision
> engineering and ecosystem it works within. the iPad is about 6 years ahead
> of anyone else, so you still need to learn what we are talking about.


I fix Foxconn products all day, day in, day out. It is no better than
anything coming off Foxconn's assembly lines. No special components, no
special assembly, it's just another of the same. 

And, I care who assembles it. I would do something a lot of people
wouldn't do:

Pay MORE to have it made in the USA. Instead of that Chinese sausage
grinder. 

Todd Allcock wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:03:59 -0700]:
> At 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000 Justin wrote:
>> Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
>> > Still $499
>> 
>> Still way too expensive
>
>
> Perhaps, but $349 isn't.  I almost pulled the trigger on a refurb

For the smallest memory version? When a single video file can be over a GB
it's rather limited

Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> > nobody really cares who assembles it, what matters is the precision
> > engineering and ecosystem it works within. the iPad is about 6 years ahead
> > of anyone else, so you still need to learn what we are talking about.
> 
> I fix Foxconn products all day, day in, day out. It is no better than
> anything coming off Foxconn's assembly lines. No special components, no
> special assembly, it's just another of the same. 

but we aren't talking about fixing we are talking about the engineering. 
apple products are the best made products in the categories they compete 
in, that's why you rarely see them fail. nobody cares about foxconn, we 
are only concerned with having the very best money can buy.

> And, I care who assembles it. I would do something a lot of people
> wouldn't do:
> 
> Pay MORE to have it made in the USA. Instead of that Chinese sausage
> grinder. 

no, we left the "assembly" business in the 80/90's so there is no point 
to build electronics here. we want to focus on the engineering, that's 
where the good jobs are.

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> >This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially 
> >wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even 
> >remotely close to what was announced today.
> 
> For the next 10 years?   Then Apple is wasting its time working on the
> iPad 3?

not sure what you mean? of course apple will continue to race ahead, 
that's why i said ten years. the ipad 2 is just a stepping stone to the 
ipad 3 you moron.

Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 21:42:58 -0700]:
> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>
>> >> 33% Thinner!
>> >> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
>> >> 1.3 Pounds
>> > 
>> > So... still too heavy
>
> then name a lighter tablet with 10-18 hours of battery life.

Why? The fact that it's too heavy has nothing to do with competition

>> >> Still $499
>> > 
>> > Still way too expensive
>
> then name a single tablet with that many features for less... waiting.
>
> $499 is extremely cheao when you look at the specs:
>
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

Yeah, 16GB. That's not much storage at all. Does it have an SD card slot?

Oh, that's another $30 and can easily be lost or misplaced.

> nobody really cares who assembles it, what matters is the precision 
> engineering and ecosystem it works within. the iPad is about 6 years 
> ahead of anyone else, so you still need to learn what we are talking 
> about.

You mean like the new Macbooks and their stripped screws, unlocked ZIF
sockets and way too much thermal paste?

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Pro-15-Inch-Unibody-Early-2011-Teardown/4990/2
> A stripped screw near the subwoofer enclosure and an unlocked ZIF socket for the IR sensor should not be things found inside a completely unmolested computer with an $1800 base price.

> Holy thermal paste! Time will tell if the gobs of thermal paste applied to the CPU and GPU will cause overheating issues down the road.

In article <apony-2AD272.13033502032011@news.qwest.net>,
 Oxford   <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!

Hey fuck nuts. Do the rest of us a favor and leave comp.mobile.ipad out 
of your silly advocacy spams next time. Thanks.

fu set

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > like here:
> > > > > AAPL will become a $3500 stock, just watch.
> > 
> > you'll see, yes, it's a few years off, but will happen.
> 
> how much would you like to wager on that?

how about $1000?

it was $18 just 11 years ago, so it will easily be $3500 in the next 14 
years if not before.

apple will be the centerpiece of "wireless paper" so that's a $6 
Trillion business alone, then volkswagon announced today each of their 
new microbus' will include an ipad embedded into the dashboard.

http://www.slashgear.com/volkswagon-bulli-concept-an-ipad-microbus-021373
33/

then the FAA just announced pilots can use iPads for their maps! SWEET!

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/02/faa-ipad

the list of innovation is endless, so expect 90 million ipads sold in 
2012, thus $3500 looks cheap.

you'll see!

Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> > it sure isn't the motorola xoom, which costs $800.
> 
> Doesn't matter, both cost way too much.

which basically means you are clueless about technology. $499 for a 
device like this is equivalent to $650,000 some 20 years ago.

so sounds like you need to get a job and be responsible.

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> Frankly, considering the iPad's success, I'm surprised more serious
> competition hasn't arrived, though Google's partially to blame for
> disallowing non-cellular tablets access to Google apps and services like
> the Android Market.  

well, the iPad's success is all about tight software integration, 
hardware miniaturization and squeezing component costs to the bone, no 
other companies have that skill set, plus apple has been working on 
tablets for 29 years so they have far deeper expertise to build devices 
like the ipad 2.

yes, google was late to the party, but even today they aren't keeping 
pace. 100 apps for Android tablets? 65,000 for the iPad? the biggest 
complaint of honeycomb is where are the apps? and without developer 
interest or $ incentive, their probably won't be many apps made for 
android tables. (save custom enterprise apps)

so it's looking like android devices are going to end up like the 
creative nomad, diamond rio, iriver, zune, etc. lots of "designs" but 
all failures in the market.

Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> > Perhaps, but $349 isn't.  I almost pulled the trigger on a refurb
> 
> For the smallest memory version? When a single video file can be over a GB
> it's rather limited

but you rarely store video on an ipad, you just stream everything from 
your airport basestation. trying to "store" video is pointless in this 
day and age, just leave it on your server or cloud account.

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 05:25:12 +0000, Justin wrote:

>> nobody really cares who assembles it, what matters is the precision
>> engineering and ecosystem it works within. the iPad is about 6 years
>> ahead of anyone else, so you still need to learn what we are talking
>> about.
> 
> You mean like the new Macbooks and their stripped screws, unlocked ZIF
> sockets and way too much thermal paste?


Like I told him, I fix Foxconn stuff all day. The best one was a Dell unit
shipped direct from the Foxconn facility. WOuldn't power up, just kept
throwing codes and recycling. I went to replace the mobo, and removed the
heatsink and fan, and...EMPTY socket...maybe it stuck to the heatsink...it
CAN'T! The 755 socket prevents it from coming off with the heatsink!

Excellent QC, I tell ya! 

Bottom line: yes, I DO care who it's made by! And I WOULD pay more for a
made in USA unit. You can do all the magnificent engineering you want, but
if it's made by people that just don't or aren't allowed to care, WTF GOOD
is it?!?!?!

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:35:09 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> > > like here:
>> > > > > AAPL will become a $3500 stock, just watch.
>> > 
>> > you'll see, yes, it's a few years off, but will happen.
>> 
>> how much would you like to wager on that?
> 
> how about $1000?
> 
> it was $18 just 11 years ago, so it will easily be $3500 in the next 14
> years if not before.
> 
> apple will be the centerpiece of "wireless paper" so that's a $6 Trillion
> business alone, then volkswagon announced today each of their new
> microbus' will include an ipad embedded into the dashboard.
> 
> http://www.slashgear.com/volkswagon-bulli-concept-an-ipad-microbus-021373
> 33/
> 
> then the FAA just announced pilots can use iPads for their maps! SWEET!
> 
> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/02/faa-ipad
> 
> the list of innovation is endless, so expect 90 million ipads sold in
> 2012, thus $3500 looks cheap.
> 
> you'll see!


How much are they paying you to shill? And, why are you including the
Verizon group? Can you use the damn thing as a phone?

In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
 Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000, Justin wrote:
> 
> > Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
> >> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
> >>
> >> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially
> >> wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even
> >> remotely close to what was announced today.
> >>
> >> 33% Thinner!
> >> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> >> 1.3 Pounds
> > 
> > So... still too heavy
> > 
> >> 9 Times Faster Video
> > 
> > Um, OK. What does this mean? 9 times faster video? so I can watch a 30
> > minute show in 3 minutes?
> > 
> >> Still $499
> > 
> > Still way too expensive
> 
> 
> This guy an Apple shill, or what?
> 
> And, does he know Apples are made at the SAME Foxconn plant in China that
> makes, Dell, HP, Compaq and others? 

Some people seem to think you can just call up Foxconn and say "Give me 
a million tablets with the same components as the iPad. I'll e-mail some 
CAD files with the case design".

It doesn't work like that. Foxconn (and similar companies) don't make 
most of the components in the devices they assemble. Apple and other 
vendors have to find suppliers and make deals for each component. As a 
consequence of Apple's huge cash horde and the vast quantities they 
order of a given component (remember, Apple has a significant share of 
the market with only a few devices; the rest of the market is split over 
dozens of devices), favorable deals on key components can allow Apple 
access to items others don't have access to, or result in lower prices 
for Apple than others pay.

This is a significant part of the reason other vendors are having such a 
hard time matching Apple's iPad pricing.

And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products 
manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.

This whole "Everything is made at Foxconn; it's all the same" argument 
has essentially no relationship to reality.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <apony-6D9A21.22350902032011@news.qwest.net>,
 Oxford   <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > like here:
> > > > > > AAPL will become a $3500 stock, just watch.
> > > 
> > > you'll see, yes, it's a few years off, but will happen.
> > 
> > how much would you like to wager on that?
> 
> how about $1000?
> 
> it was $18 just 11 years ago, so it will easily be $3500 in the next 
> 14 years if not before. apple will be the centerpiece of "wireless 
> paper" so that's a $6 Trillion business alone,

On what basis?

> then volkswagon announced today each of their new microbus' will 
> include an ipad embedded into the dashboard.
> 
> http://www.slashgear.com/volkswagon-bulli-concept-an-ipad-microbus-021
> 373 33/

It's a concept car with no specific plans for actual production.

> then the FAA just announced pilots can use iPads for their maps! 
> SWEET!
> 
> http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/02/faa-ipad

Neat, but nut exactly a huge market in terms of unit sales.

> the list of innovation is endless, so expect 90 million ipads sold in 
> 2012, thus $3500 looks cheap.
> 
> you'll see!

90M iPads isn't nearly enough to drive Apple stock to $3500.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <apony-9A6638.00004503032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> but you rarely store video on an ipad, you just stream everything from 
> your airport basestation. trying to "store" video is pointless in this 
> day and age, just leave it on your server or cloud account.

yea that works out so well on a plane, or in a car (for passengers).

In article <apony-6D9A21.22350902032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > > like here:
> > > > > > AAPL will become a $3500 stock, just watch.
> > > 
> > > you'll see, yes, it's a few years off, but will happen.
> > 
> > how much would you like to wager on that?
> 
> how about $1000?

do you have that much?

> it was $18 just 11 years ago, so it will easily be $3500 in the next 14 
> years if not before.

for a stock to go up tenfold is unusual. it's very unlikely it will do
it a second time.

In article <apony-3F8383.22384402032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > it sure isn't the motorola xoom, which costs $800.
> > 
> > Doesn't matter, both cost way too much.
> 
> which basically means you are clueless about technology. $499 for a 
> device like this is equivalent to $650,000 some 20 years ago.

and you're clueless about inflation.

> so sounds like you need to get a job and be responsible.

sounds like you should.

On  2-Mar-2011, Oxford   <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>
> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially
> wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even
> remotely close to what was announced today.
>
> 33% Thinner!
> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> 1.3 Pounds
> 9 Times Faster Video
> Smart Magnetic Covers
> 1080p Mirroring
> 10-18 hours of battery life
> Wireless Video into your Television
> Up to 64GB of SSD
> Supports Facetime to iPhone, iPod Touch and Macs
> 3G on both Verizon and ATT
> Three-axis gyroscope
> Still $499
>
> Be sure to WATCH the Video on the main link below, it really illustrates
> what just happened. Again, watch the video...
>
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/
>
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
>
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
>
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/built-in-apps/
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/ios4/
>
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/smart-cover/
>
> general keynote details here:
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/02/live-from-apples-ipad-2-event/
>
> They go on sale in 10 days, March 11th. $499
>
> If you haven't started making money on the iPad Revolution, here is the
> link to start making millions:
>
> http://developer.apple.com/technologies/ios/

Apparently Apple took a lot of flack for their heavy-handed approach in
changing the usage of the side switch. They've decided to make it
customizable - all those pesky and noisy consumers must have been pretty
convincing.

Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:35:09 -0700]:
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > > like here:
>> > > > > AAPL will become a $3500 stock, just watch.
>> > 
>> > you'll see, yes, it's a few years off, but will happen.
>> 
>> how much would you like to wager on that?
>
> how about $1000?
>
> it was $18 just 11 years ago, so it will easily be $3500 in the next 14 
> years if not before.

Hahahaha

After Jobs dies next year, it will plummet

Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:38:44 -0700]:
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > it sure isn't the motorola xoom, which costs $800.
>> 
>> Doesn't matter, both cost way too much.
>
> which basically means you are clueless about technology. $499 for a 
> device like this is equivalent to $650,000 some 20 years ago.

Wow, that much? How many fart apps does that play?

> so sounds like you need to get a job and be responsible.

I think responsible is not buying such a limited and expensive
toy

Oxford wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 00:00:45 -0700]:
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > Perhaps, but $349 isn't.  I almost pulled the trigger on a refurb
>> 
>> For the smallest memory version? When a single video file can be over a GB
>> it's rather limited
>
> but you rarely store video on an ipad, you just stream everything from 
> your airport basestation. trying to "store" video is pointless in this 
> day and age, just leave it on your server or cloud account.

I guess you never leave the house?

What do you do when you are going on a trip and want a couple of movies for
the flight or for passing the time in the hotel at night?

ZnU wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:43:13 -0500]:
> In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
>  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>
> And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products 
> manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.

So, if apple is asking for poor QC on their macbooks, are their ipads
going to have the same problems?

Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> > the list of innovation is endless, so expect 90 million ipads sold in
> > 2012, thus $3500 looks cheap.
> > 
> > you'll see!
> 
> How much are they paying you to shill? And, why are you including the
> Verizon group? Can you use the damn thing as a phone?

what's a shill? i'm just a very helpful person getting the word out 
about innovations in the industry. why are you so against the best 
technology anyway?

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > the list of innovation is endless, so expect 90 million ipads sold in 
> > 2012, thus $3500 looks cheap.
> > 
> > you'll see!
> 
> 90M iPads isn't nearly enough to drive Apple stock to $3500.

not ipads alone of course, but macs sales are growing 30% faster than 
the windows world, the ipod touch is selling in the millions each 
quarter, the iphone will sell around 60 million units this year, a 
iphone nano will triple sales, then you need to add in all the billions 
of apps, songs, books, movies sold... add adapters, applecare, etc

$3500 is achievable is my point.

At 03 Mar 2011 05:18:05 +0000 Justin wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:03:59 -0700]:
> > At 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000 Justin wrote:
> >> Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
> >> > Still $499
> >> 
> >> Still way too expensive
> >
> >
> > Perhaps, but $349 isn't.  I almost pulled the trigger on a refurb
> 
> For the smallest memory version? When a single video file can be over a
GB
> it's rather limited


More is always better, but 16GB is sufficient for a trip, and you can
change the content (or stream) when at home or in hotel.   

Todd Allcock wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:03:59 -0700]:
> At 03 Mar 2011 05:18:05 +0000 Justin wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:03:59 -0700]:
>> > At 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000 Justin wrote:
>> >> Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
>> >> > Still $499
>> >> 
>> >> Still way too expensive
>> >
>> >
>> > Perhaps, but $349 isn't.  I almost pulled the trigger on a refurb
>> 
>> For the smallest memory version? When a single video file can be over a
> GB
>> it's rather limited
>
>
> More is always better, but 16GB is sufficient for a trip, and you can
> change the content (or stream) when at home or in hotel.   

Have you tried using internet in a hotel? It's always a crap shoot as to
the speed and what you can and can't connect to. What ports are blocked, etc.

Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> writes:

> Todd Allcock wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:03:59 -0700]:
>> At 03 Mar 2011 05:18:05 +0000 Justin wrote:
>>> Todd Allcock wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:03:59 -0700]:
>>> > At 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000 Justin wrote:
>>> >> Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
>>> >> > Still $499
>>> >> 
>>> >> Still way too expensive
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Perhaps, but $349 isn't.  I almost pulled the trigger on a refurb
>>> 
>>> For the smallest memory version? When a single video file can be over a
>> GB
>>> it's rather limited
>>
>>
>> More is always better, but 16GB is sufficient for a trip, and you can
>> change the content (or stream) when at home or in hotel.   
>
> Have you tried using internet in a hotel? It's always a crap shoot as to
> the speed and what you can and can't connect to. What ports are blocked, etc.

You really redefine cluelessness.

Of course some places might have rubbish setups. Most dont.

Hadron wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:31:15 +0100]:
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> writes:
>
>> Todd Allcock wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:03:59 -0700]:
>>> At 03 Mar 2011 05:18:05 +0000 Justin wrote:
>>>> Todd Allcock wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:03:59 -0700]:
>>>> > At 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000 Justin wrote:
>>>> >> Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
>>>> >> > Still $499
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Still way too expensive
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Perhaps, but $349 isn't.  I almost pulled the trigger on a refurb
>>>> 
>>>> For the smallest memory version? When a single video file can be over a
>>> GB
>>>> it's rather limited
>>>
>>>
>>> More is always better, but 16GB is sufficient for a trip, and you can
>>> change the content (or stream) when at home or in hotel.   
>>
>> Have you tried using internet in a hotel? It's always a crap shoot as to
>> the speed and what you can and can't connect to. What ports are blocked, etc.
>
> You really redefine cluelessness.
>
> Of course some places might have rubbish setups. Most dont.

Most don't is a lie.

You won't know until you get there and end up screwed, anyway.

Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> > the list of innovation is endless, so expect 90 million ipads sold in
>> > 2012, thus $3500 looks cheap.
>> > 
>> > you'll see!
>> 
>> How much are they paying you to shill? And, why are you including the
>> Verizon group? Can you use the damn thing as a phone?
> 
> what's a shill? 

You are, OxRetard

> i'm just a very helpful person getting the word out
> about innovations in the industry. 

No, you are the absolut dumbest person one could meet on all of usenet.
You alone achieve making apple user look like the idiots most of them really 
are

> why are you so against the best technology anyway?

Because it isn't the best. Never was, and never will be
-- 
"Against stupidity, the very gods themselves contend in vain." 
Friedrich Schiller

"nospam"  wrote in message news:020320111620075037%nospam@nospam.invalid... 

In article <apony-6A855C.17133802032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > but yes a very informative person.
> > 
> > except when you're wrong, which is often.
> 
> i haven't been wrong yet, so why are you against fact based people?

you're wrong fairly frequently.

like here:
> > AAPL will become a $3500 stock, just watch.
> > 
> > They are replacing all "paper".

I think "frequently" is still way to generous.
I'm more thinking ALWAYS.

Like Wi-Fi is going to be rapidly replacing the cell carriers.
Like VZW is declining and going to go away....
(look at last Q's numbers - quite the opposite Oxy)

Both are completely ludicrous statements as is everything I've seen from this loon.

"Hachiroku ハチロク"  wrote in message news:4VGbp.26459$Pg4.18317@newsfe22.iad...

>How much are they paying you to shill? And, why are you including the
>Verizon group? Can you use the damn thing as a phone?

This moron (Oxy) is a deluded drooling fanboi.
Prone to wild speculation and making insanely ludicrous statements.

VZW group? To troll.

Apple should pay him to shut up.
His antics actually makes them look bad.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:24:22 -0700, Oxford   <apony@pasture.com>
wrote:

>> >This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially 
>> >wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even 
>> >remotely close to what was announced today.
>> 
>> For the next 10 years?   Then Apple is wasting its time working on the
>> iPad 3?
>
>not sure what you mean? of course apple will continue to race ahead, 
>that's why i said ten years. the ipad 2 is just a stepping stone to the 
>ipad 3 you moron.

I wasn't the one who said the iPad 2 officially wins 90% of the tablet
market for the next 10 years.

In ten years, the iPad 2 will be remembered as an incremental
improvement over the iPad, followed by other incremental improvements
after.

I wouldn't call others morons without looking in the mirror first.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On Mar 3, 3:43=A0am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5...@newsfe02.iad>,
> =A0Hachiroku =C9n=C9`=C9=E7=C9N <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000, Justin wrote:
>
> > > Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
> > >> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>
> > >> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officia=
lly
> > >> wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even
> > >> remotely close to what was announced today.
>
> > >> 33% Thinner!
> > >> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> > >> 1.3 Pounds
>
> > > So... still too heavy
>
> > >> 9 Times Faster Video
>
> > > Um, OK. What does this mean? 9 times faster video? so I can watch a 3=
0
> > > minute show in 3 minutes?
>
> > >> Still $499
>
> > > Still way too expensive
>
> > This guy an Apple shill, or what?
>
> > And, does he know Apples are made at the SAME Foxconn plant in China th=
at
> > makes, Dell, HP, Compaq and others?
>
> Some people seem to think you can just call up Foxconn and say "Give me
> a million tablets with the same components as the iPad. I'll e-mail some
> CAD files with the case design".
>

HAHAHAHAHA

Last week this Znu asshole said he was an expert at video engineering.
This week he's an expert at running a production line..... IN CHINA.

nospam wrote:

> In article <apony-79E355.07595403032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
> <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> 
>> $3500 is achievable is my point.
> 
> and you're a blithering idiot

Please don't insult the real blithering idiots out there by comparing them to 
Oxford.

That guy singledhandly achieves that Mac users universally are regarded as 
dimwitted cretins with no competence whatsoever

-- 
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow

Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> Have you tried using internet in a hotel? It's always a crap shoot as to
> the speed and what you can and can't connect to. What ports are blocked, etc.

nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service. just make 
sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux or 
windows.

"Kirby Grant" <chara@acre.org> wrote:

> Apparently Apple took a lot of flack for their heavy-handed approach in
> changing the usage of the side switch. They've decided to make it
> customizable - all those pesky and noisy consumers must have been pretty
> convincing.

yes, apple is the king of listening to customers. apple was trying to 
provide consistency with the ipod touch and iphone, but now there is the 
option of locking orientation. sweet.

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > And, does he know Apples are made at the SAME Foxconn plant in China that
> > makes, Dell, HP, Compaq and others? 
> 
> Some people seem to think you can just call up Foxconn and say "Give me 
> a million tablets with the same components as the iPad. I'll e-mail some 
> CAD files with the case design".
> 
> It doesn't work like that. Foxconn (and similar companies) don't make 
> most of the components in the devices they assemble. Apple and other 
> vendors have to find suppliers and make deals for each component. As a 
> consequence of Apple's huge cash horde and the vast quantities they 
> order of a given component (remember, Apple has a significant share of 
> the market with only a few devices; the rest of the market is split over 
> dozens of devices), favorable deals on key components can allow Apple 
> access to items others don't have access to, or result in lower prices 
> for Apple than others pay.
> 
> This is a significant part of the reason other vendors are having such a 
> hard time matching Apple's iPad pricing.
> 
> And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products 
> manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.
> 
> This whole "Everything is made at Foxconn; it's all the same" argument 
> has essentially no relationship to reality.

correct answer ZnU. a vendor can "also" specify build quality, apple 
currently has the highest production standards and the sheer volume 
keeps the costs low. the xoom is probably in the 80% range of an apple 
ipad, but if they only sell 600,000 in 1 quarter, their costs are going 
to be far higher compared to 6,000,000 units of the ipad.

nobody is going to beat apple in quality for years to come, the ethos of 
"perfection" runs too deep inside apple.

Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> >not sure what you mean? of course apple will continue to race ahead, 
> >that's why i said ten years. the ipad 2 is just a stepping stone to the 
> >ipad 3 you moron.
> 
> I wasn't the one who said the iPad 2 officially wins 90% of the tablet
> market for the next 10 years.

yes, you got hung up on the "2", but as we all know there will be a 3, 
4, 5... etc... that's why no competitors will be able to catch up at 
this point. they are still on beta 0.8

> In ten years, the iPad 2 will be remembered as an incremental
> improvement over the iPad, followed by other incremental improvements
> after.

no, the Pad 2 was a massive improvement. 2 cameras, 2 times faster, 
photobooth, 33% thinner, 1080p Mirroring, 3G on both Verizon and ATT, 
hdmi out, etc.

> I wouldn't call others morons without looking in the mirror first.

i'm the one with the factual information, not you. so keep that in mind.

On 2011-03-03, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>> > And, does he know Apples are made at the SAME Foxconn plant in China that
>> > makes, Dell, HP, Compaq and others? 
>> 
>> Some people seem to think you can just call up Foxconn and say "Give me 
>> a million tablets with the same components as the iPad. I'll e-mail some 
>> CAD files with the case design".
>> 
>> It doesn't work like that. Foxconn (and similar companies) don't make 
>> most of the components in the devices they assemble. Apple and other 
>> vendors have to find suppliers and make deals for each component. As a 
>> consequence of Apple's huge cash horde and the vast quantities they 
>> order of a given component (remember, Apple has a significant share of 
>> the market with only a few devices; the rest of the market is split over 
>> dozens of devices), favorable deals on key components can allow Apple 
>> access to items others don't have access to, or result in lower prices 
>> for Apple than others pay.
>> 
>> This is a significant part of the reason other vendors are having such a 
>> hard time matching Apple's iPad pricing.
>> 
>> And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products 
>> manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.
>> 
>> This whole "Everything is made at Foxconn; it's all the same" argument 
>> has essentially no relationship to reality.
>
> correct answer ZnU. a vendor can "also" specify build quality, apple 
> currently has the highest production standards and the sheer volume 

   You keep saying that as if it were some sort of article of faith.

   Meanwhile, plenty of us have direct experience to the contrary.

[deletia]

   Foxconn is just an assembly line for other components from other
companies. They put the same standard parts together for a lot of
different vendors, including Apple.

   Very little of an Apple is actually under Apple's control really.
This would be true even if Apple ran their own assembly plant in 
Cupertino.

-- 
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club!                           |||
                                                                   / | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!

In article <apony-79E355.07595403032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> $3500 is achievable is my point.

and you're a blithering idiot, is my point (and that of many, many
others).

In article <slrnimv9cp.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
 Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> ZnU wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:43:13 -0500]:
> > In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> >
> > And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products 
> > manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.
> 
> So, if apple is asking for poor QC on their macbooks, are their ipads
> going to have the same problems?

This whole "poor QC on MacBooks" thing is based on a couple of minor 
issues iFixIt discovered on a single unit. It's the usual Internet echo 
chamber nonsense.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <apony-79E355.07595403032011@news.qwest.net>,
 Oxford   <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > the list of innovation is endless, so expect 90 million ipads sold in 
> > > 2012, thus $3500 looks cheap.
> > > 
> > > you'll see!
> > 
> > 90M iPads isn't nearly enough to drive Apple stock to $3500.
> 
> not ipads alone of course, but macs sales are growing 30% faster than 
> the windows world, the ipod touch is selling in the millions each 
> quarter, the iphone will sell around 60 million units this year, a 
> iphone nano will triple sales, then you need to add in all the billions 
> of apps, songs, books, movies sold... add adapters, applecare, etc
> 
> $3500 is achievable is my point.

Look, I'm pretty bullish on AAPL. I own a bunch. But there simply aren't 
enough people on the planet to sell devices to for Apple to keep growing 
revenue ~70% a year for too many more years. They're selling iOS devices 
at a rate of ~120M/year as of last quarter. If you assume a two year 
replacement cycle (it's probably a little longer, but sticking to two 
years helps offset people who own, say, both an iPad and an iPhone), 
this means they're already serving a customer base of some 240M.

The population of the developed world (i.e. most of the people who can 
afford these devices) is only 1.2B. Now, there is the growing Chinese 
middle class, etc. But I doubt the addressable market for devices in 
anything like this price range is more than 2B people, which means 
growing iOS device revenue to 10x the present figure is going to be 
essentially impossible. 

As a consequence, the crazy revenue growth we've seen from Apple over 
the past few years simply isn't sustainable past the next three or four 
years. Unless we discover a planet with billions of rich aliens 
desperate for iPhones, they'll hit market saturation within that 
timeframe.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> > why are you so against the best technology anyway?
> 
> Because it isn't the best. Never was, and never will be

then peter, show us a UNIX device that has a 10 inch screen, weighs less 
than 1.3 pounds... and beats the iPad 2 for less than $499.

these are the benchmarks you will need to meet or exceed for your above 
comment to be true... good luck, waiting for your reply.

http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

all we'll hear from peter is... silence.

Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> > but you rarely store video on an ipad, you just stream everything from 
> > your airport basestation. trying to "store" video is pointless in this 
> > day and age, just leave it on your server or cloud account.
> 
> I guess you never leave the house?
> 
> What do you do when you are going on a trip and want a couple of movies for
> the flight or for passing the time in the hotel at night?

just stream it from your local server or cloud account. the internet 
could care less where you are physically at...

do you even own an ipad?

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:23:09 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>>> why are you so against the best technology anyway?
>> 
>> Because it isn't the best. Never was, and never will be
> 
> then peter, show us a UNIX device that has a 10 inch screen, weighs less 
> than 1.3 pounds... and beats the iPad 2 for less than $499.
> 
> these are the benchmarks you will need to meet or exceed for your above 
> comment to be true... good luck, waiting for your reply.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
> 
> all we'll hear from peter is... silence.

CNN had Rob Enderle on yesterday and they were commenting on the various
iPad units.

The Lenovo seems to be pretty good but the biggest thing was that the
iPad does a lot of things right now that the others are still promising.

Time will tell.

"Ness-Net" <richardno@dammnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> Like Wi-Fi is going to be rapidly replacing the cell carriers.
> Like VZW is declining and going to go away....

i never said "rapidly", those are your words not mine, i simple said 
wifi would replace cell carriers, and so far, i've been was correct...

yes verizon stagnated and began to collapse before apple allowed them to 
sell the iphone and ipad. so i was correct again.

i know this industry better than most anyone, so i haven't been wrong 
yet.

On 3/3/2011 8:37 AM, Ness-Net wrote:

> Like Wi-Fi is going to be rapidly replacing the cell carriers.

LOL. While I see more and more free Wi-Fi around, what it's good for is 
eliminating the need to have an expensive unlimited data plan. Many 
people that use data carefully (mostly only when 2G/3G/4G is not 
available) can get by with one of the lower priced metered data plans.

> Like VZW is declining and going to go away....
> (look at last Q's numbers - quite the opposite Oxy)

Verizon continued to add more subscribers per quarter than AT&T for 
nearly every quarter that AT&T had the iPhone. The fact is that for many 
subscribers, the network is actually more important than the handset. 
Apple hadn't counted on the animosity so many cellular customers have 
for AT&T.

The problem is that our favorite troll doesn't have any knowledge about 
the wireless industry, which is why he is so often wrong.

Oxford wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:28:01 -0700]:
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> > but you rarely store video on an ipad, you just stream everything from 
>> > your airport basestation. trying to "store" video is pointless in this 
>> > day and age, just leave it on your server or cloud account.
>> 
>> I guess you never leave the house?
>> 
>> What do you do when you are going on a trip and want a couple of movies for
>> the flight or for passing the time in the hotel at night?
>
> just stream it from your local server or cloud account. the internet 
> could care less where you are physically at...

Good luck getting he bandwidth you need to stream on a plane.

> do you even own an ipad?

Nope, they are too expensive and too limited

In article <gPVbp.5437$1a1.2644@newsfe07.iad>,
 Hachiroku �n�`���N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:43:13 -0500, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
> >  Hachiroku ��n��`���N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000, Justin wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
> >> >> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
> >> >>
> >> >> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2
> >> >> officially wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years.
> >> >> Nobody is even remotely close to what was announced today.
> >> >>
> >> >> 33% Thinner!
> >> >> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
> >> >> 1.3 Pounds
> >> > 
> >> > So... still too heavy
> >> > 
> >> >> 9 Times Faster Video
> >> > 
> >> > Um, OK. What does this mean? 9 times faster video? so I can watch a 30
> >> > minute show in 3 minutes?
> >> > 
> >> >> Still $499
> >> > 
> >> > Still way too expensive
> >> 
> >> 
> >> This guy an Apple shill, or what?
> >> 
> >> And, does he know Apples are made at the SAME Foxconn plant in China
> >> that makes, Dell, HP, Compaq and others?
> > 
> > Some people seem to think you can just call up Foxconn and say "Give me a
> > million tablets with the same components as the iPad. I'll e-mail some CAD
> > files with the case design".
> > 
> > It doesn't work like that. Foxconn (and similar companies) don't make most
> > of the components in the devices they assemble. Apple and other vendors
> > have to find suppliers and make deals for each component. As a consequence
> > of Apple's huge cash horde and the vast quantities they order of a given
> > component (remember, Apple has a significant share of the market with only
> > a few devices; the rest of the market is split over dozens of devices),
> > favorable deals on key components can allow Apple access to items others
> > don't have access to, or result in lower prices for Apple than others pay.
> 
> OK...
> 
> > 
> > This is a significant part of the reason other vendors are having such a
> > hard time matching Apple's iPad pricing.
> 
> OK...
> 
> > 
> > And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products
> > manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.
> 
> OK...
> 
> > 
> > This whole "Everything is made at Foxconn; it's all the same" argument has
> > essentially no relationship to reality.
> 
> Wanna bet? Why would they make Apples any better then Dells?

Because they may be using different parts and operating to different 
specifications. As I just explained.

People have this impression that production services like this are much 
more of a standardized off-the-shelf product than they really are when 
you're talking about contracts of this size.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:08:01 -0500, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Have you tried using internet in a hotel? It's always a crap shoot as to
>> the speed and what you can and can't connect to. What ports are blocked, etc.
>
> nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service.

Right. Motel 6, for example -- every phone has a data jack that will take an
RJ-ll cable from your iPad's data modem and let you connect to your dial-up ISP.

> ... just make
> sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux or
> windows.

What, your iPad doesn't have a data modem? Well, looks like it was built in
the wrong century, eh? Most Win-boxen still have one these days ... :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 23:57:38 -0700, Oxford wrote:

>> Frankly, considering the iPad's success, I'm surprised more serious
>> competition hasn't arrived, though Google's partially to blame for
>> disallowing non-cellular tablets access to Google apps and services like
>> the Android Market.
> 
> well, the iPad's success is all about tight software integration, hardware
> miniaturization and squeezing component costs to the bone, no other
> companies have that skill set, plus apple has been working on tablets for
> 29 years so they have far deeper expertise to build devices like the ipad
> 2.


YAWN. Are you in the Publicity Dept, or Sales, or...

"Oxford"  wrote in message news:apony-E9F85D.15314903032011@news.qwest.net... 

"Ness-Net" <richardno@dammnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> Like Wi-Fi is going to be rapidly replacing the cell carriers.
> Like VZW is declining and going to go away....

-i never said "rapidly", those are your words not mine, i simple said 
-wifi would replace cell carriers, and so far, i've been was correct...

-yes verizon stagnated and began to collapse before apple allowed them to 
-sell the iphone and ipad. so i was correct again.

-i know this industry better than most anyone, so i haven't been wrong 
yet.

Sorry Oxy, you can delude yourself, but you are nowhere near correct on the above.

Cell carriers as a whole (with the exception of T-MO) are all growing, not declining.
BIG Strike 1.

VZW has continued to grow steadily.
BIG Strike 2

Keep swinging - and missing by a mile.

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:43:13 -0500, ZnU wrote:

> In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
>  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000, Justin wrote:
>> 
>> > Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
>> >> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>> >>
>> >> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2
>> >> officially wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years.
>> >> Nobody is even remotely close to what was announced today.
>> >>
>> >> 33% Thinner!
>> >> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
>> >> 1.3 Pounds
>> > 
>> > So... still too heavy
>> > 
>> >> 9 Times Faster Video
>> > 
>> > Um, OK. What does this mean? 9 times faster video? so I can watch a 30
>> > minute show in 3 minutes?
>> > 
>> >> Still $499
>> > 
>> > Still way too expensive
>> 
>> 
>> This guy an Apple shill, or what?
>> 
>> And, does he know Apples are made at the SAME Foxconn plant in China
>> that makes, Dell, HP, Compaq and others?
> 
> Some people seem to think you can just call up Foxconn and say "Give me a
> million tablets with the same components as the iPad. I'll e-mail some CAD
> files with the case design".
> 
> It doesn't work like that. Foxconn (and similar companies) don't make most
> of the components in the devices they assemble. Apple and other vendors
> have to find suppliers and make deals for each component. As a consequence
> of Apple's huge cash horde and the vast quantities they order of a given
> component (remember, Apple has a significant share of the market with only
> a few devices; the rest of the market is split over dozens of devices),
> favorable deals on key components can allow Apple access to items others
> don't have access to, or result in lower prices for Apple than others pay.

OK...

> 
> This is a significant part of the reason other vendors are having such a
> hard time matching Apple's iPad pricing.

OK...

> 
> And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products
> manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.

OK...

> 
> This whole "Everything is made at Foxconn; it's all the same" argument has
> essentially no relationship to reality.

Wanna bet? Why would they make Apples any better then Dells?
 

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:54:26 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> > the list of innovation is endless, so expect 90 million ipads sold in
>> > 2012, thus $3500 looks cheap.
>> > 
>> > you'll see!
>> 
>> How much are they paying you to shill? And, why are you including the
>> Verizon group? Can you use the damn thing as a phone?
> 
> what's a shill? i'm just a very helpful person getting the word out about
> innovations in the industry. why are you so against the best technology
> anyway?


YAWN. Yeah, we all saw the press release. So? 

Apple has some great products, this we know. But they aren't *that* great. 
Big deal. They aren't the greatest thing since ice cream on a stick. 

If I were Steve Jobs, I'd probably have you arrested for stalking. 

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:31:13 -0500, tlvp wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:08:01 -0500, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> 
>> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Have you tried using internet in a hotel? It's always a crap shoot as
>>> to the speed and what you can and can't connect to. What ports are
>>> blocked, etc.
>>
>> nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service.
> 
> Right. Motel 6, for example -- every phone has a data jack that will take
> an RJ-ll cable from your iPad's data modem and let you connect to your
> dial-up ISP.
> 
>> ... just make
>> sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux or
>> windows.
> 
> What, your iPad doesn't have a data modem? Well, looks like it was built
> in the wrong century, eh? Most Win-boxen still have one these days ... :-)
> .
> 
> Cheers, -- tlvp


They have a Beyond the Magic adapter that allows it. 

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:08:01 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> 
>> Have you tried using internet in a hotel? It's always a crap shoot as to
>> the speed and what you can and can't connect to. What ports are blocked,
>> etc.
> 
> nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service. just make
> sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux or
> windows.


Yeah. What's Apple's OS based on? (wait for it...)

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:21:13 -0500, ZnU wrote:

> In article <gPVbp.5437$1a1.2644@newsfe07.iad>,
>  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:43:13 -0500, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
>> >  Hachiroku ̉n̉`̤̉̉N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:32:44 +0000, Justin wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
>> >> >> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2
>> >> >> officially wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years.
>> >> >> Nobody is even remotely close to what was announced today.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 33% Thinner!
>> >> >> 2 Cameras / Back is HD
>> >> >> 1.3 Pounds
>> >> > 
>> >> > So... still too heavy
>> >> > 
>> >> >> 9 Times Faster Video
>> >> > 
>> >> > Um, OK. What does this mean? 9 times faster video? so I can watch a
>> >> > 30 minute show in 3 minutes?
>> >> > 
>> >> >> Still $499
>> >> > 
>> >> > Still way too expensive
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> This guy an Apple shill, or what?
>> >> 
>> >> And, does he know Apples are made at the SAME Foxconn plant in China
>> >> that makes, Dell, HP, Compaq and others?
>> > 
>> > Some people seem to think you can just call up Foxconn and say "Give
>> > me a million tablets with the same components as the iPad. I'll e-mail
>> > some CAD files with the case design".
>> > 
>> > It doesn't work like that. Foxconn (and similar companies) don't make
>> > most of the components in the devices they assemble. Apple and other
>> > vendors have to find suppliers and make deals for each component. As a
>> > consequence of Apple's huge cash horde and the vast quantities they
>> > order of a given component (remember, Apple has a significant share of
>> > the market with only a few devices; the rest of the market is split
>> > over dozens of devices), favorable deals on key components can allow
>> > Apple access to items others don't have access to, or result in lower
>> > prices for Apple than others pay.
>> 
>> OK...
>> 
>> 
>> > This is a significant part of the reason other vendors are having such
>> > a hard time matching Apple's iPad pricing.
>> 
>> OK...
>> 
>> 
>> > And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products
>> > manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.
>> 
>> OK...
>> 
>> 
>> > This whole "Everything is made at Foxconn; it's all the same" argument
>> > has essentially no relationship to reality.
>> 
>> Wanna bet? Why would they make Apples any better then Dells?
> 
> Because they may be using different parts and operating to different
> specifications. As I just explained.

Yeah. We're talking about a company that people are jumping off the 12th
floor to their deaths to escape from. I have them using premium parts for
a $500 unit...

> 
> People have this impression that production services like this are much
> more of a standardized off-the-shelf product than they really are when
> you're talking about contracts of this size.

They are trying to make the most units in the least amount of time at
paupers wages. Quality suffers, no matter what the initial target was. 

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:50:12 -0800, Ness-Net wrote:

> "Oxford"  wrote in message
> news:apony-E9F85D.15314903032011@news.qwest.net...
> 
> "Ness-Net" <richardno@dammnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Like Wi-Fi is going to be rapidly replacing the cell carriers. Like VZW
>> is declining and going to go away....
> 
> -i never said "rapidly", those are your words not mine, i simple said
> -wifi would replace cell carriers, and so far, i've been was correct...
> 
> -yes verizon stagnated and began to collapse before apple allowed them to
> -sell the iphone and ipad. so i was correct again.
> 
> -i know this industry better than most anyone, so i haven't been wrong
> yet.
> 
> Sorry Oxy, you can delude yourself, but you are nowhere near correct on
> the above.
> 
> Cell carriers as a whole (with the exception of T-MO) are all growing, not
> declining. BIG Strike 1.
> 
> VZW has continued to grow steadily.
> BIG Strike 2
> 
> Keep swinging - and missing by a mile.


I liked the "I know this industry better than anyone". So, where can we
find his latest publication, or participation in a news program...

Awfully broad brush to be painting THAT statement with. He MUST be a
genius! He says so on Usenet!!!

Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> > well, the iPad's success is all about tight software integration, hardware
> > miniaturization and squeezing component costs to the bone, no other
> > companies have that skill set, plus apple has been working on tablets for
> > 29 years so they have far deeper expertise to build devices like the ipad
> > 2. 
> 
> YAWN. Are you in the Publicity Dept, or Sales, or...

i'm just a fact checker, so why are you against that?

Hachiroku ƒnƒ`ƒƒN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> > what's a shill? i'm just a very helpful person getting the word out about
> > innovations in the industry. why are you so against the best technology
> > anyway?
> 
> YAWN. Yeah, we all saw the press release. So? 
> 
> Apple has some great products, this we know. But they aren't *that* great. 

then name a single computer company who is greater? waiting.

Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> I liked the "I know this industry better than anyone". So, where can we
> find his latest publication, or participation in a news program...
> 
> Awfully broad brush to be painting THAT statement with. He MUST be a
> genius! He says so on Usenet!!!

but it's true, i've obviously been in this industry longer than anyone 
posting here, and easily more involved in the seismic changes over the 
last 30 years.

you're just bitter that you have no way to argue against me. so give it 
a rest.

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > $3500 is achievable is my point.
> 
> Look, I'm pretty bullish on AAPL. I own a bunch. But there simply aren't 
> enough people on the planet to sell devices to for Apple to keep growing 
> revenue ~70% a year for too many more years. They're selling iOS devices 
> at a rate of ~120M/year as of last quarter. If you assume a two year 
> replacement cycle (it's probably a little longer, but sticking to two 
> years helps offset people who own, say, both an iPad and an iPhone), 
> this means they're already serving a customer base of some 240M.
> 
> The population of the developed world (i.e. most of the people who can 
> afford these devices) is only 1.2B. Now, there is the growing Chinese 
> middle class, etc. But I doubt the addressable market for devices in 
> anything like this price range is more than 2B people, which means 
> growing iOS device revenue to 10x the present figure is going to be 
> essentially impossible. 
> 
> As a consequence, the crazy revenue growth we've seen from Apple over 
> the past few years simply isn't sustainable past the next three or four 
> years. Unless we discover a planet with billions of rich aliens 
> desperate for iPhones, they'll hit market saturation within that 
> timeframe.

but even with a 3 or 4 year purchase cycle times about 6 desired apple 
products that's 24 billion units sold in rotation per year. i fully 
agree apple won't reach that lofty aim, but even 2 billion iOS devices 
sold a year (plus all the soft sales that go with them) $3500 is a 
realistic stock target within 14 years.

a $10 iphone, a $99 ipad, a $10 ipod, a $10 appletv, a $199 macbook 
isn't as far away as it seems. the app store changed the equation is 
what i'm pointing out.

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:52:57 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> > well, the iPad's success is all about tight software integration,
>> > hardware miniaturization and squeezing component costs to the bone, no
>> > other companies have that skill set, plus apple has been working on
>> > tablets for 29 years so they have far deeper expertise to build
>> > devices like the ipad 2.
>> 
>> YAWN. Are you in the Publicity Dept, or Sales, or...
> 
> i'm just a fact checker, so why are you against that?


Cause you're "facts" are overbloated?

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:59:12 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> I liked the "I know this industry better than anyone". So, where can we
>> find his latest publication, or participation in a news program...
>> 
>> Awfully broad brush to be painting THAT statement with. He MUST be a
>> genius! He says so on Usenet!!!
> 
> but it's true, i've obviously been in this industry longer than anyone
> posting here, and easily more involved in the seismic changes over the
> last 30 years.
> 
> you're just bitter that you have no way to argue against me. so give it a
> rest.

First, what business would that be? General PITA? Shill for Apple? Please,
explain to us what 'business' you're in so we may know greatness when we
see it.

Personally, I think you're just a fanboi BSer on Usenet. So, what
"industry" is it, and what is your participation in that "industry"?
Promotion? Marketing? or just plain old parroting?

Now, as far as 'technology', I started as an electronics tech in 1978 when
I was 19 years old, was an Engineering Assistant by the time I was 20, was
building prototypes and pre production units for a Fortune 500 (actually,
Fortune 250) company a year after that, and was pretty much on the ground
floor from the PDP 11/03, through the 11/70, on to the VAX, DataGeneral
'minis', right up to the introduction of the IBM PC. I worked for a
company that designed and built circuits for the AT and PS/2, and then
moved on to another company that designed and produced aircraft controls
using Motorola processors that made the Mac look like a toy. We did EMUs
("Spacesuits", to dweebs) for NASA and parts for the Space Shuttle. I was
'advising' on computer use by 1985 and repairing them by 1987. I have had
a hand in designing, building, prototyping and installing some of the most
complex aircraft components made up through 1993, and then took my
computer knowledge elsewhere after that. The ONE THING I can clearly say
about Apples is that the people that design them need to TAKE THEM APART
IN THE FIELD AND PUT THEM BACK TOGETHER, because their "Beyond Magic"
designs SUCK for field techs, pretty much worse than any I have ever seen. 

Oh. And their manufacturing is NO better than Lenovo's. 

so there.

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:54:16 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ƒnƒ`ƒƒN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> > what's a shill? i'm just a very helpful person getting the word out
>> > about innovations in the industry. why are you so against the best
>> > technology anyway?
>> 
>> YAWN. Yeah, we all saw the press release. So?
>> 
>> Apple has some great products, this we know. But they aren't *that*
>> great.
> 
> then name a single computer company who is greater? waiting.


Wow. You really are stuck/thick, aren't you? How much are they paying you?

You really think Apple is any better than IBM? I mean, I see large server
farms filled with MACS ALL over the place! The universities are just FULL
of them!

Whew...

On 3/3/2011 2:38 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:

>     Very little of an Apple is actually under Apple's control really.
> This would be true even if Apple ran their own assembly plant in
> Cupertino.


This is a good example of why Linux "advocates" are true nincompoops.

In article <YsXbp.4539$Ej3.1781@newsfe08.iad>,
 Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:21:13 -0500, ZnU wrote:
> 
> > In article <gPVbp.5437$1a1.2644@newsfe07.iad>,
> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> > Because they may be using different parts and operating to 
> > different specifications. As I just explained.
> 
> Yeah. We're talking about a company that people are jumping off the 
> 12th floor to their deaths to escape from.

Foxconn's suicide rate is not substantially higher than the national 
average.

> I have them using premium parts for a $500 unit...

Who knows? My point has merely been that saying Apple's products _must_ 
be equivalent to those of other companies because they're made at 
Foxconn is not sensible.

> > People have this impression that production services like this are 
> > much more of a standardized off-the-shelf product than they really 
> > are when you're talking about contracts of this size.
> 
> They are trying to make the most units in the least amount of time at 
> paupers wages. Quality suffers, no matter what the initial target 
> was. 

Foxconn pays pretty decent wages by Chinese standards, and meeting QA 
standards is assured through actual testing, not just through putting a 
few measures in place and praying, as you seem to be implying.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <apony-08CBB5.21175003032011@news.qwest.net>,
 Oxford   <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > $3500 is achievable is my point.
> > 
> > Look, I'm pretty bullish on AAPL. I own a bunch. But there simply 
> > aren't enough people on the planet to sell devices to for Apple to 
> > keep growing revenue ~70% a year for too many more years. They're 
> > selling iOS devices at a rate of ~120M/year as of last quarter. If 
> > you assume a two year replacement cycle (it's probably a little 
> > longer, but sticking to two years helps offset people who own, say, 
> > both an iPad and an iPhone), this means they're already serving a 
> > customer base of some 240M.
> > 
> > The population of the developed world (i.e. most of the people who 
> > can afford these devices) is only 1.2B. Now, there is the growing 
> > Chinese middle class, etc. But I doubt the addressable market for 
> > devices in anything like this price range is more than 2B people, 
> > which means growing iOS device revenue to 10x the present figure is 
> > going to be essentially impossible. 
> > 
> > As a consequence, the crazy revenue growth we've seen from Apple 
> > over the past few years simply isn't sustainable past the next 
> > three or four years. Unless we discover a planet with billions of 
> > rich aliens desperate for iPhones, they'll hit market saturation 
> > within that timeframe.
> 
> but even with a 3 or 4 year purchase cycle times about 6 desired 
> apple products that's 24 billion units sold in rotation per year. i 
> fully agree apple won't reach that lofty aim, but even 2 billion iOS 
> devices sold a year (plus all the soft sales that go with them) $3500 
> is a realistic stock target within 14 years.

Growing to 10x the current valuation (presumably on the basis of 10x 
the revenue) over 14 years would, in fact, be very substantially slower 
growth that what we've seen recently. At the 71% year/year growth we saw 
last quarter, Apple would be 14x its current size in just five years.

10x the size over 14 years would mean growing at a much more sedate ~18% 
a year. But even that's probably going to be pretty hard.

And six desired Apple devices? I don't buy it. If anything, by 2025 I 
think we'll see substantial convergence. No more iPhone + iPad + Mac -- 
your computer will be your phone. It will dock with various sorts of 
display/input devices and take advantage of data storage and 
computational resources in the cloud as necessary.

> a $10 iphone, a $99 ipad, a $10 ipod, a $10 appletv, a $199 macbook 
> isn't as far away as it seems.

Yes, over a timescale like 14 years one does have to account for 
severely plunging hardware prices. Maybe not quite that severe for a 
company in Apple's market segment (though someone will probably make a 
$10 smartphone in 2025), but pretty severe. This is just going to make 
it that much harder to grow revenue by 1000% from the current baseline.

Apple has simply gotten too big to keep growing at these insane rates 
for more than another year or three.

> the app store changed the equation is what i'm pointing out.

The App Store could be pretty profitable for Apple in a world where a 
couple of billion people are using very low cost iOS devices... but 
spending at the App Store would have to be pretty crazy to make up for 
the loss of revenue required to achieve prices low enough to hit those 
volumes.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:40:23 -0500, Hachiroku ハチロク <Trueno@e86.gts> wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:31:13 -0500, tlvp wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:08:01 -0500, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you tried using internet in a hotel? It's always a crap shoot as
>>>> to the speed and what you can and can't connect to. What ports are
>>>> blocked, etc.
>>>
>>> nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service.
>>
>> Right. Motel 6, for example -- every phone has a data jack that will take
>> an RJ-ll cable from your iPad's data modem and let you connect to your
>> dial-up ISP.
>>
>>> ... just make
>>> sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux or
>>> windows.
>>
>> What, your iPad doesn't have a data modem? Well, looks like it was built
>> in the wrong century, eh? Most Win-boxen still have one these days ... :-)
>> .
>>
>> Cheers, -- tlvp
>
>
> They have a Beyond the Magic adapter that allows it.

What, no smiley-face for that one-liner :-) ?

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> writes:

> On 3/3/2011 2:38 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>>     Very little of an Apple is actually under Apple's control really.
>> This would be true even if Apple ran their own assembly plant in
>> Cupertino.
>
> This is a good example of why Linux "advocates" are true nincompoops.

Indeed. Jed is pulling out all the stops in the clueslessness organ to
demonstrate to our Apple using friends what "advocacy" is all about.

On 2011-03-03, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 3/3/2011 8:37 AM, Ness-Net wrote:
>
>> Like Wi-Fi is going to be rapidly replacing the cell carriers.
>
> LOL. While I see more and more free Wi-Fi around, what it's good for is 
> eliminating the need to have an expensive unlimited data plan. Many 
> people that use data carefully (mostly only when 2G/3G/4G is not 
> available) can get by with one of the lower priced metered data plans.

   It's the devices themselves that are a problem when it comes to 'being
careful' when running a limited data plan. The actual user is not such a
big deal. Although there are the more interesting services to consider.
Those are inherently "burdensome" on the network.

   Then again, cell networks are notoriously slow and unreliable and even
have problems with basic casual web browsing. Nevermind serious multi-
media.

[deletia]

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \

On 2011-03-04, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/3/2011 2:38 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>>     Very little of an Apple is actually under Apple's control really.
>>> This would be true even if Apple ran their own assembly plant in
>>> Cupertino.
>>
>> This is a good example of why Linux "advocates" are true nincompoops.
>
> Indeed. Jed is pulling out all the stops in the clueslessness organ to
> demonstrate to our Apple using friends what "advocacy" is all about.

   You've done nothing to demonstrate why an nv9400 in a Mac Mini is
any different from the nv9400 in the Zotac MAG sitting beside it.

   From my perspective, the difference seems to be that the Zotac will
be a lot less likely to fail than the Apple. That's actually the reason
it's sitting there.

   ...I find it funny that clueless Lemmings are trying to come to Apple's
defense just because "it's me". In all likelihood they have probably never
touched a Mac in their life.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \

On 2011-03-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnimv9cp.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
>  Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:43:13 -0500]:
>> > In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
>> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> >
>> > And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products 
>> > manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.
>> 
>> So, if apple is asking for poor QC on their macbooks, are their ipads
>> going to have the same problems?
>
> This whole "poor QC on MacBooks" thing is based on a couple of minor 
> issues iFixIt discovered on a single unit. It's the usual Internet echo 
> chamber nonsense.

    Yes. Because we all know that we should always ingore actual physical
evidence when ever we are presented with it and especially when we see
contrary physical evidence firsthand.

    No. Deflating the fanboys has nothing to do with iFixit's breakdown.

    Those of us with any clue (and honesty) simply see the Mac as a sum
of it's parts. Most of those parts are not designed by Apple. Most are
also not actually made by Foxconn even.

     Foxconn just puts them together.

     Something especially magical about the Atheros AR242x in a Mac?

     Probably not.

-- 
        Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons.          |||
	       I want the pretty buttons to push themelves.         / | \

On 2011-03-03, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Oxford wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:28:01 -0700]:
>> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > but you rarely store video on an ipad, you just stream everything from 
>>> > your airport basestation. trying to "store" video is pointless in this 
>>> > day and age, just leave it on your server or cloud account.
>>> 
>>> I guess you never leave the house?
>>> 
>>> What do you do when you are going on a trip and want a couple of movies for
>>> the flight or for passing the time in the hotel at night?
>>
>> just stream it from your local server or cloud account. the internet 
>> could care less where you are physically at...
>
> Good luck getting he bandwidth you need to stream on a plane.

    Nevermind a plane. Just try the suburbs.

[deletia]

    I doubt if any of these fanboys have ever actually tried what they are
trying to describe. I have. It works very well if you have a land line of 
some sort. Kinda sucks otherwise.

    There's really no substitute for internal storage at this point.

    It might change in 5 or 10 years. Meanwhile, it helps to work with
the constraints of the moment. Otherwise you just desprive the users.

-- 
    I was format shifting in the 70s.					|||
								       / | \

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 02:44:22 -0500, tlvp wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 21:40:23 -0500, Hachiroku ハチロク
> <Trueno@e86.gts> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:31:13 -0500, tlvp wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:08:01 -0500, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have you tried using internet in a hotel? It's always a crap shoot as
>>>>> to the speed and what you can and can't connect to. What ports are
>>>>> blocked, etc.
>>>>
>>>> nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service.
>>>
>>> Right. Motel 6, for example -- every phone has a data jack that will
>>> take an RJ-ll cable from your iPad's data modem and let you connect to
>>> your dial-up ISP.
>>>
>>>> ... just make
>>>> sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux or
>>>> windows.
>>>
>>> What, your iPad doesn't have a data modem? Well, looks like it was
>>> built in the wrong century, eh? Most Win-boxen still have one these
>>> days ... :-) .
>>>
>>> Cheers, -- tlvp
>>
>>
>> They have a Beyond the Magic adapter that allows it.
> 
> What, no smiley-face for that one-liner :-) ?
> 
> Cheers, -- tlvp


Shoot! I forgot!  ;)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:04:46 -0500, ZnU wrote:

> In article <YsXbp.4539$Ej3.1781@newsfe08.iad>,
>  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:21:13 -0500, ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <gPVbp.5437$1a1.2644@newsfe07.iad>,
>> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> > Because they may be using different parts and operating to different
>> > specifications. As I just explained.
>> 
>> Yeah. We're talking about a company that people are jumping off the 12th
>> floor to their deaths to escape from.
> 
> Foxconn's suicide rate is not substantially higher than the national
> average.


Well, that's a comforting statistic. 

> 
>> I have them using premium parts for a $500 unit...
> 
> Who knows? My point has merely been that saying Apple's products _must_ be
> equivalent to those of other companies because they're made at Foxconn is
> not sensible.
> 
>> > People have this impression that production services like this are
>> > much more of a standardized off-the-shelf product than they really are
>> > when you're talking about contracts of this size.
>> 
>> They are trying to make the most units in the least amount of time at
>> paupers wages. Quality suffers, no matter what the initial target was.
> 
> Foxconn pays pretty decent wages by Chinese standards, and meeting QA
> standards is assured through actual testing, not just through putting a
> few measures in place and praying, as you seem to be implying.


I'm not 'implying' anything. I have seen it. HTF do you ship a unit with
no CPU?!?!?!

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:24:22 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> 
>> >This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially
>> >wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even
>> >remotely close to what was announced today.
>> 
>> For the next 10 years?   Then Apple is wasting its time working on the
>> iPad 3?
> 
> not sure what you mean? of course apple will continue to race ahead,
> that's why i said ten years. the ipad 2 is just a stepping stone to the
> ipad 3 you moron.


Why bother, if it's such a great product? 

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:01:02 -0800, SMS wrote:

> On 3/3/2011 8:37 AM, Ness-Net wrote:
> 
>> Like Wi-Fi is going to be rapidly replacing the cell carriers.
> 
> LOL. While I see more and more free Wi-Fi around, what it's good for is
> eliminating the need to have an expensive unlimited data plan. Many people
> that use data carefully (mostly only when 2G/3G/4G is not available) can
> get by with one of the lower priced metered data plans.

The only phone I have with WiFi is...an AT&T... :(

> 
>> Like VZW is declining and going to go away.... (look at last Q's numbers
>> - quite the opposite Oxy)
> 
> Verizon continued to add more subscribers per quarter than AT&T for nearly
> every quarter that AT&T had the iPhone. The fact is that for many
> subscribers, the network is actually more important than the handset.
> Apple hadn't counted on the animosity so many cellular customers have for
> AT&T.

As I've mentioned in other posts, in New England AT&T only covered the
more populated areas. Coverage in more rural areas is sporadic. I am NOT a
Verizon bugle blower, and really didn't WANT to be switched to Verizon,
but I was amazed at the service coverage, esp in fringe areas, and that I
stopped dropping calls every time a bird flew over my head. 

> 
> The problem is that our favorite troll doesn't have any knowledge about
> the wireless industry, which is why he is so often wrong.

I don't believe he has much knowledge about the computer industry, either. 
I wonder what Apple pays him. If they aren't he really is a fool. 

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:53:24 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2011-03-03, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/3/2011 8:37 AM, Ness-Net wrote:
>>
>>> Like Wi-Fi is going to be rapidly replacing the cell carriers.
>>
>> LOL. While I see more and more free Wi-Fi around, what it's good for is
>> eliminating the need to have an expensive unlimited data plan. Many
>> people that use data carefully (mostly only when 2G/3G/4G is not
>> available) can get by with one of the lower priced metered data plans.
> 
>    It's the devices themselves that are a problem when it comes to 'being
> careful' when running a limited data plan. The actual user is not such a
> big deal. Although there are the more interesting services to consider.
> Those are inherently "burdensome" on the network.
> 
>    Then again, cell networks are notoriously slow and unreliable and even
> have problems with basic casual web browsing. Nevermind serious multi-
> media.
> 
> [deletia]

Bring a laptop...or an iPad...

In article <apony-77C5C3.11080103032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > Have you tried using internet in a hotel? It's always a crap shoot as to
> > the speed and what you can and can't connect to. What ports are blocked,
> > etc.
> 
> nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service. just make 
> sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux or 
> windows.

haven't stayed at very many hotels, have you? 

it mostly works, but a lot of hotels don't have enough bandwidth for
the entire facility, so bandwidth sometimes sucks. and when it works,
it works just fine with linux or windows.

In article <apony-5CECBA.15280103032011@news.qwest.net>, Oxford
<apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > but you rarely store video on an ipad, you just stream everything from 
> > > your airport basestation. trying to "store" video is pointless in this 
> > > day and age, just leave it on your server or cloud account.
> > 
> > I guess you never leave the house?
> > 
> > What do you do when you are going on a trip and want a couple of movies for
> > the flight or for passing the time in the hotel at night?
> 
> just stream it from your local server or cloud account. the internet 
> could care less where you are physically at...

actually it does care where you are physically at. some things are
region blocked, such as hulu.

nevertheless, exactly how are you going to stream a movie on an
airplane?

do you have any inkling of a clue? have you even been on a plane?

sure, some flights have wifi, but that's only while over land and not
on all flights. it's also not free. of the flights that do have wifi,
the bandwidth is generally insufficient for streaming video, especially
when several of the other passengers are also using the network. even
watching small youtube videos sometimes requires waiting a long time
for it to download.

flights over land are also not all that long. it's the overseas flights
where having many movies on an ipad (or other device) is vital,
particularly since there is no wifi for email or facebook or whatever.

in other words, you're talking out your ass, yet again.

In article <slrnimvri8.vto.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>    Foxconn is just an assembly line for other components from other
> companies. They put the same standard parts together for a lot of
> different vendors, including Apple.

apple uses more than just 'standard parts,' including their own a4 and
a5 processor, custom asics, and of course, the physical design of the
products.

>    Very little of an Apple is actually under Apple's control really.
> This would be true even if Apple ran their own assembly plant in 
> Cupertino.

actually quite a bit is. foxconn even had to modify their assembly line
to make the iphone 4. this was reported last year, in light of the
problems with the white version.

On 3/3/2011 10:59 PM, Oxford wrote:
> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN<Trueno@e86.GTS>  wrote:
>
>> I liked the "I know this industry better than anyone". So, where can we
>> find his latest publication, or participation in a news program...
>>
>> Awfully broad brush to be painting THAT statement with. He MUST be a
>> genius! He says so on Usenet!!!
>
> but it's true, i've obviously been in this industry longer than anyone
> posting here, and easily more involved in the seismic changes over the
> last 30 years.
>
> you're just bitter that you have no way to argue against me. so give it
> a rest.

What in hell was this drivel doing on alt.cellular.verizon?  Or 
alt.cellular.motorola? It's off topic in both groups.  Apple and its 
deeds, or misdeeds are of little interest to either group.

In article <slrnin235b.ej7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2011-03-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnimv9cp.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
> >  Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:43:13 -0500]:
> >> > In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
> >> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products 
> >> > manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.
> >> 
> >> So, if apple is asking for poor QC on their macbooks, are their ipads
> >> going to have the same problems?
> >
> > This whole "poor QC on MacBooks" thing is based on a couple of minor 
> > issues iFixIt discovered on a single unit. It's the usual Internet echo 
> > chamber nonsense.
> 
>     Yes. Because we all know that we should always ingore actual physical
> evidence when ever we are presented with it and especially when we see
> contrary physical evidence firsthand.

The contrary physical evidence in this instance is not statistically 
meaningful.

>     No. Deflating the fanboys has nothing to do with iFixit's breakdown.
> 
>     Those of us with any clue (and honesty) simply see the Mac as a sum
> of it's parts. Most of those parts are not designed by Apple. Most are
> also not actually made by Foxconn even.
> 
>      Foxconn just puts them together.

Yes, I said that.

>      Something especially magical about the Atheros AR242x in a Mac?
> 
>      Probably not.

I didn't say Macs necessarily _were_ built with better parts (I mean, 
aside from the obvious ones) or undergo more rigorous QA testing. My 
argument is merely that you can't assume they _don't_ simply because 
they're made by outsourcing companies that also make products for other 
companies. Part sourcing and QA procedures are determined on a 
per-product basis.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> On 3/3/2011 10:59 PM, Oxford wrote:
>> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN<Trueno@e86.GTS>  wrote:
>>
>>> I liked the "I know this industry better than anyone". So, where can we
>>> find his latest publication, or participation in a news program...
>>>
>>> Awfully broad brush to be painting THAT statement with. He MUST be a
>>> genius! He says so on Usenet!!!
>>
>> but it's true, i've obviously been in this industry longer than anyone
>> posting here, and easily more involved in the seismic changes over the
>> last 30 years.
>>
>> you're just bitter that you have no way to argue against me. so give it
>> a rest.
> 
> What in hell was this drivel doing on alt.cellular.verizon?  Or
> alt.cellular.motorola? It's off topic in both groups.  Apple and its
> deeds, or misdeeds are of little interest to either group.

That typical Mac user "Oxford" thinks (or what he substitutes for "thinking") 
that all apple is insanely great and affects everyone and everywhere.

Apple users are like that, you know. Most of them are way too stupid to 
correctly spill a bucket of water.
-- 
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to
produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
        ~ Rick Cook

I like this article - reminding us that specs aren't everything:

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/03/03/deciding-on-a-tablet-by-comparing-specs-youve-missed-the-point/#continued


-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On 2011-03-04, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> I like this article - reminding us that specs aren't everything:
>
> http://www.tuaw.com/2011/03/03/deciding-on-a-tablet-by-comparing-specs-youve-missed-the-point/#continued

   If I still have to bring all of my other devices with me, then you and the
random blogger are th ones that have missed the point. A map and a flashlight
won't help you find it either.

   Better "specs" means that I can leave the netbook or the archos home.

-- 
       Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to 
your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens        |||
rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal   / | \
affairs, government and business.

On 2011-03-04, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnimvri8.vto.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
><jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>>    Foxconn is just an assembly line for other components from other
>> companies. They put the same standard parts together for a lot of
>> different vendors, including Apple.
>
> apple uses more than just 'standard parts,' including their own a4 and
> a5 processor, custom asics, and of course, the physical design of the
> products.

   Even that is mostly mix and match ARM components.

   Their "physical design" is more of a burden than a benefit really.

   It unecessarily complicates engineering, leads to failures and makes
those failures more difficult to deal with when they do occur.

[deletia]

-- 
       Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to 
your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens        |||
rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal   / | \
affairs, government and business.

On 2011-03-04, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnin235b.ej7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-03-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnimv9cp.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
>> >  Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ZnU wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:43:13 -0500]:
>> >> > In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
>> >> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products 
>> >> > manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.
>> >> 
>> >> So, if apple is asking for poor QC on their macbooks, are their ipads
>> >> going to have the same problems?
>> >
>> > This whole "poor QC on MacBooks" thing is based on a couple of minor 
>> > issues iFixIt discovered on a single unit. It's the usual Internet echo 
>> > chamber nonsense.
>> 
>>     Yes. Because we all know that we should always ingore actual physical
>> evidence when ever we are presented with it and especially when we see
>> contrary physical evidence firsthand.
>
> The contrary physical evidence in this instance is not statistically 
> meaningful.

    Apple: Because the individual is not statistically meaningful.

[deletia]
>
> I didn't say Macs necessarily _were_ built with better parts (I mean, 

   Can I quote you on this in the future?

-- 
       Unfortunately, the universe will not conform itself to 
your fantasies. You have to manage based on what really happens        |||
rather than what you would like to happen. This is true of personal   / | \
affairs, government and business.

Oxford   <apony@pasture.com> wrote in news:apony-2AD272.13033502032011
@news.qwest.net:

> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. 

Yeah, as pointed out by several news sources, today, he lied through his 
teeth.  The line of bullshit was so big they wrote articles about it.  
Maybe the romance with some of the fawning magazines is over.

Larry Mobile <noone@home.com> wrote:

> > This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. 
> 
> Yeah, as pointed out by several news sources, today, he lied through his 
> teeth.  The line of bullshit was so big they wrote articles about it.  
> Maybe the romance with some of the fawning magazines is over.

Cheney nor Bush weren't even at the iPad 2 event! so your comment made 
no sense... check facts next time.

Hachiroku ƒnƒ`ƒƒN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> > Foxconn's suicide rate is not substantially higher than the national
> > average.
> 
> 
> Well, that's a comforting statistic. 

yes, US Factory suicide rates are nearly double per capita, so glad you 
are comforted.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service. just make 
> > sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux or 
> > windows.
> 
> haven't stayed at very many hotels, have you? 

i stay in hotels 2, 3 times a month, never a problem. but of course i 
have a macbook air, not a cheap windows or linux machine.

> it mostly works, but a lot of hotels don't have enough bandwidth for
> the entire facility, so bandwidth sometimes sucks. and when it works,
> it works just fine with linux or windows.

it seems like you don't have a modern machine. it's like you are using 
linux which is horrible for wireless connections.

what mac model do you have?

In article <slrnin2ppm.uqt.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2011-03-04, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnin235b.ej7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011-03-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnimv9cp.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
> >> >  Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> ZnU wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:43:13 -0500]:
> >> >> > In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
> >> >> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And something like quality control, when a vendor has their products 
> >> >> > manufactured by Foxconn or similar, is specified _by the vendor_.
> >> >> 
> >> >> So, if apple is asking for poor QC on their macbooks, are their ipads
> >> >> going to have the same problems?
> >> >
> >> > This whole "poor QC on MacBooks" thing is based on a couple of minor 
> >> > issues iFixIt discovered on a single unit. It's the usual Internet echo 
> >> > chamber nonsense.
> >> 
> >>     Yes. Because we all know that we should always ingore actual physical
> >> evidence when ever we are presented with it and especially when we see
> >> contrary physical evidence firsthand.
> >
> > The contrary physical evidence in this instance is not statistically 
> > meaningful.
> 
>     Apple: Because the individual is not statistically meaningful.

Are you really arguing one can evaluate the quality control of a 
mass-produced device by looking at one single unit?

Wow, you could save a lot of companies a lot of money like that.

> > I didn't say Macs necessarily _were_ built with better parts (I mean, 
> 
>    Can I quote you on this in the future?

OK. I don't see what good it will do you. Macs may be built with better 
parts. Based on their higher average sale price, I'd say that in 
general, they probably are. That's just not related to my argument in 
this thread.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 14:56:59 -0700, Howard Brazee wrote:

> I like this article - reminding us that specs aren't everything:
> 
> http://www.tuaw.com/2011/03/03/deciding-on-a-tablet-by-comparing-specs-youve-missed-the-point/#continued


Interesting. The guy comes off as a Apple shill (surprise) but he has some
valid points. And I like the comment that said "Bill Gates never dropped
acid"

I certainly will admit the design of the iPad is good. But I don't think
anything is as gee whiz as fanboi alludes to. 

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:49:00 -0800, nospam wrote:

> In article <Xns9E9EB588FCBB9noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry Mobile
> <noone@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> Yeah, as pointed out by several news sources, today, he lied through his
>> teeth.  The line of bullshit was so big they wrote articles about it.
>> Maybe the romance with some of the fawning magazines is over.
> 
> ok this ought to be good. name some of the lies.


Every time he posts? Last batch he posted the original iPad was the
greeatest thing since the Automatic Transmission, even though you could
only run one app at a time...

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:10:15 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Larry Mobile <noone@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> > This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected.
>> 
>> Yeah, as pointed out by several news sources, today, he lied through his
>> teeth.  The line of bullshit was so big they wrote articles about it.
>> Maybe the romance with some of the fawning magazines is over.
> 
> Cheney nor Bush weren't even at the iPad 2 event! so your comment made no
> sense... check facts next time.


LOL! HOW DID I FIGURE HE WAS A M00NBAT?!?!?!

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:21:16 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> > nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service. just
>> > make sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux
>> > or windows.
>> 
>> haven't stayed at very many hotels, have you?
> 
> i stay in hotels 2, 3 times a month, never a problem. but of course i have
> a macbook air, not a cheap windows or linux machine.
> 
>> it mostly works, but a lot of hotels don't have enough bandwidth for the
>> entire facility, so bandwidth sometimes sucks. and when it works, it
>> works just fine with linux or windows.
> 
> it seems like you don't have a modern machine. it's like you are using
> linux which is horrible for wireless connections.


WTF do you think OS X is based on? CP/M?

> 
> what mac model do you have?

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:13:27 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ƒnƒ`ƒƒN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> > Foxconn's suicide rate is not substantially higher than the national
>> > average.
>> 
>> 
>> Well, that's a comforting statistic.
> 
> yes, US Factory suicide rates are nearly double per capita, so glad you
> are comforted.


Yeah, but your magnificent machine is made at Foxconn, so keep the oranges
out of the apples. 

In article <Xns9E9EB588FCBB9noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry Mobile
<noone@home.com> wrote:

> Yeah, as pointed out by several news sources, today, he lied through his 
> teeth.  The line of bullshit was so big they wrote articles about it.  
> Maybe the romance with some of the fawning magazines is over.

ok this ought to be good. name some of the lies.

In article
<apony-2C4DDE.16211604032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
et>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service. just make 
> > > sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux or 
> > > windows.
> > 
> > haven't stayed at very many hotels, have you? 
> 
> i stay in hotels 2, 3 times a month, never a problem. but of course i 
> have a macbook air, not a cheap windows or linux machine.

sure you do. and you fly across the world in your private jet while
streaming videos from your cloud server to your ipad on the plane.

you're so full of shit.

> > it mostly works, but a lot of hotels don't have enough bandwidth for
> > the entire facility, so bandwidth sometimes sucks. and when it works,
> > it works just fine with linux or windows.
> 
> it seems like you don't have a modern machine. it's like you are using 
> linux which is horrible for wireless connections.

the operating system has nothing to do with it.

if the signal is weak or the upstream link too slow, it's going to suck
no matter what computer you have. hotel wifi is often overloaded,
particularly when it's free.

> what mac model do you have?

i usually use a macbook pro, an ipad or iphone with hotel wifi.

modern enough? now what do you say?

tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service.
> 
> Right. Motel 6, for example -- every phone has a data jack that will take an
> RJ-ll cable from your iPad's data modem and let you connect to your dial-up 
> ISP.

all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.

Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> > it seems like you don't have a modern machine. it's like you are using
> > linux which is horrible for wireless connections. 
> 
> WTF do you think OS X is based on? CP/M?

it's based on FreeBSD and the Mach kernel dummy.

nospam wrote on [Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:49:00 -0800]:
> In article <Xns9E9EB588FCBB9noonehomecom@74.209.131.13>, Larry Mobile
> <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, as pointed out by several news sources, today, he lied through his 
>> teeth.  The line of bullshit was so big they wrote articles about it.  
>> Maybe the romance with some of the fawning magazines is over.
>
> ok this ought to be good. name some of the lies.

When was he speaking? Hahahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW37nPzpAwY&feature=player_embedded

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 01:18:14 -0500, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service.
>>
>> Right. Motel 6, for example -- every phone has a data jack that will take an
>> RJ-ll cable from your iPad's data modem and let you connect to your dial-up
>> ISP.
>
> all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.

They may *have* it ... but does it always *work*? or reach your room if it does? :-)

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

In article
<apony-376786.23181404032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
et>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.

nope. not all, and of those that do, not all are free.

tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.
> 
> They may *have* it ... but does it always *work*? or reach your room if it 
> does? :-)

but that's probably because you are using windows or linux, use a mac on 
your next trip.

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 03:50:45 -0800, nospam wrote:

> In article
> <apony-376786.23181404032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
> et>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> 
>> all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.
> 
> nope. not all, and of those that do, not all are free.

Tip from an experienced traveler:

Sign up at the desk to be a "preferred guest" and it's free.

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 03:50:45 -0800, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>> all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.
>
>nope. not all, and of those that do, not all are free.

Some expensive hotels charge significant amounts for wireless.   It's
real fast wireless, but it's expensive.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On 3/5/2011 6:50 AM, flatfish+++ wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 03:50:45 -0800, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <apony-376786.23181404032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
>> et>, Oxford<apony@pasture.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.
>>
>> nope. not all, and of those that do, not all are free.
>
> Tip from an experienced traveler:
>
> Sign up at the desk to be a "preferred guest" and it's free.

True.

In the U.S. it's free at almost every motel chain. Some higher end 
hotels charge for it, but it's becoming rarer to have to pay for it. At 
Hilton and Embassy Suites it's free if you're a preferred guest, and it 
costs nothing to become a preferred guest. The hotel we usually stay at 
in Reno now has Wi-Fi bundled it into the mandatory, daily, $10 "resort 
fee," whereas it used to be $15 per day just for Wi-Fi (I normally won't 
stay at hotels with those garbage fees, but even with that extra charge 
this particular hotel is usually a very good deal). A lot of Las Vegas 
hotels have added those dreaded resort fees and include internet service 
in the fee. The hotel in Reno at least includes use of the spa in the 
"resort fee" whereas most Las Vegas hotels charge additional fees for 
the spa.

I stayed at one motel last month, Extended Stay America, which charged 
$5 for Wi-Fi for the entire stay, which is their policy. When I needed 
to print something they let me print PDFs, which I e-mailed to myself, 
from the front desk computer.

"Hachiroku ハチロク"  wrote in message news:IJZbp.44667$I_5.38616@newsfe12.iad...

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:52:57 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>
>> > well, the iPad's success is all about tight software integration,
>> > hardware miniaturization and squeezing component costs to the bone, no
>> > other companies have that skill set, plus apple has been working on
>> > tablets for 29 years so they have far deeper expertise to build
>> > devices like the ipad 2.
>>
>> YAWN. Are you in the Publicity Dept, or Sales, or...
>
> i'm just a fact checker, so why are you against that?


Cause you're "facts" are overbloated?

To bloat, there has to be some truth in there somewhere.....
With Oxymoron, there isn't any.

More like complete fantasy.....

"Hachiroku ハチロク"  wrote in message news:_uXbp.4540$Ej3.1162@newsfe08.iad...

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:50:12 -0800, Ness-Net wrote:

> "Oxford"  wrote in message
> news:apony-E9F85D.15314903032011@news.qwest.net...
>
> "Ness-Net" <richardno@dammnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> Like Wi-Fi is going to be rapidly replacing the cell carriers. Like VZW
>> is declining and going to go away....
>
> -i never said "rapidly", those are your words not mine, i simple said
> -wifi would replace cell carriers, and so far, i've been was correct...
>
> -yes verizon stagnated and began to collapse before apple allowed them to
> -sell the iphone and ipad. so i was correct again.
>
> -i know this industry better than most anyone, so i haven't been wrong
> yet.
>
> Sorry Oxy, you can delude yourself, but you are nowhere near correct on
> the above.
>
> Cell carriers as a whole (with the exception of T-MO) are all growing, not
> declining. BIG Strike 1.
>
> VZW has continued to grow steadily.
> BIG Strike 2
>
> Keep swinging - and missing by a mile.


I liked the "I know this industry better than anyone". So, where can we
find his latest publication, or participation in a news program...

Awfully broad brush to be painting THAT statement with. He MUST be a
genius! He says so on Usenet!!!

We figured he was maybe an Apple store stock boy - with delusions of grandeur....

"Hachiroku ハチロク"  wrote in message news:HVZbp.717$hP6.595@newsfe19.iad...

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 20:59:12 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>
>> I liked the "I know this industry better than anyone". So, where can we
>> find his latest publication, or participation in a news program...
>>
>> Awfully broad brush to be painting THAT statement with. He MUST be a
>> genius! He says so on Usenet!!!
>
> but it's true, i've obviously been in this industry longer than anyone
> posting here, and easily more involved in the seismic changes over the
> last 30 years.
>
> you're just bitter that you have no way to argue against me. so give it a
> rest.

First, what business would that be? General PITA? Shill for Apple? Please,
explain to us what 'business' you're in so we may know greatness when we
see it.

Personally, I think you're just a fanboi BSer on Usenet. So, what
"industry" is it, and what is your participation in that "industry"?
Promotion? Marketing? or just plain old parroting?

Now, as far as 'technology', I started as an electronics tech in 1978 when
I was 19 years old, was an Engineering Assistant by the time I was 20, was
building prototypes and pre production units for a Fortune 500 (actually,
Fortune 250) company a year after that, and was pretty much on the ground
floor from the PDP 11/03, through the 11/70, on to the VAX, DataGeneral
'minis', right up to the introduction of the IBM PC. I worked for a
company that designed and built circuits for the AT and PS/2, and then
moved on to another company that designed and produced aircraft controls
using Motorola processors that made the Mac look like a toy. We did EMUs
("Spacesuits", to dweebs) for NASA and parts for the Space Shuttle. I was
'advising' on computer use by 1985 and repairing them by 1987. I have had
a hand in designing, building, prototyping and installing some of the most
complex aircraft components made up through 1993, and then took my
computer knowledge elsewhere after that. The ONE THING I can clearly say
about Apples is that the people that design them need to TAKE THEM APART
IN THE FIELD AND PUT THEM BACK TOGETHER, because their "Beyond Magic"
designs SUCK for field techs, pretty much worse than any I have ever seen.

Oh. And their manufacturing is NO better than Lenovo's.

so there.

There are multiple engineers and industry professionals that post here.
Myself included. (actually IN the wireless industry and very well informed)

Oxy is clearly either very young and clueless, or demented and clueless.
Either way, nothing but a delusional troll. 

"Hachiroku ハチロク"  wrote in message news:rp8cp.50635$195.49720@newsfe05.iad...

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:01:02 -0800, SMS wrote:

> On 3/3/2011 8:37 AM, Ness-Net wrote:
>
>> Like Wi-Fi is going to be rapidly replacing the cell carriers.
>
> LOL. While I see more and more free Wi-Fi around, what it's good for is
> eliminating the need to have an expensive unlimited data plan. Many people
> that use data carefully (mostly only when 2G/3G/4G is not available) can
> get by with one of the lower priced metered data plans.

The only phone I have with WiFi is...an AT&T... :(

>
>> Like VZW is declining and going to go away.... (look at last Q's numbers
>> - quite the opposite Oxy)
>
> Verizon continued to add more subscribers per quarter than AT&T for nearly
> every quarter that AT&T had the iPhone. The fact is that for many
> subscribers, the network is actually more important than the handset.
> Apple hadn't counted on the animosity so many cellular customers have for
> AT&T.

As I've mentioned in other posts, in New England AT&T only covered the
more populated areas. Coverage in more rural areas is sporadic. I am NOT a
Verizon bugle blower, and really didn't WANT to be switched to Verizon,
but I was amazed at the service coverage, esp in fringe areas, and that I
stopped dropping calls every time a bird flew over my head.

>
> The problem is that our favorite troll doesn't have any knowledge about
> the wireless industry, which is why he is so often wrong.

I don't believe he has much knowledge about the computer industry, either.
I wonder what Apple pays him. If they aren't he really is a fool.

Fool.... (Apple would fire him in an instant)

"Oxford"  wrote in message news:apony-BCC49B.20541603032011@news.qwest.net...

Hachiroku ƒnƒ`ƒƒN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> > what's a shill? i'm just a very helpful person getting the word out about
> > innovations in the industry. why are you so against the best technology
> > anyway?
>
> YAWN. Yeah, we all saw the press release. So?
>
> Apple has some great products, this we know. But they aren't *that* great.

then name a single computer company who is greater? waiting.

The (wireless carrier) data center I'm in regularly is primarily HP.
(And OpenVMS, RedHat and some Windows mgmt. blades)

Not a single Apple product to be seen.

Waiting.......

nospam wrote on [Sat, 05 Mar 2011 12:39:27 -0800]:
> In article
> <apony-5F62EE.07225205032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
>et>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>
>> > > all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.
>> > 
>> > They may *have* it ... but does it always *work*? or reach your room if it 
>> > does? :-)
>> 
>> but that's probably because you are using windows or linux, use a mac on 
>> your next trip.
>
> the choice of operating system will not change a weak signal, nor will
> it change a network which is overloaded.

Unless it's an early iPhone or iPad, which were both great at crashing
wifi for everyone

In article <slrnin4tor.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
 Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> nospam wrote on [Sat, 05 Mar 2011 12:39:27 -0800]:
> > In article
> > <apony-5F62EE.07225205032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
> >et>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > > all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.
> >> > 
> >> > They may *have* it ... but does it always *work*? or reach your room if 
> >> > it 
> >> > does? :-)
> >> 
> >> but that's probably because you are using windows or linux, use a mac on 
> >> your next trip.
> >
> > the choice of operating system will not change a weak signal, nor will
> > it change a network which is overloaded.
> 
> Unless it's an early iPhone or iPad, which were both great at crashing
> wifi for everyone

Seriously: where do you get this nonsense?

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

"Oxford"  wrote in message news:apony-6A855C.17133802032011@news.qwest.net... 


>i haven't been wrong yet, so why are you against fact based people?

Fact? We have YET to see one from YOU.
And...... here is the actual FACTS.

Android Holds the Future of Smartphones 
The smartphone platform holds the lead among the demographic that defines smartphone use. 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41924348/ns/business-motley_fool/

According to survey results from Nielsen, 14% of all smartphone users between the ages of 18 
and 34 are using an Android phone, while this age group posted a 12% share for the iPhone, 11% 
for BlackBerrys, 3% for Palm OS, and 2% for Windows Mobile. 

Android appears to be growing in this space and seems to have found the key to attract a substantial 
share in this demographic segment. Compared with iOS, Android has greater market share in younger 
demographics.

Android is now also pulling ahead in overall U.S. market share. It is now at 29%, followed by Apple with 
27% and BlackBerry with 27%.

Alan Baker wrote on [Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:06:05 -0800]:
> In article <slrnin4tor.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
>  Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> nospam wrote on [Sat, 05 Mar 2011 12:39:27 -0800]:
>> > In article
>> > <apony-5F62EE.07225205032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
>> >et>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > > all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.
>> >> > 
>> >> > They may *have* it ... but does it always *work*? or reach your room if 
>> >> > it 
>> >> > does? :-)
>> >> 
>> >> but that's probably because you are using windows or linux, use a mac on 
>> >> your next trip.
>> >
>> > the choice of operating system will not change a weak signal, nor will
>> > it change a network which is overloaded.
>> 
>> Unless it's an early iPhone or iPad, which were both great at crashing
>> wifi for everyone
>
> Seriously: where do you get this nonsense?

http://www.ipadforums.net/ipad-general-discussions/2078-ipad-ban-some-college-campus.html
A software glitch in Apple's iPad causes the device to continue using a 
network-assigned IP address after its lease has expired, according to data 
collected by Princeton University.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/071607-duke-iphone.html
The built-in 802.11b/g adapters on several iPhones periodically flood 
sections of the Durham, N.C., school’s pervasive wireless LAN with MAC 
address requests, temporarily knocking out anywhere from a dozen to 30 
wireless access points at a time.

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:19:18 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> > it seems like you don't have a modern machine. it's like you are using
>> > linux which is horrible for wireless connections.
>> 
>> WTF do you think OS X is based on? CP/M?
> 
> it's based on FreeBSD and the Mach kernel dummy.

Yeah. I'm the dummy. WTF do you think FreeBSD is? DECMate? The WANG OS?

OK, Fanboi, you know ALL about the computer industry. 

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 07:22:52 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> tlvp <tPlOvUpBErLeLsEs@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> > all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.
>> 
>> They may *have* it ... but does it always *work*? or reach your room if
>> it does? :-)
> 
> but that's probably because you are using windows or linux, use a mac on
> your next trip.


Are you a parrot, or a bot? I use Linux all the time. And I'm running your
ass ragged. Now, once more for the fans on the West Coast, WHAT is OS X
based on?

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 08:03:49 -0800, Ness-Net wrote:

> "Hachiroku ハチロク"  wrote in message
> news:rp8cp.50635$195.49720@newsfe05.iad...
> 
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:01:02 -0800, SMS wrote:
> 
>> On 3/3/2011 8:37 AM, Ness-Net wrote:
>>
>>> Like Wi-Fi is going to be rapidly replacing the cell carriers.
>>
>> LOL. While I see more and more free Wi-Fi around, what it's good for is
>> eliminating the need to have an expensive unlimited data plan. Many
>> people that use data carefully (mostly only when 2G/3G/4G is not
>> available) can get by with one of the lower priced metered data plans.
> 
> The only phone I have with WiFi is...an AT&T... :(
> 
> 
>>> Like VZW is declining and going to go away.... (look at last Q's
>>> numbers - quite the opposite Oxy)
>>
>> Verizon continued to add more subscribers per quarter than AT&T for
>> nearly every quarter that AT&T had the iPhone. The fact is that for many
>> subscribers, the network is actually more important than the handset.
>> Apple hadn't counted on the animosity so many cellular customers have
>> for AT&T.
> 
> As I've mentioned in other posts, in New England AT&T only covered the
> more populated areas. Coverage in more rural areas is sporadic. I am NOT a
> Verizon bugle blower, and really didn't WANT to be switched to Verizon,
> but I was amazed at the service coverage, esp in fringe areas, and that I
> stopped dropping calls every time a bird flew over my head.
> 
> 
>> The problem is that our favorite troll doesn't have any knowledge about
>> the wireless industry, which is why he is so often wrong.
> 
> I don't believe he has much knowledge about the computer industry, either.
> I wonder what Apple pays him. If they aren't he really is a fool.
> 
> Fool.... (Apple would fire him in an instant)


I dunno...he's doing a great job of spreading the WOrd about Apple. 

Come to think of it, he's kinda pissing a lot of people off and turning
them away from Apple with his "APPLE IS GREAT, It's your OS causing your
problems!" Fanboism...I guess you're right...

In article
<apony-5F62EE.07225205032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
et>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.
> > 
> > They may *have* it ... but does it always *work*? or reach your room if it 
> > does? :-)
> 
> but that's probably because you are using windows or linux, use a mac on 
> your next trip.

the choice of operating system will not change a weak signal, nor will
it change a network which is overloaded.

nospam wrote on [Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:34:24 -0800]:
> In article <slrnin51j6.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Unless it's an early iPhone or iPad, which were both great at crashing
>> >> wifi for everyone
>> >
>> > Seriously: where do you get this nonsense?
>>
>> http://www.ipadforums.net/ipad-general-discussions/2078-ipad-ban-some-college-
>> campus.html
>> A software glitch in Apple's iPad causes the device to continue using a 
>> network-assigned IP address after its lease has expired, according to data 
>> collected by Princeton University.
>> 
>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/071607-duke-iphone.html
>> The built-in 802.11b/g adapters on several iPhones periodically flood 
>> sections of the Durham, N.C., school?s pervasive wireless LAN with MAC 
>> address requests, temporarily knocking out anywhere from a dozen to 30 
>> wireless access points at a time.
>
> strange how it's only two schools, out of how many? could be that
> *their* system is misconfigured.

Strange how you take two examples and blame them. There were plenty more
it was well documented that the iPad tried to reuse the IP address assigned
by DHCP after it expired after resuming from sleep.

In 07 there were MANY reports of iPhone causing problems in many environments

On 2011-03-04, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnin2ppm.uqt.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-03-04, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnin235b.ej7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2011-03-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > In article <slrnimv9cp.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
>> >> >  Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> ZnU wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:43:13 -0500]:
>> >> >> > In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
>> >> >> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
[deletia]
>> >> > This whole "poor QC on MacBooks" thing is based on a couple of minor 
>> >> > issues iFixIt discovered on a single unit. It's the usual Internet echo 
>> >> > chamber nonsense.
>> >> 
>> >>     Yes. Because we all know that we should always ingore actual physical
>> >> evidence when ever we are presented with it and especially when we see
>> >> contrary physical evidence firsthand.
>> >
>> > The contrary physical evidence in this instance is not statistically 
>> > meaningful.
>> 
>>     Apple: Because the individual is not statistically meaningful.
>
> Are you really arguing one can evaluate the quality control of a 
> mass-produced device by looking at one single unit?

   How else is an individual supposed to do it?

   Just take it on faith that the 2 of 3 broken Macs they have are just some
sort of statistical fluke and don't really reflect Apple in general?

   Of course I avoid companies that disappoint me repeatedly.

[deletia]

   Apple: Because the individual is not statistically meaningful.

-- 

   Nevermind the pirates. Sony needs to worry about it's own back catalog. |||
   	     	 	       	     	      	    	     	  	  / | \

On 2011-03-05, Hachiroku ハチロク <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:21:16 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>
>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> > nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service. just
>>> > make sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux
>>> > or windows.
>>> 
>>> haven't stayed at very many hotels, have you?
>> 
>> i stay in hotels 2, 3 times a month, never a problem. but of course i have
>> a macbook air, not a cheap windows or linux machine.
>> 
>>> it mostly works, but a lot of hotels don't have enough bandwidth for the
>>> entire facility, so bandwidth sometimes sucks. and when it works, it
>>> works just fine with linux or windows.
>> 
>> it seems like you don't have a modern machine. it's like you are using
>> linux which is horrible for wireless connections.
>
>
> WTF do you think OS X is based on? CP/M?

    MacOS is just a custom crafted non-Windows machine with it's OS preloaded
and with no 3rd party parts. If you buy your Linux machines like that, you 
won't have any troubles either.

    Although the sorts of hotels I tend to stay in usually are wired.

[deletia]

   One of my Macs has a busted NIC. I am not sure it would be wise for me
to try to buy any random replacement and expect it to "just work". 

-- 

   Nevermind the pirates. Sony needs to worry about it's own back catalog. |||
   	     	 	       	     	      	    	     	  	  / | \

In article <slrnin4tor.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> >> > > all motels have wireless nowadays. even motel six.
> >> > 
> >> > They may *have* it ... but does it always *work*? or reach your room if
> >> > it does? :-)
> >> 
> >> but that's probably because you are using windows or linux, use a mac on 
> >> your next trip.
> >
> > the choice of operating system will not change a weak signal, nor will
> > it change a network which is overloaded.
> 
> Unless it's an early iPhone or iPad, which were both great at crashing
> wifi for everyone

where in the hell did you come up with that garbage?

i have an original iphone and an original ipad and have had *no*
problems whatsoever with wifi. they both pick up signals that are too
weak for my laptop.

In article <slrnin51j6.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> >> Unless it's an early iPhone or iPad, which were both great at crashing
> >> wifi for everyone
> >
> > Seriously: where do you get this nonsense?
>
> http://www.ipadforums.net/ipad-general-discussions/2078-ipad-ban-some-college-
> campus.html
> A software glitch in Apple's iPad causes the device to continue using a 
> network-assigned IP address after its lease has expired, according to data 
> collected by Princeton University.
> 
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/071607-duke-iphone.html
> The built-in 802.11b/g adapters on several iPhones periodically flood 
> sections of the Durham, N.C., school?s pervasive wireless LAN with MAC 
> address requests, temporarily knocking out anywhere from a dozen to 30 
> wireless access points at a time.

strange how it's only two schools, out of how many? could be that
*their* system is misconfigured.

On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:03:13 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2011-03-05, Hachiroku ハチロク <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:21:16 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>>
>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> > nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service. just
>>>> > make sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux
>>>> > or windows.
>>>> 
>>>> haven't stayed at very many hotels, have you?
>>> 
>>> i stay in hotels 2, 3 times a month, never a problem. but of course i
>>> have a macbook air, not a cheap windows or linux machine.
>>> 
>>>> it mostly works, but a lot of hotels don't have enough bandwidth for
>>>> the entire facility, so bandwidth sometimes sucks. and when it works,
>>>> it works just fine with linux or windows.
>>> 
>>> it seems like you don't have a modern machine. it's like you are using
>>> linux which is horrible for wireless connections.
>>
>>
>> WTF do you think OS X is based on? CP/M?
> 
>     MacOS is just a custom crafted non-Windows machine with it's OS
>     preloaded
> and with no 3rd party parts. If you buy your Linux machines like that, you
> won't have any troubles either.
> 
>     Although the sorts of hotels I tend to stay in usually are wired.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
>    One of my Macs has a busted NIC. I am not sure it would be wise for me
> to try to buy any random replacement and expect it to "just work".


Get a USB WiFi key and surf again! ;)

In article <slrnin5a1p.2hj.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>, Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> Strange how you take two examples and blame them. There were plenty more
> it was well documented that the iPad tried to reuse the IP address assigned
> by DHCP after it expired after resuming from sleep.

the fact that it's only two out of thousands and thousands of others
who never saw the problem is rather compelling evidence that it's not
entirely apple's fault.

> In 07 there were MANY reports of iPhone causing problems in many environments

good thing it's 2011 and all of that has long been fixed, even if it
was as serious problem (it wasn't, except in your own delusional
imagination).

In article <slrnin5cp1.2gk.jedi@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH
<jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

>    One of my Macs has a busted NIC. I am not sure it would be wise for me
> to try to buy any random replacement and expect it to "just work".

several years ago, i bought a generic ethernet card at comp usa (i
think it was $5 or something like that), put it in my mac and it just
worked.

In article <slrnin51j6.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
 Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> >> >> > They may *have* it ... but does it always *work*? or reach your room 
> >> >> > if 
> >> >> > it 
> >> >> > does? :-)
> >> >> 
> >> >> but that's probably because you are using windows or linux, use a mac 
> >> >> on 
> >> >> your next trip.
> >> >
> >> > the choice of operating system will not change a weak signal, nor will
> >> > it change a network which is overloaded.
> >> 
> >> Unless it's an early iPhone or iPad, which were both great at crashing
> >> wifi for everyone
> >
> > Seriously: where do you get this nonsense?
> 
> http://www.ipadforums.net/ipad-general-discussions/2078-ipad-ban-some-college-
> campus.html
> A software glitch in Apple's iPad causes the device to continue using a 
> network-assigned IP address after its lease has expired, according to data 
> collected by Princeton University.

Which doesn't equal "crashing wifi for everyone", does it?

> 
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/071607-duke-iphone.html
> The built-in 802.11b/g adapters on several iPhones periodically flood 
> sections of the Durham, N.C., school�s pervasive wireless LAN with MAC 
> address requests, temporarily knocking out anywhere from a dozen to 30 
> wireless access points at a time.


'Cisco confirmed that the networking problem Duke University experienced 
involving Cisco's wireless network and Apple's iPhone was caused by a 
Cisco network issue. Cisco says it has�worked closely with Duke and 
Apple to identify the source of the problem.'

<http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/072007-cisco-iphone-duke-network-p
roblem.html>

'Duke University has posted a statement on its Web site saying that a 
�particular set of conditions made the Duke wireless network experience 
some minor and temporary disruptions in service.� But the precise cause 
of the problem has not yet been disclosed, except to clear Apple�s 
iPhone of any responsibility.'

<http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/072107-duke-iphone-statement.html>

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

On 2011-03-05, Hachiroku ハチロク <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:03:13 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2011-03-05, Hachiroku ハチロク <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:21:16 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>>>
>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> > nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service. just
>>>>> > make sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still using linux
>>>>> > or windows.
>>>>> 
>>>>> haven't stayed at very many hotels, have you?
>>>> 
>>>> i stay in hotels 2, 3 times a month, never a problem. but of course i
>>>> have a macbook air, not a cheap windows or linux machine.
>>>> 
>>>>> it mostly works, but a lot of hotels don't have enough bandwidth for
>>>>> the entire facility, so bandwidth sometimes sucks. and when it works,
>>>>> it works just fine with linux or windows.
>>>> 
>>>> it seems like you don't have a modern machine. it's like you are using
>>>> linux which is horrible for wireless connections.
>>>
>>>
>>> WTF do you think OS X is based on? CP/M?
>> 
>>     MacOS is just a custom crafted non-Windows machine with it's OS
>>     preloaded
>> and with no 3rd party parts. If you buy your Linux machines like that, you
>> won't have any troubles either.
>> 
>>     Although the sorts of hotels I tend to stay in usually are wired.
>> 
>> [deletia]
>> 
>>    One of my Macs has a busted NIC. I am not sure it would be wise for me
>> to try to buy any random replacement and expect it to "just work".
>
>
> Get a USB WiFi key and surf again! ;)

   I got the Apple USB ethernet dongle.

   I'm not optimistic enough to believe that some random piece of crap that
is supposed to have Windows drivers will work in MacOS. It's the same exact
problem as you have with Linux. Except Linux has a highly dedicated community
of motivated geeks that use interesting hardware and are willing to write 
drivers for same.

-- 
	Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's         |||
	continued popularity as does an attempt to do some          / | \ 
	simple date manipulations in postgres.

Hachiroku ハチロク wrote on [Sun, 06 Mar 2011 21:44:06 -0600]:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:25:26 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> I swapped Mobos the other day and after a quite brief delay PCLinuxOS
> said, "OK...got it!" and massaged all the drivers to work (NOTE: This did
> NOT happen when going from an Intel North/Southbridge to an Nvidia
> chipset...that was harrowing) Windows XP handeled both swaps quite well!
> Windows 7...? OOOOOOPPPPPPSSSS! It couldn't even handle going from one
> Intel based board to another! 

I recently upgraded a Debian 2.6 release to 6.0 and moved it from a Thinkpad
circa 1999 running some kind of slowish Pentium 266 to a Dell Vostro 
desktop machine running a Core 2 Duo and the only issue I had was connecting
a 2.5" IDE laptop hard drive to an all SATA system. ddrescue over a USB 
connection worked a charm.

On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:25:26 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2011-03-05, Hachiroku ハチロク <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:03:13 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-03-05, Hachiroku ハチロク <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 16:21:16 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> > nonsense, most hotels & motels are fine with internet service.
>>>>>> > just make sure you are using a mac. sounds like you are still
>>>>>> > using linux or windows.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> haven't stayed at very many hotels, have you?
>>>>> 
>>>>> i stay in hotels 2, 3 times a month, never a problem. but of course i
>>>>> have a macbook air, not a cheap windows or linux machine.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> it mostly works, but a lot of hotels don't have enough bandwidth for
>>>>>> the entire facility, so bandwidth sometimes sucks. and when it
>>>>>> works, it works just fine with linux or windows.
>>>>> 
>>>>> it seems like you don't have a modern machine. it's like you are
>>>>> using linux which is horrible for wireless connections.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WTF do you think OS X is based on? CP/M?
>>> 
>>>     MacOS is just a custom crafted non-Windows machine with it's OS
>>>     preloaded
>>> and with no 3rd party parts. If you buy your Linux machines like that,
>>> you won't have any troubles either.
>>> 
>>>     Although the sorts of hotels I tend to stay in usually are wired.
>>> 
>>> [deletia]
>>> 
>>>    One of my Macs has a busted NIC. I am not sure it would be wise for
>>>    me
>>> to try to buy any random replacement and expect it to "just work".
>>
>>
>> Get a USB WiFi key and surf again! ;)
> 
>    I got the Apple USB ethernet dongle.
> 
>    I'm not optimistic enough to believe that some random piece of crap
>    that
> is supposed to have Windows drivers will work in MacOS. It's the same
> exact problem as you have with Linux. Except Linux has a highly dedicated
> community of motivated geeks that use interesting hardware and are willing
> to write drivers for same.


I am almost daily amazed at how much of my stuff works in Linux. Today I
even figured out how to make my Canon Pixma print CDs from Linux.

The fact is, most of the stuff is recognized and drivers loaded without
any interjection from me. The one real example of this not working was a
Creative Labs XFi crd I have. I had to get the drivers from Creative and
actually iinstall them myself, using the well-prepared script they had.

I swapped Mobos the other day and after a quite brief delay PCLinuxOS
said, "OK...got it!" and massaged all the drivers to work (NOTE: This did
NOT happen when going from an Intel North/Southbridge to an Nvidia
chipset...that was harrowing) Windows XP handeled both swaps quite well!
Windows 7...? OOOOOOPPPPPPSSSS! It couldn't even handle going from one
Intel based board to another! 

I am finding fewer and fewer reasons to boot in Windows rather than Linux. 
Now, why can't OS X handle stuff like that?

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 02:51:11 +0000, Justin wrote:

> Hachiroku ハチロク wrote on [Sun, 06 Mar 2011 21:44:06 -0600]:
>> On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:25:26 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> I swapped Mobos the other day and after a quite brief delay PCLinuxOS
>> said, "OK...got it!" and massaged all the drivers to work (NOTE: This
>> did NOT happen when going from an Intel North/Southbridge to an Nvidia
>> chipset...that was harrowing) Windows XP handeled both swaps quite well!
>> Windows 7...? OOOOOOPPPPPPSSSS! It couldn't even handle going from one
>> Intel based board to another!
> 
> I recently upgraded a Debian 2.6 release to 6.0 and moved it from a
> Thinkpad circa 1999 running some kind of slowish Pentium 266 to a Dell
> Vostro desktop machine running a Core 2 Duo and the only issue I had was
> connecting a 2.5" IDE laptop hard drive to an all SATA system. ddrescue
> over a USB connection worked a charm.


Probably one of these...

http://brej.org/inside/thinkpad600e/1.jpg

I got one too, running SuSE 9.2 Runs just fine. 

Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> Are you a parrot, or a bot? I use Linux all the time. And I'm running your
> ass ragged. Now, once more for the fans on the West Coast, WHAT is OS X
> based on?

OSX is based on BSD, not Linux, plus you have more refined drivers on 
Macs, better antennas, etc. it's another reason why Macs work so much 
better than Windows or Linux.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > but that's probably because you are using windows or linux, use a mac on 
> > your next trip.
> 
> the choice of operating system will not change a weak signal, nor will
> it change a network which is overloaded.

but it does reflect the quality of driver in use, and the communication 
with the access point. but yes, apple hardware will always have a 
stronger connection since apple engineers the entire product.

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:57:13 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> > but that's probably because you are using windows or linux, use a mac
>> > on your next trip.
>> 
>> the choice of operating system will not change a weak signal, nor will
>> it change a network which is overloaded.
> 
> but it does reflect the quality of driver in use, and the communication
> with the access point. but yes, apple hardware will always have a stronger
> connection since apple engineers the entire product.


Whew! They got you hook line and sinker, eh? 

Reading your posts is hilarious. Apple NEVER makes a mistake! 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!  NeXT!!!

On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:53:56 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> Are you a parrot, or a bot? I use Linux all the time. And I'm running
>> your ass ragged. Now, once more for the fans on the West Coast, WHAT is
>> OS X based on?
> 
> OSX is based on BSD, not Linux, plus you have more refined drivers on
> Macs, better antennas, etc. it's another reason why Macs work so much
> better than Windows or Linux.


Feh. It's still UNIX. Running a window server. 

And, you never did answer what your expertise is based in. 

In article
<apony-7A9DA4.20571307032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
et>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > the choice of operating system will not change a weak signal, nor will
> > it change a network which is overloaded.
> 
> but it does reflect the quality of driver in use, and the communication 
> with the access point.

that won't help a weak signal or an overloaded network.

> but yes, apple hardware will always have a 
> stronger connection since apple engineers the entire product.

really? how about when they put the antennas inside a metal enclosure,
like in the titanium powerbook? that thing had the suckiest wifi
reception of any laptop i've ever used.

In article <slrnin5cgi.2gk.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2011-03-04, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnin2ppm.uqt.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011-03-04, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> > In article <slrnin235b.ej7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
> >> >  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2011-03-03, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <slrnimv9cp.7k6.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
> >> >> >  Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> ZnU wrote on [Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:43:13 -0500]:
> >> >> >> > In article <xpEbp.6542$5r5.5314@newsfe02.iad>,
> >> >> >> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> >> > This whole "poor QC on MacBooks" thing is based on a couple of minor 
> >> >> > issues iFixIt discovered on a single unit. It's the usual Internet 
> >> >> > echo 
> >> >> > chamber nonsense.
> >> >> 
> >> >>     Yes. Because we all know that we should always ingore actual 
> >> >>     physical
> >> >> evidence when ever we are presented with it and especially when we see
> >> >> contrary physical evidence firsthand.
> >> >
> >> > The contrary physical evidence in this instance is not statistically 
> >> > meaningful.
> >> 
> >>     Apple: Because the individual is not statistically meaningful.
> >
> > Are you really arguing one can evaluate the quality control of a 
> > mass-produced device by looking at one single unit?
> 
>    How else is an individual supposed to do it?

Why would you expect a single individual to be able to do it?

>    Just take it on faith that the 2 of 3 broken Macs they have are just some
> sort of statistical fluke and don't really reflect Apple in general?

As far as I saw, their comments were based on a single unit, and the 
issues they found were not remotely serious enough to declare the unit 
"broken".

A more extreme case would make this even more obvious. What if they'd 
received a system that was entirely DOA? Would that prove that Apple had 
serious quality control problems? Clearly not, because shipping a 
certain fraction of units DOA is just a reality of producing and 
shipping this type of product. To establish a quality control problem, 
you'd need to demonstrate that the fraction of units that were DOA was 
higher than normal for a product of this type, which is clearly 
impossible to do based on a sample size of one unit.

[snip]

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

Oxford wrote:
> Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>>> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>>
>> Are you what they call a "fan boi?"
>
> no, i've never been called a fan boy,
>
Actually, that's not true. I believe I referred to you as exactly that
myself a few weeks ago, as have others.

Oxford wrote:

> Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:
> 
>> > Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>> 
>> Are you what they call a "fan boi?"
> 
> no, i've never been called a fan boy

You have been called that by *lots* of people.

And that term is the most flattering one appointed to you.

Most people rather think in terms like "imbecile", "nutcase", "cretinous liar" 
of you and your lunatic claims

-- 
You are a shining example for the advances in artificial stupidity

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > but it does reflect the quality of driver in use, and the communication 
> > with the access point.
> 
> that won't help a weak signal or an overloaded network.

a well written driver will certainly improve signal reliability, and you 
rarely run into an overloaded network on a closed hotel / motel 
connection. the biggest factor is a solid antenna.

> > but yes, apple hardware will always have a 
> > stronger connection since apple engineers the entire product.
> 
> really? how about when they put the antennas inside a metal enclosure,
> like in the titanium powerbook? that thing had the suckiest wifi
> reception of any laptop i've ever used.

but that was almost a decade ago when apple was still intruding the 
world to wifi... the fact today remains apple products have around 30% 
more signal range than competing products. all apple products are on 
802.11n don't forget.

Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Most people rather think in terms like "imbecile", "nutcase", "cretinous 
> liar" of you and your lunatic claims

Aren't you the guy that thought Linux was going to be successful? Today 
it still hovers around 1%, while the real, 100% certified UNIX... OSX... 
continues to grow 540% faster. Around 12% of the US market, 6% worldwide.

Face the facts Peter, through a lot of hard work on hundreds of forums & 
interviews, I've been able to kill off interest in Linux... so you have 
me to thank for keeping such a poor quality OS out of the mainstream.

Yes, you're welcome!

You can get up to speed as a programmer and make millions $$$ here:

http://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/xcode.html

----

PS: Poor Peter, still can't figure out how to set his USENET followup 
settings! He had it mistakenly set to "one" group when I specified the 
below groups... Peter can't even understand how to use USENET!

comp.sys.mac.advocacy, comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.cellular.attws, 
alt.cellular.motorola, comp.mobile.ipad, alt.cellular.verizon

On 3/3/2011 6:45 PM, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:

> I liked the "I know this industry better than anyone". So, where can we
> find his latest publication, or participation in a news program...

He says that to push people's buttons. In reality it would be difficult 
to find someone that knew less about the industry than him.

In article
<apony-7CF59E.16052208032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
et>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > but it does reflect the quality of driver in use, and the communication 
> > > with the access point.
> > 
> > that won't help a weak signal or an overloaded network.
> 
> a well written driver will certainly improve signal reliability,

not if it's too weak to receive, it won't.

> and you rarely run into an overloaded network on a closed hotel / motel 
> connection.

oh yes you do. 

> the biggest factor is a solid antenna.

yes it is, which contradicts what you just said about drivers.

> > > but yes, apple hardware will always have a 
> > > stronger connection since apple engineers the entire product.
> > 
> > really? how about when they put the antennas inside a metal enclosure,
> > like in the titanium powerbook? that thing had the suckiest wifi
> > reception of any laptop i've ever used.
> 
> but that was almost a decade ago when apple was still intruding the 
> world to wifi...

so what? it contradicts what you said about apple hardware always
having a stronger connection. it's *not* always.

the aluminum powerbooks were better, but not by all that much. even the
macbook pros with the plastic aperture on the hinge are not as good as
the all plastic ibooks were.

> the fact today remains apple products have around 30% 
> more signal range than competing products.

bullshit. 

> all apple products are on 802.11n don't forget.

wrong yet again. the iphone 3gs does not have 802.11n. it's still sold,
which makes it a current product.

also, the iphone 4 and ipod touch have 802.11n but not at 5ghz where
the spectrum is less crowded and the full capability of 802.11n can be
used.

"Oxford"  wrote in message news:apony-43AAA4.16225508032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.net... 

..Aren't you the guy that thought Linux was going to be successful? Today 
..it still hovers around 1%, while the real, 100% certified UNIX... OSX... 
..continues to grow 540% faster. Around 12% of the US market, 6% worldwide.

..Face the facts Peter, through a lot of hard work on hundreds of forums & 
..interviews, I've been able to kill off interest in Linux... so you have 
..me to thank for keeping such a poor quality OS out of the mainstream.

..Yes, you're welcome!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me get this straight.

YOU (Oxy) are claiming to have PERSONALLY killed off Linux????????

Have you EVER set foot into a real world data center???
Processing millions of transactions (and dollars) a second??

I do - every day.

Trust me,  OSX isn't to be found - anywhere.

RHL.......

I honestly cannot recall a more delusional news net poster in quite a few years...

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 19:17:04 -0800, nospam wrote:

> 
>> all apple products are on 802.11n don't forget.
> 
> wrong yet again. the iphone 3gs does not have 802.11n. it's still sold,
> which makes it a current product.
> 
> also, the iphone 4 and ipod touch have 802.11n but not at 5ghz where the
> spectrum is less crowded and the full capability of 802.11n can be used.


Sheesh! Confuse the issues with facts, won't you! I tell ya!

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 18:16:27 -0800, SMS wrote:

> On 3/3/2011 6:45 PM, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:
> 
>> I liked the "I know this industry better than anyone". So, where can we
>> find his latest publication, or participation in a news program...
> 
> He says that to push people's buttons. In reality it would be difficult to
> find someone that knew less about the industry than him.


Gee, SMS, I think I could name a couple people that like to do that
too...elsewhere!  ;)

On 3/8/2011 6:05 PM, Oxford wrote:
> nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>
>>> but it does reflect the quality of driver in use, and the communication
>>> with the access point.
>>
>> that won't help a weak signal or an overloaded network.
>
> a well written driver will certainly improve signal reliability,

True, but also irrelevant.  He said *weak* signal - not signal 
reliability.

> and you
> rarely run into an overloaded network on a closed hotel / motel
> connection. the biggest factor is a solid antenna.

You must be staying in fleabag hotels then, and don't stay in too many 
hotels in major city/metro areas.  I've seen network overload
at many a hotel - both WiFi and although to a far lesser degree, even 
3G access at carriers' network access co-located in/on hotels.  Of 
course, you could always take your chances on a nearby unsecured WiFi 
connection being available.


>>> but yes, apple hardware will always have a
>>> stronger connection since apple engineers the entire product.
>>
>> really? how about when they put the antennas inside a metal enclosure,
>> like in the titanium powerbook? that thing had the suckiest wifi
>> reception of any laptop i've ever used.
>
> but that was almost a decade ago when apple was still intruding the
> world to wifi...

1> I didn't know one 'intrudes' the world 'to' WiFi.

2> I suppose 3Com, Cisco, Intersil, Agere, Motorola, Panasonic, or 
Sony had little or nothing to do with it of any significance, eh?

More Appple fanboism from 'Oxford the Retard', the boy who is also 
known as 'he_who_suffered_a_worm_attack_on_his_apple_shaped_head'.


> the fact today remains apple products have around 30%
> more signal range than competing products. all apple products are on
> 802.11n don't forget.

....and practically worth that >< much when connecting to b or g 
routers/APs, of which many (if not most) still are.  By the time the 
majority of them are of the n variety, so will the devices connecting 
to them be.


But, then again, 'Oxtard' probably does mistake the Apple-stem shaped 
cow-lick on his weeny head as an AP antenna...






-- 
MFB

"Ness-Net" <richardno@dammnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> Let me get this straight.
> 
> YOU (Oxy) are claiming to have PERSONALLY killed off Linux????????

through my hard work, i've had the most effect of anyone is my point.

> Have you EVER set foot into a real world data center???
> Processing millions of transactions (and dollars) a second??
> 
> I do - every day.

yes, for mundane, back office tasks linux is fine, i have never disputed 
that. but there was a time 10-12 years ago that many people like "Peter" 
thought Linux was going to be widely used by end users. Then OSX 
happened in 2001 and Linux has been stunted ever since. 

> Trust me,  OSX isn't to be found - anywhere.
> 
> RHL.......
> 
> I honestly cannot recall a more delusional news net poster in quite a few 
> years...

you're just not an informed usenet person, i've been here longer and 
have had a more positive affect on computing than practically anyone 
posting to these forums. it's just you are too young to remember my 
prolific posts from 5-15 years ago.

Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> UMASS has TONS of servers, the majority of them running...CentOS. Not
> BSD, not OSX. For every 40 Dells running CentOS, there's one or two old
> Apple servers running. THEY R TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!

and i've never said linux isn't good for mundane server tasks, my point 
is linux will never be widely used by "end users" and i've been correct 
about that since day one.

On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 20:52:40 -0800, Ness-Net wrote:

> "Oxford"  wrote in message
> news:apony-43AAA4.16225508032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.net...
> 
> .Aren't you the guy that thought Linux was going to be successful? Today
> .it still hovers around 1%, while the real, 100% certified UNIX... OSX...
> .continues to grow 540% faster. Around 12% of the US market, 6% worldwide.
> 
> .Face the facts Peter, through a lot of hard work on hundreds of forums &
> .interviews, I've been able to kill off interest in Linux... so you have
> .me to thank for keeping such a poor quality OS out of the mainstream.
> 
> .Yes, you're welcome!
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let me get this straight.
> 
> YOU (Oxy) are claiming to have PERSONALLY killed off Linux????????
> 
> Have you EVER set foot into a real world data center??? Processing
> millions of transactions (and dollars) a second??
> 
> I do - every day.
> 
> Trust me,  OSX isn't to be found - anywhere.
> 
> RHL.......
> 
> I honestly cannot recall a more delusional news net poster in quite a few
> years...


It's his fanboi-ishness, and/or getting paid to spread this manure around. 

UMASS has TONS of servers, the majority of them running...CentOS. Not
BSD, not OSX. For every 40 Dells running CentOS, there's one or two old
Apple servers running. THEY R TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!

On 2011-03-09, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>
>> UMASS has TONS of servers, the majority of them running...CentOS. Not
>> BSD, not OSX. For every 40 Dells running CentOS, there's one or two old
>> Apple servers running. THEY R TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!
>
> and i've never said linux isn't good for mundane server tasks, my point 

    Linux isn't just good for "mundane" server tasks. It's also interesting
for VERY INTERESTING server tasks. This includes things that no copy of MacOS
ever has a hope of addressing because no suitable hardware is allowed to run
MacOS.

-- 

It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate. 

        They brought us the email virus.
                                                     
	In my Atari days, such a notion would have             |||
	been considered a complete absurdity.                 / | \

On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 20:52:40 -0800, "Ness-Net"
<richardno@dammnspam.nessnet.com> wrote:

>Let me get this straight.
>
>YOU (Oxy) are claiming to have PERSONALLY killed off Linux????????
>
>Have you EVER set foot into a real world data center???
>Processing millions of transactions (and dollars) a second??
>
>I do - every day.
>
>Trust me,  OSX isn't to be found - anywhere.


The workplace I just retired from had Linux, Solaris, MVS - and
Windows and OSX.    It wasn't a religion - we used whatever tools for
the job.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On 2011-03-08, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Most people rather think in terms like "imbecile", "nutcase", "cretinous 
>> liar" of you and your lunatic claims
>
> Aren't you the guy that thought Linux was going to be successful? Today 
> it still hovers around 1%, while the real, 100% certified UNIX... OSX... 

   ...Linux seems to be quite successful in all of the areas that Apple
is trying to flee into because MacOS has only ever been a relative flop
compared to Microsoft despite a considerable early technical lead.

[deletia]

   "100% certfied" is a lot less meaningful to those of us that are actual
Unix users, especially for those of us that use Unix in our corporate life.

    Usually, Apple sells itself on specifically being as far removed away
from Unix as humanly possible.

-- 

It is not true that Microsoft doesn't innovate. 

        They brought us the email virus.
                                                     
	In my Atari days, such a notion would have             |||
	been considered a complete absurdity.                 / | \

[groups trimmed]
On Mar 9, 9:13=A0am, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2011-03-09, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> > Hachiroku =C9n=C9`=C9=E7=C9N <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote:
>
> >> UMASS has TONS of servers, the majority of them running...CentOS. Not
> >> BSD, not OSX. For every 40 Dells running CentOS, there's one or two ol=
d
> >> Apple servers running. THEY R TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!

A good & fair point from Hachiroku.

> > and i've never said linux isn't good for mundane server tasks, my point
>
> =A0 =A0 Linux isn't just good for "mundane" server tasks. It's also inter=
esting
> for VERY INTERESTING server tasks.

An interesting claim, but...you could have just as easily said that
Oxford is ugly and his Mom dresses him funny, because (what was
snipped, now restored):

>> [Oxford's point] is linux will never be widely used by "end users" ...

....as such, your diatribe about 'interesting' server stuff is utterly
irrelevant to the point that was being made.


Yes, we know that you're an Anti-Apple bigot, and so long as you can
make clear & honest criticisms of the company and their products,
that's fine.   But by resorting to deceptions thru outright lies in
order to contrive excuses, your blatant intellectual dishonesty makes
you more lame than even the worst Fanboi.


-hh

In article <slrninf2on.mpb.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2011-03-09, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> > Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> >
> >> UMASS has TONS of servers, the majority of them running...CentOS. Not
> >> BSD, not OSX. For every 40 Dells running CentOS, there's one or two old
> >> Apple servers running. THEY R TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > and i've never said linux isn't good for mundane server tasks, my point 
> 
>     Linux isn't just good for "mundane" server tasks. It's also interesting
> for VERY INTERESTING server tasks. This includes things that no copy of MacOS
> ever has a hope of addressing because no suitable hardware is allowed to run
> MacOS.

That extreme claim would have been made a lot stronger with an example 
of such a task...

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

In article <alangbaker-07BBCC.10315009032011@news.shawcable.net>,
 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> In article <slrninf2on.mpb.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> 
> > On 2011-03-09, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> > > Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> > >
> > >> UMASS has TONS of servers, the majority of them 
> > >> running...CentOS. Not BSD, not OSX. For every 40 Dells running 
> > >> CentOS, there's one or two old Apple servers running. THEY R 
> > >> TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > and i've never said linux isn't good for mundane server tasks, my 
> > > point 
> > 
> > Linux isn't just good for "mundane" server tasks. It's also 
> > interesting for VERY INTERESTING server tasks. This includes things 
> > that no copy of MacOS ever has a hope of addressing because no 
> > suitable hardware is allowed to run MacOS.
> 
> That extreme claim would have been made a lot stronger with an 
> example of such a task...

Yeah, there are certainly server tasks that it wouldn't necessarily be 
sensible or cost-effective to perform on a cluster of Mac Pro towers, 
but it's hard to think of many server tasks that would be literally 
impossible to perform that way.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article <slrninf342.mpb.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> Usually, Apple sells itself on specifically being as far removed away
> from Unix as humanly possible.

All the versions of Windows are much father away.

-- 
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money 
is good, or is it the reverse?

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:16:33 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> UMASS has TONS of servers, the majority of them running...CentOS. Not
>> BSD, not OSX. For every 40 Dells running CentOS, there's one or two old
>> Apple servers running. THEY R TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!
> 
> and i've never said linux isn't good for mundane server tasks, my point is
> linux will never be widely used by "end users" and i've been correct about
> that since day one.


I'm a hardware person, not a programmer. I was looking for free software,
and found it. I didn't know a grep from a chmod...still don't really. I
now find it easier to operate than Windows. I still know more about
Windows than Linux...just barely at this point...

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 08:13:43 -0600, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2011-03-09, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
>> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>
>>> UMASS has TONS of servers, the majority of them running...CentOS. Not
>>> BSD, not OSX. For every 40 Dells running CentOS, there's one or two old
>>> Apple servers running. THEY R TAKING OVER THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> and i've never said linux isn't good for mundane server tasks, my point
> 
>     Linux isn't just good for "mundane" server tasks. It's also
>     interesting
> for VERY INTERESTING server tasks. This includes things that no copy of
> MacOS ever has a hope of addressing because no suitable hardware is
> allowed to run MacOS.

The departments that uses it the most at UMASS are the Math, Science and
Engineering departments...

On Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:13:58 -0700, Oxford wrote:


> you're just not an informed usenet person, i've been here longer and have
> had a more positive affect on computing than practically anyone posting to
> these forums. it's just you are too young to remember my prolific posts
> from 5-15 years ago.


And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of this deep
level of expertise. 

So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start? 

"Oxford"  wrote in message news:apony-E42CD5.00135809032011@n003-000-000-000.static.ge.com... 

>you're just not an informed usenet person, i've been here longer and 
>have had a more positive affect on computing than practically anyone 
>posting to these forums. it's just you are too young to remember my 
>prolific posts from 5-15 years ago.

From your asinine behavior, it is HIGHLY improbable that you are over 20.
Your immaturity is reflected in every one of your ludicrous proclamations and grandiose shit like the above.
In all likelihood, still in Jr High living with mommy. 

If you actually are as old as you imply you are above - you really need a mental health professional - STAT!

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> > and i've never said linux isn't good for mundane server tasks, my point 
> 
>     Linux isn't just good for "mundane" server tasks. It's also interesting
> for VERY INTERESTING server tasks. This includes things that no copy of MacOS
> ever has a hope of addressing because no suitable hardware is allowed to run
> MacOS.

like what? OSX Server runs far more software than Linux don't forget. 
Plus with the new Lion Release this summer, every Mac sold will come 
with OSX Server... so check out what the big boys use:

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/

-

Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of this deep
> level of expertise. 
> 
> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start? 

yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early 80's, 
300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the first 
webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen the whole 
show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you have anymore 
questions nublet?

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > all apple products are on 802.11n don't forget.
> 
> wrong yet again. the iphone 3gs does not have 802.11n. it's still sold,
> which makes it a current product.

so one legacy product you dug up from 3 years ago? geesh!
 
> also, the iphone 4 and ipod touch have 802.11n but not at 5ghz where
> the spectrum is less crowded and the full capability of 802.11n can be
> used.

but the point is all apple products use 802.11n, not the slower 
802.11a/b/g chipset. catch a clue...

Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> Confuse the issues with facts, won't you! I tell ya!

exactly, "nospam" seems to be out of touch with reality.

Oxford wrote on [Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:34:44 -0700]:
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> > and i've never said linux isn't good for mundane server tasks, my point 
>> 
>>     Linux isn't just good for "mundane" server tasks. It's also interesting
>> for VERY INTERESTING server tasks. This includes things that no copy of MacOS
>> ever has a hope of addressing because no suitable hardware is allowed to run
>> MacOS.
>
> like what? OSX Server runs far more software than Linux don't forget. 
> Plus with the new Lion Release this summer, every Mac sold will come 
> with OSX Server... so check out what the big boys use:

How does it go running WAS ND in a distributed envrionment?

On Mar 10, 8:42=A0am, Oxford   <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> Hachiroku =C9n=C9`=C9=E7=C9N <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote:
> > And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of this d=
eep
> > level of expertise.
>
> > So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
>
> yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early 80's,
> 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the first
> webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab...

what lab?

In article
<apony-FE0D67.09471410032011@dialup-4.167.115.65.dial1.houston1.level3.n
et>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> > > all apple products are on 802.11n don't forget.
> > 
> > wrong yet again. the iphone 3gs does not have 802.11n. it's still sold,
> > which makes it a current product.
> 
> so one legacy product you dug up from 3 years ago? geesh!

it's available at any apple or at&t store *today*. at&t is currently
running nationwide television ads for the 3gs. not only that, but it
was originally released *two* years ago (2009), not 3. you can't even
get *that* right.

> > also, the iphone 4 and ipod touch have 802.11n but not at 5ghz where
> > the spectrum is less crowded and the full capability of 802.11n can be
> > used.
> 
> but the point is all apple products use 802.11n, not the slower 
> 802.11a/b/g chipset. catch a clue...

almost all. see above. also, they use an 802.11 a/b/g/n chipset.

In article <Qlaep.19015$FA.9603@newsfe15.iad>,
 Hachiroku �n�`���N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:42:54 -0700, Oxford wrote:
> 
> > Hachiroku ????n????`????????????N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> > 
> >> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of this
> >> deep level of expertise.
> >> 
> >> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
> > 
> > yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early 80's,
> > 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the first webpages
> > back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen the whole show starting
> > with punchcards in the late 70's. do you have anymore questions nublet?
> 
> 
> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to Novell
> IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the bunch?

Worst for what purpose?

And with all your technical "expertise" do you think you could properly 
format your headers?

"From: =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= 
<Trueno@e86.GTS>" is hardly useful.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

Hachiroku ハチロク wrote on [Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:17:53 -0600]:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:42:54 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>
>> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> 
>>> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of this
>>> deep level of expertise.
>>> 
>>> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
>> 
>> yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early 80's,
>> 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the first webpages
>> back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen the whole show starting
>> with punchcards in the late 70's. do you have anymore questions nublet?
>
>
> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to Novell
> IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the bunch?

IPX/SPX

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:42:54 -0700, Oxford wrote:

> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of this
>> deep level of expertise.
>> 
>> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
> 
> yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early 80's,
> 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the first webpages
> back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen the whole show starting
> with punchcards in the late 70's. do you have anymore questions nublet?


Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to Novell
IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the bunch?

In article <2scep.17960$1a1.3125@newsfe07.iad>,
 Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:23:39 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
> 
> > In article <Qlaep.19015$FA.9603@newsfe15.iad>,
> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:42:54 -0700, Oxford wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Hachiroku ????n????`????????????N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of this
> >> >> deep level of expertise.
> >> >> 
> >> >> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
> >> > 
> >> > yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early 80's,
> >> > 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the first
> >> > webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen the whole
> >> > show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you have anymore
> >> > questions nublet?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
> >> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
> >> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
> >> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to
> >> Novell IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the
> >> bunch?
> > 
> > Worst for what purpose?
> > 
> > And with all your technical "expertise" do you think you could properly
> > format your headers?
> > 
> > "From: =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?=
> > <Trueno@e86.GTS>" is hardly useful.
> 
> 
> UTF-8 Unicode. Get off the Windows sh!t. There are other (better)
> operating systems that are more in tune with the rest of the world. 

Sorry, but that's the way your header came through.

And I'm not using Windows.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

In article <itcep.17983$1a1.4206@newsfe07.iad>,
 Hachiroku �n�`���N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> >>>> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of this
> >>>> deep level of expertise.
> >>>> 
> >>>> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
> >>> 
> >>> yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early 80's,
> >>> 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the first
> >>> webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen the whole
> >>> show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you have anymore
> >>> questions nublet?
> >>
> >>
> >> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
> >> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
> >> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
> >> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to
> >> Novell IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the
> >> bunch?
> > 
> > IPX/SPX
> 
> Appletalk? It only took me a few minutes to get systems talking to the
> Novell server. Even my Apple fanatic friends complained about Appletalk. 

What were there actual complaints?

Appletalk as easy to set up when other networks required far more effort and specialized knowledge.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

In article <lwcep.35669$iM3.28106@newsfe09.iad>,
 Hachiroku ƒnƒ`ƒƒN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:42:59 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
> 
> > In article <2scep.17960$1a1.3125@newsfe07.iad>,
> >  Hachiroku �‰n�‰`�‰怳�‰N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:23:39 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> 
> >> > In article <Qlaep.19015$FA.9603@newsfe15.iad>,
> >> >  Hachiroku �‰n�‰`�‰怳�‰N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:42:54 -0700, Oxford wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Hachiroku ????n????`????????????N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of
> >> >> >> this deep level of expertise.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early
> >> >> > 80's, 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the
> >> >> > first webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen
> >> >> > the whole show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you
> >> >> > have anymore questions nublet?
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
> >> >> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
> >> >> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
> >> >> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to
> >> >> Novell IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the
> >> >> bunch?
> >> > 
> >> > Worst for what purpose?
> >> > 
> >> > And with all your technical "expertise" do you think you could
> >> > properly format your headers?
> >> > 
> >> > "From: =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?=
> >> > <Trueno@e86.GTS>" is hardly useful.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> UTF-8 Unicode. Get off the Windows sh!t. There are other (better)
> >> operating systems that are more in tune with the rest of the world.
> > 
> > Sorry, but that's the way your header came through.
> > 
> > And I'm not using Windows.
> 
> 
> Hmmm....OS X should be able to handle it. What are you using for a
> newsreader? 

MT-Newswatcher.

> 
> And, the IBM PC could boot GEM..sort of. 

That was the point. I'm making fun of some of the contradictions of a particular poster.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

On 3/10/2011 11:47 AM, Oxford wrote:
> nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>
>>> all apple products are on 802.11n don't forget.
>>
>> wrong yet again. the iphone 3gs does not have 802.11n. it's still sold,
>> which makes it a current product.
>
> so one legacy product you dug up from 3 years ago? geesh!
>
>> also, the iphone 4 and ipod touch have 802.11n but not at 5ghz where
>> the spectrum is less crowded and the full capability of 802.11n can be
>> used.
>
> but the point is all apple products use 802.11n, not the slower
> 802.11a/b/g chipset. catch a clue...

....and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sources, 
it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of 
the a/b/g variety?

-- 
MFB

In article <ilbl4o$r7a$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Flint <agent1@section31.org> wrote:

> On 3/10/2011 11:47 AM, Oxford wrote:
> > nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
> >
> >>> all apple products are on 802.11n don't forget.
> >>
> >> wrong yet again. the iphone 3gs does not have 802.11n. it's still sold,
> >> which makes it a current product.
> >
> > so one legacy product you dug up from 3 years ago? geesh!
> >
> >> also, the iphone 4 and ipod touch have 802.11n but not at 5ghz where
> >> the spectrum is less crowded and the full capability of 802.11n can be
> >> used.
> >
> > but the point is all apple products use 802.11n, not the slower
> > 802.11a/b/g chipset. catch a clue...
> 
> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sources, 
> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of 
> the a/b/g variety?

Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his crappy 
router??

-- 
Lloyd

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:23:39 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <Qlaep.19015$FA.9603@newsfe15.iad>,
>  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:42:54 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>> 
>> > Hachiroku ????n????`????????????N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of this
>> >> deep level of expertise.
>> >> 
>> >> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
>> > 
>> > yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early 80's,
>> > 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the first
>> > webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen the whole
>> > show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you have anymore
>> > questions nublet?
>> 
>> 
>> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
>> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
>> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
>> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to
>> Novell IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the
>> bunch?
> 
> Worst for what purpose?
> 
> And with all your technical "expertise" do you think you could properly
> format your headers?
> 
> "From: =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?=
> <Trueno@e86.GTS>" is hardly useful.


UTF-8 Unicode. Get off the Windows sh!t. There are other (better)
operating systems that are more in tune with the rest of the world. 

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:42:11 +0000, Justin wrote:

> Hachiroku ハチロク wrote on [Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:17:53 -0600]:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:42:54 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>>
>>> Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of this
>>>> deep level of expertise.
>>>> 
>>>> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
>>> 
>>> yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early 80's,
>>> 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the first
>>> webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen the whole
>>> show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you have anymore
>>> questions nublet?
>>
>>
>> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
>> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
>> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
>> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to
>> Novell IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the
>> bunch?
> 
> IPX/SPX

Appletalk? It only took me a few minutes to get systems talking to the
Novell server. Even my Apple fanatic friends complained about Appletalk. 

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:42:59 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <2scep.17960$1a1.3125@newsfe07.iad>,
>  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:23:39 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <Qlaep.19015$FA.9603@newsfe15.iad>,
>> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:42:54 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Hachiroku ????n????`????????????N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of
>> >> >> this deep level of expertise.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
>> >> > 
>> >> > yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early
>> >> > 80's, 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the
>> >> > first webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen
>> >> > the whole show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you
>> >> > have anymore questions nublet?
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
>> >> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
>> >> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
>> >> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to
>> >> Novell IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the
>> >> bunch?
>> > 
>> > Worst for what purpose?
>> > 
>> > And with all your technical "expertise" do you think you could
>> > properly format your headers?
>> > 
>> > "From: =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?=
>> > <Trueno@e86.GTS>" is hardly useful.
>> 
>> 
>> UTF-8 Unicode. Get off the Windows sh!t. There are other (better)
>> operating systems that are more in tune with the rest of the world.
> 
> Sorry, but that's the way your header came through.
> 
> And I'm not using Windows.


Hmmm....OS X should be able to handle it. What are you using for a
newsreader? 

And, the IBM PC could boot GEM..sort of. 

In article <Hkdep.19089$FA.18597@newsfe15.iad>,
 Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:44:30 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
> 
> > In article <itcep.17983$1a1.4206@newsfe07.iad>,
> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> > 
> >> >>>> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of
> >> >>>> this deep level of expertise.
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>>> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early
> >> >>> 80's, 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the
> >> >>> first webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen the
> >> >>> whole show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you have
> >> >>> anymore questions nublet?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
> >> >> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
> >> >> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
> >> >> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to
> >> >> Novell IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the
> >> >> bunch?
> >> > 
> >> > IPX/SPX
> >> 
> >> Appletalk? It only took me a few minutes to get systems talking to the
> >> Novell server. Even my Apple fanatic friends complained about Appletalk.
> > 
> > What were there actual complaints?
> 
> Couldn't get it to talk to one computer bieng used as a 'server'.

Sorry, but what prevented it? When was this?

I set up lots of Appletalk networks back in the day and it was a piece of cake.

> 
> 
> > 
> > Appletalk as easy to set up when other networks required far more effort
> > and specialized knowledge.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:42:59 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <2scep.17960$1a1.3125@newsfe07.iad>,
>  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:23:39 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <Qlaep.19015$FA.9603@newsfe15.iad>,
>> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:42:54 -0700, Oxford wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Hachiroku ????n????`????????????N <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of
>> >> >> this deep level of expertise.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
>> >> > 
>> >> > yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early
>> >> > 80's, 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the
>> >> > first webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen
>> >> > the whole show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you
>> >> > have anymore questions nublet?
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
>> >> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
>> >> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
>> >> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to
>> >> Novell IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the
>> >> bunch?
>> > 
>> > Worst for what purpose?
>> > 
>> > And with all your technical "expertise" do you think you could
>> > properly format your headers?
>> > 
>> > "From: =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?=
>> > <Trueno@e86.GTS>" is hardly useful.
>> 
>> 
>> UTF-8 Unicode. Get off the Windows sh!t. There are other (better)
>> operating systems that are more in tune with the rest of the world.
> 
> Sorry, but that's the way your header came through.
> 
> And I'm not using Windows.


I would suggest Pan. Available for OS X 

http://pan.rebelbase.com/

http://pan.rebelbase.com/screenshots/japanese.png

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:49:00 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

>> Hmmm....OS X should be able to handle it. What are you using for a
>> newsreader?
> 
> MT-Newswatcher.

Hmmm...even my Windows fans can see my header OK...

> 
> 
>> And, the IBM PC could boot GEM..sort of.
> 
> That was the point. I'm making fun of some of the contradictions of a
> particular poster.

No mention of Geoworks? For a long time that was my favorite. Multitasking
on a V-20 even!

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:44:30 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <itcep.17983$1a1.4206@newsfe07.iad>,
>  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> >>>> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of
>> >>>> this deep level of expertise.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
>> >>> 
>> >>> yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early
>> >>> 80's, 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the
>> >>> first webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen the
>> >>> whole show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you have
>> >>> anymore questions nublet?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet and
>> >> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on a PDP
>> >> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on video
>> >> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went to
>> >> Novell IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one in the
>> >> bunch?
>> > 
>> > IPX/SPX
>> 
>> Appletalk? It only took me a few minutes to get systems talking to the
>> Novell server. Even my Apple fanatic friends complained about Appletalk.
> 
> What were there actual complaints?

Couldn't get it to talk to one computer bieng used as a 'server'.


> 
> Appletalk as easy to set up when other networks required far more effort
> and specialized knowledge.

Lloyd Parsons wrote on [Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:08:05 -0600]:
> In article <ilbl4o$r7a$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Flint <agent1@section31.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/10/2011 11:47 AM, Oxford wrote:
>> > nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>> >
>> >>> all apple products are on 802.11n don't forget.
>> >>
>> >> wrong yet again. the iphone 3gs does not have 802.11n. it's still sold,
>> >> which makes it a current product.
>> >
>> > so one legacy product you dug up from 3 years ago? geesh!
>> >
>> >> also, the iphone 4 and ipod touch have 802.11n but not at 5ghz where
>> >> the spectrum is less crowded and the full capability of 802.11n can be
>> >> used.
>> >
>> > but the point is all apple products use 802.11n, not the slower
>> > 802.11a/b/g chipset. catch a clue...
>> 
>> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sources, 
>> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of 
>> the a/b/g variety?
>
> Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his crappy 
> router??

To another crappy router. What home router isn't crappy?

In article <slrninivlm.2hj.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
 Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> Lloyd Parsons wrote on [Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:08:05 -0600]:
> > In article <ilbl4o$r7a$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  Flint <agent1@section31.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/10/2011 11:47 AM, Oxford wrote:
> >> > nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> all apple products are on 802.11n don't forget.
> >> >>
> >> >> wrong yet again. the iphone 3gs does not have 802.11n. it's still sold,
> >> >> which makes it a current product.
> >> >
> >> > so one legacy product you dug up from 3 years ago? geesh!
> >> >
> >> >> also, the iphone 4 and ipod touch have 802.11n but not at 5ghz where
> >> >> the spectrum is less crowded and the full capability of 802.11n can be
> >> >> used.
> >> >
> >> > but the point is all apple products use 802.11n, not the slower
> >> > 802.11a/b/g chipset. catch a clue...
> >> 
> >> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sources, 
> >> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of 
> >> the a/b/g variety?
> >
> > Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his crappy 
> > router??
> 
> To another crappy router. What home router isn't crappy?

I guess it depends on your definition of crappy.

I'm perfectly happy with my Apple Extremes.

-- 
Lloyd

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:47:42 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <Hkdep.19089$FA.18597@newsfe15.iad>,
>  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:44:30 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:
>> 
>> > In article <itcep.17983$1a1.4206@newsfe07.iad>,
>> >  Hachiroku ÉnÉ`ÉçÉN <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> >>>> And yet, you still haven't answered my question for the basis of
>> >> >>>> this deep level of expertise.
>> >> >>>> 
>> >> >>>> So you were on Usenet in 1986? Pretty much right from the start?
>> >> >>> 
>> >> >>> yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early
>> >> >>> 80's, 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the
>> >> >>> first webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen
>> >> >>> the whole show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you
>> >> >>> have anymore questions nublet?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANet
>> >> >> and Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started
>> >> >> on a PDP 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS
>> >> >> on video terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet,
>> >> >> then went to Novell IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the
>> >> >> worst one in the bunch?
>> >> > 
>> >> > IPX/SPX
>> >> 
>> >> Appletalk? It only took me a few minutes to get systems talking to
>> >> the Novell server. Even my Apple fanatic friends complained about
>> >> Appletalk.
>> > 
>> > What were there actual complaints?
>> 
>> Couldn't get it to talk to one computer bieng used as a 'server'.
> 
> Sorry, but what prevented it? When was this?
> 
> I set up lots of Appletalk networks back in the day and it was a piece of
> cake.
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> > Appletalk as easy to set up when other networks required far more
>> > effort and specialized knowledge.


It was before I really got into computers in a big way, and it was a
couple of real Appleheads. Thye just couldn't get that one machine to
communicate with the rest. 

I was still doing component level electronics at the time and hadn't made
the jump to computers yet. 

On 3/10/11 11:44 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> Appletalk? It only took me a few minutes to get systems talking to the
>> Novell server. Even my Apple fanatic friends complained about Appletalk.
>
> What were there actual complaints?
>
> Appletalk as easy to set up when other networks required far more effort and specialized knowledge.

The connectors frequently became loose. This usually meant that nobody 
could use the printer anymore. Yes we had only one printer then, because 
the LaserWriter was very expensive.

gr, hwh

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:01:20 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>
> it's available at any apple or at&t store *today*. at&t is currently
> running nationwide television ads for the 3gs. not only that, but it
> was originally released *two* years ago (2009), not 3. you can't even
> get *that* right.
>

He'll remonstrate that *you* can't count: how many years available?
-- Well, 2009, 2010, and 2011 -- that's *three* (3) years :-) .

Enjoy. -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

On 3/10/2011 6:08 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article<ilbl4o$r7a$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>   Flint<agent1@section31.org>  wrote:

>> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sources,
>> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of
>> the a/b/g variety?
>
> Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his crappy
> router??

Who said anything about 'crappy' routers?  A 'g' router generally 
still provides plenty of bandwidth for most folks needs when 
connecting to the internet since their data transfer rate slows down 
to their broadband speed anyway.  And face it, while wireless media 
streaming throughout the home may be on the rise, its usage just isn't 
there yet to require them to upgrade at this point as most home 
networks are still only used more as multi-wireless users access 
points with no file-sharing 'network' between connected devices 
actually configured.  Even if using file/printer sharing, g is more 
than sufficient for most people's needs.  Just because it may not be 
optimal for in home media streaming doesn't make it 'crappy'.

This sounds like typical Apple "let's fire up the warp engine before 
we even build the ship" forced upgrade thinking.



-- 
MFB

On 2011-03-10, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Oxford wrote on [Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:34:44 -0700]:
>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>
>>> > and i've never said linux isn't good for mundane server tasks, my point 
>>> 
>>>     Linux isn't just good for "mundane" server tasks. It's also interesting
>>> for VERY INTERESTING server tasks. This includes things that no copy of MacOS
>>> ever has a hope of addressing because no suitable hardware is allowed to run
>>> MacOS.
>>
>> like what? OSX Server runs far more software than Linux don't forget. 

    Cheap copies of Photoshop and ports of iPhone games aren't really relevant
here.

[deletia]

-- 
	Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone               |||
	who has pirated their music                                  / | \

On 2011-03-11, Flint <agent1@section31.org> wrote:
> On 3/10/2011 6:08 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> In article<ilbl4o$r7a$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>   Flint<agent1@section31.org>  wrote:
>
>>> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sources,
>>> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of
>>> the a/b/g variety?
>>
>> Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his crappy
>> router??
>
> Who said anything about 'crappy' routers?  A 'g' router generally 
> still provides plenty of bandwidth for most folks needs when 
> connecting to the internet since their data transfer rate slows down 

    ...that's just priceless there.

    The fanboys don't need N routers because all they are doing is surfing
the web with their devices. It doesn't occur to them to actually make full
use of the features Apple is shipping with their products.

-- 
	Metallica is not worth the ruination of someone               |||
	who has pirated their music                                  / | \

In article <slrninkg99.2t7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
 JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:

> On 2011-03-11, Flint <agent1@section31.org> wrote:
> > On 3/10/2011 6:08 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> In article<ilbl4o$r7a$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>   Flint<agent1@section31.org>  wrote:
> >
> >>> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sources,
> >>> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of
> >>> the a/b/g variety?
> >>
> >> Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his crappy
> >> router??
> >
> > Who said anything about 'crappy' routers?  A 'g' router generally 
> > still provides plenty of bandwidth for most folks needs when 
> > connecting to the internet since their data transfer rate slows down 
> 
>     ...that's just priceless there.
> 
>     The fanboys don't need N routers because all they are doing is surfing
> the web with their devices. It doesn't occur to them to actually make full
> use of the features Apple is shipping with their products.

Meh. Truth is, 'g' is more than fast enough to handle consumer Internet 
connections (at least the lame ones we have in the US) and local media 
streaming (with the types of media you'd likely stream to an iOS device).

If Apple introduces wireless syncing at some point, and you might 
sometimes want to transfer a few gigs of content at a time like that, 
that would be a reason to pick up an access point that supports 'n'.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

On 2011-03-11, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrninkg99.2t7.jedi@nomad.mishnet>,
>  JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-03-11, Flint <agent1@section31.org> wrote:
>> > On 3/10/2011 6:08 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >> In article<ilbl4o$r7a$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >>   Flint<agent1@section31.org>  wrote:
>> >
>> >>> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sources,
>> >>> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of
>> >>> the a/b/g variety?
>> >>
>> >> Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his crappy
>> >> router??
>> >
>> > Who said anything about 'crappy' routers?  A 'g' router generally 
>> > still provides plenty of bandwidth for most folks needs when 
>> > connecting to the internet since their data transfer rate slows down 
>> 
>>     ...that's just priceless there.
>> 
>>     The fanboys don't need N routers because all they are doing is surfing
>> the web with their devices. It doesn't occur to them to actually make full
>> use of the features Apple is shipping with their products.
>
> Meh. Truth is, 'g' is more than fast enough to handle consumer Internet 
> connections (at least the lame ones we have in the US) and local media 

   ...which isn't the point.

   You're funny.

-- 
"Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don't evaluate whether 
the idea will move the industry forward, they ask,                    |||
'how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?'"                  / | \

                         -- Bill Gates

On Mar 11, 2:12=A0pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrninkg99.2t7.j...@nomad.mishnet>,
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> > On 2011-03-11, Flint <age...@section31.org> wrote:
> > > On 3/10/2011 6:08 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > >> In article<ilbl4o$r7...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > >> =A0 Flint<age...@section31.org> =A0wrote:
>
> > >>> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sourc=
es,
> > >>> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of
> > >>> the a/b/g variety?
>
> > >> Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his cra=
ppy
> > >> router??
>
> > > Who said anything about 'crappy' routers? =A0A 'g' router generally
> > > still provides plenty of bandwidth for most folks needs when
> > > connecting to the internet since their data transfer rate slows down
>
> > =A0 =A0 ...that's just priceless there.
>
> > =A0 =A0 The fanboys don't need N routers because all they are doing is =
surfing
> > the web with their devices. It doesn't occur to them to actually make f=
ull
> > use of the features Apple is shipping with their products.
>
> Meh. Truth is, 'g' is more than fast enough to handle consumer Internet
> connections (at least the lame ones we have in the US) and local media
> streaming (with the types of media you'd likely stream to an iOS device).
>
> If Apple introduces wireless syncing at some point, and you might
> sometimes want to transfer a few gigs of content at a time like that,
> that would be a reason to pick up an access point that supports 'n'.

Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?

And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?


-hh

In article 
<f860bb42-8c6a-4c7b-83da-de2dabeaf552@r17g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
 -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> On Mar 11, 2:12�pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrninkg99.2t7.j...@nomad.mishnet>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> > > On 2011-03-11, Flint <age...@section31.org> wrote:
> > > > On 3/10/2011 6:08 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > >> In article<ilbl4o$r7...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > >> � Flint<age...@section31.org> �wrote:
> >
> > > >>> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sources,
> > > >>> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of
> > > >>> the a/b/g variety?
> >
> > > >> Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his crappy
> > > >> router??
> >
> > > > Who said anything about 'crappy' routers? �A 'g' router generally
> > > > still provides plenty of bandwidth for most folks needs when
> > > > connecting to the internet since their data transfer rate slows down
> >
> > > � � ...that's just priceless there.
> >
> > > � � The fanboys don't need N routers because all they are doing is surfing
> > > the web with their devices. It doesn't occur to them to actually make full
> > > use of the features Apple is shipping with their products.
> >
> > Meh. Truth is, 'g' is more than fast enough to handle consumer Internet
> > connections (at least the lame ones we have in the US) and local media
> > streaming (with the types of media you'd likely stream to an iOS device).
> >
> > If Apple introduces wireless syncing at some point, and you might
> > sometimes want to transfer a few gigs of content at a time like that,
> > that would be a reason to pick up an access point that supports 'n'.
> 
> Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
>
Yes it is.  The biggest advantage with Apple's 'N' is that it can be 
either or both, 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz with their routers.
 
> And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
> 
> 
> -hh

Probably G would work for that too.

-- 
Lloyd

On Mar 11, 8:20=A0pm, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
....
> > Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
>
> Yes it is. =A0The biggest advantage with Apple's 'N' is that it can be
> either or both, 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz with their routers.
>
> > And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
>
> Probably G would work for that too.

by itself, asking if it supports 720 or 1080 makes no sense, as both
can support a variety of bitrates.  the highest bitrate blu-rays you
can get seem to be disks of the imax specific nature movies
(australia, alaska, etc), which are around 40Mbps.  most other blu-
rays seem to be in the 20-30 range.

appletv 2 / itunes was 4Mbps (and 720p) and i don't think that's been
increased.

hwh <iimeeltje@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> > Appletalk as easy to set up when other networks required far more effort 
> > and specialized knowledge.
> 
> The connectors frequently became loose. This usually meant that nobody 
> could use the printer anymore. Yes we had only one printer then, because 
> the LaserWriter was very expensive.

but that was quite rare, just plug them in tight and they'd stay 
connected for years. phonenet completely solved it.

but yes, the laserwriter was a breakthrough device even though it cost 
around $6,000, but for that price it was cheap compared to traditional 
typesetters.

Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> To another crappy router. What home router isn't crappy?

the Airport Extremes aren't crappy, but yes, they are high end... take a 
look:

http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/

On 3/12/11 7:33 AM, Oxford wrote:
> hwh<iimeeltje@hotmail.com.invalid>  wrote:
>
>>> Appletalk as easy to set up when other networks required far more effort
>>> and specialized knowledge.
>>
>> The connectors frequently became loose. This usually meant that nobody
>> could use the printer anymore. Yes we had only one printer then, because
>> the LaserWriter was very expensive.
>
> but that was quite rare, just plug them in tight and they'd stay
> connected for years. phonenet completely solved it.
>
> but yes, the laserwriter was a breakthrough device even though it cost
> around $6,000, but for that price it was cheap compared to traditional
> typesetters.

Our first one was 24995 Dutch Guilders, or closer to 10k US Dollars.
The original Apple Talk network at our company (an Apple dealer in the 
1980's) had to deal with broken connections up to several times a day.

We would use 30 or more connections dough. I think 32 was supported. I 
still have an original Mac with 512k RAM from that period.

gr, hwh

On Mar 11, 11:49=A0pm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 8:20=A0pm, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > > Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
>
> > Yes it is. =A0The biggest advantage with Apple's 'N' is that it can be
> > either or both, 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz with their routers.
>
> > > And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
>
> > Probably G would work for that too.
>
> by itself, asking if it supports 720 or 1080 makes no sense, as both
> can support a variety of bitrates. =A0the highest bitrate blu-rays you
> can get seem to be disks of the imax specific nature movies
> (australia, alaska, etc), which are around 40Mbps. =A0most other blu-
> rays seem to be in the 20-30 range.

It does seem to be a question of data compression ... via H.264 or
whatever.  Have to admit that I've not dug into the weeds.


> appletv 2 / itunes was 4Mbps (and 720p) and i don't think that's been
> increased.

I don't think so either; my underlying question is basically "when"
they eventually bump to 1080p, it would invariably have compression
(and probably "too much" by some peoples' opinions), so what would be
their bitrate // bandwidth needs for wireless transmission // and
would G be good enough for that, or is N pragmatically required?

FWIW, the same can be applied for wired:  100bT versus Gigabit
Ethernet.  Apple has a habit of being conservative in their design
margins for "minimum hardware" to support - - the legacy Macs that can
be made to run various versions of OS X that aren't 'Officially
Supported' are a classical example.



-hh

On Mar 12, 5:17=A0am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 11:49=A0pm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 8:20=A0pm, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > > Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
>
> > > Yes it is. =A0The biggest advantage with Apple's 'N' is that it can b=
e
> > > either or both, 2.4Ghz or 5Ghz with their routers.
>
> > > > And if yes for current720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
>
> > > Probably G would work for that too.
>
> > by itself, asking if it supports720or 1080 makes no sense, as both
> > can support a variety of bitrates. =A0the highest bitrate blu-rays you
> > can get seem to be disks of the imax specific nature movies
> > (australia, alaska, etc), which are around 40Mbps. =A0most other blu-
> > rays seem to be in the 20-30 range.
>
> It does seem to be a question of data compression ... via H.264 or
> whatever. =A0Have to admit that I've not dug into the weeds.
>
> > appletv 2 / itunes was 4Mbps (and 720p) and i don't think that's been
> > increased.
>
> I don't think so either; my underlying question is basically "when"
> they eventually bump to 1080p, it would invariably have compression
> (and probably "too much" by some peoples' opinions), so what would be
> their bitrate // bandwidth needs for wireless transmission // and
> would G be good enough for that, or is N pragmatically required?

the short answer is 'who knows'?  all else being equal, the move to
1080p would require a little more than 2x bandwidth, so maybe around
9Mbps.  but as you alluded to, the compression can be changed.  not to
mention that frame rates also vary- appletv currently uses 30fps.

> FWIW, the same can be applied for wired: =A0100bT versus Gigabit
> Ethernet. =A0Apple has a habit of being conservative in their design
> margins for "minimum hardware" to support - - the legacy Macs that can
> be made to run various versions of OS X that aren't 'Officially
> Supported' are a classical example.

Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
> Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>
> This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially 
> wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even 
> remotely close to what was announced today.
>

SPeaking of lack of quality from apple
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2768351

MacBook pros are crashing under load. Hmmm, maybe iFixIt was right.

In article <slrniocg6u.2hj.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
 Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
> > Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
> >
> > This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 officially 
> > wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even 
> > remotely close to what was announced today.
> >
> 
> SPeaking of lack of quality from apple
> http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2768351
> 
> MacBook pros are crashing under load. Hmmm, maybe iFixIt was right.

That's funny. I and several of my coworkers do extremely CPU-intensive 
Oxygen XML debugging with my brand-new MacBook Pro and they never crash 
under load.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On Mar 20, 3:13=A0pm, Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <slrniocg6u.2hj.nos...@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
>
> =A0Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > Oxford wrote on [Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:03:35 -0700]:
> > > Steve Jobs today released a Revolution on top of a Revolution!
>
> > > This Keynote was WAY beyond what anyone expected. The iPad 2 official=
ly
> > > wins 90% of the tablet market for the next 10 years. Nobody is even
> > > remotely close to what was announced today.
>
> > SPeaking of lack of quality from apple
> >http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=3D2768351
>
> > MacBook pros are crashing under load. Hmmm, maybe iFixIt was right.
>
> That's funny. I and several of my coworkers do extremely CPU-intensive
> Oxygen XML debugging with my brand-new MacBook Pro and they never crash
> under load.
>
We believe you, we really do. LOL

Macs at work. LOL

On Mar 12, 7:25=A0am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <110320111043515514%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
>
> =A0nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >> The point being can you use an iPad without activating it via a
> > > > >> computer.
>
> > > > > I did that with my iPad when I bought it. Has this changed? I too=
k it
>
> > > > Someone must have activated it for you then
>
> > > Nope.
>
> > yep. *all* ios devices require activation.
>
> Listen. The iPad was bought retail, shipped shrinkwrapped to me in
> Sweden. I opened it, I started using it. No iTunes syncing, no
> activation.

Then you bought a used one. Shrink wrap or not.

On Mar 12, 2:36=A0am, Oxford   <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > To another crappy router. What home router isn't crappy?
>
> the Airport Extremes aren't crappy, but yes, they are high end... take a
> look:
>
> http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/

Made by Cisco.

On Mar 11, 10:34=A0pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2:12=A0pm, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <slrninkg99.2t7.j...@nomad.mishnet>,
>
> > =A0JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> > > On 2011-03-11, Flint <age...@section31.org> wrote:
> > > > On 3/10/2011 6:08 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > > >> In article<ilbl4o$r7...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > >> =A0 Flint<age...@section31.org> =A0wrote:
>
> > > >>> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sou=
rces,
> > > >>> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still =
of
> > > >>> the a/b/g variety?
>
> > > >> Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his c=
rappy
> > > >> router??
>
> > > > Who said anything about 'crappy' routers? =A0A 'g' router generally
> > > > still provides plenty of bandwidth for most folks needs when
> > > > connecting to the internet since their data transfer rate slows dow=
n
>
> > > =A0 =A0 ...that's just priceless there.
>
> > > =A0 =A0 The fanboys don't need N routers because all they are doing i=
s surfing
> > > the web with their devices. It doesn't occur to them to actually make=
 full
> > > use of the features Apple is shipping with their products.
>
> > Meh. Truth is, 'g' is more than fast enough to handle consumer Internet
> > connections (at least the lame ones we have in the US) and local media
> > streaming (with the types of media you'd likely stream to an iOS device=
).
>
> > If Apple introduces wireless syncing at some point, and you might
> > sometimes want to transfer a few gigs of content at a time like that,
> > that would be a reason to pick up an access point that supports 'n'.
>
> Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
>
> And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
>
> -hh- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That inevitable bump will cost you whatever the Apple TV III costs.
LOL

But remember when you go out and purchase it for the 108op Tru HD,
that you said 1080p sucks and isn't useful. That all changes when you
get it thoug doesn't it. Which is why you Appholes are so full of shit.

Alan Baker wrote on [Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:56:27 -0700]:
> In article 
> <e8654adf-a1c3-40a7-8d79-e660551aaa1e@dr5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>  MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 12, 7:25 am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>> > In article <110320111043515514%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
>> >
>
> So now that you've pretended expertise at how tablet computers are made 
> and sold everywhere in the world, should I ask you to show yours?

I'd like to know how those two are related. What does knowing something
about manufacture have anything to do with owning it?

I know about the backend processing at my place of work and that is one major
reason why I don't own any of those products.

On Mar 20, 4:58=A0pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article
> <129fda87-f1a1-4ce7-b19b-27475c075...@p3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> yes, i was a pioneer of bitnet and use of the well in the early=
 80's,
> > > > >>> 300-9600 baud was crazy fast at the time, i had one of the firs=
t
> > > > >>> webpages back in 1991 through my physics lab, so i've seen the =
whole
> > > > >>> show starting with punchcards in the late 70's. do you have any=
more
> > > > >>> questions nublet?
>
> > > > >> Nah. I was working for a Defense contractor in 1985, had DARPANe=
t and
> > > > >> Usenet from day one. Never had to use punch cards, I started on =
a PDP
> > > > >> 11/03 with a Teletype and then 2 VAX systems running VMS on vide=
o
> > > > >> terminals. Pretty close to Ground Floor with Ethernet, then went=
 to
> > > > >> Novell IPX/SPX and....Appletalk. Guess which was the worst one i=
n the
> > > > >> bunch?
>
> > > > > IPX/SPX
>
> > > > Appletalk? It only took me a few minutes to get systems talking to =
the
> > > > Novell server. Even my Apple fanatic friends complained about Apple=
talk.
>
> > > What were there actual complaints?
>
> > > Appletalk as easy to set up when other networks required far more eff=
ort
> > > and specialized knowledge.
>
> > HAHAHAHAHA
>
> > Appletalk. Really!?!?! Appletalk. How many offices have you been
> > thrown out of for bringing up that shit?
>
> Appletalk was really good thing... ...in its day.
>
So was the Mac, in 1980. It's 2011 and now both are dead and buried.
Enjoy your kick ass MP3 players with Angry Birds.

On Mar 10, 11:06=A0pm, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <slrninivlm.2hj.nos...@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > Lloyd Parsons wrote on [Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:08:05 -0600]:
> > > In article <ilbl4o$r7...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > =A0Flint <age...@section31.org> wrote:
>
> > >> On 3/10/2011 11:47 AM, Oxford wrote:
> > >> > nospam<nos...@nospam.invalid> =A0wrote:
>
> > >> >>> all apple products are on 802.11n don't forget.
>
> > >> >> wrong yet again. the iphone 3gs does not have 802.11n. it's still=
 sold,
> > >> >> which makes it a current product.
>
> > >> > so one legacy product you dug up from 3 years ago? geesh!
>
> > >> >> also, the iphone 4 and ipod touch have 802.11n but not at 5ghz wh=
ere
> > >> >> the spectrum is less crowded and the full capability of 802.11n c=
an be
> > >> >> used.
>
> > >> > but the point is all apple products use 802.11n, not the slower
> > >> > 802.11a/b/g chipset. catch a clue...
>
> > >> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some source=
s,
> > >> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of
> > >> the a/b/g variety?
>
> > > Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his crap=
py
> > > router??
>
> > To another crappy router. What home router isn't crappy?
>
> I guess it depends on your definition of crappy.
>
> I'm perfectly happy with my Apple Extremes.
>
> --
> Lloyd- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL

They say ignorance is bliss. Do some network file transfers on that
thing and see why it's got a 1 star review on NewEgg. LOL

In article 
<43d00110-7188-4111-bd19-dfe839d103d4@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 10, 11:06�pm, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrninivlm.2hj.nos...@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > > Lloyd Parsons wrote on [Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:08:05 -0600]:
> > > > In article <ilbl4o$r7...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > > �Flint <age...@section31.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >> On 3/10/2011 11:47 AM, Oxford wrote:
> > > >> > nospam<nos...@nospam.invalid> �wrote:
> >
> > > >> >>> all apple products are on 802.11n don't forget.
> >
> > > >> >> wrong yet again. the iphone 3gs does not have 802.11n. it's still 
> > > >> >> sold,
> > > >> >> which makes it a current product.
> >
> > > >> > so one legacy product you dug up from 3 years ago? geesh!
> >
> > > >> >> also, the iphone 4 and ipod touch have 802.11n but not at 5ghz 
> > > >> >> where
> > > >> >> the spectrum is less crowded and the full capability of 802.11n can 
> > > >> >> be
> > > >> >> used.
> >
> > > >> > but the point is all apple products use 802.11n, not the slower
> > > >> > 802.11a/b/g chipset. catch a clue...
> >
> > > >> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sources,
> > > >> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of
> > > >> the a/b/g variety?
> >
> > > > Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his crappy
> > > > router??
> >
> > > To another crappy router. What home router isn't crappy?
> >
> > I guess it depends on your definition of crappy.
> >
> > I'm perfectly happy with my Apple Extremes.
> >
> > --
> > Lloyd- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> LOL
> 
> They say ignorance is bliss. Do some network file transfers on that
> thing and see why it's got a 1 star review on NewEgg. LOL

Since NewEgg doesn't sell them, you expected something better?

They transfer files quite well, no problems at all.  And like all Apple 
stuff, don't seem to get hacked and shit either.

-- 
Lloyd

In article <alangbaker-A2E2FA.13564620032011@news.shawcable.net>,
 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> In article 
> <bb901edf-d86f-4f13-a708-aac9c0201d91@fx23g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>  MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 12, 2:36�am, Oxford   <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> > > Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > > > To another crappy router. What home router isn't crappy?
> > >
> > > the Airport Extremes aren't crappy, but yes, they are high end... take a
> > > look:
> > >
> > > http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/
> > 
> > Made by Cisco.
> 
> Proof, please.

Yep, he'll have to prove that one.

-- 
Lloyd

On Mar 20, 6:37=A0pm, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <alangbaker-A2E2FA.13564620032...@news.shawcable.net>,
> =A0Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <bb901edf-d86f-4f13-a708-aac9c0201...@fx23g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > =A0MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 2:36 am, Oxford =A0 <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> > > > Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > > > > To another crappy router. What home router isn't crappy?
>
> > > > the Airport Extremes aren't crappy, but yes, they are high end... t=
ake a
> > > > look:
>
> > > >http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/
>
> > > Made by Cisco.
>
> > Proof, please.
>
> Yep, he'll have to prove that one.
>
Phew what a tough one.  You guys ever heard of iFixit Teardowns?

LOL

Cisco chip, and Samsung memory. LOL

On Mar 20, 4:56=A0pm, MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 10:34=A0pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

Golly ... nine (9) days to bother to respond.  Muah must be really
bored to be "scraping the bottom" with his trolls :-)


> > Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
> > And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
>
> That inevitable bump will cost you whatever the Apple TV III costs.

Well, considering that AppleTV-2 cost HALF as much as AppleTV-1, the
trend would be ...


> But remember when you go out and purchase it for the 108op Tru HD,
> that you said 1080p sucks and isn't useful. That all changes when you
> get it thoug doesn't it. Which is why you Appholes are so full of shit.

Frankly, you're going to have to provide the citation where I ever
said such a thing.  Until then, you're the one who is "full of shit".


-hh

On Mar 20, 6:52=A0pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 4:56=A0pm, MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 10:34=A0pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> Golly ... nine (9) days to bother to respond. =A0Muah must be really
> bored to be "scraping the bottom" with his trolls :-)
>
> > > Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
> > > And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
>
> > That inevitable bump will cost you whatever the Apple TV III costs.
>
> Well, considering that AppleTV-2 cost HALF as much as AppleTV-1, the
> trend would be ...
>
> > But remember when you go out and purchase it for the 108op Tru HD,
> > that you said 1080p sucks and isn't useful. That all changes when you
> > get it thoug doesn't it. Which is why you Appholes are so full of shit.
>
> Frankly, you're going to have to provide the citation where I ever
> said such a thing. =A0Until then, you're the one who is "full of shit".
>
> -hh

Like I can tell one of you asshole Fanbois from the other. Maybe it
was Alan/KDT that said nobody wants or uses 1080p. One of you
knuckleheads actually said a majority of TV's were still 720P. LOL

On a serious note how come you Apphole bag on a feature (tablet
camera's) until Apple copies the feature. Then and only then it
becomes cool. Why is that?

On Mar 20, 7:22=A0pm, MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 6:52=A0pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 4:56=A0pm, MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 11, 10:34=A0pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> > Golly ... nine (9) days to bother to respond. =A0Muah must be really
> > bored to be "scraping the bottom" with his trolls :-)
>
> > > > Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
> > > > And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
>
> > > That inevitable bump will cost you whatever the Apple TV III costs.
>
> > Well, considering that AppleTV-2 cost HALF as much as AppleTV-1, the
> > trend would be ...
>
> > > But remember when you go out and purchase it for the 108op Tru HD,
> > > that you said 1080p sucks and isn't useful. That all changes when you
> > > get it thoug doesn't it. Which is why you Appholes are so full of shi=
t.
>
> > Frankly, you're going to have to provide the citation where I ever
> > said such a thing. =A0Until then, you're the one who is "full of shit".
>
> > -hh
>
> Like I can tell one of you asshole Fanbois from the other.


Your utter lack of discrimination explains why you tolerate
Windows :-)


> Maybe it
> was Alan/KDT that said nobody wants or uses 1080p. One of you
> knuckleheads actually said a majority of TV's were still 720P. LOL

Maybe, but lashing out blindly doesn't lend credence to your claims.
Insofar as what is 'mainstream', perhaps the specs for what is going
OTA via ATSC is a good place to start to look.


> On a serious note how come you Apphole bag on a feature (tablet
> camera's) until Apple copies the feature. Then and only then it
> becomes cool. Why is that?

Once again, did *I* say such a thing?   And if someone has switched,
perhaps that can be clearly documented, rather than merely
insinuated.

I think you should go do some more research reading in the archives to
really see who said what.  My recollections are that dual cameras were
claimed by the Android proponents as an 'iPad killer', under the
claimed rationale that it was both a "Killer" application as well as a
'fatal' (sic) deficiency on the iPad v1, which thus differentiated
some of the Androids.

Frankly, I think that *one* camera is adequate, and somewhat useful,
namely for video chat (Facetime, or whatever it's called).  However,
for that purpose, it doesn't need to be anything profoundly high
resolution - - bandwidth trumps here - - plus it isn't something that
I'd yet call a "Killer" App, regardless of the platform.  Insofar as
how "cool" is it?   Well, I didn't run right out to get an iPad2, so
what does that tell you, other than consistency?  ;-)


-hh

In article 
<43d00110-7188-4111-bd19-dfe839d103d4@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 10, 11:06�pm, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrninivlm.2hj.nos...@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> > > Lloyd Parsons wrote on [Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:08:05 -0600]:
> > > > In article <ilbl4o$r7...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > > �Flint <age...@section31.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >> On 3/10/2011 11:47 AM, Oxford wrote:
> > > >> > nospam<nos...@nospam.invalid> �wrote:
> >
> > > >> >>> all apple products are on 802.11n don't forget.
> >
> > > >> >> wrong yet again. the iphone 3gs does not have 802.11n. it's still 
> > > >> >> sold,
> > > >> >> which makes it a current product.
> >
> > > >> > so one legacy product you dug up from 3 years ago? geesh!
> >
> > > >> >> also, the iphone 4 and ipod touch have 802.11n but not at 5ghz 
> > > >> >> where
> > > >> >> the spectrum is less crowded and the full capability of 802.11n can 
> > > >> >> be
> > > >> >> used.
> >
> > > >> > but the point is all apple products use 802.11n, not the slower
> > > >> > 802.11a/b/g chipset. catch a clue...
> >
> > > >> ...and 'n' offers just what advantage when, according to some sources,
> > > >> it is estimated over 70% of installed wireless routers are still of
> > > >> the a/b/g variety?
> >
> > > > Maybe it gives that new iOS device owner a reason to upgrade his crappy
> > > > router??
> >
> > > To another crappy router. What home router isn't crappy?
> >
> > I guess it depends on your definition of crappy.
> >
> > I'm perfectly happy with my Apple Extremes.
> >
> > --
> > Lloyd- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> LOL
> 
> They say ignorance is bliss. Do some network file transfers on that
> thing and see why it's got a 1 star review on NewEgg. LOL

They don't sell Airport Extreme Base Stations, Pratt-fall...

<http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=145&name=Wirele
ss-Routers>

Note the lack of any Apple product.

So you're lies are once again exposed.

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

In article <slrniocr0q.2hj.nospam@ubuntu.nitsuj.net>,
 Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote on [Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:56:27 -0700]:
> > In article 
> > <e8654adf-a1c3-40a7-8d79-e660551aaa1e@dr5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >  MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 12, 7:25 am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> >> > In article <110320111043515514%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> >> >
> >
> > So now that you've pretended expertise at how tablet computers are made 
> > and sold everywhere in the world, should I ask you to show yours?
> 
> I'd like to know how those two are related. What does knowing something
> about manufacture have anything to do with owning it?

I don't think they are, but Pratt-fall apparently does, so...

-- 
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" -- 
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone 
"It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix." -- "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) 
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the 
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM) 
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included 
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun) 

>
> Frankly, you're going to have to provide the citation where I ever
> said such a thing. =A0Until then, you're the one who is "full of shit".
>

What's the Subject of this thread again?

Fuck you Appholes are stupid.

In article 
<c1cad941-9769-4ec8-a368-6a0774b5a355@2g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
> >
> > And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
> >
> > -hh- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> That inevitable bump will cost you whatever the Apple TV III costs.
> LOL
> 
> But remember when you go out and purchase it for the 108op Tru HD,
> that you said 1080p sucks and isn't useful. That all changes when you
> get it thoug doesn't it. Which is why you Appholes are so full of shit.

Do we have an ETA on your ability to spell simple English words?


-- 
Sandman[.net]

On Mar 21, 2:21=A0am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article
> <c1cad941-9769-4ec8-a368-6a0774b5a...@2g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
>
> > > And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
>
> > > -hh- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > That inevitable bump will cost you whatever the Apple TV III costs.
> > LOL
>
> > But remember when you go out and purchase it for the 108op Tru HD,
> > that you said 1080p sucks and isn't useful. That all changes when you
> > get it thoug doesn't it. Which is why you Appholes are so full of shit.
>
> Do we have an ETA on your ability to spell simple English words?
>
> --
> Sandman[.net]

Yeah about the same time I can watch Flash on my iPad, 1080p on my
Apple TV, and they allow Macs back into the workplace.

On 2011-03-20, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On Mar 20, 4:56 pm, MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 10:34 pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> Golly ... nine (9) days to bother to respond.  Muah must be really
> bored to be "scraping the bottom" with his trolls :-)
>
>
>> > Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
>> > And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
>>
>> That inevitable bump will cost you whatever the Apple TV III costs.
>
> Well, considering that AppleTV-2 cost HALF as much as AppleTV-1, the
> trend would be ...

   ...ironically, the older AppleTV is more capable gear.

   The newer one MIGHT be able to handle the high res h264 stuff better
but I wouldn't even assume that without testing it. The stuff I had that
choked the 1st generation AppleTV would do the same to the new one.

   Plus the new version doesn't have any of it's own storage.

-- 
	The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals           ||| 
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs           / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.

On Mar 21, 2:10=A0pm, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2011-03-20, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 20, 4:56=A0pm, MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 11, 10:34=A0pm, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> > Golly ... nine (9) days to bother to respond. =A0Muah must be really
> > bored to be "scraping the bottom" with his trolls :-)
>
> >> > Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
> >> > And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
>
> >> That inevitable bump will cost you whatever the Apple TV III costs.
>
> > Well, considering that AppleTV-2 cost HALF as much as AppleTV-1, the
> > trend would be ...
>
> =A0 =A0...ironically, the older AppleTV is more capable gear.

Which doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion.  In any case,
there's also a change in operating systems, from a modified OS X to
iOS and the indications are bascially that iOS is a smaller & more
efficient OS, which means that less hardware performance is lost to
overhead.  As such, one can start with a smaller gross horsepower and
yet still have more at the "Net".


> =A0 =A0The newer one MIGHT be able to handle the high res h264 stuff bett=
er
> but I wouldn't even assume that without testing it. [...]

Agreed, although last fall, Engadget published the below article, in
which they claim that the ATV2 can play 1080p, although it then takes
the extra step of down-converting it to 720p.

<http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/30/confirmed-appletv-can-play-1080p-
content-from-itunes-but-still/#>

Being forward-looking, with the A4 CPU now being superceded with the
dual-core A5 that's benching much higher in Graphics performance,
there's more hardware horsepower available off-the-shelf to upgun the
hardware... if it really is required.


> =A0 =A0Plus the new version doesn't have any of it's own storage.

Actually, it has some, which is less:  just an 8GB NAND for cache.
That's adequate to store an entire DVD's worth of less-than-1080p
content.   FWIW, I do note that Apple's approach seems to be riding on
the assumption of a reasonably fat pipe to minimize localized
buffering requirements, although I don't necessarily believe that
approach to be particularly wise, yet.  I've not looked into how
they're working their overall integration strategy either:  if much of
the data calls are being routed through the host PC with the iTunes
account, it is also possible that they might use that hardware for a
localized cache, particularly if this allows them to take "scheduled
programs" and time-shift the load demand to non-peak hours (eg,
overnight)...I can see that having some appeal to the ISPs (bandwidth
cap wars notwithstanding).


-hh

In article 
<0daae3fd-bf76-49f0-8514-6c2c470c3c57@w7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 21, 2:21�am, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c1cad941-9769-4ec8-a368-6a0774b5a...@2g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Is 'g' adequate bandwidth for video streaming with an Apple TV?
> >
> > > > And if yes for current 720, what about the inevitable bump to 1080?
> >
> > > > -hh- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > That inevitable bump will cost you whatever the Apple TV III costs.
> > > LOL
> >
> > > But remember when you go out and purchase it for the 108op Tru HD,
> > > that you said 1080p sucks and isn't useful. That all changes when you
> > > get it thoug doesn't it. Which is why you Appholes are so full of shit.
> >
> > Do we have an ETA on your ability to spell simple English words?
> >
> > --
> > Sandman[.net]
> 
> Yeah about the same time I can watch Flash on my iPad, 1080p on my
> Apple TV, and they allow Macs back into the workplace.

There is no mainstream consumer source for legal 1080p 
downloadable/streamable TV/movie content. The capability is presently 
irrelevant.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes