It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
but not very functional. 

The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:08:41 +0000, Gactimus wrote:

> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
> but not very functional. 
> 
> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.

Apple pretty much lost, but the war is not yet over - Linux is gaining
ground daily.

ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
news:pan.2005.01.20.16.33.26.295669@zianet.com: 

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:08:41 +0000, Gactimus wrote:
> 
>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>> cute, but not very functional. 
>> 
>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> 
> Apple pretty much lost, but the war is not yet over - Linux is gaining
> ground daily.

The only reason the Mac is still alive is because of Microsoft. Bill Gates
has said that he doesn't want the Mac to die because his company makes big
bucks off of them. 

But seriously, maybe some creative people from Apple will stop wasting
their time on their Fisher-Price toy and help develop the PC beyond what
it is today.

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> cute, but not very functional.
>
> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.

Mac is for faggots like linux is for faggot cunts.

-- 
Some Big Cunt 

"Keyser Soze" <chrisv@BadgirlsRule.com> wrote in
news:2g35c2-b6p.nsi$h1t@usenet.dk: 

> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
> news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
>
>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>> cute, but not very functional.
>>
>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> 
> Mac is for faggots

That's why their computers have all those pretty colors.

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> cute, but not very functional.
>
> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.

I have a womb full of Macs and they are simply the most expensive bits of 
modern day mans costume jewellery I can't imagine leaving home with a piece. 
Microsoft are the Ford of its industry Apple is the Rolls Royce. All 
superior.

But I appreciate your opinion as hollow as it is and as shallow as it was 
intended.

May God bless you. 

In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
> but not very functional. 

Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may just
think you're a troll.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
"Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water."

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:41efdf72$0$58443$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
> "Keyser Soze" <chrisv@BadgirlsRule.com> wrote in
> news:2g35c2-b6p.nsi$h1t@usenet.dk:
>
>> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>> news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
>>
>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>> cute, but not very functional.
>>>
>>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>
>> Mac is for faggots
>
> That's why their computers have all those pretty colors.

Those pwetty colors you so smugly point out are for a select
few who have tasthte, and doesn't mean we are gay or any
such thing, you. 

Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 

> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
>
>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>> cute, but not very functional. 
> 
> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
> just think you're a troll.

So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?

In article <41efde14$0$22564$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2005.01.20.16.33.26.295669@zianet.com: 
> 
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:08:41 +0000, Gactimus wrote:
> > 
> >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >> cute, but not very functional. 
> >> 
> >> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> > 
> > Apple pretty much lost, but the war is not yet over - Linux is gaining
> > ground daily.
> 
> The only reason the Mac is still alive is because of Microsoft. Bill Gates
> has said that he doesn't want the Mac to die because his company makes big
> bucks off of them. 
> 
> But seriously, maybe some creative people from Apple will stop wasting
> their time on their Fisher-Price toy and help develop the PC beyond what
> it is today.

windows xp is the fisher-price toy OS and we don't like it at all

-- 
-------------------------------------------
Swedish Webcams <http://www.webcams.zap.to>
-------------------------------------------

In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 
> 
>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
>>
>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>> cute, but not very functional. 
>> 
>> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
>> just think you're a troll.
> 
> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?

Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
"Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water."

Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 

> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
>
>> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 
>> 
>>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
>>> wrote: 
>>>
>>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>> cute, but not very functional. 
>>> 
>>> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
>>> just think you're a troll.
>> 
>> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
> 
> Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?

Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is better 
because I'll never get a virus.

"Jim" <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local...
> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
> > Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
> > news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
> >
> >> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
> >>
> >>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >>> cute, but not very functional.
> >>
> >> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
> >> just think you're a troll.
> >
> > So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
>
> Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?
>

now, if you were a script writer would you write it to attack the lesser
used OS or the most commonly used OS? come on linuxfux have had their heads
ripped off for statements like that.

In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 
> 
> > In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
> >
> >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >> cute, but not very functional. 
> > 
> > Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
> > just think you're a troll.
> 
> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?

Interesting how quickly the "argument" changed from an assertion that 
the tool is "not very functional" to an innuendo that it doesn't do more 
than an alternative tool. You changed the argument _and_ downgraded the 
strength of it.

What can a Mac do that a PC can't?

Run OS X.
Run software that requires OS X.

Any further discussion requires knowledge of what OS is running on the 
Mac and PC under consideration, since there are choices for both each 
with their own strengths and limitations. But then since this message 
came from an advocacy group (and somehow slipped through my 
filter...sigh) I don't expect anything resembling discussion to take 
place.

-- 
Change account to gw when responding by mail.

In article <41efe552$0$73866$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
> news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 
> 
>> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
>>
>>> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>>> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 
>>> 
>>>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
>>>> wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>>> cute, but not very functional. 
>>>> 
>>>> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
>>>> just think you're a troll.
>>> 
>>> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
>> 
>> Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?
> 
> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is better 
> because I'll never get a virus.

Ok, I'll turn your question around: what can a Windows PC do that makes it
functionally superior to the average Macintosh?

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
"Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water."

In article <35a6v2F4j1suiU1@individual.net>, Brian wrote:
> 
> "Jim" <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local...
>> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
>> > Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>> > news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
>> >
>> >> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>> >>> cute, but not very functional.
>> >>
>> >> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
>> >> just think you're a troll.
>> >
>> > So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
>>
>> Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?
>>
> 
> now, if you were a script writer would you write it to attack the lesser
> used OS or the most commonly used OS? come on linuxfux have had their heads
> ripped off for statements like that.

If it were that easy then someone would have done it *simply to be the
first*.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
"Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water."

Gactimus is a gimp and uttered without thinking:
> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?

Run PhotoShop on a couple of *high* res images without turning into an
unresponsive slug.

OK so get a PC with 192TBytes of RAM and that will be better,

Just what is so great about PC's. They're cheap. end of story.

Serving Web, checking email blah blah blah.

You want to actually *Do* something, then get the right system for the job!

The fact that this was posted to a.o.l.slackware was just plain ridiculous as
slackware isn't really a cross platform distribution. Not on mac at any decent 
level at least.

Idiot

Give me a Sparc anyday :)

Rob

-- 
Rap it up for the common good
Let us enlist the neighbourhood
It's OK, I've overstood
This is a wordy rappinghood. OK, bye.

                   Tomtomclub, 1980.

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message 
news:41efe552$0$73866$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
> news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
>
>> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
>>
>>> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>>> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
>>>
>>>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>>> cute, but not very functional.
>>>>
>>>> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
>>>> just think you're a troll.
>>>
>>> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
>>
>> Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?
>
> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is 
> better
> because I'll never get a virus.

Someone should fire the teacher responsible for you being so ignorant with 
respect to "analogies".

"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:41efdf72$0$58443$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
> "Keyser Soze" <chrisv@BadgirlsRule.com> wrote in
> news:2g35c2-b6p.nsi$h1t@usenet.dk:
>
>> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>> news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
>>
>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>> cute, but not very functional.
>>>
>>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>
>> Mac is for faggots
>
> That's why their computers have all those pretty colors.

Sure, and the entire fuckin' grey-scale belongs to the linufux, right?

Here you go bollock-brain, you can have back what you snipped:

"linux is for faggot cunts"

-- 
Some Big Cunt 

In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?

I am reminded of an old line from back when we had several of the 
original Macs (with the tiny screens) here at work and also had a bunch 
of Sun workstations with 21" monitors. Slightly modifying the old line 
(and turning it around), we have...

Q. Why is a PC so much better than a mini mac?

A. Because the PC makes a much more satisfying crash when you throw it 
down the stairs.

:-)

-- 
Richard Maine                       |  Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain  |  experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov              |        -- Mark Twain

"Harri Mellin" <atz02-NoSpAm-@netscape.net> wrote in message

> I'm a grey-scale meatball and proud of it. 

"Brian" <b_dyke@web.de> wrote in message 
news:35a6v2F4j1suiU1@individual.net...
>
> "Jim" <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local...
>> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
>> > Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>> > news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
>> >
>> >> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>> >>> cute, but not very functional.
>> >>
>> >> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
>> >> just think you're a troll.
>> >
>> > So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
>>
>> Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?
>>
>
> now, if you were a script writer would you write it to attack the lesser
> used OS or the most commonly used OS? come on linuxfux have had their 
> heads
> ripped off for statements like that.
>

You would write the one for the computer that provides unabated access to 
the \system directory, in this case, the Win Box.  You'd also write for a 
browser so chock full of poor coding, security patches, and otherwise poor 
engineering, obviously in this case IE.

The "os/x doesn't get viruses as much as PC's because there aren't as many" 
argument seems perpetuated by those who don't understand the differences 
between a vulnerable computer and a more robust one.

Keyser Soze wrote:
> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
> news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
> 
>>It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>cute, but not very functional.
>>
>>The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> 
> 
> Mac is for faggots like linux is for faggot cunts.

Thinking that your choice of computer is what makes you a man is why 
you'll never be one.

Gactimus wrote:
> "Keyser Soze" <chrisv@BadgirlsRule.com> wrote in
> news:2g35c2-b6p.nsi$h1t@usenet.dk: 
> 
> 
>>"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>>news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
>>
>>
>>>It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>cute, but not very functional.
>>>
>>>The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>
>>Mac is for faggots
> 
> 
> That's why their computers have all those pretty colors.

oh, shame...
but its not your fault guys...
nature can be so weird, mean and cruel.
i am so sorry...

i wish you more luck in next life,
and all best in this one

vladimir

"o-chan" <poda@REMOVEmac.com> wrote in message
news:csopj5$7fba$1@netnews.upenn.edu
> Keyser Soze wrote:
>> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>> news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
>>
>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>> cute, but not very functional.
>>>
>>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>
>>
>> Mac is for faggots like linux is for faggot cunts.
>
> Thinking that your choice of computer is what makes you a man is why
> you'll never be one.

Are you saying that whilst admitting to being a faggot
yourself, you cannot see yourself as a man, regardless
what computer you have?

-- 
Some Big Cunt 

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

Actually, a Mac is more like a modern day TiVo.

It's "God's machine"...

PC's are like VHS: slow, poor quality, bulky, and found in the so called 
$1 bargain bin... so only white trash still buy them...

Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:

> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
> > It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
> > but not very functional. 
> 
> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may just
> think you're a troll.
> 
> Jim

Please do not feed the trolls.

-- 
"I hear the rumors on the internets." -- George W. Bush

Oxford <csma@mac.com> wrote in
news:csma-3FC542.10434620012005@news.uswest.net: 

> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
> Actually, a Mac is more like a modern day TiVo.
> 
> It's "God's machine"...
> 
> PC's are like VHS: slow, poor quality, bulky, and found in the so called
> $1 bargain bin... 

So now Macs are better because they cost more?  <snicker>

> so only white trash still buy them...

Actually, everybody buys them except for the religious Mac fanatics.

While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway gactimus@xrs.net typed: 
> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
> but not very functional. 
> 
> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.

The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to 
head speed meant better picture quality.  The VHS manufacturers
just had better spin doctors

-- 
Trog Woolley | trog at trogwoolley dot com
(A Croweater back residing in Pommie Land with Linux)
Isis Astarte Diana Hecate Demeter Kali Inanna

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:22:55 +0000 (UTC), Trog Woolley
<trog@email.fake> wrote:

>While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway gactimus@xrs.net typed: 
>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
>> but not very functional. 
>> 
>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>
>The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to 
>head speed meant better picture quality.  The VHS manufacturers
>just had better spin doctors

Thats not true. VHS won because of pron.

Trog Woolley <trog@email.fake> wrote in
news:csostv$efa$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk: 

> While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway
> gactimus@xrs.net typed: 
>
>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>> cute, but not very functional. 
>> 
>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> 
> The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to 
> head speed meant better picture quality.  The VHS manufacturers
> just had better spin doctors

Sounds a lot like Apple's iPod. An inferior product that gained an early
lead due to great marketing. Although I think that a lot of people are 
catching on to the iPod scam.

In article <41efe552$0$73866$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Gactimus  <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 

>> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:

>>> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>>> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 

>>>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
>>>> wrote: 

>>>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>>> cute, but not very functional. 

>>>> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
>>>> just think you're a troll.

>>> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?

>> Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?

>Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is better 
>because I'll never get a virus.

No, it's actually a *very* strong argument, at least for home users.

Reason it through.  You have two systems, both of which can do
everything the average user needs to do.  But one of those systems
(Windows) is subject to a hideous and chronic problem, and people
who use that system are at a high risk of having it hijacked by
malicious outsiders, with all sort of really nasty potential
consequences.  The other system (the Mac), for whatever reason,
has proven to be almost totally immune to this problem.  Now, which
system is the better choice for the average home user?  Do you
really need any more information than this?

The fact is that as things stand today, for most home users the
virus argument (all by its self -- never mind the technical
superiority of the Mac) is a game winning home run for Apple.  It
is totally foolish right now for the average home user to chose a
Windows machine over a Mac, unless he is a gamer, or needs to run
some Windows specific program, or unless he really can't afford
the extra hundred bucks or so (amortized over several years) that
a Mac will cost him.  Most home users don't fall into any of those
categories, and the only thing that keeps them buying Windows
machines is ignorance and inertia.

And you know, this is the sort of thing that can change suddenly.
I wouldn't bet a lot of money on it, but I think there is a
non-trivial chance that sometime in the next two or three years we
could reach a "tipping point," where the buying public suddenly
catches on about security, and the result is a huge spike in Apple's
market share.  Remember, you read it here first!  :-)
-- 
John Brock
jbrock@panix.com

What's pron? JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like the way
General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and still is a superior
process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for their Instant Replay reviews
(and may still be using them). I have two of them, and still use them. Many
television stations still use the BetaCam. I have one of those, too. Blows
away the VHS format.

Larry
Behold Beware Believe

<jfizer> wrote in message news:1stvu01k52g7ddi6188fkm08av96rar6ij@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:22:55 +0000 (UTC), Trog Woolley
| <trog@email.fake> wrote:
|
| >While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway
gactimus@xrs.net typed:
| >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
cute,
| >> but not very functional.
| >>
| >> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
| >
| >The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to
| >head speed meant better picture quality.  The VHS manufacturers
| >just had better spin doctors
|
| Thats not true. VHS won because of pron.

Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
their jollies?

Larry
Behold Beware Believe

"John Brock" <jbrock@panix.com> wrote in message
news:csou4n$6g5$1@panix3.panix.com...
| In article <41efe552$0$73866$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
| Gactimus  <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
| >Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
| >news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
|
| >> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
|
| >>> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
| >>> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
|
| >>>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
| >>>> wrote:
|
| >> Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?
|
| No, it's actually a *very* strong argument, at least for home users.
|
| Reason it through.  You have two systems, both of which can do
| everything the average user needs to do.  But one of those systems
| (Windows) is subject to a hideous and chronic problem, and people
| who use that system are at a high risk of having it hijacked by
| malicious outsiders, with all sort of really nasty potential
| consequences.  The other system (the Mac), for whatever reason,
| has proven to be almost totally immune to this problem.  Now, which
| system is the better choice for the average home user?  Do you
| really need any more information than this?
| -- 
| John Brock
| jbrock@panix.com
|

Jim wrote:
> Ok, I'll turn your question around: what can a Windows PC do that makes it
> functionally superior to the average Macintosh?

[not funtionally, but IMO: ]
It is much cheaper, you can assemble it yourself, replace parts much 
easier, extend its funtionality more easily and the range of OSes and 
software available is wider (yes, I know, a Mac can do everything, but a 
PC can do everything AND do it on five different OSes using 20 different 
apps).

Generally, a Mac is an easier Plug-And-Work tool where you don't have to 
worry about how to accomplish things. You just do them.

I hate that. I like fiddling around, compiling stuf, assembling stuff, 
breaking things and fixing them. For that, a Mac is shitty at best.

~Mik

-- 
"The geek shall inherit the earth."
-- Rainer Wolfcastle in "Undercover Nerd"

In article <U4ednSmb3ZatY3LcRVn-ow@bresnan.com>,
Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
>Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
>extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
>their jollies?

This is the standard argument, repeated endlessly, but I suspect
it may not actually be true.  It may be that, from a security point
of view, Windows just has a piss-poor design, and the Mac is better
in an absolute sense.  Or maybe not -- there is no way we will know
for sure unless the Mac really does take off.  But this argument
is also kind of irrelevant.  Maybe at some point in the (not too
near) future the Mac might have as many viruses as Windows, but
RIGHT NOW it has few or none, so RIGHT NOW it is the better choice,
unless you have considerations that outweigh security (which most
home users don't).  Three years down the road, if things have
changed, well you were probably going to have to get a new computer
anyway, so no harm done.

>"John Brock" <jbrock@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:csou4n$6g5$1@panix3.panix.com...
>| In article <41efe552$0$73866$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
>| Gactimus  <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>| >Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>| >news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
>|
>| >> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
>|
>| >>> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>| >>> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
>|
>| >>>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
>| >>>> wrote:
>|
>| >> Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?
>|
>| No, it's actually a *very* strong argument, at least for home users.
>|
>| Reason it through.  You have two systems, both of which can do
>| everything the average user needs to do.  But one of those systems
>| (Windows) is subject to a hideous and chronic problem, and people
>| who use that system are at a high risk of having it hijacked by
>| malicious outsiders, with all sort of really nasty potential
>| consequences.  The other system (the Mac), for whatever reason,
>| has proven to be almost totally immune to this problem.  Now, which
>| system is the better choice for the average home user?  Do you
>| really need any more information than this?
>| -- 
>| John Brock
>| jbrock@panix.com
>|
>
>


-- 
John Brock
jbrock@panix.com

Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:

> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
> > > It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
> > > but not very functional. 
> > 
> > Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may just
> > think you're a troll.
> > 
> > Jim
> 
> Please do not feed the trolls.

I was actually attempting to turn it into a rational discussion.

Probably a feeble hope though, I'll agree.

Jim
-- 
jim@magrathea.plus.com    AIM/iSight:JCAndrew2  -   Log in and say 'hi'
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is better 
> because I'll never get a virus.

Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending Macintoshes
for people for this reason.

They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for any
complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated graphics.

They are more reliable.  I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we have a
PC laptop.  The Macintosh stays up forever.  The laptop is always slowing to 
a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of death".  The desktop PC, fairly 
new, also crashes more often.

PCs are definitely less expensive, at least than my G5.

-- 
Julie 
**********
I could be wrong.  My experience is limited to my experience.

Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at 
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:

> Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
> extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
> their jollies?

Then please explain why there were viruses on the Acorn Archimedes, a
computer that had almost no global impact whatsoever.

It has very little to do with the popularity of the platform. It has a
lot to do with the ease of virus writing for the platform.

Jim
-- 
jim@magrathea.plus.com    AIM/iSight:JCAndrew2  -   Log in and say 'hi'
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

Juliana L Holm wrote:
>
> PCs are definitely less expensive, at least than my G5.

In the same way that a Daewoo is less expensive than an Audi

Gactimus wrote:
>>
>> PC's are like VHS: slow, poor quality, bulky, and found in the so
>> called $1 bargain bin...
>
> So now Macs are better because they cost more?  <snicker>
>
>> so only white trash still buy them...
>
> Actually, everybody buys them except for the religious Mac fanatics.

Yup. because one is a cheap, mass market machine for the proles, the other
is a high quality, premium product aimed at a discerning elite

Gactimus wrote:
>
> Sounds a lot like Apple's iPod. An inferior product that gained an
> early lead due to great marketing. Although I think that a lot of
> people are catching on to the iPod scam.

Those that view price as more important than design and functionality,
maybe...

In article <zv-dnS7p5pwJYXLcRVn-vQ@bresnan.com>, 
larrycrites@bresnan.net says...
> What's pron? 

Oh, my.  Mix up the letters a little.

> JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like the way
> General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and still is a superior
> process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for their Instant Replay reviews
> (and may still be using them). I have two of them, and still use them. Many
> television stations still use the BetaCam. I have one of those, too. Blows
> away the VHS format.

The real reason VHS won was because one could fit a whole movie on one 
(2hours) and its quality was good enough. By the time Beta could fit a 
movie, VHS was up to six hours.  Remember, tapes were $20 each (and 
up).

-- 
  Keith

In article <41eff9b8$0$42341$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, 
gactimus@xrs.net says...
> Trog Woolley <trog@email.fake> wrote in
> news:csostv$efa$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk: 
> 
> > While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway
> > gactimus@xrs.net typed: 
> >
> >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >> cute, but not very functional. 
> >> 
> >> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> > 
> > The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to 
> > head speed meant better picture quality.  The VHS manufacturers
> > just had better spin doctors
> 
> Sounds a lot like Apple's iPod. An inferior product that gained an early
> lead due to great marketing. Although I think that a lot of people are 
> catching on to the iPod scam.

At the risk of feeding a troll, inferior to what?  How?

-- 
  Keith

In article <csor88$lmr$1@online.de>,
Mario Berger  <no_damned_spam@nospam.no> wrote:
>Jim wrote:
>> Ok, I'll turn your question around: what can a Windows PC do that makes it
>> functionally superior to the average Macintosh?
>
>[not funtionally, but IMO: ]
>It is much cheaper, you can assemble it yourself, replace parts much 
>easier, extend its funtionality more easily and the range of OSes and 
>software available is wider (yes, I know, a Mac can do everything, but a 
>PC can do everything AND do it on five different OSes using 20 different 
>apps).
>
>Generally, a Mac is an easier Plug-And-Work tool where you don't have to 
>worry about how to accomplish things. You just do them.
>
>I hate that. I like fiddling around, compiling stuf, assembling stuff, 
>breaking things and fixing them. For that, a Mac is shitty at best.

I assure you, you can compile, assemble, break, and fix all you want
on OS X.  And if that's not enough, you can get into device driver
programming and REALLY break things (I encourage this for anyone who
is nostalgic for the edit-compile-run-crash-reboot cycle).

In article <csp0uv$rr7$1@panix3.panix.com>,
John Brock <jbrock@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <U4ednSmb3ZatY3LcRVn-ow@bresnan.com>,
>Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
>>extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
>>their jollies?
>
>This is the standard argument, repeated endlessly, but I suspect
>it may not actually be true. 

I suspect it may have actually been devised in Redmond, WA and spread
and kept alive by paid shills (among the many unpaid ones who took up
the cry, of course).

In alt.os.linux.slackware John Brock <jbrock@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <U4ednSmb3ZatY3LcRVn-ow@bresnan.com>,
> Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
>>extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
>>their jollies?
> 
> This is the standard argument, repeated endlessly, but I suspect
> it may not actually be true.  It may be that, from a security point
> of view, Windows just has a piss-poor design, and the Mac is better
> in an absolute sense.  Or maybe not -- there is no way we will know
> for sure unless the Mac really does take off.  But this argument
> is also kind of irrelevant.  Maybe at some point in the (not too
> near) future the Mac might have as many viruses as Windows, but
> RIGHT NOW it has few or none, so RIGHT NOW it is the better choice,
> unless you have considerations that outweigh security (which most
> home users don't).  Three years down the road, if things have
> changed, well you were probably going to have to get a new computer
> anyway, so no harm done.
> 
<snip>

It should also be noted that Unix (upon which OSX is based) went through all these
viral and trojan issues 10 years before Windows really hit the
streets. It's been largely fleshed out. The Win32 designers decided to
ignore 25 years of operating system design experience and now the
whole computing planet is paying the price.

I normally don't feed the trolls, but this has been an entertaining
read. Also, for anyone working in a Unix/Linux environment, a Mac is a
great workstation. 

--------------------------------------------
John Bleichert - syborg@earthlink.net
"The meek shall inherit nothing." - FZ

Gactimus wrote:
> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> cute, but not very functional.
>
> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.


I suppose someone as ignorant as you must also be a Bush supporter.  No 
doubt!!! 

Gactimus wrote:
> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
>
> > In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
wrote:
> >
> >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac
is
> >> cute, but not very functional.
> >
> > Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people
may
> > just think you're a troll.
>
> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?

That's the wrong question.  You admit that the Mac "might be better",
but say it's not very function.  So the real question should be, what
can a PC do that a Mac can't?  If the Mac is better, why use a PC?

Sure there are some proprietary vertical apps that require a PC, but
without need for those, I would much more prefer to have the "better"
experience of a Mac.

The difference between Mac/PC versus Beta/VHS is that there were many
unique titles available for VHS and very few (if any) titles that were
available on Beta and not VHS.  With computers, some of the best titles
are available only on the Mac...OS X, iLife, Safari, Final Cut, DVD
Studio Pro, Logic, BBEdit.

With Beta/VHS there was a unique feature that made VHS better...at
least originally...in that the tapes lasted longer.  With PCs
(arguments of why aside) the unique "feature" is viruses, trojans,
spyware and other malware issues.

With Beta/VHS, there was *zero* compatibility.  A title on one could
not play on the other.  With Macs/PCs, there's considerable
compatibility and interoperability.  What constitutes "content" with
computers is almost always very easy to transfer Mac <-> PC.

In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 
> 
> > In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
> >
> >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >> cute, but not very functional. 
> > 
> > Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
> > just think you're a troll.
> 
> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?

AVoid viruses, trojans, malware,spyware, and a load of maintenance for the 
average user.

That's enough.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do
knowing he will get nothing in return"

In article <41eff9b8$0$42341$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Trog Woolley <trog@email.fake> wrote in
> news:csostv$efa$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk: 
> 
> > While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway
> > gactimus@xrs.net typed: 
> >
> >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >> cute, but not very functional. 
> >> 
> >> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> > 
> > The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to 
> > head speed meant better picture quality.  The VHS manufacturers
> > just had better spin doctors
> 
> Sounds a lot like Apple's iPod. An inferior product that gained an early
> lead due to great marketing. Although I think that a lot of people are 
> catching on to the iPod scam.

Why don't you tell us specifically why the iPod is 'inferior'?

In article <csor88$lmr$1@online.de>,
 Mario Berger <no_damned_spam@nospam.no> wrote:

> Jim wrote:
> > Ok, I'll turn your question around: what can a Windows PC do that makes it
> > functionally superior to the average Macintosh?
> 
> [not funtionally, but IMO: ]
> It is much cheaper,

Careful, there. It has a lower minimal up-front cost. For most of the 
life of the Mac, the cost of a truly comparable PC has been, well, 
comparable. In fact, for a significant chunk of time, Macs were much 
less expensive than much weaker (by pretty much any measure you'd care 
to make) x86 systems.

> you can assemble it yourself,

True, but negligible for most users.

> replace parts much easier,

False.

> extend its funtionality more easily

False.


> Generally, a Mac is an easier Plug-And-Work tool where you don't have to 
> worry about how to accomplish things. You just do them.
> 
> I hate that. I like fiddling around, compiling stuf, assembling stuff, 
> breaking things and fixing them. For that, a Mac is shitty at best.

Funny. I've been doing that with Macs since the late 1980s. Don't 
confuse the lack of requirement to fiddle with the lack of ability to 
fiddle.

-- 
Change account to gw when responding by mail.

In article <1gqpdex.k9zuz9ygwfkyN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
 jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:

> Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
> 
> > Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
> > extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
> > their jollies?
> 
> Then please explain why there were viruses on the Acorn Archimedes, a
> computer that had almost no global impact whatsoever.
> 
> It has very little to do with the popularity of the platform. It has a
> lot to do with the ease of virus writing for the platform.
> 

More importantly, who cares what the reason is?

The facts are simple. If you want to buy a computer today. Windows is 
susceptible to viruses and OS X isn't. The rest is rationalization.

TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article <1gqpdex.k9zuz9ygwfkyN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
>  jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:
> 
> > Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend
> > > the extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and
> > > thus get their jollies?
> > 
> > Then please explain why there were viruses on the Acorn Archimedes, a
> > computer that had almost no global impact whatsoever.
> > 
> > It has very little to do with the popularity of the platform. It has a
> > lot to do with the ease of virus writing for the platform.
> > 
> 
> More importantly, who cares what the reason is?
> 
> The facts are simple. If you want to buy a computer today. Windows is
> susceptible to viruses and OS X isn't. The rest is rationalization.

The reasons _are_ important, though. MacOSX is much harder to infect
(while not actually immune).

Popularity of the platform isn't a factor.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

Gactimus wrote:
> 
> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
> but not very functional.
> 
> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.

Sorry there gactimus, but XP is a pure loser of an os.  With
OS X, I don't get viruses, spyware or malware.
That's the reason I switched.  Security.  M$ has no
security.

In article <1gqpdex.k9zuz9ygwfkyN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
 jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:

> Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
> 
> > Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
> > extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
> > their jollies?
> 
> Then please explain why there were viruses on the Acorn Archimedes, a
> computer that had almost no global impact whatsoever.
> 
> It has very little to do with the popularity of the platform. It has a
> lot to do with the ease of virus writing for the platform.
> 
> Jim

The real reason there are no wild Macintosh viri is that the Macintosh 
does not drive its users into psychopathic rages, at least most of the 
time.

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

Jim wrote:
> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <1gqpdex.k9zuz9ygwfkyN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
>> jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend
>>>>the extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and
>>>>thus get their jollies?
>>>
>>>Then please explain why there were viruses on the Acorn Archimedes, a
>>>computer that had almost no global impact whatsoever.
>>>
>>>It has very little to do with the popularity of the platform. It has a
>>>lot to do with the ease of virus writing for the platform.
>>>
>>
>>More importantly, who cares what the reason is?
>>
>>The facts are simple. If you want to buy a computer today. Windows is
>>susceptible to viruses and OS X isn't. The rest is rationalization.
> 
> 
> The reasons _are_ important, though. MacOSX is much harder to infect
> (while not actually immune).
> 
> Popularity of the platform isn't a factor.
> 
> Jim

What specifically are the technical reasons why "Mac OS is harder to 
infect"?   Other than platform obscurity.

In article <1gqpi9e.1cphwcg1c6owzoN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
 jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:

> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gqpdex.k9zuz9ygwfkyN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
> >  jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:
> > 
> > > Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend
> > > > the extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and
> > > > thus get their jollies?
> > > 
> > > Then please explain why there were viruses on the Acorn Archimedes, a
> > > computer that had almost no global impact whatsoever.
> > > 
> > > It has very little to do with the popularity of the platform. It has a
> > > lot to do with the ease of virus writing for the platform.
> > > 
> > 
> > More importantly, who cares what the reason is?
> > 
> > The facts are simple. If you want to buy a computer today. Windows is
> > susceptible to viruses and OS X isn't. The rest is rationalization.
> 
> The reasons _are_ important, though. MacOSX is much harder to infect
> (while not actually immune).
> 
> Popularity of the platform isn't a factor.

Why are the reasons important?

If you want to buy a computer today that's resistent to malware, Mac OS 
X is and Windows isn't. Why would you need to know the reason?

Juliana L Holm <jholm@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in
news:csp1ld$dpf6$1@osf1.gmu.edu: 

> In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is
>> better because I'll never get a virus.
> 
> Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending
> Macintoshes for people for this reason.
> 
> They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for
> any complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated
> graphics.

That's probably nice for the 10 people in the world that care about that
kind of stuff. 
 
> They are more reliable.  I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we have
> a PC laptop.  The Macintosh stays up forever.  The laptop is always
> slowing to a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of death".  The
> desktop PC, fairly new, also crashes more often.

You must just suck. I have never had a problem with my PC running XP now
over a year old. I leave it on days at a time. 

Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOSpaMync.net> wrote in
news:jpolaski-F1F4C4.14400320012005@netnews.comcast.net: 

> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 
>> 
>>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
>>> wrote: 
>>>
>>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>> cute, but not very functional. 
>>> 
>>> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
>>> just think you're a troll.
>> 
>> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
> 
> AVoid viruses, trojans, malware, spyware, and a load of maintenance for
> the average user.
> 
> That's enough.

So can the Commodore 64. What's your point? Kind of a dumb reason for 
overpaying for a computer.

"Stimpy" <stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:35agq5F4kmie3U1@individual.net: 

> Gactimus wrote:
>
>>> PC's are like VHS: slow, poor quality, bulky, and found in the so
>>> called $1 bargain bin...
>>
>> So now Macs are better because they cost more?  <snicker>
>>
>>> so only white trash still buy them...
>>
>> Actually, everybody buys them except for the religious Mac fanatics.
> 
> Yup. because one is a cheap, mass market machine for the proles, the
> other is a high quality, premium product aimed at a discerning elite

So paying for a computer that costs twice as much as a PC and has a 
fraction of third party software makes Mac users elite?

And it's amusing that the Mac Fanatics tend to consider themselves the 
"elite" of computer users, yet they sing Apple's praises for making the Mac 
so "user-friendly". I guess that makes Mac users stupid, since they use 
Macs because they can't figure out Windows even though 90% of the planet 
does without any problem.

There are, after all, only so many "elite" people in the world. The rest of 
them, the non-elite, buy the machine that fits their budget. It doesn't 
matter how cheap Apple makes their boxes if the end user has to pay an arm 
and a leg for peripherals to use with it.

Mac users, down deep inside, don't really want more Mac users. So they are 
happy to keep the Mac a high priced machine with a small market share, so 
they can whine about how Windows users are drones, and Bill Gates is out to 
get them.

"Stimpy" <stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:35agscF4ejp05U1@individual.net: 

> Gactimus wrote:
>
>> Sounds a lot like Apple's iPod. An inferior product that gained an
>> early lead due to great marketing. Although I think that a lot of
>> people are catching on to the iPod scam.
> 
> Those that view price as more important than design and functionality,
> maybe...

Yes, we know that the iPod is very shiny.

Apple's iPod is overpriced and is of lower quality than other MP3 players
such as the Nomad. Other manufacturers allow the user to replace the
battery himself. Apple will charge you $100. Nomads are far less
expensive, the software is easy to use, the storage space:price ratio is
far superior, the size is the same, there are no skipping or loading
problems, and best of all, it's not an Apple product.

John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> >>>It has very little to do with the popularity of the platform. It has a
> >>>lot to do with the ease of virus writing for the platform.
> >>>
> >>
> >>More importantly, who cares what the reason is?
> >>
> >>The facts are simple. If you want to buy a computer today. Windows is
> >>susceptible to viruses and OS X isn't. The rest is rationalization.
> > 
> > 
> > The reasons _are_ important, though. MacOSX is much harder to infect
> > (while not actually immune).
> > 
> > Popularity of the platform isn't a factor.
> > 
> > Jim
> 
> What specifically are the technical reasons why "Mac OS is harder to 
> infect"?   Other than platform obscurity.

It might have something to do with the fact that the Mac is a bit more
resistant to other people installing software on it *without your
knowledge*.

Often from another country.

Your call. Personally I'll choose any OS that doesn't allow that to
happen. Windows isn't it.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

Gactimus wrote:
> Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOSpaMync.net> wrote in
> news:jpolaski-F1F4C4.14400320012005@netnews.comcast.net: 
> 
> 
>>In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
>>Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>>>news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
>>>>wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>>>cute, but not very functional. 
>>>>
>>>>Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
>>>>just think you're a troll.
>>>
>>>So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
>>
>>AVoid viruses, trojans, malware, spyware, and a load of maintenance for
>>the average user.
>>
>>That's enough.
> 
> 
> So can the Commodore 64. What's your point? Kind of a dumb reason for 
> overpaying for a computer.


$499 is overpaying.   On what planet?

GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F023C7.CFC40B29@mist.com:

> Gactimus wrote:
>
>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>> cute, but not very functional.
>> 
>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> 
> Sorry there gactimus, but XP is a pure loser of an os.  With
> OS X, I don't get viruses, spyware or malware.

That's like saying the Commodore 64 is better because it doesn't get any
viruses. 

> That's the reason I switched.  Security.  M$ has no
> security.

If the Mac was as popular as XP then it would have its share of viruses.

TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <1gqpdex.k9zuz9ygwfkyN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
>  jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:
> 
> 
>>Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
>>>extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
>>>their jollies?
>>
>>Then please explain why there were viruses on the Acorn Archimedes, a
>>computer that had almost no global impact whatsoever.
>>
>>It has very little to do with the popularity of the platform. It has a
>>lot to do with the ease of virus writing for the platform.
>>
> 
> 
> More importantly, who cares what the reason is?
> 
> The facts are simple. If you want to buy a computer today. Windows is 
> susceptible to viruses and OS X isn't. The rest is rationalization.

Any computer plugged into a network is susceptible to viruses and worms. 
If you want a virus free computer, don't plug it in, nor load any 
software on/in to it. (Makes for expensive paper-weights. )


-- 

   humjohn AT aerosurf DOT net

In article <wmUHd.2040$cZ1.1326@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 John Bleichert <syborg@earthlink.net> wrote:

> In alt.os.linux.slackware John Brock <jbrock@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <U4ednSmb3ZatY3LcRVn-ow@bresnan.com>,
> > Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >>Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
> >>extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
> >>their jollies?
> > 
> > This is the standard argument, repeated endlessly, but I suspect
> > it may not actually be true.  It may be that, from a security point
> > of view, Windows just has a piss-poor design, and the Mac is better
> > in an absolute sense.  Or maybe not -- there is no way we will know
> > for sure unless the Mac really does take off.  But this argument
> > is also kind of irrelevant.  Maybe at some point in the (not too
> > near) future the Mac might have as many viruses as Windows, but
> > RIGHT NOW it has few or none, so RIGHT NOW it is the better choice,
> > unless you have considerations that outweigh security (which most
> > home users don't).  Three years down the road, if things have
> > changed, well you were probably going to have to get a new computer
> > anyway, so no harm done.
> > 
> <snip>
> 
> It should also be noted that Unix (upon which OSX is based) went through all 
> these
> viral and trojan issues 10 years before Windows really hit the
> streets. It's been largely fleshed out. The Win32 designers decided to
> ignore 25 years of operating system design experience and now the
> whole computing planet is paying the price.
> 
> I normally don't feed the trolls, but this has been an entertaining
> read. Also, for anyone working in a Unix/Linux environment, a Mac is a
> great workstation. 
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> John Bleichert - syborg@earthlink.net
> "The meek shall inherit nothing." - FZ

I refer to this as the "boy genius" effect. Gotta have the wizzy 
features regardless of the consequences.

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <41f02ae2$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> So can the Commodore 64

where can i buy a new one ? I can't becorse they don't make them anymore

-- 
-------------------------------------------
Swedish Webcams <http://www.webcams.zap.to>
-------------------------------------------

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> I guess that makes Mac users stupid, since they use 
> Macs because they can't figure out Windows even though 90% of the planet
> does without any problem.

Oh, we've figured out Windows. That's why we don't use it.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> > AVoid viruses, trojans, malware, spyware, and a load of maintenance for
> > the average user.
> > 
> > That's enough.
> 
> So can the Commodore 64. What's your point? Kind of a dumb reason for
> overpaying for a computer.

Really?

One of our customers (who uses Windows 2000 and Windows XP Pro SP2) will
be receiving a very large bill from us for cleaning their machines, when
their anti-malware (name brand) failed utterly to protect them.

And it will probably happen again.

In the face of all that, does paying 20% or 50% more for a system really
matter when compared to the ongoing price you pay for maintaining an
un-maintainable system?

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> > > More importantly, who cares what the reason is?
> > > 
> > > The facts are simple. If you want to buy a computer today. Windows is
> > > susceptible to viruses and OS X isn't. The rest is rationalization.
> > 
> > The reasons _are_ important, though. MacOSX is much harder to infect
> > (while not actually immune).
> > 
> > Popularity of the platform isn't a factor.
> 
> Why are the reasons important?
> 
> If you want to buy a computer today that's resistent to malware, Mac OS
> X is and Windows isn't. Why would you need to know the reason?

So that other people know.

If the reason that the Mac doesn't get viruses is solely because it has
2% market share, then there's no point in getting one, because as soon
as it becomes popular (assuming it does) it will be in the same position
as Windows is in now.

I don't believe this is the case, however. I believe that the Mac has no
viruses because it's too hard to crack. _Not_ impossible, but more
trouble than it's worth.

If the mini improves the marketshare then that hypothosis may be tested.
Nevertheless, I still think that if the Mac could be easily infected by
a virus, someone would have done so by now _simply to shut us Mac lovers
up_. Simply to prove it's possible. Simply to be first.

Hasn't happened.

Reasons are important.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> If the Mac was as popular as XP then it would have its share of viruses.

Why?

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

In article <2g35c2-b6p.nsi$h1t@usenet.dk>,
 "Keyser Soze" <chrisv@BadgirlsRule.com> wrote:

> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
> news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
> > It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> > cute, but not very functional.
> >
> > The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> 
> Mac is for faggots like linux is for faggot cunts.

Wanna be my bitch?  Just bend over when you type on my mac.  I'll 
drive....

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...

In article <35aol7F4kda7oU1@individual.net>,
 HJohnson <HuMJohn@aeroSurf.net> wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <1gqpdex.k9zuz9ygwfkyN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
> >  jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Larry Crites <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
> >>>extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
> >>>their jollies?
> >>
> >>Then please explain why there were viruses on the Acorn Archimedes, a
> >>computer that had almost no global impact whatsoever.
> >>
> >>It has very little to do with the popularity of the platform. It has a
> >>lot to do with the ease of virus writing for the platform.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > More importantly, who cares what the reason is?
> > 
> > The facts are simple. If you want to buy a computer today. Windows is 
> > susceptible to viruses and OS X isn't. The rest is rationalization.
> 
> Any computer plugged into a network is susceptible to viruses and worms. 
> If you want a virus free computer, don't plug it in, nor load any 
> software on/in to it. (Makes for expensive paper-weights. )

Do you really think that saying that enough times will magically make it 
come true?

Then why don't you show us how my OS X computer can get infected when 
there are no exploits in the wild?

In article <41f02af7$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> "Stimpy" <stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:35agq5F4kmie3U1@individual.net: 
> 
> > Gactimus wrote:
> >
> >>> PC's are like VHS: slow, poor quality, bulky, and found in the so
> >>> called $1 bargain bin...
> >>
> >> So now Macs are better because they cost more?  <snicker>
> >>
> >>> so only white trash still buy them...
> >>
> >> Actually, everybody buys them except for the religious Mac fanatics.
> > 
> > Yup. because one is a cheap, mass market machine for the proles, the
> > other is a high quality, premium product aimed at a discerning elite
> 
> So paying for a computer that costs twice as much as a PC and has a 
> fraction of third party software makes Mac users elite?
> 

No, but being willing to pay a premium price for what they perceive as a 
superior product might do so. If you happen to use that definition, 
Alienware purchasers would also be elite.

Not that I'd define it that way, but if you wish you can.

In article <1gqpk3a.voqxyu10ekgt4N%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
 jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:

> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > More importantly, who cares what the reason is?
> > > > 
> > > > The facts are simple. If you want to buy a computer today. Windows is
> > > > susceptible to viruses and OS X isn't. The rest is rationalization.
> > > 
> > > The reasons _are_ important, though. MacOSX is much harder to infect
> > > (while not actually immune).
> > > 
> > > Popularity of the platform isn't a factor.
> > 
> > Why are the reasons important?
> > 
> > If you want to buy a computer today that's resistent to malware, Mac OS
> > X is and Windows isn't. Why would you need to know the reason?
> 
> So that other people know.
> 
> If the reason that the Mac doesn't get viruses is solely because it has
> 2% market share, then there's no point in getting one, because as soon
> as it becomes popular (assuming it does) it will be in the same position
> as Windows is in now.

But that means that it will STILL be more secure until it becomes the 
dominant platform. Do you really think that's going to happen in the 
next 2 or 3 years?

> 
> I don't believe this is the case, however. I believe that the Mac has no
> viruses because it's too hard to crack. _Not_ impossible, but more
> trouble than it's worth.
> 
> If the mini improves the marketshare then that hypothosis may be tested.
> Nevertheless, I still think that if the Mac could be easily infected by
> a virus, someone would have done so by now _simply to shut us Mac lovers
> up_. Simply to prove it's possible. Simply to be first.
> 
> Hasn't happened.
> 
> Reasons are important.

Not if you just want a computer that doesn't have malware.

TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> But that means that it will STILL be more secure until it becomes the
> dominant platform.

No. I think it will be more secure regardless of marketshare.

> Do you really think that's going to happen in the 
> next 2 or 3 years?

No.

10 years, maybe. Too much legacy stuff out there.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Trog Woolley <trog@email.fake> wrote in
> news:csostv$efa$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk: 
> 
> > While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway
> > gactimus@xrs.net typed: 
> >
> >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >> cute, but not very functional. 
> >> 
> >> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> > 
> > The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to 
> > head speed meant better picture quality.  The VHS manufacturers
> > just had better spin doctors
> 
> Sounds a lot like Apple's iPod. An inferior product that gained an early
> lead due to great marketing. Although I think that a lot of people are
> catching on to the iPod scam.

There was a time when I was convinced the iPod would be a flop, simply
on the basis that no matter how good it may be, there would be an army
of people, just like you, that would refuse to have anything to do with
it, simply on the basis of it being made by Apple...

However, it appears I was wrong.  Thankfully, given the massive success
of the iPod, there doesn't appear to be many people like you.  I find
that comforting somehow...

No offence.

-- 
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Trog Woolley <trog@email.fake> wrote in
> news:csostv$efa$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk: 
> 
> > While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway
> > gactimus@xrs.net typed: 
> >
> >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >> cute, but not very functional. 
> >> 
> >> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> > 
> > The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to 
> > head speed meant better picture quality.  The VHS manufacturers
> > just had better spin doctors
> 
> Sounds a lot like Apple's iPod. An inferior product that gained an early
> lead due to great marketing. Although I think that a lot of people are
> catching on to the iPod scam.

What you have to remember is that the iPod has been around for three
years now. It didn't gain a market lead through 'great marketing'
(although that helped), it gained it by doing a few things very well
indeed, and it's only in the last 12 months or so that it's had
_explosive_ market growth.

A feature list isn't everything. It's how well you do what you can do
that matters. The iPod does what it does very well indeed.

I'm not convinced by the iPod photo though - that smacks of gimickry.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

Jim wrote:
> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Trog Woolley <trog@email.fake> wrote in
>>news:csostv$efa$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk: 
>>
>>
>>>While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway
>>>gactimus@xrs.net typed: 
>>>
>>>
>>>>It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>>cute, but not very functional. 
>>>>
>>>>The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>>
>>>The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to 
>>>head speed meant better picture quality.  The VHS manufacturers
>>>just had better spin doctors
>>
>>Sounds a lot like Apple's iPod. An inferior product that gained an early
>>lead due to great marketing. Although I think that a lot of people are
>>catching on to the iPod scam.
> 
> 
> What you have to remember is that the iPod has been around for three
> years now. It didn't gain a market lead through 'great marketing'
> (although that helped), it gained it by doing a few things very well
> indeed, and it's only in the last 12 months or so that it's had
> _explosive_ market growth.
> 

One thing the iPod does well is discharge faster than any competing product.

In article <U4ednSmb3ZatY3LcRVn-ow@bresnan.com>,
 "Larry Crites" <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:

> Maybe because people who write viruses and worms don't want to spend the
> extra money for Apples because there's not very many to infect and thus get
> their jollies?

That may indeed be a reason.

However, the architecture of the BSD subsystem under the Mac OS X GUI 
tends to lean toward more security than less. Indeed, many of the 
out-of-box settings for Mac OS X have their default option as "more 
security" (obviously not a quote, but rather a generalization).

Even if a virus /were/ to infect a Mac system and attempt to cause 
catastrophic damage, it would likely only have the ability to wreak 
havoc for the files of that particular user.

Any modification of system files or other important files would require 
the user to authenticate and verify the action to be taken.

Don't get me wrong -- the Windows XP GUI itself isn't /that/ bad, though 
it is significantly different enough from the Mac OS interface that I'm 
used to that it occasionally causes confusion[1]. Windows also does 
quite a few things I don't like[2][3].

Personally, I prefer the Mac and use it for about 90% of my computing 
needs. However, there are some applications that will run only on 
Windows or Linux, and I have a system to handle those needs. I also 
enjoy building computers, and wish that Apple would allow customers to 
build their own Macs. :/

[1] KDE and GNOME also are sufficiently different from the Mac OS that 
they also cause mild confusion from time to time. It's all getting used 
to it, I suppose.
[2] I have a Mac and a dual-boot WinXPPro/Debian system. The disk for 
Windows is partitioned into three partitions C: (for the OS), D: (for 
the paging file), and E: (for games, applications, everything else). 
Most applications allow me to specify a destination folder, but they put 
some files and whatnot on the C: drive after putting most of their files 
on the specified E: drive. This is exceptionally frustrating.
[3] The Windows Registry also irritates me for reasons that should seem 
obvious.

-- 
Pete Stephenson
HeyPete.com

"Michael Vilain" <vilain@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:vilain-1C789A.14241920012005@news.giganews.com
> In article <2g35c2-b6p.nsi$h1t@usenet.dk>,
> "Keyser Soze" <chrisv@BadgirlsRule.com> wrote:
>
>> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
>> news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>> cute, but not very functional.
>>>
>>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>
>> Mac is for faggots like linux is for faggot cunts.
>
> Wanna be my bitch?  Just bend over when you type on my mac.  I'll
> drive....

<Just press the buttons, and see the fuckwits rear their pin heads>

Just in case you haven't fuckin' noticed, you useless, dense fuck on
a stick, this is Usenet. So just how the fuck do you propose doing
what your faggot brain craves, eh? <shakes head>
[Dumb Mac cunts] <{tempter}

And even it if it wasn't Usenet, I would smash your fucked up head
into the concrete paving, then dragging it through to the underside
leaving your shattered psyche in bits and crumpled carcass draped
over your headstone, I'd take you "mac" and ram it up your shitter
in front of all your bum buddies. Faggot.

-- 
Some Big Cunt 

About every six months since the late 90's  I try Linux and it's ok
but not good enough to dump Windows. I am curently trying SuSe 9.2 Pro
and Knoppix 3.7 . In the early to mid 90's I tried OS/2 but IBM was
clueless about desktop OS's since the OS/2 2.1 CD only worked with SCSI
CD drives. I don't plan on trying the Mac unless they drop the high
price and since I have built my own PC's since the 80's I don't like
the fact that Apple is the only supplier of Macs on the planet. I
switched to Windows NT 4.0 in the mid 90's and have used NT based OS's
ever since and have not had any problems. I don't think you will see
Linux taking over the consumer desktop in the next twenty years.

John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:10v0asaea1ut06e@news.supernews.com:

> Gactimus wrote:
>
>> Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOSpaMync.net> wrote in
>> news:jpolaski-F1F4C4.14400320012005@netnews.comcast.net: 
>>
>>> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
>>> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
>>>> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 
>>>>
>>>>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
>>>>> wrote: 
>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac
>>>>>> is cute, but not very functional. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people
>>>>> may just think you're a troll.
>>>>
>>>> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
>>>
>>> AVoid viruses, trojans, malware, spyware, and a load of maintenance
>>> for the average user.
>>>
>>> That's enough.
>> 
>> So can the Commodore 64. What's your point? Kind of a dumb reason for 
>> overpaying for a computer.
> 
> $499 is overpaying.   On what planet?

$499 for a low end Mac. 256 MB of RAM. Sealed box. 32 MB of
non-upgradeable video.

In article <1106262168.414697.111360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "binoviewer" <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote:

> About every six months since the late 90's  I try Linux and it's ok
> but not good enough to dump Windows. I am curently trying SuSe 9.2 Pro
> and Knoppix 3.7 . In the early to mid 90's I tried OS/2 but IBM was
> clueless about desktop OS's since the OS/2 2.1 CD only worked with SCSI
> CD drives. I don't plan on trying the Mac unless they drop the high
> price and since I have built my own PC's since the 80's I don't like
> the fact that Apple is the only supplier of Macs on the planet. I
> switched to Windows NT 4.0 in the mid 90's and have used NT based OS's
> ever since and have not had any problems. I don't think you will see
> Linux taking over the consumer desktop in the next twenty years.

That's about where I am. I try Linux about every 6-9 months. So far, I 
STILL haven't found a distro that works as advertised without futzing 
and none come anywhere close to Mac OS X's ease of use. For that matter, 
none are even as easy to use as Windows - and that's pretty bad.

In article <1gqplop.3kjjbf11zoam6N%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
 jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:

> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
> > Trog Woolley <trog@email.fake> wrote in
> > news:csostv$efa$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk: 
> > 
> > > While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway
> > > gactimus@xrs.net typed: 
> > >
> > >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> > >> cute, but not very functional. 
> > >> 
> > >> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> > > 
> > > The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to 
> > > head speed meant better picture quality.  The VHS manufacturers
> > > just had better spin doctors
> > 
> > Sounds a lot like Apple's iPod. An inferior product that gained an early
> > lead due to great marketing. Although I think that a lot of people are
> > catching on to the iPod scam.
> 
> What you have to remember is that the iPod has been around for three
> years now. It didn't gain a market lead through 'great marketing'
> (although that helped), it gained it by doing a few things very well
> indeed, and it's only in the last 12 months or so that it's had
> _explosive_ market growth.
> 
> A feature list isn't everything. It's how well you do what you can do
> that matters. The iPod does what it does very well indeed.
> 
> I'm not convinced by the iPod photo though - that smacks of gimickry.
> 
> Jim

It's exponential growth, the curve looks like that. It was a success the 
first year and more the second, but the faster it grows the faster it 
grows. It help that the Itunes store is growing fast also, that gives 
more momentum.

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <1gqpkeo.1y3crif1nuciyvN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
 jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:

> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
> > > AVoid viruses, trojans, malware, spyware, and a load of maintenance for
> > > the average user.
> > > 
> > > That's enough.
> > 
> > So can the Commodore 64. What's your point? Kind of a dumb reason for
> > overpaying for a computer.
> 
> Really?
> 
> One of our customers (who uses Windows 2000 and Windows XP Pro SP2) will
> be receiving a very large bill from us for cleaning their machines, when
> their anti-malware (name brand) failed utterly to protect them.
> 
> And it will probably happen again.
> 
> In the face of all that, does paying 20% or 50% more for a system really
> matter when compared to the ongoing price you pay for maintaining an
> un-maintainable system?
> 
> Jim

Or when the malware writers get your credit card numbers?

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

Broughton van Houghton wrote:
> I have a womb full of Macs and they are simply the most expensive bits of 
> modern day mans costume jewellery I can't imagine leaving home with a piece. 
> Microsoft are the Ford of its industry Apple is the Rolls Royce. All 
> superior.
> 

Mi$uck is more like the Studebaker of the industry.

Gactimus wrote:

> If the Mac was as popular as XP then it would have its share of viruses.

I've heard that this is not true. I can't verify myselft (I don't own a Mac)
but the famous Leo Laporte once said that you just can't do some of the
"bad" things you can do with a PC. He didn't give any examples but this is
someone that generally nows what he's talking about when he's talking about
computers...
-- 
-Rognon

In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
> but not very functional. 
> 
> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.

Ha, Ha, Ha!

Good one!

Don't buy a Mac, Jack.

(All the assholes should have to put up with Windows.  Sweets for the 
sweet, what?)

Ha, Ha, Ha!

S.

I use both PC's and Macs every day (my personal money goes for a Mac 
every time), and every day I'm amazed at the lack of thought or care 
that goes into the design of Windows, Windows applications, and PC's.  
And I see the results in the lives of my coworkers' sad complaints about 
the frustrations of life with a Windows PC--at work and with their PC's 
at home--every day, even though they really aren't fully aware of how 
sad their experience it is, because to them it's typical. They 
continually think buying a new PC, or upgrading this way or that way, 
will solve their headaches. And the frustrations of being involved with 
Windows PC's is the subject of almost every PC-related tv ad you see 
these days.

It's no wonder we get so many jealous, threatened posts knocking the Mac.

The purpose of the existence of Windows and PC's is to sell the hapless 
public tech support, training, maintenance, and service plans.  Macs 
aren't perfect, but at least they're purposefully designed from 
beginning to end.  It's reflected in the quality of the software, the 
OS, and the hardware, the same as the iPod.  I appreciate that fact and 
enjoy the resulting productivity very much.

Thanks for reading,

JH

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> writes:

> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac
> is cute, but not very functional.
> 
> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.

Anyone see the crossposts on this? Judging by the thread that this
has started I guess not.

*PLONK*


             +-------------------+             .:\:\:/:/:.
             |   PLEASE DO NOT   |            :.:\:\:/:/:.:
             |  FEED THE TROLLS  |           :=.' -   - '.=:
             |                   |           '=(\ 9   9 /)='
             |   Thank you,      |              (  (_)  )
             |       Management  |              /`-vvv-'\
             +-------------------+             /         \
                     |  |        @@@          / /|,,,,,|\ \
                     |  |        @@@         /_//  /^\  \\_\
       @x@@x@        |  |         |/         WW(  (   )  )WW
       \||||/        |  |        \|           __\,,\ /,,/__
        \||/         |  |         |      jgs (______Y______)
    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
 =====================================================================

Source:
http://it.geocities.com/roccopapaleo/faq/italiano/asciidontfeed.html


-- 
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well 
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI

In article <1106262168.414697.111360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "binoviewer" <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think you will see
> Linux taking over the consumer desktop in the next twenty years.

Twenty years is a lifetime in computing.  Think for a moment what the 
state of desktop computers was twenty years ago.

In article <41f02af7$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> "Stimpy" <stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:35agq5F4kmie3U1@individual.net: 
> 
> > Gactimus wrote:
> >
> >>> PC's are like VHS: slow, poor quality, bulky, and found in the so
> >>> called $1 bargain bin...
> >>
> >> So now Macs are better because they cost more?  <snicker>
> >>
> >>> so only white trash still buy them...
> >>
> >> Actually, everybody buys them except for the religious Mac fanatics.
> > 
> > Yup. because one is a cheap, mass market machine for the proles, the
> > other is a high quality, premium product aimed at a discerning elite
> 
> So paying for a computer that costs twice as much as a PC and has a 
> fraction of third party software makes Mac users elite?
> 
> And it's amusing that the Mac Fanatics tend to consider themselves the 
> "elite" of computer users, yet they sing Apple's praises for making the Mac 
> so "user-friendly". I guess that makes Mac users stupid, since they use 
> Macs because they can't figure out Windows even though 90% of the planet 
> does without any problem.

IF 90% of the planet has figured out Windows, why are there so many, many,many 
books for "dummies" at the bookstores?
Why do so many fail to have protected machines? We see accounts of this in the 
media and as asides to other commentary all the time.

It is just possible that a large portion of the Windows world has their boxes 
taken care of for them by an IS guy. That's not the "user" having figured out 
Windows as much as it is the user figuring out the applications.

> 
> There are, after all, only so many "elite" people in the world. The rest of 
> them, the non-elite, buy the machine that fits their budget. It doesn't 
> matter how cheap Apple makes their boxes if the end user has to pay an arm 
> and a leg for peripherals to use with it.

What arm and a leg? The Mac more or less uses the same things as PC's. Same USB 
mice, printers, HD's and so on. 
> 
> Mac users, down deep inside, don't really want more Mac users. So they are 
> happy to keep the Mac a high priced machine with a small market share, so 
> they can whine about how Windows users are drones, and Bill Gates is out to 
> get them.

Baloney. What Mac users want is for any user to have choice and not be forced to 
one platform as many in the enterprise are by their IT drones when there is no 
niche vertical app to demand that choice.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do
knowing he will get nothing in return"

In article <41f02ae2$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOSpaMync.net> wrote in
> news:jpolaski-F1F4C4.14400320012005@netnews.comcast.net: 
> 
> > In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> > Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
> >> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 
> >> 
> >>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
> >>> wrote: 
> >>>
> >>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >>>> cute, but not very functional. 
> >>> 
> >>> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
> >>> just think you're a troll.
> >> 
> >> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
> > 
> > AVoid viruses, trojans, malware, spyware, and a load of maintenance for
> > the average user.
> > 
> > That's enough.
> 
> So can the Commodore 64. What's your point? Kind of a dumb reason for 
> overpaying for a computer.

Where can I get one today? Besides, the Commodore 64 or 128 were around in the 
Apple II days, when there was perhaps "hacking" per se, rather than viruses, 
trojans etc. like we have today. IOW, your Commodore argument is largly 
irrelevant today.

You think Mac users are overpaying. Why should it even bother YOU, unless you 
have an agenda, which is seemingly apparent.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do
knowing he will get nothing in return"

In article <v9XHd.2374$dy1.972@fe10.lga>, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in news:10v0asaea1ut06e@news.supernews.com:
> 
> > Gactimus wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOSpaMync.net> wrote in
> >> news:jpolaski-F1F4C4.14400320012005@netnews.comcast.net: 
> >>
> >>> In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> >>> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
> >>>> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local: 
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
> >>>>> wrote: 
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac
> >>>>>> is cute, but not very functional. 
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people
> >>>>> may just think you're a troll.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
> >>>
> >>> AVoid viruses, trojans, malware, spyware, and a load of maintenance
> >>> for the average user.
> >>>
> >>> That's enough.
> >> 
> >> So can the Commodore 64. What's your point? Kind of a dumb reason for 
> >> overpaying for a computer.
> > 
> > $499 is overpaying.   On what planet?
> 
> $499 for a low end Mac. 256 MB of RAM. Sealed box. 32 MB of
> non-upgradeable video.

And it fits the intended marketsegment it's aimed at.

Your problem is the same as many Win-nuts. All you consider is RAW price of 
hardware. That is, unfortunately for you, not the whole picture for many, many 
users.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do
knowing he will get nothing in return"

In article <41f02ac9$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Juliana L Holm <jholm@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in
> news:csp1ld$dpf6$1@osf1.gmu.edu: 
> 
> > In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is
> >> better because I'll never get a virus.
> > 
> > Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending
> > Macintoshes for people for this reason.
> > 
> > They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for
> > any complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated
> > graphics.
> 
> That's probably nice for the 10 people in the world that care about that
> kind of stuff. 

Since you seem to know that only 10 People have Macs, name them.

>  
> > They are more reliable.  I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we have
> > a PC laptop.  The Macintosh stays up forever.  The laptop is always
> > slowing to a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of death".  The
> > desktop PC, fairly new, also crashes more often.
> 
> You must just suck. I have never had a problem with my PC running XP now
> over a year old. I leave it on days at a time. 

It would help if you connected it to the web and actually did something with it. 
Try that and report back.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do
knowing he will get nothing in return"

Larry Crites wrote:

> What's pron? JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like the way
> General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and still is a superior
> process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for their Instant Replay
> reviews (and may still be using them). I have two of them, and still use
> them. Many television stations still use the BetaCam. I have one of those,
> too. Blows away the VHS format.
> 
> Larry
Actually in both cases of VHS and Windows Success relates to patenting and
licensing of technology. JVC felt that in order for the success of their
format they needed to have players in homes. To get players in homes they
couldn't be the only ones to sell the players since they owned the patent
on the tape system and player recorders they made gobs of money by
licensing to other manufacturers. Sony on the other hand has the strange
(Apple like) notion that exclusive branding was the way to go. "Ours costs
more and on your crappy 1972 TV will have a marginally better picture, buy
one today!" They eventually felt they had to license and did so but it was
too late. This is where pron (porn) comes in. The industry had already
evolved to VHS. 

Windows' success stems from the licensing of PC compatible architecture by
IBM. IBM is in the business of patents, they invent stuff to file patents.
They licensed the use of the PC compatible system and used third party
manufacturers to develop parts and interfaces for the system which drove
the prices down and availability up. They would get the revenue from the
licensing. Windows benefited by developing their Bill Gates scheme that
required that every PC sold must have a copy of dos/Windows on it. Thank
god for the US Supreme Court here. 

Apple sells well performing machines ( I don't own one, I have two PC's one
with Win2K and my Slack box) with rigid architecture requirements so that
the OS is running with the machine instead of into it (WindBlows). Like
Sony, they tried licensing in the 80's but too little too late. Read missed
the critical mass. 

The iPod is a great machine (my wife has one). It has all the things people
want in gagetry slick industrial design, simple, intuitive interface, and
at the time my wife got hers it was, in fact, better value than the Nomad.
Regarding the power issues, the battery life has fluctuated based on
various OS upgrades. Whatever you do DON'T ever install iTunes for Windows
when you are running Music Match Pro. iTunes will hijack the interfacing
system and some dlls. This renders MM useless with the iPod. 

Cheers to the cross poster-from-hell.

Jay

Jim Polaski wrote:
>
> IF 90% of the planet has figured out Windows, why are there so many,
> many,many books for "dummies" at the bookstores?
> Why do so many fail to have protected machines? We see accounts of
> this in the media and as asides to other commentary all the time.

Because there are so many Dummies:
8th Edition, Macs for Dummies
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764503987/002-7255178-1532820?v=glance

On 20 Jan 2005 16:08:41 GMT, Gactimus wrote:

> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
> but not very functional. 
> 
> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.

ya know, every once in a while someone trolls here with some version of
"the mac sux, windows rocks" and/or the betamax canard.

the next time you are watching tv news and there is footage from the field,
you are watching betamax. Almost 100% of electronic newsgathering, as it is
known, is shot on some form of sony beta cameras. beta, beta sp, and
digital beta are among the most popular. no, sony doesn't make betamax
consumer camcorders (and btw there are no currently available vhs consumer
camcorders, nor should there be). they make expensive, industry-specific
industrial camcorders. expensive because they are made out of excellent
parts.

ok, most people don't have a mac. most people aren't in the publishing,
design, advertising, photo or video editing businesses. those of us who are
use macs almost exclusively. this is also the realm of sgi and sun
workstations which are super expensive and almost bulletproof. 

not functional? "the mummy 2" movie was shot using a gang of powerbooks
running finalcut pro on location for instant post-production and the
ability to tie in sfx footage from ilm (all done on sgi equipment).  sure,
the beancounters had their thinkpads and their dude-you've-got-a-dells to
crunch numbers. i still wonder, though, why i could run lotus 123 on a 286
with 64K of RAM but it takes a 3 GHz pentium and 128MB RAM to run excel...

anyway there's nothing wrong with pee-cees, macs, suns, sgis, as500s;
windows, mac os, solaris, irix, unix(tm), linux (technically gnu-linux),
system 360 ... no war, just "the right tool for the right job" as my
brother says.

peace

jon

-- 
i like cats. take the dog out to reply.

Gactimus wrote:

[snip]
> 
> But seriously, maybe some creative people from Apple will stop wasting
> their time on their Fisher-Price toy and help develop the PC beyond what
> it is today.
[/snip]

Ohhh, I like that, the Windows folks are looking for Apple folks to develop
the PC beyond what it is today...to a 'Fisher Price Toy?'

Moot point though; MS has been using that 'innovative' strategy (releasing
innovations on windows a year or three after Apple developed a market for
them) for at least the past decade.  ;-)

As I see things Linux and OS-X+ are better positioned and more advanced than
MS-Win at the moment, and when Longhorn eventually comes out better open
your wallets wide to catch up again.  (Longhorn is going for security; not
compatibility)
-- 
   01000011 01001100 01000001 01010011 01010011 01001001 01000011
Larry Anderson - Sysop of Silicon Realms BBS  (209) 754-1363  300-14.4k
   Set your 8-bit rigs to sail for http://www.portcommodore.com/
   01010001 01010101 01000001 01001100 01001001 01010100 01011001

Larry Anderson <larry@portcommodore.com> writes:

> Gactimus wrote:
> 
> As I see things Linux and OS-X+ are better positioned and more advanced than
> MS-Win at the moment, and when Longhorn eventually comes out better open
> your wallets wide to catch up again.  (Longhorn is going for security; not
> compatibility)

And the only thing Longhorn will certainly achieve is to be expensive.
And late.

Gregm

"John A. Hanson" <jhanson@suncom.net> wrote in message
news:jhanson-7E5FBC.20253420012005@news.east.cox.net...
> I use both PC's and Macs every day (my personal money goes for a Mac
> every time), and every day I'm amazed at the lack of thought or care
> that goes into the design of Windows, Windows applications, and PC's.

I dont' know what you mean? I work on Windows at least 8 hours a day and I
find much of the interface pretty well thought out. There are quirks for
sure, but that's true for most systems.

> Macs
> aren't perfect, but at least they're purposefully designed from
> beginning to end.

How can you "think different", as Apple says, when the whole life and use of
your product from beginning to end has already been decided for you?

I like Macs, but they need to be more wallet friendly without sacrificing
the ability to customize the system in both hardware and software.

(BTW, why so many newsgroups?)

In article <35a6v2F4j1suiU1@individual.net>, "Brian" <b_dyke@web.de> 
wrote:

> "Jim" <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:slrncuvp33.1gob.Jim@odin.magrathea.local...
> > In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
> > > Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
> > > news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
> > >
> > >> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> > >>> cute, but not very functional.
> > >>
> > >> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
> > >> just think you're a troll.
> > >
> > > So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
> >
> > Stay connected to the internet without getting infected?
> >
> 
> now, if you were a script writer would you write it to attack the lesser
> used OS or the most commonly used OS? come on linuxfux have had their heads
> ripped off for statements like that.

Any gomer can successfully attack Windows.

Successfully attacking OS X takes more.

Maybe none of the script kiddies, nor their enablers, have what it takes?

In article <csor88$lmr$1@online.de>,
 Mario Berger <no_damned_spam@nospam.no> wrote:

> Jim wrote:
> > Ok, I'll turn your question around: what can a Windows PC do that makes it
> > functionally superior to the average Macintosh?
> 
> [not funtionally, but IMO: ]
> It is much cheaper, you can assemble it yourself, replace parts much 
> easier, extend its funtionality more easily and the range of OSes and 
> software available is wider (yes, I know, a Mac can do everything, but a 
> PC can do everything AND do it on five different OSes using 20 different 
> apps).
> 
> Generally, a Mac is an easier Plug-And-Work tool where you don't have to 
> worry about how to accomplish things. You just do them.
> 
> I hate that. I like fiddling around, compiling stuf, assembling stuff, 
> breaking things and fixing them. For that, a Mac is shitty at best.

You haven't been paying attention of late, have you?

You want to compile/assemble/muck about? Tools for doing 
Java/C/C++/Obj-C/Python/Ruby/.... come on the default install CDs.

Larry Anderson wrote:
> 
> Gactimus wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> >
> > But seriously, maybe some creative people from Apple will stop wasting
> > their time on their Fisher-Price toy and help develop the PC beyond what
> > it is today.
> [/snip]
> 
> Ohhh, I like that, the Windows folks are looking for Apple folks to develop
> the PC beyond what it is today...to a 'Fisher Price Toy?'
> 
> Moot point though; MS has been using that 'innovative' strategy (releasing
> innovations on windows a year or three after Apple developed a market for
> them) for at least the past decade.  ;-)
> 
> As I see things Linux and OS-X+ are better positioned and more advanced than
> MS-Win at the moment, and when Longhorn eventually comes out better open
> your wallets wide to catch up again.  (Longhorn is going for security; not
> compatibility)

I'll believe that when I see it.
So far, M$ has botched security pretty badly.

Gactimus wrote:
> 
> Juliana L Holm <jholm@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in
> news:csp1ld$dpf6$1@osf1.gmu.edu:
> 
> > In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is
> >> better because I'll never get a virus.
> >
> > Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending
> > Macintoshes for people for this reason.
> >
> > They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for
> > any complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated
> > graphics.
> 
> That's probably nice for the 10 people in the world that care about that
> kind of stuff.
> 
> > They are more reliable.  I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we have
> > a PC laptop.  The Macintosh stays up forever.  The laptop is always
> > slowing to a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of death".  The
> > desktop PC, fairly new, also crashes more often.
> 
> You must just suck. I have never had a problem with my PC running XP now
> over a year old. I leave it on days at a time.

Has it shown some sluggishness since you bought it??
If so, then you are infected with spyware.
Spyware comes from unscrupulous websites that want some kind
of information about where you go for marketing analysis. 
And then there are the thieves that use spyware as keystroke
loggers hoping you'll do some online shopping and phoning
home with your credit card numbers.

Gactimus wrote:
> 
> Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOSpaMync.net> wrote in
> news:jpolaski-F1F4C4.14400320012005@netnews.comcast.net:
> 
> > In article <41efe2fa$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> > Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Jim <Jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote in
> >> news:slrncuvo3p.1ggb.Jim@odin.magrathea.local:
> >>
> >>> In article <41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >>>> cute, but not very functional.
> >>>
> >>> Please describe how it is 'not very functional', otherwise people may
> >>> just think you're a troll.
> >>
> >> So, what can a Mac do that a PC can't?
> >
> > AVoid viruses, trojans, malware, spyware, and a load of maintenance for
> > the average user.
> >
> > That's enough.
> 
> So can the Commodore 64. What's your point? Kind of a dumb reason for
> overpaying for a computer.

Yeah, but XP can't.

Gactimus wrote:
> 
> GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F023C7.CFC40B29@mist.com:
> 
> > Gactimus wrote:
> >
> >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >> cute, but not very functional.
> >>
> >> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> >
> > Sorry there gactimus, but XP is a pure loser of an os.  With
> > OS X, I don't get viruses, spyware or malware.
> 
> That's like saying the Commodore 64 is better because it doesn't get any
> viruses.
> 
> > That's the reason I switched.  Security.  M$ has no
> > security.
> 
> If the Mac was as popular as XP then it would have its share of viruses.

But it can't get them.  That's the point.  You should read a
few things that Cutler has said about NT, which is XPs older
brother.

http://rixstep.com/1/20040831,00.html

It pretty much states that XP has no security and never
will.  That's what Longhorn is supposed to address, if they
can.

Rognon wrote:
> 
> Gactimus wrote:
> 
> > If the Mac was as popular as XP then it would have its share of viruses.
> 
> I've heard that this is not true. I can't verify myselft (I don't own a Mac)
> but the famous Leo Laporte once said that you just can't do some of the
> "bad" things you can do with a PC. He didn't give any examples but this is
> someone that generally nows what he's talking about when he's talking about
> computers...

All UNIXes when using a browser sets any files downloaded to
'read-only' status.  The o/s won't execute the program if
there is one.  The only way to get it to run is to become
root to chown the file.  But by that time, you'd be curious
and then suspicious.  At least enough time to back away from
it.
With XP it's just a mouse click away.
Some XP programs downloaded could replace some of your
system files.  I've had that happen to me before and didn't
even knew it happened.  Under any UNIX o/s, that can't
happen.

GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F08507.E30D83AD@mist.com:

> Gactimus wrote:
>
>> Juliana L Holm <jholm@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in
>> news:csp1ld$dpf6$1@osf1.gmu.edu:
>> 
>>> In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is
>>>> better because I'll never get a virus.
>>>
>>> Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending
>>> Macintoshes for people for this reason.
>>>
>>> They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for
>>> any complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated
>>> graphics.
>> 
>> That's probably nice for the 10 people in the world that care about
>> that kind of stuff.
>> 
>>> They are more reliable.  I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we
>>> have a PC laptop.  The Macintosh stays up forever.  The laptop is
>>> always slowing to a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of
>>> death".  The desktop PC, fairly new, also crashes more often.
>> 
>> You must just suck. I have never had a problem with my PC running XP
>> now over a year old. I leave it on days at a time.
> 
> Has it shown some sluggishness since you bought it??
> If so, then you are infected with spyware.
> Spyware comes from unscrupulous websites that want some kind
> of information about where you go for marketing analysis. 
> And then there are the thieves that use spyware as keystroke
> loggers hoping you'll do some online shopping and phoning
> home with your credit card numbers.

Yes, spyware *can* be a problem for some, but a quick fix is to not use 
Internet Explorer. Spyware problem solved. I use Firefox.

Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOSpaMync.net> wrote in
news:jpolaski-2F3622.20502720012005@netnews.comcast.net: 

> In article <41f02ac9$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
>> Juliana L Holm <jholm@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in
>> news:csp1ld$dpf6$1@osf1.gmu.edu: 
>> 
>>> In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is
>>>> better because I'll never get a virus.
>>> 
>>> Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending
>>> Macintoshes for people for this reason.
>>> 
>>> They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for
>>> any complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated
>>> graphics.
>> 
>> That's probably nice for the 10 people in the world that care about
>> that kind of stuff. 
> 
> Since you seem to know that only 10 People have Macs, name them.
> 
>>> They are more reliable.  I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we
>>> have a PC laptop.  The Macintosh stays up forever.  The laptop is
>>> always slowing to a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of
>>> death".  The desktop PC, fairly new, also crashes more often.
>> 
>> You must just suck. I have never had a problem with my PC running XP
>> now over a year old. I leave it on days at a time. 
> 
> It would help if you connected it to the web and actually did something
> with it.

Obviously it's connected to the internet since I'm replying to your
moronic post.

In article <41f02af7$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> "Stimpy" <stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:35agq5F4kmie3U1@individual.net: 
> 
> > Gactimus wrote:
> >
> >>> PC's are like VHS: slow, poor quality, bulky, and found in the so
> >>> called $1 bargain bin...
> >>
> >> So now Macs are better because they cost more?  <snicker>
> >>
> >>> so only white trash still buy them...
> >>
> >> Actually, everybody buys them except for the religious Mac fanatics.
> > 
> > Yup. because one is a cheap, mass market machine for the proles, the
> > other is a high quality, premium product aimed at a discerning elite
> 
> So paying for a computer that costs twice as much as a PC and has a 
> fraction of third party software makes Mac users elite?
> 
> And it's amusing that the Mac Fanatics tend to consider themselves the 
> "elite" of computer users, yet they sing Apple's praises for making the Mac 
> so "user-friendly". I guess that makes Mac users stupid, since they use 
> Macs because they can't figure out Windows even though 90% of the planet 
> does without any problem.
> 
> There are, after all, only so many "elite" people in the world. The rest of 
> them, the non-elite, buy the machine that fits their budget. It doesn't 
> matter how cheap Apple makes their boxes if the end user has to pay an arm 
> and a leg for peripherals to use with it.
> 
> Mac users, down deep inside, don't really want more Mac users. So they are 
> happy to keep the Mac a high priced machine with a small market share, so 
> they can whine about how Windows users are drones, and Bill Gates is out to 
> get them.

Dude, you have NO idea what you are talking about, I am a
MCSE/MCSA/CCNA and I run network moderately large network for a bank
(Windows NT 4.0 Client and Server, Windows 2000 Pro & Server, Windows
2003 Server, Windows XP Pro, Mac OS and Unix), I hate Winblows, it is
hands down the worst OS on the planet, and XP sucks worse that 2000
does, and if Longhorn ever gets loose the world will be fucked forever.
I am working on switching our network servers over to OS X servers and
most of our clients over to iMac mini's (Fuck paying MicroSucks just so
I can connect to a file server, or to Exchange server or what have
you). OS X Server can authenticate Windows clients better that
2000/2003 server can and the servers just scream. Now don't get me
wrong, we have an uptime of about 98%, but not with out a lot of
fiddling and messing around with the windows systems to make things
work right. I have also just switched 5 of our employees (home
computers) over to Mac's (it�s just something about continuously
fighting viri and malware/spyware that they don't like). By the way I
would not have a PC connected to the internet at home as I also don�t
want to have to fuck with all of the shit, instead I would much rather
USE my computer that have my computer USE me.



.................................................................
       Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
             >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

hah good troll, 106 points and going. This was such an obvious one :)

In article <1106286753.925719.131190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jdobb2001 <jdobbs2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> hah good troll, 106 points and going. This was such an obvious one :)

Trolls get *points*? Who knew...

Reminds me of what Drew Carey said on one of the Whose Line?
shows..."Just like Angelina Jolie's morning breath, the points don't
matter." :)

-- 
"No urban night is like the night [in NYC]...here is our poetry, for we have
pulled down the stars to our will."
- Ezra Pound, poet and critic, 9/18/1912, reflecting on New York City

On 20 Jan 2005 16:08:41 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

>It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
>but not very functional. 
>
>The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.

You gotta love the new imac, built around the LCD screen; blurs the
boundary between portable, desktop, and server; runs Mach/BSD/OS-X
Unix on a PPC with Mac GUI; offers simplicity, reliability,
robustness. 

-- 
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Brian.Inglis@CSi.com 	(Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
    fake address		use address above to reply

Noozer <dontspam@me.here> wrote:
[...]
> I like Macs, but they need to be more wallet friendly without
> sacrificing the ability to customize the system in both hardware and
> software.

*shrug*

Boot Linux or *BSD on a Mac if you want. You can't get more
customisable than self-assembly OSen ;)

> (BTW, why so many newsgroups?)

Over on uk.misc we call it a "massively cross-posted troll". I think
you've been caught in the net.

-- 
PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger abuse@mooli.org.uk for full key

In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Yes, spyware *can* be a problem for some, but a quick fix is to not use 
> Internet Explorer. Spyware problem solved. I use Firefox.

Spyware is one of the reasons our laptop tends to be sluggish.  My sons (adult, but in their twenties) tend to use it to surf the net and get lots of little
spyware programs, (my husband runs spybot every time my kids go home.) 

But Firefox does not prevent all of it.  We use Firefox exclusively and 
Spybot still picks up stuff.

-- 
Julie 
**********
I could be wrong.  My experience is limited to my experience.

Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at 
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

"GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in message
news:41F0860D.2F12EDA@mist.com...
> Gactimus wrote:
> > If the Mac was as popular as XP then it would have its share of viruses.
>
> But it can't get them.

Rare, but it can.

http://news.com.com/Mac+users+face+rare+threat/2100-7349_3-5424883.html

    - Bill

In article <210120050014532711%STI320@earthlink.net>,
 SOL <STI320@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Dude, you have NO idea what you are talking about.  By the way I
> would not have a PC connected to the internet at home as I also don�t
> want to have to fuck with all of the shit, instead I would much rather
> USE my computer that have my computer USE me.

Dude, you have NO idea what you are talking about.   By the way, the 
*only* internet-facing machine I have at home is a Windows (XP and 
Server 2003) box.   Runs 24x7 connected to a cable modem.   I have no 
"shit to fuck with" - it Just Works.   It shares the cable modem to 
every machine in the house - including this OS X box.

Mike

In article <sehix-0F1393.20045120012005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
 Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

> Any gomer can successfully attack Windows.
> 
> Successfully attacking OS X takes more.
> 
> Maybe none of the script kiddies, nor their enablers, have what it takes?

Yeah, they didn't have the money it takes to get one.    Until now.

Mike

In article <euWdnaM2NbKfam3cRVn-gg@giganews.com>, Bill Leary wrote:
> "GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in message
> news:41F0860D.2F12EDA@mist.com...
>> Gactimus wrote:
>> > If the Mac was as popular as XP then it would have its share of viruses.
>>
>> But it can't get them.
> 
> Rare, but it can.
> 
> http://news.com.com/Mac+users+face+rare+threat/2100-7349_3-5424883.html
> 

Oh yes, Opener - the only 'virus' to come with a list of installation
instructions :-)

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
"Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water."

In article <41f02ac9$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
   Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>Juliana L Holm <jholm@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in
>news:csp1ld$dpf6$1@osf1.gmu.edu: 
>
>> In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is
>>> better because I'll never get a virus.
>> 
>> Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending
>> Macintoshes for people for this reason.
>> 
>> They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for
>> any complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated
>> graphics.
>
>That's probably nice for the 10 people in the world that care about that
>kind of stuff. 
> 
>> They are more reliable.  I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we have
>> a PC laptop.  The Macintosh stays up forever.  The laptop is always
>> slowing to a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of death".  The
>> desktop PC, fairly new, also crashes more often.
>
>You must just suck. I have never had a problem with my PC running XP now
>over a year old. I leave it on days at a time. 

That's a great improvement.  I bet you don't leave it on long enough
to overflow a counter field.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <MPG.1c59d7637b04c92898987c@news.individual.net>,
   K Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>In article <zv-dnS7p5pwJYXLcRVn-vQ@bresnan.com>, 
>larrycrites@bresnan.net says...
>> What's pron? 
>
>Oh, my.  Mix up the letters a little.
>
>> JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
>> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like the 
way
>> General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and still is a 
superior
>> process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for their Instant Replay 
reviews
>> (and may still be using them). I have two of them, and still use them. 
Many
>> television stations still use the BetaCam. I have one of those, too. 
Blows
>> away the VHS format.
>
>The real reason VHS won was because one could fit a whole movie on one 
>(2hours) and its quality was good enough. By the time Beta could fit a 
>movie, VHS was up to six hours.  Remember, tapes were $20 each (and 
>up).
>
It wasn't the $20 price.  It had more to do with people not
wanting to get up in the middle of the night switch tapes.
The only other alternative was to buy another recorder; NOW
you're talking serious money.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <1106277649.171c317f8a69470f7469b7a3b8c0b593@teranews>,
 Larry Anderson <larry@portcommodore.com> wrote:

> Gactimus wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> > 
> > But seriously, maybe some creative people from Apple will stop wasting
> > their time on their Fisher-Price toy and help develop the PC beyond what
> > it is today.
> [/snip]
> 
> Ohhh, I like that, the Windows folks are looking for Apple folks to develop
> the PC beyond what it is today...to a 'Fisher Price Toy?'
> 
> Moot point though; MS has been using that 'innovative' strategy (releasing
> innovations on windows a year or three after Apple developed a market for
> them) for at least the past decade.  ;-)
> 
> As I see things Linux and OS-X+ are better positioned and more advanced than
> MS-Win at the moment, and when Longhorn eventually comes out better open
> your wallets wide to catch up again.  (Longhorn is going for security; not
> compatibility)

Same core OS, different API? Could be.

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <neill.mckay-CECE39.22125820012005@news-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
 Neill McKay <neill.mckay@not.my.address> wrote:

> In article <1106262168.414697.111360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>  "binoviewer" <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I don't think you will see
> > Linux taking over the consumer desktop in the next twenty years.
> 
> Twenty years is a lifetime in computing.  Think for a moment what the 
> state of desktop computers was twenty years ago.

Let's see, the Macintosh was dying, IIRC. The first laserwriters came 
and pulled Apple's baby out of the fire.

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <i5CdnVn6l5aXmGzcRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

> In article <MPG.1c59d7637b04c92898987c@news.individual.net>,
>    K Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> >In article <zv-dnS7p5pwJYXLcRVn-vQ@bresnan.com>, 
> >larrycrites@bresnan.net says...
> >> What's pron? 
> >
> >Oh, my.  Mix up the letters a little.
> >
> >> JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
> >> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like the 
> way
> >> General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and still is a 
> superior
> >> process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for their Instant Replay 
> reviews
> >> (and may still be using them). I have two of them, and still use them. 
> Many
> >> television stations still use the BetaCam. I have one of those, too. 
> Blows
> >> away the VHS format.
> >
> >The real reason VHS won was because one could fit a whole movie on one 
> >(2hours) and its quality was good enough. By the time Beta could fit a 
> >movie, VHS was up to six hours.  Remember, tapes were $20 each (and 
> >up).
> >
> It wasn't the $20 price.  It had more to do with people not
> wanting to get up in the middle of the night switch tapes.
> The only other alternative was to buy another recorder; NOW
> you're talking serious money.
> 

That wouldn't have helped in those days. I don't recall any remote 
controls on VCRs back when VHS and Beta were fighting it out.

Without a remote, you'd still have to get up and turn the other VCR on.

In article <proto-6D9D4C.09191921012005@reader2.panix.com>,
 Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <neill.mckay-CECE39.22125820012005@news-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
>  Neill McKay <neill.mckay@not.my.address> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1106262168.414697.111360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >  "binoviewer" <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't think you will see
> > > Linux taking over the consumer desktop in the next twenty years.
> > 
> > Twenty years is a lifetime in computing.  Think for a moment what the 
> > state of desktop computers was twenty years ago.
> 
> Let's see, the Macintosh was dying, IIRC. The first laserwriters came 
> and pulled Apple's baby out of the fire.

That might be slightly overstated, but it is widely recognized that the 
Laserwriter was a key element in Apple's early success - particularly in 
DTP.

The "triumph" of VHS over Betamax has much less to do with the supposed
superiority of the Betamax machine over VHS and more to do with the
attitude of the companies backing the standards.  JVC, a small company
at the time, took a very humble attitude when approaching companies
asking if they would care to by in to this project. In contrast to
Sony, a big company, who wanted to license the technology to
manufactures but give them no chance for input.  The result being Sony
was told to get stuffed and JVC was allowed to pitch their technology.

The success of VHS was sealed in the US when JVC licensed the
technology to the main media company of the time whose name I can't
currently recal.  The crux of the deal being that americans wanted a
tape that could record a full football game without changing tapes.
VHS gave them that feature.  Sony later tried to add this feature to
their standard but was too late.

In Europe, there was less to record on TV at the time but there were an
abundance of American movies to rent, which were now being knocked out
on VHS.  Hence people rented VHS players and tapes, and later when the
price fell, bought VHS.  A technical advantages of the Betamax standard
were outweighed by VHS's strategy of giving customers what they wanted.
Some say that the inferior technology won others say it is a classic
advantage of survival of hte fittest and Betamax wasn't it.

Similar examples have played out with QWERTY vs Dvorak and to a lesser
extent PC vs Mac.  Technical superiority is a dubious metric for
predicting success of a product.

Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote in
news:6eg1v0pahv9rrhvap6eaarcuima42m8lii@4ax.com: 

> On 20 Jan 2005 16:08:41 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, Gactimus
> <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>> cute, but not very functional. 
>>
>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> 
> You gotta love the new imac, built around the LCD screen; blurs the
> boundary between portable, desktop, and server; runs Mach/BSD/OS-X
> Unix on a PPC with Mac GUI; offers simplicity, reliability,
> robustness. 

And non-upgradable.

In article <Nowhere-8FC55C.08164321012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article <i5CdnVn6l5aXmGzcRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > In article <MPG.1c59d7637b04c92898987c@news.individual.net>,
> >    K Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> > >In article <zv-dnS7p5pwJYXLcRVn-vQ@bresnan.com>, 
> > >larrycrites@bresnan.net says...
> > >> What's pron? 
> > >
> > >Oh, my.  Mix up the letters a little.
> > >
> > >> JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
> > >> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like the 
> > way
> > >> General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and still is a 
> > superior
> > >> process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for their Instant Replay 
> > reviews
> > >> (and may still be using them). I have two of them, and still use them. 
> > Many
> > >> television stations still use the BetaCam. I have one of those, too. 
> > Blows
> > >> away the VHS format.
> > >
> > >The real reason VHS won was because one could fit a whole movie on one 
> > >(2hours) and its quality was good enough. By the time Beta could fit a 
> > >movie, VHS was up to six hours.  Remember, tapes were $20 each (and 
> > >up).
> > >
> > It wasn't the $20 price.  It had more to do with people not
> > wanting to get up in the middle of the night switch tapes.
> > The only other alternative was to buy another recorder; NOW
> > you're talking serious money.
> > 
> 
> That wouldn't have helped in those days. I don't recall any remote 
> controls on VCRs back when VHS and Beta were fighting it out.
> 
> Without a remote, you'd still have to get up and turn the other VCR on.

Well, sitting out in a box in the garage, I have a vintage 1977 Betamax
VCR (and an approximately-as-old RCA VHS). The Sony has a wired remote,
as does the RCA. I think the wireless remotes came a couple years
later. The Sony would record one hour at "Beta I" or two hours at "Beta
II" speed on an L500 tape, the RCA has only one speed and that put 2
hours on a T120. Although I recall tapes "listing" for $20, I don't
think I ever spent over $10/tape (always bought in case lots).

Interestingly, Sony did come out with a stacker/changer for their
top-loading models in the early 80s. I've never seen one made to work
with front-loaders.

-- 
Spenser

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:i5CdnVn6l5aXmGzcRVn-qg@rcn.net
> In article <MPG.1c59d7637b04c92898987c@news.individual.net>,
>   K Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> In article <zv-dnS7p5pwJYXLcRVn-vQ@bresnan.com>,
>> larrycrites@bresnan.net says...
>>> What's pron?
>>
>> Oh, my.  Mix up the letters a little.
>>
>>> JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
>>> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like
>>> the way General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and
>>> still is a superior process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for
>>> their Instant Replay reviews (and may still be using them). I have
>>> two of them, and still use them. Many television stations still use
>>> the BetaCam. I have one of those, too. Blows away the VHS format.
>>
>> The real reason VHS won was because one could fit a whole movie on
>> one (2hours) and its quality was good enough. By the time Beta could
>> fit a movie, VHS was up to six hours.  Remember, tapes were $20 each
>> (and up).
>>
> It wasn't the $20 price.  It had more to do with people not
> wanting to get up in the middle of the night switch tapes.
> The only other alternative was to buy another recorder; NOW
> you're talking serious money.
>
> /BAH
>
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

Like this? jmfbah@aol.com

jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com

--
Gloria Goitre 

In article <tq9Id.143$PB.55@okepread01>, Gactimus wrote:
> Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote in
> news:6eg1v0pahv9rrhvap6eaarcuima42m8lii@4ax.com: 
> 
>> On 20 Jan 2005 16:08:41 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, Gactimus
>> <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>> cute, but not very functional. 
>>>
>>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>> 
>> You gotta love the new imac, built around the LCD screen; blurs the
>> boundary between portable, desktop, and server; runs Mach/BSD/OS-X
>> Unix on a PPC with Mac GUI; offers simplicity, reliability,
>> robustness. 
> 
> And non-upgradable.

Not actually true. It's about as upgradable as the average laptop.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk
"Brace yourself, this might make your eyes water."

In article <Nowhere-C515F4.08211521012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article <proto-6D9D4C.09191921012005@reader2.panix.com>,
>  Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <neill.mckay-CECE39.22125820012005@news-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> >  Neill McKay <neill.mckay@not.my.address> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1106262168.414697.111360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  "binoviewer" <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I don't think you will see
> > > > Linux taking over the consumer desktop in the next twenty years.
> > > 
> > > Twenty years is a lifetime in computing.  Think for a moment what the 
> > > state of desktop computers was twenty years ago.
> > 
> > Let's see, the Macintosh was dying, IIRC. The first laserwriters came 
> > and pulled Apple's baby out of the fire.
> 
> That might be slightly overstated, but it is widely recognized that the 
> Laserwriter was a key element in Apple's early success - particularly in 
> DTP.

The funny thing (at least to me) is that at the time, the *PRINTER* had 
more raw processing power than the *COMPUTER* it was supposed to be 
attached to, and might have had more RAM, depending on the computer in 
question and how it was configured.

It always gave me a giggle to look at the LaserWriter in the Apple II 
lab - The printer was a computer that would put all the rest of the 
"actual computers" in the lab to shame even if they all "ganged up".

-- 
Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> for full details.

> And it's amusing that the Mac Fanatics tend to consider themselves the 
> "elite" of computer users, yet they sing Apple's praises for making the Mac 
> so "user-friendly". I guess that makes Mac users stupid, since they use 
> Macs because they can't figure out Windows even though 90% of the planet 
> does without any problem.

You're right that 90% of computer users are using Windows (probably). 
But "without problem"?  Come on, every computer in the world has 
problems, and Windows most of all.

There are 3 types of computer users: 1) home users who only want to 
browse the internet and do basic tasks, 2) business users who have to 
have one to run a software suite necessary to do their job, and 3) 
gamers, hobbyists, and technophiles.  Arguably there is a 4th - students 
  - but they tend to be a mix of all 3.

There are reasons why each group might choose one computer over another, 
and any platform is not necessarily a bad choice when weighing all the 
options.

Also, I call shenanigans on your whole attitude.  There's no way a 
person can be that angry over what other people choose to do with their 
money.

In article <1106319343.891772.85390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
rafe_pilling@hotmail.com (Rafe) writes:

> The "triumph" of VHS over Betamax has much less to do with the
> supposed superiority of the Betamax machine over VHS and more
> to do with the attitude of the companies backing the standards.
> JVC, a small company at the time, took a very humble attitude
> when approaching companies asking if they would care to by in
> to this project. In contrast to Sony, a big company, who wanted
> to license the technology to manufactures but give them no chance
> for input.  The result being Sony was told to get stuffed and JVC
> was allowed to pitch their technology.

Sony seems to be good at this.  Remember the Elcaset?  Their
mini-disk is struggling, but has enough nice things about it
to keep hanging on.  (I loved working with them when I was
doing sound for a local theatre group.)

I wonder how their memory sticks are going to fare...

Another famous example on the other side is the audio cassette.
Philips kept firm control of the specifications, but otherwise
made it very easy to license.  The result became a universal
standard, because nobody was allowed to play the incompatibility
games which plague the computer industry.  (I had a good laugh
when Sun got that judge to slap down Microsoft's attempts to
pervert Java.)

> Similar examples have played out with QWERTY vs Dvorak and to a
> lesser extent PC vs Mac.  Technical superiority is a dubious metric
> for predicting success of a product.

The obvioius example here, of course, is Windows vs. anything else.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

> Just in case you haven't fuckin' noticed, you useless, dense fuck on
> a stick, this is Usenet. So just how the fuck do you propose doing
> what your faggot brain craves, eh? <shakes head>
> [Dumb Mac cunts] <{tempter}
> 
> And even it if it wasn't Usenet, I would smash your fucked up head
> into the concrete paving, then dragging it through to the underside
> leaving your shattered psyche in bits and crumpled carcass draped
> over your headstone, I'd take you "mac" and ram it up your shitter
> in front of all your bum buddies. Faggot.

Nope, no overcompensating here.  Really, just admit to yourself that you 
are what you are, then it will be much easier to tell your parents and 
friends.  After you finally stop living a lie, you'll have much less rage.

> $499 for a low end Mac. 256 MB of RAM. Sealed box. 32 MB of
> non-upgradeable video.

Since there is NO PC equivalent, we really can't price compare.

In article <tq9Id.143$PB.55@okepread01>, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> 
wrote:

> Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote in
> news:6eg1v0pahv9rrhvap6eaarcuima42m8lii@4ax.com: 
> 
> > On 20 Jan 2005 16:08:41 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, Gactimus
> > <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >> cute, but not very functional. 
> >>
> >> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> > 
> > You gotta love the new imac, built around the LCD screen; blurs the
> > boundary between portable, desktop, and server; runs Mach/BSD/OS-X
> > Unix on a PPC with Mac GUI; offers simplicity, reliability,
> > robustness. 
> 
> And non-upgradable.

Wrong. RAM and hard disk can easily be upgraded. Any number of other 
things can be added via Firewire or USB.

Nice try, though.

"o-chan" <poda@REMOVEmac.com> wrote in message
news:csrar0$8730$1@netnews.upenn.edu
>> Just in case you haven't fuckin' noticed, you useless, dense fuck on
>> a stick, this is Usenet. So just how the fuck do you propose doing
>> what your faggot brain craves, eh? <shakes head>
>> [Dumb Mac cunts] <{tempter}
>>
>> And even it if it wasn't Usenet, I would smash your fucked up head
>> into the concrete paving, then dragging it through to the underside
>> leaving your shattered psyche in bits and crumpled carcass draped
>> over your headstone, I'd take you "mac" and ram it up your shitter
>> in front of all your bum buddies. Faggot.
>
> Nope, no overcompensating here.

That anyone would go out of their way just to confirm
that suggest you just might, actually.

> Really, just admit to yourself that
> you are what you are, then it will be much easier to tell your
> parents and friends.  After you finally stop living a lie, you'll
> have much less rage.

That there has got to be the lamest response this year.

Can't you grasp that he's digging at you and you're biting
down hard on what he gives you, and it's not what you like
either by the looks of it. Wake up o-chink.

-- 
Gloria Goitre 

In article <i5CdnVn6l5aXmGzcRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
> In article <MPG.1c59d7637b04c92898987c@news.individual.net>,
>    K Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> >In article <zv-dnS7p5pwJYXLcRVn-vQ@bresnan.com>, 
> >larrycrites@bresnan.net says...
> >> What's pron? 
> >
> >Oh, my.  Mix up the letters a little.
> >
> >> JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
> >> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like the 
> way
> >> General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and still is a 
> superior
> >> process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for their Instant Replay 
> reviews
> >> (and may still be using them). I have two of them, and still use them. 
> Many
> >> television stations still use the BetaCam. I have one of those, too. 
> Blows
> >> away the VHS format.
> >
> >The real reason VHS won was because one could fit a whole movie on one 
> >(2hours) and its quality was good enough. By the time Beta could fit a 
> >movie, VHS was up to six hours.  Remember, tapes were $20 each (and 
> >up).
> >
> It wasn't the $20 price.  It had more to do with people not
> wanting to get up in the middle of the night switch tapes.
> The only other alternative was to buy another recorder; NOW
> you're talking serious money.

The $20 per price wasn't the issue with the 2hr VHS vs. 1hr Beta tape.  
Two hours was enough to record a movie, one wasn't.  $20/tape was an 
issue when VHS went to six hours though.  BTW, the *best* prices we got 
were $20 each if we ordered *five* and had them delivered to the local 
Photomat store.  Other than that, they were closer to $30ea.

-- 
  Keith

In article <Nowhere-8FC55C.08164321012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>, 
Nowhere@spamfree.com says...
> In article <i5CdnVn6l5aXmGzcRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > In article <MPG.1c59d7637b04c92898987c@news.individual.net>,
> >    K Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
> > >In article <zv-dnS7p5pwJYXLcRVn-vQ@bresnan.com>, 
> > >larrycrites@bresnan.net says...
> > >> What's pron? 
> > >
> > >Oh, my.  Mix up the letters a little.
> > >
> > >> JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
> > >> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like the 
> > way
> > >> General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and still is a 
> > superior
> > >> process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for their Instant Replay 
> > reviews
> > >> (and may still be using them). I have two of them, and still use them. 
> > Many
> > >> television stations still use the BetaCam. I have one of those, too. 
> > Blows
> > >> away the VHS format.
> > >
> > >The real reason VHS won was because one could fit a whole movie on one 
> > >(2hours) and its quality was good enough. By the time Beta could fit a 
> > >movie, VHS was up to six hours.  Remember, tapes were $20 each (and 
> > >up).
> > >
> > It wasn't the $20 price.  It had more to do with people not
> > wanting to get up in the middle of the night switch tapes.
> > The only other alternative was to buy another recorder; NOW
> > you're talking serious money.
> > 
> 
> That wouldn't have helped in those days. I don't recall any remote 
> controls on VCRs back when VHS and Beta were fighting it out.

They had remote controls.  I bought my first VCR (at almost $800) in 
1979 and it came with a four-function *wired* remote control.  A friend 
bought a higher-end model the year before and he even had slow-motion, 
fast-forward, etc. on his.

> 
> Without a remote, you'd still have to get up and turn the other VCR on.

Timer.

-- 
  Keith

In article <1106286753.925719.131190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 "jdobb2001" <jdobbs2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> hah good troll, 106 points and going. This was such an obvious one :)

Also a clear sign of "Teeny Tiny Penis Syndrome" (TTPS). Poor lad. His 
choice of platform is so woefully useless to him that he must trash 
another. Classic problem.

Rafe wrote:
> The "triumph" of VHS over Betamax has much less to do with the supposed
> superiority of the Betamax machine over VHS and more to do with the
> attitude of the companies backing the standards.  JVC, a small company
> at the time, took a very humble attitude when approaching companies
> asking if they would care to by in to this project. In contrast to
> Sony, a big company, who wanted to license the technology to
> manufactures but give them no chance for input.  The result being Sony
> was told to get stuffed and JVC was allowed to pitch their technology.
> 
> The success of VHS was sealed in the US when JVC licensed the
> technology to the main media company of the time whose name I can't
> currently recal.  The crux of the deal being that americans wanted a
> tape that could record a full football game without changing tapes.
> VHS gave them that feature.  Sony later tried to add this feature to
> their standard but was too late.
> 
> In Europe, there was less to record on TV at the time but there were an
> abundance of American movies to rent, which were now being knocked out
> on VHS.  Hence people rented VHS players and tapes, and later when the
> price fell, bought VHS.  A technical advantages of the Betamax standard
> were outweighed by VHS's strategy of giving customers what they wanted.
> Some say that the inferior technology won others say it is a classic
> advantage of survival of hte fittest and Betamax wasn't it.

I'd call it "survival of the adequate".  Beta thrived in the pro market 
where the requirements were different.  Beta was still the supreme ruler 
in the pro market until digital.

Beta was a poor product for the intendended market, VHS was better. 
Neither was great, one just fit better.

Adam

Juliana L Holm wrote:
> In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, spyware *can* be a problem for some, but a quick fix is to not
>> use Internet Explorer. Spyware problem solved. I use Firefox.
>
> Spyware is one of the reasons our laptop tends to be sluggish.  My
> sons (adult, but in their twenties) tend to use it to surf the net
> and get lots of little spyware programs, (my husband runs spybot
> every time my kids go home.)
>
> But Firefox does not prevent all of it.  We use Firefox exclusively
> and
> Spybot still picks up stuff.


HERESY!

The "Install Firefox" idiots are coming to your house to burn you at the 
stake.

-- 
Honey, you stick to the washin',
 ironin', cookin', and scrubbin'.
No wife of mine is gonna work. 

In comp.sys.mac.misc relic <relic@rabid-dog.net> wrote:
>> But Firefox does not prevent all of it.  We use Firefox exclusively
>> and
>> Spybot still picks up stuff.


> HERESY!

> The "Install Firefox" idiots are coming to your house to burn you at the 
> stake.

Hey, we love Firefox, and there is a lot of security it provides, plus it is
zippy and just as usable as IE (which I am required to use at work).

But it ain't the be all and end all (nor is Macintosh).  Just a step.
-- 
Julie 
**********
I could be wrong.  My experience is limited to my experience.

Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at 
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm

"relic" <relic@rabid-dog.net> wrote in message
news:wsaId.63376$Ew6.60459@twister.socal.rr.com
> Juliana L Holm wrote:
>> In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, spyware *can* be a problem for some, but a quick fix is to not
>>> use Internet Explorer. Spyware problem solved. I use Firefox.
>>
>> Spyware is one of the reasons our laptop tends to be sluggish.  My
>> sons (adult, but in their twenties) tend to use it to surf the net
>> and get lots of little spyware programs, (my husband runs spybot
>> every time my kids go home.)
>>
>> But Firefox does not prevent all of it.  We use Firefox exclusively
>> and
>> Spybot still picks up stuff.
>
>
> HERESY!
>
> The "Install Firefox" idiots are coming to your house to burn you at
> the stake.

You're in! 

In article <proto-6D9D4C.09191921012005@reader2.panix.com>,
 Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <neill.mckay-CECE39.22125820012005@news-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
>  Neill McKay <neill.mckay@not.my.address> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1106262168.414697.111360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >  "binoviewer" <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't think you will see
> > > Linux taking over the consumer desktop in the next twenty years.
> > 
> > Twenty years is a lifetime in computing.  Think for a moment what the 
> > state of desktop computers was twenty years ago.
> 
> Let's see, the Macintosh was dying, IIRC. The first laserwriters came 
> and pulled Apple's baby out of the fire.

Not dying so much as appearing rudderless. Desktop publishing gave it a 
use that was clearly head and shoulders above competitor's capabilities 
at the time.

Even if it did spawn "ransom note" typography for a while.

In article <41f02af7$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

<clip>

> And it's amusing that the Mac Fanatics tend to consider themselves the 
> "elite" of computer users, yet they sing Apple's praises for making the Mac 
> so "user-friendly". I guess that makes Mac users stupid, since they use 
> Macs because they can't figure out Windows even though 90% of the planet 
> does without any problem.

I think I understand Windows better than most people. I am a computer
tech at a college and spend the vast majority of my day
fixing/patching/updating Windows. At home I exclusively use a Mac. Not
that if I had a PC that I would experience the problems that so many
others do, I know how to set up a machine so it's virtually problem
free given a modicum of intelligence (which is severely lacking in PC
world based on my experience with 1000+ users at the school). The
simple truth is the Mac is a better operating system in just about
every way. Using PC's at work I'm constantly observing all the little
things that Windows comes up just a little short on. Add them all up
and you couldn't give me a PC. Well. . .actually that isn't true I
guess, I was given a six month old PC once which I took. 30 days later
I in turn gave it away.

Gactimus, you started this thread and as of yet you haven't made a
single intelligent statement. Just a bunch of tongue in cheek comments
without offering any supporting evidence for your conclusions. Not only
do I firmly believe you haven't a clue about Macs, I'm not so sure you
know a damn thing about Windows. I offer you this opportunity to
correct that situation.

o-chan <poda@REMOVEmac.com> wrote in news:csr9i8$87bk$1@netnews.upenn.edu:

>> And it's amusing that the Mac Fanatics tend to consider themselves the 
>> "elite" of computer users, yet they sing Apple's praises for making the
>> Mac so "user-friendly". I guess that makes Mac users stupid, since they
>> use Macs because they can't figure out Windows even though 90% of the
>> planet does without any problem.
> 
> You're right that 90% of computer users are using Windows (probably). 
> But "without problem"?  Come on, every computer in the world has 
> problems, and Windows most of all.
> 
> There are 3 types of computer users: 1) home users who only want to 
> browse the internet and do basic tasks, 2) business users who have to 
> have one to run a software suite necessary to do their job, and 3) 
> gamers, hobbyists, and technophiles.  Arguably there is a 4th - students
>   - but they tend to be a mix of all 3.
> 
> There are reasons why each group might choose one computer over another,
> and any platform is not necessarily a bad choice when weighing all the 
> options.
> 
> Also, I call shenanigans on your whole attitude.  There's no way a 
> person can be that angry over what other people choose to do with their 
> money.

Why not? Mac Fanatics are that angry all the time.

Gactimus wrote:
>
>> Those that view price as more important than design and
>> functionality, maybe...
>
> Yes, we know that the iPod is very shiny.
>
> Apple's iPod is overpriced and is of lower quality than other MP3
> players such as the Nomad. Other manufacturers allow the user to
> replace the battery himself. Apple will charge you $100. Nomads are
> far less expensive,

All price related issues again.  Not everyone in the world cares about price
or the ability to replace the battery

On Fri, 21 Jan 05 12:47:31 GMT in alt.folklore.computers,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

>In article <41f02ac9$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
>   Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>Juliana L Holm <jholm@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in
>>news:csp1ld$dpf6$1@osf1.gmu.edu: 
>>
>>> In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is
>>>> better because I'll never get a virus.
>>> 
>>> Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending
>>> Macintoshes for people for this reason.
>>> 
>>> They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for
>>> any complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated
>>> graphics.
>>
>>That's probably nice for the 10 people in the world that care about that
>>kind of stuff. 
>> 
>>> They are more reliable.  I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we have
>>> a PC laptop.  The Macintosh stays up forever.  The laptop is always
>>> slowing to a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of death".  The
>>> desktop PC, fairly new, also crashes more often.
>>
>>You must just suck. I have never had a problem with my PC running XP now
>>over a year old. I leave it on days at a time. 
>
>That's a great improvement.  I bet you don't leave it on long enough
>to overflow a counter field.

IIRC they patched the 42 day rollover problem eventually, seems that
there wasn't a lot of complaints! ;^>

-- 
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Brian.Inglis@CSi.com 	(Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
    fake address		use address above to reply

Brian Inglis wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 05 12:47:31 GMT in alt.folklore.computers,
> jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
> 
>>In article <41f02ac9$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
>>   Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>Juliana L Holm <jholm@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in
>>>news:csp1ld$dpf6$1@osf1.gmu.edu:
>>>
>>>> In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is
>>>>> better because I'll never get a virus.
>>>> 
>>>> Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending
>>>> Macintoshes for people for this reason.
>>>> 
>>>> They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for
>>>> any complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated
>>>> graphics.
>>>
>>>That's probably nice for the 10 people in the world that care about that
>>>kind of stuff.
>>> 
>>>> They are more reliable.  I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we have
>>>> a PC laptop.  The Macintosh stays up forever.  The laptop is always
>>>> slowing to a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of death".  The
>>>> desktop PC, fairly new, also crashes more often.
>>>
>>>You must just suck. I have never had a problem with my PC running XP now
>>>over a year old. I leave it on days at a time.
>>
>>That's a great improvement.  I bet you don't leave it on long enough
>>to overflow a counter field.
> 
> IIRC they patched the 42 day rollover problem eventually, seems that
> there wasn't a lot of complaints! ;^>

I love "days at a time".  That's real "one nine" reliability.  You won't get
that from any other operating system.

-- 
Roland Hutchinson��������������Will�play�viola�da�gamba�for�food.

NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam.��If�your�message�looks�like�spam�I�may�not�see�it.

In article <euWdnaM2NbKfam3cRVn-gg@giganews.com>,
Bill Leary <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:
>"GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in message
>news:41F0860D.2F12EDA@mist.com...
>> Gactimus wrote:
>> > If the Mac was as popular as XP then it would have its share of viruses.
>>
>> But it can't get them.
>
>Rare, but it can.
>
>http://news.com.com/Mac+users+face+rare+threat/2100-7349_3-5424883.html

Opener was not a virus.  It was a trojan horse -- and to get it, you
had to install it by hand.

The only other machines it could infect were machines connected via
firewire target mode at boot time.  And the versions I saw had a bug
which would prevent even that.

"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:namdne14opLA7GzcRVn-qg@speakeasy.net
> In article <euWdnaM2NbKfam3cRVn-gg@giganews.com>,
> Bill Leary <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote:
>> "GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in message
>> news:41F0860D.2F12EDA@mist.com...
>>> Gactimus wrote:
>>>> If the Mac was as popular as XP then it would have its share of
>>>> viruses.
>>>
>>> But it can't get them.
>>
>> Rare, but it can.
>>
>> http://news.com.com/Mac+users+face+rare+threat/2100-7349_3-5424883.html
>
> Opener was not a virus.  It was a trojan horse -- and to get it, you
> had to install it by hand.
>
> The only other machines it could infect were machines connected via
> firewire target mode at boot time.  And the versions I saw had a bug
> which would prevent even that.

As opposed to willing onto your machine, you mean.

-- 
Glorious Goitre 

In article <U.R.N.Idiot-B6930D.08500521012005@news.verizon.net>,
 Urra Dipschitt <U.R.N.Idiot@stupidpeople.net> wrote:

> Also a clear sign of "Teeny Tiny Penis Syndrome" (TTPS). Poor lad. His 
> choice of platform is so woefully useless to him that he must trash 
> another. Classic problem.

Is it still a problem when not running Classic?

Neill McKay <neill.mckay@not.my.address> wrote:

> In article <U.R.N.Idiot-B6930D.08500521012005@news.verizon.net>,
>  Urra Dipschitt <U.R.N.Idiot@stupidpeople.net> wrote:
> 
> > Also a clear sign of "Teeny Tiny Penis Syndrome" (TTPS). Poor lad. His
> > choice of platform is so woefully useless to him that he must trash
> > another. Classic problem.
> 
> Is it still a problem when not running Classic?

Not if you use Extension Manager.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

Jim <jim@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:

> Neill McKay <neill.mckay@not.my.address> wrote:
> 
> > In article <U.R.N.Idiot-B6930D.08500521012005@news.verizon.net>,
> >  Urra Dipschitt <U.R.N.Idiot@stupidpeople.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Also a clear sign of "Teeny Tiny Penis Syndrome" (TTPS). Poor lad. His
> > > choice of platform is so woefully useless to him that he must trash
> > > another. Classic problem.
> > 
> > Is it still a problem when not running Classic?
> 
> Not if you use Extension Manager.
> 

Which, er,  only runs under Classic.

Heh.

It's late, sorry.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:namdne14opLA7GzcRVn-qg@speakeasy.net...
> In article <euWdnaM2NbKfam3cRVn-gg@giganews.com>,
> >http://news.com.com/Mac+users+face+rare+threat/2100-7349_3-5424883.html
>
> Opener was not a virus.  It was a trojan horse -- and to get it, you
> had to install it by hand.

Sure.

I'd actually meant to point out that Macs are not as totally immune to trouble
(not just viruii) as popular lore leads people think they are.

I'd also hoped that, perhaps, folks might read the article and explore some of
the links, such as these:

Firm sweetens Mac virus tool, but will Apple-ites bite?:
http://news.com.com/Firm+sweetens+Mac+virus+tool%2C+but+will+Apple-ites+bite/2100-7355_3-5245399.html?tag=nl

For Mac security, communication is key:
http://news.com.com/For+Mac+security%2C+communication+is+key/2100-1002_3-5225115.html?tag=nl

Mac OS fix fails to plug security hole:
http://news.com.com/Mac+OS+fix+fails+to+plug+security+hole/2100-1002_3-5220285.html?tag=nl

Apple patches 'critical' OS X flaw
http://news.com.com/Apple+patches+'critical'+OS+X+flaw/2100-7355_3-5228038.html?tag=nl

Darwin flaws survive in Apple's Mac OS X
http://news.com.com/Darwin+flaws+survive+in+Apples+Mac+OS+X/2100-1002_3-5540955.html?tag=st.rc.targ_mb

    - Bill

"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message

> I've been feeling weary lately. Perhaps it's this fucking viruii I've got 
> that's stuck up my shitter and can't shift. Bastard! 

In article <sehix-C6B883.09420521012005@news.isp.giganews.com>,
 Steve Hix <sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote:

> In article <proto-6D9D4C.09191921012005@reader2.panix.com>,
>  Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <neill.mckay-CECE39.22125820012005@news-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> >  Neill McKay <neill.mckay@not.my.address> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1106262168.414697.111360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  "binoviewer" <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I don't think you will see
> > > > Linux taking over the consumer desktop in the next twenty years.
> > > 
> > > Twenty years is a lifetime in computing.  Think for a moment what the 
> > > state of desktop computers was twenty years ago.
> > 
> > Let's see, the Macintosh was dying, IIRC. The first laserwriters came 
> > and pulled Apple's baby out of the fire.
> 
> Not dying so much as appearing rudderless. Desktop publishing gave it a 
> use that was clearly head and shoulders above competitor's capabilities 
> at the time.
> 
> Even if it did spawn "ransom note" typography for a while.

I printed out a program listing in "San Francisco" once for laughs.

But seriously how else could typography be assimilated, by people who 
had never had a chance to work with it? Typography went from being a 
high end multi-thousand dollar business to something an individual could 
set up on credit, well overnight, or over less than a year.

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <tL9Id.3100$m31.40764@typhoon.sonic.net>,
 Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote:

> In article <Nowhere-C515F4.08211521012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
>  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <proto-6D9D4C.09191921012005@reader2.panix.com>,
> >  Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <neill.mckay-CECE39.22125820012005@news-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
> > >  Neill McKay <neill.mckay@not.my.address> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <1106262168.414697.111360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >  "binoviewer" <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I don't think you will see
> > > > > Linux taking over the consumer desktop in the next twenty years.
> > > > 
> > > > Twenty years is a lifetime in computing.  Think for a moment what the 
> > > > state of desktop computers was twenty years ago.
> > > 
> > > Let's see, the Macintosh was dying, IIRC. The first laserwriters came 
> > > and pulled Apple's baby out of the fire.
> > 
> > That might be slightly overstated, but it is widely recognized that the 
> > Laserwriter was a key element in Apple's early success - particularly in 
> > DTP.
> 
> The funny thing (at least to me) is that at the time, the *PRINTER* had 
> more raw processing power than the *COMPUTER* it was supposed to be 
> attached to, and might have had more RAM, depending on the computer in 
> question and how it was configured.
> 
> It always gave me a giggle to look at the LaserWriter in the Apple II 
> lab - The printer was a computer that would put all the rest of the 
> "actual computers" in the lab to shame even if they all "ganged up".

You don't think some Mac minis will be paired with Apple 20" displays, 
justifiably? For someone who has to work with several on screen texts at 
a time it could be an optimal setup.

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article <s7o2v0pseegdr8d4ldbq65677ukhk682h4@4ax.com>,
 Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@SystematicSW.Invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 05 12:47:31 GMT in alt.folklore.computers,
> jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
> 
> >In article <41f02ac9$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> >   Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> >>Juliana L Holm <jholm@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in
> >>news:csp1ld$dpf6$1@osf1.gmu.edu: 
> >>
> >>> In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is
> >>>> better because I'll never get a virus.
> >>> 
> >>> Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending
> >>> Macintoshes for people for this reason.
> >>> 
> >>> They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for
> >>> any complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated
> >>> graphics.
> >>
> >>That's probably nice for the 10 people in the world that care about that
> >>kind of stuff. 
> >> 
> >>> They are more reliable.  I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we have
> >>> a PC laptop.  The Macintosh stays up forever.  The laptop is always
> >>> slowing to a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of death".  The
> >>> desktop PC, fairly new, also crashes more often.
> >>
> >>You must just suck. I have never had a problem with my PC running XP now
> >>over a year old. I leave it on days at a time. 
> >
> >That's a great improvement.  I bet you don't leave it on long enough
> >to overflow a counter field.
> 
> IIRC they patched the 42 day rollover problem eventually, seems that
> there wasn't a lot of complaints! ;^>

Something else usually brought the machine down sooner, and when it did 
happen it was just one of those things. Let's just say, it was not a big 
impediment to Windows reliability.

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

"Gloria Goitre" <gloria@my-shit-dont-stink.com> wrote in message
news:35dlavF4j1194U1@individual.net...
> I've been feeling weary lately. Perhaps it's this fucking viruii I've got
> that's stuck up my shitter and can't shift. Bastard!

Ah, a demonstration of high eloquence!  We see it so rarely here in a.f.c.  The
infusion from crossposts has been... something.

    - Bill

"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
news:q5qdnb0-xqrHNWzcRVn-gA@giganews.com
>> "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:q5qdnb0-xqrHNWzcRVn-gA@giganews.com
>> I've been feeling weary lately. Perhaps it's this fucking viruii
>> I've got that's stuck up my shitter and can't shift. Bastard!
>
> Ah, a demonstration of high eloquence!  We see it so rarely here in
> a.f.c.  The infusion from crossposts has been... something.
>

I'm not the one with the "viruii" stuck up my arse, lil' billy bubba is.

-- 
Glorious Goitre 

Gloria Goitre wrote:

> I'm not the one with the "viruii" stuck up my arse,

That's not what I heard.

"Thor" <thor@the.thuckwit> wrote in message
news:6e8e89a097334d5187d2ab814c865cd2@127.0.0.1
> Gloria Goitre wrote:
>
>> I'm not the one with the "viruii" stuck up my arse,
>
> That's not what I heard.

That particular strain of "viruii" is known to impair hearing following its 
time in rectal stasis.

-- 
Glorious Goitre 

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:57:18 -0500, Walter Bushell wrote:
>> Not dying so much as appearing rudderless. Desktop publishing gave it a 
>> use that was clearly head and shoulders above competitor's capabilities 
>> at the time.
>> 
>> Even if it did spawn "ransom note" typography for a while.
> 
> I printed out a program listing in "San Francisco" once for laughs.
> 
> But seriously how else could typography be assimilated, by people who 
> had never had a chance to work with it? Typography went from being a 
> high end multi-thousand dollar business to something an individual could 
> set up on credit, well overnight, or over less than a year.

Yeah, but much, or most, of it is "typography" only in the strict sense of 
somehow getting type on paper. Much printed material to this day is still low 
quality, because everyone thinks s/he's a desktop publisher.

Apple has a better chance of taking over the consumer desktop but that
won't happen as long as there is only one company on the planet
supplying Macs. If Steve Jobs did the same thing as Microsoft with the
OS twenty years ago Apple would have 90% of the consumer desktop today.

Folks... if you're going to respond to a troll, watch the
cross-posting.
-- 
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
 X   against HTML mail     | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \  and postings          | to help me spread!

In article <0001HW.BE17278500077B28F03055B0@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>,
 Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:57:18 -0500, Walter Bushell wrote:
> >> Not dying so much as appearing rudderless. Desktop publishing gave it a 
> >> use that was clearly head and shoulders above competitor's capabilities 
> >> at the time.
> >> 
> >> Even if it did spawn "ransom note" typography for a while.
> > 
> > I printed out a program listing in "San Francisco" once for laughs.
> > 
> > But seriously how else could typography be assimilated, by people who 
> > had never had a chance to work with it? Typography went from being a 
> > high end multi-thousand dollar business to something an individual could 
> > set up on credit, well overnight, or over less than a year.
> 
> Yeah, but much, or most, of it is "typography" only in the strict sense of 
> somehow getting type on paper. Much printed material to this day is still low 
> quality, because everyone thinks s/he's a desktop publisher.

Yes, but most of it is better than typewritten, which was the only 
alternative prior to the laserwriter and inkjet printers. How much 
communication needs or can afford a typographic eye?

-- 
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

Bernd Felsche <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in
news:6os8c2xuc1.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au: 

> Folks... if you're going to respond to a troll, watch the
> cross-posting.

As if that makes it any better.

In article <210120051215182155%reply_to@newsgroup.INVALID>,
 Chris Moore <reply_to@newsgroup.INVALID> wrote:

> In article <41f02af7$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>, Gactimus
> <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> 
> <clip>
> 
> > And it's amusing that the Mac Fanatics tend to consider themselves the 
> > "elite" of computer users, yet they sing Apple's praises for making the Mac 
> > so "user-friendly". I guess that makes Mac users stupid, since they use 
> > Macs because they can't figure out Windows even though 90% of the planet 
> > does without any problem.
> 
> I think I understand Windows better than most people. I am a computer
> tech at a college and spend the vast majority of my day
> fixing/patching/updating Windows. At home I exclusively use a Mac. Not
> that if I had a PC that I would experience the problems that so many
> others do, I know how to set up a machine so it's virtually problem
> free given a modicum of intelligence (which is severely lacking in PC
> world based on my experience with 1000+ users at the school). The
> simple truth is the Mac is a better operating system in just about
> every way. Using PC's at work I'm constantly observing all the little
> things that Windows comes up just a little short on. Add them all up
> and you couldn't give me a PC. Well. . .actually that isn't true I
> guess, I was given a six month old PC once which I took. 30 days later
> I in turn gave it away.
> 
> Gactimus, you started this thread and as of yet you haven't made a
> single intelligent statement.

And, in that sentence, you have summed up Gacky's/Xomicron's/Snubis' 
entire posting history, on this and multiple other groups.

[snip]

-- 
Dave Fritzinger

Gactimus wrote:
> 
> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
> but not very functional.
> 
> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>
If the Mac went away, where would Mi$uck steal all their 
"innovations"???


--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Charles and Francis Richmond   The way feminists see oppression    |
|                                  everywhere, men see urinals.        | 
|   richmond at plano dot net      It's a design feature. -- Fred Reed |
            
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Keyser Soze wrote:
> "Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
> news:41efd786$0$54563$b83b6cc0@news.wanadoo.nl
> > It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac
is
> > cute, but not very functional.
> >
> > The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>
> Mac is for faggots like linux is for faggot cunts.
And which one sux more?

> 
> -- 
> Some Big Faggy Cunt

In article <Nowhere-8FC55C.08164321012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
   TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
>In article <i5CdnVn6l5aXmGzcRVn-qg@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.1c59d7637b04c92898987c@news.individual.net>,
>>    K Williams <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>> >In article <zv-dnS7p5pwJYXLcRVn-vQ@bresnan.com>, 
>> >larrycrites@bresnan.net says...
>> >> What's pron? 
>> >
>> >Oh, my.  Mix up the letters a little.
>> >
>> >> JVC (who owned the VHS process) flooded the market and the
>> >> process to other manufacturers and made it real cheap. Kinda like the 
>> way
>> >> General Motors builds cars. Sony's Beta format was and still is a 
>> superior
>> >> process. The NFL used Sony's Super Beta 900 for their Instant Replay 
>> reviews
>> >> (and may still be using them). I have two of them, and still use 
them. 
>> Many
>> >> television stations still use the BetaCam. I have one of those, too. 
>> Blows
>> >> away the VHS format.
>> >
>> >The real reason VHS won was because one could fit a whole movie on one 
>> >(2hours) and its quality was good enough. By the time Beta could fit a 
>> >movie, VHS was up to six hours.  Remember, tapes were $20 each (and 
>> >up).
>> >
>> It wasn't the $20 price.  It had more to do with people not
>> wanting to get up in the middle of the night switch tapes.
>> The only other alternative was to buy another recorder; NOW
>> you're talking serious money.
>> 
>
>That wouldn't have helped in those days. I don't recall any remote 
>controls on VCRs back when VHS and Beta were fighting it out.
>
>Without a remote, you'd still have to get up and turn the other VCR on.

Sigh!  ummmm....no.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <35cma2F4kh3pgU1@individual.net>,
   "Gloria Goitre" <gloria@my-shit-dont-stink.com> wrote:
<snip>

Asshole.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <csr9i8$87bk$1@netnews.upenn.edu>,
   o-chan <poda@REMOVEmac.com> wrote:
<snip>

>There are 3 types of computer users: 1) home users who only want to 
>browse the internet and do basic tasks, 2) business users who have to 
>have one to run a software suite necessary to do their job, and 3) 
>gamers, hobbyists, and technophiles.  Arguably there is a 4th - students 
>  - but they tend to be a mix of all 3.

A fourth exists:  government.

<snip>

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <210120051215182155%reply_to@newsgroup.INVALID>,
   Chris Moore <reply_to@newsgroup.INVALID> wrote:
<snip>

>I think I understand Windows better than most people. I am a computer
>tech at a college and spend the vast majority of my day
>fixing/patching/updating Windows. 

[awed emoticon here]  And you're still sane?  (I detect no
drooling and gibbering.)

<snip>

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

In article <35dlavF4j1194U1@individual.net>,
   "Gloria Goitre" <gloria@my-shit-dont-stink.com> wrote:
>"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message

Attempt of faking attributions noted.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:b_KdnSs_2fDA_2_cRVn-tA@rcn.net

> I not normally a nosy cunt, but it helps when no one likes you. 

In article <35f79mF4mae0vU1@individual.net>,
   "Gloria Goitre" <gloria@my-shit-dont-stink.com> wrote:

Is this [faking attributions] your normal posting style?
Which rock^Wnewsgroup are you under?

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

<jmfbah@aol.com> wrote in message news:b_KdnS4_2fCe_W_cRVn-tA@rcn.net
>>   "Gloria Goitre" <gloria@my-shit-dont-stink.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
> --
> Asshole.

Nice sig' you have there, appropriate too. Your preference for asshole is so 
noted.

-- 
Glorious Goitre 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:b_KdnS4_2fCe_W_cRVn-tA@rcn.net
>>   "Gloria Goitre" <gloria@my-shit-dont-stink.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>
> Asshole.


Fuck it, here, have some more.

jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com
jmfbah@aol.com

-- 
Glorious Goitre 

On 1/21/05 12:16 PM, in article GFbId.153$PB.54@okepread01, "Gactimus"
<gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> o-chan <poda@REMOVEmac.com> wrote in news:csr9i8$87bk$1@netnews.upenn.edu:
> 
>>> And it's amusing that the Mac Fanatics tend to consider themselves the
>>> "elite" of computer users, yet they sing Apple's praises for making the
>>> Mac so "user-friendly". I guess that makes Mac users stupid, since they
>>> use Macs because they can't figure out Windows even though 90% of the
>>> planet does without any problem.
>> 
>> You're right that 90% of computer users are using Windows (probably).
>> But "without problem"?  Come on, every computer in the world has
>> problems, and Windows most of all.
>> 
>> There are 3 types of computer users: 1) home users who only want to
>> browse the internet and do basic tasks, 2) business users who have to
>> have one to run a software suite necessary to do their job, and 3)
>> gamers, hobbyists, and technophiles.  Arguably there is a 4th - students
>>   - but they tend to be a mix of all 3.
>> 
>> There are reasons why each group might choose one computer over another,
>> and any platform is not necessarily a bad choice when weighing all the
>> options.
>> 
>> Also, I call shenanigans on your whole attitude.  There's no way a
>> person can be that angry over what other people choose to do with their
>> money.
> 
> Why not? Mac Fanatics are that angry all the time.
What is the truth: Mac IS like the beta design. Superior and used by
PROFESSIONALS.
The 'M' wrap (VHS) in television journalism died an early death.

For the past twenty years, beta has been the standard in professional
applications, while VHS is for the mass consumers who want more recording
time or longer tape length (read: 'faster' processor), without regard for
QUALITY.

Thanks for the affirmation!

-- 
Like the bumper sticker says: "'W' - STILL The President".


_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
               <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>
  

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message news:BaGdnVqr0Pmh72_cRVn-rg@rcn.net
> In article <35f79mF4mae0vU1@individual.net>,
>   "Gloria Goitre" <gloria@my-shit-dont-stink.com> wrote:
>
> Is this [faking attributions] your normal posting style?

Why do you ask?

> Which rock^Wnewsgroup are you under?

Which rock would you like me to be under?

-- 
Glorious Goitre 

In article <1106362443.073713.261390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 jogiba@hotmail.com wrote:

> Apple has a better chance of taking over the consumer desktop but that
> won't happen as long as there is only one company on the planet
> supplying Macs. If Steve Jobs did the same thing as Microsoft with the
> OS twenty years ago Apple would have 90% of the consumer desktop today.

They tried that with the ill fated Mac 7; Turned out that the Intel hardard 
back then was so bad qaulitywise that the reworked MacOS would only run on 
a narrow subset of hardware.

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> writes:

> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> cute, but not very functional.

Yes, that's why Macs run about 10 times as many applications as
Windoze, are typically in use for two to three times as long as Wintel
computers, and have a lower total cost of ownership.  Not to mention
that they actually work well- wouldn't want to rub it in.  LOL!

> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.

(To the tune of "Rawhide!")

Trollin' trollin' trollin'
Keep those posts a-trollin'
Open up that hole and
Troll on!

Through boring threads and flame wars
By bitter Microsoft bores
Get a life or just
Troll on!

ray <ray@zianet.com> writes:

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:08:41 +0000, Gactimus wrote:
>
>> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac
>> is cute, but not very functional.
>> 
>> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>
> Apple pretty much lost, but the war is not yet over - Linux is
> gaining ground daily.

Which of course is why Apple has 6 billion dollars in cash on hand.
If that's losing, it's not so bad.  Many of the Wintel makers would
love to have lost that badly.

In article <gJ%Hd.184464$48.54202@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
 Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

> Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOSpaMync.net> wrote in
> news:jpolaski-2F3622.20502720012005@netnews.comcast.net: 
> 
> > In article <41f02ac9$0$66020$abc4f4c3@news.wanadoo.nl>,
> > Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Juliana L Holm <jholm@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote in
> >> news:csp1ld$dpf6$1@osf1.gmu.edu: 
> >> 
> >>> In comp.sys.mac.misc Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Sorry, but that's weak at best. It's like saying the Commodore 64 is
> >>>> better because I'll never get a virus.
> >>> 
> >>> Consumer Reports does not agree with you; they are recommending
> >>> Macintoshes for people for this reason.
> >>> 
> >>> They do everything that Windows PCs do, plus they are much better for
> >>> any complex graphics task, video editing, animation, sophisticated
> >>> graphics.
> >> 
> >> That's probably nice for the 10 people in the world that care about
> >> that kind of stuff. 
> > 
> > Since you seem to know that only 10 People have Macs, name them.
> > 
> >>> They are more reliable.  I have a Mac and my hubby has a PC and we
> >>> have a PC laptop.  The Macintosh stays up forever.  The laptop is
> >>> always slowing to a crawl or defaulting to the "blue screen of
> >>> death".  The desktop PC, fairly new, also crashes more often.
> >> 
> >> You must just suck. I have never had a problem with my PC running XP
> >> now over a year old. I leave it on days at a time. 
> > 
> > It would help if you connected it to the web and actually did something
> > with it.
> 
> Obviously it's connected to the internet since I'm replying to your
> moronic post.

No, not at all. You could be at work, the library or the internet cafe.

Try again.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do
knowing he will get nothing in return"

In article <4c86c2-2gj.nsi$h1t@usenet.dk>, "Aardvark" <aardvark@anthill.net> 
wrote:

> Jim Polaski wrote:
> >
> > IF 90% of the planet has figured out Windows, why are there so many,
> > many,many books for "dummies" at the bookstores?
> > Why do so many fail to have protected machines? We see accounts of
> > this in the media and as asides to other commentary all the time.
> 
> Because there are so many Dummies:
> 8th Edition, Macs for Dummies
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764503987/002-7255178-1532820?v
> =glance

Tokenism at best.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do
knowing he will get nothing in return"

Jim Polaski wrote:
> In article <4c86c2-2gj.nsi$h1t@usenet.dk>, "Aardvark"
> <aardvark@anthill.net> wrote:
>
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>
>>> IF 90% of the planet has figured out Windows, why are there so many,
>>> many,many books for "dummies" at the bookstores?
>>> Why do so many fail to have protected machines? We see accounts of
>>> this in the media and as asides to other commentary all the time.
>>
>> Because there are so many Dummies:
>> 8th Edition, Macs for Dummies
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764503987/002-7255178-1532820?v
>> =glance
>
> Tokenism at best.

<snicker>  Are you going to stomp your feet and hold your breath next 
because you were
shown to be the fool you are?

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> > The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> 
> (To the tune of "Rawhide!")
> 
> Trollin' trollin' trollin'
> Keep those posts a-trollin'
> Open up that hole and
> Troll on!
> 
> Through boring threads and flame wars
> By bitter Microsoft bores
> Get a life or just

<chuckle>

Bravo!

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

Bruce Grubb <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote:

> In article <1106362443.073713.261390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>  jogiba@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Apple has a better chance of taking over the consumer desktop but that
> > won't happen as long as there is only one company on the planet
> > supplying Macs. If Steve Jobs did the same thing as Microsoft with the
> > OS twenty years ago Apple would have 90% of the consumer desktop today.
> 
> They tried that with the ill fated Mac 7; Turned out that the Intel hardard
> back then was so bad qaulitywise that the reworked MacOS would only run on
> a narrow subset of hardware.

Out of curiosity, what are you talking about?

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

Trog Woolley wrote:

> While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway gactimus@xrs.net typed:
> > It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
> > but not very functional.
> >
> > The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>
> The Betamax was a much better system than VHS; higher tape to
> head speed meant better picture quality.  The VHS manufacturers
> just had better spin doctors

First, I still have and use both a Beta and SuperBeta machine, and
the quality is better.  The real problem is that Sony was a pain
about licensing the Beta technology where as JVC (Japan Victor
Corp) freely licensed VHS (Victor Home System).  The first
Beta VCR I bought was made by Sanyo and they had to engineer
a different tape path than used by Sony to get around the issue.
(So I was told.  The tape path in the Sanyo is much different than
that in my later Sony SuperBeta machine).  Sadly, I am unaware
whether one can even get a Beta unit anymore and I haven't seen
the tapes for sale in some years either.  Tapes for Betacam, a
professional format different than Beta will, however, work in
Beta units but I haven't tried to find those in several years and
don't know if they're still available.

Chris
AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE
$$

In article <BE17CF0A.F49F%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What is the truth: Mac IS like the beta design. Superior and used by
> PROFESSIONALS.

Whereas Windows is never used by PROFESSIONALS, and Macs are never used 
at home, right?

> The 'M' wrap (VHS) in television journalism died an early death.
> 
> For the past twenty years, beta has been the standard in professional
> applications, while VHS is for the mass consumers who want more recording
> time or longer tape length (read: 'faster' processor), without regard for
> QUALITY.

Except that BetaCam has nothing to do with BetaMax VCRs.   The only 
thing they share is a brand name.

Besides, I've always had - and still have - a Sony Beta VCR.   It is not 
"higher quality" than VHS, and it never was.

The comparison is more like VHS is like Windows in that it was cheaper 
to license, whereas Beta is like Apple, who wanted to keep it all to 
themselves.   Both missed their chance purely due to dumb management 
decisions.

Mike

TravelinMan wrote:

> 
> That's about where I am. I try Linux about every 6-9 months. So far, I 
> STILL haven't found a distro that works as advertised without futzing 
> and none come anywhere close to Mac OS X's ease of use. For that matter, 
> none are even as easy to use as Windows - and that's pretty bad.
Try ubuntu... Debian based and really nice...

In article <41f39d53$1@e-post.inode.at>,
 werner <YFMCJJJIFYVD@spammotel.com> wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> 
> > 
> > That's about where I am. I try Linux about every 6-9 months. So far, I 
> > STILL haven't found a distro that works as advertised without futzing 
> > and none come anywhere close to Mac OS X's ease of use. For that matter, 
> > none are even as easy to use as Windows - and that's pretty bad.
> Try ubuntu... Debian based and really nice...

Every one of the 6 Linux distro's I tried was based on someone saying 
'try xxxx because it's really nice and easy to use'. I'm through playing 
that game.

On 1/22/05 10:42 PM, in article
abc-0AD7CC.23355922012005@28-76.newscene.com, "Mike" <abc@def.ghi> wrote:

> In article <BE17CF0A.F49F%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
>  George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> What is the truth: Mac IS like the beta design. Superior and used by
>> PROFESSIONALS.
> 
> Whereas Windows is never used by PROFESSIONALS, and Macs are never used
> at home, right?
> 
>> The 'M' wrap (VHS) in television journalism died an early death.
>> 
>> For the past twenty years, beta has been the standard in professional
>> applications, while VHS is for the mass consumers who want more recording
>> time or longer tape length (read: 'faster' processor), without regard for
>> QUALITY.
> 
> Except that BetaCam has nothing to do with BetaMax VCRs.   The only
> thing they share is a brand name.
> 
Please do not embarrass yourself by speaking about things you know nothing
about. Although, you most likely were crawling around and pooping in your
diapers, or not even born yet, the following article just MIGHT point you in
the right direction:
http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-16/h2.html
> Besides, I've always had - and still have - a Sony Beta VCR.   It is not
> "higher quality" than VHS, and it never was.
>
Again, you are showing us that you are working the mouth without any
substance, just symbolism.



_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
               <><><><><><><>   The Worlds Uncensored News Source   <><><><><><><><>
  

In article <1gqt9ib.1en6g3hw1ikgN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
 jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:

> Bruce Grubb <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1106362443.073713.261390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >  jogiba@hotmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > Apple has a better chance of taking over the consumer desktop but that
> > > won't happen as long as there is only one company on the planet
> > > supplying Macs. If Steve Jobs did the same thing as Microsoft with the
> > > OS twenty years ago Apple would have 90% of the consumer desktop today.
> > 
> > They tried that with the ill fated Mac 7; Turned out that the Intel hardard
> > back then was so bad qaulitywise that the reworked MacOS would only run on
> > a narrow subset of hardware.
> 
> Out of curiosity, what are you talking about?

Apple's intel version of System 7. Its code name was "Star Trek" and was 
jokingly called the OS that "boldly went where everyone else had gone"
(ComputerWorld Nov 2/92)

Due to the horrid quality of PC hardware back then it would run only on the 
higher end stuff. As the result Mac 7 became the OS that went exactly 
nowhere.

In article <bgrubb-58C079.09214623012005@news.zianet.com>,
 Bruce Grubb <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote:

> As the result Mac 7 became the OS that went exactly 
> nowhere.

As did Pink, Copeland, and a raft of others.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

Bruce Grubb <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote:

> > > They tried that with the ill fated Mac 7; Turned out that the Intel
> > > hardard back then was so bad qaulitywise that the reworked MacOS would
> > > only run on a narrow subset of hardware.
> > 
> > Out of curiosity, what are you talking about?
> 
> Apple's intel version of System 7. Its code name was "Star Trek" and was
> jokingly called the OS that "boldly went where everyone else had gone"
> (ComputerWorld Nov 2/92)
> 
> Due to the horrid quality of PC hardware back then it would run only on the
> higher end stuff. As the result Mac 7 became the OS that went exactly
> nowhere.

Oh yes, I remember now. As I recall, there's a fair bit of info on this
in 'Barbarians Led By Bill Gates'. Must get around to reading that
again.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

In article <michelle-404E64.09385023012005@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <bgrubb-58C079.09214623012005@news.zianet.com>,
>  Bruce Grubb <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote:
> 
> > As the result Mac 7 became the OS that went exactly 
> > nowhere.
> 
> As did Pink, Copeland, and a raft of others.

Pink was the plan by Apple for the next generation of the MacOS but was 
pulled into the Taligent blackhole which eventually became IBM's baby lock 
stock and barrel.
<http://www.wildcrest.com/Potel/Portfolio/InsideTaligentTechnology/
WW87.htm>

Copeland died because at the same time work on it started (1994) linux 
started hitting the radar screen.
<http://www.jmusheneaux.com/9000cc.htm>

It took Apple less than 2 years to figure out that Copeland as a dead duck 
and bought NeXT.  Problem it took them a little longer to finally get MacOS 
X out the door.

Also remember that the Wintel community has had some really fiescos: 
Remember Bob, OS/2, Warp?  Remember when NT was so hopelessly behind 
scedual the joke was Not Today Not Tomorrow and when the thing finally did 
come out just how many Windows 3.1/95/98 programs (especially games) barfed 
on the thing?  How about BeOS which was so limited as what it could do as 
to be a total joke?

Also that if push comes to shove I can run Windows on my Mac. You could 
hardly shove a VHS tape into a Betamax machine and play the thing.

Bruce Grubb <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote:

> Copeland died because at the same time work on it started (1994) linux
> started hitting the radar screen.
> <http://www.jmusheneaux.com/9000cc.htm>

I got the impression that Copeland was stillborn because it suffered
from the same thing the Apple /// suffered from: it was designed by
committee and they couldn't agree on a fixed feature set.

> Also remember that the Wintel community has had some really fiescos: 
> Remember Bob, OS/2, Warp?

I liked OS/2. As PC OSs go it was quite good.

Jim
-- 
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk        AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
 laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
 event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

"jchausler" <jchausler@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:41F312E1.6F5163EB@earthlink.net...
>
> [...] Sadly, I am unaware
> whether one can even get a Beta unit anymore and I haven't seen
> the tapes for sale in some years either.

As of a couple of weeks ago, Fry's (a U.S. electronics "big box"
store) still stocked Beta tapes (L-750s I think). Probably available
on their outpost.com website, too.

In semi-related news, the last U.S. manufacturer of audio tape
closed down a couple of weeks ago. -Wm

In article <1gqusj5.1cmfncw1usnstzN%jim@magrathea.plus.com>,
 jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:

> Bruce Grubb <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote:
> 
> > Copeland died because at the same time work on it started (1994) linux
> > started hitting the radar screen.
> > <http://www.jmusheneaux.com/9000cc.htm>
> 
> I got the impression that Copeland was stillborn because it suffered
> from the same thing the Apple /// suffered from: it was designed by
> committee and they couldn't agree on a fixed feature set.

Copland (spelled like the composer) suffered, like the Apple///, from 
too much marketing department input. They kept moving the goalposts, as 
well as demanding complete compatibility with everything that had ever 
run on the Mac previously. (Or as close as makes no nevermind.) An 
impossible goal.

Then again, maybe that wasn't a bad thing in the long run; OS X ends up 
with better foundation and future potential than Copland/Gershwin likely 
would have given us.

"Pete Stephenson" <pete+usenet@heypete.com> wrote in message
news:pete+usenet-BB869B.14591320012005@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In article <U4ednSmb3ZatY3LcRVn-ow@bresnan.com>,
>  "Larry Crites" <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
> Even if a virus /were/ to infect a Mac system and attempt to cause
> catastrophic damage, it would likely only have the ability to wreak
> havoc for the files of that particular user.

This is a key to Windows vulnerability. It allows installation by the
common user. I always create a supervisor account that can install
programs and then add users. And I don't get virii. Just like Unix /
Mac! Wow!

It is a pain that when I want to look at the Device Manager to see if my
card reader is active and it pops up a box telling me, "No!" And also
not allowing me to cut-n-paste its message for you all, but it is
something about not having "sufficient security privileges".

Oh my, I'm just a Windows "user". Is there another one...

-- 
Mabden

In article <wC4Jd.14421$wZ2.3026@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Mabden" <mabden@sbc_global.net> wrote:

> "Pete Stephenson" <pete+usenet@heypete.com> wrote in message
> news:pete+usenet-BB869B.14591320012005@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > In article <U4ednSmb3ZatY3LcRVn-ow@bresnan.com>,
> >  "Larry Crites" <larrycrites@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Even if a virus /were/ to infect a Mac system and attempt to cause
> > catastrophic damage, it would likely only have the ability to wreak
> > havoc for the files of that particular user.
> 
> This is a key to Windows vulnerability. It allows installation by the
> common user. I always create a supervisor account that can install
> programs and then add users. And I don't get virii. Just like Unix /
> Mac! Wow!

The only problem is that there are many reports of applications that 
won't run unless you're an admin.

More importantly, why should a system require an admin to install 
software? Other than the  fact that Windows has no concept of real 
security, of course.

> 
> It is a pain that when I want to look at the Device Manager to see if my
> card reader is active and it pops up a box telling me, "No!" And also
> not allowing me to cut-n-paste its message for you all, but it is
> something about not having "sufficient security privileges".
> 
> Oh my, I'm just a Windows "user". Is there another one...

In article <Nowhere-F31C0F.09273824012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
 TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:


> The only problem is that there are many reports of applications that 
> won't run unless you're an admin.

Link please?   What software needs  admin to run?

> More importantly, why should a system require an admin to install 
> software? Other than the  fact that Windows has no concept of real 
> security, of course.

Umm, for security?   Because it may need to place files in system 
directories?   So users aren't installing things they shouldn't be 
installing?    Are you *really* this stupid?

Mike

TravelinMan wrote:
> In article <41f39d53$1@e-post.inode.at>,
>  werner <YFMCJJJIFYVD@spammotel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>TravelinMan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's about where I am. I try Linux about every 6-9 months. So far, I 
>>>STILL haven't found a distro that works as advertised without futzing 
>>>and none come anywhere close to Mac OS X's ease of use. For that matter, 
>>>none are even as easy to use as Windows - and that's pretty bad.
>>
>>Try ubuntu... Debian based and really nice...
> 
> 
> Every one of the 6 Linux distro's I tried was based on someone saying 
> 'try xxxx because it's really nice and easy to use'. I'm through playing 
> that game.
Actually no, Ubuntu is different, it still has some minor problems,
but the main difference is, it tries to concentrate on the desktop 
experience, the whole Gnome default setup is very Macos9 like
and the menu structure very cleanly preconfigured.
The whole distro is planned as a long term client distro project.

That means easy install, hardware plug and play at bootup
and it is the first distro where the usb/firewire hotplugging really 
works as expected (plug a device in, the mount is done without any fstab 
configuration, a drive icon is put onto the desktop and the popup 
appears...).
The whole Ubuntu install feels very Macish in many aspects.

And speaking of debian it comes with the apt-get install process with 
synaptic as the default frontend
but with its own repository, where a new stable is rolled twice per year.

The shortcomings are, that X is very conservatively configured
and that is the only thing where you really have to get into the config 
files (IMHO a really huge problem where they have to work on seriously 
in the near future).
The other problem of course unfortunately is, due to the patent issues, 
you have to do it the usual debian way, to get DVD and the win32 codecs 
up and running.

But besides that I really like that distro, definitely the best I have 
used so far, the second best is the current debian testing, but that one 
is much more hardcore.

In article <41f57cdc$1@e-post.inode.at>,
 werner <YFMCJJJIFYVD@spammotel.com> wrote:

> TravelinMan wrote:
> > In article <41f39d53$1@e-post.inode.at>,
> >  werner <YFMCJJJIFYVD@spammotel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>TravelinMan wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>That's about where I am. I try Linux about every 6-9 months. So far, I 
> >>>STILL haven't found a distro that works as advertised without futzing 
> >>>and none come anywhere close to Mac OS X's ease of use. For that matter, 
> >>>none are even as easy to use as Windows - and that's pretty bad.
> >>
> >>Try ubuntu... Debian based and really nice...
> > 
> > 
> > Every one of the 6 Linux distro's I tried was based on someone saying 
> > 'try xxxx because it's really nice and easy to use'. I'm through playing 
> > that game.
> Actually no, Ubuntu is different, it still has some minor problems,
> but the main difference is, it tries to concentrate on the desktop 
> experience, the whole Gnome default setup is very Macos9 like
> and the menu structure very cleanly preconfigured.
> The whole distro is planned as a long term client distro project.
> 

And that's exactly what I was told on all of the other distros I tested: 
"this one's different."

Sorry, I'm not interested any more. Perhaps when someone I trust uses a 
version and tells me that it works as well as I'd want, I might try it 
again. But so far, NO version of Linux that I've tried has been even 
close to the Mac's ease of use and integration.

Gactimus wrote:
> It might be 
\

OK, you win a prize for longest troll thread.

FU set to adv.

John McWilliams wrote:
> Gactimus wrote:
>> It might be
> \
>
> OK, you win a prize for longest troll thread.

Is it in the thousands? And do you give prizes for trolls that run for more
than five years in duration?

Where do I collect?

in article 
93b368221ecd4c1abf0f71a3e4e5e96e@you.brainwashed-insectlike-buffoon.net,
TehGhodTrole wrote on 1/24/2005 7:35 PM:

> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Gactimus wrote:
>>> It might be
>> \
>> 
>> OK, you win a prize for longest troll thread.
> 
> Is it in the thousands? And do you give prizes for trolls that run for more
> than five years in duration?
> 
> Where do I collect?

We got a troll in the atari group that makes this guy look like an amateur.
No joke, the one I speak of has been going for 10+ years.  Must have 0 life.
The time spent trying to beat down a platform that was done long ago.

-- 
FreeMiNT    http://sparemint.atariforge.net/sparemint/ [Free your mind...]
Team Atari  http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_21046.html
L. Pursell  http://www.bright.net/~gfabasic/ [AtarIRC, GFA-Basic, Hades060]

GfA wrote:
> in article 
> 93b368221ecd4c1abf0f71a3e4e5e96e@you.brainwashed-insectlike-buffoon.net,
> TehGhodTrole wrote on 1/24/2005 7:35 PM:
> 
> 
>>John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>>Gactimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>It might be
>>>
>>>\
>>>
>>>OK, you win a prize for longest troll thread.
>>
>>Is it in the thousands?

Yes!! Oh, yes.

  And do you give prizes for trolls that run for more
>>than five years in duration?
>>
>>Where do I collect?

Send your address to:

Trollhouse Cookie Contest
PO Box 2669
Oakland, CA 94622
> 
> 
> We got a troll in the atari group that makes this guy look like an amateur.
> No joke, the one I speak of has been going for 10+ years.  Must have 0 life.
> The time spent trying to beat down a platform that was done long ago.
> 

Then the Atari group has a few besides the troll who are, uh, 
"differently gifted". I've not known a troll to last more than a year or 
so *without* the "help" of others- either victims or collaborators, 
usually both.

-- 
John McWilliams

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dsqdnSY3TaJDdmjcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> GfA wrote:
> > in article
> > 93b368221ecd4c1abf0f71a3e4e5e96e@you.brainwashed-insectlike-buffoon.net,
> > TehGhodTrole wrote on 1/24/2005 7:35 PM:
> >
> >
> >>John McWilliams wrote:
> >>
> >>>Gactimus wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>It might be
> >>>
> >>>\
> >>>
> >>>OK, you win a prize for longest troll thread.
> >>
> >>Is it in the thousands?
>
> Yes!! Oh, yes.
>
>   And do you give prizes for trolls that run for more
> >>than five years in duration?
> >>
> >>Where do I collect?
>
> Send your address to:
>
> Trollhouse Cookie Contest
> PO Box 2669
> Oakland, CA 94622
> >
> >
> > We got a troll in the atari group that makes this guy look like an
amateur.
> > No joke, the one I speak of has been going for 10+ years.  Must have 0
life.
> > The time spent trying to beat down a platform that was done long ago.
> >
>
> Then the Atari group has a few besides the troll who are, uh,
> "differently gifted". I've not known a troll to last more than a year or
> so *without* the "help" of others- either victims or collaborators,
> usually both.
>

Then Mike Vandeman of alt.mountain-bike must be the supreme troll.

Greg

You have obviously not had the priviledge of approaching a mac... to
think a few years ago i used to be just like you: ignorant. I believed
mac to be an obselete system: not enough programs, games etc... untill
I actually tried one.

Wow! half an hour... and no crashes! And I have 30 programs open at
once!

And I discovered that I was wrong about the program content - Mac has
just as many essential programs as windows - minus all the little
crappy one's which bug up your system - I haven't found one bad mac
software yet.

I have had my ibook for 2 years now, and it has crashed twice.

I have had my PC running windows XP, for a year, and it is rare that it
does't freeze/crash/go bezerk/die every 2 or 3 days.

So I guess it's up to you - my brother used to hate prunes - untill he
tried them. Now he loves them.

Don't criticise for the sake of criticizing, at least back up your
claims that Pc's outstrip macs... if you can.

(and don't quote price - the few extra $ you have to dish up are
nothing compared to the quality you recieve.)

In article <1106673059.463016.110050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
 "Sfacets@gmail.com" <Sfacets@gmail.com> wrote:

> You have obviously not had the priviledge of approaching a mac... to
> think a few years ago i used to be just like you: ignorant. I believed
> mac to be an obselete system: not enough programs, games etc... untill
> I actually tried one.
> 
> Wow! half an hour... and no crashes! And I have 30 programs open at
> once!
> 
> And I discovered that I was wrong about the program content - Mac has
> just as many essential programs as windows - minus all the little
> crappy one's which bug up your system - I haven't found one bad mac
> software yet.
> 
> I have had my ibook for 2 years now, and it has crashed twice.
> 
> I have had my PC running windows XP, for a year, and it is rare that it
> does't freeze/crash/go bezerk/die every 2 or 3 days.
> 
> So I guess it's up to you - my brother used to hate prunes - untill he
> tried them. Now he loves them.

I can see it now: "Macintosh - the prunes of computing. They're good for 
you."

> 
> Don't criticise for the sake of criticizing, at least back up your
> claims that Pc's outstrip macs... if you can.
> 
> (and don't quote price - the few extra $ you have to dish up are
> nothing compared to the quality you recieve.)

In article <abc-CE0D19.16013724012005@28-74.newscene.com>, Mike
<abc@def.ghi> wrote:

> In article <Nowhere-F31C0F.09273824012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
>  TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > The only problem is that there are many reports of applications that 
> > won't run unless you're an admin.
> 
> Link please?   What software needs  admin to run?

I recently ran across a piece of software that needed admin privileges
to run. The program was a beta version of MediSoft, which is accounting
software for medical professionals. I had to load it on a computer for
a seminar and the default login was in the Power Users group. Wouldn't
install without logging into admin, I can live with that, but then it
wouldn't run until I gave them admin rights. Not that one piece of beta
software makes for 'many' but it demonstrates that it is possible given
a case of bad programming skills. Old (current) version of the software
runs fine in the Users group.

In article <250120051627197460%reply_to@newsgroup.INVALID>,
 Chris Moore <reply_to@newsgroup.INVALID> wrote:

> > > The only problem is that there are many reports of applications that 
> > > won't run unless you're an admin.
> > 
> > Link please?   What software needs  admin to run?
> 
> I recently ran across a piece of software that needed admin privileges
> to run. The program was a beta version of MediSoft, which is accounting
> software for medical professionals. I had to load it on a computer for
> a seminar and the default login was in the Power Users group. Wouldn't
> install without logging into admin, I can live with that, but then it
> wouldn't run until I gave them admin rights. Not that one piece of beta
> software makes for 'many' but it demonstrates that it is possible given
> a case of bad programming skills. Old (current) version of the software
> runs fine in the Users group.

So I'll count that as none.   

Any others?

I only ask because I've never heard of any.   Needing admin to *install* 
is fairly common, but needing admin to *run* is unheard of, and in fact 
is incredibly stupid.

Mike

In article <abc-C2340B.18574925012005@28-71.newscene.com>, Mike
<abc@def.ghi> wrote:

> In article <250120051627197460%reply_to@newsgroup.INVALID>,
>  Chris Moore <reply_to@newsgroup.INVALID> wrote:
> 
> > > > The only problem is that there are many reports of applications that 
> > > > won't run unless you're an admin.
> > > 
> > > Link please?   What software needs  admin to run?
> > 
> > I recently ran across a piece of software that needed admin privileges
> > to run. The program was a beta version of MediSoft, which is accounting
> > software for medical professionals. I had to load it on a computer for
> > a seminar and the default login was in the Power Users group. Wouldn't
> > install without logging into admin, I can live with that, but then it
> > wouldn't run until I gave them admin rights. Not that one piece of beta
> > software makes for 'many' but it demonstrates that it is possible given
> > a case of bad programming skills. Old (current) version of the software
> > runs fine in the Users group.
> 
> So I'll count that as none.   
> 
> Any others?
> 
> I only ask because I've never heard of any.   Needing admin to *install* 
> is fairly common, but needing admin to *run* is unheard of, and in fact 
> is incredibly stupid.

A 30 second Google search came up with AutoCAD, the software for the
D-Link DWL-G650, and apparently a lot of childrens games. Now you've
heard of the unheard of =).

In article <abc-C2340B.18574925012005@28-71.newscene.com>,
 Mike <abc@def.ghi> wrote:

> I only ask because I've never heard of any.   Needing admin to *install* 
> is fairly common, but needing admin to *run* is unheard of, and in fact 
> is incredibly stupid.

Backup software (such as Retrospect) needs admin privileges in order 
to keep all of the file ownership and permissions intact after the 
restore.  It would be a terrible security problem if a regular user 
could perform this backup and restore operation on other user's 
files without admin privilege.

$.02 -Ron Shepard

Chris Moore wrote:
> In article <abc-CE0D19.16013724012005@28-74.newscene.com>, Mike
> <abc@def.ghi> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <Nowhere-F31C0F.09273824012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
>> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The only problem is that there are many reports of applications that 
>>>won't run unless you're an admin.
>>
>>Link please?   What software needs  admin to run?
> 
> 
> I recently ran across a piece of software that needed admin privileges
> to run. The program was a beta version of MediSoft, which is accounting
> software for medical professionals. I had to load it on a computer for
> a seminar and the default login was in the Power Users group. Wouldn't
> install without logging into admin, I can live with that, but then it
> wouldn't run until I gave them admin rights. Not that one piece of beta
> software makes for 'many' but it demonstrates that it is possible given
> a case of bad programming skills. Old (current) version of the software
> runs fine in the Users group.
on PCs i run into this stupid shit all the time -
software so poorly written that it *ONLY* runs as an admin.

mostly - although not all, have been attached to equipment and the 
software does data collection.

although my favorite one -so far- is a piece of software that collects 
and analyzes data from a capillary sequencer (think biotech).  The 
software will *NOT* run unless the user is an admin - AND - it only runs 
on windblows NT (service pack 5) - can not even put service pack 6 on - 
so that a number of patches can be put in place to stop virus 
infections.  This software is still "supported".

here is the nail in the PC coffin -the software vendor says (may not be 
an exact quote):
"... we *do not* support networking the computer..."

the obvious questions are:
why not?
what year is it?
how do you suggest we make this data available to the researchers who 
need it?
and
how do you suggest we backup the data?


fucking PCs bite sooooooooooo hard - how anyone - even if they were 
being paid - could advocate their use is entirely beyond me.

<Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote in message
news:z4ydnUaQ_NsEqmrcRVn-uw@britsys.net...
| Chris Moore wrote:
| > In article <abc-CE0D19.16013724012005@28-74.newscene.com>, Mike
| > <abc@def.ghi> wrote:
| >
| >
| >>In article
<Nowhere-F31C0F.09273824012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
| >> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>>The only problem is that there are many reports of applications
that
| >>>won't run unless you're an admin.
| >>
| >>Link please?   What software needs  admin to run?
| >
| >
| > I recently ran across a piece of software that needed admin
privileges
| > to run. The program was a beta version of MediSoft, which is
accounting
| > software for medical professionals. I had to load it on a computer
for
| > a seminar and the default login was in the Power Users group.
Wouldn't
| > install without logging into admin, I can live with that, but then
it
| > wouldn't run until I gave them admin rights. Not that one piece of
beta
| > software makes for 'many' but it demonstrates that it is possible
given
| > a case of bad programming skills. Old (current) version of the
software
| > runs fine in the Users group.
| on PCs i run into this stupid shit all the time -
| software so poorly written that it *ONLY* runs as an admin.
|
| mostly - although not all, have been attached to equipment and the
| software does data collection.
|
| although my favorite one -so far- is a piece of software that
collects
| and analyzes data from a capillary sequencer (think biotech).  The
| software will *NOT* run unless the user is an admin - AND - it only
runs
| on windblows NT (service pack 5) - can not even put service pack 6
on -
| so that a number of patches can be put in place to stop virus
| infections.  This software is still "supported".
|
| here is the nail in the PC coffin -the software vendor says (may not
be
| an exact quote):
| "... we *do not* support networking the computer..."
|
| the obvious questions are:
| why not?
| what year is it?
| how do you suggest we make this data available to the researchers
who
| need it?
| and
| how do you suggest we backup the data?
|
|
| fucking PCs bite sooooooooooo hard - how anyone - even if they were
| being paid - could advocate their use is entirely beyond me.


PCs don't "bite", but many of those writing programs for PCs are less
than competent for the task.  Of course, the poor programmer will
relate his plight as so: "management wanted the product out the door
before I could properly finish the job, dam deadlines and money
issues".  So who is at fault? Software companies with dodgy managers
interested in only the bottom line rather than the quality of their
products.  Of course, the managers will tell you "we have an
obligation to our investors and shareholders to make a profit, so
sometimes we have to ship a product that is not fully tested or
mature".  So, in the end, maybe it's really the investors and
shareholders who are at fault (just kidding there).

-- 
Best regards,
Kyle

In article 
<ron-shepard-3633EA.00134026012005@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Ron Shepard <ron-shepard@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:

> In article <abc-C2340B.18574925012005@28-71.newscene.com>,
>  Mike <abc@def.ghi> wrote:
> 
> > I only ask because I've never heard of any.   Needing admin to *install* 
> > is fairly common, but needing admin to *run* is unheard of, and in fact 
> > is incredibly stupid.
> 
> Backup software (such as Retrospect) needs admin privileges in order 
> to keep all of the file ownership and permissions intact after the 
> restore.  It would be a terrible security problem if a regular user 
> could perform this backup and restore operation on other user's 
> files without admin privilege.

Backup software is hardly what I'd call "userland" software.   By 
definition, it's admin software.   There are lots of "disk utilities" 
that fall into this category, and would need the same thing on Unix - 
root access.   Maybe even booted into single-user mode.

So that's still zero.   Any others?

Mike

In article <35otnfF4o2377U1@individual.net>, "Kylesb" <me@privacy.net> 
wrote:

> 
> PCs don't "bite", but many of those writing programs for PCs are less
> than competent for the task.  Of course, the poor programmer will
> relate his plight as so: "management wanted the product out the door
> before I could properly finish the job, dam deadlines and money
> issues".  So who is at fault? Software companies with dodgy managers
> interested in only the bottom line rather than the quality of their
> products.  Of course, the managers will tell you "we have an
> obligation to our investors and shareholders to make a profit, so
> sometimes we have to ship a product that is not fully tested or
> mature".  So, in the end, maybe it's really the investors and
> shareholders who are at fault (just kidding there).

Perhaps.

But, interestingly, the level of crapware on the Mac is an order of 
magnitude lower than on Windows - even though the Mac market is much, 
much smaller (which means that it's even harder to make a profit). I run 
into crappy Windows software all the time and can't think of an example 
of truly crappy Mac software.

The difference is that it's easier to write software for the Mac and the 
Mac has a better structure to make it harder to do stupid things out of 
laziness.

[whoever the fuck your wrote to]  gmail has a serious bug.

In article <1106673059.463016.110050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
   "Sfacets@gmail.com" <Sfacets@gmail.com> wrote:
>You have obviously not had the priviledge of approaching a mac... to
>think a few years ago i used to be just like you: ignorant. I believed
>mac to be an obselete system: not enough programs, games etc... untill
>I actually tried one.
>
>Wow! half an hour... and no crashes! And I have 30 programs open at
>once!

<snip>

Oh, my son.  You have a lot to learn.  One of our customers had
500 users who could be logged into the same system at the same
time.  Each of those users could have (I can't recall the limit)
256 files open at the same time.

30 mintues without a crash?  You've never worked on a real machine.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.

>>I only ask because I've never heard of any.   Needing admin to *install* 
>>is fairly common, but needing admin to *run* is unheard of, and in fact 
>>is incredibly stupid.
> 
> 
> A 30 second Google search came up with AutoCAD, the software for the
> D-Link DWL-G650, and apparently a lot of childrens games. Now you've
> heard of the unheard of =).

A friend of mine is a sys admin for an office of about 60 people, and 
his worst nightmare is software that only lets admins run it.  He's 
partially sovled it by manually editing the registry to allow non-admins 
some admin priviledges, enough to "trick" the software into working, but 
without giving them the power to foul up the system (which seems to be 
an inevitability otherwise).

In article <z4ydnUaQ_NsEqmrcRVn-uw@britsys.net>,
 Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu wrote:

> although my favorite one -so far- is a piece of software that collects 
> and analyzes data from a capillary sequencer (think biotech).  The 
> software will *NOT* run unless the user is an admin - AND - it only runs 
> on windblows NT (service pack 5) - can not even put service pack 6 on - 
> so that a number of patches can be put in place to stop virus 
> infections.  This software is still "supported".
> 
> here is the nail in the PC coffin -the software vendor says (may not be 
> an exact quote):
> "... we *do not* support networking the computer..."

Just out of curiosity, which sequencer? ABI? We're getting a 3130, so 
I'm wondering (sorry to be OT).

-- 
Daniel E. Sabath
University of Washington Department of Laboratory Medicine
http://www.labmed.washington.edu

In article <trman-189F09.06385126012005@news.central.cox.net>,
 TravelinMan <trman@hotmail.com> wrote:


> But, interestingly, the level of crapware on the Mac is an order of 
> magnitude lower than on Windows - 

Well of course.   The entire software universe of the Mac is about 2 
orders of magnitude below Windows.   There is less crappy software 
because there is less software.   Period.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a fact of life.

> The difference is that it's easier to write software for the Mac and the 
> Mac has a better structure to make it harder to do stupid things out of 
> laziness.

No, the difference is that it's easier to write software for Windows, 
and it's a much larger market, so there is more money to be made, so 
more people do it.   The problem is that many of them aren't qualified 
to do it!   You can sell a few million copies of a crappy program in the 
Windows market before anyone notices.    In the Mac market, *everyone* 
has to notice before you can sell a few million copies!

When the Mac gets into such high usage numbers as Windows, we will get 
more crapware.   And malware, and spyware, and viruses, etc.

Mike

In article <uaidnTRyz-ZnLGrcRVn-2A@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>[whoever the fuck your wrote to]  gmail has a serious bug.
>
>In article <1106673059.463016.110050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>   "Sfacets@gmail.com" <Sfacets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>You have obviously not had the priviledge of approaching a mac... to
>>think a few years ago i used to be just like you: ignorant. I believed
>>mac to be an obselete system: not enough programs, games etc... untill
>>I actually tried one.
>>
>>Wow! half an hour... and no crashes! And I have 30 programs open at
>>once!
>
><snip>
>
>Oh, my son.  You have a lot to learn.  One of our customers had
>500 users who could be logged into the same system at the same
>time.  Each of those users could have (I can't recall the limit)
>256 files open at the same time.
>
>30 mintues without a crash?  You've never worked on a real machine.

I wonder what system that might have been.

-- 
http://www.ProvN.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system security
                      solutions that others only claim to be.
-- 
Cyber-Terrorism (si'-ber tayr'-or-iz-em) n.:
  The release of, the sale of, or the use of any Micro$oft software product! 
-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

Chris Moore wrote:
> In article <abc-CE0D19.16013724012005@28-74.newscene.com>, Mike
> <abc@def.ghi> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In article <Nowhere-F31C0F.09273824012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
>> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The only problem is that there are many reports of applications that 
>>>won't run unless you're an admin.
>>
>>Link please?   What software needs  admin to run?
> 
> 
> I recently ran across a piece of software that needed admin privileges
> to run. The program was a beta version of MediSoft, which is accounting
> software for medical professionals. I had to load it on a computer for
> a seminar and the default login was in the Power Users group. Wouldn't
> install without logging into admin, I can live with that, but then it
> wouldn't run until I gave them admin rights. Not that one piece of beta
> software makes for 'many' but it demonstrates that it is possible given
> a case of bad programming skills. Old (current) version of the software
> runs fine in the Users group.

Try "Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing".  A frickin' *TYPING TUTOR* requires 
admin!

In article <rY0Kd.15601$wZ2.9118@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
 red floyd <no.spam@here.dude> wrote:
> > In article <abc-CE0D19.16013724012005@28-74.newscene.com>, Mike
> > <abc@def.ghi> wrote:
> >>In article <Nowhere-F31C0F.09273824012005@news1.west.earthlink.net>,
> >> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> >>>there are many reports of applications that 
> >>>won't run unless you're an admin.
> >>Link please?   What software needs  admin to run?
> Try "Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing".  A frickin' *TYPING TUTOR* requires 
> admin!

Yes. And so many other programs that it isn't worth bothering to track 
down links just to make a point. I'm surprised that anyone could use a 
Windows box for an extended period of time without running into such 
applications. They are pervasive.

Well, ok, there are people like my mother-in-law (age 75 or so), who 
pretty much never uses her machine for anything other than Word 
processing, email, and occasional web browsing. If you don't ever 
install much in the way of applications, then you are less likely to run 
into it. (I just ordered a Mac mini as a gift for her. I was going to 
give her a hand-me-down Windows box that was too low-powered for our 
current needs, but still beat the 266 MHz, 64 MB, 2GB, Win 98 box she 
had. I had even reformatted and done a clean Win XP install on the 
machine in preparation. But then after thinking about what I'd do for 
malware protection for her, I decided that the price of buying a mini 
for her was going to be worth it in reduced pain for me. Besides, I 
think she'll like the Mac. She is a mostly retired artist. :-))

-- 
Richard Maine                       |  Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain  |  experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov              |        -- Mark Twain

 Besides, I
> think she'll like the Mac. She is a mostly retired artist. :-))
>
What is the remainder (of her)?  8-)

Keith

In article <ctbaof$64p$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
 "Keith W" <witheyk@btinternet.com> wrote:

> > Besides, I
> > think she'll like the Mac. She is a mostly retired artist. :-))
> >
> What is the remainder (of her)?  8-)

Ah, but I said "a mostly retired artist" - not "mostly a retired 
artist".  :-)

Though the other word order would also have been ok. To truthfully 
answer your humorously intended question, some of the rest of her is a 
retired teacher, plus a mother-in-law that makes it hard for me to 
appreciate mother-in-law jokes because I've never had a complaint about 
her.  :-)

-- 
Richard Maine                       |  Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain  |  experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov              |        -- Mark Twain

Richard E Maine wrote:
[...] plus a mother-in-law that makes it hard for me to
> appreciate mother-in-law jokes because I've never had a complaint about 
> her.  :-)

I never could understand those either. My m-in-law died over 20 years 
ago - we still miss her.

On 2005-01-20 08:08:41 -0800, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> said:

> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one?

You realize that betamax is still quite popular in its niche market of 
TV shows and the like, soley because they want quality, not lowest 
price. Macs don't have to 'win', they are doing great in their niche.

On Wed, 26 Jan 05 14:21:04 GMT in alt.folklore.computers,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

>[whoever the fuck your wrote to]  gmail has a serious bug.
>
>In article <1106673059.463016.110050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>   "Sfacets@gmail.com" <Sfacets@gmail.com> wrote:
>>You have obviously not had the priviledge of approaching a mac... to
>>think a few years ago i used to be just like you: ignorant. I believed
>>mac to be an obselete system: not enough programs, games etc... untill
>>I actually tried one.
>>
>>Wow! half an hour... and no crashes! And I have 30 programs open at
>>once!

>Oh, my son.  You have a lot to learn.  One of our customers had
>500 users who could be logged into the same system at the same
>time.  Each of those users could have (I can't recall the limit)
>256 files open at the same time.
>
>30 mintues without a crash?  You've never worked on a real machine.

ISTM he was contrasting his previous Windows experience with his first
experience on a Mac, being able to run 30 programs for half an hour. 
He also said he'd had one crash a year on his Mac iBook. 

-- 
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis 	Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Brian.Inglis@CSi.com 	(Brian[dot]Inglis{at}SystematicSW[dot]ab[dot]ca)
    fake address		use address above to reply

In article <41FA79CB.9D4BB9F7@plano.net>,
 Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:

> IMHO this is why Mi$uck users think that MiSuck software is great:
> they have *lower* expectations. Re-booting and re-installing is just
> a fact of life for them...

Rebooting and reinstalling! I'd love a dime for every time I've heard 
some PC user tell me this was the tech support solution to their issues. 
HAHAHAHAHA. I think I've done that ONCE in my life and that was in 1988.

"Urra Dipschitt" <U.R.N.Idiot@stupidpeople.net> wrote in post
U.R.N.Idiot-6530C7.09160828012005@news.verizon.net on 1/28/05 10:16 AM:

> In article <41FA79CB.9D4BB9F7@plano.net>,
> Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:
> 
>> IMHO this is why Mi$uck users think that MiSuck software is great:
>> they have *lower* expectations. Re-booting and re-installing is just
>> a fact of life for them...
> 
> Rebooting and reinstalling! I'd love a dime for every time I've heard
> some PC user tell me this was the tech support solution to their issues.
> HAHAHAHAHA. I think I've done that ONCE in my life and that was in 1988.

To be fair, more OS X updates require rebooting...

But Windows does seem to need it more just to work... something goes wonky
and you reboot Windows and it magically is fixed.

Sometimes.

--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
> 
> [whoever the fuck your wrote to]  gmail has a serious bug.
> 
> In article <1106673059.463016.110050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>    "Sfacets@gmail.com" <Sfacets@gmail.com> wrote:
> >You have obviously not had the priviledge of approaching a mac... to
> >think a few years ago i used to be just like you: ignorant. I believed
> >mac to be an obselete system: not enough programs, games etc... untill
> >I actually tried one.
> >
> >Wow! half an hour... and no crashes! And I have 30 programs open at
> >once!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Oh, my son.  You have a lot to learn.  One of our customers had
> 500 users who could be logged into the same system at the same
> time.  Each of those users could have (I can't recall the limit)
> 256 files open at the same time.
> 
> 30 mintues without a crash?  You've never worked on a real machine.
> 
IMHO this is why Mi$uck users think that MiSuck software is great:
they have *lower* expectations. Re-booting and re-installing is just
a fact of life for them...


--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Charles and Francis Richmond  The way feminists see oppression    |
|                                everywhere, men see urinals.        | 
|  richmond at plano dot net     It's a design feature. -- Fred Reed |  
          
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

>>IMHO this is why Mi$uck users think that MiSuck software is great:
>>they have *lower* expectations. Re-booting and re-installing is just
>>a fact of life for them...
> 
> 
> Rebooting and reinstalling! I'd love a dime for every time I've heard 
> some PC user tell me this was the tech support solution to their issues. 
> HAHAHAHAHA. I think I've done that ONCE in my life and that was in 1988.

Yeah, but in fairness, tech support people tell you to do this so they 
can play Quake for an hour while they've got you on the phone.

"o-chan" <poda@REMOVEmac.com> wrote in post ctduu2$dc7o$3@netnews.upenn.edu
on 1/28/05 11:05 AM:

>>> IMHO this is why Mi$uck users think that MiSuck software is great:
>>> they have *lower* expectations. Re-booting and re-installing is just
>>> a fact of life for them...
>> 
>> 
>> Rebooting and reinstalling! I'd love a dime for every time I've heard
>> some PC user tell me this was the tech support solution to their issues.
>> HAHAHAHAHA. I think I've done that ONCE in my life and that was in 1988.
> 
> Yeah, but in fairness, tech support people tell you to do this so they
> can play Quake for an hour while they've got you on the phone.

Often tech support folks are rated based on their call times... having to
wait for slow systems to reboot is a killer!

--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.

Snit wrote:
> "o-chan" <poda@REMOVEmac.com> wrote in post ctduu2$dc7o$3@netnews.upenn.edu
> on 1/28/05 11:05 AM:
> 
> 
>>>>IMHO this is why Mi$uck users think that MiSuck software is great:
>>>>they have *lower* expectations. Re-booting and re-installing is just
>>>>a fact of life for them...
>>>
>>>
>>>Rebooting and reinstalling! I'd love a dime for every time I've heard
>>>some PC user tell me this was the tech support solution to their issues.
>>>HAHAHAHAHA. I think I've done that ONCE in my life and that was in 1988.
>>
>>Yeah, but in fairness, tech support people tell you to do this so they
>>can play Quake for an hour while they've got you on the phone.
> 
> 
> Often tech support folks are rated based on their call times... having to
> wait for slow systems to reboot is a killer!

luser calling Dogbert's tech support: "I've got a probl-"
Dogbert: "Shut up and reboot!"
luser: "Hey, it's working n-!"
Dogbert: "Shut up and hang up!"
(Dogbert looks at watch, thinks, "Hey, my average call time is improving!")

"Larry Elmore" <ljelmore_@comcast.net> wrote in post
3dudnfMIWbfWSGfcRVn-rA@comcast.com on 1/28/05 5:21 PM:

> Snit wrote:
>> "o-chan" <poda@REMOVEmac.com> wrote in post ctduu2$dc7o$3@netnews.upenn.edu
>> on 1/28/05 11:05 AM:
>> 
>> 
>>>>> IMHO this is why Mi$uck users think that MiSuck software is great:
>>>>> they have *lower* expectations. Re-booting and re-installing is just
>>>>> a fact of life for them...
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Rebooting and reinstalling! I'd love a dime for every time I've heard
>>>> some PC user tell me this was the tech support solution to their issues.
>>>> HAHAHAHAHA. I think I've done that ONCE in my life and that was in 1988.
>>> 
>>> Yeah, but in fairness, tech support people tell you to do this so they
>>> can play Quake for an hour while they've got you on the phone.
>> 
>> 
>> Often tech support folks are rated based on their call times... having to
>> wait for slow systems to reboot is a killer!
> 
> luser calling Dogbert's tech support: "I've got a probl-"
> Dogbert: "Shut up and reboot!"
> luser: "Hey, it's working n-!"
> Dogbert: "Shut up and hang up!"
> (Dogbert looks at watch, thinks, "Hey, my average call time is improving!")

LOL... yeah... he would likely be rated well.


-- 
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
-  Anatole France 

Urra Dipschitt wrote:
> 
> In article <41FA79CB.9D4BB9F7@plano.net>,
>  Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:
> 
> > IMHO this is why Mi$uck users think that MiSuck software is great:
> > they have *lower* expectations. Re-booting and re-installing is just
> > a fact of life for them...
> 
> Rebooting and reinstalling! I'd love a dime for every time I've heard
> some PC user tell me this was the tech support solution to their issues.
> HAHAHAHAHA. I think I've done that ONCE in my life and that was in 1988.

But is in fact real.  My old neighbor had purchased a
Quantex PC that had win98se on it.  Well, Quantex went out
of business a while back.  His PC got a virus that somehow
did a number to the o/s.  So he called up M$.  M$ advice was
to re-install the o/s... that's their advice.

-- 
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
 when they do it from religious conviction."
        Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

Snit wrote:
> 
> "Urra Dipschitt" <U.R.N.Idiot@stupidpeople.net> wrote in post
> U.R.N.Idiot-6530C7.09160828012005@news.verizon.net on 1/28/05 10:16 AM:
> 
> > In article <41FA79CB.9D4BB9F7@plano.net>,
> > Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:
> >
> >> IMHO this is why Mi$uck users think that MiSuck software is great:
> >> they have *lower* expectations. Re-booting and re-installing is just
> >> a fact of life for them...
> >
> > Rebooting and reinstalling! I'd love a dime for every time I've heard
> > some PC user tell me this was the tech support solution to their issues.
> > HAHAHAHAHA. I think I've done that ONCE in my life and that was in 1988.
> 
> To be fair, more OS X updates require rebooting...
> 
> But Windows does seem to need it more just to work... something goes wonky
> and you reboot Windows and it magically is fixed.
> 
> Sometimes.

To get rid of the BSOD, M$ made sure it vectored towards a
reboot instead.

-- 
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
 when they do it from religious conviction."
        Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

GreyCloud wrote:

> But is in fact real.  My old neighbor had purchased a
> Quantex PC that had win98se on it.  Well, Quantex went out
> of business a while back.  His PC got a virus that somehow
> did a number to the o/s.  So he called up M$.  M$ advice was
> to re-install the o/s... that's their advice.

Well, of course.  The system's security has been compromised, you can no
longer trust it until you reinstall from scratch and restore from a backup
from before the compromise occurred.

The real question is why Microsoft designs their OS's with an inherent
tradeoff between functionality and security.

-- 
Paul Johnson
baloo@ursine.ca
http://ursine.ca/~baloo/

In article <e9src2-41t.ln1@ursine.ca>, Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca> writes:
{...snip...}
>The real question is why Microsoft designs their OS's with an inherent
>tradeoff between functionality and security.

Between?  

It is more appropriately a tradeoff of both functionality and security.

-- 
http://www.ProvN.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system security
                      solutions that others only claim to be.
-- 
Cyber-Terrorism (si'-ber tayr'-or-iz-em) n.:
  The release of, the sale of, or the use of any Micro$oft software product! 
-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

In article <e9src2-41t.ln1@ursine.ca>, Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca> 
wrote:

> GreyCloud wrote:
> 
> > But is in fact real.  My old neighbor had purchased a
> > Quantex PC that had win98se on it.  Well, Quantex went out
> > of business a while back.  His PC got a virus that somehow
> > did a number to the o/s.  So he called up M$.  M$ advice was
> > to re-install the o/s... that's their advice.
> 
> Well, of course.  The system's security has been compromised, you can no
> longer trust it until you reinstall from scratch and restore from a backup
> from before the compromise occurred.
> 
> The real question is why Microsoft designs their OS's with an inherent
> tradeoff between functionality and security.

The answer is in an old joke Mac users had about Microsoft:

Q: How many Microsoft programers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None They declair darkness the new standard

Follow up: Which explains why Window users have been stumbling around in 
the dark for over 20 years.

Paul Johnson wrote:
> 
> GreyCloud wrote:
> 
> > But is in fact real.  My old neighbor had purchased a
> > Quantex PC that had win98se on it.  Well, Quantex went out
> > of business a while back.  His PC got a virus that somehow
> > did a number to the o/s.  So he called up M$.  M$ advice was
> > to re-install the o/s... that's their advice.
> 
> Well, of course.  The system's security has been compromised, you can no
> longer trust it until you reinstall from scratch and restore from a backup
> from before the compromise occurred.

Correct.  Why others say they've never had to re-install
windows is beyond me, other than maybe that they're
trolling.  Beats me.

> 
> The real question is why Microsoft designs their OS's with an inherent
> tradeoff between functionality and security.
> 

Very true and is a good question.  It seems that OS X is
well written.

-- 
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
 when they do it from religious conviction."
        Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.

In comp.sys.mac.misc Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:
: Gactimus wrote:
: > 
: > It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is cute,
: > but not very functional.
: > 
: > The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
: >
: If the Mac went away, where would Mi$uck steal all their 
: "innovations"???

Linux!!
-- 




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

Larry Anderson wrote:

>As I see things Linux and OS-X+ are better positioned and more advanced than
>MS-Win at the moment, and when Longhorn eventually comes out better open
>your wallets wide to catch up again.  (Longhorn is going for security; not
>compatibility)
>  
>

Two things that I can see happening:

1. Linux and OS X converge to platform independence.

2. Lenovo will sell millions of IBM/ex-IBM PC's in Asia
with Linux and maybe even move them off of Intel chips
for something else, quite likely the Cell processor (which
contains PPC elements).

gld

Tim McNamara wrote:

>Many of the Wintel makers would love to have lost that badly.
>  
>

Ripped from today's headlines: HP-Compaq.

gld

Mac vs. PC, an old debate that my my best friend (PC user) and I (Mac
user) still chide each other about. I liken this MAC / PC debate to my
decision to buy a HONDA (years ago) instead of a FORD (my brother
in-laws choice).  The 1990 Honda Accord cost me $6000. My
brother-in-law bought a 1996 Ford Taurus for $5000.  After 3 years of
use he racked up $2000 worth of repairs not to mention many countless
hours (more costly than money to most) doing his own repairs to save
money. Me, no  major repairs.  After 3 years he sold the Ford for very
little money and I have stopped counting the cost of ownership as we
broke even years ago... and I still have the Accord with 400,000 km
and I probably could sell it for $2000 in a heartbeat.

My biggest joy of owning a MAC, although more costly at startup, is my
cost (time and money) of ownership.  I do not have to buy year after
year, Norton Anti-virus.  I have not lost any time driving my computer
back and forth to a repair shop to de-bug, re-install, etc...  If I
choose to sell my Mac I can get a pretty good re-sale price.  I
figure, after only a year of ownership I break even in COST to me.
Heck, I cannot even begin to tell you how much time I sat REBOOTing my
PC (now defunct) (daily, twice and three times daily).  I can pretty
much open or read just about anything my PC users send me.  This Mac
just works... just like my HONDA.

I have NEVER lost any data. You know the scenario.  You write a letter
in Word and for whatever reason, the computer completely freezes and
you lose everything. OUCH.  Time wasted.  As an ex-PC user, I would
have this little troll in the back of my head saying... press SAVE,
press SAVE...

B

I'm not sure I understand your first point.   You suggest that Linux and
OS X could converge to platform independence.   What exactly do you mean
by the "convergence" part?

Are you suggesting that Linux and OS X will become one?   Are you
suggesting that this new OS will be independent of specific hardware,
much as UNIX is today?

I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying.   Mac OS X is a
proprietary commercial product produced by Apple.   Linux is an open
source free for all.   I really don't see Linux and OS X converging.
Apple makes money from the distribution of OS X.  Apple will not
surrender the profit generating force of OS X anytime in the future.
You can bet on that.



Gary L. Dare <gld_nospam@nospam.ripco.com> wrote:

> Larry Anderson wrote:
> 
> >As I see things Linux and OS-X+ are better positioned and more advanced than
> >MS-Win at the moment, and when Longhorn eventually comes out better open
> >your wallets wide to catch up again.  (Longhorn is going for security; not
> >compatibility)
> >  
> >
> 
> Two things that I can see happening:
> 
> 1. Linux and OS X converge to platform independence.
> 
> 2. Lenovo will sell millions of IBM/ex-IBM PC's in Asia
> with Linux and maybe even move them off of Intel chips
> for something else, quite likely the Cell processor (which
> contains PPC elements).
> 
> gld


-- 
U-TOC
Connect To Change

brandt wrote:

>My biggest joy of owning a MAC, although more costly at startup, is my
>cost (time and money) of ownership.  
>
Macs are only more costly at startup because they are equal
to midlevel, not entry level, PC's in features/performance.
The minimal maintenance saves time and money, big time.

gld

Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
news:pZmdnXW5QqOkWpffRVn-vg@giganews.com: 

> In comp.sys.mac.misc Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:
>
>: Gactimus wrote:
>:
>:> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>:> cute, but not very functional.
>:> 
>:> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>:
>: If the Mac went away, where would Mi$uck steal all their 
>: "innovations"???
> 
> Linux!!

When Microsoft implements a feature into Windows, it's "stealing" to you
Linux zealots. When Lunix steals proprietary IP features (like ClearType,
TrueType, AntiAliasing and all of the other patented Microsoft
innovations), it's something completely different to you clueless,
brainwashed morons. 

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:53:09 -0600, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

>Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
>news:pZmdnXW5QqOkWpffRVn-vg@giganews.com: 
>
>> In comp.sys.mac.misc Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:
>>
>>: Gactimus wrote:
>>:
>>:> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>:> cute, but not very functional.
>>:> 
>>:> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>:
>>: If the Mac went away, where would Mi$uck steal all their 
>>: "innovations"???
>> 
>> Linux!!
>
>When Microsoft implements a feature into Windows, it's "stealing" to you
>Linux zealots. When Lunix steals proprietary IP features (like ClearType,
>TrueType, AntiAliasing and all of the other patented Microsoft
>innovations), it's something completely different to you clueless,
>brainwashed morons. 

Plus was not the original Mac operating system swipped from another
company.  Quess what,  most operating systems steal others ideas,
including Microsoft screwing an ignorant  IMB.  Besides who
cares......

Maaxx wrote:
> Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
> news:pZmdnXW5QqOkWpffRVn-vg@giganews.com: 
> 
> 
>>In comp.sys.mac.misc Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:
>>
>>: Gactimus wrote:
>>:
>>:> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>:> cute, but not very functional.
>>:> 
>>:> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>:
>>: If the Mac went away, where would Mi$uck steal all their 
>>: "innovations"???
>>
>>Linux!!
> 
> 
> When Microsoft implements a feature into Windows, it's "stealing" to you
> Linux zealots. When Lunix steals proprietary IP features (like ClearType,
> TrueType, AntiAliasing and all of the other patented Microsoft
> innovations), it's something completely different to you clueless,
> brainwashed morons. 

You twit. TrueType was developed by Apple (in response to Adobe's Type 1 
PostScript fonts), who then licensed it to Microsoft. The potential 
patent problem with FreeType 1 is with Apple patents, not Microsoft. 
Anti-aliasing has been around longer than Microsoft has been. I know 
little about ClearType, but I find it extremely difficult to believe 
that anyone has "stolen" something patented by Microsoft and isn't 
getting their pants sued off, so I think you're just full of shit on 
that one, too.

--Larry

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:02:08 -0600, Larry Elmore wrote:

> Maaxx wrote:
>> Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
>> news:pZmdnXW5QqOkWpffRVn-vg@giganews.com: 
>> 
>> 
>>>In comp.sys.mac.misc Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>: Gactimus wrote:
>>>:
>>>:> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>:> cute, but not very functional.
>>>:> 
>>>:> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>>:
>>>: If the Mac went away, where would Mi$uck steal all their 
>>>: "innovations"???
>>>
>>>Linux!!
>> 
>> 
>> When Microsoft implements a feature into Windows, it's "stealing" to you
>> Linux zealots. When Lunix steals proprietary IP features (like ClearType,
>> TrueType, AntiAliasing and all of the other patented Microsoft
>> innovations), it's something completely different to you clueless,
>> brainwashed morons. 
> 
> You twit. TrueType was developed by Apple (in response to Adobe's Type 1 
> PostScript fonts), who then licensed it to Microsoft. The potential 
> patent problem with FreeType 1 is with Apple patents, not Microsoft. 
> Anti-aliasing has been around longer than Microsoft has been. I know 
> little about ClearType, but I find it extremely difficult to believe 
> that anyone has "stolen" something patented by Microsoft and isn't 
> getting their pants sued off, so I think you're just full of shit on 
> that one, too.

Don't confuse Billy's minions.  They think M$ invented the computer.

-- 
  Keith

In article <pan.2005.02.14.03.26.01.897075@att.bizzzz>, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:02:08 -0600, Larry Elmore wrote:
>
>> Maaxx wrote:
>>> Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
>>> news:pZmdnXW5QqOkWpffRVn-vg@giganews.com: 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>In comp.sys.mac.misc Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>: Gactimus wrote:
>>>>:
>>>>:> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>>:> cute, but not very functional.
>>>>:> 
>>>>:> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>>>:
>>>>: If the Mac went away, where would Mi$uck steal all their 
>>>>: "innovations"???
>>>>
>>>>Linux!!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> When Microsoft implements a feature into Windows, it's "stealing" to you
>>> Linux zealots. When Lunix steals proprietary IP features (like ClearType,
>>> TrueType, AntiAliasing and all of the other patented Microsoft
>>> innovations), it's something completely different to you clueless,
>>> brainwashed morons. 
>> 
>> You twit. TrueType was developed by Apple (in response to Adobe's Type 1 
>> PostScript fonts), who then licensed it to Microsoft. The potential 
>> patent problem with FreeType 1 is with Apple patents, not Microsoft. 
>> Anti-aliasing has been around longer than Microsoft has been. I know 
>> little about ClearType, but I find it extremely difficult to believe 
>> that anyone has "stolen" something patented by Microsoft and isn't 
>> getting their pants sued off, so I think you're just full of shit on 
>> that one, too.
>
>Don't confuse Billy's minions.  They think M$ invented the computer.

Not just Billy's minions or, more properly, morons.  A few years ago at
a "Back To School" night at my son's then elementary school here in the
People's Republic of New Jersey, I observed a pictoral timeline chart on
the wall of the classroom.  Guess who it had attributed for creating the
computer circa 1980!  


-- 
http://www.ProvN.com  for the *best* OpenVMS system security
                      solutions that others only claim to be.
-- 
Cyber-Terrorism (si'-ber tayr'-or-iz-em) n.:
  The release of, the sale of, or the use of any Micro$oft software product! 
-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

In article <00A3F5E6.C87BA218@SendSpamHere.ORG>, VAXman-  
@SendSpamHere.ORG says...
> In article <pan.2005.02.14.03.26.01.897075@att.bizzzz>, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> writes:
> >On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:02:08 -0600, Larry Elmore wrote:
> >
> >> Maaxx wrote:
> >>> Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
> >>> news:pZmdnXW5QqOkWpffRVn-vg@giganews.com: 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>>In comp.sys.mac.misc Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>: Gactimus wrote:
> >>>>:
> >>>>:> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
> >>>>:> cute, but not very functional.
> >>>>:> 
> >>>>:> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
> >>>>:
> >>>>: If the Mac went away, where would Mi$uck steal all their 
> >>>>: "innovations"???
> >>>>
> >>>>Linux!!
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> When Microsoft implements a feature into Windows, it's "stealing" to you
> >>> Linux zealots. When Lunix steals proprietary IP features (like ClearType,
> >>> TrueType, AntiAliasing and all of the other patented Microsoft
> >>> innovations), it's something completely different to you clueless,
> >>> brainwashed morons. 
> >> 
> >> You twit. TrueType was developed by Apple (in response to Adobe's Type 1 
> >> PostScript fonts), who then licensed it to Microsoft. The potential 
> >> patent problem with FreeType 1 is with Apple patents, not Microsoft. 
> >> Anti-aliasing has been around longer than Microsoft has been. I know 
> >> little about ClearType, but I find it extremely difficult to believe 
> >> that anyone has "stolen" something patented by Microsoft and isn't 
> >> getting their pants sued off, so I think you're just full of shit on 
> >> that one, too.
> >
> >Don't confuse Billy's minions.  They think M$ invented the computer.
> 
> Not just Billy's minions or, more properly, morons.  A few years ago at
> a "Back To School" night at my son's then elementary school here in the
> People's Republic of New Jersey, I observed a pictoral timeline chart on
> the wall of the classroom.  Guess who it had attributed for creating the
> computer circa 1980!  

Oh, my!  =:-\  ...and people here are surprised at what today's 
graduates know?

-- 
  Keith

In comp.sys.mac.misc Donald Link <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:53:09 -0600, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:

>>Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in
>>news:pZmdnXW5QqOkWpffRVn-vg@giganews.com: 
>>
>>> In comp.sys.mac.misc Charles Richmond <richmond@plano.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>: Gactimus wrote:
>>>:
>>>:> It might be better but why the hell would anyone buy one? The Mac is
>>>:> cute, but not very functional.
>>>:> 
>>>:> The war is over and Microsoft won -- sorry, Apple.
>>>:
>>>: If the Mac went away, where would Mi$uck steal all their 
>>>: "innovations"???
>>> 
>>> Linux!!
>>
>>When Microsoft implements a feature into Windows, it's "stealing" to you
>>Linux zealots. When Lunix steals proprietary IP features (like ClearType,
>>TrueType, AntiAliasing and all of the other patented Microsoft
>>innovations), it's something completely different to you clueless,
>>brainwashed morons. 

> Plus was not the original Mac operating system swipped from another
> company.  Quess what,  most operating systems steal others ideas,
> including Microsoft screwing an ignorant  IMB.  Besides who
> cares......

No, it was not swiped.  Some elements used in the original OS were
influenced by research at Xerox PARC and observed by Apple visiting
there.  For the look, Apple gave Xerox a chunk of stock, which Xerox
sold some time later for quite a good sum.  If you can call bought
and paid for influence "swiped", then you have other problems....

In article <bgrubb-AE2C0A.10190029012005@news.zianet.com>,
 Bruce Grubb <bgrubb@zianet.com> wrote:

> The answer is in an old joke Mac users had about Microsoft:
> 
> Q: How many Microsoft programers does it take to change a light bulb?
> 
> A: None They declair darkness the new standard

That's a bastardization of an even older joke:

Q: How many programmers does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None, that's a hardware problem.

Mike
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account